1980-04-21

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, today, April 21, being the real anniversary of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse):
That this House convey to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, on the auspicious occasion of her birthday, our sincerest good wishes for many additional years of happiness and good fortune.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Whereas the report of the Northern Mineral Advisory Committee has been received with considerable interest by both the northern minerals industry and the general inhabitants of the territories; and whereas by a unanimously adopted motion of the Thirty-first Parliament of Canada the report was referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development which, however, because of the intervening election was unable to complete its study, therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That the report of the Northern Mineral Advisory Committee be referred by this House to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL RESOURCES
Mr. Bill J. Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the existing and developing controversies among federal and provincial governments on non-renewable resource pricing, taxation and royalty structures, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Kushner):
That this House instruct the Government of Canada to appoint a royal commission to examine and make appropriate recommendations on the adequacy of present pricing, royalty and taxation structures in relation to national, regional and provincial objectives of all substantive non-renewable resources produced in Canada and marketed nationally and/or internationally. In particular, the commission is to study the pricing, royalties, and taxation mechanisms and regimes on hydrocarbon resources, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, asbestos and phosphates, and the commission is to specifically document the inconsistencies and anomalies in national practices in regard to the federal pricing and taxation of non-renewable resources involved in interprovincial and international trade.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.

April 21, 1980
In view of the necessity of safeguarding the interests of ethnic groups in Canada, and considering the request of the National Congress of Italian Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House call on the government to create a full ministry of multiculturalism.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (mo)


HOUSING
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since there have been extremely disturbing and worrisome reports that ground rents of the permanent residents of Banff National Park, and perhaps other western parks, are to be increased dramatically, meaning that home owners will face taxes of from $3,000 to $10,000 yearly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of the Environment look into this matter immediately, with the view to ordering an immediate roll-back so that long-time residents no longer need fear the loss of their homes.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
This weekend, further cutbacks in employment in the auto industry were announced. It is now generally agreed that the industry is in need of major overhaul and that the auto pact is not providing adequate protection for the Canadian industry and Canadian workers. I, therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That a parliamentary committee be struck for the purpose of reviewing the state of the auto industry, the auto pact and the government's responses, and that this committee meet immediately with industry, union and government representatives for the purpose of making recommendations to the government on an appropriate course of action which it should follow in dealing with the
future of the industry in Canada and the terms and conditions which Canada should require be included in the auto trade pact.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *
*


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that there has been a great deal of flooding this spring throughout Ontario, and in view of the fact that a crisis has arisen in the riding of Simcoe North, where water levels are under the jurisdiction of the Minister of the Environment, through Parks Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That the Minister of the Environment order that immediate steps be taken to order Parks Canada to alleviate the flooding in Simcoe North, and commission a study to seek a long-term solution of the problem.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ English}

Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister, whose two-month delay in announcing the government's decision regarding an Olympic boycott has caused anxiety, not only among our allies but untold difficulty regarding the government's intentions among Canadian athletes.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister: given that the Conservative government had initiated detailed discussions with other countries about the holding of international games of a comparable standard in one site, or several sites or countries, since this had already been undertaken, what has the Liberal government done to advance this planning so that our athletes could be assured of such kind of international competition?
April 21, 1980


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I know the question had been discussed by the previous government. My recollection at the time was that that alternative was not a very serious possibility. But I will inquire if the subject matter is still being kept alive.


Miss MacDonald:: Madam Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister, because I am sure that our athletes want very much to have this question kept alive. They want to know that they will have the opportunity to participate in games of an international standard elsewhere.
Will the Prime Minister give the House a commitment today that his decision, the government's decision on the boycott will be announced prior to the visit of Secretary Vance on Wednesday, so that it will not appear that Canada is being pressured into taking a position; so that it will at least be assured that the government has the moral fibre to take a decision on its own.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I answered a similar question last week, and indicated that Secretary Vance's visit was not considered as a deadline by me. On the contrary, it might be used as an occasion to inform myself, from the Secretary, of various aspects of their international politics and international relations.
1 did say that the deadline for this government was, perhaps, the meeting next weekend of the Canadian Olympic Committee. But we may make a decision before, we may make a decision after Secretary Vance's visit, Madam Speaker.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: We already know that 53 countries oppose going to Moscow. Twenty-seven countries, many of them Warsaw pact countries, favour going. I would like to ask the Prime Minister, what further consultation or what further information does he require before he is able to take a stand on Canada's behalf.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I believe this is a repetition of the question the hon. lady asked last week. I suspected then that her figures were inaccurate, and now I have confirmation of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DEPARTMENTAL SURVEY OF ENERGY QUESTIONS-REQUEST FOR TABLING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would the minister confirm today that his department did conduct a survey on a variety of energy questions, and would
Oral Questions
he assure the House that the results, which should now be available, will be tabled either today or tomorrow?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and for having given me time to check on the facts.
The department has had a public attitude survey conducted on energy conservation in February and March of every year since 1975. The contract is let out to Canadian Facts by the consumer research and evaluation branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The report has not yet been received by Energy, Mines and Resources. It is expected shortly. I would like to advise the hon. member that the report will be made available to the public, as have all previous attitude surveys carried out every year in February and March on this subject. The report can be obtained from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as soon as it is ready. As soon as I have received a copy, I will be glad to send the hon. member a copy, if he does not already have one.


John Edward Broadbent: I thank the minister for that full answer. My next question, which is broader in its implications, is directed to the Prime Minister. On Friday, the Prime Minister said he would inquire into what polling was being done by other government departments.
In that context, 1 wish to ask him if he is now prepared to table information concerning all such polls, including questions and answers, and ask him what he meant when he said in the House on Friday that some surveys may elicit information which should not be made "very widely public". More specifically, can he tell us which opinions of Canadians would be inappropriate for Canadians to know about themselves?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that is a repetition of the question that was asked on Friday, and I undertook then to look into the matter. This is Monday morning, as the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party knows. I have not had the information yet from the departments, but it appears to me from the answer just given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that at least the way the hon. leader asked the question the other day was incorrect, since in his question he implied that we were keeping these polls secret.


John Edward Broadbent: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member says "No". I have his question here. He said, "the dubious practice of the government of Ontario by using taxpayers' money to do public opinion surveys which it keeps secret?". The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources just indicated that for the past six years we have been making the results of these surveys public.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I know the Prime Minister would not consciously distort what I had to say in my

April 21, 1980
Oral Questions
question. The words which he quoted said, "the dubious practice of the government of Ontario"-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Read it.


John Edward Broadbent: 1 was attempting to obtain assurances from his government that the Liberal government was not pursuing such dubious practices. I was not implying that it was; I was happy with the answer I received from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I would like to ask the Prime Minister: given the fact that in one year alone the government of Ontario spent almost a half-million dollars on such polls, which they originally intended to keep secret, and since the minister has referred to only one poll which has been taken periodically and made available to the public, the general question remains open. Will the Prime Minister assure us that all such polling by other departments will be made available to the public?
Second, what are his grounds for saying-as he indicated in his answer on Friday-that some should not be? What are the criteria?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as to the first part, 1 would refer the hon. member to his own question which 1 will now read in full from page 158 of Hansard: "Would the minister confirm that the federal government is following the dubious practice . ..", and so on, "of doing public opinion surveys which it keeps secret." If that is not an inference and a veiled accusation that we are keeping such opinion polls secret, 1 do not know what is. That was the question.
As to the rest of the question, 1 have just told the hon. member that I have asked the departments to inform me of such surveys. 1 do not have the information yet, but as soon as 1 have it I will let the hon. member know the answer, as well as the answer to the other part of the question in response to which I indicated that perhaps some surveys which are made at a particular point in time should not be made public. I will give the answer to that, too.


INTERNATIONAL GAMES AS ALTERNATIVE TO OLYMPICS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for amateur sport. In view of the fact that the former government took a position with respect to an Olympics boycott and had entered into discussions with localities so that the games might be held at alternative sites, notably, here in Canada, such as the Velodrome in Montreal, the Commonwealth Games facilities in Edmonton and the yachting facilities at Kingston, would the minister tell us whether he has followed up these discussions with any of the organizations concerned, so that Canadian athletes may be assured of alternative games at an international level?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: I thank the hon. member for his question, and compliment him upon being chosen to be the critic for his group on the subject of fitness and amateur sport. I am sure his keen interest over the years will enable him to perform that function very well indeed.
May I say, in response to his question, that examination has been made by Canada and other countries as to the possibility of holding games which would enable our athletes, if a boycott did occur, to participate in important events since they would otherwise, perhaps, be losing a lifetime opportunity to take part in the Olympics. It has been determined that it would not be practicable to hold all those games in one place at one time; the preparation period which would be necessary is much greater than is available.
It should also be noted that no games of an international character held within six weeks of the Olympics could be accredited, and that athletes participating in such games might well lose their status in respect of future international competition. That is another hindrance. Beyond that, a number of countries have examined the possibility of staging individual-event games, and Canada has certainly been considering the possibility of utilizing some of the existing facilities in different regions of this country to stage events in two or three sports, if this should turn out to be desirable and if, indeed, a boycott were to take effect.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, the delay which has been imposed upon the athletes with respect to these alternate site locations is a cause for serious concern.
Has the minister put forward any recommendation or suggestion to any international gathering with respect to alternate sites and what games may be played there, so that the athletes of Canada and, indeed, of the world, will not find their opportunities jeopardized as a result of the government's delay in making a decision with respect to the boycott?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman again, and I would say to him that there has not been a delay because of a position in relation to alternate games, because obviously you are not going to plan alternate games until a determination is made as to whether you are going to participate in the Olympics.
We did send, as an observer, a functionary to a meeting in Geneva, which certain other countries attended, for a general discussion of the possibility of international competitions in other parts of the world. As a consequence, we have information on the thinking of some of the countries.
I do not believe that the hon. member is correct in suggesting that it is interfering with the preparations of the athletes, because the athletes are continuing to train for the Olympics on the assumption that we will be participating, until any decision is made to the contrary. However, I assure the hon. member that, on an informal basis, very careful examination has been made by my department, and soundings have been made, as to what is feasible. I point out that this cannot be a
April 21, 1980

unilateral decision by Canada because you cannot have an international competition unless athletes from other countries also participate.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In anticipation of the visit later this week of Secretary of State Vance, and as a means of indicating to the United States, to the world and to the Canadian people that this government is prepared to make some sort of stand on its own, is this government prepared to impose sanctions on Iran as an indication of this government's condemnation of Iran's failure to uphold and respect international law, so as to effect the release of the United States hostages?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, that matter will be discussed with Secretary Vance.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I am not sure that the Prime Minister understood my question. I did not ask whether he is prepared to discuss this with Secretary Vance, but whether he is going to make an announcement in anticipation of this.
There is a further visit in about ten days by a prime minister of a country which has also announced sanctions against Iran. This is a very courageous stand by Japan, and we are expecting a visit from the Prime Minister of Japan. Is the Prime Minister going to wait for that visit, also, before he takes any stand in support of the recognition of international law and in support of diplomatic personnel around the world?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I certainly will be discussing that question with Prime Minister Ohira also. The hon. member knows that I think the breach of international law which took place last fall by the terrorists seizing hostages in Tehran was something that all countries should have condemned more strongly at the time than they did.
I indicated to the other participants in the upcoming Venice summit that we intended to raise that subject there, and our officials have already raised it at the meeting in Sardinia preparatory to the summit meeting.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In the last couple of days there has been substantial evidence released by the McDonald commission of criminal wrongdoing on the part of
Oral Questions
the RCMP security service under the operations Checkmate, Oddball, and a number of similar operations. These illegalities included the interception and destruction of first-class mail, filing false income tax returns, making threatening telephone calls, and so on. My question to the right hon. Prime Minister is whether he or his solicitors general authorized, either directly or indirectly, these particular operations.
Second, what action will the government take to ensure that similar illegal operations do not take place in the future? Specifically, what disciplinary action will the Prime Minister and his government be taking with respect to persons who have been found to have been violating the law, and what prosecution will the Prime Minister be recommending in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I should like to advise the hon. member, as I advised the House in the previous Parliament, that our government does not, and will not, comment on the day to day testimony given before the McDonald commission. We will wait for the commission's report to indicate what our actions will be in that regard.
In so far as any illegalities are concerned, the hon. member might want to address his question to the Solicitor General. It has been the practice of the government and of previous solicitors general-and I feel it is the practice of this one-to supply provincial attorneys general with information which might be of the kind to incriminate criminally members of the force. However, the Solicitor General might answer that part of the quesfion.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Obviously, the Prime Minister is unaware of the fact that prosecutions for breaches of certain federal statutes are made by the federal government and not by provincial attorneys general. The commission has been going for three years, and I would ask the right hon. Prime Minister what action he intends to take before the commission reports, to ensure that similar violations do not take place. Second, who in his government authorized destruction of the files relating to this particular operation shortly before the establishment of the commission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member has a different view of the law than I have, Madam Speaker. The Criminal Code is a federal statute, yet prosecutions under it are enforced by provincial attorneys general.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Last week, I questioned the minister on Mr. Timothy Leary making his first commercial appearance in
198

April 21, 1980
Oral Questions
Canada at a hotel in which the minister has an interest. At that time the minister said he had read of Mr. Leary's appearance at the hotel in an advertisement in a Winnipeg newspaper.
I would like to ask the minister-as he, also, made a statement to the Winnipeg Free Press and to Mr. Peter Warren, of radio station CJOB in Winnipeg, that he was notified the weekend prior to Mr. Leary's appearance at his hotel-whether he would tell us which statement is true. Did he read it in an advertisement, or was he advised by his brother?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I would be very glad to clarify, for the hon. member, that when I said I was notified, I meant I read it in the newspaper that weekend prior to his arrival. That was how I was notified. I think the word "notified" means that I was made aware of the fact. I went home for the Easter weekend and read the advertisement; that is being "notified", Madam Speaker.


A. Daniel McKenzie: As the minister is aggressively working to replace the present Prime Minister, has he discussed with the present Prime Minister his conflict of interest, his having shares in this Winnipeg hotel in which the first commercial appearance of Mr. Leary took place, which is definitely a conflict of interest? Has he discussed it with the Prime Minister, as well as his possible resignation from the cabinet?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as 1 pointed out to the hon. member beforehand, there was no conflict of interest. The approval of Mr. Leary was based upon the application for him to appear in several other cities, but it was never brought to my attention that he was to appear in Winnipeg. I set out those facts before the Prime Minister; he has the letter.
I think there is absolutely no conflict involved, and I think the hon. member's own peculiar obsession with the hotel is one on which I would be very glad to sit down and clear up with him, as well as his interest in the hotel business. I should also say that I have now divested myself of the interest, which is now in a blind trust, and I hope this will further ease his mind.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister issued a special permit for the temporary immigration into Canada of one Timothy Leary.
Did the minister get the list of hotel engagements before he issued the permit? If he did not get the list of engagements, will the minister please table in this House the terms of the application and how the application was approved? Would the minister give us this exact detail, because this is a matter of serious conflict?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: If what the minister has said is so, he should be happy to table the details of the application for the permit
and the nature of the permit offered. Would the minister do that?


An hon. Member:: It is a question of acid rain.


Lloyd Axworthy: As the hon. member well knows, there are literally hundreds of applications to this government for temporary work visas in this country.


An hon. Member:: If you are not going to read them, why sign them?


Lloyd Axworthy: Several of them, where there may be a question of safety to the country involved, require ministerial application and approval, which I gave. The initial application, which I point out again to the House-I am repeating myself and I ask for your indulgence, Madam Speaker, because 1 gave that answer last week-the original application and recommendation that was forwarded to me on March 6 exclusively asked for Mr. Leary to appear in Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal. I approved that in principle.
No further notification was given to me at that point. But I did unquestionably-as I would do again-allow Mr. Leary to come to the country on the grounds that whatever he has to say, some Canadians might want to hear it even though the hon. member might not want to hear it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Dealing with this question of a permit, the minister is quoted in an article in the Winnipeg Free Press as having said:
Our judgment was that he (Leary) didn't constitute any major problem-
He went on to say that he had granted several permits on compassionate grounds, one to a Polish seaman and one to an Indian girl who is blind. Is there any compassionate ground on which Mr. Leary was given access to Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: -or is it a question of LSD promotion, or was this a question of business reasons to do with the minister's hotel? If the permit, as the minister has suggested, was only for Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto, is Leary in default of the permit by appearing in Winnipeg? Will the minister please explain why the permit was only for Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa, and why, all of a sudden, it turns out the appearance was at Winnipeg?


Lloyd Axworthy: my attention, and 1 would have to say, Madam Speaker, that there was absolutely no occasion whatsoever for any conflict to occur. I suggest that the hon. member, by suggesting that, is really stepping out of turn and should be answering to his own privileges. I simply made the judgment on the grounds of operating the act as it should be operated, and that is not to censor opinions of people coming to this country.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the council of the city of Winnipeg has taken a stand in favour of relocating the Canadian Pacific railyards- a matter of great importance to the future of the city of Winnipeg-and in view of the fact that this position has been supported for a long time by the four members in this party who represent the city of Winnipeg and also by the two Liberals from Winnipeg, the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, will the minister tell the House, now, that the government is prepared to consider favourably federal participation in this important relocation project?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the question is not about federal participation or non-participation; it is about the level of federal participation. The federal government is already committed to spending, if I remember correctly, about $7 million of UTAP money in Manitoba. But what the municipality is doing now is to come up with another type of project, the most expensive one with respect to the relocation of track yards, at the level of about $ 167 million.
In their assessment of the situation, they have assigned roles under which the municipality would pay about one-sixth, the province about one-sixth, and the federal government about two-thirds. Two-thirds of $167 million-I do not have a computer with me-is a heck of a lot of money. I am sorry, but we do not have it. So we have to be reserved in the extent of the commitment we make to this very worth-while project.


An hon. Member:: Tracking operations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, the minister has said that agreement to participate has been announced already by the federal government, that all that is at stake is the level. Unless the level of participation is adequate, that participation will mean nothing.
I ask the minister this supplementary question: in view of the fact that the relocation of these yards is terribly important to the economic and social future of the downtown part of Winnipeg, and in view of the government's commitment to assist other municipalities with relocation, will the government
Oral Questions
give favourable consideration to the appeals to be made to him by the delegation from Winnipeg representing the city council and the legislature of Manitoba when that delegation meets with him on Thursday of this week?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This has been done already, Madam Speaker. I will receive the group and listen to their arguments. I am just trying to indicate the size of the project in Winnipeg, and also that similar projects exist elsewhere. All over Canada there is hardly a municipality which does not have a track relocation problem to solve: Regina, Toronto, Montreal-name it-all over Canada. So, obviously, measures less expensive than the full relocation of tracks and yards will have to be taken because probably the country cannot afford to go the whole way in remedying this problem and embellishing all the cities of Canada in the coming years.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the mortality rate of asbestos workers is increasing-for example, 43 employees who work for the Canadian Johns-Manville company in Scarborough, Ontario, have already died of asbestos cancer-what steps does the minister plan taking to ensure that owners of asbestos plants reduce asbestos dust levels for workers to at least the levels regulated by the federal government on December 31, 1978?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I understand that the national guidelines which we issued-I am not sure if the date is correct; I take it for granted-now are respected by the provinces and enforced by them. Also, my officials are now working with those of the United States to see what strengthening we can give to the national guidelines. We would pass on the information and eventually recommend much more severe guidelines, in order to reduce the level of asbestos permitted in plants.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In 1968, one James Oag was convicted in London of an extraordinarily brutal murder. In 1971, he was a participant in, and convicted of, the death of two inmates at the bloody Kingston massacres.
Prior to 1968, he had a criminal record which included arson, involving the throwing of molotov cocktails, assault causing bodily harm, assaulting a police officer, and numerous

April 21, 1980
Oral Questions
other offences. My question for the Solicitor General is: just what was the Canadian Penitentiary Service doing, allowing Mr. Oag on the streets of Canada unescorted?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I am having an investigation done of this particular case and 1 will be glad to inform the House about the results of it. I might also indicate that I am collecting statistics in general about the performance of inmates on parole and on all forms of conditional release. There are over 6,000 inmates on various forms of conditional release-a very substantial number.
If the parole system is jeopardized, that could involve extra costs, among other things, of hundreds of millions of dollars to provide for incarceration of all inmates until they complete their sentence. So I think it is important to support the concept of parole and to look into cases where abuses, obviously, like this take place and try to get to the bottom of it in order to minimize the risk of the sort the hon. member has described. 1 can tell the hon. member that this particular individual was released twice before. His behaviour was exemplary on both prior releases-


An hon. Member:: It sure sounds like it.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -and I am told, in a preliminary way, that he was considered a good risk by the officers who dealt with him.


An hon. Member:: Oh!


Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Solicitor General. On the basis of his current investigation, would the Solicitor General confirm that Mr. Oag has had a history of protracted violence? Would he agree that a person with such a history ought not to be released on the streets, having in mind that he participated in separate acts of murder in 1968 and 1971?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: He has a violent history; so do many persons who are safely on parole and are not jeopardizing the public interest. I would like to wait for the study to be completed and to have the statistics before I give assurances to the hon. member about changes in the way the parole system operates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HOUSING
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister, in the absence of the minister responsible for housing. Last week, 1 sent a petition to that minister of 470 home owners in Newtown-Mount Pearl, in my district, who have mortgages coming up for renewal under the AHOP scheme this year. In one case the rent has already been doubled, or the mortgage payments, from $161 to $338 a
month, and the interest rate has gone from 9.5 per cent to 14.5 per cent. That case is already concluded.
Will the Prime Minister direct the minister responsible for housing, or discuss with cabinet extending the plan that is now to be limited to some 7,000 individuals, so that it will be retroactive as well as apply in the future, to assist in these AHOP cases where mortgage interest rates have gone up so much in recent months?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the minister I would be very happy to give him notice of the question on behalf of the hon. member.


John Carnell Crosbie: My supplementary question is to the Prime Minister, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister's housing critic, on November 6, 1979-the present Minister of Employment and Immigration-proposed a principle that if there was a requirement to raise interest rates, if interest rates had to go up, there was an equal requirement to help people who were hurt by those interest rate increases. That was a great Liberal principle when they were out of office.
Does that great Liberal principle now apply when they are in office and when interest rates have again gone up something like 2 per cent since this government took office? Is that principle to be applied so that everybody will get relief, those who have already been stuck by AHOP and CMHC, as well as those who will be stuck in the future? Will that principle be carried out, or is the Prime Minister repudiating his putative successor who made that statement last November 6?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker, I am not repudiating him as a minister nor as my putative successor, if that is what interests him, providing he does not start too soon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: He has already started.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Also, I certainly do not repudiate the principle he enunciated. On the contrary, it must be understood and read with that other great Liberal principle, that we must first help those who need it most. That it what this government will do, rather than-to quote the hon. member-trying to help everybody: we will try to help those who need it most.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SALE OF GASOLINE TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister is aware that thousands of American drivers are coming across our border to fill up on subsidized Canadian gasoline, and that foreign airlines, trucking and shipping companies-even pleasure boat owners-are doing
April 21, 1980

the same thing. 1 am sure the minister has asked his officials to get an estimate of this. Can he tell the Elouse just how many thousands of barrels of fuel oil and gasoline are being transported across our border in that way?
[DOT] (U50)


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, Canada has always been a country that welcomes tourists, particularly American tourists. One must remember that even with the large influx of tourists into Canada, the consumption of gasoline by them represents less than 1 per cent. There has been an apparent increase in the number of American residents who are coming to Canada to fill their tanks. In some of the bordering areas the situation is being monitored.
At the present time, there does not appear to be any reason to take any special steps in that respect. One must remember that a large number of Canadians consume a large amount of American gasoline every winter, in California or in Florida.
We are monitoring the present situation. My officials, in consultation with the provincial governments, are examining the situation. If any steps are required in the future, 1 will advise the House.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the minister did not indicate if, in fact, he has an estimate. 1 wonder if he would quarrel with the estimate of another organization, that there are some
20,000	barrels a day involved. This represents a subsidy by Canadian taxpayers to these foreign consumers. They are not tourists; they are people who come into Canada to fill up their tanks, and then to go home. There is a big distinction. According to one estimate, Canadian taxpayers subsidize airlines alone by $5 million to $10 million.
Besides being aware of the situation, as the minister has indicated, what plans does he have in mind to stop this situation? Obviously, it is ludicrous to have Canadian taxpayers spending tens of millions of dollars to subsidize foreign consumption, not tourists coming to Canada but foreigners consuming the gasoline in their own country.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would not want to endorse the specific figures mentioned by the hon. member.


TRANSMISSION OF LOWER CHURCHILL FALLS POWER
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the government of Quebec has now demonstrated that it is not prepared to enter into an agreement with the province of Newfoundland for the transmission of Lower Churchill Falls power through the province of Quebec in order to get it to customers in New York and Ontario, is the minister prepared to exercise the authority of the federal government under sections 91 and 92 of the BNA Act to permit a corridor of Lower Churchill Falls' power through Quebec; and, indeed, is the federal government prepared to assist in the building of the transmission lines?
Ora! Questions


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the existing contract between Newfoundland and Quebec concerning Churchill Falls electricity has been the subject of many debates not only in the last few months but also in the last few years. I understand that recent discussions took place between the governments of Quebec and Newfoundland. I shall meet the energy ministers of Newfoundland and Quebec in the near future. During those meetings I shall take the opportunity to examine with them the present situation but I do not intend now to recommend any particular measure, at least as long as I have not had the opportunity to meet my provincial colleagues and to examine with them what is exactly the present situation. I remind the hon. member once again that the contract has been signed freely betweeen both governments, and it is under the authority of both governments concerned.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources does not seem to fully understand the question, because the contract to which he referred deals with the Upper Churchill, which is already a fact, a fait accompli.
We are talking about the development of power on the Lower Churchill River. That power cannot be developed unless Newfoundland can get it through the province of Quebec, which has indicated that it is not prepared to enter into an agreement with Newfoundland to provide a corridor. Under sections 91 and 92 of the BNA Act, the federal government has clear constitutional authority, as it does in the case of pipelines for the transmission of gas and other forms of energy.
My question to the Prime Minister is very simple, since the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources does not seem to understand. Is the federal government prepared to exercise its constitutional authority and provide a corridor through Quebec to Lower Churchill Falls, so that the power can be developed? Indeed, is the Government of Canada prepared to assist in the building of that corridor, or transmission line through Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, of course the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources understands that; if only the hon. member would understand that the minister believes that it is better for the provinces to at least attempt to reach an agreement between themselves before we invoke the superior federal power. 1 should have thought that would have been a position approved by the hon. member and his party which sometimes accuses us of using the federal power too willingly.


John Carnell Crosbie: Read your correspondence.

April 21, 1980
Oral Questions SMALL BUSINESS


PLANS TO ASSIST BUSINESSMEN
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Small Businesses). The minister well knows that these are difficult times for small businessmen, who face exorbitant costs for inventory and are experiencing increased bankruptcy rates and a manufacturing downturn which is adding fuel to this fire.
Will the minister inform this House what he plans to do in the immediate future? Does he really care for small businessmen, and when can we expect some specific action?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State, Small Businesses):: Madam Speaker, of course I care about the present general economic situation and its effects on small business in Canada, as also do all my colleagues of the government. To answer more specifically the question of the hon. member, I should like to indicate that at noon today 1 shall be tabling for first reading a bill amending the Small Businesses Loans Act to raise the ceiling on loans so that small businesses can have easier access to financing. In a few days, I shall also be tabling another bill to again raise the maximum financing allowed the Federal Business Development Bank. If I may add something else, Madam Speaker, I should like to say that we have undertaken two major studies of general as well as financial problems of small businesses. Those studies which are being made by the Economic Council of Canada in co-operation with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and The Canadian Bankers Association, will give us a broader view of the solutions we can bring to the problems of small businesses. But I can assure the hon. member that we are really concerned about those problems and continue to hold regular consultations with small businessmen themselves and their associations.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the inertia and incompetence of the former government in the field of transport, can the minister tell the House whether or not he intends to authorize the transfer of flights from Dorval to Mirabel in order to allow for the development of the largest airport in North America and pull it out of its impasse?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the original intention, when the Mirabel airport was built, was to transfer there all flights except short domestic flights. I believe the objective remains the same today. However, in achieving it, such things must be taken into account as the state of access roads, the habits of the travelling public and the economic situation in the Dorval area. Those are the elements my department is now putting together in a study of the situation I expect to get by June and intend to use as the basis for the discussions I shall hold with all parties concerned.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister inform the House if Lieutenant-General Paradis, the forthright officer who commands Mobile Command, approached him to prevent any posting action being taken that would have resulted in him, General Paradis, resigning; and did the minister intervene, as he has every right to do?
[ Translation]


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, it is one of the Minister of National Defence's responsibilities to make sure that generals in charge of certain commands may communicate with him as freely as possible. Recently, however, I have had no conversations with General Paradis concerning a possible resignation or promotion or whatever. The hon. member is certainly aware that, in co-operation with the high command, we are making a number of changes among higher ranking generals, and he should therefore obtain the information he is seeking within the next few days.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. Recently the commander of Air Command resigned without giving any particular reason, and I have been informed that the commander of Mobile Command was asked to resign. Admiral Allan has been posted from the position of commander, Maritime Command, after only ten months in that position. Admiral Martin, commanding officer of Maritime Command, Pacific, is resigning a year ahead of his age limit, and the chief of personnel development, a major-general, is also resigning.
Could the minister tell the House if he is aware of and interested in these matters, and could he tell us if some kind of witch hunt is going on?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is wrong in mentioning a witch hunt. If some of our generals are retreating or-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Lamontagne: Not "retreating".
April 21, 1980


Mr. Hees:: You just made the headlines.


Maurice Lamontagne: 1 mean, retiring before time, it is because-


An hon. Member:: They have no place to go!


Maurice Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, perhaps it would be better for me to speak French and explain that the English word "retreat" means, in French, retirement of certain generals. Our generals are certainly highly competent, and those who decided to retire early hold very good positions and earn a very decent living. Because of their expertise and training in the armed forces, these people can certainly look forward in the final analysis to a very good job and a new career following that of general.
* *
*


HOUSING
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Public Works. On Tuesday, April 15, the Minister of Finance suggested, on page 17 of Hansard, that people only have difficulty renewing their mortgages for the following reason:
-their incomes have not increased and because their equity in their homes has not increased, or the value has not appreciated-
Will the minister admit that mortgage loan officers are only interested in income available to meet mortgage payments when considering whether to renew a mortgage, and that an increase in equity or appreciation in value only helps mortgage companies avoid the spectre of foreclosure, rather than helping the 350,000 average Canadians who are renewing their-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please ask the question.
[ Translation]


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Public Works is absent, I will gladly refer to him the hon. member's comments.
* *
*


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. The answer to the last question prompted me to rise. Is it the intention of the government House leader to arrange to table a list of acting ministers in the
Standing Committees
government, so that members of the House may know who has responsibility during the question period?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if I am not mistaken, that has already been done or should be done without delay, and for my hon. colleague's information, I am the acting Minister of Public Works, which is why I rose to answer the question.


Walter David Baker: It has not been done!


Yvon Pinard: Now my colleague says that he has checked and that it has not been done. I assure him that it will be done forthwith.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council) presented the report of the special committee to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing and standing joint committees of the House, as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Althouse	Lonsdale
Bloomfield	Mayer
Bockstael	McKnight
Bossy	Mitges
Cote (Mrs.)	Murta
Ferguson	Nystrom
Garant	Ostiguy
Gurbin	Schroder
Hamilton (Swift Current-	Tardif
Maple Creek)	Taylor
Hargrave	Tessier
Henderson	Thacker
Hovdebo	Towers
Lapierre	Veillette
Lapointe (Beauce)	Wise-30
Leduc

[Stage Direction]
Beatty
Carney (Miss) Cook Dawson de Jong
Messrs.
Dion (Portneuf)
Dupont
Flis
Friesen
Gauthier
[Stage Direction]
April 21, 1980
Standing Committees
Gingras	McMillan	Munro (Esquimalt-	SiddonGourd	Rose	Saanich)	SimmonsHerbert	Scott (Hamilton-	Oberle	Tobin-20Irwin	Wentworth)	Kushner	Smith-20	HEALTH, WELFARE AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS	Masters	Messrs.EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL DEFENCE	Berger	LewisBlaikie	MalepartMessrs.	Chenier	MarceauAppolloni (Mrs.)	MacLaren	Crosbie (St.	McGrathBloomfield	Masse	John's West)	Reid (St. Catharines)Caccia	McKinnon	Dinsdale	Robinson (Etobicoke-Crouse	Munro (Esquimalt-	Gauthier	Lakeshore)Dionne (Chicoutimi)	Saanich)	Halliday	RossiDionne (Northumberland-	Nowlan	Killens (Mrs.)	SavardMiramichi)	Ogle	King	SchroderDuclos	Patterson	Knowles	Weatherhead-20Dupras	Prud'homme	Friesen	Robinson (Etobicoke-	INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT	Frith	Lakeshore)	Gauthier	Roche	Messrs.Hamilton (Swift Current-	Roy	Allmand	MaltaisMaple Creek)	Sargeant	Chenier	ManlyHopkins	Schroder	Cyr	McCuishJewett (Miss)	Stewart	Gimaiel	NeilMacDonald (Miss) (Kingston	Wenman-30	Gingras	Nickersonand the Islands)	Greenaway	OberleGuilbault	PennerFINANCE, TRADE	AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS	Ittinuar	SchellenbergerLoiselle	ShieldsMessrs.	Lonsdale	Watson-20
Blenkarn	Hopkins			
Breau	Huntington	JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS	>.£' [DOT]'Buchanan	Lachance	Messrs.	zw
\
Campbell (Miss)(South	Lambert	If.:®.West Nova)	Laniel	Baker (Nepean-	MacLellan	§!Crosbie (St.	Mackasey	Carleton)	MacKay	John's West)	Peterson	Crosby (Halifax West)	Marceau	vr'Cullen	Rae	Dubois	Nystrom	.j; /;Deans	Stevens	Guay	Hervieux-Payette (Mrs.)	Evans	Thomson	Henderson	Robinson (Burnaby)	* "* To " *Garant	Wilson-20	Hnatyshyn	Robinson	Kilgour	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)	FISHERIES AND FORESTRY	Lachance	Rossi	Landers	Smith	Messrs.	Lawrence	Vankoughnet-20	Baker (Gander-	Dionne (Northumberland-	Twillingate)	Miramichi)	LABOUR, MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION	Breau	Gass	Messrs.	Campbell (Miss)(South	Henderson	West Nova)	Kristiansen	Alexander	Flis	Crosby (Halifax West)	MacLellan	Bosley	Hawkes	Crouse	Maltais	Dawson	Henderson	Cyr	McMillan	Dupont	Irwin	Dingwall	Miller	Epp	Lewis	
April 21. 1980
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees
Malepart	Portelance	Hopkins	McCauleyMcLean	Speyer	Jarvis	NowlanOrlikow	Stollery	Keeper	RoyParent	Tousignant	Kelly	SavardParker	Veillette-20	Loiselle	WaddellMacLaren	Yurko- 20

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Breau	Ellis
Coates	Evans
Comtois	Lambert
Dionne (Northumberland-	Nowlan
Miramichi)	Rose
Duquet	Turner-11

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Berger	Gilchrist
Blackburn	Herbert
Collenette	Isabelle
Cossitt	Joyal
Daudlin	Lambert
Demers	Mitchell (Mrs.)
Duquet	Peterson
Fraser	Siddon
Garand	Stevens
Gauthier	Towers-20
Corriveau
de Corneille
Frith
Fulton
Flargrave
Loisclle

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
MacLaren Malone Neil Oberle Watson-11

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Benjamin
Bosley
Buchanan
Chenier
Clarke (Vancouver Quadra)
Collenette
Dick
Domm
Dubois
Duquet
Evans
Isabelle Laniel Lapierre Lewycky McKenzie McKinnon Reid (Kenora- Rainy River) Scott (Hamilton- Wentworth) Smith-20

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Messrs.	Baker (Nepean-Carleton)	KnowlesAndre	McLean	Buchanan	LachanceBerger	Orlikow	Chenier	LanielBlaikie	Parent	Collenette	NowlanChenier	Savard	Dick	Reid (Kenora-Collenette	Scott (Hamilton-[DOT]	Friesen	Rainy River)-11Cooper	Wentworth)	Cote (Mrs.)	Scott (Victoria-	Cousineau	Haliburton)	PUBLIC ACCOUNTSde Corneille	Wright	Duquet	Yanakis	Messrs.Gendron	Yurko-20	Anguish	HendersonClarke (Vancouver Quadra)	HovdeboCorbett	HuntingtonNATIONAL RESOURCES AND PUBLIC WORKS	Demers	JoyalMessrs.	Deniger	LangDesmarais	Lapointe (Beauce)Andre	Gendron	Evans	MurtaCooper	Gilchrist	Fennell	Nicholson (Miss)de Corneille	Gingras	Gamble	PetersonDingwall	Gustafson	Garant	Wilson-20
April 21, 1980
Tabling of Documents REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Messrs.
Bachand	Harquail
Beauchamp-Niquet (Mrs.)	Howie
Campbell (Miss) (South	La Salle
West Nova)	Maltais
Carney (Miss)	Murphy
Chenier	Pelletier
Darling	Reid (St. Catharines)
Dingwall	Riis
Foster	Tobin
Fretz	Scott (Victoria-
Frith	Haliburton)-20
Benjamin	TRANSPORT Messrs. McCuish
Bockstael	McDermid
Campbell (La Salle)	McKenzie
Dionne (Northumberland-	Olivier
Miramishi	Penner
Forrestall	Portelance
Gourd	Roy
Jelinek	Skelly
Mackasey	Stollery
Maltais	Wright-20
Mazankowski Bradley	VETERANS AFFAIRS Messrs. Mitges
Campbell (La Salle)	Parent
Chenier	Robinson (Etobicoke-
Cullen	Lakeshore)
Dupras	Rossi
Henderson	Schroder
King	Scott (Victoria-
Knowles	Haliburton)
Lambert	Stewart
Laniel	Young-19
McKenzie
System in Canada-Problems in Alternative Policies for Reform."

Yvon Pinard: Still on tabling of documents, Madam Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), and in the name of the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada, I would like to table a copy of a proposed order in council approving the issuance of a proclamation for the creation of a department of state for social development under the provisions of section 18 of the Ministries and Ministers of State Act.


FINANCE
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I should like to table the annual report of the governor of the Bank of Canada.


SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT
Charles Lapointe: for leave to introduce Bill C-17, to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


[Stage Direction]
TABLING OF "THE RETIREMENT INCOME SYSTEM IN CANADA- u t r n [DOT]	/*«[DOT][DOT]	, -,	..	, ,
PROBLEMS IN alternative policies FOR REFORM"	Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport) moved for
_	^ _	leave to introduce Bill C-18, to promote public safety in the
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and transportation of dangerous goods.
Welfare): Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2), I
should like to table, in both official languages, the Finance, Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be Health and Welfare report entitled "The Retirement Income printed.
April 21, 1980


Yvon Pinard: that the first report of the committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing and standing joint committees of the House, presented earlier this day, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, April 18, 1980, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Cote for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State, Small Businesses):: Mr. Speaker, when I referred to the Canadian Agricultural Export Corporation at the last sitting of this House, I spoke of its potential spin-off effects on all of society. We must ensure that we utilize the potential of this food production sector, because food provides the first essential of human life. By expanding this area of productivity, we will be further giving our processing industry the volumes of output required for efficient and economic operation. I am confident that such a move would help reverse the trend away from further processing that has occurred in Canada over the last few years.
In this context, Mr. Speaker, I am certainly alarmed at the volume of imported foods that Canadians bought last year, particularly in the meat sector. Close to $2.5 billion worth of manufactured foods and semi-processed meats and fish products that might have been processed in Canada came from other countries. I believe that we should be working to correct this imbalance, because we have the most efficient producers in the world.
I am pleased that the Speech from the Throne provides for a meat import act: this should provide the stability required for both producers and consumers. I trust that the remarks made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) on Friday of last week reflect the position of his party and assurance of speedy passage of this bill before the House.
While there are specific areas of our agricultural industry facing very low prices at the present time, retail price comparisons with other capital cities of the world usually show our Canadian consumer prices to be either the lowest in the world, or second only to those of the United States. Also, the time spent by our workers to earn the retail value of our food products in selected world capitals as of March, 1980, is the
The Address-Mr. Ferguson
shortest in the world. Our Canadian producers can compete on world markets. The creation of the Canadian Agricultural Export Corporation is essential to our total agra-industry and economy based on our current productivity, our potential productivity and the need for food in specific areas of the world. The Canadian farmer realizes that the Canadian consumer is his best customer; but, as any businessman, he must show a profit to survive. Farming is no longer a way of life; it is big business, requiring adequate funding and public support and appreciation.
One cause for alarm for us is the fact that some of the vast deserts of the world are spreading at an everincreasing rate. For example, the Thar Desert, in India, is expanding at the rate of 30,000 acres per year, and the great Sahara-which was at one time the granary of the Roman empire-is expanding rapidly, partially due to poor agricultural practices and management.
I believe that, as energy was the challenge of the 1970s, we must accept the fact that energy and food will be the challenge of the 1980s. I trust this House will appreciate the efforts of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, who publish the prices that producers receive and prices that consumers pay for the same products at the retail level. This step, I trust, will bring about a better understanding between our rural and urban societies and will be of benefit to all Canadians. The concerns expressed for our farmers and small business people in the throne speech must be acted upon in a positive manner to ensure the expansion of our most essential renewable resource.
Last, but not least, if the creation of social and economic opportunities is the ambition of this Thirty-second Parliament, we must move to ensure that the qualities of life in rural Canada are maintained in our countryside, our small towns and our villages, because they provide the setting for our small businesses and light industry and so create jobs. This job creation provides opportunities for our young people. Canadian small businesses employ more than 2.5 million people, representing 40 per cent of the work force in the private sector. We must ensure that these small businesses, many of which work in close harmony with our farm sector by providing allied services, are given the incentive to develop and expand.
This quality of life must be protected. Young people must be encouraged and helped to establish themselves. Our farmers and small business people must be able to plan with some confidence; and, above all, retirement must be a time of rewards, not apprehensions.
At the outset of my remarks I spoke briefly about the area that I represent in the House of Commons. It is a great part of this nation. We grow many products that cannot be grown in other parts of Canada because of climatic conditions. We produce fruit, vegetables, tobacco, corn, soybeans, wheat, and most meat and poultry products. In the last few years, the town of Strathroy has become the turkey capital of Canada: in this context I refer only to the feathered species! But one of the largest hatcheries in Canada, with subsidiaries in several other countries of the world, is located in my constituency. Again, a

April 21, 1980
The Address-Mr. Crouse
dedicated Canadian entrepreneur has distinguished himself and his nation in a highly competitive industry.
I am proud of the area that 1 represent. It is an area that, although it now has a wide diversity of products, is rich in productivity and potential that can be of benefit to all of Canada, but these benefits can only be realized and utilized by working together with other Canadians.
Each and every part of Canada has its own unique contribution to make to the whole. Each is equally important. I have travelled across this nation many times, from the rugged shores of Newfoundland, along the Cabot Trail of Cape Breton in the east to the majestic Rocky Mountains and to the Pacific in the west. We, as Canadians, can be justifiably proud of our country and its people. I trust and pray that the uncertainty existing in some parts of this nation can be overcome in the months ahead, and that we can work together as Canadians to utilize all of the potential that is ours.
I submit that the Speech from the Throne has provided us with a foundation upon which we can build an even greater Canada in the decade ahead.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, it is with some pleasure that I rise to participate in this debate, for it is a privilege that 1 have enjoyed for the past 23 years while serving in Parliament representing the citizens of the South Shore of Nova Scotia.
First, I wish to congratulate you, sir, on your appointment as Assistant Deputy Speaker. Also, I wish to congratulate Madam Speaker on her appointment to that high office. It is one that I know she will fill with dignity as well as show fairness to all members of this House. 1 wish to congratulate the newly-appointed members of cabinet and the parliamentary secretaries. Some of them are old friends and I know it will be a pleasure to work with them during this Parliament.
I wish to congratulate the mover, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mrs. Cote), and the seconder of the Address, the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith). Both hon. members gave a good account of themselves. While I did not agree with all the views they expressed, I believe they are a credit to the constituents who elected them to this House.
The throne speech is one that is long on rhetoric and long on promises, as have been all the throne speeches presented by Liberal governments since coming to power under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1968. However, in looking back over the years, the performance has fallen far short of the promise since the Liberal party came to power in 1968; that is with the exception of the brief period in which my party was in power.
I believe, therefore, that the present government must be held responsible for our present economic conditions, our high unemployment rate, our high interest rates, our lack of leadership at the top, and the disunity we know exists within the nation. In fact, the present depression in Canada, with inflation running at an annual rate of something like 13 per cent- if we take the March figure of 1.1 per cent as a guide-can be
directly addressed to the policies and the programs that have been initiated by Liberal governments since 1968.
The throne speech, among other things, says that we have the capacity and the imagination to make this a decade of opportunity rather than a decade of doubt. But there is one question which clouds the horizon and obstructs the view, and that is the question of the unity of our country. The throne speech points out that this unrest is in Atlantic Canada-my part of the world-it is in central Canada, it is in western Canada, and it promises that in spite of the evident unrest, Canada will endure, grow and prosper.
Naturally, all of us approve of that high principle. But, like the man who rows a boat, we must sometimes look back to our point of departure, if we wish to arrive safely at our destination which lies ahead. We must ask ourselves, how did this all unrest in Canada start; from whence did it originate? I listened attentively to the Prime Minister when he spoke on leaders' day in a philosophic way, in the tones of a university professor fascinated by the internal logic of his own arguments. He spoke out forcefully against Rene Levesque's proposals for sovereignty-association, and asked for a negative response to the referendum being held on May 20-a stand with which I agree.
He also spoke of the enemy within Canada, an enemy which is eroding the legitimacy of the federal government. He said there is growing doubt about our ability to act as one strong nation. We see Canadians fearing that other Canadians will be a real danger to them. We see provinces closing the door to labour, capital and services from other provinces. We see Canadians acting as though the language of other Canadians was a danger to them. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, all of this is only too true.
The Prime Minister's philosophic lecture on today's problems caused me to look back over the years to the days when he helped found Cite Libre which was the mouthpiece of a group of young Quebec intellectuals. It is most interesting to read his written statements and views at that time, when he was helping to start the quiet revolution along with his friends Andre Laurendeau, Gerard Filion, Gerard Pelletier and Rene Levesque. Compare them with his statements today. According to all reports, the group supporting Cite Libre were rebelling against accepted systems, rebelling against established order, rebelling against conformity and conservatism and traditionalism.
Following the provincial election of July, 1952, the Prime Minister lent the pages of Cite Libre not only to the then spokesmen of the socialist party, but also to Pierre Gelinas, the director of agitation and propaganda for the communist party in Quebec. The Prime Minister wrote at that time:
After the British conquered French Canada, French Canadians made up their minds to abuse, not use, the parliamentary system. They played the parliamentary game, but they didn't believe the basic principles upon which it was founded. They were so worried about preserving their national identity that they subordinated the national good to French Canada's good and lost their sense of political morality in the process. French Canada's answer to the great depression
April 21, 1980

was to demand that the state reaffirm its nationalism. As far as we were concerned, our misfortunes weren't the result of the economic system but of a system dominated by "the English".
Those are the words of the present Prime Minister as written in 1952. I regret that he is not in the House to explain them or to respond to them. There are many more, but I quote those words only to show that the fires of unrest and the fires of disunity were lit many years ago, assisted by our present Prime Minister.


Mr. Collenette:: Nonsense, absolute nonsense.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: They have been slowly, but steadily, burning until they have flared up in the referendum on sovereignty-association set for May 20. To expect the present Prime Minister to be effective in solving this problem is like inviting an arsonist to put out the fire. I say there is nothing more important today for the security, at least, of North America than unity within Canada.
To date, there has been too much written about "we" and "they": we English Canadians speak the language of business, the language of North America, they do not; we French Canadians have our own profoundly original culture and identity, as well as our special privileges as a founding race, and they do not; we in central Canada own our industries, we in the western provinces own our resources, and "they" had better not get in our way. So many Canadians are clutching economic and cultural chattels to their breasts, or making fists in their pockets as they watch others clutch theirs, that they seem to have forgotten the fatal flaw in such feelings, namely, that "they" is "we".
Living in a pluralistic federal Canada has its difficulties and heartbreaks. This is bound to occur when different races and cultures live together; and we must remember that the English and French language groups are large and powerful enough to break up this country. However, there is another choice. A country's political framework and values are not something to be knocked down on Monday and rebuilt by Friday: they are more like a garden, to be planted, worked and nurtured in harmony with the landscape.
Our Canadian landscape began to shift almost three decades ago for the reasons 1 gave previously and, in my opinion, the season has come for a change; the season has arrived for all of us not to consider ourselves as hyphenated Canadians, but to consider ourselves Canadians. That is what we must start to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It should begin with the recognition that the existence of two great language communities and many regional and cultural differences-which we often insist are problems that cripple Canadians-are, in fact, opportunities that can enrich and unite us, for "they", in the end, is really all of us. Speaking personally, I sincerely hope that French Canada votes to stand as a part of all of Canada, for we need French Canada. We need them as part of a united nation. It is only if
The Address-Mr. Crouse
we unite and work together that we can make progress and go forward.
I turn now to another section of the Speech from the Throne entitled "Developing our Economic Potential", where we read:
My government will reduce the federal deficit in a planned and orderly manner, but not to the exclusion of other objectives such as reducing unemployment and promoting industrial growth . . . My ministers believe that Canadians want more effective government, not necessarily less government.
These words are from a government which in 1968 required some $10 billion to look after the needs of approximately 20 million Canadians, while today they require well in excess of $50 billion to look after the needs of a little more than 23 million Canadians-an increase of more than $40 billion in expenditures in 12 years. It is not enough for this government to say it will reduce the federal deficit; it is much more important for this government to plan to balance the budget within the next four years.
In Atlantic Canada there is unrest, as was pointed out in the throne speech. We are fearful of the economic drift experienced by this country since 1968. Our interest rates, our balance of trade deficits, our relatively poor showing in terms of productivity are all symptoms of that drift. We have little confidence that this government is going to offer any solutions or even improvements.
It is difficult to be optimistic about our future when the prime interest rate exceeds 16 per cent, when our small firms are suffering financial hardship and going bankrupt, when our productivity is declining and mortgages are being foreclosed. We could, perhaps, accept those conditions temporarily if we could believe that the government had a plan or made a commitment to live within its means; that is, to balance the budget at least in terms of actual cash requirements.
This act alone would set an example. It would show Canadians and Canadian businessmen that there is a determination to bring inflation and the cost of money under control. In 197879, the federal government went into the financial markets of this country and borrowed some $11 billion. The government outbid all other borrowers for that amount of money. It outbid other levels of government, the provinces and the municipalities. More important, it outbid the private sector borrowers who needed money for the construction of new tourist facilities, new factories, and building hydroelectric dams. The government was also competing with farmers, fishermen and small businessmen, all of whom I represent. Interest is the price of money, and interest rates are governed by supply and demand. The government is in the market now. At this very moment it is bidding for millions of dollars at something like 12 per cent for people to invest in Canada Savings Bonds.
The government rate sets the pace for all other borrowers, and the more the government borrows, the more it increases the interest rate while making money scarce for the individual entrepreneur and, at the same time, increasing the nation's tax burden. Today, the public debt absorbs something like 16.5 per

April 21, 1980
The Address-Mr. Crouse
cent of all budgetary outlays, or roughly $9 billion of our total expenditures.
Since the budget deficit determines the level of government borrowing, the government can, and must, control its spending and balance its budget. These are not my views alone. While I served as chairman of the public accounts committee, the Auditor General in his report of March 31, 1976-four years ago-stated:
I am deeply concerned that Parliament and, indeed, the government has lost, or is close to losing, effective control of the public purse.
A year before that, he stated:
The present state of financial management and control systems of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada is significantly below acceptable standards of quality and effectiveness.
In his most recent report, he voices similar concerns over the productivity and effectiveness of government civil servants. According to the Auditor General, employees in various departments of the public service worked at an efficiency rating of only 60 per cent, compared to 87 per cent in private industry.
Members sitting on the front benches opposite cannot say that they have not been warned or that suggestions to help solve the problem have not been made. In his most recent report, the Auditor General stresses the need for top-level financial controllers in each department, a recommendation with which I concur. I would also suggest, having spent many years studying the public accounts of Canada, that the committee system should be revised so as to give individual members and senators more clout in ensuring that the government is held accountable for its actions. If such a course had been followed earlier, perhaps the billion dollars, plus, spent on Mirabel and the $1 million a week losses it is racking up might have been saved. In my opinion, the government has a responsibility to set out clearly the objectives of public policy. Parliament then has the responsibility of measuring how effectively these objectives are met. We, as parliamentarians, need better mechanisms for doing that job.
The Speech from the Throne states that transportation is a vital part of industrial strategy and promises that the government will ensure that the Canadian transportation system has the capacity to meet the economic challenges of the 1980s. If the government is sincere about this, I hope a feasibility study will be undertaken immediately in Shelburne, Nova Scotia, to determine the course to be followed in strengthening the freight and passenger connecting links between Nova Scotia and New England. Due to the needs of our expanding fishing industry, as well as of the papermaking industry and the manufacturing industry generally-to say nothing of our important tourist industry-there is growing interest in establishing a new ferry service in the port of Shelburne, one of the finest ice and fog-free harbours on the Atlantic coast. Shelburne is relatively close to a number of American ports, and European shipping companies have expressed an interest in providing this service once suitable docking facilities are available. I hope the government will take this matter under serious
consideration, since action on these lines would be beneficial not only to Nova Scotia but to the maritimes generally.
In the Speech from the Throne we read these words:
The government is determined to reduce our dependence on imported oil by promoting conservation and by stimulating the production of new domestic energy supplies.
This type of thinking is, of course, commendable-but words without action are meaningless. For example, it has been known for some time that an automobile makes the most productive use of the energy available in gasoline when it is driven at speeds of between 50 and 55 miles per hour. However, speed limits throughout most of Canada are still set at 100 km per hour, or approximately 62.5 miles per hour. 1 would suggest to the government that if they are sincere in their conservation efforts, they should make lowering the speed limit throughout all of Canada to a maximum of 55 miles per hour a top priority for discussion at the next federal-provincial conference.
Another project worth considering is the further development of our coalfields, a source from which energy is available in great quantities in almost every province, by extracting oil from coal using a process of gasification. The immediate product of this process is gas, the final products being petrol and dieseline. Byproducts such as ammonia, pitch, alcohols, paraffin waxes and liquid gas are also obtained. Projects of this type could go a long way toward lowering our unemployment rate by making positions available in a vast, new petrochemical industry which could make use of the skills of trained fuel technologists and chemical engineers.
1 submit this proposal for consideration because there are many young, trained people leaving the universities today some of whom, unfortunately, are without hope. Projects of this type could make use of their training by providing opportunities in new fields. In light of the manner in which we are being held for ransom by some of the oil producing countries, 1 endorse what is said in the Speech from the Throne: we must work for self-sufficiency. There has been quibbling about the years we mentioned and the years the Liberals mentioned. All I want to see is some action in this area, some forward steps being taken, and if we can move toward self-sufficiency in this field, it matters not to me who gets the credit. But we must get on with the job.
There are many other items in the Speech from the Throne on which 1 could comment. The promise to amend the Foreign Investment Review Act simply means, in my view, that greater emphasis will be placed on controlling Canada's over-all economy. This amounts to bigger government and more problems for us in Atlantic Canada. Our region has prospered from foreign investment. The companies which have located in Nova Scotia have become good corporate citizens, providing our people with new skills, new job opportunities and a chance for a higher standard of living without having to move to central or western Canada.
The new proposals will make FIRA a more intrusive instrument in the marketplace, frightening away new investment capital at a time when Canada desperately needs such capital
April 21, 1980

for the creation of additional jobs. It is for these reasons that, to my mind, the thrust of the Speech from the Throne is not reassuring; it looks like another Liberal interventionist government in power at a time when the economy is crying out for less government, less by way of controls and lower taxes, all of them desirable concepts which appear impossible under present conditions.
[ Translation]


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the throne speech debate. However, I would have liked to discuss and emphasize the exceptional legislative program put forward by our government, a program designed to improve the situation of the Canadian people, to take a positive approach to various economic problems and to enable us obviously to assume our responsibilities under the serious and difficult conditions both at the national and the international levels referred to in the Speech from the Throne. However, in our present situation, there is a priority, the preservation of a united and indivisible Canada which I believe is, for all Canadians, and especially for Quebeckers a matter of national survival, because the possibility of a disastrous fragmentation of the finest and most prosperous country in the world is a real threat.
Therefore allow me to speak on behalf of the great majority of Quebeckers who sent 74 members from Quebec to represent them in the Parliament of Canada and who have given us the mandate to protect the interests of Quebec and Canada in this House and in our ridings. We have already begun and intend to continue, to put our energies, our capabilities and our heart at their service in order to defend this country and Quebec against those who are trying in a vicious and intellectually dishonest way to brainwash, as never before, the people of Quebec. They do so with a view to taking power under the camouflage of a narrow and biased nationalism by promoting a sense of pride in Quebec which, they claim, only separatists possess. I can assure you that even if Pequistes have the monopoly on ambiguity and confusion, they certainly do not have one when it comes to the pride of being true Quebeckers. They may have temporarily appropriated the flag of Quebec and the fleur-de-lis and are using them as political instruments, but they are not going to take away from us, the members of this House who come from Quebec, our pride of being Quebeckers.
Mr. Speaker, as a veteran let me now point out a fact which irritates me very much, even though I am trying to stay calm. According to communications I received from all quarters, it also irritates thousands of women and men who have served and who still serve their country in the armed forces. I think of thousands of veterans, of their families, of our dead, of former prisoners of war and of so many other unknown victims.
In a Radio-Quebec interview, Premier Levesque compared the Canadian army to a comic opera with more chiefs than
The Address-Mr. Lamontagne Indians. He stated that the Canadian army included 1,600 generals, adding that this was costly for the taxpayers. First, let me tell you, Madam Speaker, that we are getting used to these unfounded allegations, because there are not 1,600, but exactly 107 generals in the Canadian armed forces. He went on, and I quote: "A sovereign Quebec would have its army which would play a more effective role within NATO than does now the Canadian army". In my mind, this is an unjustifiable insult from one of our fellow citizens, an insult that we would have never thought possible. To this, General Richard, commander of the Valcartier base, gave a very adequate answer: "The army to which you belong has earned and deserved the respect of the international community in all the tasks that have been entrusted to it-" He then explained the various roles assumed by the Canadian army both at the international and national levels.
Does Mr. Levesque realize that this insult is directed to thousands of Quebeckers, men and women? I hope they will express their disagreement during the referendum campaign and on their ballot. I consider this statement as an act of extreme cowardice, when it is well known that members of the Canadian forces are not allowed to appear on the political scene in order to protect their reputation and even that of thousands of others who are no longer here to do so. This is why I speak in their name and it is my duty to set the record straight.
The armed forces that some are trying to denigrate must necessarily be composed of professionals to fulfil the multiple roles assigned to them. In order to defend North America, we need interceptors whose crews are constantly on the alert, always ready to detect, to intercept, to identify and if need be to destroy enemy aircraft which would violate our air space. In order to fulfil its commitments towards NATO Canada must have outstanding airmen, very competent seamen, perfectly trained soldiers who will implement our measures of collective defence. We need impartial and professional servicemen with whom to entrust the peacekeeping operations designed to prevent the outbreak of war in tension zones.
Those servicemen are necessary to the national well-being. They are ever ready to intervene to assist Canadians when all hell breaks loose, when forest fires are raging, when floods threaten our property or even our lives. Those servicemen are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week to come to the rescue of victims of maritime tragedies or plane crashes.
In order to defend the territorial integrity of an independent Quebec, Mr. Levesque thinks of, and I quote:
-a small army, modest in size but efficient.
But he forgets about air defence or the absolute necessity of ensuring air support to a field army. Nor does he say anything about the naval forces that are essential to the security of a maritime state. He seems to think that a minimum contribution to the Atlantic Alliance would be sufficient to solve all these problems and that it will not cost him anything. Indeed,

April 21, 1980
The Address-Mr. Lamontagne
the Premier of Quebec is quite naive. Let's ask him the question: how important will his small, modest and efficient army be? What will be its role? And its budget? We now know one thing for sure; if Mr. Levesque is already toying with the idea of a Quebec army, then his statement is clear: he is talking about independence and separation.
Anyway, it is a very troubling statement and given the contribution of our past and present armed forces, an insulting one. Has he forgotten all the veterans who gave their life in combat so that Mr. Levesque could display the freedom of speech he now enjoys, a freedom unequalled in any other country of the world and that he is using to demolish his own country?
Does Mr. Levesque realize that it is a Quebecker, like him, who is Minister of National Defence and that two of the last four chiefs of staff are native sons of Quebec? General Jean Victor Allard and General J. A. Dextrase have both held the highest post in the Canadian armed forces. The present deputy chief of staff is also a Quebecker. Right now the highest ranked woman in the armed forces is a Quebecker, she is Anne-Marie Belanger, a colonel, who is director of women personnel. Quebeckers have their rightful place in the armed forces and they have had in the past, just as they have today, an enviable reputation, and 1 wonder why Mr. Levesque is insulting them.
To demonstrate the importance of the armed forces in Quebec and in Canada, 1 will just mention that Quebec now has 39 marine cadet corps offering naval training to some 2,500 young people, and that there are some 8,000 young people in the 109 army cadet corps. There are also 86 air cadet squadrons, with 6,500 youths. In Quebec, this program will cost the defence department over $5 million this year, not counting the great support given by bases. I also want to mention the military contribution to the Summer Youth Employment Program, which represents an investment of some $1,800,000 for approximately 10,000 man-weeks of valuable training and work. And everyone knows about the Katimavik program for the youth. All this means that Quebeckers have a large part of our armed forces' participation.
Let us see now very briefly what national defence brings to Quebec on the equipment side. The military training, operations and support facilities are of necessity very significant. Right now our lands in Quebec are worth some $160 million. The total estimated value of the equipment in Quebec is $1.3 billion. These investments are on a constant increase from week to week. Their operation involves a sizeable budget. Looking at personnel management expenditures, both military and civilian, the figure exceeds $275 million, mainly salaries. Operating costs are $29 million for facilities, and $87 million for large equipment such as ships, vehicles and radars. During the last fiscal year, the net operating cost of national defence
establishments in Quebec topped $393 million. Not many corporations spend that much in our province. Orders for defence material awarded to the Quebec industry are a source of even greater fallout. Last year, the Department of National Defence purchased roughly $334 million worth in Quebec.
In short, the Canadian armed forces are a major economic asset for Quebec, an incomparable training and education asset for young Quebeckers, an important source of new technology and research. That is still a peacetime army at the service of the people of Canada.
I would like to refer again to the news article from the Canadien Press, and I quote:
Premier Levesque added that a sovereign Quebec would take over the military equipment on Quebec soil and reduce its cost while at the same time make it more efficient.
Madam Speaker, I ask Mr. Levesque whether he intends to take over all of those assets paid for by all Canadians? Once again, if that is his intention, then that is because he intends to carry out his dream of independence. Indeed, I will have in the appendix, Madam Speaker, all the figures for investments and expenditures by the Department of National Defence in Quebec to show in the final analysis that DND represents a major asset in Quebec and I, for one, as Minister of National Defence, do not intend to let those assets go to anyone but the Government of Canada.
Another issue that was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne was the purchase of the new fighter aircraft. I would like now to deal with the contract for the NFA. In awarding the contract, we had to work hard to protect the balance of payments and the balance in Canada's economic exchanges. And we succeeded. We also had to get the most economic benefits for Canada. A lot of deals were made favourably but that purchase worth $3 billion from the United States is an investment that will result in $3,260 million worth of economic fallouts for Canada. We also had to choose the best plane to be able to meet our commitments for the defence of the sovereignty of our Canadian territory as well as our collective commitments to our NORAD and NATO friends. The choice of the F-18 was undoubtedly, following elaborate technical studies, the best fighter to meet all the required criteria. A fair distribution of industrial benefits was also among the main objectives of that contract. We should remind ourselves here that it was the Government of Canada that built the Quebec aeronautical industry and we want to continue to support and expand that industry to make it an advanced industry in the two major central provinces.
We also wanted to ensure that Quebec would benefit as much as possible from our choice. We saw to it that benefits for Quebec would be at least the equivalent of those that could have resulted from the project which was rejected. This is what we did. If we take into account only the sales and purchases elements of the economic fallout, which gives the best idea of the financial aspects of an activity, the program proposed by
April 21, 1980

McDonnell Douglas is evaluated at about $3,260 million for Canada as a whole. By using the same analytical method to establish the economic fallout for Quebec, we obtain a figure of about $1,570 million in the case of McDonnell Douglas, or about 48 per cent of the total economic fallout.
It therefore seems that the best choice for Canada was also the best for Quebec. Now that the choice has been made, we must see to the execution of the contract, and to do so, my colleagues and myself must have the co-operation of all parties, whether they be governmental or not. We already have the guarantees needed, and if we read the press release published last Friday by McDonnell Douglas and parts of the speech made by its president, Mr. Graff, we can find concrete actions and statements which prove the goodwill of the company and give us every justification for having confidence in the future.
Here are a few excerpts of the speech made by the president:
Now is the time to sign the contract. Some have suggested that this step marks the end of the project, but such is not the case. In fact, the CF-18 program has only just begun. The challenge has changed, but it still remains. We have already begun to meet it.
Work is now well under way for delivery of the first CF-18 in 1982 and the important program of industrial fallout that we have undertaken is in the process of being carried out.
Already, a contract of over half a billion dollars to manufacture the guiding system for cruise missiles has been awarded in Canada.
He also said:
Morever, the contract that we shall be signing today includes a clause providing for fallout of at least $150 million in new technology derived solely from the high technology program activities related to the F-18.
So, I think what he said in his comments about his corporation is worth repeating.
Our corporation is proud to have been a good corporate citizen for more than 15 years.
It is important for a corporation.
It is a fact. During that period, McDonnell Douglas has entered into contracts worth more than $1.5 billion with over 700 Canadian businesses. For more than 20 years, Canadian industry has had the opportunity, like that of other countries, to bid for McDonnell Douglas contracts; and-
-and this is very important, Mr. Speaker-
-it got a large number of contracts. There is not one DC-10, DC-9, F-15 Eagle, F-4 Phantom or DC-8 that does not comprise parts and equipment made in Canada and Quebec.
I think it is very important to realize that they are not just interested in the F-18.
Madam Speaker, I also wish to quote from a letter of the president, Mr. Graff, when he corrected a press report:
I deeply regret that a remark made last week in Ottawa by one of our representatives has been completely misinterpreted by some reporters and the general public.
McDonnell Douglas entirely agrees that government projections about the industrial spin-offs of the new fighter are reasonable and accurate. As concerns the economic benefits accruing to the province of Quebec referred to in the press
The Address-Mr. Lamontagne report, we certainly agree with the projection amounting to $1,573 billion in industrial benefits and we also agree with the projection of $248 million for the structural components of the F-18A-
-that will be made in Quebec.
1 am also thinking of another passage from the speech by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) that 1 would like to recall and on which I agree. Mr. Blais once again mentioned that it was thanks to the intervention by Quebec federal members that the economic spin-offs that will accrue to Quebec with the F-18 contract have increased from $1,358 billion to $1,573 billion. Thanks to them also, numerous amendments have been made to the contract in order that the General Electric plant designed for the manufacturing of vanes and blades be set up in the eastern townships and that a $225 million numerical control machining centre be also provided for in the contract.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I regret to interrupt the minister, but I see the time is one o'clock and I must now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, before the House took recess for lunch, 1 was saying that in the final analysis there is no loser in the F-18 contract, since Canada has made a profitable deal and I think that it may not always have been the case. On a purchase of $3 billion in the United States, we could recover as marginal benefits the amount of $3,250 million and this means that at trade level, the balance of payments was well maintained. Second, we say to it that we were buying the best possible plane to discharge our responsibilities and the mission entrusted to us by our NATO friends as well as by our American friends of the North Atlantic defence. In addition, we have taken steps to ensure that the sharing of economic effects will be fairly distributed between the two provinces in which most of the air industry is located. Above all we have taken into consideration the fact that we had set up the air industry in Quebec, that we did not intend to let it go down the drain and as the result of the action of my colleagues from the caucus and the cabinet, we all worked together to see that Quebec had its own fair share of those economic benefits, that is 48 per cent.
Some of course are incredulous. I saw an article about Mr. Duhaime who asked for some figures. In my last letter, 1 offered to Mr. Duhaime to send some representatives of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Department of Supply and Services and the Department of National

April 21, 1980
The Address-Mr. Lamontagne Defence to brief him on all the information he wanted to obtain on the issue. Ele chose to ignore my proposal-


An hon. Member:: As always!


Maurice Lamontagne: As always, he would rather remain ignorant to criticize in his own way that contract which in the end is a very good deal for Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, there is no confusion, as I said earlier, and we note that in his letter, the chairman of McDonnell Douglas, Mr. Graff, explains quite clearly that the commitments would be fully respected and that finally there would be no way to avoid attaining the percentage and the economic benefits promised by the company. Mr. Blais, who is responsible for the contract, has made it clear that the contract will be complied with as strictly as possible.
I said earlier that there is certainly no confusion. Mr. Duhaime and his colleagues are looking for excuses. He says that we distort the facts, that we lack good faith. He even accuses us of lying. I can assure you that those accusations do not bother me very much, considering where they come from. He wants guarantees. The best guarantee I can give him is that we, the Quebec delegation in the federal government-I think our past record in the aeronautical industry in Quebec answers for the future-will make sure this industry will be able to grow and take its proper place in Quebec. In that regard, the annex of the documents 1 will provide gives every detail on the industrial subsidiaries Quebec should get.
It is nonetheless extremely surprising to see Mr. Levesque and his friends get involved and interested in such a project while at the same time devoting all their energies to separation from Canada. It is even more surprising to hear them always talk of confusion about the contract of the century, about the F-18, when the question of the century, the referendum question itself, is the perfect example of confusion and bad faith. The referendum question asks for nothing else but a mandate to separate. And I hope Quebeckers will see through it. Let Mr. Levesque as well give us guarantees. He wants guarantees about the F-18 contract, let him give us guarantees that the referendum question does not amount to a mandate to achieve independence and separation. Let him guarantee that the aim of his referendum campaign is not independence and the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I know Quebeckers well. My association with them dates back a great many years. I fought side by side with them during the last war. I did business with them for 20 years. I was at the helm of their provincial capital for 12 years. I have been the elected member for the Langelier riding in the House of Commons for nearly three years. I suggest that we should trust to Quebeckers' common sense and insight, as well as to their sense of belonging to this great country, Canada. As a matter of fact, they demonstrated these qualities when they elected our candidates in seven provincial byelections. They
demonstrated them again recently during the last federal election, when they gave us large majorities in 74 ridings.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that Quebeckers did not elect 74 out of a possible 75 members of our party to come here and work for the separation of Canada. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I shall say briefly that a No vote in Quebec would guarantee the future of our children and our own security.
[DOT] (M10)


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I take part in the throne speech debate today recognizing indeed the problems that we face in Canada. To take part in this debate today is to speak to a very troubled Canada and, indeed, to a very troubled world.
I think that all members of the House would agree on the problems that are facing us. The difference, of course, is how each party deals with these problems and how it responds to them. As members of Parliament we will be called upon in the course of this session to deal with serious economic problems. As well, the tensions of confederation-never more real than today-will have to be faced. We cannot forget either that Canada lives in an international world that sees trouble growing daily. We face very stiff challenges.
Canadians have much to hope for in the recent throne speech. As we enter a new decade, the decade of the eighties, there is no other country that has a greater potential than Canada. I am sorry to say, however, that the throne speech and subsequent statements made by ministers of the Crown do not offer all that much hope for certain problems which Canadians face.
For instance, there is the present housing situation. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians are having to face high mortgage rates. This year 350,000 Canadian households will have to renegotiate their mortgage rates at record high levels of interest. There are over 5,000 such households in Kingston and the Islands alone, but not much hope has been offered to them. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has callously dismissed their difficulties. He said that the government will assist only a small percentage of this vast number of householders who have to renegotiate their mortgages. Out of the 350,000, perhaps between 5,000 and 10,000 will be assisted.
What will happen, for instance, to the 5,000 families in Kingston and in all the other Kingstons across this country, communities to which the government has denied assistance? What hope is being offered to those in the small business and farming sectors who are suffering, with no relief offered to them, from the high interest rates? Take, for example, a small businessman and his wife in Kingston. Their 15-year old business has gone bankrupt because of high interest rates. Their life work has been taken from them. Under the Conservative government this business would have qualified for lower interest rates through the small business development bond program. This would have effectively cut in half the
April 21, 1980

nominal interest rates for small business. It might have saved that small business in Kingston and the Islands. Under the Conservative government taxpayers who employed their spouses in unincorporated businesses or on farms would have been able to deduct their spouses' salaries as taxable expenses. That is something that I personally wanted so much to see put through this House of Commons.
The Conservative government's policies were working toward lower interest rates and a climate of economic stability. This government has offered only the gimmick of floating interest rates. This, plus the statement that there will be no budget before May, not in May, perhaps not in June, perhaps not well into the year or perhaps never, given the statements of the Minister of Finance, means that businesses that do survive are faced with continuing uncertainty. In uncertain times we do not need a government that contributes to uncertainty.
Like the great majority of Canadians, I am deeply concerned about the political events throughout this country, but particularly in the province of Quebec.

I have lived the recent history of Quebec very intimately, often within the province itself. I feel involved in the political and cultural evolution of that province through friendship, admiration and belonging. As a woman in politics, as an ordinary Canadian, I feel involved but also worried because I simply cannot see a Canada without Quebec, the cradle of our country which remains an integral part of what we are and what we can become.
I simply cannot believe there are no cogent, lasting and equitable solutions to our national and constitutional problems, to our regional and cultural differences. It strikes me as folly that our quarrels should divide us to the point of there being talk of breaking up, particularly at this point in our history, in the history of the world, when unity and agreement are more important than ever, if not vital. But, Mr. Speaker, I am sure everyone in this House shares my feelings, and 1 trust that, together with the Canadians we represent throughout the land, we will find a way out of the impasse with greater understanding, will and tolerance. The alternative is simply no alternative at all.

The international scene as well raises the spectre of even greater problems than those we face domestically. In the field of foreign policy the government referred in the throne speech to what will be its new, "active" approach in this field. From what we have seen to date, sir, that active approach would be seen to be more one of retreat than of positive action.


Walter David Baker: Somnolence.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The first thing which the government did was to reject the public review of foreign policy, a review that was well under way by the former government. Documents which would have served to stimulate discussion and provoke public debate had been prepared and they were ready for
The Address-Miss MacDonald reference to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. The intent was that that committee would serve as a forum in which many Canadians who are interested in international affairs could make their views known, rather than leave foreign policy as the exclusive domain of a clutch of bureaucrats, academics and politicians.
Not only would this have been the first foreign policy review designed for participation by Canadians already interested in international affairs but, sir, as well, it would have served to heighten the awareness of all Canadians as to the many ways in which international events affect their whole lives.
A public foreign policy review-a public review-would have brought home to Canadians a sense of their inter-dependence on the global community. It would have shown that geography and resources can no longer isolate us from external events, something which Canadians have believed for far too long. It would have stimulated both public suggestion and personal response as to how we meet the challenges of the 1980s in an increasingly unsettled and troubled world.
Yes, these documents were prepared but they now lie unheeded in the Department of External Affairs. These documents which lie there trace the dimensions of change in the world in the last 35 years. They did it in three dimensions. They traced those changes militarily, economically and politically. In each of these fields, whether political, military or economic, the documents recorded the growing instability that characterized the decade of the 1970s, an instability which threatens to escalate in the 1980s. Regional tensions are becoming more acute; east-west relations are deteriorating and the north-south dialogue cries out for a solution. These are the issues we face in the 1980s.
What is Canada's role and responsibility as we enter this troubled decade? That is what those documents asked. That is the question posed to the Canadian public. That is what the parliamentary committee would have invited the Canadian people to debate. An active foreign policy such as this party had envisaged would have sought not only broad public participation but would have stimulated a better understanding, a greater receptivity of the contribution that will be demanded of Canadians to help prevent and defuse growing instability. Defence, trade, aid, international institutions, law of the sea negotiations, human rights, refugees-debate on all these important issues would and could have made foreign policy a much more exciting part of the lives of countless Canadians.
But that open public approach has been rejected by the present government. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), true to form, reinforced his restrictive and secretive approach to policymaking the other day when, in reply to a question from the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall), he stated that we did not need defence or foreign policy reviews since such reviews had been carried out in the 1960s. Back in the 1960s! Of course in the 1980s another one is not required!

April 21, 1980
The Address-Miss MacDonald
He did not, of course, state the obvious: first that those reviews back in the 1960s had been carried out in camera with only the elite being permitted to participate. Second, and more important, he did not state that the world has changed dramatically since the 1960s. Now, maybe it has not for the right hon. gentleman opposite; maybe he still sees himself as the style setter of the swinging 1960s. But, Mr. Speaker, for the millions who have had to suffer war and starvation and relocation, who are having to absorb the shock of a largely unheralded energy crisis, or who as new countries are struggling for a footing under the Roman arch of nuclear missiles erected by the super powers, for these peoples and countries the world has indeed changed since the 1960s.
My colleague the hon. member from Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) detailed and analysed many of these changes in his lucid speech of last Thursday, and with these changes has come the need for Canada to play a more dynamic role in the world today. In so doing we will be required to face up to the political realities of the world as they exist, not as we wish they might be. We cannot ignore the growing instability in the world, nor can we fail to respond to it. Our response must address both humanitarian needs and political realities.
As a government, we did that. We greatly increased our humanitarian aid to relieve the suffering in Vietnam, in Kampuchea and in Laos, but at the same time condemned the government of Vietnam for the inhuman atrocities they were perpetrating on defenceless peoples. We pursued new initiatives in disarmament but, knowing the strategic lead of the U.S.S.R. in weapons buildup, we supported a modernization of theatre nuclear forces in Europe so that the NATO alliance could bargain from strength, not weakness.
During the election campaign 1 attempted to find out where the New Democratic Party stood on that issue. After reading this morning's newspaper I am still trying to find out where they stand, Mr. Speaker.
Only by taking a firm stand which combines compassion with tough-mindedness, only by joining a solid commitment of assistance with a condemnation of any country which seeks to exploit or diminish the integrity of another-only by such a realistic approach can we contribute effectively to a reduction of the rapidly increasing instability we see around the world.
As a government we felt this must be done in a comprehensive and coherent manner, and that is why we had initiated the over-all foreign policy review. And as my leader said the other day, we will carry on with it despite the government's intention to terminate it, to whittle it down, or respond to events only in an ad hoc manner. A task force responsible to the minister rather than to Parliament and on only one aspect of foreign policy is no substitute for a comprehensive, over-all foreign policy review.
Let no one be misled by the fact that political instability around the world is not on the increase. Two of the most blatant examples of this increasing instability have occurred in recent months. First, the breaking of the age-old Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immunity by the seizure of the United States embassy and staff in Iran was, and continues to
be, one of the most reprehensible acts ever committed by one nation against another. Second, the invasion of the neutral country of Afghanistan by Soviet troops has created the greatest potential for global conflict since the second world war. In both these cases, Canada's answer under the Conservative government was swift and straightforward. We advised our friends and allies, and the Canadian people, of the sanctions that we would be prepared to impose as retaliation.
With both these events there were certain actions that Canada took unilaterally and others that we took in concert with our allies and with like-minded countries. Our allies knew where we stood. As the Wall Street Journal, in an editorial on February 1 of this year, wrote concerning the Conservative government's foreign policy:
Its leadership has deliberately sought to put Canada on a new course, staunchly in the western camp and on the side of political humanism, after the long Trudeau regime that at times tended toward ambivalence.
No, sir, it was not our style to be ambivalent. But since the Liberal government has taken office, we have seen a public foreign policy review rejected; we have heard absolutely nothing from the present government about the sanctions against Iran which we had undertaken before the United Nations Security Council last December 30. We do not know whether they endorse them or not; and we have seen them retreat from the sanctions we had imposed against the Soviet Union as a result of its invasion of Afghanistan.
The decision of the previous government to boycott the Olympic Games in Moscow was a clear message to the Kremlin that aggression will not be tolerated. That boycott now includes some 53 countries representing all of the many regions, races and religions of the world. The Prime Minister might smugly continue to rebuff our demands that his government support a boycott, but how long can he remain deaf to the desires of the people of Afghanistan and elsewhere to be free-free from subjugation, free from occupation and free from Moscow's tyranny. How long can he remain deaf to that?
Even if this government eventually does decide to join a boycott of the Moscow games-probably in the wake of Secretary Vance's visit-its indecision and ambivalence will have reduced the impact which Canada could have both in Moscow and with our allies.
In addition, our athletes-those who will be called upon to sacrifice so much for principle-no longer know if this government has pursued the holding of international games of comparable standards. I would say to you, sir, that this morning's replies in question period did nothing to reassure our Canadian athletes that such arrangements were being carried on by this government. Over three months ago Canada was in the lead in organizing such games in the various sites around the world. Now this is not mentioned.
One other international commitment from which this government seems to have retreated is the commitment that Canada made last June in Tokyo, along with other members of the economic summit, to a reduction in the annual rate of
April 21, 1980

growth of oil consumption and a consequent reduction of oil imports over the next five years. The right hon. gentleman opposite in a speech in Toronto on February 12 charged that my leader had "given in" to the demands of the other summit countries. Ele then went on to say "probably because he was in a state of euphoria over hobnobbing with the summit leaders".
1 would say to the Prime Minister-if he were in his seat at the moment-who misled Canadians on this issue as he did on so many issues during the election campaign, that it was not euphoria but common sense and an understanding of what will be required of us in the future that persuaded the Conservative government to join with its economic summit partners in dealing effectively with the international oil crisis.
But since the Prime Minister believes that we gave in at Tokyo, and since he implies that somehow Canada was sold down the river for having to reduce our rate of growth of oil consumption and our oil imports, how is he going to explain his reneging on this commitment to our economic summit partners? What is his alternative to reducing the rate of growth of oil consumption? Is it an admonition to go out and use more of this rapidly depleting commodity and become ever more reliant on uncertain offshore supplies? But he leaves that unanswered.
I would also like to comment briefly on the reference in the throne speech to disarmament and the dangers of nuclear holocaust. We heartily concur with the appointment of an ambassador for disarmament, but one would hope that the work of such great Canadians as General E. L. M. Burns and Harry Jay, men who perform much the same kind of role over a long period of time, would not go unnoticed or unrecognized.
The throne speech correctly emphasizes that at stake in this issue is human survival on this planet, and I am certain that all members share a deep concern over nuclear proliferation. Yet nuclear proliferation does not occur in a vacuum; nor is it prevented by the appointment of an ambassador for disarmament. I would be far more confident if this government had recommitted itself to the most stringent safeguards possible in the export of nuclear technology, a commitment which we had made, something which certain government members objected to when I raised that issue at the United Nations.
I plead with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), because I know his intentions to be well-founded, even if his actions are somewhat circumscribed, to do his utmost to bring greater openness to the policymaking processes of his department as we look at foreign policy in this session. I plead with him to provide the means whereby Canadians will have the opportunity to make their views, their contributions and their concerns known.
I plead with the government not to be afraid to take a stand or to try to play it safe in some backwater of neutrality when international events require more of a response from this government than that which we so frequently hear on the Prime Minister's lips these days when he says: "Oh, we will consider that problem at the next summit meeting in Venice".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The Address-Mr. Evans


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, before addressing myself to the Speech from the Throne I should like to congratulate you on being appointed Assistant Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, and through you 1 should like to congratulate Madam Speaker on being elected Speaker of this House. At the best of times the position of Speaker is demanding, but I know you have the support and co-operation of all the members in this chamber in the execution of your duties.
In addition, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Rimouski (Mrs. Cote) and the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) for moving and seconding the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I should also like to welcome to this House all returning members and to acknowledge our new colleagues who were elected for the first time on February 18. It was barely 11 months ago when I was first elected to this House, and now after two elections in the period of a year I find myself referred to as a veteran.
Most importantly, I would like to thank the people of Ottawa Centre for the renewed and strengthened confidence they demonstrated in me on February 18. I look forward, as before, to serving and representing my constituents on the local and national issues that we face.
I also look forward to my responsibilities as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), and 1 want to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for the confidence he has expressed in me with this appointment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leslie Evans: Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address two issues of paramount importance to the future of Canada, two issues which permeated the Speech from the Throne. First, I refer to the necessary renewal of our national institutions, but more important of our national will; and second, to the revitalization of our economy.
Let me turn my attention first to the matter of the economy. The past several years have clearly been a time of serious economic difficulty for all industrialized nations. Inflation and unemployment have risen. Investment and growth have been lacklustre, and generally confidence in the ability of governments to understand and to come to grips with these persistent problems has diminished.
However, I firmly believe that this diminished confidence is unjustified. Governments, especially this government, not only understand the problems that we face but have hardened their resolve and are taking actions to restore stable economic order to the world economies. This is not to say that these actions can or will bring about quick solutions. They will not. We are facing extremely complex problems brought about by fundamentally changed conditions. Foremost among these are the disappearance of cheap energy and the dramatic redistribution of wealth between nations.

April 21, 1980
The Address-Mr. Evans
Such fundamental changes in our economic order require extensive industrial adaptation and equally extensive revisions in the expectations and behaviour of Canadians. Neither can be accomplished quickly, nor can they be accomplished simply and easily. However, with determined policy and political resolve, they can be accomplished.
In this regard, consider the economic policies of our government. On the fiscal front, there is a clear recognition of the need for sustained restraint in government expenditure and for the reduction of the federal deficit. Our commitment in these areas is clear. However, it must be recognized that changes in the fiscal posture of the federal government can only be brought about with care and caution if major economic dislocations and great individual suffering are to be avoided.
A government simply cannot make a blind assault on the deficit, for example, without precipitating serious economic consequences in the form of higher unemployment and reduced economic growth. Therefore, a program of reasoned transition must be implemented, and this is precisely what the Prime Minister has promised.
The program of restraint in government expenditures begun in 1976 will continue, as will the re-examination and reordering of both direct and tax expenditure priorities. Incentives will be provided to encourage private initiative and to raise the level of Canadian participation in our economic affairs. Our goal is to create an environment in which Canadians are strongly encouraged to commit themselves and their resources to the future of Canada. Yet selective programs of assistance must and will be brought forward to help those who are in greatest need.
These important fiscal commitments are clear in the Speech from the Throne. But, Mr. Speaker, of equal importance are the commitments with regard to monetary policy and the reduction of inflation. Inflation is the number one enemy of economic order and stability. It creates serious uncertainty and social unrest, and sharply curtails investment, growth and job creation. The conquest of this most debilitating economic sickness must be and is being given top priority in the formulation of this government's monetary policy.
But once again, inflationary forces built up over the years cannot be reversed overnight. Public expectations and behaviour patterns are slow to change, and they will not change if government policy is erratic and haphazard. The Bank of Canada has embarked on a long-term policy to restore stability to the price level. I believe it is the correct policy, and that with perseverance and patience it will succeed.
But the road is not easy. We have faced, and are facing, serious external pressures which dramatically increase the prices of imported goods and services such as oil, food and manufactured products. The steady reduction in the growth rate of the money supply, both here and in the United States, has led to rapid increases in interest rates.
Some believe that these effects can be avoided, that inflation can be beaten by imposing limits on wages and prices and that
interest rates can be set by decree. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that such beliefs are misguided and are a product of shallow thinking; both are examples of policies which attack the symptoms and not the causes of our problems. While wage and price controls may temporarily assist in breaking the inflationary psychology, they are not and cannot be a permanent solution. Likewise, interest rate ceilings only lead to a situation where no money is available to be borrowed.
No, Mr. Speaker, quick and simple solutions are inappropriate to problems which are deep and complex. What is required is what is being done-the conduct of sound, balanced policies aimed at the fundamental causes of the problem. In the case of inflation, the cause is excessive monetary expansion and this is precisely what the government's policy is designed to curtail.
In combination, the government's commitments to fiscal and monetary responsibility, implemented in a balanced way, will lead to a stable economic environment in which we enjoy moderate inflation, sound prospects for economic growth and reduced unemployment. As I have said, these results will not be achieved tomorrow or the day after, but with continued resolve and determination they will be achieved to the benefit of all Canadians.
I would now like to turn my attention to the issue of national renewal, an issue which I, as many others, consider to be fundamental to the future of Canada and at least as important as the economic issues previously mentioned.
As we enter the 1980s we, as parliamentarians, face inordinate challenges as the very essence of Canada is under serious stress. As was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, in every part of Canada there are forces driving us apart rather than bringing us together. Yet I am encouraged by the Prime Minister's strong belief in the "opportunity" available to Canadians despite this domestic turbulence. I am excited by the Prime Minister's vision of Canada as a united whole as opposed to a conglomerate of fractional parts or a "community of communities". This integrative view, this vision of Canada, will be instrumental in restoring confidence among Canadians. It will be instrumental in renewing the national will.
When the Prime Minister stated in his speech on leader's day that the enemy is within, he was so right. The threat to Canada is not the aspirations of people in a province who share common attributes; the threat to Canada is regionalism. It is the divisive parochialism that pits one group of Canadians against others, that causes one group of Canadians to, as the Prime Minister put it, close the doors on other Canadians, to raise barriers to the flow of capital, labour, goods or ideas from one province to another.
From another perspective, the threat to Canada is a growing feeling of inwardness which is leading, as the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) stated, to a "growing doubt about our ability to act as one strong nation".
We know the disastrous effects of rampant protectionism on the international scene-all nations are made worse off. Why, we must ask ourselves, is there any reason to expect the result to be different when such foolishness is perpetrated by prov-

inces within a nation? If that doubt transforms itself into reality, it will surely guarantee that we will all be made worse off. Economically, of course, but more importantly, the quality of our lives will be seriously diminished, our culture will lose its richness, our society will lose its diversity.
While the drive for regional power by premiers can be blamed for some of the problem, part of the problem lies here as well. Canadians must not only be free to move and to share the wealth in any part of Canada, but they must clearly perceive that these opportunities exist. It is the federal government's responsibility to ensure that these rights are protected and that this perception is made clear. The federal government must reassume its leadership role, for if we do not move now to put Canada first, we will surely witness the dissolution of the country.
If there is such a thing as alienation in parts of Canada- east or west-it is an alienation from the national interest, an alienation for which we are all responsible. Individually, Canadians do not have a great deal to complain about. Yet the country is deeply divided and our future is unclear. What has also developed in Canada is a "me first" mentality which casts our attention away from the benefits Canada has to offer, and which have traditionally been available to all Canadians, and towards the benefits which can be claimed by groups with special interests.
The survival of Canada as a coherent entity rests on a new appreciation of this national interest and a rekindling of the national will. We, the members of this chamber and the duly elected representatives of all the people of Canada, have the responsibility to ensure that this new appreciation and rekindled will are realized. We together, on both sides of this chamber, must reflect the common will and ensure that it is transformed into a living, dynamic nation. We, the members of this chamber, take a back seat to no appointed or elected representative anywhere in the country. The same people who elect the provincial and local representatives from Newfoundland to British Columbia, elect you and I. There is no truth or logic in the assertion that these other representatives are more clearly attuned to the people or are better able to reflect their needs and aspirations than are we.
The people of Canada have given us the responsibility for protecting, promoting, and fostering the well-being of this nation. They have charged us with the duty to ensure that all views are considered, that all voices are heard. They have granted us the honour and the privilege of leading them into the future. We have been granted these by the people of Canada; but we will fail if we let petty regionalism and self-doubt strip away our ability to rise above the parochial regionalism and to put Canada first.
Mr. Speaker, the future of Canada is matched by few other nations on the face of the earth. But that future will only be realized if we constantly recall our purpose for being here, if we dedicate ourselves to keeping Canada strong and unified as a nation. In the words of Kenneth White, chairman of Royal
The Address-Mr. Wilson
Trustco Ltd., speaking at the April 17 annual meeting of the Commercial and Industrial Development Corporation of Ottawa-Carleton, stated:
We can direct our energies towards positive national goals or strive for a more self-centred regionalism where economies and people may be pulling in many different directions, thus nullifying any possibility of forward motion.
I believe that the feeling of uncertainty and self-doubt which is said to be growing in our country is a result of misplaced national vision, a national vision which has become focused on the material, on the territorial. Canadians are searching for their purpose, their vision. You and I, this Parliament, have the obligation and the opportunity to refocus that vision on a strong and unified Canada from one coast to the other. The task is complex and the challenge difficult, but together we can show Canadians their vision; we can rekindle that national will.
1 look forward to working in this Thirty-second Parliament to ensure that the vision and the greatness which can be Canada is indeed realized.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before commencing my remarks in this debate on the Speech from the Throne I should like to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and through you to congratulate Madam Speaker on her election. I have no doubt that she, along with yourself, will exercise her responsibilities in a fair and judicious manner and 1 wish you both well in the duties you have undertaken.
1 should like, also, to put on record the sense of honour I feel at being re-elected to serve the people of Etobicoke Centre in this Thirty-second Parliament. I express my gratitude to them. The last Parliament was far too short for many of us on this side of the House and 1 am sure hon. members opposite feel the same way, though for somewhat different reasons than my own. 1 am very grateful to have the opportunity to serve the people of Etobicoke Centre in this Thirty-second Parliament and I look forward to continuing to do so for many years to come.
Finally, may I offer a few words of welcome to the new members of this House. I myself am certainly not an old boy in this chamber; I came here for the first time in 1979. But I do understand very well the feelings of new members since it is so short a time since I came here myself. I am sure they all have the same sense of excitement, of achievement, of responsibility and enthusiasm when they think of the years ahead as I felt at the time I was elected, and still feel having been re-elected. I wish them well during the time they will be serving in this chamber. We may differ over various aspects of policy, but I am sure, as has been quite apparent from this debate, that we all have one thing very much in common and that is a very deep interest in building a strong and united Canada, a free Canada, a Canada where there are opportunities for many of our citizens.
A week ago today, hon. members heard the first Speech from the Throne in the 1980s. I listened to it very carefully and I read it very carefully, feeling that this should be an important document, one which addresses itself to the issues

April 21, 1980
The Address-Mr. Wilson
and indicates the direction the government and the country will take in the 1980s. There are parts of this document with which I can heartily agree. I share with the government the confidence it has in Canada and in Canadians. We are truly a fortunate nation. We have an exciting and challenging period ahead of us, a period in which Canada should achieve real greatness, a period during which we should be the envy of the world.
I share the government's objectives in seeking to bind this country together in a way in which we can fill this promise. I am committed, also, to the strong belief that for this country to stay together it is essential that federalism should enjoy a strong renewal commencing with a No vote in the Quebec referendum on May 20. I will come back to this topic later in my remarks.
Nevertheless, in spite of the innate strength Canada possesses, in spite of the success we have enjoyed in the face of great adversity in the past, we must be careful to ensure that federal government policies do not undermine the very strength which has allowed us to maintain such a favoured position.
It is here that I part company with the philosophy set forth in the Speech from the Throne, for it appears to signal a continuation of some of the disastrous policies which have plagued us in recent years, years when our favoured position in the world suffered a distinct decline.
Let me elaborate on this. The speech states as one of two main principles that Canadians "recognize the need to live within their national means." Right on! But the federal government has not done so. The sense of commitment on the part of the government to living within its means, to reducing the deficit, one of the principal causes of inflation, is diluted by the same qualifications as have been employed during recent years when we experienced such a damaging increase in the deficit and in the level of inflation. They are content to treat the symptoms of inflation, to offer some small help to home owners, pensioners, farmers and small businessmen. These are all welcome steps, but there is no sense of commitment, no program, no discussion of inflation itself or of the fundamental causes of inflation.
As 1 said, I have read this document very carefully and I have been able to find only two inconsequential references to the word "inflation" throughout the whole speech. Inflation today is swirling around everywhere. Elome owners are being forced out of their houses, businesses are going bankrupt, financial markets are being dominated by inflation. Yet the government has chosen practically to ignore the issue completely.
This is one of the main reasons it is essential that a budget should be brought down at the earliest date so that Canadians-individuals, companies and governments-can assess the federal government's programs and, hopefully, gain confidence that something is being done. I say this in my role as spokesman for my party on industry, trade and commerce. It is essential for Canadian industry to expand and build new plants and equipment to meet the challenge of the eighties. High
interest rates caused by inflation are sapping the cash and confidence which these people need to do their job. Investment decisions will be postponed and job opportunities will decline unless this confidence is restored.
I listened Tuesday to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) speak of the importance of freedom in this country and the freedom of Canadians to enjoy relatively the same standard of living without feeling that they have to move to Alberta or other parts of the country which are moving ahead more quickly than some of the others. I was impressed with these words, but there are much more basic threats than what he was talking about in those remarks. I do not believe that people today have to move to places like Alberta to enjoy the things they want in this country.
The more fundamental threat to our economic freedom today is the threat from inflation. Consider our pensioners, who are forced to sell their homes because the cost of taxes and maintaining a home has become too onerous. Low income Canadians are struggling to move from subsidized housing, and every time they feel they are getting a little bit ahead of it all, they find that their rent has been increased. Home owners renegotiating their mortgages are now completely dependent on the whim of a government to save their homes.
These are much more serious examples of loss of individual freedom. The response of the government to date has been to introduce programs to make this loss of freedom more palatable, while turning its back on the basic problem. This only serves to place these people more and more at the mercy of the state, to the point that many have virtually no economic freedom.
Let me give another example, which is equally as serious but more long-term in nature. Canada is living in an unreal world. We have energy prices which are less than one-half of world prices, and we have been spending at the federal government level for a number of years at least 25 per cent more than we have been earning. This cannot last forever. In spite of what hon. members opposite and hon. members to my left have been preaching to win votes, there is still no such thing as a free lunch. While we are enjoying ourselves today, we are leaving our children such a legacy of government debt that the increase in taxes in future years must be so large as to cut much more deeply into their economic freedom than is the case today. In other words, our children tomorrow will be asked to pay a much greater share of their earnings in taxes to pay for the freeloaders of today, you and me. That was the true wisdom of the budget of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) which, I am afraid, was lost on the Liberal-NDP coalition in December.
One way out of this dilemma is for the government to establish a clear priority of industrial development in this country. If we are to maintain the wide variety of social programs which we have been enjoying for many years, we must make a clear commitment to strengthen the apparatus to pay for them. That sense of priority and commitment was
April 21, 1980

missing in the Speech from the Throne. What we see is not a neutral position but, rather, a tendency toward greater intervention by government, more regulation and, hence, slower economic growth. I had thought that Professor Helmut Schmidt had taught his pupil a good lesson in 1978. Clearly, Professor Galbraith is now in charge, and we are now moving back to the musings of 1975.
The speech says that Canadians want more effective government, not necessarily less government. In view of the record of how successful the previous Liberal government has been in providing effective government, I read into this that the Liberals are now moving solidly toward more government in terms of cost of government and degree of regulation and intervention.
Regardless of the political philosophies of parties in this House, it must be abundantly clear that we are very close to the point where we cannot afford more government. A review of the impact of government regulation on economic efficiency and productivity will clearly lead to the conclusion that increased regulation in many cases reduces job opportunities, which is a particularly critical observation at a time when there are more than one million people unemployed in this country.
On looking at the specifics of the economic proposals, 1 must say that I was excited by the statement that "Canada's resource base will be used as a basic building block of our industrial policy". However, my excitement stopped there. One of the tragedies of this past election and the period since the election has been the inability of this government to allow its vision to range past the desire for short-term political gain by emphasizing the short-term costs of the energy policy which our government had evolved. It is far more important in the long run to grasp the opportunity given to us of the vast amount of energy development ahead. If Canadians pull together in support of the energy future of this country, I am convinced that the energy potential of Canada can build a major arch between the west and the rest of Canada.
The industrial activity which will be generated in eastern Canada by investment in the energy business throughout Canada will dwarf anything we have yet seen in this country. That is the opportunity, and I strongly believe that the national interest was served by the Conservative government energy policy. To be sure, there was a cost, and there will be a cost which is shared by Canadians; but the opportunity was also to be shared by Canadians from all parts of the country, both in terms of energy security and economic development. Unfortunately, the political myopia of this government has not allowed it to seize upon this opportunity.
I would like just to dwell on a few figures. Canada needs some S300 billion to $400 billion of investment in its energy sector alone during the next decade, and at least double that in the 1990s. That compares with our total national income-our total gross national product-today of some $260 billion. That is a 1979 figure. This represents a tremendous amount of business activity not only by the oil and gas industry, the electrical industry and pipeline companies themselves but also
The Address-Mr. Wilson
by all the supplier companies of steel and of high technology machinery and equipment.
Today far too much of this is imported. I urge the government to set as a top priority the establishment of policies to win the maximum amount of this business for Canadian companies. This will create jobs, improve our balance of trade, create a strong technological base in Canada and put us in a position in the future to dominate these industries in the world market. All of the ingredients are there for a major Canadian success story. This opportunity will drift into a major problem if the government does not address it.
Let me comment briefly on the proposal to create a national trading company. I welcome this initiative to help small and medium-sized business develop export markets. Earlier this year through the Export Development Corporation the Clark government announced a series of measures designed to make it easier for these companies to enlist the support of the EDC. Other measures were under active discussion. I am concerned, however, that this national trading company should not be launched in such a way that it will drown small business in bureaucracy and red tape. What is needed is an efficient means whereby business can respond quickly to export opportunities with confidence that the trading company will be able to respond in like fashion.
I suggest that the government consider the alternative of tax or other assistance to encourage greater development of smaller, more flexible trading companies. These companies would be privately owned and managed by entrepreneurs, not bureaucrats who have no profit orientation.
I would like to comment briefly on one perspective of the changing environment in the province of Quebec. I have been honoured to participate in this debate and to listen to many hon. members from both sides of the House commenting on the changing nature of things that have been happening in a very dynamic way in Quebec in recent months and years. It has been a privilege for me to listen, particularly to those hon. members opposite who are living with this dynamic situation and who have been put into a position where, in many cases, they are living in a very divisive environment. I congratulate them on the efforts they are making in their own constituencies, and I can only speak as strongly as I can for the people of Etobicoke Centre when I say that I wish them the best of luck in the efforts they are making in their own constituencies.
Going back to my own experience in the business world, in my early years as a businessman I was quite uncomfortable with some of my English colleagues and acquaintances in the Montreal business community. Attitudes on the part of these men toward their French-speaking associates were a real throwback to long-forgotten days in other parts of the world. 1 was not as perceptive then, but it was quite clear that these attitudes just had to change. I did not know how they were going to change or how quickly they were going to change, but in recent years they have changed quickly and in a very fundamental fashion. The reasons are varied, but the basic fact
222

April 21, 1980
The Address-Mr. Wilson
is that, to an ever-increasing extent, Quebeckers are wielding more power in le monde des affaires.
I am tremendously impressed with the capabilities of companies such as SNC, Lavalin, Bombardier, Provigo, National Bank of Canada, Credit Foncier and Paul Desmarais' Power Corporation. These and others like them are leaders in the Canadian business world. L'Ecole des Hautes Etudes Corner-dales is a respected business school across the continent. Quebec business has made its mark on the rest of Canada and in the world markets. These men have great pride in their achievements, and this is readily apparent in the self-confidence they have in their ability and the successes they have had to date.
What a tragedy it would be if Quebec were to opt for separation. For business to succeed, they must have a large domestic market. The Canadian market is not large enough but it is certainly much larger than the Quebec market, and to reduce the size of one's domestic market by three-quarters would be very damaging to the future success of growing medium-sized Quebec based companies. It is not the companies that I have mentioned that will be hurt; they have made their move, they are established in the world markets. It is the next generation who will suffer.
I realize that economic arguments will not necessarily have much impact on the vote on May 20. I can only view a Yes vote as being a futile and empty gesture in this context since Quebec companies and Quebec businessmen have achieved so much recently. It would be winning the battle of ten to 20 years ago while losing the war of the future.
All parties in the House, as well as all provincial governments, are committed to a renewal of federalism. We do not need a Yes vote to push us forward. Indeed, a Yes vote might well have the perverse effect of making agreement on a renewal of federalism more difficult to achieve. There is some real risk that there will be an adverse emotional reaction to such a vote.
Now, there is concern for the future, a sympathy for the Quebec position, and I believe that all the provinces agree that there must be changes. But a Yes vote, 1 believe, could well disrupt the negotiating posture of the different parties in future negotiations. The position of the government of Quebec, so long as it is represented by the Pequistes, is unclear. It is unclear what their negotiating posture will be. We cannot forget that they are committed to a breakup of this country, so that their position in any negotiations will certainly not be a constructive one.
As I have said, there has been much change to date. I have tried to illustrate this in the context of the business world to show Quebeckers that change can occur and can occur quickly. It has produced a stronger Quebec and in so doing has made Canada a stronger place. My hope is that Quebeckers will respond favourably to this and other examples to vote no in a strong way on May 20, for without Quebec in Canada it will be considerably harder for us both to reach our potential in the 1980s.
In closing, I urge the government to attach a much higher priority to fostering economic growth in the 1980s. This priority is sadly lacking in the Speech from the Throne. I have tried to approach this in a positive manner in my remarks. We cannot be all things to all people; we must set priorities. I believe it is clearly evident that if we do not establish a clear priority along the lines I have been advocating, it will be impossible to achieve our other broader social goals.
This government with its majority position has a great opportunity to rid Canada of the problems which developed in the 1970s. It is unfortunate that many of the same faces are on the government benches; I can only hope that they have learned that the old policies have not worked and that they will have a sufficient freshness of mind to expand their horizons to the benefit of all of Canada.


Robert Gourd: Mr. Speaker, it is for me a great honour to address this House as the member for Argenteuil. First I would like to congratulate all hon. members, new and old, for their election and I hope all of us as representatives of the people of Canada will be able to carry out our mandate with dignity. I share without reservation the enthusiasm of this House over the appointment of Madam Speaker, and I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that you will be able to discharge your responsibilities with wisdom and perseverance.
The history of this country has been strewn with highs and lows but we always have been able to overcome those crises and to better ourselves. But, Mr. Speaker, I think Canada is going through a difficult period, perhaps the most difficult in all our history. Indeed, at a time when the world economic situation is fragile, when the world political situation is under certain constraints, Canada, in addition to having to work hard and without respite to minimize the resulting adverse effects, must also face an internal political crisis. At a time when most governments in various countries can concentrate on strengthening their economies, the Government of Canada must also fight to keep the country united under a federal regime. And in spite of that, Mr. Speaker, I am confident and very optimistic about the future of this country because so far our economic performance-given the present state of the world-is the envy of several industralized countries. Not only our economic performance, Mr. Speaker, but also our political system is the envy of several countries because we forget too often that nowhere in the world can one have as much freedom, whether it be the freedom of association, of movement, of expression and so on. How many foreigners dream about being able one day to set foot on our soil and say: 1 am going to start a new life here. How many?
Of course, that does not mean in any way that Canada cannot do better but it is in my opinion an undeniable indication of the validity of our federal system, of its strength and its
April 21, 1980

capacity to protect the well-being of the people of Canada. Personally, 1 am happy and feel privileged to have been born in this country, and on no account would I want to live elsewhere. Moreover, I hope that to the last gasp I may proudly say that I am a Quebecker but first and foremost a Canadian just as any Ontarian or Albertan.
Unfortunately, a shadow has been cast over that ideal which, I say without hesitation, is undoubtedly shared by most Canadians. This shadow, Mr. Speaker, is the possibility of our country breaking apart. As you all know, the separatist government of Mr. Levesque feels that Quebec and its people could develop more fully outside of the present federal system. Sovereignty-association, according to them, is the solution to all the evils suffered by Quebec.
In order to better understand the unavowed objective of the separatist Parti Quebecois, which is independence, one must wonder if the use of this fraudulent expression of sovereignty-association does not in itself reflect the irreverence of the separatist government in Quebec and also its desire to fool the people. Indeed, the Larousse dictionary appropriately defines the term "sovereignty" as follows: quality of the political power of a state or government body which is not subject to the control of any other state or body. In short, Mr. Speaker, sovereignty is a milder term which soothes and dulls the mind but which actually means nothing short of separation and independence.
Larousse also defines association as follows: a group of persons with a common interest. Of course, those persons must be able to identify their common interest. Now, an analysis of Mr. Levesque's words seems to indicate that he, unlike any other premier, has identified the common interest which would allow such an association. I actually said, unlike any other premier, because one after the other, they have all dismissed the possibility of associating with a sovereign Quebec. What nonsense! What dangerous nonsense for all Canadians! Moreover, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has so brilliantly demonstrated, such an undertaking can only lead to a dead end.
It is obvious that the separatist government of Mr. Levesque is dishonest. Unable to bear the consequences of a separation, they want to have the best of both worlds, the political advantages of separation and the economic advantages resulting from an association with Canada. Mr. Speaker, all this comes down to the destruction of a political and economic association which already exists between the provinces, replacing it by a type of association they want to be strictly economic but which, in spite of my willingness to understand, would be built on undertermined bases. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, our federal system is already an association based on a common interest which amounts to the will to live collectively. Provincial governments represent regional interests in their provinces. They are in a better position to understand the problems, the needs of their people because, Mr. Speaker, the
The Address-Mr. Gourd
geographical, economic and social diversity of the country necessarily brings about regional differences that should not be ignored. But unlike the provincial governments, the Canadian government does not represent any one province in particular, but all of them at the same time. This Canadian government is not a foreign entity to Canadians as Mr. Levesque would like them to believe, it is the men and women of Canada. It ensures fair sharing among the provinces, the redistribution of wealth which sometimes tends to cater more to the needs of one area, sometimes to those of another. The sharing, the redistribution, are done in the greatest respect for democratic principles and freedom. Federalism, this political and economic association we enjoy, is in my opinion far superior to a strictly economic association as, for instance, the common market. Why? Because we were able to combine economic performance, mutual aid and fraternity. Obviously at times some policies tend to favour one area over another, but in the long run all areas benefit because the economic and political strength of Canada transcends all regional and provincial boundaries.
Before that reality, the separatist government of Mr. Levesque wants to enjoy every economic benefit offered by Canada, but does not want to assist other needy provinces. It wants to receive but does not want to give. However, I ask you, who would accept an association on such an egoistic and inhuman basis? Moreover, such association gives rise to insuperable problems which Mr. Levesque is avoiding at any cost. For example let us take the monetary policy. Mr. Levesque wants his separatist government to be in a position to draft its own legislation, to levy its taxes, in short to be a sovereign state. He adds, however, that Quebec would use the Canadian currency. Now if Quebec incurred debts here and there, the remainder of Canada would be unable to intervene. What would happen in a particularly difficult period if Quebec were unable to keep its promises? Who would then cushion the fall of the Canadian dollar? Who would have been the instigator of that crisis, Quebec or the remainder of Canada? Such are the kinds of unresolved problems which Canadians of all regions should underline so that Quebeckers will realize the merits of federalism and the danger which they are facing.
Under those circumstances, all federal members, putting aside their ideological and political differences, must under their mandate uphold the federal system. How should they defend it? Well, they do not have to make up the advantages of the system but merely to point them out, because up to now, the PQ party has deemed advisable for quite obvious reasons to state only its negative aspects.
I would now like to emphasize that there is no question of hiding the weaknesses of our federal system, because by doing so we would be as much guilty of dishonesty as the present Quebec government, and even worse, we would be going against democracy itself by misleading Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I believe there is no doubt that our system can and should be improved, to better meet the needs and aspira-

April 21, 1980
The Address-Mr. Gourd
tions of all regions of our country. But if we reflect on the matter, has this not been the case throughout our history? Through free and honest discussions and by taking into account the context in which we were living, have we not improved, amended and even eliminated certain outmoded structures which no longer coincided with the new realities? From what some people say, we might think that Canada has not evolved since the beginnings of confederation in 1867 and, in fact, that we have regressed into pre-history.
Has the separatist government of Mr. Levesque said that in 1977-78 the federal government transferred $4.4 billion to Quebec? Has it said that $1.3 billion were paid out for equalization purposes? Has it told the citizens of my constituency of Argenteuil about the massive federal investments for the construction of the Mirabel airport which will soon become the major entry port to North America? Has it told them about the economic advantages this represents for my area? Has the present separatist government in Quebec told my fellow citizens that the purchase of the F-18 will bring about economic fallout of $100 million in the Saint-Andre sector in Lachute? And finally, Mr. Speaker, did Mr. Levesque and his team tell Quebeckers that English Canadians of all provinces recognize Francophones? That they accept Quebeckers as Canadians on an equal basis? Unfortunately, the answer is no. It is therefore up to us, the members of the Liberal, Progressive Conservative and New Democratic parties in the federal Parliament, to do so, and as the member for Argenteuil, I shall undertake to do so in my constituency, in Quebec and throughout Canada.
To this effect, I am happy to see that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has understood the necessity to fight separatism, that he has realized that this ideal is inapplicable and dangerous, not only for English Canada but also for Quebec. Furthermore, when I mentioned a while back that the English Canadian felt strongly for the French Canadian, and even though I as a Liberal do not share the political beliefs of the Leader of the Opposition, I had him in mind because he is the perfect image of an English Canadian from the west who has felt the necessity for and taken the time to learn the language spoken by six million Canadians. If I may add, he has succeeded extremely well.
[ Translation]
Some may wonder, Mr. Speaker, why I place so much emphasis on this question and why, in fact, my entire speech is devoted to it. Indeed, many people have told me and told others that our economic problems are more urgent than the issue of separation. 1 respect this opinion, Mr. Speaker, but I would add that there could be no healthy economic life in an unstable and uncertain political climate.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say this: If we Canadians of any region want to learn an important lesson from all this
crisis which we face now, then we should remember that Canada, its structures, its history and its future should never again be taken for granted.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should first of all like to add my voice to those who have extended their congratulations and their best wishes to Madam Speaker on her historic appointment and also to you, sir, for your appointment. I would also like to extend my regards and my congratulations to both the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply and, further, to newly elected members who, like myself, have made or will be making their initial address in this House.
My own involvement over some 25 years, starting in my mid-teens, in the political process has led me to believe and often say to my constituents and many others that those who are deeply involved in this business that is called politics, whether in an elective sense, in an organizational sense or in other ways, often tend to have much more in common with each other than they even have from time to time with those who share their allegiances but who are not as active as participants in this sphere.
As this is my maiden speech, I would also like to take an opportunity to say a few words about the nature and history of my riding, a constituency with rather a unique tradition, a constituency-I suppose others would say it-"not quite like the others" and which I am proud and honoured to represent. As the new member for Kootenay West, I must also say that 1 feel a rather significant degree of humility, having in mind the predecessors who have represented my party and others over the past many years.
For some 30 of the past 35 years, since the late Herbert W. Herridge, "the Squire of Kootenay West" as he was to become known to the nation in his later years, was first elected as the "people's CCF" candidate in the general election of 1945, which is an incident that is rather unique in the political process, Kootenay West has been ably represented by members who have been elected under the banner of both the CCF and the NDP.
Mr. Herridge's combination of dedication to his constituents, his gentlemanly manner, his good humour and sometimes his mischievous charm captivated members on all sides of this House and, indeed, across the land. Upon his retirement in 1968, he was succeeded by Randolph Harding, a 23-year veteran of the B.C. legislature who was known, at least throughout British Columbia, as the "Ombudsman of the Kootenays" and who during his six years in this House was accorded recognition by ministers and members on the other side of this chamber and many others as well as "the most dedicated and most knowledgeable member of this House on matters respecting the environment". The person who said that was the minister responsible for the environment during that time.
Mr. Harding, I would like to say, because I worked with him very closely over a period of time, was also one of the most
April 21, 1980

honest, sincere, quietly conscientious and self-effacing public representatives whom I have ever had the privilege of knowing. Since his electoral defeat in the federal election of 1974, he has continued to serve both his community and his neighbours in either an elective or an appointed office.
1 would also like to mention-hon. members will forgive me if 1 do so briefly-the brief term of my immediate predecessor, a representative of the Conservative party who was chairman of that party's caucus in the most recent year. Mr. Brisco, within the limits of his party and his philosophy-one would expect me to say that those are pretty serious limits, and indeed, [ believe that they were-performed both conscientiously and very effectively on behalf of the constituents that he was elected to serve during that period.


An hon. Member:: That's fair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: However, on February 18 Kootenay West came home both to its roots and to its political tradition. 1 hope that by my efforts over the ensuing years I can persuade the riding to stay in that home and with those roots and to try to build a new tradition, not only there but in the rest of the country as well.
How is it that an area like Kooteny West should so often choose and choose for so long to act independently of their fellow citizens in many other parts of Canada? To begin with, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of geography. Kootenay West is rather like an island. It is surrounded by rivers, lakes and mountains. The Columbia River winds around the 100 by five-mile span of Kootenay Lake, into the Arrow Lakes, which are a slight widening of the Columbia River. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, they are not as they used to be prior to the intervention of two successive federal governments and one provincial government in British Columbia.
We also have a richly diverse population. We share that privilege with many other provinces. There are British, German, Italian, Portuguese, Scandinavian, Dutch and many other nationalities, but we also have a rather unique blending of successive waves of political refugees. These are political refugees from the right, from areas all over the world, even this continent.
This began in the early 1900s with the large influx of Russian Doukhobors, many leaving their former homes on the prairies. What they had to say about why they came, through Peter (The Lordly) Verigin, who was their spiritual leader at that time, describes, 1 think, what can be said of many other people in our rather spiritually and geographically isolated corner of this country. I should like to repeat something Mr. Verigin said as quoted by Bert Herridge here in 1946, as follows:
In British Columbia we will buy our land and own il so it will not be necessary to be subject to the English king, and keep our land. No schools are there. The air is very pure, like Switzerland. So we will live in good health in the Christian way with no government to bother us, no rheumatism and few mosquitoes.
The Address-Mr. Kristiansen
Following the wave of Doukhobor settlers there came another, rather more forced migration, that of the Japanese Canadians. They came as a result of the War Measures Act during World War II and the hysteria that pervaded the land. I am proud to say that this party did not share in that hysteria at that time and neither did the right hon. gentleman, who used to lead the party to my right. Many of the Japanese stayed. Thousands came and many stayed and made their contribution to our society in the West Kootenays.
Next came the Quakers seeking the peaceful life that we seem to offer in our corner of our province. Members of the Society of Friends from all over North America settled there.
In the 1950s came the American refugees from the McCarthy era bringing an extremely rich array of skills and talents that could no longer find outlets for expression in their homeland during the dark age dominated by the senator known as "Joe". The final wave of American political refugees that arrived were driven by a distaste for a war which they sincerely believed was unjust, unwise and unAmerican. They arrived in increasing numbers in our community.
Now we have all of these groups piled one on top of another, mixing and blending their array of talents with many others of more conventional backgrounds who also came to our area attracted by work in the forest industry or the mining industry. The Cominco smelter in Trail is the largest lead-zinc smelter in the world. Many of these workers are industrial workers and some of them find a quieter and what is to them a more satisfying way to live. Now we all mix together and that makes us the rather rich community that we are today.
One event I mentioned earlier forged this community into what is perhaps one of the most active collections of community and volunteer organizations in the country, especially on environmental issues, that I have ever seen. I refer to the boondoggle called the Columbia River treaty. Hon. members from Kootenay West, whether Conservative, CCF or NDP, have fought that treaty and its extension that appears to be on the horizon in the form of an operation called "The Kootenay Diversion".
It is difficult to know who sired the Columbia River treaty. It was a kind of abortion resulting from an incestuous relationship between Conservative federal governments, Liberal federal governments and a Social Credit provincial government. We ended up with a $1 billion bill for something which was not supposed to cost us a nickel. The worst part of it is that our people were dislocated, we lost our valleys and many of our rivers, some of which are now nothing more than sloughs and dust bowls. We have nothing to show for that money, Mr. Speaker. That is something that will never be forgiven, and no matter what it takes to stop something else like it in that part of the country, it will never be allowed to happen again under any circumstances.
One of the things that happened as a result of the treaty is that thousands and thousands of acres of productive forest were wiped out. That leads me, in part, to the topic that I want to spend the rest of my allotted time discussing.

April 21, 1980
The Address-Mr. Kristiansen
There is no mention of the forest industry in Canada in the Speech from the Throne. In spite of the rather brave and encouraging words of the Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Roberts) a few days prior to the commencement of this sitting, acknowledging the rather dismal record of the formal Liberal administration as regards the deterioration of the Canadian forestry service and the inactivity of that government in that area over many years, there was not a single word relating to Canada's forest industry in the Speech from the Throne. One out of ten people employed in industry in Canada work in that particular industry, yet there was no mention of it. This at a time when seminar after seminar and conference after conference from the east coast to the west and in between have been drawing attention to the neglect of that industry.
Our timber resources are no longer a renewable resource. Mr. Speaker, when a resource is being depleted faster than it is being replenished, then by definition it is no longer renewable. That is a tragedy. It is especially a tragedy in communities like Kootenay West and many others across the land, which contain single resource communities existing only because of one industry.
Interest rates under this government, as under the former government, are driving people out of their homes, virtually turning back the clock in regard to housing construction from one end of the country to another. Even in the so-called boom province of Alberta housing starts have dropped from 7,828 one year ago to 4,429 today. In Saskatchewan the drop is from
11.000	to 6,000, and in Manitoba the percentage fall is even greater. Thousands upon thousands of forest industry workers have been laid off in community after community after community across the country.
I worked in the forest industry before 1 was elected to this House, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to spend part of the summer recesses when we get them-we may not get one this year- working in that industry. That is where one hears what is going on. That is where it is at in the forest industry and in other industries throughout this land.
This past weekend I attended a meeting of over 100 woodworkers in the ridings of Kootenay West and Kootenay East. They are angry, Mr. Speaker-more than angry, because in the last two weeks they have seen the number of their brothers and sisters in British Columbia's forestry industry who are unemployed increase from slightly in excess of 2,000 to 6,000. At this very moment the statistics for today are being gathered and it is anticipated the figure will be somewhere between
8.000	and 9,000.
On May 2, Manitoba Forest Industry, the key employer in the central northern part of that province, a plant which employs many native people, will shut down. It will take a lot of other businesses in that part of the country down with it. [DOT]
In northern Ontario we find that about one-third of Lumber and Sawmill union members are now out of work. One sometimes wonders whether the government is intending to solve the problem of reforestation by causing us to build less houses so that we will not cut as many trees, and maybe things will catch up without their having to do anything. That is rather an odd way to go about it. I could think of more lunchroom-like terms to describe it, but perhaps I will not at this point.
I would like to read a resolution passed by the meeting which I just attended this weekend. It was put by representatives of people who work in the sawmills, the plywood plants, and in the shake and shingle mills of this country. I quote:
Whereas thousands of our brothers and sisters in the western Canadian forest industry are experiencing devastating lay-offs, including hundreds from our own local; and
Whereas these lay-offs are caused almost entirely by the disastrous interest rates imposed by the federal governments of Canada and the U.S.; and
Whereas these interest rates are also responsible for depriving many workers' families of their homes;
Now therefore be it resolved that this local of the International Woodworkers' of America go on record as being absolutely determined to do everything possible to rid our country of governments which inflicts such massive injuries upon ordinary people, and generally to do everything possible to correct this disastrous interest situation;
And be it finally resolved that this resolution be immediately submitted to the Prime Minister, to the Leader of the Opposition, and to the Leader of the NDP.
I have done that on their behalf.
I would like now if I may, Mr. Speaker, to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis):
That the address be amended by adding thereto the following words:
This House, however, regrets to inform Your Excellency that the government has failed to provide a program to deal with the crisis created by massive lay-offs in the lumber industry, and this House condemns the government for its failure to provide such a program.
[ Translation\


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join all my colleagues in the House to congratulate the new Speaker for her high position in the House. I am all the happier and prouder that part of the name of her constituency of Laval-des-Rapides was part of mine before and that I cannot feel unconcerned about the town of Laval-des-Rapides as it is the town where I was born and where I chose to live; I wish her satisfaction and good luck in all the responsibilities she will assume during this Parliament.
My dear colleagues, in this Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne I should have liked today to describe some situations which would perhaps be more relevant to the speech itself. But I think you will not hold it against me if I have made a choice. Most of my speech will deal with the Quebec situation, and I thank in advance members from both sides of this House for the interest they showed and the concern they feel about this situation.
1 intend in my speech to review the economic situation, to look into a subject which, I think, the supporters of sovereignty-association do not talk about, namely equalization, the centralization effected at present by the Government of Canada versus provincial governments, which supposes the constitutional status quo. I have been sitting here as member
April 21, 1980

for Laval for nearly 12 years. During that time, I participated in several debates to improve the quality of life of my fellow citizens in Laval, Quebec and Canada. Today, however, it is again with great interest that I rise to express my views on the holding of a referendum which could mean for 24 million Canadians a change in the structure of Parliament and could also influence the quality of life they are now enjoying.
Indeed, the seventies allowed Canadians to enjoy a high standard of living and social peace, while on every other continent violence was rumbling, democracy was crumbling away and inflation eroded the purchasing power of everyone in the world. In Canada, one only has to think, for example, of the price of oil which in several countries is three times as high as in our country when, paradoxically, the purchasing power of those workers is often three times lower than the purchasing power of Canadian workers.
Canada is one of the most beautiful and most privileged countries in the world, with its income per capita in 1978 exceeding that of the United States, Norway, Denmark and the Federal Republic of Germany. When one considers the question of real purchasing power in Canada, the situation is even more favourable when Canadian tourists had to pay $5 for a cup of coffee in Switzerland this year, or $100 to sleep in a second-rate hotel in Germany, or $150 per person for a supper in Tokyo, those Canadian tourists realized that Canada with its purchasing power is still a paradise; this is a Canadian fact.
Canada is therefore a rich country, but its integrity must be preserved if we want the eighties to be as stimulating for all those men and women who have taken up the challenge in the past. Indeed, we often refer to the renewal of our constitution, but we forget all the fiscal arrangements and amendments which have been made especially during the last 25 years and more particularly since the beginning of the quiet revolution in Quebec, thanks to the Liberal initiative in 1960. The performance of our country which has recently reached its centenary is not too bad and, fully aware of the potential of our natural resources which have yet to be developed, we can still say that everything remains to be done in Canada. If European countries live for their past, Canada lives for its future, provided all Canadians are ready to take up the challenge together. This future is possible, this challenge can be met if all Canadians agree to meet it and if all of us, as shareholders in Canada, can reap the dividends it will produce.
This is why it is important to place in the proper context the referendum debate aimed at setting up a separate or sovereign Quebec. Even though the Canadian government is accused of being responsible for everything that is wrong in Quebec, I believe that history and Canadian policies show on the contrary that Quebec, like all the other provinces, has obviously always been able to develop. Canadians have certain social, economic and political advantages which are still only
The Address-Mr. Roy
dreamed about in most countries. This is the Canadian reality for all Quebeckers while sovereignty is an adventure.
It remains a reality for most Quebeckers even if some sociologists, political scientists and other alleged observers pretend that Quebec is the poor relation in Canada and ask Quebeckers to be content with one-seventh of its territory while proposing another system without telling us about its structure or economic advantages, without telling us what will happen when the 135,000 federal public servants in Quebec have to be integrated and without telling us the facts about this new system.
The progression of the separatist movement in the sixties and seventies has followed a plan involving teaching in Quebec schools, its culture and its economy, which ensured that the participation of the Canadian government in all joint programs or those administered by the province with federal funds would be glossed over and that participation by the Canadian government kept silent, preferring to broadcast that federalism was not a viable proposition in Quebec and the money taken out in taxes was not coming back to Quebec. For example, at the official inauguration of the health centre in Ville de Laval on April 10, 1978, the authorities decided to ignore completely the presence of federal MPs for the area. And not only did they ignore it, on that occasion they even forbade the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to make a speech on behalf of the Canadian government which had contributed $16 million toward the cost of the building. Through my intervention we succeeded in getting invitations to the ceremony, but the decision remained. The Minister of National Health and Welfare had to agree not to speak. It was strictly forbidden for the representative of the Canadian government to do so on that occasion.
I gave the example of the health centre, but I could name other occasions of nursing home inaugurations whose construction again was financed to the tune of 95 per cent by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, with 50 per cent of the operating deficits covered by the Canadian government. They took pains to prevent the Canadian participation from being referred to on those occasions.
That PQ propaganda has been very subtle and uses every symbol of sovereignty. The use of the lilied flag, the use of Mr. Vigneault's Gens du pays as a national anthem for their proposed nation, the use of the balcony speech-they even prompt France's invitation to Quebec's premier to go up Louis-Philippe's stairways even though France's investments in North America went to other provinces than Quebec. And this is how with all this careful planning it was possible to tell Quebec that it was not being treated fairly within Canada and that moneys levied by the Canadian government were not returned to Quebec. Here again, 1 could mention many incidences, for example the events organized by the Quebec state to propel the idea of this sovereignty while always applying in these instances and in this planning Doris Lussier's explosive theory or strategy as explained in the Journal de Montreal of June 21, 1978. After a survey in which a renewed federalism

April 21, 1980
The Address-Mr. Roy
had received 44 per cent of the votes against 21 per cent in favour of sovereignty-association, Mr. Lussier, a sociologist, wrote a letter to Mr. Levesque, leader of the Parti Quebecois, saying, and I quote:
*-that the Parti Quebecois is losing ground, that is certain. Let us not be ostrich-like, let's face the facts.
He was advising Mr. Levesque of an explosive strategy in several points to be applied before the battle. Here then are some of those points which they called lessons, and I quote:
The fourth factual lesson is to get Quebec nationalism worked up with all the means at our disposal, subtly yet constantly, on a day to day basis and massively.
The sixth lesson mentioned is to serve as propaganda material:
-the best form of defence is attack. Public opinion should be warned of the kind of people federalist Quebeckers really are: timorous, political retards, dead weights-
-and even-
-traitors practically.
1 quote from the same letter:
As for the undecided, we must succeed in making them feel guilty of not jumping on the bandwagon to freedom.
And 1 continue. The letter stated that under that strategy:
-it is absolutely necessary to secure the support of the labour movement.
This was done a couple of weeks ago. Last week, we even saw the labour movement identify with the Yes team. Which does not necessarily mean that the rank and file will follow the stand taken by their leader-
-that the only way for Quebec to achieve independence is never to talk about it. It is stupid, but that is the way it is. A strategy is not built on what we should like things to be but on what they are.
And there is the part on the unions.
There is something else which seems to me to be of paramount importance. We must strive to secure the active participation of the labour movement. The hell with big business: it is against us anyway! As for unionized workers, we cannot afford not to have them on our side on the referendum question. We shall have to keep this notion in mind during the next round of collective bargaining with the public and near-public sectors.
And that is Mr. Doris Lussier's letter which appeared in all the papers on April 21, 1978. We can see how all the points mentioned in this letter are currently being applied according to a planned strategy. Mr. Speaker, it must be realized that the federalists can hardly compete with independentists with respect to propaganda. Contrary to separatism, federalism is a form of government which is essentially human, pluralist and which does not lend itself to great crusades. Federalism cannot hope to compete successfully with separatism in terms of propaganda and demagogy, but we prefer to rely calmly and serenely on the intelligence and good sense of Quebeckers with the greatest respect for the innate qualities of these people.
1 heard the president of the committee for a Yes vote, who came back from holidays last week, accuse the federal liberal caucus of being a bunch of cuckolds. That only serves to confirm what I just said, and it is an insult not only to all my
colleagues from Quebec but also to the Quebec people, 68 per cent of eligible voters, who elected those members to the House. Mr. Speaker, as a premier who got elected with only 41 per cent of the registered vote, Mr. Levesque would have been better to study the file on which the trained experts of the three departments involved spent 200,000 hours before deciding on the right fighter plane for Canada. This decision will represent an injection of $1,573 million for Quebec, where 49 per cent of the investment will be made. It would have been much more proper for a premier to study the file before following Mr. Lussier's advice.
-on every decision that comes from Ottawa. It has to be wrong. It must be, and those decisions have to be turned down.
Federalism is nevertheless a noble ideal from many standpoints. It requires of men and women the greatest virtues of heart and spirit: intelligence, respect, tolerance, fairness, sharing and peace. Federalism is a mutual insurance. In a federation, people support each other and share their wealth in order to get stronger while having total respect for one another. We believe that unity can exist in diversity and that harmony can emerge out of variety.
Now as regards equalization. It is true to say that in a federal structure there is mutual support and sharing because the structure is flexible and the same standard of living applies to everyone from coast to coast thanks to an equalization system which was established in 1967 and which is the foundation of our Canadian federalism. For Quebec, this system means a gain of $12 billion, that is $1.3 billion for 1980 only, or 15 per cent of the total revenues of the Quebec government. This represents an amount of $216 for each Quebec citizen. Of course since Quebec has more than 6 million inhabitants, we get close to 50 per cent of the total amount of money distributed under the equalization scheme. In Newfoundland, for example, the per capita amount is about $592 for a total of $340 million, while in Quebec, because there are 6 million people, we got $1,352 millions out of the equalization system. That is a kind of language quite unknown to our sovereignist opponents, the Parti Quebecois.
At all levels, the Canadian government has contributed to the prosperity of Quebec and unless you are dealing with a hypocrite who refuses to face reality and prefers to spread feelings of linguistic division and resort to emotional arguments and sentimentality in order to serve objectives tinted with non-objective political partisanry, at the risk of being accused of all sorts of wrongs I say that federal policies have not only respected but even encouraged certain Quebec particularities which constitute a historical and fundamental wealth in the Canadian context. In that respect, let us emphasize that the Canadian government has greatly contributed to the cultural development of Quebec. Without the efforts of the Government of Canada in the field of culture, the French network of the CBC would have never seen the day. I am also thinking about grants to universities. Canada Council, the National Research Council of Canada, the National Film Board which has enabled many Quebec moviemakers to earn a
April 21, 1980

living and proudly represent us abroad since the NFB has won world recognition.
Mr. Speaker, if Maurice Duplessis gave Quebec a flag, the federal government, through its organizations, supplied it with ' a tripod mast from which to fly it. Mr. Speaker, with regard to centralization those who would oppose our Canadian federal system accuse the Parliament in Ottawa of being a big centralizing and self-complacent brute. There again, Mr. Speaker, the opponents of our political system manipulate history to the extent where, listening to them, one would think Jacques Cartier came to America to achieve the independence of Quebec, while, two centuries later, Louis-Joseph Papineau advocated a type of sovereignty-association with the United States. No, Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept such shortcuts.
The PQ makes a big to-do over the costs of two levels of government: overlapping jurisdictions, excessive competition, duplication of services. It is true that there is a price to be paid for such dispersal of authority, but that is also the price of greater freedom and better protection and defence of our rights. Thanks of the division of legislative powers, and a judiciary that stands above the intervention of a unitary state, Canadians have been able to build a society founded on individual freedoms. Under the Canadian federal regime, no level of government has enough powers to give in to the temptation of totalitarianism. Decentralization of administrative, legislative and judicial powers is the best guarantee against the erosion of fundamental freedoms.
In fact, since the confederation of 1867, the Canadian government has allowed Quebec to develop and become sovereign in many fields. Is it not that same government which, year after year, in the face of the ever-growing economic dynamism of Canada, has opened a host of various jurisdictions to the provinces and transferred several tax powers to them? The truth is that, 30 years ago, the federal government collected two-thirds of all taxes levied by all governments, and the others, one third. Today, after 30 years, the opposite is true. The provincial governments collect two-thirds of taxes paid while the federal government receives only 30.8 per cent. But nobody talks about that and the federal government is still accused of working towards centralization. Decentralization did not occur only in the fiscal field, but it was also apparent in many other arrangements like pensions.
In 1963, by virtue of an agreement with the Canadian government, Quebec was allowed to implement its own pension scheme while the other nine provinces decided to stick with the Canada Pension Plan. In 1974, another agreement was made with the province of Quebec in the field of family allowances. In 1975, another one in the field of immigration. To put it another way, the federal regime in Canada is one of the most decentralized in the world. It bears comparison with Australia, for instance, where 77 per cent of taxes go to the federal government while 22 per cent go to other governments at the regional and municipal levels. In the United States, 55.8 per cent go to the federal government and 44.2 per cent go to the
The Address-Mr. Blenkarn
state and municipal governments. Therefore, we can see that in Canada, with two-thirds of taxes going to provincial and municipal administrations the centralization thesis is unfounded.
I think that the concept of the status quo, of the lack of evolution of the constitution and of the absence of amendments has been exploited by the advocates of sovereignty. I am referring, Mr. Speaker, to the statement made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in Quebec on January 28. He stated then that there is only one premise in the present constitution, namely respect for the rights of men and women, respect for human rights, respect for the collective aspects of these rights. I am thinking, said the Prime Minister, about language and the rights of regions to exist. From this premise, it is possible to start from scratch if we want to amend the constitution. But since-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform him that his allotted time has expired. However, he can continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel-Claude Roy: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, as well as all my colleagues. I will conclude by saying that sovereignty-association is the option of all those who do not want to choose, those who want to be dependent and independent, sovereign and associate. It is the option of those who want both to undermine Canadian federalism and to keep all the advantages of currency, postal services and defence.
I will vote No to that option, Mr. Speaker, for the referendum brings us at the crossroads. We have to make a choice between a renewed federalism and the separation of Quebec. A renewed federalism remains the preferred constitutional option for the very large majority of Quebeckers, and the PQ project represents the sole obstacle to the realization of desirable changes. My dear friends, I will vote No on the referendum because I want to remain a red-blooded Lavallois, an optimistic Quebecker and a realistic Canadian.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, you are to be congratulated on your appointment as Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, and would you convey on my behalf and on behalf of hon. members of this side of the House congratulations to Madam Speaker on her election as Speaker of this House. I think that was an excellent choice and it bodes well for the Thirty-second Parliament.
When I spoke on October 15 last in reply to the last Speech from the Throne, I outlined three basic principles on which I as a member of Parliament stand.
First, in my view there is only one kind of Canadian. There is no distinction between those who speak French as their principal language and those who speak English as their principal language. There is no distinction by reason of cultur-
230

April 21, 1980
The Address-Mr. Blenkarn
al or racial background. There is no distinction among Canadians on the basis of how long they or their ancestors have been in this land.
A Canadian who has recently obtained his citizenship from our citizenship courts and who has chosen to become a Canadian is every bit as much a Canadian and every bit as honoured as a Canadian as those who might trace their ancestry back to the United Empire Loyalists or back to the time of Champlain and Frontenac. We are all Canadians. There is no distinction between Canadians, and efforts by governments to make a distinction, to protect one group of Canadians against another or to favour one group of Canadians over another, are divisive and cause disunity in this country.
Second, it is my view that the least government is the best government. As 1 said in October, it strikes me that the more we attempt to solve people's problems by legislation, rules, statutes and administrative orders, the more problems we create. The cost of government in most cases more than eats up the advantage of any protection that rules prepared and promulgated by government are intended to provide. There is rarely any cost-benefit advantage to more government. It must be apparent to us all by now, looking at the growth of government over the last decade or so and the growth of disunity in Canada over the last decade or so, that there must be some definite relationship.
Lastly, as a member of Parliament I said that a member has a threefold obligation. The first is as a representative, and I will attempt in this Parliament, as 1 did in the last parliament, to convey the ideas of Mississauga South to this government and to represent the attitudes of the ministries to the people in my riding. My second obligation is as an ombudsman. Because of the mountains of legislation, regulation, red tape and so forth, every riding in this country needs a pretty active ombudsman, indeed, if there were not members of Parliament acting as ombudsmen to their constituents, there would have been a bloody revolution because of the red tape we have.
Lastly, as legislators I deem it necessary that we look very closely at the legislation that is produced to make sure that that legislation, in attempting to solve problems, does not add to some of the economic concerns and the disunity we have in this country.
Today I want to expand on these three principles as they relate to my vision of Canada. What I am talking about today is in relation to the referendum in Quebec, because that referendum makes us face up to some of the concerns which runaway big government, refusal to treat Canadians as equals and refusal by government to think seriously about the consequences of how they legislate have created.
The concept of Canada dates back to before confederation. It dates back before the union of Upper Canada and Lower Canada into one legislative unit. Indeed, it dates back to the time when young Canadians of French origin First looked at their country and said: "We belong here, and we are not going to pay attention to the kings of France and their rules; we are
going to become coureurs des bois, go out on our own and be Canadians". Two sons of Canada, Radisson and Groseilliers, formed the Company of Adventurers trading into Hudson Bay.
Today we see this Canada, a dominion from sea to sea, being torn apart. This threat demands that we as members of Parliament look at the concept of Canada, the vision of Canada of Sir John Macdonald, Laurier, Borden, King, Bennett, St. Laurent and, above all, the vision of John George Diefenbaker, an honoured son of this Parliament who just recently passed away.
In days past governments of Canada were prepared to lead. They were prepared to build railways, seaways, ports and transcontinental pipelines and airlines. They were prepared to inspire the private development of our farms and forests and to encourage immigrants to settle in this still pioneer country. This government approaches Canada without any vision. It takes a restrictive, bureaucratic, socialist-minded approach. It seeks to divide the pie into smaller and smaller pieces and more evenly rather than build a bigger pie. This government has become an irrelevant colossus approaching various parts of the country with offers of money. Money will never buy people to stay in Canada.
The concept of Canada is an emotional concept. Canada never made much economic sense in the first place. The natural economic divisions of this North American continent are north and south, not east and west. This government approaches Canada with a bookkeeping mentality. It approaches the people of Quebec and says: "Vote No and you will make more money". We Canadians have had bookkeeping long enough. If it was bookkeeping or economic advantage we were talking about and a referendum was held in western Canada, people in western Canada would vote Yes for sure.
I have had the good fortune to be able to travel in a large part of Canada, much of it by canoe. I have paddled the rivers young French Canadians travelled when they were exploring this country in the early days. Some of those young French Canadians settled in Ontario in Essex county and in Penetan-guishene in Northern Ontario. They settled in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Yukon. How can they now be conned into surrendering that heritage? This government has created the climate for the Levesque con.


Mr. Cousineau:: Come off it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It has never talked about the huge realizable potential of Canada. It has never sold Canada to people; on the contrary, it has used all its efforts to speak about what the individual can get out of the system rather than to encourage Canadians to explore and take advantage of the growth of Canada. It has talked about linguistic equality rather than the equality of heritage and opportunity. It has promoted a limited, parochial Canada. It is no wonder the petty provincial future so well sold by Levesque sounds so good.


An hon. Member:: To you, maybe.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We have all been told of the potential of the tar sands. Some of us talk about the potential of the Yukon
April 21, 1980

and the Mackenzie Valley. Here in the province of Ontario we have a great clay belt which runs from New Liskeard to the shores of James Bay, and from deep into Quebec nearly to the Manitoba border. It is a land with minerals of every kind and with an agricultural potential at least equal to the potential of the prairies. I have seen cabbages on Moose Factory Island that are as large as pumpkins. While I was waiting last September for a train at Fauquier, I saw a vegetable garden that made mine at home look sick.
Where are government programs for this frontier? This is a pioneer land in the frontier of the clay belt where French and English-speaking Canadians work shoulder to shoulder. Why are we not stirring up the blood of our young men and women, offering them the opportunity of cheap farm land in the frontier? This government talks about affirmative action programs. Yes, what we need is an affirmative action program, not an affirmative action program which tries to divide existing jobs but an affirmative action program which makes employment for young men and women by giving them an opportunity to open up this vast land of ours, to pioneer it. Where is the vision?
Why have we not relaxed controls on the development of heavy oil? Why have we not given businessmen encouragement instead of regulation? Why have we not given low tax rates to those who want to go into business in the north? Why have we not started some land grant programs? Why have we not continued John Diefenbaker's roads to resources program? Whether they are railroads or roads does not really matter. Why have we not done things such as we proposed in the last budget in December to allow farmers with surplus farm crops and waste forest products to turn those into industrial alcohol for fuel? Why are we not talking about Canada's future? Why are we not selling? Why are we still listening to the old arguments put forward by those who mine our raw resources? They thought that the only economic thing we can do with resources is to export them raw. That was the argument used in Ontario when we were exporting pulp logs, and George Drew stopped that. That was the argument used in Ontario when we were exporting pulp for newsprint, and Les Frost stopped that.
Where was this government when the province of Quebec wanted to force the extractors of raw asbestos to manufacture asbestos products in that province? We are still exporting logs from this country, we are still exporting iron ore by the boat load, and coal and oil seeds. What are we doing about forcing the processing of these resources? Where is our vision? Where is our direction to build the country?
This government has developed a case of "bureaucratitis". It regulates, it controls, it proposes more Crown corporations and it tells Canadians to tighten their belts instead of negotiating positive trade deals with countries such as Taiwan and South Africa, where there are great opportunities. The whole of the southern continent of Africa is controlled through merchandising arrangements in Johannesburg. What have we got there?
The Address-Mr. Blenkarn
We have one lonely trade officer attached to our embassy. What are we doing from that market to develop trade in Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Lesotho and Trans-kei? We are doing nothing at all. Johannesburg is where these countries go to buy their goods and that is where we should be selling.
No wonder Canadians are discouraged. The other day in this city I spoke to just that kind of discouraged Canadian. Let me say to members on the other side that he was a very strong Liberal supporter.


Walter David Baker: He has every reason to be discouraged.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: He said to me: "Don, they are going to vote Yes in Quebec. When they do, I am moving out." I asked him where he was going, and he said: "To the States, of course, because there is no future here in Canada."


An hon. Member:: Who said it?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I will tell you privately. He is very close to you too.
It hurts me deeply when people from my own constituency say: "I hope they secede and then maybe we will get rid of this government that way." Nobody would have talked that way ten or five years ago. All of us on this side are aware that a Yes vote in the province of Quebec on May 20 will likely stir up such emotion in the rest of Canada that the rest of Canada will say: "We have been rejected. If you want to reject us, go your own way."
This government is greatly responsible for that condition. The Saguenay river belongs to me; the beauty of the Gaspe is mine; the mines of Va! D'Or are mine. They belong to me and they belong to my children, not just to the people who live in the province of Quebec. The Churchill river and the fjords of Labrador, the Hibernian oil wells and even the park at Signal Hill are mine. They do not just belong to somebody who calls himself a Newfoundlander.
My wife comes from British Columbia. I obtained the right to practice law in British Columbia. I suppose if we are going to have a great breakup of Canada, I could go to British Columbia and say that I have certain rights and privileges there. But I say to you, sir, that the salmon in the Fraser river belong to me as a Canadian. The towering Douglas firs in the MacMillan park on the road to Alberni belong to me as a Canadian and they belong to my children. They belong to us all as Canadians. Someone spoke about Alberta. Yes, the tar sands are mine, and so is what is left of the oil in Leduc. They do not just belong to those people who because of where they happen to be living today call themselves Albertans. The same thing can be said for the wheat and potash and the beauty of the Interlake region in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
To those wo do not come from Ontario, I say that the problems we have in our auto plants in Windsor are theirs too. So is the power of Pickering, the Great Lakes waters, the clay belt and all of the resources we have. All this is Canada and it

April 21, 1980
The Address-Mr. Blenkarn
belongs to all of us as Canadians. I want to say, sir, that no petty provincial politician or individual has the right by referendum or challenge to take away from me or my children or from my constituents in Mississauga our rights in Canada. We are Canadians, and no reconstituted or renegotiated confederation or realignment of the powers of provincial legislatures or this national government can in any way reduce or affect my rights as a Canadian or my children's rights and heritage as Canadians to enjoy all of Canada.
The regionalisms and parochialisms in Canada did not exist 16 or 17 years ago. They have only developed since this government and its predecessor government took office after the 1963 election.
This government has attempted to maintain national unity by inventing a "newspeak". In this newspeak, a No vote means yes, we want to have a renewed confederation, and a Yes vote means no, we do not. Meanwhile, this government has fomented controversy among Canadians. It uses funds from secretary of state grants and other departments to fund particularized interests. In the name of representation, particularly in the last ten years, it has caused a fragmentation of this nation that, 1 am afraid, is likely to destroy the heritage of my children and my constituents.
This has allowed Rene Levesque, whose little vision is limited to the narrow borders of Quebec, to speak to the hearts of Quebeckers in his referendum. Liberals-the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) was here a moment ago speaking in almost the same way-campaigning on the No vote in that province do not speak to the heart. They speak about how much boodle Quebec can get out of confederation and about the economic benefits of being associated with the Anglos. With a $16 billion deficit on fiscal account, there is not much boodle left. If Quebeckers vote Yes on May 20, it will be by reason of the heart; and if they vote No on May 20, also it will have to be by reason of the heart.
Within days of winning the election in February, this government went about creating one controversy after another. It stopped work on a uranium refinery for Eldorado Nuclear in Port Hope, just when the people of Port Hope were suffering from a devastating flood. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) made the suggestion that maybe he would not bother with the Ridley Island port facility at Prince Rupert, even though that facility is absolutely necessary for expanded grain, coal and sulphur shipments. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), that wonderful minister-the "minister of national unity'' one could call him-immediately started a confrontation with Alberta and Saskatchewan. When it came to the Syncrude matter, he did not even bother to consult his own partners in that agreement but proceeded to cancel it.
We heard the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) seconding the Speech from the Throne. He seems to have the disease of this government. In his maiden speech, what did he do? He picked a fight with the hon. Bette Stephenson, the minister of
education in the province of Ontario, on a matter which does not affect his riding of Sudbury at all. It is a matter of provincial jurisdiction and in any event affects only the riding of Simcoe North.
I would like members of the House to remember who said, "Why should I sell your wheat?" We must remember who put French language television in Vancouver over the objections of members of his own party, even though there were no Frenchspeaking viewers.


An hon. Member:: Not true.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Who imposed metrication on all sorts of Canadians without even a "yes" from the House of Commons? Which government forced Ontario into medicare despite the objection that the delivery of health service is clearly a provincial responsibility?


An hon. Member:: Rubbish.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Remember, this is the government that fomented endless wrangling at one dominion-provincial conference after another, so that in matters of legislative jurisdiction Canadians are faced with duplication and triplication. This is the government that refused to pay attention to the representations of the city of Montreal and the city of Toronto on matters of urban renewal and partially caused the problems we face in the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This is the government whose former minister of finance, now the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien), otherwise known as the "minister of No" in this government, in a budget supposedly to stimulate the economy, jumped in with both feet on provincial sales tax collection.
When western Canadians see a bright future in the value of their resources on international markets, this government thumps them. When Atlantic Canada tries to get ahead by capitalizing on offshore resources, this government tries to welfare it to death. When the province of Quebec legitimately wants to take over cultural activities and communications, this government is not prepared to agree and holds a tight rein on their ambitions. Sometimes this government is not prepared - indeed, always not prepared - to enter into the real problems of confederation. I emphasize that this government is not prepared to step in on the problem of national unity because it will not step in on laws which prevent me as a Canadian from buying a farm in the province of Prince Edward Island or in the province of Saskatchewan. It will not step in and allow me as a Canadian to work as a construction worker in the province of Quebec. It will not do anything for me if I happen to want to export milk, chickens, eggs or what have you from one province to another. It imagines that as long as I am capable of paying a parking fine in English, it has done all it has to do an all that is necessary.
It is desperately necessary that the Government of Canada changes its direction, develops the vision of a Canada for all Canadians, gives Canadians a sense of belonging and a sense of freedom to develop a pioneering attitude, and gives Canadi-
April 21, 1980

ans a chance to own and create on their own. It is only with such a unifying attitude that the vision which created this dominion from sea to sea, the vision that inspired Laurier to say that the century belongs to Canada, and the vision that inspired Bennett to say that he would blast his way to the markets of the world, can be realized. It is only with vision, hope, the aspirations and the dreams of a great Canada, the vision of John Diefenbaker, that we can really make this country one united Canada.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, will you be so kind as to extend my sincere congratulations to Mrs. Sauve for her appointment to her high position. I am all the prouder that you, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, are in the chair today. I shall limit the questions I am going to deal with today to two subjects, through a lack of time.

I would love to have the occasion to answer some of the statements made by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). It appears to me, if I heard him properly, that he would even object to the people of Chicoutimi having television in English. I do not see the argument he is trying to make, except to say, if I repeat what he said correctly, that he said there were no French-speaking people in Vancouver. There are as many French-speaking people in Vancouver as there are English-speaking people in Quebec City, so he can take it from there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The other statement he made, which I thought was a rather low blow, was to blame the seconder of the motion for making a comment on the Penetanguishene school question and picking a fight, as he said, with Mrs. Stephenson. I would like him to address himself as a Canadian to the following question: Is there a local fight in Penetanguishene, or is it a fight for the existence of a people? The issue is French-speaking Ontarians who want a school in Penetanguishene, not Mrs. Stephenson or the hon. member's statements.

Mr. Speaker, I could use up almost entirely the 20 minutes allotted to me to refute the remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga South, but I would waste my time in the exercise and probably my patience. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank my constituents of Ottawa-Vanier who re-elected me for a fourth mandate in less than seven years.
Four elections in seven years, that means the participation of a great many people, but I have agreed to represent them and I agree, as I have previously done, to represent them to the best of my ability and to present their views as objectively and correctly as I possibly can.
The Address-Mr. Gauthier
If there is a lot of talk in this debate about the Quebec referendum, it is because all the members of the House and all Canadians are concerned about the referendum process which involves, whether we like it or not, the democratic right to self-determination. Personally, I live in Ontario, and my country is Canada where French and English are the official languages. As I said, I live in Ontario where English is the only official language. I have received from my parents a language and a culture which are not those of the majority in the province of Ontario. Some 500,000 Canadians of French descent in Ontario, people like me and you, Mr. Speaker, have worked very hard to keep their cultural and linguistic heritage. We pursue this Canadian dream of a united Canada. Yet, we are living a constant nightmare, that of assimilation. The frustations, and they are many, of which my Quebec cousins speak, we, of the Francophone minority outside Quebec, have felt them a hundredfold.
How much easier it would be for me to fight for the federalist thesis if the two official languages of my country were also the two official languages of my province! But such is not the case. If I am a federalist, and that I am, right through and through, as are also the million French-speaking Canadians who live outside Quebec, it is strictly because the federal government was the entity, at times the only one, which came to my rescue, supported me and gave me the services I needed to survive.
Earlier, the hon. member for Mississauga South mentioned the Secretary of State who spent money in support of those various groups. I am one of those. The Francophone minorities benefit from federalism, through the financial assistance they get from the Secretary of State in support of their social and cultural projects. The Official Languages Act of the federal government has allowed me, for almost 20 years now, to express myself in my own tongue, to make myself understood by my colleagues in this House of Commons. Outside the House, Canada, the Canadian government, have also agreed to serve the Canadian people in either French or English. In no small measure, the support needed for the education of the minorities was given and at times granted only by the federal government through grants and financial assistance to the education of the two official languages minority groups. The truth of the matter is that those groups receive considerable help from the federal government. 1 think it is quite normal that my country should help me, in the province where I live, when there is need for it, if we believe and wish that Canada exist as a separate entity, one that differs from the United States or any other state.
Mr. Speaker, it is sometimes despite the provinces that Francophone minorities have survived. This is why it is not unfair to say that had it not been for the role of the federal government you and I, Mr. Speaker, would have been assimilated. Yet we have made some gains, we have acquired

April 21, 1980
The Address-Mr. Gauthier
things and in Ontario today, thank God, we can send our children to French schools, as least at the elementary levels.
At the secondary level there are still a few snags and problems. They will be ironed out I guess, some day, and I hope soon in order to enable the people of Penetanguishene, Midland and Lafontaine to send their children to a homogeneous French secondary school. It is at the secondary level that things seem to drag. This is the area in which we have had the main disputes over the last ten to 12 years. It is no fault of the federal government because it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction as has been stated earlier so rightly by the hon. member for Mississauga. But the provinces make up Canada. And if there are two official languages in Canada, how come 1 am denied the right to exist at the provincial level? This is something I cannot understand. So, let us be logical and say to the provinces: You must at least recognize the simplest argument of all, that of the two founding peoples, and grant to English-speaking Canadians in Quebec and French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec the right to the most basic services, mainly education, health services, and legal services.
I admit there has been some improvement, a lot of improvement because you only have to look at the number of schools in the past ten years which total nearly a hundred in Ontario. With respect to legal services, you can easily argue your case in French in criminal court today, at least since January 1 of this year. But in civil courts English alone is still being used. As for health services, let us be honest, if you do not live in Ottawa, health services in French are nearly non-existent in Ontario. So those are the challenges to be taken up. Those are not basically difficult problems to solve but you need to have the will and the capacity to do it. And the federal government has supported linguistic minorities where it was needed, at the proper time, with its funds and grants.
As 1 said earlier, Mr. Speaker, it would have been so much easier to talk about federalism if Ontario had gone with the two official languages of this country. But it was premier Bill Davis himself who torpedoed Bill 89 introduced by my provincial counterpart, Albert Roy, a little over a year ago when he opposed it against a unanimous legislature. He said no to Mr. Roy's bill which was to have given French equal status with English in Ontario.
I wonder how Mr. Davis can now substantiate, for the benefit of his own people in Ontario and for the Canadian people as a whole, the position he expressed in February, 1979, when he said he was prepared to see the language rights entrenched in the constitution. There again 1 am confused. 1 cannot understand that French should be refused legal status, that 1, a French-speaking Canadian living in Ontario, cannot be allowed to make out in French strictly personal documents such as a will. That seemed to me absolutely elementary. But in Ontario, a will must be registered in English. So I ask myself this question: Am 1 a first-class citizen? That is what I want to be able to say, what I want to become, what I want to
be. That is no big thing. It is important that the provinces, this parochial attitude the hon. member for Mississauga South was talking about and which concerns us today-
The parochialism that the hon. member was talking about, that concern with regionalism or the community of communities idea that exists today which was brought forth by some advisers to the former prime minister of this country, presents in my view a very difficult situation because, as a minority in such a situation, I am in conflict. I become the hostage. [Translation]
The hostage in that game between the Francophone majority in Quebec and the Anglophone majority in Canada. I find it difficult to explain that I do not want to be held hostage in the bargainings between Canada's English-speaking majority and Quebec's French-speaking majority. I mentioned it earlier. I do not believe that any Canadian will ever agree to be an hostage in such a debate.
But that is what I am because, as you will recall, when Mr. Levesque spoke about the right to education two years ago he said to the other premiers: we are going to establish reciprocity. Reciprocity means that if you recognize in your province the right to a French education, we will recognize the right to an English education. And they said: no, this is not Canada. Canada stands for respect, generosity, recognition of the existence of two founding peoples, the French-speaking and the English-speaking peoples. This is the formula. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make something clear. Let us not kid ourselves. As proposed by the Pequistes, sovereignty-association does not imply negotiation by a long shot. It implies independence.
Where is the linguistic minority in all this? On one hand, 1 cannot accept the status quo because it would mean assimilation. And as I have already said, this is a real nightmare for me. The one million Francophones outside Quebec are being assimilated at a fantastic speed. In 1971, 27 per cent of Francophones were assimilated. This means that the day will come when there will be no question of separating Canada because it will already have been divided into two groups, a balkanization of Francophones in Quebec and a balkanization of Anglophones in the rest of Canada. Should this happen, there will not be many cultural, social and linguistic ties between the two groups. We would talk about separating the two entities. I do not know. In such a case, I would be the loser, the Francophones outside Quebec would have to pay, and 1 find this unacceptable. This is what status quo means.
What Mr. Levesque is proposing, that is independence for Quebec, would have the same results because who knows what would happen to the linguistic minorities both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada once Quebec is divided from the rest of
April 21, 1980

the country? If we are not willing to be more generous than we are now in Canada in 1980, how can anyone say that the minorities will be treated better in a divided country? I say that things cannot be better and can be much worse. Indeed, in such a case, Canadians like myself who were born in Ontario and have lived all our lives in this province may become the Palestinians of North America, people without a country. This is a threat which haunts, scares and pains us because we want Canada to exist, we want Canada to improve, and most of all, we want a renewal of Canada which would take into account all the cultural, linguistic, social and economic realities. This is also very important, but I must tell my dear colleague from Mississauga South that there is no Quebecker and certainly no Franco-Ontarian who will be impressed by his economic arguments. The decision made on May 20 will be an emotional one.
I hope it will be made in full knowledge of all aspects of the issue because no one will convince the population, at least not myself, by talking about money. I have never been convinced by this factor and I shall certainly not be this time. If strength lies in the challenge, the will to act and the will-
I agree; it is exactly what the hon. member said-not in those terms; but I think you understood at least that point in your speech, sir.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is exactly what I said. You cannot talk about money; you have to talk about heart.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is exactly what I am doing.

If strength lies in the challenge, the will to act imperiously, Franco-Ontarians showed they were capable of overcoming obstacles, of establishing the cultural, economic and social institutions they required and desired. Mr. Speaker, time is lacking today for a complete review, but you will remember the Richelieu Club, l'Union du Canada, the newspaper Le Droit, are all institutions created and supported by us and which have defended us. And today, I can state that in that Canadian coexistence experience, we succeeded in building co-operation with our English-speaking colleagues in the country, a federation which in my view compares with any other nation, any other political system around the world. I am proud of it, and I am so much happier with it that I am convinced we can soon sit around a table and negotiate a constitutional renewal that will respect not only the basic rights of the individual, but also linguistic rights across Canada. And the undertaking in February last by five provinces, including my own province of Ontario, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island to enshrine linguistic rights in the Canadian constitution is a step forward. Of course, there remains to convince Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Quebec. Yes, Quebec
The Address-Mr. Gauthier
and why? Probably because the current PQ government did not and will not understand what Canada is all about. I tell them exactly what I suggested in the beginning, they do not want Canada, they are committed to its failure. When they refer to sovereignty-association, the inference to independence is easily visible. We are all involved here in an irreversible movement toward change, a constitutional change for the better, hopefully. We will see about this, Mr. Speaker. It is not easy to speak as I do now, because Quebeckers who will be looking at me will say: of course he is from Ottawa-Vanier, Ontario; this explains his views. Well, here in Canada 1 am still confident that my children, my family, my friends, my fellow Ontarians and Canadians are ready today, after 113 years, to renegotiate and establish a constitution that will respect my personal expectations and those like me who live in a minority situation.
Mr. Speaker, the position of this government is that everything is negotiable except the federative formula and the enshrinement of fundamental individual and linguistic rights. The federal government is ready to enter into negotiations in order to strengthen the Canadian federation. I feel it is important that we federal members of Parliament ought to expect before the end of this year a constitutional conference where the heads of the provinces making up this country will agree publicly on any trade-off they want, be it on natural resources, on manpower and its mobility, on economic, cultural or linguistic matters; but it is important that there be a federal-provincial conference dealing essentially with the renewal of this country, this Canada of ours, this Canada we want to maintain, this Canada which is ours and which we owe to ourselves to defend with all our energy. There is a real threat, Mr. Speaker, and 1 am talking about the rampant regionalistic tendencies which lead the parts to think they are more important than the whole. That threat explains why the "I" is more prevalent than the "we". That is because today, when people have problems, they tend to scowl, to withdraw into themselves and to build walls around themselves which is, I imagine, a normal and humanly understandable reaction. It is normal, humanly speaking, that when a man feels insecure, he tries to isolate himself.
But I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if that reaction is allowed to persist it will cause serious damage to the fabric of this country and that is why I ask so seriously and with such insistence this Parliament to urge the present government to call a federal-provincial conference next fall to ask the most basic question: Are you for or against the thesis of two founding peoples? Yes or no? We would see then how the provinces perceive the whole issue. Then we would go on to constitutional amendments because they are at the roots of the present debate. If I am a second-class citizen in Ontario, I want to know it and I want to know it clearly. I do not think

April 21. 1980
The Address-Mr. Gauthier
that the present government can tell me clearly, because it cannot renege its commitments.

Does the hon. member opposite want the floor?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. If hon. members have anything to say in this House, they must address the Chair.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue in the same vein but I think I have made the point I wanted to make, namely that we cannot skip stages. The referendum process skips the stage of honest and real negotiation. The present statu quo skips the stage of negotiation. 1 seriously think that when a partner skips stages and the other is hesitant, somebody must intervene, somebody must provide real leadership at the Canadian level. The gap is deepening, perhaps it is becoming impassable, 1 do not know but 1 certainly hope not. Points of contact are overloaded, fuses may blow. I leave the economic arguments to others. Others will also tell you that Canada has succeeded despite its weaknesses and its mistakes. The only thing 1 want to do is to invite you, my Quebec cousins, to think seriously before deciding, and to remember those in the forefront, the foot soldiers, your cousins in the rest of Canada. We know that Canada must be greater, that it must be better for all of us, for our children.
Mr. Speaker, I would not want to return to my seat without speaking of another issue. I do not know how much time 1 have left, but I would like to speak on a subject of great interest to me and which concerns federal civil servants. It is a topic with which my colleague from Nepean-Carleton is familiar, that is the need to implement a development and promotion policy.

I refer to the latest in a series of documents, the more recent one being the Auditor General's report. 1 see the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) is here, and maybe I should address myself to that question very briefly. I believe that it has been possibly a mistake on the part of politicians to single out public servants as being either inefficient or ineffective. The general consensus, from what I have gathered after looking at the subject for about seven or eight years, is that indeed we have some difficulties in the administration of this country. But these are mostly because of a lack of a philosophy of management. In this instance I refer hon. members to the D'Avignon report which makes a good case for that.
There is the lack of a global approach in training and development of our personnel as senior managers, and a need for a policy of management so that these managers know exactly what this House of Commons wants and expects of them. Instead of bashing the heads of the majority of public servants, maybe we should look at creating, discussing, and putting in place a policy of training and development for public servants, addressed to better efficiency and to more
effective programs. I would like to discuss this matter at length, but 1 will keep my remarks for another time. I thank hon. members for their attention.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Veterans Affairs-Prorata pensions for widows of veterans on disability pension; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell)-Energy-Export of natural gas to United States.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. Cote for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in this throne speech debate, and I am deeply grateful to the electors of Edmonton-Strathcona for the opportunity to do so. Permit me to thank each one of those voters again for electing me for the second time.

If I may, I would also like to congratulate Madam Speaker in assuming her new responsibilities in the House. Her qualities, her courage and her common sense in matters related to parliamentary democracy are well known and quite appreciated everywhere in the House.

In my view the throne speech shows why this government clearly needs a whole new set of cliches as Canada enters the 1980s. To illustrate, let me give two representative examples. My first quote reads: "Canadians expect much of this Parliament". This is self-evident sophistry. Approximately seven out of ten Canadians in fully 62 per cent of the land mass of Canada did not elect a single Liberal member of Parliament. Indeed, in parts of Canada there is probably no greater political insult than to call someone a Trudeau Liberal.
April 21, 1980

My second excerpt reads-and it refers to western members "You also have an extra responsibility in the present circum-' stances to represent the nation to your constituents".
This last quote is taken from part V of the Speech from the Throne entitled "An Active Foreign Policy". Why is that? One infers that when the government says nation in this context it really means the national government, and is calling upon western members of Parliament to convey its message to our constituents. But it has done nothing since February 18 on interest rates, the Prince Rupert port development, metrifica-tion, twinning both the CNR and western members of Parliament, and the Olympic games, all of which has not demonstrated anything other than Mr. Trudeau's fondness for kicking the west in the teeth.
On the very important energy question, the throne speech speaks of security of energy supply while making hostile gestures at everyone in the oil industry, PetroCan excepted, which now employs directly about one in three Albertans. Domestic security and self-sufficiency in energy have been harmed by virtually everything the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has said or done since his appointment. 1 include in that, of course, his expressed joy here, the other day that Canadians will pay more than world prices for Mexican oil but no longer will pay world prices for synthetic oil from Fort McMurray.
Does he think that such a policy will encourage the proposed Alsands and Cold Lake plants to proceed? Does he think his policy will help Canada's balance of payments or Canadian jobs in both eastern and western Canada? The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. At the back of western minds, and coming to the forefront, is the conviction that there is no one effective to speak for the west within the cabinet. The people of the west are convinced that the only power lies in central Canada, supported by a government that won its majority-albeit narrowly-in central Canada by campaigning on the backs of western Canadians.
A great many westerners were shocked by the election results and, in my opinion, are becoming increasingly bitter as those results are beginning to bear bitter fruit. They see the federal government once again turning its guns, not its ear, to the west. This is not new. Under successive Liberal governments the western promise has been thwarted, time and time again, by policies that either neglected or exploited the west. The attitude of those opposite has always been regarded as a flaunting of power. During 11 years of government under the present leader, westerners have felt that a highly centralized national policy was promoted which left little room for diversity, and resulted in disparity of social and economic benefits. In my opinion, the inequality of sacrifice, and the policy of inequality, westerners feel have contributed to the unhappiness of French Canadians, maritimers and westerners.
Why is it that the Liberals were unable to command enough support to elect a single member between the Red River valley and the Pacific, the 49th parallel and the Arctic? Westerners
The Address-Mr. Kilgour
voted, quite simply, for their survival. They voted against the Liberal party which is identified with policies favouring only two provinces in this dominion.
Perhaps anyone who is not a westerner can really understand the kind of helpless anger we have felt as we have tried and failed to get a hearing for our unique regional perspective. Perhaps no one has really tried to understand. Perhaps our problems and concerns that seem particularly important do not even seem interesting to the rest of Canada. This seems to be the case. There appears to be a general public ignorance regarding the west's situation. We had better begin educating ourselves immediately.
Since the implementation of Sir John A. Macdonald's national policy in the 1870s, the west has been viewed as a source of raw materials and markets for central Canada. For generations westerners watched wealth move from west to east. The west was not even able to get control of its resources until we seized them from the Mackenzie King government in the 1930s.
The 1947 oil boom, caused by the finding of oil at Leduc, ignited a boom in one province in western Canada. In 1972 the OPEC countries began to increase the price of oil. Those of us in Alberta thought that after 100 years wealth would start to flow in our direction, but central Canada thought otherwise. The Trudeau government slapped an export tax on crude oil in order to subsidize eastern industry which was-buying expensive overseas oil. Albertans were furious. I cannot stress too strongly that that fury has not diminished since February 18. Export taxes have never been levied on Ontario manufactured goods, gold production, electricity or anything, in order to subsidize westerners. And so, as every member here knows, the familiar issue of natural resources control, and oil pricing, began.
When we talk about dissatisfaction, it is more than just that issue. It is freight rates, industry, agriculture, banking, and culture. Take one example, the hog industry. I think this is symbolic. Ontario and Quebec import feed grains from the prairies on heavily subsidized freight rates, then create a feeding and packing house industry, pushing the prairie feed into locally raised animals and transferring the lucrative end of the business away from the prairie provinces. In part, because of federal feed freight assistance, figures show that it is cheaper to ship 880 pounds of barley off the prairies than 160 pounds of frozen pork. This is incredible to me. This enables feed-deficient provinces to raise hogs and slaughter them at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer in general and of the western hog industry in particular. This is certainly not the case where market forces set the pattern of production. For example, the state of Iowa, with less than 2 per cent of the American population, grows and slaughters more hogs than any other state simply because it has the best corn supply.
Take grain transportation. Wheat Board officials admit they are losing about $2 million per day in potential wheat sales because they cannot deliver the goods. Canada, once the breadbasket of the world, has slipped to fifth or sixth place as a wheat exporter. The main reason that Canada has lost command of the world wheat trade is that our system of grain

April 21, 1980
The Address-Mr. Kilgour
storage and transportation has decayed to the point where it no longer works.
As western farmers and businessmen know, the problem is not just with railway cars. There are the farmers, and the railways, and the grain elevators, and the port terminals, and the ships-and they all have to mesh together.
To relieve the backlog of grain in western Canada, a proposal was put forward by the Clark government to build a terminal and port facilities at Prince Rupert. Since the election, the present government has seemingly hesitated to commit funds for the Prince Rupert project. Does this show concern for one of the west's most pressing problems? I think not.
Last month, when the trade ministers of the four western provinces met in Calgary, the conclusion was unanimously arrived at that the west's trading future lay not in eastern Canada but around the Pacific rim and towards the south. I understand that an American trade negotiator told the ministers that their interests had been neglected in the trade talks between Canada and the U.S. because Canadian federal negotiators put forward eastern trade objectives that fundamentally conflicted with those of the west.
As Canada goes through a period of political uncertainty and economic difficulty, will the west be lured towards ever-closer trading ties with the U.S.? Not if there are positive attitudes in Ottawa and central Canada regarding western concerns like tariffs and freight rates. The key word is "if'.
Things, including opinion, are changing very fast in the west. Western oil has even attracted the attention of Canada's five major banks, which traditionally have not stirred to invest heavily in western energy development. Why is this so? The west has what the rest of Canada, and much of the world, want. That, of course, means oil and gas, and eventually more petrochemical derivatives. It means forest products and beef and grains. It includes metals and potash, hydroelectric power, and access to the north and the Pacific rim.
The west wants to use the new value of its commodities to pay the ticket for an old western dream-a more stable, more diversified and prosperous economy, and more say in national policymaking. Much will depend on the tenor of future federal-provincial negotiations. The increasing importance of western Canada in the economy of the nation requires national policies framed to support the growth and diversification of the regional economy. Nowhere is this more true, of course, than in the matter of energy. Energy is not an economic portfolio of government any more. It is a political portfolio. As we all know, it was one of the major issues in the election. As we all have witnessed, central Canada still fields the big political battalions.
If a new Canadian price for oil is to be established, it must be negotiated with the government of Alberta which, over the past six years, has forgone production revenues of about $17 billion by selling its oil and gas to Canadians instead of on the world market.
The chairman of the Canadian Petroleum Association, in a Toronto speech last month, reiterated the industry estimate that $200 billion will be required to attain energy self-sufficiency by 1990. A blended price, meaning a low price for current oil stocks, is not going to help raise that amount of capital. Apparently this government is not very interested in attaining the goal of energy self-sufficiency, judging by the lack of any serious reference to it in the throne speech.
Under the present regime, the gap between Canadian and world prices keeps getting wider. Ottawa will continue to subsidize more and more expensive imported oil. Canada will remain the only industrialized country to use national taxes to subsidize gasoline for automobiles. In fact the government currently pays more per barrel in taxpayer subsidy to multinationals which import oil into Canada than for the full price per barrel we pay for oil produced in Canada. This is absolutely incredible.
The British journal, The Economist, notes that Canada has "the most distorted cheap energy policies in the developed world". It labels Canada "internationally immature" in this regard.
The government's energy policy, and the process by which it implements it, poses the greatest test of its claim to being a national government. Let the government stand warned; there is no room in Canada today for confrontation politics and crude majority rule. We must live together by agreement, by consensus, or we will not live together at all.
The west believes it has borne the burden of unity for a long time. This burden will only lighten if the region can secure policies more favourable to itself. If the government refused to accommodate the west's interest, the region may lay claim, on its own behalf, to a broader range of powers and control.
In short, the west today is in a state of latent rebellion. In some ways westerners and Quebeckers have had similar experiences with central Canada. We should note John Calhoun's insight into the weakness of federative states which delegate powers to a central authority, namely, that the regions must then have institutional safeguards against the unfair exercise of the central power. As we are all aware at this particular time in Canada's history, there must be a balancing and compromising of interests, especially regional interests, leading to a conviction in all parts of Canada that the rights of people in each region have been respected.
There is a need in the rest of the country to see western goals in proper perspective. It should be remembered that development of the western provinces will first benefit the people who live there but that this benefit will spread to other parts of the country. Central Canada should take stock of its own resources, expertise, and, most important, its traditional complacency at being the hub of the nation's financial and industrial activity. It should keep in mind-and no one should know this better than hon. members from the maritime provinces-that these laurels were not so much earned as they were an accident of colonization, geography, and proximity to a similar series of historical events and industrialization in the northeastern United States. For their part, westerners should
April 21, 1980

try to unlearn what generation after generation learned at their fathers' knees-that our political federation has fallen short.
In conclusion, I believe that as Canadians we should strive for a new initiative for national existence. As individuals, we should seek to return to the old ethics of our forebears-to the fundamentals of teaching right and wrong, to preaching responsibilities rather than rights and duty rather than gratification. Thus armed with the moral fortitude of our ancestors and with a renewed will to go on building together, we shall indeed meet and overcome the challenges ahead for the building of this land.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the Quebec referendum. I have shown in my speech up to now, 1 hope, that we should indeed amend our constitution. My region has been, is and will be asking for that. However, 1 beg my fellow citizens from Quebec to vote No on May 20 next. Should they separate from us, as their present premier would have it, it would be quite sad for the remainder of Canada.
The proposals which have just been disclosed by Mr. Ryan are largely acceptable, I think, to most people in western Canada. For example, I note that almost all premiers who stated their views on the Senate issue are generally in favour of the over-all proposals. The leader of our party, Mr. Clark, and all my colleagues are ready to alter radically our present federalist system. However, on behalf of the 800,000 Canadians who recently delivered a petition to Quebeckers and the thousands of others who would have liked but were unable to do so, I urge you to vote No in the forthcoming referendum.


Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset congratulate Madam Sauve on her election to the high office of Speaker. 1 wish her all the best. To you, madam, and to your colleagues who share the responsibilities of the chair, I express my best wishes also.
I represent an urban riding with some rural areas in it. It is the third largest riding in Canada, with a population of some 160,000, and 87,000 eligible voters. To them I should like to say "thank you" for re-electing me to the House. Now that the battle of the election is over I shall try to justify their confidence and represent them all here in this chamber.
Our area is a fast growing one, and before 1 deal with some of the problems we are experiencing there I should like briefly to mention some of the exciting things which are happening.
The new CN Bramport, where the containers will be shipped and the trains assembled, will be officially opened within the next few days. 1 am looking forward to taking part in that ceremony. This project will, in itself, attract a great deal of industry to our area. As late as last Friday the Caterpillar Company announced it had purchased 200 acres in
The Address-Mr. McDermid
our community for the purpose of establishing a manufacturing plant, and we are very pleased.
Some serious problems have arisen in the urban area which 1 represent. One which I should like to discuss today has to do with the Assisted Home Ownership Program, a program which was brought into being some five years ago by a Liberal government. With a great deal of respect, I cannot believe that sufficient thought was given to it in advance. As to the theory behind the program, l guess one might say it made a lot of sense-a down payment of $99 and two hundred or so dollars a month in payments at an interest rate of 8 per cent, an out and out grant, and monthly cheques coming in which, after five years, would turn into a second mortgage at current interest rates. The theory behind this, of course, was that over a five year period salaries would increase and people would be better able to afford a first and second mortgage at current interest rates.
Well, the five-year term is up. In my community we have
4,000	such units, and there are 16,000 such units in the region of Peel which is covered by four federal ridings. Madam Speaker, four out of ten units are vacant, with people moving out in the middle of the night because they are looking at mortgages at an interest rate of 17 per cent, plus second mortgages at current interest rates which are running at 20 per cent and 21 per cent. They cannot handle it, and right now they find themselves in a bind. We are hearing all kinds of platitudes from the other side of the House, but no answers to the problem.
For whatever reason, CMHC is giving people quit claims, not because they could not handle the financial burden within the first five years but so that they would not upset the political boat. Those people have received the grant. Those people have received the AHOP cheques. Every month they come in from CMHC, but they have vacated their properties. Where have they gone? They have moved down the street and, in some instances, right across the road from the development to private homes. They have not paid the government back the money they owe because the government gave them a quit claim. Do hon. members know what they told me? They told me they took the cheques the government sent them every month and saved that money for down payments!
The ones who are left in the AHOP homes today are the ones who are suffering. They are the ones who have stayed and tried to make it work. They are the ones who have not moved out in the middle of the night. They are the ones who have not asked for quit claims. They have tried to make homes for their families. Are they getting any help? Are they getting any encouragement? No. CMHC has moved in now, and it is selling the units which these people bought for, say, $43,000, $44,000 or $45,000, for $33,000, $34,000 or $35,000.
Automatically these people who were trying to make homes for themselves find their homes devalued by $10,000. They have first mortgages at 17 per cent coming up, and second mortgages of whatever CMHC sets them at, but the agree-

April 21, 1980
The Address-Mr. McDermid
ment says "current rates" which are 20 per cent, and what is the government doing to help? Nothing.
We hear all kinds of statements from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) that he has four or five proposals before him. He received one from our commissioner of social services in Brampton, which was very, very close to the Progressive Conservative mortgage and property tax credit program. He thought that was an excellent program. It just had a different name on it. He has had three or four others presented to him as well, and he thinks they are grand too. However, then we heard from the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) that he cannot do anything to help these people. Oh, he has talked about perhaps increasing the amortization period from 25 to 40 or 50 years so that the payments are not quite as high. That is a slight help, but it is not good enough.
Today I am speaking on behalf of those people who have stayed in the AHOP homes, whether they be high rise or townhouse developments, and 1 am asking the government, through CMHC, to come in and take a look at the situation into which it put these people. 1 am asking the government to give these people some genuine help. I have met with many of the condominium associations, and one thing which is concerning them greatly is this AHOP second mortgage at current interest rates. I am asking the government today to consider putting the AHOP second mortgage payback on a much longer basis; rather than five years, it should be extended to ten years. I am also asking the government to waive the interest on that second mortgage. I do not believe in giveaways, but the reason I am asking for that is that these people were sucked into this program. They were enticed into this program.


Donald W. Munro: They were conned.


John Horton McDermid: They were conned and seduced into this program. They all say that. If anybody picks up a Toronto newspaper over the weekend and takes a look at it, he will find that the government is still at the same game of selling units for $90 down at $245 a month on 8 per cent mortgages. Nothing is said about paying it back in five years. There is nothing about AHOP assistance. It is just a great come-on. Why is the government continuing this program?
The government is going to be leading young families down the road to destruction, and I see it. They are in my office every weekend. I go out to their homes, and they have made beautiful homes out of these places. These places are their homes, and they are trying to raise their families, but they look at going from an 8 per cent first mortgage to a 17 per cent first mortgage and those AHOP loans which they have to pay back at current interest rates. It is frightening, and I am pleading on their behalf that the government take a very long and hard look at this and do something about it quickly. That is all I am asking. I am sorry that the Minister of Public Works is not here today to hear me, but I trust that those who are here will pass that plea on to him on my behalf.
I hate to put in a plug, but I have here the Sunday Sun home section. A nice new condominium in my community
under AHOP is advertised. The cost is $43,000 for a three-bedroom unit, which is very nice. The story here is that the other three towers are sold out. Well, that is partially true. They have been sold out-


Donald W. Munro: So have the people.


John Horton McDermid: -but now they are 50 per cent vacant. CMHC has decided that it is going to sell those units, but it will not sell those units until this last tower is filled. Once this tower is filled, CMHC will sell the other units at about $10,000 less. CMHC is sitting and waiting now until this tower is finished.
The government should admit that AHOP was nothing but a program to sell homes. It was not a program to provide homes for families but a program to sell homes for builders, and the misery and uncertainty which have been caused are now coming home to roost. The five years are just up now, and I plead once again with the government that it take a very long, hard look at this situation. If it does not, there will not be four in ten vacancies; there will be ten in ten vacancies, and the government will cause untold misery for families not only in my community but also in the community of the Minister of Public Works, Scarborough. There will be misery for people in the community of the housing critic, Orillia, and for people in the community of the new hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher), who should be speaking up about this.
I will close on this point by saying to the government that I hope it will have an answer in a very short period of time so that we can encourage these people to stay in their homes and to raise their families.
The next thing I would like to talk about for just a moment, if I might, is the referendum which is coming up in Quebec. As an Anglophone from Ontario I cannot speak with much authority on what is going on in Quebec, but I think I can say what I feel in my heart, and that is that I do not want to see Quebec leave confederation because Quebec is as much a part of me, an English-speaking Canadian from Ontario, as is any other province in this country. Quebec is important to me as a Canadian, as is Alberta or B.C., and 1 do not want to see Quebec separate.


Mr. Nystrom:: What about Saskatchewan?


John Horton McDermid: Yes, definitely Saskatchewan. That is where my mother's family is from.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: Thank you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How did you become a Tory?


John Horton McDermid: It was not hard to become a Tory, believe me, and with what is going on today it is not hard to stay a Tory either. I see the parliamentary secretary, the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), testing the water here as well.
April 21, 1980


An hon. Member:: He is a real Conservative.


John Horton McDermid: I am concerned about what is going on in the province of Quebec and 1 appeal to the people in Quebec to think very carefully before they cast their ballots on May 20 because this could shake the very foundation of our country for a long, long time.
We in Ontario, and I as a member from Ontario, are prepared to participate in constitutional change. There is no doubt we need it in this country. 1 think the premier of our province has made that very clear. He has also made it very clear that he will not, in any way, shape or form, discuss sovereignty-association. My constituents feel the same way. They are not prepared to see Canada break up and they are not prepared to discuss sovereignty-association.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: We can do it within our confederation- there is no question of it. So I plead in my language that those in Quebec vote no, and support all my colleagues in the House of Commons who feel the same way.
I would like, for just a moment, to talk about the economy of this country. I am concerned, as are a great number of people in my constituency from whom I have heard this weekend, that a budget is not being brought down by the Minister of Finance. Obviously he will make a few remarks tonight and I look forward to hearing what he has to say. But 1 ask him, on behalf of the small businessmen in my area, on behalf of the farmers in my area, and on behalf of those people who invest in Canada and make this country work: will he, for heaven's sake, bring in a budget so that they can do some financial planning and so that they know in which way this government is going to lead the country over the next four or five years?
The Speech from the Throne, if it is any indication, is not good news for the private sector. I am hoping that saner voices will be heard from the cabinet. However, I do have my doubts. 1 hope they will bring some common sense to the government and bring in a budget that will help the people of Canada. Why will you not bring in a mortgage program to help people with mortgages who are having problems right now? Come on; we promise not to yell flip-flop. Bring in a program to help the small businessman, not to create more Crown corporations. Bring in a program to help the farmer who, 1 will tell you right now-and 1 had the pleasure of sitting with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) today and listening to him speak- is in dire straits. The young farmer especially is walking away from his farm, and the banks are selling farms at auctions. So I plead that the Minister of Finance bring us some economic news and some guidelines as to what exactly they will do in the next year or so, because there is an uncertainty in this country within the business community that is frightening.
1 should like to close by asking everyone in the House to co-operate by putting petty political judgments aside and thinking carefully of what is happening in Canada. I am
The Address-Mr. MacEachen
concerned about what 1 am hearing in the west, about what I am hearing from Quebec and what I am hearing in my own province of Ontario. It frightens me greatly because I love my country, as I know everyone here in this chamber does. I ask that we put some of our petty differences aside and come together for the good of the country. This is one of the greatest countries in the world, a country which is respected wherever one goes. That respect must be maintained.
Mr. Speaker, with your permission, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 5.55 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the statement planned to be made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). I want to say now that we object to this procedure. I want to reserve the right to bring before the House a question of privilege. We think that is the proper course of action, after the minister finishes his statement, or tomorrow. I want to give notice of that now. It was only on Friday that the minister mentioned casually to me-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member wishes to raise a question of privilege, he is at liberty to do so at the appropriate time, and he knows the rules of the House.


John Carnell Crosbie: I will make my question of privilege now if Your Honour wants me to do that. My question of privilege is that this is not the correct procedure. The minister is attempting to give, in effect, a budget speech in the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.


An hon. Member:: Smuggling it in.


John Carnell Crosbie: Smuggling it in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. With all due respect, I am not aware of any matter that has been raised by the hon. member so far which falls within the scope of privilege.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you let him finish?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of Finance.

April 21, 1980
The Address-Mr. MacEachen


John Carnell Crosbie: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Harvie Andre: Privilege.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


John Carnell Crosbie: I would like to be heard on my question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) on a question of privilege.


John Carnell Crosbie: I would like to have a chance to make a question of privilege before Your Honour rules on it. I am giving notice of it now, and 1 might want to elaborate on it later. My notice is that this is a budget speech being given here in the guise of a speech in the Address-


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is out of order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate Your Honour on your selection as the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of our proceedings-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: It is not in the notes, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and also to express through you to Madam Speaker my compliments on her accession to the post of First Commoner. I certainly wish her well as she takes on these very important duties.
As Mr. Speaker knows, this is the first time that I have had an opportunity to speak to the House in a formal way since I have become the Minister of Finance. I want to take the opportunity of thanking so many members of the House on this side, and on the other side, for extending me congratulations on taking on this work. Some have joined their congratulations with commiserations, but nevertheless, I appreciate the good will which has animated their good wishes. At the same time I should like also to express my real satisfaction that the mover of the address in reply (Mrs. Cote), and the seconder (Mr. Frith), in their speeches have revealed to the House once again that new members come here with idealism and dedication, and in their first appearance are able to stir the House more deeply than members who have been here for many years.


An hon. Member:: That is a great introduction.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I regret, in a way, that the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) indicated that I am proceeding in an irregular way and, of course, I will debate that allegation with him later on. But my purpose in rising tonight is to clear up some unfinished business extending from the last two Parliaments, and to give the House background information on the fiscal and economic situation which faces us as we consider the new business to which the Speech from the Throne referred.
The unfinished business concerns the status of tax measures which were introduced in the December 11, 1979, budget, and indeed of certain measures that still remain outstanding from the November 16, 1978, budget, measures which have not yet received parliamentary approval.
1 would recall that roughly two months after the election of last May the then minister of finance issued a press release setting out his intentions with respect to tax and tariff measures which had been introduced by the former Liberal government. He, and the then president of the treasury board, also reported in some considerable detail on the fiscal and economic outlook at that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Had Parliament been in session, they would no doubt have chosen to make this information available directly to members of the House, and that is what I propose to do tonight.


Mr. Stevens:: For five years?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to take advantage-


Mr. Clark:: Demonstrate contempt for Parliament.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -of this early opportunity to end the uncertainty with respect to outstanding tax measures and to inform the House of the fiscal situation as I find it on taking over my responsibilities as Minister of Finance. Of course I shall also comment upon the current economic situation.
I shall start with the tax measures. Of course the government will not proceed with the increase of 18 cents a gallon in the excise tax on gasoline-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You will tack it on somewhere.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -nor its extension to other transportation fuels proposed in December, nor will it reintroduce at this time the three measures affecting taxation on capital gains-the common stock investment plan changes in the treatment of capital gains, in Registered Retirement Savings Plans, and the provision for transfer of capital gains on farming assets to RRSPs.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Shame.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to consider these and other measures in more detail, particularly in the light of a wide discussion about the role and importance of taxation on capital
April 21, 1980

gains. Therefore I will be bringing forward a discussion paper on this subject. As well, I will not be reintroducing the measures to provide special tax incentives for investors in Atlantic fishing vessels. I want to explore with my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc), the impact of various measures on the structure and ownership of the industry in the context of the ongoing review that is under way.
I am also not making provisions for private corporations to be given tax contracts for investing in particular regions of the country. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion has considerable flexibility under existing legislation to support regional development. These mechanisms will naturally be under review prior to the expiry of the legislation next year.
My colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), and I have already announced that additional depletion allowances for oil and gas exploration in the frontier and offshore areas will not be continued, but will be replaced by a new incentive program to sustain the effort set in motion by the tax measure. I will, however, be introducing several of the other notices of ways and means motions tabled last December, including the measure providing for the deduction of salaries paid to spouses by persons carrying on an unincorporated business, and the temporary small business development bond provision enabling small businesses to obtain financing at lower interest rates.


Charles Joseph Clark: Another broken promise.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This particular measure received special commendation from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in his speech, and 1 had his comments very much in mind as 1 considered whether I would bring back this particular measure.
To help offset the revenue loss associated with these measures and to help finance the increase in the guaranteed income supplement, I am reintroducing two of the tax measures. The increases in excise tax levies on alcohol and tobacco are to go into effect as of midnight tonight, and the two-year surtax of 5 per cent on federal corporate taxes effective January 1, 1980. I am also reintroducing other tax measures. Many are effective as of the dates originally proposed.


Charles Joseph Clark: Budget measures.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: These include tax relief for volunteer firemen-


Charles Joseph Clark: Another broken promise.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -for temporary overseas employment-


Charles Joseph Clark: Another broken promise.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -for employees who use aircraft in their work, and for certain situations where income taxes interact with family law. In addition, there are reduced write-offs for oil and gas properties, changes in the application of sales tax to cosmetics, extension of the sales tax to photo finishing, and
The Address-Mr. MacEachen
tightening measures in the areas of deferred compensation plans and deductions for prepaid expenses. Details and dates of the application of these and other measures are contained in the notice of ways and means motions I am tabling tonight.


Charles Joseph Clark: If you get that far.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: For some measures, there are certain technical changes, often to reflect useful comments received from the business community and tax practitioners. The motions also include the commodity tax measures arising out of the November, 1978, budget. 1 would pause here to say that these changes are quite extensive. 1 will not detail them in the House tonight, but they were detailed by the former minister of finance last summer as he gave notice of his intention to reintroduce these measures emanating from the previous budget.
1 also want to announce at this time that it is the government's intention to proceed with a number of changes to the income tax regulations as proposed in December. I recognize the difficulties that arise out of delays in enacting tax measures. It is my intention to introduce and proceed with the legislation implementing these tax changes as soon as possible. However, with respect to the changes to the Income Tax Act, I recognize the desirability of publishing draft amendments to the law so that those whose interests are affected can have an opportunity to assess the impact of technical changes and suggest modifications before the final legislation is introduced. It is my intention to proceed with draft law so that the legislation, when finally introduced, will have benefited from a careful analysis by specialists in the tax profession.
In concluding my statement on taxation measures, I would like, under the provisions of Standing Order 60, to table notice of ways and means motions in both official languages to amend the Income Tax Act.


John Carnell Crosbie: There isn't unanimous consent.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Under Standing Order 60, Mr. Speaker, it is possible for a minister of the Crown to table ways and means motions at any time in the House of Commons. In doing that, I would also like to request that an order of the day be designated in the future to consider these ways and means motions.
I wish now to bring Parliament up to date with the preliminary information available to us on the fiscal outcome for
1979-	80, along with a summary of the fiscal outlook for
1980-	81 as it currently appears. I am thus tabling the standard summary figures on the fiscal position for these two years. The information on the current 1980-81 fiscal outlook will serve as a supplement to the main estimates which are to be tabled tomorrow.
The main estimates are those prepared by the former government and which were ready for printing when we took office. It was judged best not to attempt to revise this massive compilation of expenditure figures, but to table the existing material without delay as a basis on which interim supply

April 21, 1980
The Address-Mr. MacEachen
could be sought. The expenditure figures in the fiscal forecast I am tabling are based upon the main estimates but contain, in addition, cost increases that have occurred since December in programs contained within those estimates, together with an allowance for the expanded guaranteed income supplement.
The current forecast of the over-all fiscal position will also provide Parliament with background information for the consideration of new borrowing authority which I shall be seeking shortly. With respect to the outcome for fiscal 1979-80, preliminary information suggests that financial requirements, excluding foreign exchange transactions, were $10.4 billion. That is $500 million lower than in the preceding fiscal year. The total outlays are expected to amount to $53.1 billion called for in the December, 1979, budget, although this estimate could still be subject to significant revision.
Revenues are lower than in the December forecast by some $300 million. The various increases in that budget which were not put into effect would have boosted revenues by close to $600 million. But corporation income tax revenue grew somewhat faster than expected in December and provided a partial offset. The projections for 1980-81 are based on economic assumptions for 1980 to which I shall refer shortly.
Revenues are projected to increase by 13 per cent after taking into account all the tax measures which 1 have just reintroduced. The expenditure projection includes the $35 per month increase in the guaranteed income supplement to needy old age pensioners.
On the basis of these assumptions, total outlays in 1980-81 are projected to increase by 13.7 per cent to $60.4 billion. This high projected growth in expenditures in 1980-81 is largely accounted for by the very high growth in the cost of two major existing expenditure programs, public debt charges and oil import compensation.


Harvie Andre: Surprise! Startling surprise!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Since the budget of December 11, 1979, increases in interest rates and the higher deficit now projected have resulted in an upward revision in public debt charges of the order of $500 million. Higher international oil prices have raised the projected level of oil import compensation programs by some $1.5 billion. While the December budget forecast contained some allowances for contingencies, the bulk of these revisions required additions to the forecast expenditure total. This fact, together with the increase in the guaranteed income supplement, basically accounts for the difference between the $60.4 billion total outlays I am now projecting and the $58.4 billion projected in the December budget.
Increases in the debt charges and oil import compensation costs would, of course, also have faced the previous government and almost certainly would have required it to allow expenditure growth to exceed the 10 per cent target it announced in December.
The projected increase in outlays of over 13.5 per cent is a good deal higher than I would like to see. The blended approach to oil pricing, which it is the government's intention to introduce, will allow a reduction in federal oil import compensation payments from the level assumed in deriving the $60.4 billion estimate of total outlays.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: A fraud.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In addition, we will exercise very tight control over discretionary government spending.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Financial requirements, excluding foreign exchange transactions, are projected to be $11.7 billion in 1980-81. This represents an increase of more than $1 billion over 1979-80 and is substantially higher than the $8.2 billion forecast in the December, 1979, budget. By far the largest factor in the difference vis-a-vis the December budget is the absence of the massive increase in the gasoline excise tax.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: We still pay for it.


Mr. Beatty:: Just charge it, Allan.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Borrow Broadbent's credit card.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I would like it well understood that these are projected expenditures-


Mr. Epp:: And that will go up.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and financial requirements as 1 assume my responsibilities as Minister of Finance. 1 have thought it important to provide the House with an early and accurate accounting of the current state of affairs.


Mr. Dick:: Give us a budget.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would further like it to be understood, however, that these projections do not in any way constitute the expenditure plan or the planned financial requirements of this government for fiscal year 1980-81.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: When do we see this?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Implementing blended oil pricing could alone reduce both expenditures and financial requirements by as much as $1 billion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I shall consider what further expenditure and revenue changes may be necessary when I put together my budget.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That's what you are giving us tonight.
April 21, 1980


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In framing my budget I shall be concerned to ensure that the rate of growth of government expenditures is tightly controlled.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I shall be particularly concerned to ensure that government deficits and financial requirements diminish as economic growth resumes.


An hon. Member:: Who is going to do it?


An hon. Member:: You are blushing.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This will mean that major new expenditure programs, if any, will be financed from increased revenues or they will not proceed. In coming to a judgment as to the appropriate stance in 1980-81, I shall wish to take into account both the cyclical weakness of the economy and the critical need to ensure a diminishing of inflationary expectations. I will consider measures that will distribute the burdens of both unemployment and inflation more equitably. The budget will recognize that the well-being of Canadians, the creation of jobs, and the easing of inflationary pressures all depend critically upon a continuing and growing strength of private investment.
May 1 turn to a brief review of the international and domestic economic outlook.
The international environment which we are facing is a very troubled one indeed. Since December, 1978, we have seen oil prices more than double. This has been a shock to the world economy comparable in relative terms, and roughly twice as large in current dollar terms, as that which occurred in 1974. The ability of OPEC to raise prices was enhanced by a high level of demand in world markets as consuming countries built up their stocks and as the world economy moved into its fourth year of cyclical expansion.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Blame the world.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Strength of demand also contributed to a sharp rise in primary commodity prices. On top of the inflationary impetus from oil and other commodities, there has been a slowdown in productivity growth. These developments led to a renewed acceleration of prices throughout the world, and this in turn has brought about a significant tightening in the stance of policy in most countries. The pace of monetary growth has been slowed down; interest rates have been run up to record levels, and restrictive fiscal policies have been adopted.
The United States, of course, has experienced a stronger cyclical expansion since 1975 than most other countries. The continued strength of the United States economy until recently has puzzled many observers who have been calling for a recession for quite some time. The surprising drop in the savings rate to 3 per cent has maintained the economy's cyclical momentum.
The Address-Mr. MacEachen
Inflation in the United States has recently taken a large further jump. The persistence of high levels of demand has been a major factor. High oil prices resulting from decontrol and imports, and the upward spiral of housing costs and mortgage rates have also played important roles. Inflation in the United States now appears to be at a higher peak than in previous high inflation years.
I might mention in passing that we Canadians have perhaps been too quick to take comfort from our relatively better inflation performance in recent months. A substantial part of the difference merely reflects the different treatment of mortgage interest rates in the two countries consumer price indices. The faster approach to world oil prices in the United States is also important. The fact is that the underlying rates of inflation in the two countries are not very different. Canada is certainly not in a position where it could afford to let its guard down against inflation.
To counter inflation, the United States government has taken a number of tough policy decisions. Fiscal policy has been tightened, and interest rates have been pushed up to rein in money supply growth. Credit controls have been imposed. It now appears that the recession is under way. Indeed, there would now appear to be some risk that the recession could be deeper than the American authorities would wish. This is, of course, leading to some easing in the demand for funds and thus interest rates. The hope is that it will have an early and substantial impact on the rate of inflation.
It is obvious that Canada is not immune or insulated from these worldwide forces. Slow output growth abroad will translate into weaker demand for our exports. International inflation has been reflected in higher prices for the goods and services we import.
Canadian consumers would have suffered even more from higher import prices if we had not allowed our interest rates to rise and thereby checked the decline in the exchange rate for our dollar. At the same time the Canadian economy has a number of important underlying strengths. Our competitive position has been improved by the substantial discount at which the Canadian dollar has been traded.
Our merchandise trade surplus increased last year to a record $4 billion, and our travel deficit has decreased. Strong business investment is providing us with more productive capacity which will enable us to take full advantage of the market opportunities open to us.
Another element of strength is our energy potential which is unique among industrial nations. We can benefit from the investment and jobs created in exploiting our country's energy resources. Also, our industry will have an advantage in competing on world markets because of its access to relatively low-cost sources of energy. However, in the immediate future we in Canada are going to feel the effects of slow world growth, rapid inflation, and high interest rates. The general view is that there will be little or no growth in Canada in 1980.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Under the Liberals.

April 21, 1980
The Address-Mr. MacEachen


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Our latest forecast is that the economy will grow by only one half of one per cent.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Under the Liberals.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Growth in output is thus expected to be marginally weaker than forecast by my predecessor in office.


John Carnell Crosbie: Where is Herb Gray when he is needed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This downward adjustment is common to most private sector forecasts and has occurred in spite of the fact that the economy is no longer faced with a massive tax increase.


An hon. Member:: Not yet, but it is coming.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The impact of higher international and domestic interest rates, together with revisions in the United States outlook-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to say to you, sir, and to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) that what he is doing tonight is an abuse of Parliament and the process by trying to bootleg a budget address into the throne speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member-


Walter David Baker: May I finish my point of order, Mr. Speaker?
We are prepared to allow the minister to complete his remarks notwithstanding the contempt which he has shown to Parliament. But I want to serve notice on you now, sir, that 1 intend tomorrow to raise a question of privilege with respect to what I think is a very questionable parliamentary practice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) have given notice of their intentions to raise questions of privilege. It seems to me that a question of privilege can only be raised at the appropriate time, that is, after the remarks of the Minister of Finance have been made to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of Finance has asked for unanimous consent to continue his remarks. Do I interpret the comment of the House leader for the opposition to indicate that unanimous consent is granted?


Walter David Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is what I said, on that condition.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is what he said.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Getting tough there, Joe.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) for permitting me to continue my remarks beyond the 30 minute expiry limit, but I would point out, merely to show that I contest his view, that there are ample parliamentary precedents for the course of action which I am following tonight, and that indeed I have to go back no further than the precedent of his colleague in office to justify my course of action tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I believe there is unanimous consent for the minister to continue his remarks. 1 am not aware that there is a question of privilege before the House at this stage.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I continue my comments on the expected growth in the Canadian economy?
The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) has suggested that the slow growth forecast is due to the accession of a Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member may have his own view on that, but 1 would like to remind him that the growth forecast which I am indicating tonight for the economy for 1980 is not much different. It is marginally lower than the forecast which was given to the House of Commons last December by his desk mate.
The impact of higher international and domestic interest rates, together with revisions to the United States outlook, especially in the housing sector on which Canadian exports depend heavily, have been the major factors leading to downward adjustment in most forecasts of the performance of the Canadian economy for 1980.
The unemployment rate is now expected to rise to an average of about 8 per cent. This figure is slightly lower than the forecast in the December budget, reflecting continued strength in employment growth over the past few months.
The consumer price index is projected to rise by 10 per cent. This, of course, is less than the forecast increase in the December budget because we are not subjecting Canadians to the heavy excise on gasoline.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Saddle our children with the problem.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The increase in the price deflator for gross national expenditure is expected to be about 9.5 per cent. Taken together with an increase of one half of one per cent in real gross national expenditure, this will yield an increase in the nominal value of the GNE of around 10 per cent.
During 1980 the main areas of strength in aggregate demand will be in consumer expenditures and investment. The volume of consumer spending is projected to increase 2 per
April 21, 1980

cent. The cycle of investment expansion which began in 1979 is expected to continue through 1980 with a further increase of more than IV2 per cent in real terms. Other domestic sectors will show no change or will show a decline in 1980.
Government expenditures on goods and services will continue to be affected by policies of expenditure restraint. Residential construction is likely to decline as high interest rates and a large stock of completed but unoccupied new dwellings restrict the number of new starts. A major uncertainty in the outlook for 1980 is the likely pattern of inventories as businessmen shade down their sales expectation in response to lower output growth.
In sum, the world economy is going through a difficult period of adjustment as higher international oil prices are absorbed and as the always painful process of winding down inflation is pursued. As a result of certain important underlying strengths, the Canadian economy should be able to avoid a slowdown as severe as that which appears in store in the United States, but we cannot expect to insulate ourselves fully from that slowdown. This is especially the case given the substantial deficit which already exists on the current account of our balance of payments, and given the size of the federal government deficit which already exists.
Having provided this general overview in an effort to bring the House of Commons up to date on current economic indicators, I would like to say a word or two about the most immediate and visible problem that is confronting the Canadian economy in respect of high interest rates. I refer to the impact of high mortgage interest rates on the estimated 350,000 home owners who will be renegotiating the terms of their mortgage this year. Unquestionably, these people face substantial, unanticipated increases in their monthly mortgage payments.
In assessing the situation, however, it is important to bear a number of facts in mind. It is estimated that less than 10 per cent of these households will confront housing costs in excess of 30 per cent of their incomes upon renewal of their mortgages. This 30 per cent figure is frequently used by lenders and insurers in judging the mortgage payments a household can reasonably be expected to carry.
Given the growth in incomes, the majority of those renegotiating their mortgage will in fact face housing costs that, as a proportion of income, are lower than they were when the terms of the original mortgage were negotiated. Of the less than 10 per cent confronting shelter cost greater than 30 per cent, the majority will be able to rely on a number of means already available or being developed by private lending institutions to ease the transition to higher mortgage costs and help keep their cash outlays within reasonable limits.
I have already indicated in the House of Commons that it was the intention of the government to take steps which would assist those limited number of mortgage holders who are unable to carry the normal proportion of costs to income. My colleague, the minister responsible for CMHC, will be meeting
The Address-Mr. MacEachen
with representatives from the lending institutions to review the general situation. We believe that lending institutions which are involved in this particular sector of the economy are equally concerned in assisting home owners to meet this particular crisis. We know that at the present time certain of these institutions are making special adjustments in order to meet the current situation.
We hope that through a discussion between the minister responsible for CMHC and the lending institutions we may be able to identify further areas in which assistance can be developed. If these discussions demonstrate that new arrangements are required in the limited number of cases to which I have referred, then the government will be able and willing to take action to assist, particularly, to avoid the risk of foreclosure for any of those mortgage holders who are facing this current critical situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Members opposite ought to get their economic policy together. They expressed indignation at mention of the deficit as if it ought not to exist at all. When an analysis reveals that maybe a big financial program is not necessary, hon. members also then express their indignation. One is related to the other. At some time they might be able in the course of this Parliament to develop some consistency.
I want to tell hon. members opposite that it is the judgment of this government that any broad measure of assistance aimed at providing relief to what is, in the vast majority of cases, a short-term cash flow problem, would raise serious questions of equity with respect to those Canadians who are hurt in other ways by high interest rates and inflation. If we move with a big expenditure program now which we cannot afford in this housing sector, then in terms of equity we would be obliged to move in other directions as well. It would be a costly undertaking on the part of the government which would result in a more difficult situation, and which would make more difficult the attainment of an over-all reduction in inflation and interest rates. The gradual reduction of inflation and interest rates is the only viable solution to this problem in the long term. In that connection, I am sure hon. members have noticed and have welcomed, just as I have, the increasing evidence of a downturn in general interest rates, both in the United States and Canada.


An hon. Member:: A quarter of a point.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes. It is a development. The decrease in the bank rate and the subsequent decrease in the prime rate of the banks is a welcome development. A continuation in that trend is the only viable solution to this particular problem.
I wanted to give the House my assessment tonight very early in my tenure as Minister of Finance of the situation that exists in the world and in Canada. I do not think it escapes any of us that we are facing a difficult situation in Canada and in the world as a whole. I am confident, however, that Canada, as a

April 21, 1980
The Address-Mr. MacEachen united country with Canadians working together, can confront and overcome these difficulties. But obviously our capacity to do so, and the welfare of us all, will be gravely affected if we are unable to meet the immediate challenge to our unity arising from the referendum in Quebec. For myself, I wish to affirm my conviction that only our federal system of government can provide the assurance that the interests of Canadians in Quebec and in all regions of Canada will be served best.


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, having now heard the complete statement I wish to give notice that I will be raising a question of privilege tomorrow with respect to the statement and the process we have engaged in this evening.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on the same question of privilege? I assumed he was. I was about to recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) at this point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I assume the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) was rising to the same point as the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). Otherwise the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order is this: It was agreed among the whips that I would follow the Minister of Finance. That is my point of order, and I should like the Chair to explain why a member on this side has not been called to follow the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With due respect, the Chair has been following the procedure which has been general throughout this debate, that of recognizing members on one side and on the other side in a manner which reflects the numerical proportions of the House, and having heard three speakers from the official opposition the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James.


Mr. Keeper:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Nielsen:: On a point of order, I am sure that in a sense of fairness and in accordance with the time honoured practices and traditions of this House hon. members would wish to hear the spokesman for the opposition in response to this minibudget which has been smuggled in. But if there is a desire to
test that matter, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) be now heard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House heard the motion. Those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie).


John Carnell Crosbie: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I should like to congratulate you upon your elevation. Any movement from the Trudeau cabinet is an elevation!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Apart from that, and quite seriously. Madam Speaker, we know you are going to distinguish yourself in the Chair as the first member of your sex to occupy that position.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Quit talking about sex.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I wish you well. I should also like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, and I should like to thank the 148 members who voted for me here tonight, also the one who voted against me. I hope that proportion maintains itself in the coming general election.
The only thing I cannot do. Madam Speaker, is congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on his statement here tonight. I think it was Walpole who said something like this about the world-the world is a comedy to those that think, and a tragedy to those who feel.
Any of us here tonight who both think and feel are in a dilemma as to whether we should cry or laugh at this spavin statement that has been presented to this House tonight, a complete abdication, a complete abnegation of the responsibility of a minister of finance, to bring before this House of Commons in this chamber a half-statement like this. It is a statement that brings in some points and reaffirms some points that were in the budget of December 11 that were right and proper and popular, but ignores his responsibility to this country, to our economic system and our economic structure, to our financial institutions, to deal with the real economic and financial problems that are facing Canada today. Therefore it does not face up to the needs of this country and the needs of this government for more revenue, to the need for economic and financial systems to be given a sign as to what direction this government is going. What is the sign that is presented in this statement tonight to the economic structure of this country? A sign of complete irresponsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The Address-Mr. Crosbie


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is not a mini-budget-it is a Minnie Mouse budget.
There is no relief here for home owners. There is no relief for anyone.
The Minister of Finance is leaving tomorrow-leaving this country tomorrow-fleeing to Germany. Well might he flee to West Germany to his IMF meeting. I hope to God while he is there he learns something from the other finance ministers of the world who are going to be there. Perhaps he will learn from the IMF to cut oil use with a tax. That is what they advised all the countries who belong, on February 24, 1980.
A new study by the IMF states:
Canada, the United States and other industrial countries should try to reduce consumption of imported oil by imposing sharply higher taxes on gasoline-
Perhaps he will listen to what they advise over there in the IMF as to what should be done in this day and age of vanishing oil supplies and increasing risks for every country that wants some security for its oil supplies. Perhaps he will learn some responsibility from them.
What has he done? He has violated the promise and the commitment he made in February or January in Toronto, the financial capital of Canada still. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke there and gave his five solemn economic and financial pledges, one of which was that on no account would he increase government spending beyond the real increase in the gross national product each year. Now the Minister of Finance comes in and says in his statement tonight that there is going to be a .5 per cent real growth in the gross national product in Canada this year, or no growth. That indicates that there should be no increase in government spending this year. But what is the increase? Not the 10 per cent limit that we had imposed-the $58.4 billion the total outlays would have been had we been kept in office-but the spending is going to go so far up by another $2 billion to $60.4 billion. This is a 13.7 per cent increase.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John Carnell Crosbie: When we take off the 10 per cent increase in the cost of living expected this year, that is a 3.7 per cent real increase while the economy itself is going to have no growth. So the Prime Minister in no time at all-as was to be expected by anyone who looked at the flip-flops and the distortions of his career in the eight or ten years or whatever it was that he was in power before from 1968 to 1978-of course, has no right to be surprised by this new confirmation that he never means what he says and never cares what he says as long as he gets himself back into power and thinks he has another four years to go for people to forget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Not only is there an increase of 13.7 per cent in the total outlays, but the budgetary expenditures are up from $57.3 billion in our estimates of December 11 to $59.8 billion. This is a $2.5 billion increase in government spending,

April 21, 1980
The Address-Mr. Crosbie
not in the total outlays, but in government spending. There is some unexplained decrease in government loans and so on that will have to be explained by the hon. gentleman if he wants to be believed that that brings total outlays up only $2 billion.
The minister tells us that debt charges are up $500 million to $10.7 billion, which is what it is going to cost the people of Canada in interest this year on the debt. On what debt? It is on the debt incurred in the last six or seven years by the hon. gentlemen opposite, who are no sooner back in office than they start out in the magnificent way on the old route to bankruptcy that they were taking us on before we interrupted them for a few brief months last year.
What is their deficit going to be this year? It is not the $10.4 billion that we had planned and estimated, but $14.1 billion.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John Carnell Crosbie: The United States of America is reducing its deficit in the next financial year to zero. The Americans are convinced that this is the way to go to try to overcome the endemic inflation in their system and in ours. But the deficit that we are going to have under the new Minister of Finance is going up to $14.1 billion. The United States is ten times as large as Canada and the comparable debt in the United States would be $140 billion. The government is going to put the deficit up $3.7 billion according to this statement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No way!


John Carnell Crosbie: No way, the minister says. If it is no way, where are his revenue increases? Why did he not have the courage and the guts to come in here tonight and say it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: What about borrowing? If we had stayed in office, the borrowing requirements would have totalled $8.2 billion this year. Under this Minister of Finance's irresponsible statement it is going to $11.7 billion of borrowing; up $3.5 billion. This is the Minister of Finance who, when he was out of power, had a surrogate finance critic who is now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray). He was against interest rate increases and said that things could be done, that there are other alternatives. But now these people are back in power, he is shoved aside, and there is a new man involved, the new Minister of Finance who says he is following the Bouey policy-the Bank of Canada policy. He says that that is the right policy. He says that there is no alternative to the Bouey Bank of Canada interest rate policy. There is no alternative, he says, to governor Bouey's policies or to the policy that we had followed. In answer to a question a few days ago he said that he was following the same policy that I was following. Well, he was not following it very well when he was in opposition and we were in office.
But what does the governor of the Bank of Canada say in the annual report filed here today? The Minister of Finance
has studied it with great care I am sure. I quote from The Globe and Mail of March 20:
The Bank of Canada has warned the federal government that its large fiscal deficit is discouraging business investments and holding back productivity gains in Canada.
"The fiscal deficits absorb savings that could otherwise be channelled by financial markets into financing the expansion of plant and equipment."
Also, if Canada wants to reduce its current account deficit and its reliance on foreign investment (savings), the governor in the annual report said this:
-we shall have to pay careful attention to the rate at which domestic savings are being absorbed by the fiscal deficits of our governments".
That is the warning from the governor of the Bank of Canada. That is what has been ignored by this new Minister of Finance who does not have the courage to raise taxes as he should to keep this fiscal deficit down. This fiscal deficit is going to use up domestic savings. That is going to compete with those in the private sector who want money in equity and loans to expand their productive capacity which they now cannot do because of this giant government deficit that has to be financed this year.
This is a year when Canada Savings Bonds are already being turned in at an ever-increasing rate because the 12 per cent interest rate is too low compared to where other interest rates have gone in this country since this government took office just at the beginning of March.
They are going to ignore all the advice of the governor of the Bank of Canada that is politically unpopular. They could not ignore the interest rate increases because, as the minister said himself in an interview several days ago, as reported by the Toronto Star-the "Bible"-for April 18, 1980:
MacEachen said the lower rate was "welcome news" but "it's worth pointing out that the high interest rates we have had and the very rapid increases in these rates recently have been the direct result of action taken in the United States."
Here is the Minister of Finance of Canada admitting that he is powerless, that he cannot do anything, that he is in the hands of the United States and high interest rates in the United States. That is not what we heard when "tattle-tale Gray" was across the aisle as the financial critic. But now we are told that this mighty Samson from Cape Breton is bound hand and foot by interest rates in the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: The recycled minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: What is the way for the minister to reduce this huge deficit? Why, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) has disappeared. He has vanished in the night like a vampire.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Increased revenues are the only way to reduce the deficit, said Johnston in an interview on CTV. He was asked whether he thought it true that a deficit could only be overcome by increasing revenues. He replied, "I would judge that to be correct". Well, the message has not reached the
April 21. 1980

Minister of Finance. If he wants to reduce that deficit, then he is going to have to increase revenues because that is the only way to reduce that deficit. The minister of Finance, when he was appointed, said this; "he is concerned but not consumed by the size of the government's $11.8 billion deficit." He is certainly not consumed by it because he has allowed it to balloon by $3.7 billion.
At the same time he said:
The best way to bring about lower interest rates is, of course, to reduce, generally, inflationary pressures in the country.
How is the gentleman going to reduce the inflationary pressures in the country when he is ballooning up the deficit in excess of $3 billion, when he is allowing the borrowing of the government to go up $3.7 billion? How is he going to control inflation? What is his program? What is the lead that this government gives the rest of the country? What lead do ministers give our corporations? What lead do they give our citizens? Their lead is spend, spend, spend; and borrow, borrow, borrow. Do not give a darn. That is their lead. That is the advice they are giving the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: You cannot always be Dr. Jekyll, sometimes you have to be Mr. Hyde, Madam Speaker.


An hon. Member:: That is what he is.


John Carnell Crosbie: This honourable gentleman is going to be Mr. Hyde before his term of office is over because he is going to have to raise billions of dollars in additional revenue. Now he thinks that perhaps somehow in the oil negotiations with Alberta, after they have come to a standoff and there is a breakdown, that he and his government-the muscle men of confederation, those who so love this country and are trying to hold it together-are going to put the blocks to poor old Alberta and they think they are going to get $2 billion, $3 billion or $4 billion in oil and gas revenues from the oil and gas industry. That is not in the cards. There can be no united Canada. There can be no Canada whole and undivided with any government in office here in Ottawa which thinks it can crush the life out of Alberta or the west and redeem this huge increase in the budget deficit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Nor can it bully around the provinces on the east coast, the provinces that should have control of the oil and gas resources. There is going to be very little oil and gas developed in that area unless this government comes to its senses and reaches an accommodation and a modus vivendi with Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and the other eastern provinces.
They better put that in their pipe and think about it because the next four years or five years will be their last. They are not going to see the government side of these halls again for the
Adjournment Debate
rest of the twentieth century, 1 can assure them of that. Where is the made in Canada interest rates we were promised?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: I call it ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise to direct the attention of this House to a very important matter. 1 thank the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) for being here at this time of night to deal with it. The matter is one of great concern to the widows of many of our veterans. It is also of concern to a great many of our veterans who are anxious as to what may happen to their wives if they, the veterans, die first. I put this matter to the Minister of Veterans Affairs on Wednesday, April 16, as reported at page 68, when I asked this question:
In view of widespread support for the proposition that prorata pensions should be paid to widows of disabled veterans where the veteran's disability pension was below 48 per cent, and in view of the statement made to the media by the minister a couple of weeks ago that he was planning to bring in such legislation, can he tell us if it will be introduced in the House at an early date?
The minister in his reply indicated that he was conscious of the importance of this legislation, that he was also conscious of Bill C-28 that was introduced in the last Parliament by the previous minister of veterans affairs. We also indicated that he would be making further recommendations. I rise now to express the hope that in his response to my question tonight he will make it clear and unequivocal that legislation on this matter will be brought in at this session.
I join with others in commending the former minister of veterans affairs, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), for having brought in a bill last December 6 that would have breached the 48 per cent rule. Unfortunately, there was no time between that date and the end of the session for the bill to be called for second reading.
I say quite frankly to my hon. friend from Victoria that I thought there were certain deficiencies in that bill. In my view, it did not provide a sufficient level of pensions for widows where the veteran's disability rate was below 48 per cent. I thought also that it was a shame that in that bill there was a provision that it would not come fully into effect until six years had gone by.

April 21, 1980
Adjournment Debate
I hope that any bill that is introduced in this session will provide a better level of pensions for widows of veterans where the veteran's disability rate was below 48 per cent, and I hope it will be made effective right away, not year by year over a period of five or six years.
As we all know, this is a matter that has been the subject of many studies and reports. Perhaps the most outstanding are the Woods report of a number of years ago and more recently the Hermann report, both of which recommended that there should be pensions for widows where the veteran's disability rate was below 48 per cent.
This matter has also been recommended to the House by veterans affairs committees on two or three occasions. In fact I believe the Deputy Speaker, who is now in the chair, was a member of the veterans affairs committee when we made such a recommendation. It just does not make sense that there is a cutoff at the 48 per cent point, which means in one case the widow of a veteran has a full widow's pension but where the veteran's pension rate was only 47 per cent there is nothing there at all for the widow if her husband goes first.
I know the Minister of Veterans Affairs feels as all of us do with regard to this matter. The statements he made to the media before the House resumed seemed to confirm it-he indicated he had been planning a bill along the lines of the very legislation the hon. member for Victoria brought in last December. I am not asking the minister to tell us the details of what will be in the bill; that would be contrary to the rules around here. But surely he can tell us, as he told the media before this House sat, that he will be bringing in a bill to provide pensions for these widows.
In my supplementary question the other day I asked whether the minister would look at a few other matters such as the long-promised review of the War Veterans Allowance Act so that it might be brought up to date. There is also the question of certain improvements which need to be made in the amounts payable under the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act. These are on the minister's desk in detailed form.
I assert quite readily that we have made a great deal of progress in terms of veterans' legislation in the last eight or ten years, but there are still these few matters which are as yet unresolved, and I think most of the veterans in this country would agree with me that at the top of the list is the need to protect the position of the widows of disabled veterans. I hope, tonight, that the minister, whose presence I welcome at this hour of the evening, will have a favourable statement to make to this House.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question as it gives me the opportunity to comment on the matter of pensions for widows of veterans who were in receipt of disability pensions at a rate less than 48 per cent, and to inform
members as to the status of the war veterans allowance legislative review.
As hon. members know, the previous government had introduced in the House suggested changes to the Pension Act to enable widows to receive pension benefits upon the death of a veteran who had a pensioned disability assessed at less than 48 per cent. I expect to present my cabinet colleagues with proposals which will provide pension benefits to widows of disability pensioners who are not now eligible for such benefits. The proposals which were contained in Bill C-28 will be carefully considered to determine whether or not they can be improved upon.
The main criterion of the war veterans allowance legislative review has been that there will be continuing compensation paid to veterans under the WVA Act in recognition of their wartime contribution to this nation. Within this criterion, numerous proposals have been developed by the department, and I am pleased to report that the review has produced some very significant recommendations directed toward improving the lot of veterans and their dependants. Further, a continuing joint study has been undertaken with the Department of National Health and Welfare in order to achieve a greater level of harmony in the administration of income security policy and to identify opportunities for streamlining the administration of the MVA Program, both issues of major concern to the legislative review.
Mr. Speaker, in my view, we can never fully compensate those Canadians who have suffered the effects of war, but we can continue to ensure that their special status is fully recognized and that veterans and their dependants will continue to receive the assistance they require to meet their basic needs and to live in dignity. I know this view is shared by all members of this House.
While I am very anxious to introduce changes to the War Veterans Allowance Act as quickly as possible, it is necessary that they be examined in relation to other social policy initiatives. However, in the coming months I hope to be able to make a definitive statement on this subject.


ENERGY-EXPORT OF NATURAL GAS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to speak tonight on the topic of exports of natural gas and the pre-building of the Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline. My topic arises from a question I put to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) in this House on April 17.
Before I go into that in detail I want to say, as an aside, that when 1 listened to this surprise mini-budget tonight in the House, 1 noted that the minister had to say that it had cost the Canadian taxpayer a $1.5 billion increase in the last little while to pay for imported oil under the oil import compensation program, and I thought back to the time of Joe Greene who used to be minister of energy in a Liberal government, who said "We have energy for hundreds of years in Canada".
April 21, 1980

Adjournment Debate


Dave Nickerson: It does not matter that there is not order?
Then he proceeded to okay the export of oil. Today we are paying for that because we do not have oil for hundreds of years. We have a shortage of oil, and I cannot understand how a country like Canada can make the same mistake twice.
I think we are about to make the same mistake twice when we deal with exports of natural gas, because now there is greater pressure on this government to open up the flood gates and to export more of our natural gas, the cheap stuff, the good stuff, the stuff that is available now, to the United States, and then later on we are going to have to deal with the expensive stuff, just like oil.
My question was directed to the minister. I raised the point that one way to achieve energy self-sufficiency was to keep our natural gas for our own use, and I asked the minister to comment on the ironclad guarantee, or the iron clad commitment which Canada should have, regarding the building of the whole Alaska natural gas pipeline before any pre-building of the southern portions of the pipeline should take place, because the words "ironclad guarantee" were the words of the minister when he was the Liberal energy critic. However, I did not get an answer to that question. Instead, I got comments that the minister was going to meet with the American secretary of energy and so forth.
Then I asked a supplementary question. I asked the minister to assure the House that if there was going to be any change in the Northern Pipeline Act the minister would come back to the House of Commons and seek permission to make changes in that act. The minister answered that, yes, he would come back to the House if there was going to be a change in the act. He slipped out of the question. He knew very well what I was asking, and that was whether there is to be a change in the act or the regulations under the act. The regulations under the act permit the Governor General to issue an order in council to allow certain minor changes-not major changes-in the act. The minister did not indicate to me-and I would ask that the parliamentary secretary do so-that ironclad guarantee and that ironclad commitment that there will be no order in council to allow the pre-building of the Alaska pipeline.
Let me explain. The original condition in the act was that all segments of the pipeline would have to be built at the same time, and financing would have to be guaranteed for the whole pipeline. It did not provide for building southern portions of the pipeline. Parliament did that for good, cautious, and sensible reasons, the reasons being that if we allowed prebuilding of the southern line, we may never get the northern portion built. We would get what would amount to a natural gas pipeline sucking out-


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: One moment.


Dave Nickerson: A point of order-


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no point of order at this time of the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is out of order. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kinsway (Mr. Waddell) will please continue his remarks.


An hon. Member:: Read Beauchesne.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Perhaps the hon. member should get his teddy bear and put it on his desk as he did in the last House.
What I was saying, as I was in full flight a la the hon. member from St. John's, was that if we allow the pre-building of that southern portion of the pipeline, it will suck out all the cheap Canadian gas to American markets right now, and we will never get the full pipeline built. That is why I want the parliamentary secretary to give us an answer today. Will there be an order in council permitting the pre-build portions against the intent of the Northern Pipeline Act, or will the government come back to Parliament if it is going to do that?
There is some hanky-panky going on with the National Energy Board. The National Energy Board wants to allow pre-building. It has issued an order to that effect, and the minister in this case, Senator Olson, has said, "Hold the hearing first on that and then come back to us". I think they are going to issue it. They are going to issue permission. They are going to issue an order in council. We in the NDP oppose that for all kinds of good reasons, specifically because of the intent of Parliament in the Northern Pipeline Act.
The fact that it is proving exceedingly difficult to obtain financing for the Alaska sections of the Alaska highway pipeline, indicates the dubious rationality-even from the Americans' viewpoint-of a gigantic project to bring frontier gas onstream at exorbitant prices. Canada's specific energy interest, in what is essentially an American project to bring Alaskan gas to the continental United States, has never been convincingly demonstrated or even addressed, either by the government or by the National Energy Board.
It was always assumed, both by the government and by the NEB, that the Canadian need for frontier gas was self-evident. Largely because of that assumption, which in turn reflected the fact that the government had neither a coherent energy policy nor a comprehensive industrial strategy into which frontier gas could be made to fit, the government allowed itself to drift into a pipeline treaty with the U.S., which may be of long-term benefit to that country but which makes a marginal contribution to our energy needs and at the price of considerable distortion of our economy.
We are now committed by the international treaty to permit the building across our territory of what is essentially a U.S. project, and the government is attempting to justify it on the grounds of job creation and as an insurance policy for the time when our own conventional energy reserves run out. Mean-
254

April 21, 1980
Adjournment Debate
while, the government continues to increase our exports of conventional reserves, thereby making the need for frontier gas a self-fulfilling prophecy.
What constitutes a surplus in a non-renewable resource? The government cannot answer that question, but that has not prevented it from muddling its way into de facto continental-ism in energy policy-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: May I conclude, Mr. Speaker, since 1 was interrupted? I can conclude in one sentence.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there consent of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It can be reported that it was the full House that said that.
I will conclude by asking the parliamentary secretary whether he can give me now an ironclad commitment-he knows what I mean-that there will be no order in council allowing the National Energy Board to renege on this promise of ironclad guarantees so that the pipeline will not go ahead and suck out all the Canadian gas to the United States without ironclad guarantees of a complete pipeline being built.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond further to the question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) on April 17 concerning the relationship between gas export approval and commitments on construction of the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline.
The Northern Pipeline Act, and specifically condition 12, requires that construction of the Alaska highway pipeline, or any part thereof, including pre-build, not proceed until the whole pipeline has been financed. Financing of the Alaska section and the northern sections of the pipeline in Canada will not be in place for at least a year. Construction of pre-build, on the other hand, could get under way this summer. It therefore follows that if pre-build is to be approved this year,
condition 12 would have to be amended, but this will not happen unless all necessary preconditions have been met.
Condition 12 is one of the many terms and conditions imposed upon the pipeline by the Northern Pipeline Act. The act provides that these terms and conditions can be amended by the NEB, but such amendments do not become effective until approved by the governor in council. Approval in Parliament on a change in condition 12 is not required, although it would be if the act were to be changed. The NEB has amended condition 12. The amendment allows the government to approve pre-build this year, provided it is assured that financing can be obtained for the northern sections of the line.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Can be obtained? Should be obtained!


Roy MacLaren: However, the amendment is not yet effective. Governor in council approval is required, and this has not yet been obtained because all the pre-conditions have not been satisfied. Cabinet will not consider the amendment until further information on the financing of the Alaska section has been obtained from the United States, and until further information on the financing of the northern sections in Canada has been obtained. The hearing of the NEB commencing April 29 on pipeline financing should elicit the desired information on the financing of the pipeline in Canada. Therefore the hearing does not imply government approval of pre-build. To the contrary, it indicates that the government is seeking further information.
Pre-build will require approval of additional gas exports. The stated view of the government is that such exports will not be considered until domestic gas market expansion is assured and the government is satisfied that the northern sections of the Alaska highway pipeline will definitely proceed in a timely manner.
[ Translation}


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.23 p.m.

Tuesday, April 22, 1980