1980-05-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Given the fact that disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, floods and other acts of God frequently strike without warning, causing extensive damage to life, limb and property; that in most cases the victims of such disasters, as well as the municipality are totally unable to provide the necessary financial assistance to rehabilitate the area and to help the victims of such disasters; and that the source of funds available to municipalities is limited almost entirely to municipal taxation, which is now a tremendous burden to the citizens of that municipality, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That this House urge the federal and provincial governments to establish a special reserve fund and adopt uniform criteria to administer and disburse such funds should disaster strike.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I wonder if I might move a motion, seconded by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse);
That this House calls upon the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to rise on motions, either later today or at his earliest convenience, to make a brief statement outlining the extent of losses suffered by lobster Fishermen along the eastern coast of Nova Scotia and to give some indication to the lobstermen and
the House as to the assistance, if any, that may be required to assist fishermen in the successful completion of the lobster season this year.


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)


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It has been urgent and pressing for a number of years, and it is still urgent and pressing.
In view of the withering effect of current high inflation rates on fixed incomes, and particularly on the incomes of veterans on disability pensions, and because under existing legislation the disabled veteran's surviving spouse is especially vulnerable, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assini-boine (Mr. McKenzie):
That this House recommends the immediate reintroduction of Bill C-28 from the Thirty-first Parliament, brought forward by the previous government, to alleviate this hardship, ensuring that the surviving spouse of a disabled veteran on a pension less than 47 per cent be afforded the relief that veterans, by their sacrifices, have earned for themselves and their families.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the report of the Advisory Commission on Indian-Inuit Health recommended that funds should
926

May 12, 1980
be made available to the Inuit for purposes of developing Inuit awareness and expertise in the field of health care, and that these tasks should be entrusted to the Inuit Tapirisats of Canada and the Committee for Original Peoples Entitlement, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That the minister responsible for National Health and Welfare contact ITC and COPE and make arrangements for the disbursement of funds for the purposes just stated.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the urgent need of our farmers for assistance in meeting the excessively high cost of interest rates today, and as the government of Ontario has just announced a $25-million program to help farmers through the current high interest rate period and will subsidize interest rates above 12 per cent by up to 3 per cent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House instruct the government to introduce a similar program without delay, so that farmers across Canada may benefit from the same kind of positive and imaginative program which has just been introduced by the government of Ontario.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, 1 too rise, pursuant to Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The government proposed in the Speech from the Throne that a freedom of information act would be introduced in this Parliament.
In view of the fact that the trial of Dr. Treu was the first secret political trial in English common law, setting a dangerous precedent for relations between the judiciary and the
Canadian government, and was also an assault on the freedom of the press with the persecution under the Official Secrets Act of Peter Worthington, editor of The Toronto Sun, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this government send a formal letter of apology to Mr. Worthington.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise on a somewhat explosive issue of urgent and compressing necessity. I refer to the continuing dangerous matter of exploding pop bottles and the government's apparent lack of policy on the same.
In view of reports that the government had decided to rescind the ban instituted by the previous Conservative administration on the 1.5 litre soft drink bottles, and since the government reportedly faces a dilemma in getting the bottie manufacturers to agree on a test that will be politically viable, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon):
[DOT] (UI5)
That the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs make a statement in the House at the earliest opportunity on the safety standards being considered by his department to protect consumers from the explosive force of all carbonated beverages in bottles of any size when they are tipped over, punctured or dropped.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In light of the fact that the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe) has undertaken a review of financial problems experienced by small businesses, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
May 12, 1980

That the Minister of State (Small Businesses) ensure that this major comprehensive study include meaningful and extensive input from the branch level of Canada's chartered banks and from small business borrowers themselves.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, pertaining to the making available by the Royal Bank of Canada through its branches to clients in all provinces except Quebec, what are termed "national unity cards", which speak out for the desirability of Quebec to stay within Canada, and also the fact that other companies- reportedly, among others, Bell Canada-will make available the same cards.
I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott):
That this House praises the efforts of Mr. Paul Pare, who is the apparent initiator of this program, but expresses at the same time its regrets that such cards are not available within the province of Quebec, and asks that companies such as the Royal Bank give immediate consideration to allowing its customers in that province to have the same opportunity as other Canadians in expressing their loyalty to Canada at this time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of recent statements by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) that he is, indeed, contemplating a catch royalty or landings tax against west coast fishermen, as confirmed in the throne speech by references to a program of partial cost recovery and reinvestment of enhanced earnings, and whereas the Minister of Fisheries has failed to deny that he is considering a surtax in the order of 10 per cent of the landed value of the catch-part of which would go to meet
Oral Questions
general budgetary costs of his department-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans be directed to clear up the confusion immediately with regard to his plans to impose a catch royalty upon west coast fishermen and, further, that he meet promptly with fishermen groups in British Columbia to hear their views as to the fairness of this form of supplementary income tax.


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


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce regarding the Chrysler agreement which was signed on Saturday.
It is noted that the employment guarantees are proportional to the level of Chrysler, U.S., employment. Bearing in mind the move to the world car market which is going on with other automobile manufacturers and Chrysler's desire to move into that field, and noting that components for those world cars are drawn from numerous sources, what discussions were held regarding the sourcing of components?
In other words, did the minister agree to a North American content for the Chrysler fuel-efficient cars which they will produce, bearing in mind that the aid package is almost totally North American?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, in our discussions with Chrysler we obtained from them a commitment for greater sourcing activities of parts and components in Canada than has previously been the case. We did not attempt to have discussions of the nature indicated by the hon. member.
I think that is a matter more for our intentions with respect to consultations on improving the operations of the auto pact from the Canadian point of view and is a matter of interest with respect to the entire industry not simply to Chrysler.
I think it is important to note that in return for our loan guarantees which will not have to be in place until 1982 we received from Chrysler commitments to an operating, financing and facilities' plan involving a SI billion investment for

May 12, 1980
Oral Questions
Canada, aimed at restoring employment in Canada to historical levels; levels indicated in the plan of some 16,000 by 1984.


William James Kempling: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. We note that Chrysler has not met its commitment under the Canada-U.S. auto agreement to maintain a specified ratio between sales and production. Have the penalties been weighed and, if so, can the minister tell us the amount of money involved in this?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I have received as yet no formal report on the extent to which Chrysler has met its responsibilities under the auto pact for the preceding model year. We certainly have not waived any penalties, and as far as I am concerned, I will be insisting that Chrysler operate in a way which is in the best interest of Canada and Canadian workers.


William James Kempling: A further supplementary question, Madam Speaker. We note that on page 8 of the statement of the minister, he said:
We have also required, in the agreement, that Chrysler Corporation transfer pricing practices will not work to the detriment of Chrysler Canada.
That implies that the practices in the past may have worked to the detriment of Chrysler Canada and, whether the minister is aware of it or not, they have not met their sales-to-produc-tion ratio. I wonder if this transfer pricing policy is part of the problem.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, that very important clause in our agreement with Chrysler was not intended to relate to whether or not Chrysler met its production-to-sales ratio under the auto pact but, rather, that Chrysler Canada's financial position and its equity base would not be impaired by any decisions of the parent company. We want to maintain a strong and more autonomous Chrysler Canada in the interests of the Canadian economy and Canadian workers.

much larger in terms of relative productivity and investment than that made available to Chrysler.


Mr. Nowlan:: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Without trying to go through the balance sheet on the number of dollars involved between Chrysler and Sysco, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of his very interesting and professional answer of obfuscation last Thursday, as reported at page 831 of Hansard, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, do we understand that the position of the government and the minister is that the government is waiting for a concrete proposal from the government of Nova Scotia in the Sysco situation, or is the reality what has appeared in the press, that that proposal has gone to the government but was misfiled some time ago?


Mr. MacEachen:: Madam Speaker, what has happened is that the government of Nova Scotia forwarded a draft subsidiary agreement that had been submitted to the former Conservative government and which had not been acted upon. In our view, that subsidiary agreement does not constitute, in all its elements, sufficient information to make a response.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion will be advising Premier Buchanan at an early date that the material made available in that draft subsidiary agreement is not complete, and that it would not be possible for the Government of Canada to act upon it.
I should add, Madam Speaker, that it is our intention at this stage to try to discuss with the government of Nova Scotia a proposal that would have the effect of making a significant contribution to the future of the Sydney Steel plant, and not, as has too often been the case in the past, making ad hoc responses which are subsequently proved to be fruitless and which lead to additional requests for funds. We would like to make sure this time that we are proceeding in the most responsible way possible that would provide the workers of that plant some assurance that there is a future there.


FINANCE
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that we apparently have now concluded an agreement for financial assistance to the troubled Chrysler operation, can the Minister of Finance tell the House when we may expect an announcement about the troubled Sysco corporation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, it is not possible to say when we may be able to respond to the most recent interest of the government of Nova Scotia.
I would point out to the hon. member, however, that a loan guarantee has already been made available by the Government of Canada in support of Sysco which, in its dimensions, is


INDUSTRY
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Last week, Inco Limited announced that it has closed the doors on its Sudbury iron-pellet operation, and gave lack of orders as a reason for the shut-down.
Will the minister explain what he is doing to help this Canadian operation, especially in light of the fact that 45 per cent of the iron ore used in Canadian steel companies comes from the United States?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to review this
May 12, 1980

situation with the company to see what further steps we can take to help correct it. I certainly appreciate the seriousness of the situation. It is one that concerns not only me but government members from the Sudbury area.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I might point out to the minister that in Business Week of last month it was reported that the steel industry is riding high, and I quote from the publication:
-is riding high on a wave of expansion.
Will the minister agree that, since four large iron ore mines and pellet operations have closed down in Canada, that Canadian ore must be used in this expansion of operations?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member referred to the article in an American business publication confirming that the Canadian steel industry, which is 100 per cent Canadian-owned, is the most productive, efficient and technologically advanced in the world. It is for that reason that one of our policy commitments is to have greater processing of Canadian resources in our own country. I will be working further on this very matter because of its importance.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, it is nice to hear the minister say that the industry is so healthy. But if it is our industry and it is so healthy, why is it not using our resources? Will the minister call a meeting of the heads of the various steel companies in Canada and ask them, either by voluntary action or by compulsory action, if they will use only Canadian ore?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I think it makes good sense for our Canadian industry to use our Canadian resources. I will certainly be exploring this matter further with the heads of the Canadian steel industry.


FINANCING OF CONVENTION CENTRE IN TORONTO
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who we have been reminding for quite some time now about the Conservative government's deal in the financing of a convention centre in Toronto. This is the deal we had with the municipal and provincial governments.
There are 4,000 construction jobs at stake here and there are 10,000 new jobs to be created in an industry where there is 30 per cent unemployment right now. Will the minister, now that he is free from his preoccupation of saving jobs in his area by aiding an American corporation, give some attention to the equally great need of job creation in the all-Canadian construction industry, and state clearly, now, to this House that he will confirm the Conservative government's deal. Will he answer "Yes" or "No"?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend has, tragically, forgotten that there are 2,000 jobs in Toronto right now in Chrysler plants there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, there are also 16,000 jobs in Canadian Chrysler dealerships across the country, Canadian small business, as well as some 10,000 jobs in suppliers to Chrysler in all parts of the country; not only in Ontario and Quebec, but all over, who are dependent upon the survival of Chrysler in Canada. So in the announcement that I made on Saturday, which we have confirmed today, our objective was to help the Canadian economy, help Canadian small business and help Canadian workers. I am sorry that my hon. friend seems to have overlooked this necessity and this reality.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The policy review with respect to the convention centre program I expect to have completed very shortly. This is a matter that we have been working on actively with our Toronto members and ministers, and I hope that either myself or one of my colleagues will have a positive announcement about this matter before too much longer.


James Gordon Gilchrist: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same minister. Even the resident Liberal in the Ontario legislature has recognized the need for this project. Stuart Smith said:
It is absolutely necessary to start construction of a convention centre in Toronto because there is a lack of growth in Toronto and the city's economy has become stagnant.
That is more than I have heard from any of the federal Liberal members, I might say. How can the minister continue to ignore this major Canadian construction business and ignore these jobs?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we are, simply, not ignoring them. We had a responsibility, on becoming the government, to make sure that financial commitments of the previous Clark government were sensible and in good order.
We are going to complete this review very soon. We certainly have not been ignoring this vital project. Our Liberal members in Toronto and Liberal ministers have been very active in seeking an early resolution of the matter. I am optimistic there will be one that is satisfactory to all concerned before too much time goes by.


CONVENTION CENTRE FOR OTTAWA-CARLETON
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I heard him speak, quite properly, of the importance of employment with respect to the development and use of convention centres. As he knows, the Liberal and Conservative members in the national capital area have been involved in that.
Can I have an assurance from the minister that in terms of the ongoing review with respect to a convention centre policy, the convention centre for Ottawa-Carleton is not being ignored, and that he is consulting with his seatmate, the

May 12, 1980
Oral Questions
Minister of Transport-who is the member for Ottawa-Carle-ton-with respect to the importance of that particular installation?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I am very glad that the hon. member has confirmed the non-partisan, all-party support for the Ottawa project. In fact, my colleague, the Minister of State (Small Businesses), met with the Ottawa regional chairman just a few days ago to discuss the progress and consideration, so the project is certainly not forgotten: far from it. It is my hope that we will be making an announcement on the matter of convention centres. It will not simply be with respect to one project, but several. The Toronto and Ottawa projects will be part of that announcement.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. This past weekend, a previously secret report entitled "The Behaviour of Aerosol Clouds within Cities" was released under the provisions of American freedom of information legislation. That report detailed how, in 1953, Canadian authorities collaborated with U.S. defence officials in testing the most effective ways of distributing chemical and biological warfare agents by spraying an aerosol cloud over parts of Winnipeg.
My question to the Prime Minister is, when did he first become aware of this project and its astonishing implications, and does he sanction such projects continuing?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, the Department of National Defence is looking into this alleged report very seriously indeed. However, I think it is important to point out that the department feels very strongly that if such an experiment did, in fact, take place, it was not harmful to human life.
I think it is important to point that out.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: In light of the fact that the information regarding this testing was made public only as a result of freedom of information legislation in the U.S., will the Prime Minister undertake to investigate and report to this House all other like instances in which Canadians have been unwitting guinea pigs in such hideous experiments?


Ursula Appolloni: Here again, Madam Speaker, I would point out that we are speaking about a hypothetical case. Nothing has yet been proven by the United States government or by our department. I wish to point out that in speaking as he is doing, the hon. member is doing no justice whatsoever to the very high sense of integrity of our national defence.


TESTS TO ASCERTAIN HARMFUL EFFECTS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: I have a supplementary question for the parliamentary secretary who is answering with regard to chemical warfare testing in Winnipeg.
Since aerosol spraying has now been banned because of its harmful effects, is the department conducting any tests in Winnipeg to see whether there have been harmful effects? Are there any more tests similar to this being conducted in Canada today?


Ursula Appolloni: Madam Speaker, I thought I made it clear in my first answer that the department is looking very carefully into this whole subject. I would assure the hon. member-indeed, I am repeating myself-that there has been no confirmation from our department or from the government of the United States about this experiment. Our department is looking into it. No doubt when the minister returns, we will have a much more full report.


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. The minister will know that the project in Toronto known as Harbourfront, a project which is before him for approval, has received the approval of all responsible authorities in metropolitan Toronto and Ontario.
It is a project which involves the employment of 3,800 person-years over the next six or seven years, and one which calls for a commitment from the federal government of S20 million and therefore holds in the balance $200 million of private investment. Why has the minister not yet given his approval of the project?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity yesterday with members from Toronto who are newly elected, as I am, to actually visit the site and to have a presentation-one that confirms many of the positive qualities that the hon. member opposite has indicated. It is my hope that within a very few short weeks an announcement will be forthcoming and, I am hopeful, approval of the project.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware that the project has already received the support of the city of Toronto council, the metropolitan council, the labour council and the Toronto Construction Association which represents construction companies. It has received all those approvals and has been opposed only by the two railroads and six Liberal MPs. Would the minister care to comment on that?
May 12, 1980


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I am aware of the widespread support for Harbourfront. As a matter of fact, I understand the city of Toronto council voted 22 to 1 in favour of the project. However, a late development has been an introduction or intervention by the metropolitan Toronto board of trade who have indicated that they have some misgivings about the density of the project. However, I think in discussion with them, possibly their information was not up to date. As I say, after this review which was concluded on the weekend, I hope to have an announcement shortly.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It has to do with the meeting the minister held last Friday afternoon with the bottling manufacturers on the exploding pop bottle question.
In view of reports that the bottling industry is getting impatient for the government to get its act together, is the minister prepared to announce now to the bottlers and to Canadian consumers a decent safety standard to apply to all sizes of carbonated beverages, not just the 1.5 litre bottles but all carbonated beverages in bottles?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I am surprised by the question of the hon. member. The decision of my predecessor, the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs, is the cause of the present problem. I am surprised that the hon. member is asking that regulations be issued to cover the entire area of bottling. I am surprised that my predecessor did not consider the matter. However, I can tell the hon. member that I met with the representatives of carbonated beverage companies and I will be in a position to announce later this week the new government policy in that regard.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, the minister should know there was a ban put on the 1.5 litre bottles by the previous government. I understand the ban is being rescinded by the present government. We did not have a chance to move on the 750 millilitre and other sized bottles.
I now ask if the department is having problems coming up with any sort of uniform standard because some bottles are not as good quality as others and there is a dispute within the bottling industry as to the kind of uniform standards that should be developed. Can the minister clear up the confusion before any more accidents happen?
Oral Questions


André Ouellet: I am very surprised by those remarks. Madam Speaker, coming as they do from a party which has advocated less and less government intervention.
I can assure the House, though, that later this week we shall announce clear specifications which will reassure consumers and remedy the unjust situation which has been imposed by my predecessor on the bottlers.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware that in the past few days a number of dangerous toxic chemicals with a flash point of only 83 degrees Fahrenheit have been washing up on the west coast of this country?
Would the minister confirm that the United States did not inform Canada of this spill and tell the House exactly what he intends to do about it and about future spills of this nature?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I was away most of last week at the meeting of the Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, in Halifax. I was not aware of the situation the hon. member has described.
1 thank the hon. member for having brought it to my attention.
I will examine it and report back as soon as possible.


James Ross Fulton: In view of the minister's answer, and having regard to the fact that 85 per cent of the one million tons of toxic, hazardous wastes in Canada last year were improperly disposed of, and in view of the fact that the United States this month closed its border to acceptance of some toxic wastes, will the minister immediately introduce a west coast marine pollution act and a transportation and disposal of harzardous products act? If he cannot give the House such an undertaking now, can he tell us whether he will introduce such legislation this year?


John (Moody) Roberts: The question of toxic chemicals and their transportation was one of the major subjects which we discussed last week at the conference. What I am looking at is a way of finding some means of meeting these concerns at the committee stage of the transportation of hazardous goods legislation.


DISCUSSIONS ON PURCHASE OF SUNCOR
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister or the govern-

May 12, 1980
Oral Questions
ment, or any department, initiated or taken part in, through a Crown corporation, discussions with Suncor regarding its purchase and, if so, what stage has been reached in such talks?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I will inquire, Madam Speaker.


INDUSTRY
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a question supplementary to that addressed earlier to the Minister of Finance by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants. Are we clearly to understand from the response given by the minister that the government has rejected the proposals of Sysco and the government of Nova Scotia with respect to aid-that they have now rejected that proposal out of hand?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, we have not rejected the approach of the government of Nova Scotia. What we have said is that the material made available up to the present time is insufficient to allow a judgment to be reached on the question of a viable future for Sysco, and that we would wish to have further information and to hold discussions with the government of Nova Scotia.


J. Michael Forrestall: The minister, who has been responsible for this matter over the last ten years, cannot be quite as glib as that. Bearing in mind the seriousness of the problem in his own native island of Cape Breton, would he clarify the situation by indicating to the House, to the people of Nova Scotia and to those directly involved, the respect in which he considers the proposals of Sysco and the government of Nova Scotia to be deficient, so that those concerned might address themselves to that question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would be glad to tell the hon. member that a couple of years ago, I believe, the government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada entered into an agreement under which extensive studies were to be made into the question of the future of the Sydney Steel plant. These studies have been completed. They are very extensive, they cover a wide range of problems and I am advised they have hardly been used in drafting the proposal for the future of the Sydney Steel plant. This is one matter we would like addressed in adding to the breadth of the proposal.
Furthermore, as I understand it, hardly any attention has been paid in the subsidiary agreement which was submitted to the former government-and which was not acted upon-to a sales and marketing program and I gather this may have been
the reason no action was taken by the former government even though the proposal was submitted in January; that it, too, found the agreement inadequate in detail and in content.


An hon. Member:: That is false.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Committee of Concerned Citizens of Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba, has requested that further work on the underground waste disposal research project in the vicinity of Lac du Bonnet be suspended and that public hearings be held to provide a forum for the discussion of all the attendant scientific, economic, social and ethical issues.
Will the Prime Minister instruct the Minister of Energy to respect the tarnished but still viable idea of participatory democracy and grant this request for public hearings into this project?


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The question of waste disposal procedures is under active consideration with provincial governments, particularly the governments of Ontario and Manitoba, and I shall be glad to report to the House any further developments in this area.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is unfortunate, Madam Speaker, that the Prime Minister does not choose to speak for his government. Perhaps he will be able to answer the supplementary question.
The issue of nuclear power is one of the most serious practical, moral and, indeed, symbolic issues ever to be faced by the Canadian people. The former government recognized this to an extent in its intention to establish a parliamentary inquiry into the subject. Instead of just "business as usual", now that the Prime Minister is back in power, will the right hon. gentleman tell the House and the Canadian people whether he is prepared to acknowledge the legitimate concerns of a growing number of Canadians, and declare a moratorium on the development of nuclear power until such time as a proper public inquiry can be held and a conscious decision reached on this issue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to discuss the question with the Premier of Saskatchewan, the province from which most of the uranium comes.
May 12, 1980


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is my understanding that the NORAD agreement either expired last night or is due to expire today.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether there has been an extension and, if so, how it was arrived at, bearing in mind that five years ago his government accepted a report from the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence that this matter should be referred to the committee well before the expiry date?


Ursula Appolloni: Madam Speaker, I am happy to announce that this particular agreement with NORAD will be tabled today. I am also happy to announce that a reference is being made to the standing committee, of which we will hear more today.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I thank the parliamentary secretary for answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. I wonder if I might ask a supplementary. Does the agreement which is to be tabled today affect the subsidiary agreements and memoranda, particularly as to the continued employment of Canadian servicemen on American soil and, perhaps even more important, the continued custody of the nuclear weapons which are American-owned but are deployed on Canadian soil?


Ursula Appolloni: Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to thank our Prime Minister for allowing backbenchers and parliamentary secretaries to have a chance to speak in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ursula Appolloni: In reply to the supplementary question, our department is, as usual, very grateful to the hon. member for his sincere interest in national defence. May I invite the hon. member to see the agreement today, once it is tabled, and then he will have full details. I repeat, he will have the opportunity to discuss the whole agreement later in committee.


AIRPORTS
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport, who on a variety of occasions in the House within the last two or three weeks has demonstrated that he has been unaware of a number of things such as the location of Mount Hope airport, and the weather ship situation on the west coast.
Oral Questions
I am wondering whether he was aware, during his visit to Victoria international airport, of the non-existence of radar at that airport, or whether his officials made him aware of it before he landed there?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Madam Speaker, I am aware of the existence of Victoria airport-thank you very much-and I will send my friend a detailed analysis of improvements that will be brought about to that airport in the coming year or so.


Donald W. Munro: I think we all know that there are physical improvements to the building. I am talking about radar at Victoria international airport. I think the minister is still unaware of the fact that there is no radar at the airport.
I should like to find out from the minister-if he has been aware of it, or since he has been made aware of it by me, if by no one else-if he would assign to the installation of radar at Victoria international airport the same high priority as was accorded it by the previous government.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I do not want to emphasize the point, but it is quite apparent that my hon. friend has a personal reason for asking why there is not an adequate radar system at that particular airport. I am quite sure that if I were to question him on the existence of system radar at other airports in Canada, he would not know either. But this being said, let me assure the hon. member that in my answer to the question regarding improvements being made at Victoria airport, information on radar will be included.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I wanted to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence, but since the minister is not here I had hoped to direct it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but he is not here either so I guess I would have to direct it to the minister for intergovernmental affairs, but the Prime Minister failed to appoint him so I will in fact put my question to the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Keith Anguish: In light of the fact that during the last two weeks, two U.S. fighter aircraft crashed in northern Alberta and northern Saskatchewan while on manoeuvres from the Canadian Forces Base at Cold Lake, and since the province of Saskatchewan has been assured that the manoeuvres will cease until the problems have been identified-and such action has not been taken on that and the manoeuvres are still taking place-will the Prime Minister assure the province of Saskatchewan that no further U.S. military manoeuvres will take
934

May 12, 1980
Oral Questions
place until an investigation is carried out and remedial action taken?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I should report to the hon. member something that 1 believe most hon. members know, namely, that the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs are in Brussels attending the NATO meeting. I can understand that the hon. member, belonging to the party that he does, is not quite sure and should be informed of these things.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But 1 will make sure that the ministers, on their return, investigate the matter raised by the hon. member.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I have a supplementary question which the Prime Minister might also wish to direct somewhere. Since the fighter aircraft crash in Saskatchewan has been identified as causing an extensive forest fire, which is still burning out of control, will the Prime Minister assure the province of Saskatchewan that full recovery costs for firefighting will be reimbursed to the provinces as a result of the U.S. plane crashing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not sure, Madam Speaker, if there is an agreement covering this kind of damage, but if it is damage caused by a U.S. plane I would suppose that the hon. member would want the damage covered by the Americans.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the continuing representations being made by Indian bands that the financial assistance available under the department's capital housing program be raised from the present totally inadequate level of $12,000, can the minister say when these changes will be made to a more realistic level, so that the bands can get on to the more urgent housing needs?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Madam Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that the whole matter to which he is referring is now under active consideration by the government. I hope that a decision will be made fairly shortly.


MONEYS OWED FARMERS FOR DELIVERIES TO CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport who answers for the Canadian Wheat Board. Would the minister inform the House and the farmers of western Canada why they have not received, since the crop year 1972-73, the $28 million owed to them for the delivery of grain to the Canadian Wheat Board?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will have to take the question as notice, Madam Speaker.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I wonder why that minister is called responsible and the other one is not. Would the minister explain, when he takes notice of this question, who received the payments for the net bushels acquired from overages and shortages and the adjustment since 1973-74, and why it was not the producer? Was this done with the consent of the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will do so, Madam Speaker.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. A week or so ago, a motion was introduced in the House by the former minister of Indian affairs and northern development, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, opposing the construction of the proposed Norman Wells-Zama Lake pipeline.
In view of the need to encourage energy self-sufficiency in Canada, and in view of the need for an economic stimulus in the sadly-depressed Mackenzie district, can the minister tell the House whether he shares the same negative view as the former minister, or whether that hon. member was just expressing his own misguided ideas?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this matter is subject to the environmental assessment panel right now, and also the applications before the National Energy Board, both of which will probably come to culmination some time during the course of the summer. We will wait to see the decisions of those two bodies before any development takes place, in any event.
I hope that during that interval of time matters can be worked out to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. I do not believe it is advisable at this time, on the part of the hon. member or of anyone else, to try to polarize the situation by indicating that development will not go ahead at this particular time.
May 12, 1980


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I have a question which I should like to direct to the Prime Minister with reference to the funeral of Marshall Tito of Yugoslavia at which the government was represented by, among others, as head of our delegation, the Governor General.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister why he failed to accompany the Governor General to the funeral, not only to show respect for one of the last of the great Second World War leaders, but particularly to take the opportunity, as so many other national heads of governments did, to meet with one another and discuss important, world problems with each other?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member does not intend in any way to downgrade the monarchy by suggesting that the Governor General was not a good representative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to future contacts with foreign heads of government and heads of state, I will have occasion, with the encouragement of the hon. member, to make trips during my term of office.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: May 1 say, in prefacing my supplementary question, that there was no intention to downgrade the Governor General. If the Prime Minister heard my question, he would have heard me ask why he did not accompany the Governor General who, by virtue of his position, is not empowered to talk to national leaders on the political level.
My supplementary question is as follows: If the Prime Minister could not go himself, why did he not assign to the delegation the Secretary of State for External Affairs? I see he is being prompted by his deskmate several times; I hope it works. Why did he not send the Secretary of State for External Affairs or-and I ask this in all seriousness-is it still government policy to keep the foreign policy of this country in the Prime Minister's office?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it was my view that the funeral of such an eminent statesman as Marshall Tito was not a place to do business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: That is an insult to Margaret Thatcher and the Premier of Japan.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What business did they do?
Privilege-Mr. Yurko


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can he inform the House what his department is doing, in conjunction with the provincial governments of the three prairie provinces, in order to put in place contingency plans for what appears to be a very serious drought situation this coming year?
In fact, if there is not substantial rain on a good part of the prairies within the next ten days, we could be into a crisis situation in which there would be some small towns really without water, and also a situation in which the livestock industry could be affected very seriously as well as the grain industry.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is as well aware as I am that we probably have in Canada one of the most unique systems of all where they know the moisture conditions, they know what water exists, both the sweet and sour waters and the alkali waters, and this type of thing. That committee is active and is meeting. Right at this present time the deputy ministers from all across Canada are in Ottawa.
I am told that there will be a special session, if time permits, with the deputy ministers from the three western provinces concerned about the dry conditions. But I can only repeat what I said before-some people scoffed in this House, including the right hon. Leader of the Opposition-when I asked the people to pray for rain, and it worked that time.


Walter David Baker: We did not scoff.


Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, assuming the committee that is meeting will be doing more than just praying for rain, can the minister give some clear indication to the House as to just what this committee will be doing? Other than meeting in Ottawa, there must be more to what they intend to do. What are some of the specific steps they are putting in place, because it is a very, very serious matter?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, as far as making water available, etc., they do have contingency plans. They are available, and I will make them available again to the member to make sure he understands clearly what they can and cannot do. There are limitations on what they can do and I am sure he is aware of that.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from statements made by members of this assembly outside the House, but pertaining directly

May 12, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Yurko
to events which have taken place in this House and which reflect directly on the privileges of the members of this assembly. The motion adopted by this assembly last Friday was as follows:
That the Parliament of Canada submit an address to Her Majesty the Queen, that Her Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a bill to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom to provide for the amendment in Canada of the Constitution of Canada.
One such statement made was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in which he publicly stated at a news conference that he took the motion under Standing Order 43, adopted by this assembly, as a sign of a "generosity of spirit" and did not feel particularly bound by it. I would suggest that such a statement implies a breach of the privileges of this House, and would invite the Prime Minister to explain his statement to the House.
Second, the Prime Minister, at the same news conference, was purported to have suggested that it was naive to regard the motion as "a new strategic approach" from the opposition benches, inasmuch as it was clearly placed without the knowledge and approval of opposition party leaders. May I simply state that in proposing and putting the motion last Friday, the internal procedure established within the official opposition caucus was followed by the mover of the motion.
Furthermore, 1 would bring to the attention of the House that on speaking to the motion prior to the putting of the question by Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was essentially unconditional in his acceptance, with the following statement:
Perhaps the House leaders of the other parties, our own House leader and myself could discuss the appropriate time to proceed with that. For my part, 1 think it would be appropriate if we consulted the provinces before acting unilaterally on that motion.
The implication is very clear, that consultation can be undertaken but unilateral action will be taken by Parliament on the motion whether or not the agreement of any or all the provinces is obtained. The same implication is definitely left by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) in his statement, when he said:
1 also commend him for indicating the necessity and, indeed, if not the necessity certainly the propriety in our system, of consulting the provinces in respect of that matter before we act unilaterally.
Our hon. House leader then went on to state that the motion is worthy of the support of the House. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in responding, commended the introduction of the motion and went on to state that he was prepared to consult with the other House leaders on a suitable time for further debate on the issue.
Outside the House, the news reports suggested that the Prime Minister seemed to question the intent of the motion passed last Friday in my name. The intent is exactly what the motion said and what was unanimously adopted by this House, that Parliament shall submit-let me repeat, that the Thirty-second Parliament of Canada submit an address to the Queen for patriation of the constitution. The motion is not conditional; there is no "maybe" about it.
Therefore, what can Parliament submit, without the unanimous agreement of the provinces? However, as I have repeatedly stated, 1 strongly submit-as I said last Friday from four o'clock to 4.30 p.m. in speaking to motion No. 13-that a final effort must be made in terms of getting the approval of the provinces for patriation of the constitution.
I think it is important that I state on this question of privilege what my intentions were with the motion. As a result of that motion, I suggest the address should take the following form:
Whereas the Parliament of Canada has requested and consented to the enactment of an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in the terms hereinafter set forth, and the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled have submitted addresses to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a bill to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom for that purpose:
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same as follows:
That hereinafter the following laws of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall henceforth become laws of the Parliament of Canada amendable by the Parliament of Canada and the unanimous agreement of the provinces of Canada:
(a)	the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1979 inclusive;
(b)	the Manitoba Act, 1870;
(c)	the Parliament of Canada Act, 1875;
(d)	the Canadian Speaker (Appointment of Deputy) Act, 1895, Session 2;
(e)	the Alberta Act;
(0 the Saskatchewan Act;
(g)	the Statute of Westminster, 1931, in so far as it is part of the law of
Canada and;
(h)	any such other act or regulation pertaining to Canada.
And henceforth no act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the coming into force of this act shall extend or be deemed to extend to Canada or to any province or territory of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if I may at this point, I should like to draw two matters to your attention. If I followed the hon. member correctly, it is that he is stating on behalf of his party that, regardless of what the provinces say, after the consultation that both his House leader and I have mentioned-


Mr. Nielsen:: That is not right.


Walter David Baker: I do not think he said that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not finished my phrase. 1 do not know how the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) can know what I was going to say.


Erik Nielsen: You are saying that he is speaking for our party, and that is not true.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry. The hon. member for Yukon tells me that the hon. member for Athabasca, is it-


Jack Wendele Shields: I am the hon. member for Athabasca.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) is not speaking on behalf of his party. Therefore, I do not think I will enter into any debate on this matter with
May 12, 1980

him. I wish the party opposite would get its act together, and then we would know what we are dealing with.

But it seems, Madam Speaker, that when the hon. member presented this motion at the end of last week he did indicate that at least a few members of his party agreed with him. I am now told that it is not the case, that the party does not share the view of the hon. member or, at the very least, that the hon. member is not authorized by the Progressive Conservative Party to speak as he did.
As for me, 1 should like to bring up the statement of Quebec Premier Levesque dealing with the motion presented by the hon. member and seconded, as hon. members know, by the House of Commons conditional upon prior consultations with the provinces. The Quebec premier stated over the weekend that, under the present constitution, the rights of Quebec are at the mercy of the federal Parliament which can alter them without the consent of Quebec. I should like to say, Madam Speaker, that this constitutional opinion is not shared by most constitutionalists, including myself. But even if it were the case, that is to say, if under the present constitution the federal Parliament could amend the laws of the provinces, 1 would remind the House and the Quebec premier that the amending formula we suggested in Victoria and submitted repeatedly to Premier Levesque specifically gave the province of Quebec and other provinces the right to veto those changes. There is therefore that much more reason for the Quebec premier to consider those proposals for changing the status quo which the federal government put to him in the past, proposals that would require specifically the consent of Quebec before fundamental changes could be made to the constitution.
So, after the intervention of the Quebec premier last weekend, it appears that he is the one who wants the Parliament of Canada and the Canadian Constitution to remain the same, since we are making a specific proposal to change it, to give the right of veto to the province of Quebec.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I do not want to prolong this debate in any way, but I do not think it is lost upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and 1 am sure it is not lost upon members of the House of Commons, that in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) in respect of the kinds of things that could be included within it, he did say it would be amendable by Parliament with the unanimous consent of the provinces of Canada.
In what I gathered was the spirit of the House on Friday, and I think it was a rather good spirit, the Prime Minister indicated the importance in the constitutional sense of the consultation that must take place in the federal system between the provinces and the federal government. As I recollect,
Privilege-Mr. Yurko
I commended him for that. I think that generosity of spirit is exceedingly important.
I believe too, Madam Speaker, that there is another, almost message-if I may put it in that way-in the motion made by the hon. member for Edmonton East, and that is that in respect of the constitution of this country there is a willingness, now expressed by Parliament for the first time, to engage in a renewal of federalism in this country. If the hon. member for Edmonton East has advanced that cause one inch or one foot, then the hon. member for Edmonton East has done a great service to Parliament and to this country, and 1 commended him for that before, as I do now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I want to say to the Prime Minister, on behalf of my party-and I speak as House leader of that party, as I did on Friday-that we are prepared, as a political party, to enter into consultations with the government House leader, as we said we would, in respect of this matter. I do not think there is any one of us in this House of Commons who wants to take any step in any partisan way to in any way fail to advance the cause of togetherness, understanding, compromise and agreement which is the essence of our federalism.
I believe that is the generosity of spirit that was displayed in this House by the fact that Standing Order 43 was the vehicle for an unusual agreement in the House regarding something that is important to Canadians, and that is the ability of Canadians to amend their own constitution.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, because of citation 19(3) of Beauchesne's fifth edition, I question whether this matter is a question of privilege. That paragraph reads:
Statements made outside the House by a member may not be used as the base for a question of privilege.
There are also rules about reflecting on a vote, which in effect is what we are doing. We took the vote on Friday, and that is it. However, I should like to express the view that it is unfortunate that there has been some misunderstanding of that motion. I believe what the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said just now is correct, that there was a generous expression of spirit on Friday to the effect that the members of this House would like to see our constitution in this country. Surely that was the essence of that motion.
Having regard to the positions that were expressed by the three parties, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), by the hon. member for Neapean-Carleton, and by myself, we all supported the proposition that there would have to be consultation with the provinces before any such action could be taken.
As I say, Madam Speaker, I question whether this is a matter of privilege, but it is unfortunate that there was misunderstanding of a generous expression of spirit on the part of the members of this House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Misunderstanding by whom?

May 12, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Deans


Madam Speaker:: The question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) led to a discussion which no doubt will prove useful to all those concerned and I had to listen to it completely in order to ascertain whether or not this was indeed a matter of privilege.
Etowever, I must rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Edmonton East. It was based on statements made outside the House and over which the Chair has no authority.


POINT OF ORDER
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) whether he can undertake to table a copy of the agreement that was reached with Chrysler and, presumably, with Ontario?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, when I made my announcement of the agreement reached between the federal government, Chrysler Canada and Chrysler Corporation on Saturday, I said I proposed to table the formal document setting out that agreement when the preparation of the documents is completed, and that I would also be tabling the Chrysler Canada financial and operating plan referred to in my statement and to be referred to in those documents at that time. I am happy to give my hon. friend, and the House as a whole, that undertaking.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On May 7, in response to questions by myself to the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), the minister said:
What we are prepared to make available for Chrysler Canada will depend on what is agreed to by them on the matter of job guarantees and the other elements we consider necessary.
The important part of what he said is as follows:
1 do not intend that members of the House will learn through other sources of any arrangement that is worked out but, rather, through an announcement by myself through this House.
You can imagine my surprise and shock to hear, on Saturday and on Sunday, and to watch the minister speaking on television about the agreement that had been worked out prior to his having made any announcement in the House. In
addition to that, the minister has now indicated to my House leader that he does not intend to make a statement in the House today with regard to the Chrysler matter. I do not know whether he intends to make a statement on some other day.
I do suggest that the minister misled me, at least, in this House on May 7 by saying that it was his intention to make a statement in the House and thereby to allow an opportunity for comment by hon. members. Would the minister reconsider, in light of what he said on May 7, and make such a statement in order that we can adequately deal with the proposals which he apparently has agreed to; and would he make that statement today?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, obviously, at the time I made that comment I intended to make a statement in the House on this very important matter. However, things became so urgent that I thought it would not be in the public interest or in the interest of the thousands of workers involved to delay the matter but, instead, to seize the opportunity to wrap up the decision and communicate it to the public during the weekend.
I regret the situation, but events moved so quickly that my original intention could not be carried out. I did instruct my staff to make every possible effort to reach the hon. member and other spokesmen of opposition parties so that they would have the material and be in a position to comment on my announcement as soon as it would be possible during the weekend to do so. If the House would like me to make a statement, I would be very happy to do so. I leave that matter to discussions between the House leaders. I would be prepared to make a statement today or at some other time.
There are certainly many opportunities during question period to give out the kind of information sought by my hon. friend. As I have said, I regret that events moved so quickly. 1 decided that it was in the over-all public interest that I not hold back the information on the agreement which was reached. I would be happy to seek other opportunities to make a formal statement in the House.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, further to the statements just made by the minister, he indicated that his ministry made every effort to contact myself and members of the Conservative party. I can assure the minister that my telephone is on an answering service, I checked it every hour, on the hour, and up to this point in time I can find no evidence of any call-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the explanation given by the minister. I suggest that the government House leaders get together and decide on whether or not they would like the minister to make a statement in the House.
May 12, 1980

I feel that there is no question of privilege. It is a difference of opinion between the hon. member and the minister on a question which was raised during question period.


POINT OF ORDER
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order of very few words. I had hoped to raise my point of order in the presence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It concerns something which he said earlier in this House. If there is to be any response to my point of order, perhaps it could be made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen).
In all respect to our allies, I would think the government would want to withdraw the inference made by the Prime Minister that leaders such as Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister of Japan and including his Russian friends, took advantage of discussing world affairs while attending the funeral of Marshall Tito and that a funeral was not the place for a discussion of this kind. Some 80 or 90 other leaders had discussions at this time.
I think that we have insulted all these leaders and I am sure that was not the Prime Minister's intention. Nor would it be the intention of this House to insult such people as the Prime Minister of Japan, who spoke to us here in this House on May 5. I would like to hear the Deputy Prime Minister make it clear, on behalf of the government, that no such aspersions were meant against other governments.


Madam Speaker:: The House has noted that the hon. member has expressed a grievance. It is a grievance, rather than a point of order.


PRIVILEGE
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, being a new member of this House I have difficulty in seeking and acquiring information at the best of times on behalf of my constituents. Considering the fact that in the throne speech, hon. members from the west were requested by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to put a little more energy into representing their constituencies than members from other areas, I am finding it very difficult, because when I asked a question of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin)-who is also the minister responsible to the House for the Canadian Wheat Board-I was told something to the effect that he
Privilege-Mr. McKnight
could not supply the information. This is information which I requested so that I could better serve my constituents and fulfil my responsibility to them.
I have found it very difficult, also, when I have attempted to go through other channels for other pieces of information because the senator in the other House who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board never seems to be there. Because of the importance of the Canadian Wheat Board to the people of my constituency, I want to keep them informed; but I am finding it very difficult. All members on this side have the responsibility to keep their constituents informed so that we may represent their concerns and their feelings.
I am not criticizing the hon. minister. As much as he has travelled in the west, he must still find it very difficult to become familiar with the problems of the west. Perhaps he is facing the same difficulty we are in reaching the senator in the other place in order to get information. If you do find, Madam Speaker, that I have a question of privilege, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That if the inability to gain information about the Canadian Wheat Board from the minister responsible continues, my concerns be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the concern of the hon. member, which I take to be a serious concern soundly based on his desire to serve his constituents. I heard the question which the hon. member addressed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) which involved failure to make a payment that extended back to 1972-73. The matter occurred some seven or eight years ago.
It may not be possible for every minister to have at his fingertips every piece of information that is current, let alone a matter that extends back some seven or eight years. There was a very simple way for the hon. member to receive a full answer today-which is what he wanted-and that was by giving the minister notice of his question. If the hon. member had given the minister notice, the minister would have had the information available and supplied it immediately.
Obviously, there are some questions for which notice will not be given. Members wish to score political points during the question period, and they do not give notice. The hon. member was not intending to score political points; he merely wanted some information. The quickest way to have received that information would have been to give notice to the Minister of Transport, who would have answered immediately. I suggest that if the hon. member follows that practice on future occasions, he will not have any reason to rise on a question of privilege as he has today.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a brief contribution to this very important question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Kinders-

May 12, 1980
Privilege-Mr. McKnight
ley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight). I listened with great interest to the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) with regard to the lack of response by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). The minister was designated to answer, on behalf of the government, in the House of Commons on matters relating to the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Deputy Prime Minister has tried to slough off the matter by suggesting that it would be appropriate to give notice and that an answer would then be received. I do not wish to introduce a partisan element into this debate, because that was not my purpose in rising.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: During the period when 1 was a minister of the government, I did not at any time receive notice of any questions from members of the Liberal party.


Mr. Evans:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Elnatyshyn:: Having said that, I must apologize to the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) who gave me notice of a question he intended to ask, but that was just a matter of minutes before the question period was to begin. I received no other such notice. This is a matter of great concern to western Canadians: the minister should not be unaware of that if he is to report on behalf of the Canadian Wheat Board.
As my colleague has pointed out, this is not the first time this particular question has arisen. It is not merely the difficulty of getting an answer from the minister who reports on behalf of the Canadian Wheat Board that is the problem; it is that we have never been able to get an answer to questions about the Canadian Wheat Board from any minister in this House.
My colleague also pointed out that, as the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board sits in the other place, this makes it more than difficult: it makes it almost impossible for the member of our party who has responsibility as critic of the Canadian Wheat Board to get information from the responsible minister. 1 realize there is a tradition in this House that it is not obligatory for a minister to respond to any question in the House, but I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that this particular instance transcends that rule.
There is a minister who ostensibly is designated to report to the House on behalf of the Canadian Wheat Board, but what happens is that the minister who purports to have responsibility in the House takes every question as notice. This shows a lack of sensitivity to questions which are of great importance to western Canadians.
The Deputy Prime Minister does us a disservice by trying to suggest that this is an isolated instance and that giving notice would improve the situation. The cabinet is so insensitive to
this matter that it has not appointed anyone to answer in this House. The rule of the House is, of course, that a minister need not reply, but this type of treatment of questions of importance to western Canadians offends the underlying principle that a minister, even if he is not going to answer, should at least be truthful and straightforward and indicate to the House that he knows nothing about the portfolio and that is the reason he takes the question as notice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: On the same question of privilege, Madam Speaker, I think there is some urgency about the matter raised by the two hon. members from Saskatchewan. The minister should realize that the people of Saskatchewan are facing a crisis situation. Costs have never risen the way they are doing now; farmers are facing a 40 per cent increase in costs. We think it is very relevant to the work of this House that consideration be given to these questions of concern to members from western Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 have a few comments on this question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight). Quite obviously, the hon. member is not satisfied with the answer he received from the minister. The Chair, of course, cannot pronounce itself on the quality of an answer which a minister has given in the House.
On the second point made by the hon. member, there are many precedents, as he no doubt knows, for ministers responsible for certain sectors of government activity who sit in the Senate to answer questions in the Senate. The Senate is also a place where information can be elicited by questions.
The hon. member is free to pursue his questions to ministers in this House who may answer them, but in no way can the Chair force a minister to give a member an answer he would like to receive. This type of exchange takes place freely between the two sides of the House, and the Chair does not intervene with regard to either the rigour or quality of the exchange.
Whether the grievances of hon. members are founded or not, the Chair can do no more than allow members to ask questions and permit ministers to answer them. If hon. members are not satisfied, they can pursue their preoccupations in subsequent question periods.
I have to find that there is no question of privilege.
May 12, 1980



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, an exchange of diplomatic notes between Canada and the United States which constitutes an agreement between our two governments to extend the current North America Air Defence Command Agreement for a year. The notes were exchanged this morning in Washington between the Canadian ambassador and the United States Department of State.
* *
*


FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT
Eugene Whelan: for leave to introduce Bill C-27, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.


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

Eugene Whelan: for leave to introduce Bill C-28, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Madam Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member who is supposed to speak in the throne speech debate-


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Would the hon. member please sit down. Before recognizing him I simply want to mention the fact that during the throne speech debate questions on the order paper are generally not answered since the throne speech debate has priority over all other business of the House except for routine proceedings. However, with the consent of the House, I will allow the hon. parliamentary secretary to answer some ques-
Order Paper Questions
tions. Is there unanimous consent to allow the parliamentary secretary to answer questions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 90, 95, 275 and 279.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Of all the orders in council passed between April 20, 1968, and the date the former prime minister took office, how many in any way concerned national security and on what dates were they passed?
2.	In each case (a) how many are available for public scrutiny (b) how many are in any way classified (c) what was the general subject-matter?


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: 1. One. Order in council PC 1970-1808 of October 16, 1970.- SOR-70/444.
2. (a) It is available for public scrutiny.
(b)	It was published in The Canada Gazette on October 28, 1970.
(c)	Public order regulations, 1970. This order was superseded by the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, 1970 which remained in force from December 3, 1970, to April 3, 1971.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, was it planned to serve, at the cancelled dinner for President Carter at Government House, in the latter part of 1979, a 1973 Puligny Montrachet and a 1971 Chambole Mussingy rather than Canadian wines?
2.	Are Canadian wines served at receptions held at Canadian consulates or embassies abroad and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, what was the total value of Canadian wines served at such locations in the last fiscal year and what percentage did they form of the total wines served?
3.	Is the government prepared to take steps to increase its purchase of Canadian wines in any foreign country and, if so, what are the details in this regard?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Yes. However it was also planned to serve a Canadian champagne during the dessert course.
2. In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned, the reply is as follows:
Yes. (a) not applicable.

May 12, 1980
Order Paper Questions
(b) Statistics are not available as employees who host receptions identified in the question are not required to maintain records of the origin of commodities served at receptions.
3. The government does not purchase Canadian wines in any foreign country.


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past five years, what amount was transferred to the Department of Transport stores account?


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, if question No. 346 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 346 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1975-	76-(a) Between October, 1975, and April, 1976, the
aviation fuel at Baker Lake, Coral Harbour and Hall Beach in the Northwest Territories valued at $500,000 was transferred from the Air Transportation Program.
(b) Vote L3b, Appropriation Act No. 1, 1976, authorized the increase of the limit of the stores account from $13,000,000 to $27,000,000.
1976-	77-On April 1, 1976, the telecom and aircraft parts
peculiar inventories valued at $7,838,791 were transferred from the Air Transportation Program.
1977-	78-Nil.
1978-	79-Nil.
1979-	80-Nil.


Mr. Herbert: As at March 31 in each of the past five years, what amount was outstanding in the accounts of Canada in respect of the Department of Transport stores account?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: March 31, 1976 March 31, 1977 March 31, 1978 March 31, 1979 March 31, 1980
$13,030,904 $22,069,330 $22,679,473 $24,628,302 $25,950,000 Est.
Notes: During 1976-77 the telecom and aircraft parts peculiar inventories valued at $7,838,791, were added to the stores account.


Mr. Herbert: Did the National Energy Board approve an agreement between Hydro-Quebec and the power authority of the State of New York to export electrical power to the United States and, if so, what were the terms of the agreement?
Return tabled.


John Leslie Evans: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
*
* *


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, you and I may be rising for the same purpose with respect to the House order for today which envisaged that the hon. member for Joliette would speak, followed by an hon. member for the New Democratic Party and then a member from the government side of the House, I suppose in that order, for 30 minutes each. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Joliette cannot be here because of the change in time. He is involved in his province, but he expects to be here later in the day.
There have been discussions between the chief government whip and the chief opposition whip which led to the note that you have in your hands, Madam Speaker, the essence of which would permit the hon. member for Joliette to speak for his thirty minutes some time later in the day. Therefore, our first speaker would be bound by the rules that we have established in the House order.
If that would be agreeable-and I believe it is agreeable and I see the chief government whip is here-and if the House
May 12, 1980

order could be amended accordingly, we could then proceed for the balance of the day on that basis. I hope that is agreeable to all members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, although the exchange was between those two whips, I believe I suggested that they have the exchange.


Walter David Baker: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Therefore, we agree to the proposition that the hon. member for Joliette speak later, but that otherwise the terms of Friday's order shall stand: that the thirty-minute limit will apply to the hon. member for Joliette, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, and to a government speaker. Everyone else is limited to 20 minutes.


Walter David Baker: With no extensions.


Madam Speaker:: The Chair was aware of the arrangement which had been reached between the two House leaders. I now have the agreement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that it is agreeable that three speakers respectively will have 30 minutes and others will be restricted to the usual 20 minutes.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 22, 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.
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, 1 thank you for giving me 18 minutes to deliver a 20-minute speech. I shall do my best.
Since this is the first time 1 rise in this debate, 1 want to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to the occupants of the chair and my offer of co-operation at all times of impartiality and even-handedness.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will take the liberty of speaking and appealing directly to my fellow countrymen from the province of Quebec, all those who sit in this House as well as those whom these members represent. I appeal to all those who live in the province of Quebec, Canadians who in a few days will be confronted with a decision which is extremely important for the future of this country.
Fellow countrymen from Quebec! You should not imagine that your problems with the federal government and with the other provinces are unique, or that difficulties, whether of an economic or constitutional nature, do not also afflict the people who live in other areas of this vast country of ours. I
The Address-Mr. D. W. Munro
emphasize "ours". Do not be so megalomaniac, try to see further than your nose from time to time. You are not the only ones who complain and try to better their situation in our country to which I belong together with you and which belongs to me as well as to you. You do not have the right, and neither do I, to threaten the integrity of our country. You must consult me before even suggesting to tear the country apart. Since you and I belong to this great country and since I served it for 40 years or so, first in uniform, then as a diplomat and finally as a member of Parliament, I claim the right-it is rather an obligation-to speak frankly to you, my French-speaking fellow citizens of the province of Quebec, who will be faced on May 20 with a most crucial question concerning the future of my country; I repeat, the future of my country. In the circumstances, I have not only the right but the obligation to speak to you like a Dutch uncle, as we say, meaning frankly and without restraint.
Since my riding is not in Quebec, I feel I can express myself more freely than my Quebec colleagues because in this debate they must watch their steps carefully so as not to alienate their constituents who are still undecided whether to vote Yes or No. After all, their ridings are at stake. Separation would eliminate 75 seats from this Parliament. So, very frankly I would like to tell you how much, despite the " I couldn't care less" attitude that, we have to admit, exists in western Canada, where I come from, how much we in the west are against the Yes in the coming referendum. I shall say why.
First and foremost, as I just said, you have no right to dismember my country. I will not allow anyone to cut off one of my arms or legs. Is this arm or leg in a position to decide on its own what is to become of the whole body? I, for one, make no bones about replying No. For this reason, the reply on the referendum question must also be No. On the other hand, a majority of Yes votes would authorize the PQ government to avail itself of a "right" which it claims it has, a right which does not exist in my constitutional lexicon, to put forward concrete demands and start negotiating as an equal with the rest of Canada considered as a separate entity. I wonder if to "negotiate" is the proper word in this context. As far as an "equal" is concerned, when does one quarter equal half of the whole? No provincial government has the right to behave this way. That is my own point of view and I am strongly attached to it.
Secondly, your egotistic and introspective behaviour indicates to me that you do not pay any attention to the movements and activities of those here and there in Canada who want a new deal. For instance, are you aware that the western premiers met recently in Fethbridge, Alberta? First of all, they indicated their determination to work to improve federalism in Canada and then expressed their total and unrelenting opposition to a Yes vote on the referendum question. Were you fully

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. D. W. Munro aware of these various trends of thoughts out west, or did the PQ authorities choose to distort or cover them up?
Thirdly, do you know that several reports on the need to restructure the federation have been prepared and distributed over the past two or three years, not only at the provincial level, but also within the private sector?
For example, did you read the brochures on the constitution, providing a full range of proposals on the constitution, put forward in Victoria by the province of British Columbia? Have they, too, been concealed from you? Here they are in nine parts, in nine brochures, each dedicated to a particular aspect of the Canadian constitution, such as reform of the Senate, the Supreme Court and the federal-provincial institutions. Those brochures deal also with the distribution of legislative powers and the amendment to the constitution, including linguistic rights. Have they, too, have been concealed from you, and the elaborate study of our problems and concerns, with some proposals flowing from it, prepared two years ago by the Canadian Bar Association.
I might quote a third example of that concern, as serious as yours, over the constitutional dead end our beloved country is now in. The Canada West Foundation, a non-profit organization, published some time ago a thorough examination of this sad situation. I am showing it to you because I feel that such things are concealed from you.
It is obvious that we are all looking for a new agreement, a new federalism which will allow and even force us to live in harmony with one another. You are not the only ones looking for a new formula. For our part, we reject the formula suggested by the PQ government, according to which you have to accept-whether you like it or not-an absurdity like sovereignty-association.
Think things over calmly. Use your head. A fraud is being perpetrated. Look hard at those two words and consider the effect of their juxtaposition. Don't be fooled. Don't be hypnotized by deceiving and demagogic eloquence. The real question of the referendum, the question which is being put now and which could determine the future of my country, but on which you alone are called upon to vote on on May 20, is purely and simply separation-association. Do not forget it when the time comes to mark your ballot. Separation-association is what it is all about, despite the promise of a second referendum.
In my opinion, a single province does not have the right to decide by itself an issue of such importance. The whole population, under certain circumstances, should decide whether or not such a referendum is necessary. Let us consider these two terms in some detail.
As for sovereignty, the fact is that every province already enjoys it to some extent. Not full sovereignty in all areas,
indeed not, but for the generation of electricity, resource and forest development, in the field of municipal government, there is absolute and unquestionable sovereignty. After all, sovereignty must be defined in pluralistic terms, since some areas are already unquestionably under the sovereign jurisdiction of the provinces, while others come under the responsibility of Canada as a whole and all its citizens. There is even a third sector of mixed jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, how can you be fooled by this outlandish concept, this idiotic nonsense that is sovereignty within a federation? Sovereignty-association is utter rubbish. I will come back to this issue related to political science after putting forward some arguments pertaining to logic. Let us consider for a moment the expression "sovereignty-association."
In my opinion, it immediately shows an innate contradiction. Being sovereign, as the Parti Quebecois supporters see it, is to be able to regulate the life of the community in all its aspects through your own efforts, with no external constraints, which means, according to the Parti Quebecois supporters, the "right" to negotiate as between equals with other sovereign states, such as Canada, and separately with each province. I wonder what right they suggest! On the other hand, association means acceptance of the principles that you must share with your associates in the conduct of your affairs and, all the more so, submit to external constraints.
How can you put together two such contradictory notions? I am really surprised and even shocked to see how people who are so proud of their cartesian training can be blinded by such an obvious contradiction. But let us go back to the concept just stated which is to examine more closely what I would call, for lack of a simpler expression, "sectorial sovereignty", and which is for me the essential basis of any true federalism.
What is essential in such a federalism, and a federalism renewed in the spirit already revealed, is to grant the participant total sovereignty in certain specific sectors and to ensure that they have the taxation powers to fulfil their responsibilities in these designated areas. As I understand it, this is exactly what you are looking for, my friends in Quebec. It is also what we are looking for in the west, that is, the certainty that in some specific areas we shall be able to have total jurisdiction with all related constitutional and taxation powers.
Do not be so myopic. You are not the only province seeking this federative formula. Open your eyes. We are all looking for a renewed federalism, a redefinition and a consolidation of federalism. There is no question of other jurisdictions holding a referendum on an absurdity to achieve this formula. We are willing to use the existing institutions, and to change them if required, to meet the exceptional needs of this time and to seek this renewed federalism which will include all the territories and the provinces and establish between all participants such bonds as will meet the aspirations of each of them. I see that my time is going fast, and before closing or being forced to close, I would like to say-
May 12, 1980


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. As the hon. member started at 18 minutes to one o'clock, is it agreed that we do not see the clock, and give the hon. member until two minutes after one?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald W. Munro: We in the west are affected by an injustice, which I should like to explain and which we are trying to solve. This injustice is to be seen in the economic sector of transportation. Furthermore, it is only one of our complaints against the east-west lack of balance in Canada.
I am not the first one, I am sure, to note that the economic centre of gravity of Canada is shifting. An important sector is noticeably, gradually but surely moving west whereas the demographic gravity centre, and consequently the political centre of gravity remains in the east. This situation in itself creates an imbalance which is difficult to solve but if 1 am permitted, I shall say that we now witness discriminatory treatment toward the west which makes it far cheaper to send manufactured goods from east to west than the other way around. Suppose that we in the west have the manufacturing capacity to do the required processing. This capacity does exist in some areas, but under the circumstances it is extremely difficult to compete in our local markets with products from the east. Obviously, this discriminatory system interferes with the full development in the west of a processing industry in all sectors. We are fully aware of the historical explanation for that preferential system but we are not prepared to accept forever such an inequity.
We have the institutions needed to make the changes required by the situation. Let us use them. Reason always prevails for men of good will and rationality. Because of all this, I dearly hope that my fellow Canadians in Quebec will further study the referendum question and the effects of a majority Yes vote in Quebec and Canada as a whole, culturally and economically, not to mention the political consequences which are so serious and unacceptable that nobody can contemplate them without the greatest concern.
In terminating my remarks, I should like to place on record a version of a very famous speech which symbolizes for me the dilemma and even the solution to the problem which confronts us. It goes like this:
More than one century ago our forefathers brought forth on this continent a nation dedicated to the proposition that peoples of differing cultures and linguistic background could live together under one national roof and thrive. Today that proposition is being put to the test. I believe it can survive and that it can thrive.
The Address-Mr. Nystrom
Whether it does or not will depend upon the response of all Canadians to the preoccupations of their fellow Canadians and the willingness of all Canadians to work diligently toward the remoulding of the constitutional provision under which the people and institutions of this country are to be governed in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being after one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.03 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today in what I think is a very important debate because it comes very close to an important vote in the province of Quebec. I want to say at the outset four things which I think are very important and that we all think about when we are contemplating the future of our country.
First of all, I strongly believe that Canada should stay together as one country-that is a basic premise that all of us have, I think-that we should be economically independent, that we should be a sovereign country, that we should have a country united on the basis of equality and freedom for all, one country that is built on the philosophy of co-operation.
[ Translation]
We need a solid country, a solid Canada, with a restructured constitution, a renewed federation with the ten provinces so they will be treated more fairly than they are now in this country. We truly want a restructured Canadian federation. We say not only to the status quo in this country but also to a renewed status quo. We need a completely different country from a constitutional point of view.
Second, Mr. Speaker, it is most important to start the negotiations for a renewed constitution as soon as possible after May 20, whether the vote is Yes or No. The NDP will not accept sovereignty-association but we want a restructured, renewed country and constitution. We need to have negotiations for such a constitution.

The other thing that it is very important to say is that all Canadians-certainly Canadians in western Canada-want Quebec to stay in the Canadian confederation. We think there is a very important place for Quebec in our country and most people want Quebec to stay. I want to refer to one particular issue when it comes to an appeal to Quebec to stay in our country, and that is that from time to time there are people across this land who make statements to the contrary which, I believe, misrepresent horribly the feelings of Canadians. I want to refer to an article which appeared in-

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. Nystrom

The Journal de Montreal of April 17, 1980, had a headline which read as follows:
If the hostages in Tehran were Quebeckers, people would say "leave them there", says a western MLA.
This is an article from the Canadian Press, and I quote:
If 50 French Canadians were held hostage in Tehran, instead of 50 Americans, the majority of western Canadians would say, "leave them there."

That was a quotation from the remarks of a member of the Saskatchewan legislature, a Mr. Dennis Ham. I say that such articles and statements misrepresent totally the views in western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I will say more about him and his other colleague in a few minutes.
The other thing 1 wanted to say, the fourth thing that is very important, is that the debate we are having in this country now is really urgent; it is one of national urgency. It is not just the fact that many people in Quebec are very unhappy with confederation, for all kinds of social, historic and linguistic reasons; there are many other people in the country who are also unhappy with confederation. If Quebec decided to go, it would not necessarily follow that the rest of the country would fall into place and there would be harmony, because there are other problems as well.
Everybody knows there is a tremendous amount of unrest and dissatisfaction in Quebec. But I can look at western Canada and find some things there that are terrifying. A poll by the Canada West Foundation a short time ago showed that 4 per cent of westerners wanted to separate and join the United States and become the fifty-first to the fifty-fourth states. Also 13 per cent of westerners said that they wished western Canada would become an independent country, an independent nation. A CBC poll which was released about a week ago showed that in the riding of Swift Current, Saskatchewan, 19 per cent of the people who responded to the poll said that they hoped western Canada would become an independent nation. When one has statistics like this, it is evident that a lot of people in western Canada are very unhappy, as well as in the province of Quebec.
Also we have the unhappiness of the native Indian and Inuit people of this country. We saw the constitutional conference of the first nations of this country, the Indian people, about a week or so ago. They are now demanding that they have much more input into the affairs of Canada and a greater participation in the constitutional talks. Also we had the speeches made by Brian Peckford in Newfoundland that some journalists- such as Charles Lynch, for example-say sound more separatist than the speeches made by Rene Levesque.
We can see that a lot of people are very unhappy-the Quebecois, western Canadians, the people of Newfoundland
and the native people of this country. It is a fact we will have to realize. Because of that, we will have to make a lot of changes in the structure of our constitution and in Canada as a whole. It is a bit like the movie "Network", where people were getting more and more angry all the time. They went out on to their balconies and they shouted that all-famous line: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any longer". That is what a lot of people in Canada are saying today from one half of the country to the other.
I think we can move now before it is too late to hold this country together. We have a lot of differences. In many ways those differences make us a greater, richer and better people. Also there are a lot of similarities between my province and the province of Quebec, for example. Both of those provinces put a great deal of stress and emphasis on co-operatives and co-operative development. We have credit unions, wheat pools and co-operatives in Saskatchewan; they have the caisses populaires and co-operatives in the province of Quebec. Both provinces have a great tradition when it comes to Crown corporations. One only has to think of Hydro-Quebec. One can think of the moves made in asbestos in the province of Quebec, in comparison to things like the moves to take over potash and make the operation a public utility in Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Power Corporation, Saskatchewan Telephone and the like. So we have great similarities. I think we can put together a nation which will be very, very promising in the years ahead.
There are some things we must look at with the referendum coming up. One of the most important things we should be talking about now is that there should be a willingness and an openness to renegotiate confederation. I am a bit concerned sometimes at some of the closed-door attitudes that I witness in this country. I think this is a time when we have to build bridges and open doors. We must say clearly to the people of Quebec, whether it is a Yes or a No vote, that we will have to sit down and negotiate this country, redefine and renew the Constitution of Canada. It is very important that we say that at this time. Our party at a council meeting held over the weekend in Ottawa passed a resolution to that effect. I quote that resolution:
[ Translation]
(1)	That the NDP reaffim its commitment to restructuring the Canadian federation through major constitutional changes;
(2)	That the NDP call for negotiations to take place immediately to renew Canadian federalism, regardless of the result of the referendum;

1 think that is very important. The other thing we should be thinking about is the process of negotiation. How do we negotiate a new constitution and renewed federation in Canada? Again at our weekend conference in Ottawa, we passed a resolution which indicated that the government of this country should commence those negotiations, but as those negotiations go on, the people of this country should be involved in a direct way, particularly the Indian, Inuit and the native people.
May 12, 1980

The reason it is so important to have the people involved is that there are more people in the country than just what the government could represent. For example, I think it is very important that we have perhaps members of the legislatures involved, members of the opposition in the House of Commons, the people represented in this House by parties other than the Liberal party, which makes up about 57 per cent of the Canadian electorate. I think it is very important that we become involved in that constitutional process, that we start communicating the desire about that process in the days and weeks ahead.

I would also like to remind Quebeckers that we never underestimated the significance of the referendum in Quebec, and our attitude should not be relinquished a few days before May 20. Quite the opposite, the resolutions passed over the weekend by the New Democratic Party reflect our special awareness at this most important time in this country's history. I have no hesitation in saying to the men and women of Quebec and to their elected representatives here that I look forward to seeing them, whatever the result of May 20, at the negotiating table with Canadians of every province. What needs to be built is a new Canadian constitution, a federal constitution recognizing this country's linguistic duality, a constitution recognizing a partnership between English-speaking, French-speaking and native Canadians. This is a prerequisite to more social, cultural and economic justice and fairness in Canada.

One of the things we should be looking at is the reasons so many people are unhappy with confederation as it is presently constituted. There are various historical, cultural and linguistic reasons for that in Quebec, but also there are some economic reasons in Quebec as to why so many people are unhappy with confederation. Some of those economic reasons are the same for people in the Atlantic provinces.
I went back and looked at some of the statistics concerning what has happened in terms of investments, jobs and unemployment in the country over the last ten or 12 years since the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was elected to office. For example, I looked at the Atlantic region and I found that 10 per cent of Canada's population lives in the Atlantic provinces, but only 6.6 per cent of the new jobs between 1968 and 1978 were created in that region. Also, 6.1 per cent of the investment occurred in the Atlantic provinces despite the fact that they have 10 per cent of our population. In the province of Quebec we find 27 per cent of the Canadian people, but only 18.1 per cent of the new jobs and 22 per cent of the new investments took place in that province.
It is very plain to see that in many ways opportunities are not becoming more equal in Canada between our regions, but are becoming more and more serious in terms of the inequalities between Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and the rest of the country. Between 1968 and 1979 unemployment in the Atlantic region went up by some 37.5 per cent, in Quebec by 34.4
The Address-Mr. Nystrom
per cent, in Canada as a whole by 33.3 per cent. Once again we see that the inequalities are growing rather than reducing in size in our country.
What about the west, the region where I come from? As I have always said to the House, there is a growing feeling of frustration in western Canada. When 13 per cent of the people say in a poll that they want to live in an independent country, then I think it is very serious. I remind hon. members that in all the polls taken in Quebec I have yet to see one where over 20 per cent of the Quebecois want to be a totally separate and totally independent country. When the question is asked about sovereignty-association or about negotiating sovereignty-association, it is a bit different because a lot of federalists will be voting Oui. They will be voting Oui because they think it is the tactical thing to do and so on. But when one asks the Quebec question right to the core-whether or not they want to separate and become an independent country-one finds 15 per cent, 16 per cent or 18 per cent of the people saying Yes, while in western Canada 13 per cent are saying Yes. I wonder, if you were to fudge the question a bit, whether that figure would not be over 20 per cent, 25 per cent or 30 per cent. When you start getting statistics like this, that indicates a very serious problem and we will have to look at the reasons so many people are so unhappy.
I hear from behind me, for example, the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), who can tell many stories about inequities in the freight rate system, how it cost more to ship processed livestock from the prairies to central Canada than it cost to ship the livestock themselves. He can show that it costs more to ship a ton of steel from Hamilton to Calgary than it costs to ship a ton of steel from Hamilton to the city of Vancouver. We have those inequities, and they must be done away with if we want to make the people in the west feel a part of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We also need a western Canada where we process more of our raw materials and food products closer to where those food products are produced. We also need a tariff structure that does not discriminate against people in western Canada. We need all kinds of other things to be done in the west. People talk about interest rates. There is no one that interest rates affect more than the farmers of western Canada, because farmers are the greatest borrowers of short-term money, which is where interest rates are the highest.
We also have to make sure the government keeps the commitment to build the port of Prince Rupert in order to move our grain, to build the port of Churchill, and a number of other things that would enhance the economy of western Canada.
One of the unfortunate things that has happened in western Canada very recently is that for the first time in our history- and I stress, the very first time in our history-we now have members who were elected by the people and are sitting in our legislature as western separatists. Here I refer to Mr. Dennis

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. Nystrom
Ham and Mr. Dick Colver in Saskatchewan who were elected in October, 1978, as Progressive Conservatives. Mr. Colver was the leader of the party and leader of the opposition. In March of this year they left that political party.
1 am glad to say that since then they have been denounced by their party because the Conservative party wants nothing to do with them any longer. They are now sitting as people who are advocating the separation of western Canada and the unification of our part of Canada with the United States. They want us to be the fifty-first, fifty-second, fifty-third and fifty-fourth states of the United States. I totally disagree with that. I think all the problems of alienation and the feeling that we do not have any influence on what is happening in the country would be even more accentuated as an even tinier part of an even greater and more powerful country. We would then really be but a small drop in a great big puddle or a great big sea. We would be sending eight senators to Washington and maybe eight or ten congressmen to the congress of the United States, instead of sending 75 or more MPs to the House of Commons in Ottawa. We would have all kinds of other problems.
One of the problems we have is that Canada has been developed in a sort of hinterland metropolis type of fashion where some regions are suppliers of raw materials to the industrial areas. That philosophy is even more pronounced in the United States. One only has to look at Montana and the Dakotas. You cannot name any big cities in Montana or the Dakotas because they are suppliers of raw materials to the industrial parts of the United States. We would really be Montana north and we would have the same problems, perhaps even greater problems than we have now. We would not have a Wheat Board, and the Wheat Board is very important to western Canada. It is an orderly marketing system for our grain, and they do not believe in that in the United States. We would not have a medicare system because they do not have a medicare system in the United States, and medical care is very important in this country.
Those are some of the reasons that we in this party believe we cannot go the direction of the Dick Colvers and the Dennis Hams of this world who have now formed their own party called the Unionist party. I want to say in all seriousness that if we do not want movements like this to grow, if we do not want straight western separatism to grow, or if we do not want to feed the flames of narrow parochialism anywhere in the country, we will have to respond to some of the regional demands.
The west is now demanding more say in confederation. As the western premiers have said, they do not just want changes, they demand changes, and they demand those changes soon. They have said they deserve them. They have said the west is going to have to process more of its raw materials at home, that it will require more technology and technological industries at home. They have suggested that we will have to change the freight rate system, keeping the Crow rate, and that we will have to improve the grain handling system. We will have to do a lot of these things if we are going to make western Canada feel part of confederation.
In respect to the constitution, the western premiers have made it very clear that they are not just interested in some economic or structural changes, they want constitutional changes as well. They have said they want them in the area of resources. They want it clarified that resources come under the authority of the provinces.

The same goes in the province of Quebec, where the desire is that all resources-

They say the same thing about communications. The western premiers want more power when it comes to jurisdiction over communications in Canada.
In respect of federal institutions, the western premiers again want more input. Here they give you two examples. The Supreme Court, for example, is often deciding a case involving a dispute between a province and Ottawa, but all the judges in the Supreme Court are appointed by Ottawa. If you are going to adjudicate a case that involves the two, then perhaps the two should be appointing some of the adjudicators.
The other example is the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada determines monetary policy for the country. What the western premiers are saying is that if it should determine the monetary policy for the whole country, then there should be some input by the provinces and by the regions. It only makes sense that there should be, because if you ignore the regions you are ignoring the reality. When Hydro-Quebec, Saskatchewan Potash, Crown corporations or Ontario Hydro go to the market, this affects monetary policy. It seems to me it makes sense that there be some direct input to the Bank of Canada through an advisory council or a commission of some sort on the policy of the Bank of Canada.
These are some of the things that are very important in the debate that is before us today. In this country we need a new constitution, a restructured federalism, a new federalism where there will be significant changes to make all parts of Canada feel equally wanted and represented and that their problems are being responded to. Really a federation is a situation where there is co-operation between equals.
We also feel we must have urgent negotiations now, regardless whether the vote is Yes or No in the province of Quebec on May 20. We should have the provinces and the federal government sitting down to try to draft a new constitution. More than those governments should be involved in those negotiations; they should include input from members of legislatures, members of Parliament, including members of the opposition; I am glad to see that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) agrees with that. They should also include other people in this country such as the indigenous people.
The last point I want to make is that even if we do equalize things more in this country in terms of development opportunities and more freedom in the regions, with a constitution that is more responsive, I think we are still lacking one very important ingredient in the development of a new Canada. If we are going to have a new Canada that is home for all of us
May 12, 1980

and that we can all proudly call home, we need a Canada that we own and control.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We now live in a country that is dominated and controlled, for the large part, by entrepreneurs and people outside our own borders whose main resource is manufacturing. Many of the things which are so important to this country are controlled and owned by others who live outside our nation. If we are to build a Canadian house, we must own that Canadian house. If we gain ownership of our house, I am sure that we can build one of the most progressive, forward and thoughtful nations in the world.
In closing, I would once again say that we need a new Canadian federation, that if we do not make the move now, then in a few years' time, in another generation or so, we might not have a united country to build. The feeling of disharmony is very strong in Quebec, in the west, Newfoundland and among our native people. If we do not put our house in order soon, there may not be a house to put in order.


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by passing through you, sir, my congratulations to Madam Speaker upon her elevation to the very high office which she has assumed, one that she has already discharged with distinction in the short amount of time that the House has been in session and an office which 1 know she will carry through with even greater distinction as the months and years pass.
For me it is a great honour to return to this House after an absence of nearly 15 years. I had the privilege of serving as a member of Parliament from the spring of 1963 until resigning in the early autumn of 1965 to enter provincial politics. In returning here and representing the great constituency of Halifax, which has had the honour of being represented until fairly recently by the Hon. R. L. Stanfield, 1 am not only fully aware of the honour of representing that constituency, but I am distinctly aware of the honour of sitting in this House. While I was away from the House for those 15 years, I was cognizant of the very substantial contribution that was made by the members of all three parties in those years, and also by members of the Social Credit Party who are no longer here.
I note in returning to the House of Commons that of those with whom I served between 1963 and 1965, I can count only 23 or 24 members who are still in the House. Notable amongst them, of course, is the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and the very able and distinguished member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: He is going to outlive the whole works.
The Address-Mr. Regan


Gerald Augustine Regan: He may outlive the whole works and, indeed, if he does it will certainly be to the benefit of the Canadian people, because he has always made a great contribution.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That coalition is growing.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I might say to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) that when I was last here I had the honour of serving with his father, who I always found to be amiable, co-operative and helpful to a junior member like myself, and it is an honour now to serve in this House with the hon. member who has replaced his late father.
I find that our problems are much the same now on many subjects as they were 17 years ago and, of course, others have changed. Certainly, our country has made great material progress. Yet today, despite the material progress made in those years, we face more challenges than ever. A continued, sincere effort is needed by all elected representatives if we are to meet those problems and achieve success to the maximum degree that is possible.
I would like to plead that it is important in this House- perhaps as a newcomer I sound brash to say so, but perhaps as one who is returning to this House I might be allowed to say it-that we avoid as much as possible our preoccupation with feeling that getting the best of every tiny clash on the floor of this House is an earth-shaking, important matter to the nation, because it is not. It is important that we achieve gains for the public rather than that we make points in debate here on the floor of the House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Notice who is laughing.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The Deputy Prime Minister is blushing.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I must say, though, that the normal display of animal exuberance that must occur from time to time in debate is understandable, but it is best that it does not become too personal.


An hon. Member:: You are talking about the animals on your side.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I would like now to say a word about my departmental responsibilities. I am doubly honoured to have the responsibilities of the Department of Labour and the Department of Fitness and Amateur Sport. I am aware that the position of the Minister of Labour has been held by very, very many distinguished people across the years, people such as the present Minister of Finance, Mackenzie King, Michael Starr, and the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro). It is with some awe I assume those responsibilities. I see the responsibilities of that office as being heavy ones, and they are, firstly, to protect the interests of our working people and, secondly, in a very connected way, to promote industrial harmony.
I know that the efforts which have been made nationally in this country toward developing consultative mechanisms be-

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. Regan
tween management and labour, with or without the participation of government, have run into difficulties because of other outside problems and considerations of recent years. I believe that it is time we attempted again to find new ways in which more constant communication and, therefore, understanding can be maintained between management and labour, at times when there is not the immediate strife of a collective bargaining dispute. In the long run our country would be better served if we could make substantial progress in that regard.
May 1 say just a word about the Department of Fitness and Amateur Sport. This department is important to the welfare of our land and also important in a very different way. Our pursuit of excellence, which has been followed by a number of ministers, in amateur sport is not elitism as such. If we develop top performers nationally who are able to participate with success internationally, then they set examples which bring about the mass participation of our people to contribute to their fuller enjoyment of life and to their physical fitness.
Not only is it appropriate for government to be concerned about amateur sport, but it is appropriate for governement to be concerned with the rights of all Canadians to participate in sport, in the same way that it is our concern to protect the rights of all Canadians in other matters. 1 was distressed to see that the commissioner of the Canadian Football League, in reacting to statements which I had made here in the House, suggested that the government had more important things to deal with than the question of the right of quarterbacks who graduate from the universities of this country to have the same opportunity to participate in professional football as people who play in other positions. I think he misses the point in that regard; I will try to make the point to him when I meet with him next week. I think the commissioner should recognize that governments must try to do all they can to protect the rights of all citizens. I think it is an important responsibility of government, through such a department, to be concerned with the rights of a few Canadian quarterbacks in the same way as they are concerned with an injustice that affects any other citizen.
I want to take part in this debate in order to speak on the Quebec referendum issue. Like all my fellow Canadians, I think that this issue is the most important one of our time. I am happy to have the opportunity to speak on this issue because in my province of Nova Scotia, we love Canada and we love Quebec.

There is something that separation would do that has scarcely been mentioned in this entire debate on the referendum in Quebec and beyond. I think it is something that is worth noting as we move into the last days of the referendum campaign in Quebec.
Let me begin by saying that obviously a Yes vote is a big step on the path to separation. Separation would result in the loss of an opportunity, unique in history, for one small state of
seven million people drastically to change the linguistic pattern of half a continent; for that is what is in the process of occurring in Canada. That is what has been happening in Canada for the last 15 years. Traditionally, only English was spoken in most of Canada outside of Quebec. English was the language of commerce, even in Quebec, and that, of course, is part of the legitimate grievance which the people of the province of Quebec have in relation to the first 100 years of confederation.
I do not want to talk today about the change that has occurred in Quebec; that is well known to all. That change has been dynamic since the coming of the so-called quiet revolution in 1960. It is a change that has affected education, a change that has affected commerce, a change that has affected attitudes in almost every way. Rather, today I want to speak of the change that has occurred, is occurring and will continue to occur throughout English Canada if our country stays together.
I say that the people of the province of Quebec have the opportunity to cause Canada, the northern half of this continent, to change its linguistic pattern. I say that this has never happened anywhere in a free country before; that most of this process has been a consequence of the voluntary recognition of the people of English Canada and the governments of Canada-Mr. Diefenbaker's government, Mr. Pearson's government, the present government and the former government- that it is right, it is fair, it is possible for Canada to develop as a two-language nation.
Let me give a few examples of what that development has consisted of. First of all, you will find today in darkest English Canada-if I may use that expression-that English families are competing hotly to try to get placements in French language schools. That is the position, I know, in Halifax and I know that to be the situation in Calgary and many other areas of the country. There is a line-up of people trying to get their children enrolled in schools where French is the first school language. That is one indication.
We see in this nation senior as well as junior bureaucrats in provincial and federal governments daily spending time to learn the French language. We find them willing to leave their work, to go away from home on immersion courses in order to improve their ability in the French language. We find a vast percentage of people who did not have a word of French a few years ago now able to function and work at their governmental duties in the French language. That is part of the willingness that has been exhibited in this change that is occurring. You find provincial legislatures giving French lessons to their members and staff. You Find government offices and large businesses building a French language capacity in every city of magnitude in Canada.
What do you find today compared to a few years ago? You find French language radio and television in Vancouver, Halifax and everywhere in English Canada. You find a tremendous line-up of people who want to have their children participate in youth exchanges with youngsters from the province of Quebec. There are few members in this House who have not known of
May 12, 1980

such exchanges in their constituencies, or what a splendid success they were and how the bonds of friendship built by those exchanges have been maintained in succeeding years. You find parents seeking every opportunity to send their children to summer language courses in Quebec, in St. Pierre and Miquelon and, in my province, a line-up of people to take summer language courses for young people at College Ste. Anne. In Canada there is a vast increase in the number of people who are bilingual. The amount of French spoken in Calgary, Kentville, Chatham and Regina has greatly increased in the last 15 years.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, a tremendous effort has taken place across 4,000 miles to increase the usage of French and to make Canada a two-language country. If you consider the progress that has been made in this regard in the last 15 years, and if this progress continues for another 15 years, Canada will truly be a two-language country from coast to coast. That will not mean, nor will it ever mean, that every last person in our country will be able to speak both languages, but it will mean that enough will be able to do so that the languages will be interchangeable for all practical purposes throughout Canada.
What will it mean for the people of Quebec? It will mean that French-speaking families from Quebec will be able to accept transfers from their companies for periods in their careers to any part of Canada without risking the loss of the French language by their children or risking that their children will forget the French culture. It therefore means broadened career opportunities for the people of Quebec. That is what the process is bringing about and will bring about; it is what the process will bring about if Quebec remains part of Canada.
This will not happen, however, if Quebec separates. The desire and the main impetus to learn and to use French would be gone. A large part of the desire to learn the French language and to have one's children do so flows, in English Canada, from the recognition that the people of Quebec have been at a disadvantage elsewhere in Canada because of the lack of the use of French, and also because of the spirit of fairness by the vast percentage of people who feel that we can enrich ourselves and our country if we all speak two languages. Surely the bitterness of separation would reverse that process and we would go back to two linguistic solitudes.
I wonder if it is recognized in Quebec that the ignorant outburst of the bigot gains widespread notoriety while the widespread support for French Canada and the recognition of the French fact by the perhaps silent majority in English Canada can go unnoticed. Of course, the sensational remark always receives more attention than the quiet support for the growth and usage of two languages, the examples of which I have pointed out this afternoon.
In the course of this debate, I would like to remind the people of Quebec that elsewhere in Canada people have been showing this desire to have their children learn French, to have Canada become more of a two-language country than it has
The Address-Mr. Regan
been in the past. I believe that the majority of English-speaking people are supportive of the constitutional changes within one united Canada that can make Quebec's destiny more secure within confederation.
English Canada, then, looks to the French Canadian people of Quebec for a No vote, not just in its self-interest of keeping the country together, but with a fervent desire to remain in a national affiliation with the French Canadian culture which they admire, and for whom they hold a deep brotherly love and respect.
What follows, then, if that No vote is achieved? A No vote is not the end of anything, it is the beginning of something. For the No vote must be followed by an urgent quest for constitutional reform, constitutional reform which, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) so aptly pointed out on the weekend, is not just needed by Quebec but needed and wanted by all of Canada.
We are a relatively young country, one hundred and a few years old; but what must be remembered is that while we are a relatively young country, we have a very old constitution. In the 113 years that Canada has existed as a country, we have stayed with that one constitution and very few constitutional changes. But remember that only Britain with its total common law constitution, which has its own way of achieving substantial change, has in that time stayed with the same constitution. France has had different constitutions in that period of time, as have most other European countries. Because a constitution that is divided between federal and provincial powers has a built-in rigidity that applies an aging process. That is why our constitution has aged rather substantially in that 113 years, and that is why I agree totally with the Leader of the Opposition and so many other people who said that Canada today at the federal and at the provincial level badly needs a new constitution. That is why the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of this country has said that with a No vote we get on urgently and immediately with the development of an up-to-date constitution.
Besides the question of language and of the opportunity to build a two-language country that I have discussed, there are obviously many other practical reasons why Canada should stay together. I just want to mention one or two of them that seem important to me.
First of all, I think that confederation is such a good idea that if it did not exist, if it had not occurred, if we had grown up as different provincial, independent states, five, six, or seven of them across the area occupied by Canada, do you know what we would be doing today? We would be sitting down trying to put the states together to make a confederation because confederation is such a good idea. There are very obvious reasons why we would be doing that. We would be told that this would enable us to meet our aspirations better, to develop better the standard of living in the country, and that would be correct.
We live in a world in which all the tendency is toward larger nation units, not smaller ones, and for a very good reason. In Europe there is the development of the common market to

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. La Salle
overcome the disadvantage of the fact that over countless centuries that continent consisted of small nations and regions which meant that Europe was divided into too many units. But there are in the world many large countries today. Those large countries are not based upon one language or one culture. Nowhere have we seen the trend that one country should be based upon only one language or one culture. For instance, India, China, Russia and Yugoslavia all have either two or many more different languages as well as different cultures. Yet they remain together as countries. Indeed, as I said, the tendency today is toward larger units.
But of all the countries that have more than one language, Canada is the only one that has made a concentrated, purposeful movement toward establishing bilingualism, if you like, toward establishing an even, equal two language system. While that progress and the problems in achieving it have been frustrating sometimes, not only for French Canadians but also for English Canadians, nevertheless it has made the dramatic progress that I have outlined. So the question of size is yet another argument, why we should remain together.
The advantage of size provides not only a larger market in which a country is able, behind its own tariff barriers, to produce products and build a standard of living and therefore a better life for the citizens; it also provides a hedge against not having some ingredients essential to an economy. We have an example right here with the separatist party of Quebec talking about setting up a nation, a nation that would have no oil. The fact that Canada is so vast has provided us with oil in at least two regions. That is another argument in favour of countries of size, rather than a nation broken down into small parts based upon local interests or one particular language.
The proximity of the U.S. market also requires that we have as long a production line as possible even to begin making any products within this country that would be able to compete with those from the United States.
A Yes vote would bring uncertainty and a lack of investment. We have had uncertainty; we have had some people hesitant about investing in Quebec and some people hesitant about investing in Canada in the last several years because of what they perceive to be a threat of separation. A Yes vote would prolong and make that situation much worse regardless of what followed in the next two or three years. It would mean fewer jobs. It would mean harder times for the people because of that uncertainty-because uncertainty discourages investment at all times.
A No vote carries a message to all governments of this country to get on with developing a new constitution for Canada.
I believe we have a great country. Canada has one of the highest standards of living in the world. But working together we can make it a better and a fairer country. I believe that if Quebec separated eventually we might see the breakup of the entire country and the swallowing up of Canada by the United States, a country that has not shown much interest in protecting regional concerns or state governments.


J. Michael Forrestall: Not Nova Scotia, not ever.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I believe that our destiny must be to work together. But I believe that if our destiny is to be achieved, we must approach the problems of this country, after a No vote is achieved, in a fair and broad manner, determined that we build as Canadians a richer and a fairer land.
[ Translation]


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, having hardly had time two weeks ago to offer the customary congratulations to the deputy speakers, Madam Speaker as well as the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne I would like also today to thank several Liberals who during the month of January came down to visit my riding and whom I have not had time to thank. They were like wolves, Mr. Speaker, they were everywhere. But still I am back here, and I am glad. 1 would also like to thank-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Like me.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance did not come to visit my riding but I invite him to do so anytime.
I would like to thank the voters of my riding who for the fifth time put their faith in me and I will try the best I can to look after the interests of my riding as well as those of my province which I think are not incompatible with those of my country as a whole. I would like to say that during my short term as minister I was very happy to participate in a decision which will enable my riding to benefit under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for the next four years. I believe that, considering the rate of unemployment which is as bad in my riding as elsewhere, such a measure will enable us to have some new industries which would reduce a rate of unemployment which is a plague in my riding as it is elsewhere.
I would also like to congratulate all my elected and non-elected colleagues for the frankness with which they put forth the proposals that were contained in our budget and the courage they showed through their solidarity vis-a-vis those measures that were absolutely essential. Of course, Canadians decided that these measures were rigorous, but they will have to face the facts in the short and the medium term. The proposals of the Minister of Finance have already shown that they did not invent that much on the other side since some of our measures have already been reintroduced. However, as concerns our most interesting proposals, whether they be for mortgage interests, the tax credit or the forthcoming oil price increases, you are probably as convinced as I am, Mr. Speaker, that nothing has been done so far. I believe that my colleagues deserve congratulations for having always allowed Canadians to face the facts about the economic situation, and of course, I hope we shall soon have the opportunity to go to the people once more.
May 12, 1980

I would also like to note that in view of the weakness of my caucus, my duties will be important and heavy, but that I shall try to fulfil them with as much success as possible. I want to say to all Quebeckers and to my constituents that I shall spare no effort to raise the necessary issues as a member of the opposition from Quebec. Mr. Speaker, this Speech from the Throne puts us back once again in the traditional specious comedy that the cabinet of the present Prime Minister has been staged since 1968. Once again, we hear the eternal promise of better days to come and a virtual denial of the ruins that this government of incompetents has not stopped accumulating in 12 years.
We are hearing the same old songs about the greatness of our natural resources and the need for brotherhood and sharing. We are once again shown castles in the air while thousands of hungry and unemployed Canadians are waiting for these empty speeches to stop and for this government to get down to serious work.
It is meagre consolation for thousands of home owners having to renew their mortgages during these weeks to know that the government is commiserating with them and feeling the interest rates have climbed to unacceptable levels. I think those are the terms used in the throne speech. As for practical solutions to help them, we are still waiting for them, and if we are to believe the rumour, the help to be granted will be limited to very few cases and will be remarkable for the meanness of the solutions proposed. What a contrast with the generosity of the project the Progressive Conservative government had proposed, and which the Liberal and New Democrat partisanship prevented from implementing.
In other words, it is true they are harking back to the same old piece on the just society while social injustices are spreading, job opportunities are becoming scarce and the Canadian dollar value keeps going down. All in the same breath, Mr. Speaker, the government urges Canadians to live within their means yet keeps coming up with projects which can only mean higher public expenses and a wider bureaucratic empire. It turns a deaf ear to the representations and the criticism of the Auditor General and refuses to see the facts, namely, that the public service is unduly inflated and that it is important to reduce its size without delay. The government is concerned, and rightly so, about senior citizens who see their income constantly eroded by inflation, but it refuses to take efficient steps to put an end to that plague with social and economic consequences which cause ruin and rebellion everywhere.
The government which won the election through deceit, I must say it, Mr. Speaker, by letting Canadians believe that it will be able to avoid a rise in energy prices, is heading for difficulties if it thinks it can both deprive producing provinces of a fair return on their oil and their natural gas and maintain a subsidy system which is ruining the public treasury. Instead of recognizing the temporary character of any assistance to eastern consumers and instead of gradually letting oil price get
The Address-Mr. La Salle
closer to the U.S. price, if not to the international price, the government continues to dupe Canadians on the disastrous energetic situation we are facing now. The billions of dollars which are now being spent in maintaining prices artificially at a low level would be put to better use if spent in developing new sources of energy and convincing Canadians they should conserve rapidly diminishing oil and gas resources.
At this stage of the present session, Mr. Speaker, I would not want to dwell extensively on the text of a speech as both vague and empty. When the bills are introduced and the estimates are discussed, I will have the opportunity to express my views and to defend the interests of the Quebec people which have been disregarded up to now. But I would be remiss in failing to join with my leader to ask for the tabling within a few weeks of a proper budget. I should say within a few days, so that the Canadian people may find out what fate their federal government has in store for them and so that businessmen may know on what course the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) intends to put our economy.
Since the Speech from the Throne dealt in depth with the issue of national unity, I must congratulate the previous speaker on his masterly speech. As the throne speech mentions the national unity problem, I should like to deal immediately with this issue which is of paramount importance for the very future of our country. As a Quebecker, Mr. Speaker, you will not be surprised to hear remarks which are entirely different from those which you have heard until now. I should like to comment briefly on the parts of the throne speech which deal with the national unity problem and the dangers resulting, in the government's mind, from regional isolationism, and on the perils of Quebec separatism I fully agree with hon. members on the government's side. I do not question the Prime Minister's sincerity or his serious desire to lead Canada back on the road to unity and brotherhood. I was profoundly moved the other day by the Leader of the Government when he insisted on the need for all Canadians to share their wealth and respect their cultural differences.
I should be remiss if I denied that, under his administration, the practical recognition of the French fact has made considerable progress, but I wish to remind him that on this issue he has always received the unqualified support of the leaders as well as rank and file of the Progressive Conservative Party. I should be ungrateful if I did not mention in particular the Hon. Robert Stanfield's extraordinary contribution to bridging the gap between the Canadians of our two great founding peoples.
Finally, I am happy to see that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has recognized the invaluable contribution the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) made to the unification of a strong and diversified Canadianism. However, eloquence and good will are not enough or shall I say no longer enough. There must also be concrete actions likely to draw Canadians closer together and to strengthen their feeling of belonging to a common entity. It has been the tragic error of

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. La Salle
the present government since 1968 to have constantly and systematically refused to see in the burgeoning regionalisms some dynamic elements which promote the sense of belonging I mentioned. Its blindness and its obstinacy in fighting them led us to the present impasse which does not exist in Quebec only. In my province, the alienation has reached the point where a major part of the people are repudiating Canada as their country and want to restrict their loyalty to the birth place.
The Prime Minister cannot deny that the Quebec independence movement has made steady progress under his administration nor that his government constituted one of the most violent ferment of disintegration in the country. In Quebec the situation has become so alarming that the leader of the government party himself feels the need to speculate today on the consequences of a majority Yes vote in next Tuesday's referendum. The man who not so long ago, Mr. Speaker, proclaimed the death of separatism in Quebec now realizes how the abyss has deepened and how he has contributed to its deepening. He must be held responsible for its deterioration. Just remember how dead set he was against any demand for constitutional and administrative changes made by the team of Jean Lesage, the Johnson government and, the one led by Robert Bourassa. Nobody can deny that because of those repeated frustrations, Mr. Speaker, the lack of co-operation of the Liberal government, Mr. Rene Levesque cut himself off and advocated the political independence of Quebec.
Today, the Yes side finds some new followers every day even among federalists, and if I am asked to name some, 1 will only mention the names of Mr. Jean-Paul L'Allier and Mr. Drummond, the former Quebec minister of agriculture. How can you explain the behaviour of those former members of a Liberal cabinet who came many times to make demands in Ottawa, begging for what are considered crumbs today. After repeated refusals by this government on apparently quite legitimate matters, after repeated frustrations, deceit after deceit, those people have decided to work on the Yes side like thousands of Quebeckers, not because they want a complete separation, but because they no longer have confidence that this government will seek a renewed federalism which is now essential. They no longer rely on that kind of separatism advocated by the leader of this government. The past intransigence of the Prime Minister does not augur well for his alleged openmindedness toward a renewed federalism at which he was sneering during the last election campaign.
How are we to believe that the Liberal government wants to alter relations between the federal authorities and the provinces when it will not consider them as associates or partners of Ottawa and treats them as enemies, if not as enemies of the common good? The throne speech itself made thinly-veiled threats not only to the Pequiste government but also to loyal and truly Canadian governments like those of Newfoundland
and Alberta, specifically referred to in the government statement.
Instead of seeing the Canadian mosaic as an opportunity for growth and dynamism, instead of promoting the birth of a community of communities, of which the opposition leader has so eloquently spoken, the Prime Minister, since taking office, has done all he could to subdue the provinces, to consider them as nuisances, and even accuse them of undermining Canadian unity. To these dynamic communities that only want to assert themselves and take part in the social and economic progress of this country, he has shown only the cold disdain of a person who believes only he possesses the truth and the secret of ensuring the unity of this country. But we simply have to look around us to see how terribly wrong the leader of the government has been and how, instead of promoting unity, he has only contributed to further dividing this country.
The Prime Minister does not respect the letter nor the spirit of the constitution. As far as natural resources are concerned, he confuses sharing and robbery; as for constitutional reform, he does not even make a distinction between dialogue and bludgeoning. We all know where that has led us, Mr. Speaker. But the situation will only worsen if the Leader of the Government refuses to accept the obvious and continues to treat the provinces as colonies and their premiers as servants of the central government. As if inborn arrogance were not enough, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) was not afraid of provoking those he should consider as his partners by appointing true agents provocateurs to key positions in his administration. Mr. Speaker, 1 am talking about the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). The latter I might qualify as the author of scary bogeyman stories; as to the former one can only think of the arrogance he so often displayed during the election campaign by urging Quebeckers to have faith in their representatives within the federal government.
Again yesterday in Shawinigan, during a more or less serious discussion at a meeting, he quite simply promised, with the arrogance that is so characteristic of him, to give PQ supporters unemployment insurance even if the No vote wins. At what point does such arrogance become an insult to Quebeckers? I am convinced that the 74 Quebec members know full well that Quebec will not be satisfied with measures that make them social welfare recipients but this is the type of answer the Minister of Justice deems fit to give in answer to our current needs.
And, as if this type of provocation were not enough, Mr. Speaker, the same government tolerates shameful speeches against the Yes voters, such as the one made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) who sees PQ sympathizers everywhere. If this were true, Mr. Speaker, we should congratulate them; otherwise I cannot understand how a minister of the Crown could say these things, or make scurrilous insinuations such as
May 12, 1980

those voiced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) with respect to Mr. Biron. She had to recant but this is the type of statement that was made. However, I would like to congratulate the Minister of State for Small Businesses and hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe) who, in my opinion, has made a very relevant statement and intelligent and interesting remarks for the whole of Quebec.
Instead of viewing regionalism and the love felt by Canadians for their local areas as obstacles to Canadian unity, the right hon. Prime Minister should see them as valuable tools in the forging of a strong and diversified Canadian identity, as the required cement in the building of a common motherland. Instead of reviling the remarks of the Leader of the Official Opposition, he should use them, he should apply them. This would help reduce the tensions flared up by his calls for a form of centralist federalism that is counterproductive to his avowed aims and that up until now only caused suspicion, division and alienation.
The right hon. Prime Minister may very artfully refer to the dilemma in which the Levesque government entrapped itself with its question. He may very well nonsuit any discussions were the Yes choice to win the referendum on May 20. He may very well enjoy the applause drawn by the logic of his attacks at the monstrous duplicity of the Levesque government. But if the Yes choice wins the vote, which the Prime Minister already recognized as possible, there will nevertheless have to be discussions with Quebec authorities, if only to prevent the political impasse from leading to oral and even physical violence.
Whatever the right hon. Prime Minister may think, it will not only be a matter of saying Yes or No and laugh it off. He will have not only to play a tight game but to raise himself to the level of higher politics to prevent ultimate disaster. 1 have no illusions either on this government's real intentions relative to constitutional reform. Because two weeks from Friday last, the right hon. Prime Minister still refused to show his true colours. The throne speech deals at length with the Quebec referendum. It says that a No answer to Mr. Levesque's plea will be interpreted by his government as a Yes vote for a renewed federalism. However, the declaration gives very scant details on where the government's constitutional policy is going.
Bearing the past in mind, as well as the unspoken threats contained in the Speech from the Throne, we are entitled to believe that the Leader of the Government is not interested at all in revamping the constitution in order to make room for a greater decentralization of power and for a more effective participation of the provinces in the development and the implementation of national policies. It is extremely strange to note that the government-after having spent millions of dollars to finance the study by the Pepin-Robarts task force- has not said one word of congratulation for the work accomplished by that team which it had insisted on choosing scrupulously. We notice the same contemptuous silence relating to
The Address-Mr. La Salle
the beige paper published by the Quebec Liberal Federation. Quite the opposite, the Prime Minister and his colleagues are openly hostile toward the reforms advocated in either of these two documents.
In order to make sure that the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin) will not be the source of any trouble to him any more by holding him responsible for that malaise, the Prime Minister simply put a gag in his mouth by appointing him Minister of Transport. This is why the former co-chairman of the Task Force on National Unity remains so quiet in this debate triggered by the Quebec referendum. The minister simply decided to hide his report and to follow blindly a ministerial team whose goal is to maintain the status quo.
That is why 1 am positively skeptical about the will expressed by the Prime Minister to reform our constitution, Mr. Speaker. I am convinced that it is not from him that we can expect the constitutional changes which will likely bring back harmony and equilibrium between the various parts of our country. Of course, I will vote No in the referendum, but certainly not because I will have been mesmerized by the mermaid's song with which the government is trying to dull public opinion. I will vote No on May 20 because I believe in Canada and because I consider the federal system as most likely to help every Quebecker fulfil all his or her dynamic aspirations, something which the people of Quebec will not be able to do by endlessly sticking to the same old grievances, legitimate though they may be.
When voting No on May 20, I certainly will not do so to support the kind of federalism advocated and practiced by the present government. I will do so in spite of this kind of federalism, Mr. Speaker, and because I know that some day this ill-fated government will be gone and all Canadians will then have the opportunity to start over again building our country in the respect of local loyalties and by virtue of the partnership advocated by my party between provincial and federal governments.
Before casting my No ballot, I want to remind the Prime Minister that I have no confidence at all in him being able to unite this country, 1 do not trust the legal subtleties he uses in an effort to justify his control over the ressources and jurisdictions of the provinces. I will not believe that the man who has brought about so much division around him is now capable of achieving unity around policies that are acceptable for all. I refuse to put the reconstruction of this country into the hands of this demolition contractor. However, I still call upon Mr. Levesque and urge him to use his huge talent-and I reckon Mr. Ryan is equally talented-to build, together with our fellow Canadians from other provinces, a federation which will measure up to the dream of equality and fraternity envisioned by the people of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, we are given the opportunity during this pre-referendum period to study its implications and real meaning. It is a fundamental step we must take, as much for the sake of the survival of Canada as that of the fulfilment of

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. La Salle
Quebec. That popular consultation will surely leave obvious scars. But in view of circumstances, we must take a stand. The Progressive Conservative Party has committed itself, with the No committee, to protect the interests of this country and fight against its division.
May I say here, incidentally, that it is important to distinguish between disagreements on the orientation of the federal government policies, on the application of the principle of federalism in Canada, and the agreement of all political parties sitting in this Canadian Parliament on federalism as the foundation of the governing system in Canada. It is in that perspective that we join in this debate. Canadian and Quebec political parties are constantly brought into opposition on what steps should be taken or measures adopted, but all agree in promoting and protecting the collective geographic entity called Canada, with federalism as its basis, while at times adopting different attitudes or advocating different methods according to their political bent. It is in that spirit that we are participating in this debate, Mr. Speaker.
We suppose that federalism is a government system that can let Quebeckers determine their own cultural future, while monitoring the areas where they have jurisdiction and allow them to contribute with other Canadians to the development of our country, of its political institutions guaranteeing our basic freedoms, of its natural resources which ensure our economic prosperity. We all want Quebec to develop. But there is disagreement as to procedure. Some people believe that all powers should be vested in the same authority; others like us try to distribute the risks and the benefits. We believe that the constitutional, legislative and administrative responsibilities should be managed by a public administration system divided between two democratically elected assemblies. We think that our basic liberties will be better preserved that way. In other words, a new evaluation of power-sharing is needed, and this is urgent, Mr. Speaker.
I must recognize that federalism has not only negative but also positive aspects. The first advantage might be that it forces us to compromise continuously. When you have to share with others, you must consider their views, and it prompts you to question your own views, which might ensure a more balanced development. This is a positive aspect of federalism that should be maintained. This debate will give us a chance to demonstrate and throw some light on other aspects of our government system. This referendum period should give each side the opportunity to show the advantages of its option rather than to systematically destroy the option of the other side. Let us use the coming days to seriously and thoughtfully consider our options. I recognize that it will be difficult and as discussions tend to become more heated, each of us must keep a cool head.
If the Progressive Conservative Party joins the federalist forces in Quebec in spite of its differences with the present Canadian administration, it is because we believe in the future of Canada. We understand the frustration of many Quebeckers and we share it to a large extent. The majority of provinces and their governments want an in-depth reform of the constitution. If we refer to the history of French Canada and its
relationship with all Canadians, we see that justice and the interests of others have not always been respected. The legitimate demands which were disregarded are a point to be raised in the debate. However, this frustration does not justify the intention to yield our joint ownership of Canadian territory at a time when there is a consensus on the need for important reforms.
It must be admitted that demands do not always entail confrontation. We must not hesitate to shape levers for tomorrow through debate. In this way, we will serve Canada. Let us acknowledge that Francophones have a national conscience and let us guarantee them through future reform; the means to attain self-fulfilment. Let us believe in the future of Canada which allows, under its much criticized constitution, a fundamental debate on its existence. In voting No to the referendum question, I admit that at heart I still remain a provincialist who believes in a federalism much more flexible than the one devised up to now. In joining the federalists, I must insist that I do not endorse in any way the status quo. I think, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that if Quebeckers give a No answer next Tuesday, the federalists sitting here will not interpret this answer as an approval of the present system. That is what I venture to believe. And it is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that many Quebeckers hesitate to comply with the request made here by the federal members, because after the last 12 years, we necessarily have very strong reservations to make about the honesty of this government, because the situation in which we find ourselves could have been avoided in the last 12 years.
Thousands of Quebeckers will feel like the ex-colleague of the present Prime Minister, our ambassador to Paris, who said that thousands of Quebeckers will vote Yes because they want to force this government to make a long-awaited opening. For this reason, unlike our colleagues who gave a blank cheque to their Prime Minister and who, after brushing aside a proposal made by the Quebec government, were not able or did not have the courage to make any proposals on this renewed federalism, we are concerned on this side of the House, because we have witnessed the refusal of this government to sit down seriously with the provinces in order to propose the amendments that are necessary, and not only for Quebec.
1 am happy to see that from time to time my colleagues from other provinces show their concern for their province, because I feel my first duty in the House is to look after the interests of the province I represent, which are not inconsistent with the national interests as a whole. Even those failures and refusals over so many years-and I conclude, Mr. Speaker- have brought us today to a situation where Quebec is asking fundamental questions about its future. Those who are mostly responsible are not in Quebec, they are here, because they did not have the courage perhaps or simply the respect of a population that would not have liked anything better than to get along with the rest of the country, but in mutual respect.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time a minister has addressed the House holding the two responsibilities I do, that is to say, that of Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of
May 12, 1980

the Environment. This combination, which to some seems bizarre, in fact reflects a strong logic of considerable merit. The responsibilities of both of these departments are tied essentially to the construction over the longer term of an economic strategy for our country. The responsibilities are complementary and not contradictory.
Clearly I do not have time this afternoon, in the time that is available to me, to deal with all the aspects of importance in these two departments, but I believe the House would like from me some indication of the steps we plan to take in various important areas and to explain how I and the government intends to approach these responsibilities.
Members of the House will already be aware that the Speech from the Throne has reaffirmed the objective of moving in Canada, as quickly as we possibly can, to having 1.5 per cent of our gross national product directed to research and development. In my view, this is something we can accomplish by the mid-1980s. I should say that I see no conflict between this objective and the one which has so often been expressed by members opposite of 2.5 per cent by the end of the decade. Both of these figures are on the same critical path.
The previous Conservative government had committed an increase of roughly $155 million of federal expenditure in an attempt to put us on that path. It is my belief that that figure falls short of what is needed if we are to proceed as quickly as we can to that desirable objective. My belief is that something much closer to $185 million in increased expenditure will be required if we are to achieve this objective. It is my confident belief that those resources will be found by the government to assist us in these efforts.
The 1.5 per cent of the GNP, as useful as it may be as a handy yardstick for measuring our progress in this area, is not an end in itself. Rather it is a means, it is the resources which must be devoted to a properly based research and development policy. Beyond this adoption of a 1.5 per cent figure are a variety of difficult decisions and questions which must be resolved if we are to have a comprehensive and coherent policy-the question as to what degree our effort should be directed to basic research; to what degree they should be oriented to mission-oriented research; the question of how our variety of institutions-government, industry and university- should be specialized in the research functions which they undertake; the question of the establishment of the various sectors in which our research and development should concentrate if we are to meet our over-all economic needs; and the question of developing systems for the distribution of information which ensure that the fruits of research are carried more effectively than they have in the past to those who will be able to benefit from them.
While those objectives and decisions still must be worked out if we are to have the clear and comprehensive policy we require, a policy which will have to be developed with considerable consultation of industry, the universities and scientists, there are in any case two clear immediate priorities. If we are to meet the 1.5 per cent objective, we have to bring on stream as quickly as we can the highly qualified manpower which will
The Address-Mr. Roberts
be required to provide us with the researchers and experts to meet that objective. Second, there is an outstanding and urgent need for the renewal of capital plant, laboratories and equipment if again we are to achieve that objective.
Basically these priorities will be attained through the activities of the federal granting councils. I am speaking of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, which are the main sources of financing for university research and for the training of new researchers. The councils have prepared five-year plans and have projected the levels of post-graduate scholarships and training grants needed to meet the manpower demands of a 1.5 per cent target. The Ministry of Science and Technology manpower model indicates that to meet the target by the mid-1980s we will have to train 30,000 people.
I recently announced, and I reaffirm today, that the government has confirmed an increase in the 1980-81 budget of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of $41.8 million to a total of $162.6 million. That is an increase of 35 per cent over last year. The council will be allocating a substantial share of this increase to new training programs to attract the best of our students into post-graduate research. These new awards will be available in both university and industry and, therefore, will also promote an improved transfer of technology and highly trained people to industry.
Also the funds will support other important objectives, such as the base of research competence, the replacement of obsolete equipment, which I mentioned earlier as an important priority, and the expansion of the council's strategic research programs in areas of national concern. The council has identified five areas of research activity where advances in knowledge or understanding or full-fledged technological innovations will improve our economic well-being. These are energy, oceans, food and agriculture, communications and toxicology. The council has had considerable success in drawing many of Canada's brightest scientists and engineers into these strategic areas.
My responsibilities in relation to the Department of the Environment at first sight seem to be of a rather different kind. I think most people view the responsibilities of the Minister of the Environment to be to find out what industry is doing, to find out what polluters are doing, and to tell them to stop. I believe the emphasis in the past in the public's mind has been in the environmental protection aspects of the Department of the Environment which indeed is a very important area of our activities. But our over-all purpose is larger; it is more global than that. Our essential purpose is really to consider how Canada's renewable resources can be maximized for the benefit of our population over the long term by development which will bring these resources to the benefit of our society and our economy and yet maintain a healthy environment on which they ultimately depend.
The environmental protection aspects have been most in the public mind and in the public view over the past two years, and
958

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. Roberts
I believe there is a need for a clarifying and strengthening of the federal government's role in that area.
We are developing a new federal environmental protection policy which will require new federal legislation. That legislation will, among other things, protect us and our environment against the hazards of toxic chemicals. The policy and the legislation which I hope to introduce into the House within the next 18 months must recognize the environment as an entirety and not as a collection of disparate parts. It must increase the effectiveness of the environmental protection service which has the mandate to ensure that the federal responsibilities in environmental protection achieve national objectives. The capacities of all governments must be used to the fullest in addressing serious environmental concerns. The new policy and legislation will clarify relative federal and provincial responsibilities. Some tasks are clearly more efficiently led at the national level, and we believe that the management of toxic chemicals is one of these.
There are three immediate, urgent problems on which I should touch in this area of environmental protection. The first is that of toxic chemicals, which 1 have just referred to. At the meeting of the council of environment and resource ministers in Halifax at the end of last week, all provincial governments expressed their strong concern that we must do much more than we are doing now to control the transportation of hazardous waste. All governments at the federal and provincial level believe that what we need is a much more effective ticketing or manifest system to ensure that there is a knowledge from the cradle to the grave of the development and transportation of those wastes. We are intent upon moving in the direction, which the provinces wish us to follow, of establishing such a manifest system. It is my hope-and I am carrying on discussions to explore this possibility-that we may be able to reach those objectives by amendments to the present legislation on the transportation of hazardous goods, which is at committee stage in the House.
The second area which is of great importance is that of the testing and experimentation and knowledge of the implications of chemicals as they are developed. Hundreds of chemicals are developed each year within the world. Very little is now done to provide a standard testing and assurance of what the possible consequences of those chemicals may be. Canada, through my deputy minister who is chairman of a committee at OECD on this matter, is leading in the fight to establish an international system of testing and ticketing to provide a passport for new chemicals on a standard basis so that the implications of their use can be well understood.
The third matter of urgent and pressing concern is one which I have discussed in the House in the past, and that is the matter of acid rain. Members will remember, perhaps, that I have already told the House that we are pressing the United States as hard as we can to move as quickly as we can to establish an international accord to regulate the control of emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen composites which
now pose an extremely serious threat to both our countries, the United States and Canada. We in Canada cannot resolve this problem alone. We must do it co-operatively with our neighbours to the south. But they equally have an interest with us in responding to that problem.
Many times I have been asked what are the costs of so doing. The costs are enormous. The costs in terms of Canada will be an expenditure of something like $400 million a year to the end of this century. The cost for the United States will be eight to ten times that figure. But the costs of not responding to the acid rain problem are even greater. It is difficult to earmark those costs, but we do know they are not hundreds and hundreds of millions, but are, indeed, into the billions of dollars each year. United States studies, for instance, have emphasized that the cost simply of the erosion and destruction of buildings in the United States attributable to acid rain problems is roughly $4 billion a year.
In Canada we have special concerns for tourism, for the fishing industry, the health of our forests and the hazards to life which acid rain involves. This is an urgent and pressing necessity and we must press the United States not only for an agreement internationally; we must ask them to give the same concern that we now do to the use of present regulations which are in place to diminish to the highest degree possible the emission of these dangerous contaminants to the air.
I said earlier that our concerns were not simply with environmental protection-though, as I have just described, those are extremely important-but that what we are really concerned with in the Department of the Environment is helping to establish for this country an economic strategy which exploits properly, prudently and sagely over the long term our natural and renewable resources. Canada's economic strategy for the eighties must increasingly recognize that resources represent our economic advantage. We must preserve and develop this advantage through intelligent resource management; through farming or renewing, not simply exploiting and mining, our forests, through preserving the best of our agricultural and forest land; through the wise use of our waters and through careful regulation and protection of our migratory wildlife. This wide use of resources has long been called conservation, and that must be the cornerstone of our approach to these departmental responsibilities.
The most important example of the use of that approach is the forestry sector, an extraordinarily important sector to this country. I recently announced the continuation and extension of the forestry policy which my two immediate predecessors had charted. We believe that the yield from our forests can be doubled by the end of this century if we do follow prudent practices of conservation, and it is our intention to push to ensure that, in co-operation with the provinces, we establish a situation in which reforestation and the renewal of our forest resources is placed on a much more satisfactory, long-term footing than is now the case.
All of these policies which I have described are policies which are designed to build the economy, but they will not be of much use if the building of our country, instead of continu-
May 12, 1980

ing as it has over the past 110 years, is destroyed by factions, dissension and disputes between the provinces and the federal government, and between our two major language groups.
I would like for the last few minutes of the time I have available to me to say two or three things about the present crisis in our country, which is symbolized by the vote that will take place on May 20 on the Quebec referendum. Undoubtedly these are testing times for our country. There is perhaps one advantage to that testing, and it is that it proves the soul and character of a country. The advantage of the referendum is that it may bring to a head concerns of Canadians, Francophones or Anglophones, to determine once and for all the question of what kind of Canada they wish to have and whether that Canada can survive.
I believe that we must bring those issues to a speedy resolution. The rest of the world will not stand by and wait for us to manage the re-making of our constitutional arrangements, and Canada cannot afford to be so obsessed with these issues that it neglects its longer-term, urgent, economic and social needs.
We cannot afford as a country, I believe, to continue the kind of navel gazing, the obsession with our constitutional arrangements, that we have had for the past 17 years. In that regard, another 17 years like the past 17 will, I think, kill the country.
It is time, I believe, for a decision. Changes I think there must be in our constitutional arrangement, and changes I believe will take place. Those will be changes not simply of providing more powers to provincial governments, but also changes which will involve strengthening federal responsibilities in many areas. Whatever those changes, the essential quality and condition of the country will not change, and it is perhaps time we should say to Canadians, "What you see is what you get"; and what they see is a country with opportunities unrivalled by that of any other country in the twentieth century.
We have a chance with these opportunities not only to preserve or to hold on to the past, historic and rich though that may be, but the opportunities to build, not as in most countries simply to retain a heritage, but to construct a new society and a new way of living together.
The result of the referendum will not in itself resolve these issues. It will be the end of a stage. The next stage will involve, I believe, much more than has this first stage, the views of Anglophones and Francophones outside Quebec as much as those within it.
Whatever happens in the referendum, I believe our message to the Francophones of Quebec must be that we believe passionately in this country; we believe in it with a Quebec and the contribution of the Quebec people to that country. We believe in that for selfish reasons, because for us that makes more rich the diversity of our society. We believe in it also because we believe it is in the interest of Quebeckers to live within a society of 23 million people which is concerned to protect their language and culture; not simply for its survival, but that it may grow and thrive. The interests of Quebeckers,
The Address-Mr. Ittinuar
their language and their culture are better protected in that kind of Canada than they will be in an isolated Quebec Francophone state of 5.5 million people surrounded by a sea of 250 million Anglophones on this continent.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, if there is one message I would like to convey to my Quebec and Francophone fellow citizens, this is it: we believe passionately in this country and we want to build it with them. This country has very important historical roots, that is recognized. But it is its future that is really appealing, what we can do together if we want to, because Canada offers more opportunities, more possibilities than any other country in the world.
We therefore want to see Quebec and the Francophones within our confederation, to make our society richer and more varied. But we feel as well that it is in the interest of the Francophones of Quebec to be part of that great country of 23 million inhabitants, a country that is willing to accept as its first objective, not only the survival of the French language, the French culture in Canada, but also the flourishing of the French culture and language in our country. That is our message. It is not only for our sake that we want to pursue the great adventure launched over two centuries ago, but also for the sake of Quebeckers, that their interests be better protected within a society like ours, within a large and strong Canada that offers better protection than an insular country, a small island of five and a half million lost in an Anglophone sea of 250 million people. History, the past, our roots, they are very important, true; what is more important for Canada is the future we can build together. The future is Canada.


Peter Ittinuar: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of northerners, I welcome this opportunity to reply to the Speech from the Throne. There was very little in the Speech from the Throne about the north which one could agree with or disagree with, because in fact there was very little said about the north at all. The one reference to the Canadian Arctic region refers to the exploration and development of these promising frontier areas. The people who make their home up there are forewarned.
I mention this situation because it is an ongoing problem with which northerners are constantly faced. The national media have little interest in northern affairs, and consequently southern Canadians are afforded few opportunities to learn about and understand a large portion of their country. In the Speech from the Throne pains were taken to address the people of Quebec, western Canada, the Atlantic provinces and the industrialized Ontario core. We sympathize with these regions, but the federal government is the one institution which effectively controls northern affairs.

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. Ittinuar
The federal government is a major employer in the north and retains control over mineral and fossil fuel resources and, this, over the nature and pace of any development which takes place. The federal government has a trust responsibility for native northerners as administered under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Yet the north is not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. No province in Canada is controlled federally in the way that the Yukon and particularly the Northwest Territories are controlled, and yet no province is ignored as the Territories are.
This could be because the federal government still retains its patriarchal mentality in relation of the Territories. I sincerely hope that more progressive attitudes prevail in the 1980s. The pace of northern political and economic development is accelerating and the decisions which will be made during the next few years will have long-standing and far-reaching effects. One hopes that the representatives of the Government of Canada will take the time to orient themselves to northern issues and thereby enter into future negotiations and processes which will effect change in the north with an informed and conciliatory attitude.
In the Speech from the Throne the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a commitment to a renewed Canadian federalism, and he went on to say that Canada should remain "a country that regards diversity as an asset, not a liability". In the context of constitutional revisions, I hope that the Prime Minister will adhere to the spirit of that statement by including Canada's first inhabitants, the native people, as full participants in any process which will effect constitutional change.
At this point I will digress for a few moments, Mr. Speaker, to put things into their historical perspective. Three hundred and ten years ago, on May 2, 1670, King Charles II issued a royal charter which granted the area which we now call the Northwest Territories to his German cousin Rupert and Rupert's friends in the Hudson's Bay Company. The royal charter granted the Hudson's Bay Company the sole trade and commerce of Rupert's land, and the company was empowered to make "peace or war with any prince or people whatsoever that are not Christians".
Two hundred years later, in 1870, Rupert's land was sold to Canada. In the recent Baker Lake court decision, Justice Mahoney ruled that property rights in the Northwest Territories belonged to the federal government. His reasoning was based on the process just outlined-King Charles II granting Rupert's land to the Hudson's Bay Company, which in turn handed it over to the federal government of Canada. This judgment apparently eliminates all Inuit property rights, and I should say northern residents rather than Inuit because there are many permanent residents of all ethnic groups in the north.
From the point of view of the original inhabitants of the land who have occupied and used the land since time immemorial, it is absurd that someone in England could initiate a process by which all property rights to that land are lost. Mr. Speaker, to put this in the present context, Justice Mahoney ruled that the Baker Lake area is "subject to the aboriginal right and title of the Inuit to hunt and fish thereon", but that their aboriginal title does not make the Inuit "holders of surface rights". Under section 146 of the BNA Act, aboriginal rights are not protected by Canadian constitutional law and, other than the guarantee to freely move about and hunt and fish, they have never been defined in Canadian law.
The increased pace of development in the north will inevitably lead to a conflict between industrial interests and the permanent inhabitants of the land. Justice Mahoney recognized this contradiction when he said that "the co-existence of an aboriginal title with the estate of the ordinary private land holder is readily recognized as an absurdity".
1 would like to turn now to the recently released report of the special representative for constitutional development in the Northwest Territories. As hon. members are aware, Mr. Drury was appointed special representative by the Prime Minister in August, 1977. He was given the task of explaining options for constitutional development in the Northwest Territories and reporting the results of his investigations back to the Prime Minister. Among the options that Mr. Drury was asked to address was the division of the Northwest Territories into two or more political units.
I would like to comment on the Drury report by posing three important questions which are important to northerners: Why was Mr. Drury appointed, what are the principal features of his report, and what should be done with his report?
I would like to look initially at the first question as to why Mr. Drury was appointed. He was appointed at a time when the future of the Northwest Territories and its peoples was causing considerable contention in Ottawa. The Berger inquiry had been revealing to southern Canadians what many people in the north had known for years, that in many ways the Northwest Territories more closely resemble a colony of the south than an integral part of the Canadian political framework.
The popular sentiments expressed before Judge Berger were being stated to the federal government at the time by leaders of the Dene nation and the Inuit of Nunatsiaq. Both the Dene and the Inuit peoples had rejected Ottawa's interpretation of land claims negotiations as a process by which the federal government assumed clear title over areas of traditional use by aboriginal peoples in exchange for small strips of land and money-in other words, beads and blankets indexed for inflation. The aboriginal peoples of the Northwest Territories had stated clearly that land claims and negotiations could not be pursued to successful completion if they started on the premise that negotiations constituted some kind of giant real estate transaction.
Northerners wanted to accomplish what had not been attempted up to that point-an accommodation between the needs and aspirations of northern peoples and the concerns of the federal government, a government mandated to speak for Canadian citizens as a whole. I should like to be quite honest and say that statements made by many native citizens before Justice Berger and the ideas articulated by the leaders elected
May 12, 1980

to head representative native associations scared many people in Yellowknife and Ottawa. The newly heard native leaders were perceived as a threat to the status quo, a status quo which may have satisfied Ottawa and the Yellowknife bureaucracy but which was less than satisfactory to the people whom it governed. Thus, late in 1977 the federal government faced the problem of what to do about land claims negotiations when the native peoples involved insisted on talking about political development as well as ownership of the land and resources.
The federal government tried to resolve this problem with the appointment of Mr. Drury as special representative for constitutional development in the Northwest Territories, thereby deferring questions of political development until completion of the report. At the same time, Dene and Inuit leaders were informed that matters of political structure brought up during land claims negotiations would, in the words of personnel employed at the office of native claims, be a "non-starter". This 1977 policy has resulted in a three-year impasse in negotiations between the federal government and the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, commonly known as the Eskimo Brotherhood of Canada, and the federal government and the Dene nation.
It is apparent that land claims negotiations in the north have been delayed by the Drury process. With this in mind, I would like to review the major features of the Drury report.
The report contains a wide range of recommendations with respect to the discharge of government services in the Northwest Territories. Many of these recommendations, particularly ones regarding the transfer to local government of as many functions as can be effectively handled at that level, are commendable. The report's concentration on the nitty-gritty of government services, however, is at the same time its chief strength and chief weakness. While the report contains many comments and conclusions about the need to build an existing experience and success with local self-government, these comments and conclusions were equally germane to any outcome of the debate on division.
The tone and substance of the report is based on Mr. Drury's acknowledged premise that the manner in which government programs are administered is more important to the people of the north than the nature of the political structure. This premise is totally at odds with reality. It is at odds with the events which have taken place in the north during the last few years. It is at odds with the position of the Dene and Inuit organizations that speak for the majority of residents of the Northwest Territories. It is at odds with the position endorsed by the eighth legislative council of the Northwest Territories, and at odds with the statements made by members of the ninth legislative council in seeking to formulate a consensus position on political change. It is at odds with the pronouncements made by all candidates for the ridings of Nunatsiaq and Western Arctic during the last federal election campaign.
The Address-Mr. Ittinuar
People in the north have disagreed, sometimes bitterly, about the proper direction of political change and the kind of political structures that should be set into place, but seldom has there been disagreement on the fact that the political questions framing the north go far beyond tinkering with the provision of government services.
In his report Mr. Drury recognizes that the question of division is a serious one; nevertheless, he recommends that wide-ranging powers, including full or partial control over Crown lands and resources, should be transferred to Yellowknife. Following this he suggests that a debate should be initiated in the north to determine whether powers should have been transferred to Yellowknife or whether the Northwest Territories should have been divided.
This is an obvious case, we believe, of putting the sled before the dog team. The report suggests that the people living north of the tree line should suspend their age-old commitment to a new political unit called Nunavut, watch impassively as the Yellowknife bureaucracy is strengthened, and then question the appropriateness of this bureaucracy. The implementation of this report would be totally unacceptable to the people of Nunavut.
The Government of Canada committed itself to the settlement of native claims through a process of negotiation with the office of native land claims of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. All aspects of claims- political, economic and cultural-must be considered in those negotiations. The federal government's appointment of the special representative for constitutional development, Mr. Drury, in 1977 bypassed this legitimate process by demanding that the political aspect of claims be channelled through his office and not through these legitimate negotiations.
This was and still is unacceptable to the Inuit and is somewhat discouraging. Any attempt at a just and honourable settlement of native claims is impossible while the process has been compromised in this way. I believe that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), who unfortunately is not here, in his submission to cabinet on this report, will be aware of this shortcoming and act accordingly.
As Canadians, we are only too aware that regional disparity is not exclusive to the north. Canada is large, and regions have settled historically with their own character and their own perception of participation coming into play in the Canadian mosaic. Perhaps-and I speculate, Mr. Speaker-these diametrically opposed forces are directly attributable to the British North America Act, and these strains only point out the need for constitutional reform and development to meet the realistic needs of Canada's many groups. If this is true, and I believe it to be, then my people are not alone in their aspirations as Canadians.
In this context the people of the north are proposing a settlement with the government which will be negotiated fairly and justly. Although we applauded the Alaska and James Bay agreements, and more recently the Greenland home rule agreement with Denmark, we feel they were variations on what were fairly straightforward real estate transactions. That

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. Chenier
is, in exchange for extinguishing their rights, they received cash and a more conventional, if not a bit firmer, legal title to a much reduced area of land.
The Nunavut proposal, as it is called, is not intended as a real estate transaction. It is a contract proposal, but one principally of a social and political rather than a commercial nature. The basic goal of this proposal is the formation of a new government-a new government which would find its place within the constitutional framework and would, of course, be subject to the ultimate sovereignty of the Parliament of Canada.
In the context of self-determination as the major principle of that proposal, I would like to refer to the international covenant on economic, cultural and social rights, as well as the international covenant on civil and political rights. These covenants were passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1967 and were ratified by Canada in May 1976. Article I, subsection I, of both covenants proclaims:
All people have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development.
Article 2 of the international covenant on civil and political rights says:
Where not already provided for by existing legislation or other measures, each state party to the present covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps in accordance with its constitutional processes, and with the provisions of the present covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present covenant.
Through the land claim proposal of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, it is our feeling that we are providing the Government of Canada with an opportunity to give effect to the international commitments it has made.
It is understandable, given the present climate in Quebec, that the federal government shuns such terms as self-determination. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) made it explicitly clear to the Indian chiefs who met in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago that in his mind they did not constitute a province. I suggest to the Prime Minister and his government that self-determination is not in the least threatening; in fact, it is enjoyed by the vast majority of Canada's people. Self-determination is indeed possible under confederation, for it exists for some; the renewed federalism which the Prime Minister promises could extend this right to all Canadians.
I should like to end my comments, Mr. Speaker, by saying that, while I do not always understand members of this House and I believe that they do not always understand me, if we agree to try and understand each other, then perhaps some of these goals of northern people can be realized.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, the throne speech has spared nothing to set the priorities enabling
our new government to take up now and not tomorrow or in the year 2000 the challenges which must be overcome with concrete steps. First, I would like to congratulate the previous government which soon realized that the Canadian people deserved another opportunity to decide-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) on a point of order.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, is it not the Conservatives' turn to speak now?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I will point out something that I am sure is fairly obvious to the hon. member for Bow River. If no member on his side of the House stands to be recognized, I have to look to those members who do stand.


Gordon Edward Taylor: On that point of order, the hon. member was standing. There was an agreement made between the House leaders.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has an indication of who has sought the floor. I have twice looked to hon. members on my left to see whether they did, in fact, seek the floor. Certainly on the first occasion no member stood on my left. On the second occasion I gave enough time to recognize an hon. member who might speak on my left. There is no question but that it was the turn of a member of the Progressive Conservative Party to speak. But I saw no such member standing, and for the second time I have had to recognize someone other than a member from the Conservative party. However, I will certainly pay attention to the members on my left.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Whether or not you saw him, he was standing. [Translation]


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against the hon. member opposite speaking before I do. On the other hand, I would like you to recognize me when he has completed his comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier) has offered to step down in favour of the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) so that the proper sequence of speakers can continue. Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to thank the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier) for his courtesy.
It is with a great deal of pleasure that I congratulate you on your appointment, and to Madam Speaker I offer my con-
May 12, 1980

gratulations on her election. I do not wish to place undue emphasis on the fact of her femininity because I am not a male chauvinist, but I would be remiss if I did not draw attention to the fact that she is the first woman to occupy the Speaker's chair. The fact that she is the first woman Speaker and a Quebecker I hope will be synonymous with the "Yvettes" and result in a resounding No vote in the coming Quebec referendum. This is a wish that I know is shared by Madam Speaker and by each of the members here assembled. Her record of accomplishment in the fourth estate and in government speaks for itself.
As this is my maiden speech in this chamber, 1 should like to take this opportunity to thank the electors of Simcoe South for the confidence they have placed in me by electing me to the House of Commons on two consecutive occasions. I pledge my devoted and undivided service to each and every constituent's needs as well as to the work of this House.
Last December I was to make my maiden speech during the budget debate but we all know what happened on that Thursday night. Now, instead of making my maiden speech during the throne speech debate, I find myself thrust back into a budget debate. For that is what this is as a result of a little back door end run by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) just over two weeks ago.
There was no formal notice given by the minister to the opposition of this mini-budget. In it there was no real economic direction, and the direction, if you wish to call it that, was without the traditional parliamentary approval. No six-day debate was allowed. Arrogance again rears its ugly head. Sidestepping the system is an abrogation of the rights of the Canadian people.
The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), the following evening, termed it not just a mini-budget but a Minnie Mouse budget. Well, I think it was a mini-skirt budget. It skirted economic reality, the home owners' dilemmas, high interest rates and the commuters' concerns for gasoline prices. A mini-skirt should be short enough to be interesting but long enough to cover the subject. The minibudget was neither, as it was short on fiscal and social measures, other than those it emulated from the previous government, but very long on spending.
There was a $7.9 billion increase in expenditures, the greatest in Canadian history. Is that something of which we can be proud? And with no right of debate, this was the same situation as we had with the imposition of the metric system. There was no right of parliamentary questioning. The lack of debate on the metric system was eloquently outlined by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm).
It is not just a question of metric being right or wrong but that we are seven to nine years ahead of our neighbour to the south and our major trading partner, the United States. Again, it is circumvention of the traditional parliamentary system to debate metric conversion and to debate this mini-budget. What it all adds up to, as the hon. member for Nepean-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker) so aptly stated, is a complete lack of responsibility from those across the floor of this House.
The Address-Mr. Stewart
Years ago when Liberal arrogance and contempt for Parliament was first being test-marketed, Mackenzie King and his minions used to announce new tax measures on the radio. Being in the tobacco business, I waited with bated breath for the increase in tobacco tax. But I noted with great interest that the increase is again done in pounds in this budget by a supposedly metrified minister of finance. At least the Minister of Finance has enough respect for Parliament and enough personal courage to come into the House and outline some of his bold and brazen measures, some of them purloined, as I have stated before, from the Crosbie budget of the last Parliament.
I find the minister's new tax increases unacceptable. I find the minister's new forecasts of deficit spending unacceptable. I find the minister's methods of introducing a budget without actually calling it a budget unacceptable. I represent almost 100,000 people of Simcoe South and I believe that they, like the chamber of commerce and the manufacturers' association, find it unacceptable.
My constituency of Simcoe South is a microcosm of Canada. It is a melting pot of various ethnic backgrounds and origins. It is a cross-section of Canada. Yes, it is a melting pot, yet the quintessence of national unity. I represent six rich and beautiful townships, Flos, Vespra, Innisfil, Tecumseth and West Gwillimbury. I represent small businessmen, industry, tourism, agriculture with the black muck farmers of the famed Holland Marsh and Bradford area and the members of the armed forces with their dependants of Canadian Forces Base Borden.
My city is beautiful Barrie, Ontario's most progressive city situated on the shores of Kempenfeldt Bay. The CNR has wound its way all along that shore, for years despoiling it. But now our city has the opportunity of taking over much of that shoreline for municipal purposes if the CN will co-operate with the mayor and myself in trading industrial land, so that our lakeshore may be preserved in all its natural beauty.
My constituents like other Canadians are subject to the vagaries of patchwork quilt government. They are the innocent victims of high interest rates, near double-digit inflation, uncertain energy supplies and pricing and all the other major economic indicators which are out of whack because of the past 16 years of "true Grit" government. They are helpless to defend themselves against an unstable economic system. My constituents are powerless to plan for the future with any degree of optimism or certainty. They are caught on a treadmill trying to survive, trying to keep up with the hardships that fiscal and monetary measures inflict upon them.
Where in the minister's budget is there relief for the home owner? Where is the mortgage tax credit which would have cushioned the home owner against rising mortgage interest rates and property tax increases? The mortgage tax credit program proposed by the previous government would have lowered interest rates in many cases to 12 per cent. One might stand high interest rates but not the loss of one's home. In my riding there are 27,785 homes with 20,030 of them owned not by rich people but by people with mortgages who need help.

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. Stewart
Where are the measures which would cushion the ordinary Canadian against rising gasoline and home heating oil prices? Yes, the Conservatives planned to raise gasoline prices by 18 cents a gallon, but the Liberals' new blending price will raise prices by two-thirds and by how much next year? Where is the fuel tax credit program that we had for families earning $21,380 or less who drive 20,000 miles and would have had $220 returned to them annually for a net saving of $40?
Where are the responsible measures we demand and need to reduce government spending? Where is the end to twisted economic thinking which believes that we can deficit-spend our way out of a period of economic slack? It is suicide. Our record of deficit spending is appalling. Our record of spending beyond our means is frightening.
It is a matter of public record that about 22 cents out of every dollar goes to pay the interest on the national debt. We are, in effect, running hard just to stand still and we will leave a legacy of debt to our children and grandchildren. The Minister of Finance is forecasting a budgetary deficit of $14 billion. The United States, the most powerful industrial nation in the world with ten times our population, is projecting a zero deficit. Who do we think we are, spending on such a grand scale and mortgaging future generations of Canadians with massive debt repayments?
If we are to provide the social and economic programs which this country needs, if we are to pay for these programs, we must put first things first. We must have the tax base with which to support government programs. We must have our house in order. Abraham Lincoln said that a house divided cannot stand, and this occurs on economic as well as geographic and political lines.
We must provide the economic climate under which free enterprise is able to cope with the growing demands of a growing population. Our manufacturing capability is declining. We are not providing jobs fast enough to keep pace with population growth. We lack industrial strategy. We lack an investment and a commitment in research and development.
Over the years, previous Liberal governments have promised and promised to provide more funds and incentives for much needed research and development. We heard that here today. They have done very little. In fact, during the years 1968 to 1979, the over-all level of research in Canada dropped by one third. The Lamontagne science commission recommended a target of 2.5 per cent of the gross national product be expended on research and development. That recommendation was ignored. I disagree with the minister opposite; we believe that anything less than 2.5 per cent of the gross national product is unacceptable.
Further to this, a few days ago the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) stated that if we raised our percentage of research and development by one percentage point, from .94 per cent to 1.94 per cent, it would have meant one million new jobs in this country and $20 billion in new manufacturing sales, not to mention the whole new generation of personal and
income taxes which would have resulted. I noted with interest the minister opposite pledging his government's support to research and development.
If we are to survive as a nation, if we are to be a viable world trading nation, if we are to build a solid industrial foundation, we must begin with the basics, and industrial strategy and a commitment to building a strong research and development component. I await with interest his complete research and development strategy.
If we are to remain competitive in world markets, our manufacturing sector must grow. For far too long we have been vendors of raw materials. For too long we have allowed our valuable raw resources to leave this country either in the raw state or semi-processed. The trade figures show the legacy of neglect and stagnation particularly over the past 11 years and now projected as being almost nil.
Our trading deficit has sharply increased. By 1978, Canadians had bought $12.2 billion more in manufactured products from other countries than those countries bought from us. This is equivalent to a loss of 400,000 jobs. There is no excuse for that especially since, in many cases, those same products we bought were made from Canadian raw resources.
We need to work to develop a positive industrial strategy to make use of our resource potential and to create more jobs for Canadians, a policy not to import skilled labour but a strong apprentice program for our own unemployed young Canadians. Then, and only then, will we have the tax base we require for government programs.
Canadian Forces Base Borden, the hub of activity in two world wars to preserve our freedom, is located in my riding. It is my opinion that the treatment of our military is a national disgrace. Our armed forces are undermanned, underequipped and overextended. Most of the equipment being used by our armed forces today more properly belongs in museums.
Let me compare our military record with those of the combined Scandinavian countries, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland, with approximately the same population as Canada and one third-of our geographic sovereignty. The Scandinavian nations-hardly an aggressive, warlike people- have 178,600 men and women in uniform. Canada has approximately 80,000, down from over 100,000 when this Liberal government first came to power. Scandinavia spends 2.8 per cent of its gross national product on defence; we spend about 1.8 per cent. For every Canadian tank, Scandinavia has 7.4. For every fighter-reconnaissance aircraft they have 4.15. They have 202 fighter-bombers, we have none. Their ships of war outnumber ours two to one, and we with our hard won 200-mile limit. Let us not get into a cod war with Scandinavia or our Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) will be known as the "late cod father". In order to achieve parity of spending with the Scandinavian nations, we would have to devote 1 per cent more of our gross national product annually.
Why is morale so low in our armed forces? Why are so many high-ranking senior officers taking early retirement? I would venture to guess that it is because they are tired of
May 12, 1980

butting their heads against stone walls. They are tired of being denied the men, money and equipment to permit Canada to live up to its basic commitments to NATO and NORAD. They are tired of the lack of identity and pride. The external affairs policy review initiated by the former secretary of state for external affairs is now for naught. I am appalled, after being a member of this committee preparing a new white paper, that so much hard work and substance has been rejected out of hand by the present government.
I find it mind boggling that the government refuses to examine our foreign and military policies so that we can wisely chart our course for the future. But then, someone once compared the Liberal government to Christopher Columbus. When he set out he did not know where he was going; when he got there he did not know where he was; and when he got home he did not know where he had been. And he did it all on borrowed money-and the mini-budget bears this out.
The constituency of Simcoe South is comprised of some of the most beautiful countryside in the world. It is a tremendous tourist area in all four seasons of the year. We are blessed with Lake Simcoe on our doorstep. However, Lake Simcoe ails and she may never get better. She suffers from one of the very serious problems which threaten our environment, particularly the problem of acid rain. We have known of this phenomenon for many years yet we have done very little to cope with it. Acid rain is a potential killer. It is perhaps a form of apocalypse which is being visited on our lakes, on our forests and our agricultural crops.
Hanging in the balance is the cold water fish industry and the $13.6 million it generates. In addition, the tourism industry has significant local economic and social implications and relies on good water quality. I am pleased that the government of Ontario has taken the first steps to restore the lake to its original state. 1 hope in his remarks the minister will bring things to a head with the U.S. government on the problem of acid rain.
I wish to discuss something that has been discussed by most members, something that touches all our hearts, national unity. The subject of national unity is very much in everyone's thoughts today. The New Democratic Party would lead us to believe that it has a united philosophy. It pretends to be the champions of the pensioner and those on low incomes, and this is also the philosophy of the Conservative party. But where is this united front as, in reality, it cannot agree upon which side the party is in the Quebec referendum? We are all aware of their divided opinion when it comes to the most critical question in Canada today.
I would like to discuss a subject which causes me great distress. It is the lack of an official national anthem for this country. How many countries in the world today have no official anthem? Very few. However, we in this great nation of Canada are in that unique position. "O Canada" is not officially ours and the song that our children proudly sing in school is not official.
In this august chamber, 282 members are dedicated, I hope, to the principle of national unity. Many moving speeches in
The Address-Mr. Chenier
this throne speech debate have been dedicated to that end. I ask, is it not sensible to begin a new spirit of unity, a spirit of confederation, by officially embracing the national anthem "O Canada"?
On June 6 the Post Office Department will issue a pair of commemorative stamps, the subjects of which will be the music and stylized portraits of the composers of "O Canada". On each miniature pane will be the message "Issued to celebrate Canada Day 1980". Yet that anthem is still not official.
Can you picture the United States without the official "Star Spangled Banner"? Can you imagine the stirring "La Marseillaise" as not officially French? We have "O Canada"-a moving anthem in both languages but never recognized by Parliament in statute. I believe this to be tantamount to sacrilege.
I have introduced a private member's bill as the only effective way to correct this intransigence. I appeal to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party and all hon. members of this House to support this action and make the music of Calixa Lavallee, the French language words of Justice A. B. Routhier and the English language words of Robert Stanley Weir, collectively known as "O Canada", our official national anthem vested in the right of Canada, and that we promote it most vigorously in the name of renewed federalism.
I have mentioned but a few of the problems which confront us but to which there are solutions. I want to see a strong and united Canada. 1 want to see a vibrant Canadian industrial economy. I want to see a society with equal opportunity and social justice for all. I want to see a strong nation with all the symbols of nationhood in place and intact. I want to see a true spirit of confederation pervade this great land. I want to see our people protected and our environment preserved.
In short, I want to see the "true north strong and free"; and "O Canada", I thank God for the opportunity to "stand on guard for thee".


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Mr. Speaker, the throne speech has spared nothing to set the priorities enabling our new government to take up now and not tomorrow or in the year 2000 the challenges which must be overcome with concrete steps. First, I would like to congratulate the previous government which soon realized that the Canadian people deserved another opportunity to decide what party could better face historical events in the eighties. Our constituents have democratically decided that the Liberal party alone led by the right hon. Pierre Trudeau had the necessary boldness and imagination to get us out of that constitutional dilemma and solve our financial problems.
My constituents who have constantly shown their loyalty and their confidence to the Prime Minister since 1968 were not
966

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. Chenier
long in showing their gratitude to the man who had sacrificed his personal plans to serve the interests of his country. Those feelings are also mine, Mr. Speaker. Scarcely two months after the election, on February 18 last, the Prime Minister realized that it was urgent to call Parliament and we saw that the new government intends to discharge vigorously its mandate during the Thirty-second Parliament.
The Speech from the Throne clearly establishes that it is this government's priority to introduce legislation to meet the present needs of this country: energy supplies; the necessity of setting oil prices according to indicators of our economy and markets; the urgency of exploring today for new forms of renewable energy; employment and the need to make available to certain groups like women and the handicapped the same opportunities as to the rest of the labour force; interest rates and the urgency to protect those who feel the security of their very home is in jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne also revealed the new government's determination to fight against the forces whose goal is the separation of our country. 1 would like to deal mostly with that problem, Mr. Speaker, by speaking to my brothers, sisters and cousins of Quebec.
1 want at the outset to remind all my friends from Quebec that on February 18 last they elected a great friend who has never failed in his duty to defend their interests. I am talking, of course, about Pierre Trudeau whom 68.3 per cent of the Quebec electorate have chosen to lead them out of their current dire straits. One must not forget that only 41 per cent chose to elect Mr. Rene Levesque on November 15, 1976, and that was because he had strategically decided to subtly modify the rules of the game of his grand project of independence. Since the advent of Mr. Trudeau, in 1968, Quebec has gained ground in Canada. Thanks to the aggressiveness and the hard work of this man, your province has gained the respect of her neighbours and an affluence never before achieved in her history, contrary to what the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) had to say. To my mind, he stands much closer to the PQ forces than the federalist cause.
Moreover, I remind the people of Quebec not to forget their numerous relatives who have settled outside your province ever since the turn of the century. In my opinion, the act you are about to make on May 20 next will represent the most serious threat to the very existence of your relatives who live outside Quebec. I am very much concerned by this dramatic moment and it goes without saying that my constituents are also concerned, since at least 40 per cent of them have blood ties with you. You think you are a minority outside English Canada, yet my family, my relatives and I live outside Quebec in communities with high concentrations of French Canadians, in an Anglophone province, and we have ever less reason to complain. Imagine, today we can live, work, attend university, have fun, shop and pray in the very language our parents spoke when they left Quebec to settle in another area of the country.
In leaving Quebec, our parents did not abandon their customs, heritage or traditions. To the contrary, our marvellous country made it possible for the Quebec roots, the roots of our founders, to spread everywhere west of your province. Travel around the country, dear fellow citizens, and you will discover ' small Quebecs outside your province, at Chapleau, Foleyet, Gogama, Timmins, Iroquois Falls, Hearst where most people can live exclusively in French, Kapuskasing, Sudbury, North Bay. In short, if you are not already aware of it, northern Ontario and other areas of the province are full of communities where people live just like you.
We can live and breathe the way we want today because of negotiations and compromise with our province. By nature, French Canadians do not give up easily. On the other hand, it is not their habit to provoke confrontations leading to violence, but they do not give up. Their determination and their patience tell them that in time they will acquire rights. It is precisely those rights that we, as a minority in Ontario, enjoy. Despite what our provincial elected representatives might say, they are not bestowing privileges on us, rather we are regaining the rights that the Fathers of Confederation gave us. Those rights will have to be enshrined in a new constitution in order to avoid any future misunderstanding.
We also live and breathe the way we want today because of perseverance and because of such events as the election of Pierre Trudeau to the leadership of this country. His sense of justice, his vision and his efforts in such a short time, because 12 years is indeed a very short time, have speeded up the development of the country and changed its character. First, there was the recognition of the two official languages, then the promotion of economic development in the so-called frontier areas of the country such as northern Ontario, where there are abundant natural resources to be found, and the decentralization of government services which is so important for us.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has certainly not stopped growing. Right now it is going through a critical period where its identity is being questioned because of the many changes that have occurred in the last 12 years. Canadians have come to a point now where they must take in all these changes and decide whether or not they will make the accommodations required to live in this new life style. That is the plain truth that English Canada is faced with over the Quebec situation. That is also the hard truth that English Canada must swallow, namely that it cannot deny the French minority its historical right to live according to its customs and in its own language. The battle is not over in Ontario, nor is it in Quebec for that matter. Both factions will have to compromise a lot, but I suggest that now is not the time to rush things unduly.
If our Quebec friends truly believe that a Yes vote on May 20 will result in a final solution, I advise them to examine closely all the factors in Mr. Levesque's project. This man's strategy is smart and crafty. He will waste no time negotiating, you know that. Every time the provinces have taken part
May 12, 1980

in a federal-provincial conference, he has refused to negotiate. He will hasten up the normal development of Canada and Quebec relations and lead us all quickly towards total separation. Moreover, he will abandon your relatives and friends who, after at least three generations, have succeeded in recovering to a large extent the rights they enjoyed when they left Quebec for another part of the country.
He who reads the history of Canada cannot fail to notice that Quebec over various periods experienced very difficult times. Your fathers may tell you about the difficult years of the depression and World War II when unemployment was endemic. It is thanks to confederation and the Canada we knew then and we know now that a great many families were able to retain their dignity and seek elsewhere in Canada a place to earn a living, a place where more jobs would be available.
They settled in flourishing areas of northern Ontario, for example. In those difficult times, Quebec was welcome everywhere in Canada thanks to that freedom of movement that was possible in a country as vast and rich as ours. By settling outside Quebec, those families grew up nearly as if they were living in their own native province. In fact, today they have gone beyond the boundaries of their province of origin. Your parents, like mine, showed a lot of courage in deciding first to leave their native land and to settle in an area that looked strange at the time.
They proved they had a lot of guts and it is thanks to their perseverance that they brought Canada to the point where it is today, as the Fathers of Confederation had envisaged. Those same families participated in the economic and social development of the cities and towns they chose, so that today they own industries or run businesses through which they contribute significantly to the economic health of our province and our Canada. Far from limiting themselves to their little corner of the country, they opened markets outside Canada and even returned to Quebec to open new branches. Is that not today the very success of those citizens of Quebec who have acquired unequalled confidence not only in terms of their identity but also with respect to industry and high finance? Every day new markets are being opened elsewhere in Canada from the province of Quebec. Beauce and Gaspe suppliers are driving on the roads of northern Ontario like never before. The time has come when Quebec can compete on the same level as all others. Would things be the same, Quebeckers, if you had been excluded from confederation without the protection of the federal government?
I think the Premier of Quebec is making a serious mistake in wanting to go back to a time in our history when parochialism prevailed. This feat of strength he is undertaking in wanting to turn Quebec into a ghetto within Canada and North America, in wanting to erect imaginary boundaries that will be more difficult to bring down than true boundaries and will jeopardize all progress made until now-if you look back a bit, Mr. The Address-Mr. Chenier
Speaker, you will discover that northern Ontario and northern Quebec were linked by a rail line, by highways, by telephone, long before they were joined to the major centres of their own province.
I want to tell my brothers and cousins in Quebec that a Yes vote on next May 20 will put an end to the French Canadian heritage that their relatives were so proud to show when they settled outside their province only two or three generations ago. I believe that we forget too often that Canada as it now is has a short history. After all, Newfoundland joined the Canadian federation only 30 years ago and Alberta in 1905. One after the other, depending on their wealth, the poor provinces have benefited from the generosity of richer provinces, and this is why Canada has survived so well. Today's Alberta should not forget that it had its turn at benefiting from the wealth of Ontario.
Who could have predicted in 1867 that Canada today would be made up of ten provinces and two territories, that Alberta would discover a wealth of oil in its substratum, that Newfoundland would develop successfully it offshore resources, that Quebec would tame the energy of its majestic rivers and that northern Ontario, with its mineral wealth, would become an economically strong area? Who would have predicted at the birth of our country that there would be so many migrations of the Canadian people from east to west, from Moncton to Quebec, from Quebec to northern Ontario, to St. Boniface, to Gravelbourg? It is also because of all these events that we must all get along with each other and that all the provinces must agree on a new distribution of powers within a new constitution which would also guarantee the historic rights of both linguistic groups.
The provinces must continue to get along with each other, and it is only a strong central government which can ensure the Canadians of Prince Edward Island that they will be equal as Canadians to the people of Quebec or of Saskatchewan. It is also up to the Canadian government to undertake constitutional talks with all the provinces, as soon as possible after May 20, so that Canada can finally have a truly Canadian Constitution.
Canada's history is too short yet for anyone to conclude that it is too late to get along. Scientific and technological progress achieved in every area over a very short time have shaken Canada and in fact changed her lifestyle and direction. We recognize that, and it is time to consider some new arrangement with all the provinces rather than Quebec alone, in light of our evolution in those fields. A country is not known by its system of government or resources. The heart of a country beats to the way of life and the history of its people. Canadian identity traces its roots well beyond 1867.
At the time of colonization, Canada was called New France. We, the French Canadians of today, live according to the heritage transmitted by our ancestors since that time, from generation to generation, and therefore a major part of our

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. Chenier
Canadian identity traces its roots to the way of life of French Canadians in Quebec, in Acadia, in northern Ontario, St. Boniface and other areas throughout Canada wherever French is spoken. A Yes vote on May 20 would endanger this country's very identity.
Mr. Levesque complained some time ago of a declining French Canadian population in Quebec. Does he not realize that a Yes vote on Tuesday next will permanently isolate French-speaking Canadians, and annihilate the future of such Canadians outside Quebec? I have difficulty in understanding that kind of narrow mindedness that not only wishes to group Quebec citizens under a single umbrella but also makes it a point to ensure that our minority numbers in North America proceed without further ado on the road to extermination.
Our nation at this point in history is accosted by many voices of divisiveness, voices which advance points of view which, if carried into effect, would mean a very rapid end to the fragile, beautiful unity of Canada. The voices of sovereignty in Quebec are but one example of narrow-mindedness and isolationism in our Canada. In all corners of our country, embittered groups preach parochialism, advocate intolerance and ignore the great joy of brotherhood among varied people.
In Acadia and in the west we hear the same advocacy of cultural and political isolation as we hear in Quebec. In such situations it is difficult to separate the genuine need for cultural protection from the self-interest of power hungry groups exploiting the natural incidence of human differences.
Ironically, while we have a group in Quebec seeking to lead that province out of confederation because of a perceived threat to cultural and linguistic assimilation, other groups in Canada fear the drowning of the English language in a Francophone sea. The rationale for the existence of such bodies as the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada and the One Canada Movement frankly escapes me. What threat do these people perceive in the existence of another man's language? Are they physically or psychologically harmed in any way by the spoken word? The fact that such groups exist, although there are many groups in Canada espousing different points of view, indicates to me a profound misunderstanding of the nature of our confederation.
I know some of the members of APEC, for example, and some of these people hold very responsible positions in the community. They are not deranged or mentally limited people, but for some reason they feel threatened enough to come out of the closet and form a public organization founded on the thesis that the English language and one's right to speak English is being challenged by the presence of the French language in our federal government. They feel that the 25 per cent to 30 per cent of our population who speak French somehow deprive them of their rights as Anglophones. One can only conclude that the barricading of the French language beyond the eyes and ears of these people is what is being
asked. These people seem ready to deny their fellow-founding race the right to communicate with their government in their mother tongue simply because they do not want to hear a strange language.
I suggest that some Anglophones would benefit from a tour through Quebec. I believe the reality of a French-speaking population within the Canadian borders-the French fact- has never been accepted or even contemplated by many English Canadians. Bigotry is based on ignorance and I think that is the case with many Canadians.
I do not say this in a bitter or resentful way, but one must wonder if it is only now, now that our great nation is on the precipice of a tremendous tragedy, that English Canadians will be made aware of their brothers' rights and freedoms and, on an individual level, their feelings.
It is not too late to effect a reconciliation between our founding peoples. Canada's greatness is in the plurality of its culture and the duality of its language. This is our heritage, it is not simply a hollow cliche. English and French must reach out to each other and each man and each woman must seek out and bury his or her silly, ignorant and demeaning prejudices, the name calling, the bad jokes and the harassment. It is the little victories of tolerance, like the delicate balance in many communities in my riding sharing many cultures, that are part of the noble and worthy experiment that is Canada.
I appeal to my Anglophone and Francophone brothers and sisters to transcend petty prejudices and prepare themselves for the essential changes that must be made in a new constitution, changes to protect minority language rights, whether they be for the Francophone population of Chapleau or the Anglophone population of the eastern townships. If we balk at change now, we lose everything.

Before French Canadians in Quebec decide on their destinies, I would like in conclusion to make them realize one of the brutal repercussions of a Yes vote on May 20. It is not the future of one province you will be deciding upon, the future of individuals who live in it as that of your parents and friends, but also the future of those of us, a half million in Ontario alone, who live outside Quebec.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook), I should deal with the late show for this evening.
May 12, 1980

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 Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman)-Atomic Energy-Effective and stringent international safeguards over use; the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm)-Parks Canada-Cancellation of proposed relocation of regional office from Cornwall to Peterborough; the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper)-Canadian Pacific Railway-Winnipeg-Request for commitment on rail relocation.



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. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, indeed it is an honour to be elected to this noble gathering of men and women from across Canada. Many of us vary in our political viewpoints, but here in this House we can all be heard by each other and by the nation.
I represent the constituency of North Vancouver-Burnaby. It is on the lower mainland of British Columbia, and it is what I would call a heartland community. We are home owners, over 80 per cent own their own homes. We are basically middle class, hard-working, intelligent people who remain committed to the protestant work ethic, law and order and the individual right of a citizen to work out his own destiny in safety. We are taxpayers. Oh, do we pay taxes! In short, we are part of the great middle class of this nation that pay most of the taxes and worry about the future of our community, our province and our country.
We are a very long way from the nation's capital. In mileage it is 2,840 miles; in the time it is three hours earlier. In communications and understanding it sometimes appears to be light years away. We live on the other side of several ranges of mountains which are much more than a geographic barrier. They are a barrier to communication and understanding between east and west.
Our concerns, though, are the same as all Canadians. Whether in North Vancouver-Burnaby, Lethbridge, Brandon, Waterloo or Corner Brook, we talk about the same things and are distressed by the same problems which face all Canadians-unemployment, inflation which seems to go on unchecked, mortgage interest payments which are destroying many of our families, the critical need for housing particularly on the west coast, a national government which seems to be out of control and even now planning new bureaucracies in an
The Address-Mr. Cook
attempt to be all things to all peoples, but at what cost! We are concerned about a government that for ten years has spent far more than it could collect, leaving a legacy for all of our children which we regret.
We are concerned about national unity. There is a rising whirlwind in the west that is only felt at this moment as a wisp of a small breeze in central Canada. It is a wind that may engulf this country if the insensitivity and neglect continue. It is no wonder why, despite some good candidates, there is no member of this government who was elected west of Portage and Main. Surely western Canada has given the clearest message possible to this old and unfeeling government. Surely now this government will listen and respond to the desires, needs and legitimate concerns of western Canada. It is a growing, building and developing western half of this nation. The arrogance of decision-making, the failure to listen, has planted seeds of secession in the west which will be difficult to uproot, but if left to flourish through neglect will certainly grow and overcome all of us.
In the Speech from the Throne 1 was given an extra task, like my colleagues from Saskatchewan, Alberta and, of course, British Columbia. I and the others were charged with the responsibility of representing my constituents to the nation, but also to represent the nation to my constituents. My constituents, along with all other Canadians, are the nation. Even the suggestion that the people of North Vancouver-Burnaby are something different from the nation is an insult to all Canadians.
If it means that I am to represent the nation and explain to my constituents why it was necessary to use anti-dumping rules to destroy over 200 British Columbia jobs for the benefit of Algoma, I will have difficulty. This case was a transfer of British Columbia jobs to Ontario in order to meet an Alberta demand. The wide-flange steel fabrication decision is one I will have trouble explaining.
If Atlantic fishermen are given subsidies and aid, and there is not an equal opportunity given to Pacific fishermen, I will have trouble explaining that. When the interprovincial ferries of the maritimes are subsidized and the national government cuts back the subsidy for northern transportation in British Columbia and up the coast, then I will have difficulty. Indeed, one Liberal cabinet minister had difficulty as well: she is no longer here.
The problem is not with the members of this House from the western region. The problem is a tired, old government that over the years has been so insensitive to the needs and desires of a region of Canada that they have sown the seeds of disenchantment, which is now manifesting itself as alienation. The insensitivity of that paragraph in the Speech from the Throne did not help Canadian unity.
I fear for my country. I fear the small groups of disenchanted that, like Quebec in the sixties, are now surfacing in every area of western Canada. Whatever name they may call themselves-and there are many-whatever differences they have in personality and desires, they are all calling for secession. These small groups lack credible leadership, but that could

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. Cook
change overnight. They sit and await a spark, a spark that could grow to a raging fire in the west.
Despite what the press may say-and they have made little of these groups-they do have a large constituency in the west. There is a very real threat now. It is at the talking stage in the living rooms, dining rooms, coffee houses, restaurants, school rooms and business offices of western Canada. It is not yet fully organized. It is not yet articulated. But it exists to a far greater extent than most Canadians realize. Unless this government pays a greater attention to the western point of view, unless this government is prepared to listen to what the west is saying-and it has been notably lax in that over the past ten years-then I sincerely fear for my country.
The dissident westerner remembers that he was beholden to the railways because they controlled his destiny. The dissident westerner forgets that there are now western trucking organizations owned and operated by westerners, supplying excellent alternatives. The dissident westerner thinks about the jungle of freight rates in western Canada and how it often seems to appear totally unfair to the west. He forgets that the grain is still being moved at a price set before 1900. The dissident westerner talks about less than world prices for oil. Albertans, as a matter of fact, have contributed toward Canadian unity something like a $17 billion subsidy for national unity purposes. The dissident westerner forgets the billion paid by Ontario in eastern Canada when oil pricing was a different thing. He also forgets the tens of billions of dollars paid by Ontario in transfer payments for the benefit of all Canadians.
The list of economic points of bitterness and bickering is a long one. However, when you look at the new west, the western provinces of 1980, you must realize that most of the economic disparities have been solved or are being solved.
Old ideas and old concepts and resentments die hard. The west really has yet to take a very good look at itself and realize the growth, and the fact that the economy of western Canada is not what it was and that Ontario no longer dominates in an economic sense, as it once did.
My findings are that while alienation talk grows stronger in western Canada due to basic misapprehensions as to what the world is like today and not what it was a generation ago, here in Ontario there are also misconceptions and improper views as well as to what is going on.
In Ontario those who are thinking seem to be worried about the west. Ontario, too, has many misconceptions. As an example, the last wooden sidewalk was replaced 40 years ago in western Canada. Ontario does not seem to understand yet that its reliance upon the captive market of western Canada is becoming increasingly less important to the manufacturers of Ontario. What with reductions through GATT and the opening up of more markets by lowering trade barriers, Ontario can compete in the world, and Ontario must compete in the world, and the western Canada market becomes almost unimportant to Ontario.
As an example, the figures for 1974 are rather interesting and typical. Manufacturing shipments from Ontario to western Canada amounted to only 8.9 per cent of all shipments; shipments west from Quebec amounted to only 6.5 per cent; and shipments west to east represented only 4.8 per cent to Ontario and 3.8 per cent to Quebec, and most of them were of food, beverages, and forest products.
There is no danger either for Ontario because of the new skills that are developing in western Canada. There is no danger in terms of manufacturing; we are unimportant to the east and they are unimportant to us. When you talk about the sale of services, whether it be management skills, consulting, engineering or whatever, certainly the west will compete in the eastern market because transportation plays no part. We are talking about brains. Ontario has the skills too, and can certainly compete on an even basis with the new youthful service skills of western Canada. They certainly will be competing in the same fields of computer science, research, intellectual pursuits, microinstrumentation, automation, and all of those things.
Ontario can welcome a new partner. Ontario can welcome a new competitive source which will put it on its mettle, in the same way as westerners can welcome eastern expertise and use that expertise to develop other skills in western Canada. The point I am making here is that what will happen, as the western economy becomes even more similar to the eastern economy in terms of structure, aspirations and economic relationships, is that east and west will grow closer together for mutual benefit, in the same way as France and Germany grew closer together when the common market was set up.
The problems of western alienation will not be economic, because more and more people realize that the region has grown up and can stand on its own two feet. However, there is another side, and that is the political side. Here I have fear that we may not be able to solve the problems quite as easily. I can do no better than quote the words of Stan Roberts, the president of the Canada West Foundation, who, after a series of workshops held across western Canada a year or so ago, said:
There is an urgently growing need for the goals and aspirations of western and northern Canadians to be recognized, supported and fulfilled. There is a serious challenge to confederation, not only in Quebec. The current structure of Canadian confederation has demonstrated a potentially fatal weakness; the inability to meet the development needs of its members. Years ago the Canadian family stuck together because it had to do so. In the coming years, only a meaningful structure and attitudinal change will hold it together.
It is difficult for eastern Canadians to understand and know the west and westerners. Westerners generally feel that only a small proportion of policy makers and implementers in Ottawa know the west. At these meetings I talked about, the concern was expressed that the majority in the public service in Ottawa, especially at the policy level, not only do not understand the west but inherently feel that there is nothing to know; that the west is simply an underdeveloped westward extension of Ontario that was satisfied in its colonial state until recently when it found a measure of prosperity.
May 12, 1980

Along the same line let me quote from the report of the Task Force on National Unity to Parliament in January, 1979:
The attitude of politicians and civil servants in Ottawa towards their provincial counterparts is that of a superior dealing with an inferior ... we cannot help but regard this as a significant cause of conflict between governments.
Some way must be found for there to be an equal partnership between the regions of Canada, and equal partnership means no senior partners and no junior partners.
Western Canadians, in general, want ways and means of ensuring regional input into national decision making. They want a precise clarification of the division of powers between provinces, municipalities, and the federal government. The westerner says that the west and the north have achieved maturity but Ottawa will not recognize it. The master-servant relationship between Ottawa and the west is unacceptable today. The force called western alienation is alive and well, and growing. The views expressed seem to represent the basic and fundamental needs of those living west of the Lakehead, including the north, to be an equal partner in all decisions affecting them. Those are some of the thoughts that are prevalent in western Canada, and those are some of the trends that I fear.
What are the implications of what is taking place out there for Ontario, in particular, and for the federal government and the rest of the country in general? The implications are clear. Decision-making must be brought home to the provinces. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is clearly on record as saying, and meaning, that every decision that can be made at the municipal level should be made there; every decision that can be made on a provincial basis should be made there; and only those decisions that affect all of Canada and are of importance to all of Canada should and can be made at the federal level.
In one way or another western Canada can no longer be and will no longer be the weak sister of eastern Canada. No longer are western Canadians prepared to accept a confederation in which a political party, by winning Ontario and by winning Quebec, could ignore the rest of the country. If the west has found this unfair, I pity the poor maritimers with their small populations.
I would like to give this government a shopping list of some of the things which it could do if it really wished to respond to the legitimate desires and requirements of British Columbia. Let us consider the port of Vancouver. Three times this old government has introduced legislation to give more autonomy to the port of Vancouver, and three times it has only gone as far as first reading. The port of Vancouver should be totally independent and operated by British Columbia people living in British Columbia. The bureaucrats of Ottawa should have absolutely no power in terms of decision-making authority over . the port.
We live on the Pacific rim and look to the Pacific for our trade and markets. We neither expect nor desire civil servants in Ottawa to understand our problems. Nor should the bureau-
The Address-Mrs. Erola
crats of the National Harbours Board be telling us from a great distance what we can and cannot do. As an example, the port of Seattle is totally locally controlled and in the past ten years has advanced tremendously at the expense of Vancouver. What we want is local control of that port, not control by the National Harbours Board and long detailed correspondence with Ottawa. It is in the national interest that we be allowed to compete quickly with local decision-making.
The west coast fishery is another point. It is different from the inland fishery, from the Atlantic fishery and the Newfoundland fishery. What is required as a minimum is a deputy minister of Pacific fisheries located on the west coast and dealing on a daily basis with west coast fishermen, rather than by long distance to Ottawa. At best, there should be a minister of Pacific fishery in the government who deals with that area alone and who preferably comes from British Columbia. If the Canadian Wheat Board were in Ottawa, every prairie farmer would understand exactly what I mean when I talk about the Pacific fishery.
1 have one other point. Every board, commission, task force, study group, advisory panel, Crown corporation or whatever should be examined very carefully with one point in mind.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am very sorry indeed to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, I need but one minute.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Does each region of this country have full and proper representation in the decision-making? If not, it had better be changed if the government wishes to silence the secessionists.
What this country needs is a new national dream, and this time not steel rails to bind us together but a national dream of the heart and mind bound together, one to another, as equals, and each participating in decisions for the benefit of all. Is that not the dream of all Canadians, and is that not what most of Quebec is really saying and also the Atlantic provinces and certainly the west, that they want a new and true confederation of equals? That is the challenge to this government, to figure out how it can be done, how we can all feel equal and be equal in a united, new confederation.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State, Mines):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the House of Commons, I am indeed honoured to have this opportunity to offer my contribution to the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. At the outset I would like to offer Madam Speaker my sincere good wishes and my hearty congratulations upon her elevation to the chair. Hon. members may have noticed that unlike other hon. members, I have very little difficulty in addressing her by the proper prefix. I am confident that in her career as Speaker she will continue to distinguish herself as she has in the past. Indeed, by her very presence here in this chamber she will strengthen the role of women in the affairs of

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mrs. Erola
this nation, a role which will greatly expand in the years ahead.
Before 1 begin my remarks I would like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mrs. Cote) for her eloquent speech in moving the motion for this debate, and similarly congratulate and thank my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), who seconded the motion to begin the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I would indeed be remiss if I did not also thank the people of Nickel Belt who sent me here to Ottawa to represent them. May I simply say to them that I will do my best to ensure that the faith, the trust and the confidence they have placed in me will indeed prove well-founded. I can assure them that I will actively solicit their views and their assistance in the weeks ahead.
I am, of course, delighted to have been asked by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to serve my country in the cabinet as the new Minister of State (Mines). I look forward to this additional responsibility with anticipation. It is, however, an anticipation tempered with a sober humility, humility that stems from the responsibility which I now feel falls upon me, as a northerner, to bring a different perspective to the cabinet table.
I am well aware of the problems and hardships of living in the north and, likewise, I have a sensitivity to the issues of northern expansion and development. It is now my duty to ensure that the northern perspective is given a fair hearing when decisions are being made. Due to the increased concern and emphasis on the energy sector since the OPEC price increases, the mines and minerals sector of the Canadian economy has been somewhat ignored. This is unfortunate because this sector of the Canadian economy has far-reaching consequences in terms of Canada's future economic vitality and, indeed, it has been an important element in Canada's growth and prosperity in the past.
It is no secret that Canada is one of the most richly endowed nations in the world in terms of natural resources. Our northern frontier areas have barely been utilized, and the promise that they hold is vast indeed. I have just returned from a trip to British Columbia and Yellowknife and, contrary to the views of the member who spoke previous to me, the economy is very much alive and well in those parts of the country.
However, the 1980s will certainly not be an easy decade, and in economic terms the strength of our economy will be put to a severe test. In a world of frantic competition and increasingly isolationist national tendencies, Canada will need sound planning and a solid policy base. The mining sector will play an ever more important role in Canada's future economic growth.
There is much activity in the mineral sector today. During the past 12 months several announcements of mine expansion and new mine development have been made. Indeed, in British Columbia 11 new mines are opening this year. New discoveries in the Yukon and Northwest Territories provide the promise of
another mineral boom over the next decade that will contribute to regional development, provide new employment opportunities, and add significantly to per capita incomes.
As Minister of State (Mines) I am dedicated to achieving the potential that exists in the Canadian resource sector. The problems that the resource sector faces may not be that evident to the general public, but they pose a real hardship to the eventual achievement of this potential. The mineral sector of the economy is cyclical in nature. It can experience highs of increased activity and economic strength as we are experiencing now, and it can experience lows of both activity and strength, as was evident a few years ago. The mineral secto: is first and foremost dependent on the world economy and world markets. This boom-bust syndrome has resulted in a very large degree of general uncertainty. This uncertainty acts to stifle the efforts of industry, governments and unions to solve the mutually-shared problems of the mineral sector.
The mining sector of the economy will generate 2,100 new job opportunities in the next decade. However, the industry in general has presently been experiencing considerable difficulty attracting and retaining qualified personnel. The government is working with the industry to develop training programs that will provide the necessary expertise for the future. The Department of Employment and Immigration has in place a program to provide mobility grants of up to $4,500, which directly relates to the minerals industry. I am happy to report that during my visit to the Lornex Mine in British Columbia I found that 45 families from Atikokan have taken advantage of the mobility grant and now are settled in the Logan Lake community, and more are to follow.
Of course the mines and mining communities themselves must undergo significant change. It is no secret that mining continues to have one of the highest fatality rates of all industries, and also relatively high injury rates. Person days lost from work related injuries on average exceed those lost through strikes and lockouts. Recently there has been increasing evidence concerning health problems which originate from the work environment-lung cancer, asbestosis, and heavy metal poisoning.
The general area of occupational health and safety is one of my primary concerns. It is clear that unsatisfactory health and safety conditions make the mining environment less attractive to new workers, and it is important that health and safety enforcement be carried out in the most effective manner. The full potential of the industry can only be reached if it is able to attract and retain a productive labour force over the long term, and this cannot be achieved with unsafe and unhealthy working conditions. We must work together, governments, industry and the unions, to develop new standards and new technology on occupational health and safety. Indeed I am confident that there will be an announcement with respect to this situation in the very near future.
I would like to reaffirm my personal commitment to improving the safety standards of federally regulated mines, in par-
May 12, 1980

ticular the uranium mines with their inherent problems with regard to radiation exposure. Working together we can change the negative public perception of the miner, and begin to attract young Canadians to this growing industry. They will realize that it does provide an interesting and challenging career option. Government will continue to assist mining communities to provide the level of services and community facilities that will attract this much needed work force. Again, 1 saw this type of action just this past week in Yellowknife, across Great Slave Lake in the community of Pine Point where all facilities are made available to the workers.
To this end, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see much more research directed specifically to the solution of societal problems associated with the mining industry. In addition to research in the general areas of health, safety and working conditions in mines, I would like to encourage research in the disposal and treatment of effluents from mills and smelters, and in the disposal and treatment of mine and mill waste, as well as more research in the area of nuclear waste disposal. The solution to those societal problems will not only permit a healthier development of the mineral industry, but the technology which is developed to arrive at these solutions can offer exciting opportunities in the manufacturing and service industries, particularly in my sector of the country.
It is the government's intention to use Canada's resource-base as a basic building block in a vigorous industrial strategy. The mineral industry, as one of Canada's foremost resource based industries, now provides considerable stimulation up and downstream in other sectors of the economy. However, if this industry is to achieve its full potential, in regard to its direct contribution to the economy, it must be a technological leader in mining, in mineral processing, and in metal fabrication.
The industry in 1977 spent $82.4 million on research and development, actually performing $91.2 million worth of R and D, with the federal government paying the difference. The federal government contributes directly about $23.9 million more through grants provided by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and through research conducted in EMR and other government laboratories.
This represents about 0.7 per cent of the total value of production, actually directly spent on research and development. I would like to see Canada's research and development effort considerably increased and I was pleased to hear, in the Speech from the Throne, a reaffirmation of the government's intention to increase Canada's over-all expenditure on research and development to 1.5 per cent of the value of GNP. Much of the increased research and development in the minerals sector should be directed to improving the competitiveness and the commercial position of industries in the field of mining, mineral processing, metal fabricating, and mining machinery and supplies.

My department will carefully look at a matter that I consider of prime importance, the increased processing of our natural resources at home in Canada. The time I have does not allow
The Address-Mrs. Erola
me, of course, to list all my concerns with respect to the mining sector. So I will be content to say that my department will continue to do everything it can to find solutions to the chronic problems facing this industrial sector.
My department and other departments involved will give particular attention to the following areas-the transportation of raw materials, the health and safety of workers, more advanced processing of our raw materials, an increase in our exports in this area and the elaboration of an infrastructure for the development of northern Canada. I expect to receive the open and full co-operation of all members of this Parliament, particularly those who are closely affected by such matters, and an active and eager participation on their part. So our twofold objective remains the same-the improvement and growth of the mining sector in Canada.
May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to conclude this speech by dealing with a very hot subject, a subject that can leave no Canadian indifferent-the confrontation that is now shaking Quebec and the adverse effect that confrontation can have for both that province and Canada as a whole if it does not come out right. There is no doubt that the French fact is one of the dominant characteristics of the very personality and character of the Canadian people. I strongly suggest that Canada could not exist without a strong presence of the French culture and language. It is time that all Canadians from coast to coast properly recognized and appreciated that wealth which is ours.
On the other hand, I warn all Quebeckers against the disastrous consequences that would result from the separation of Quebec. Outside the Canadian confederative pact, literally drowned in the English-speaking sea of the North American continent, French-speaking Quebec will not be able to keep its culture and language. So it is in the very interest of Quebec and all of Canada that there be a decisive victory on the no side in the Quebec referendum of May 20. A victory for the yes side would mark the beginning of the process of disappearance of the French culture and language on Canadian soil, even in America, and would endanger the very survival of Canada as a distinct nation.
I was raised and worked in a Francophone environment in northern Ontario. I represent a riding whose population is 40 per cent Francophone. Despite my English accent, my Finnish origins, my heart is French; I say it with fervor, with pride. The French fact in Canada blooms far beyond the boundaries of the province of Quebec. I invite Francophone Quebeckers, men and women alike, to visit the many authentically Francophone communities of my riding such as Noelville, Monetville, Saint-Charles, Azilda and many others. They will see then that the French culture and language have dug their roots deep down in the soil of Ontario. Those men and women of Quebec will then be able to see what irreparable consequences a Yes in the referendum would have for the Francophone

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. Vankoughnet "pure laine" outside Quebec. By voting Yes, Quebeckers would be saying: Quebec is French, Canada is English.
Quebeckers would thus be tolling the bell for Francophones outside Quebec, for their culture and their tongue. In a way, Quebeckers would be perpetrating the cultural and linguistic genocide of their blood brothers.
Many ethnic groups, each with its characteristics and its own wealth, make up the Canadian mosaic, of which French Canadians are a jewel. Will Quebeckers decide to shatter that mosaic which it took so many years for Canadians to build together? I close, Mr. Speaker, paraphrasing the words of the Quebec song writer: When all Canadians live off love, leaving behind distress and woes, on better days the sun will shine, we'll still be full of life, brothers of mine.
Mir. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to begin my remarks by offering my sincere congratulations to Madam Speaker on her prestigious election as Speaker of the House of Commons. In acquainting myself with the responsibilities and obligations of my new role, I sympathize with Madam Speaker in acquainting herself with her new role. I am sure that she will easily master these new responsibilities and carry out her role in the tradition of excellence and impartiality of past speakers.
It is a great honour for me to rise and deliver my maiden speech today. I would like to use the occasion of my maiden speech to introduce members of the House to my riding of Hastings-Frontenac and to discuss the issues that are of concern to my constituents, both at the local and national level. I will make my remarks in the context of a reply to the Speech from the Throne and incorporate what I have to say in the form of a request for government action on the issues that I raise.
First, I will give a brief description of my constituency. Hastings-Frontenac is located in southeastern Ontario. Its southern boundary skirts the city of Kingston and runs south on the Frontenac-Lennox and Addington county line to the Bay of Quinte. It contains Hastings County from approximately Highway 7 just south of Madoc and Marmora, to the Peterborough-Hastings county line. It follows the line north to the Renfrew-Nipissing district and Hastings county boundary, then follows the boundary line south and east, bordering Renfrew county. Finally, it follows the Frontenac county boundary with Lanark and Leeds counties until it reaches its southern extremity at the Bateaux Channel east of Kingston in the Thousand Islands area. Thus, I represent one of southern Ontario's biggest, most scenic and historical areas.
There are several small villages within the constituency. Some of the bigger communities include Amherstview, near Kingston; Napanee, which is my home town; Madoc; Marmora, Bancroft, Sydenham, Northbrook, Cloyne, Denbigh, Sharbot Lake, Tamworth, Verona, Coe Hill, Maynooth, Eldorado, Harrowsmith, Parham, Kaladar, Arden and Plevna.
As a result of the number of small communities within the riding, Hastings-Frontenac is blessed with many of the much cherished small town virtues.
My constituents are honest, hard-working, God-fearing and decent people. They are typical Canadians, and I am proud and honoured to represent them. The citizens of Hastings-Frontenac pride themselves on their self-reliance and their perseverance.
These characteristics are as much an inherited trait as they are products of the small town, rural environment: a heritage of our forefathers. Our area of eastern Ontario was settled primarily by United Empire Loyalists. They moved into the area following the American revolution and founded such communities as Bath, Ernestown, Millhaven, Sandhurst and Adolphustown. As time went on and the valuable land on the Bay of Quinte became scarce, they moved inland to settle such places as Odessa, Newburgh, Selby, Tamworth, Roblin, Yarker and Enterprise. These early settlers who made the journey north were a proud people and full of the strength of their convictions. To this day, the imprint they made on the communities they settled remains with their descendants, of which I am proud to be one.
My constituents and I believe that government interference in the economy should be limited to cases of necessity. The work ethic and incentives in the free enterprise system are fundamental elements of democracy, and exceptions to these conditions should be limited to cases of demonstrated need. Our country was built on these principles, and as long as they are allowed to flourish, Canada will be well served.
There are many issues about which my constituents feel very strongly. One of those issues is metric conversion. The frustration and cost of conversion to the producer are substantial. Likewise, the consumers of Canada end up frustrated and, worse, it is they who ultimately carry the producers' increased cost.
In the United States, which is our largest trading partner, conversion is voluntary.
I do not have to remind anyone that the actual need for the metric program was never established by debate in the House of Commons. This fact represents a callous and cynical affront to the parliamentary process, with implications for the future of this chamber greater and more significant than the actual metric program itself.
Another issue that is important to my constituents is capital punishment. Perhaps that is only natural when Joyceville and Millhaven penitentiaries are located in the riding. However, it seems to be an issue of concern to all Canadians, and indications are that a majority of them are in favour of its reinstatement.
Each of the regions of our country has its own particular natural beauty. Ontario is no exception. In eastern Ontario we boast of the splendor of the Canadian Shield, the Land o' Lakes. My riding typifies the beauty of the Shield, and many of my constituents make a living in the tourist industry, which attracts many people to the area.
May 12, 1980

It is a shame to note that with all this country has to offer tourists we are saddled with such a dangerous balance of payments problem in the tourist industry. I think a firmer commitment from the Government of Canada to promote and facilitate Canadian vacations, plus amendments in the tax laws that would make investment in this industry more attractive, would go a long way toward making Canada a major world tourist market. I also believe that this industry should be represented in the government by a minister of tourism.
It is my contention that if we are to get serious about developing a tourist strategy for Canada, we must also take seriously the very real environmental problems our country has. Environmentalists are only just beginning to comprehend the magnitude of acid rain, toxic waste, and our environmental negligence in general.
There are many people in my riding who have voiced their opposition to current gun control legislation. I am in total agreement with the opinion of those people who have told me they feel the present legislation is harder on the legitimate holders of firearms than it is on the criminal element of society.
Agricultural policies and programs have a direct bearing on my riding and its people, many of whom farm for a living. Dairy and beef farming are practised in the riding, and our cheddar cheese is world famous. I would like to see the government become more aware of the special problems of these Canadian farmers.
I would like to see the production of industrial milk stabilized so that further threats to the livelihood of the existing small butter and cheese processors in southeastern Ontario do not force them out of business. It is important that governments take steps to encourage the protection of our prime farmland.
I strongly urge the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) to reintroduce his predecessor's tax measure that would allow farmers to deduct up to $200,000 in capital gains taxes on the sale of farmland. These measures would greatly enhance the potential of farming in Canada and would allow us to become an even larger producer of food for sale at home and abroad.
The cost of living is a very real hardship for people of low incomes. This burden is especially hard on pensioners who have made their contribution to our country and should be allowed to retire in comfort and dignity. The same applies to veterans pensions. In the last Parliament our government had introduced legislation to increase the veterans pensions and do away with serious inequities in the existing legislation. I feel it is important that we remember the sacrifices that many Canadians made on the battlefields in two world wars and other conflicts by defending our political system, and that we recognize that fact with appropriate veterans pensions.
It is important that the government contribute significant resources to youth employment and technical training programs. It is important that our young people be able to find
The Address-Mr. Vankoughnet
employment so as to instil the virtues of hard work and its just rewards.
The forest industry has played an important role in the settlement and employment aspects of Hastings-Frontenac. It is an industry which has meant much to Canada in the past, and still has a significant contribution to make to our national livelihood. However, the forest industry is not as strong as it can be. Our share of the world market is decreasing, and demand in the United States for our products is slowly declining. The federal government should take note of this situation, and in conjunction with the provincial governments step up its programs of assistance to modernize the industry.
Members representing rural ridings like Hastings-Frontenac will agree with me when I acknowledge the importance of voluntary organizations to the local community. There is probably no voluntary service more important to a rural community than the volunteers that comprise its fire department. I am pleased to see the Minister of Finance agrees with me and has wisely reintroduced the former minister of finance's increase in tax exemptions for volunteer firefighters.
Recent hearings by the CRTC have demonstrated the need for better access to radio and television programming in Canada. The availability of this type of modern day communication is not limited solely to the far north. In my riding, some 100 miles west of Ottawa, in the northern areas of Hastings-Frontenac and Lennox and Addington, residents are extremely limited in the television and radio programming they can receive. If the CRTC is concerned with the amount of domestic programming available to Canadians, it does not have to look to the far north to see its deficiencies. I would like to see the CRTC make every possible effort to get better broadcasting available to the residents of Hastings-Frontenac, Lennox and Addington, particularly the Bancroft area.
In comparison with the so-called pressing issues of the day, some of the concerns I have just raised may seem trivial to some people, but nothing could be further from the truth. They are important not only in themselves but because they represent and symbolize the legitimate problems of ordinary people, and it is important that we respond, as elected representatives of the people, to their wishes, however minor they may appear in comparison with the great issues of the day. For that reason I have brought them to the attention of Parliament in the hope that the government will act on them.
The people of my riding are certainly not immune to the very real problems facing Canada, nor, for that matter, am I. I would like to take this opportunity to address some of these concerns.
I firmly believe that our country is at a turning point in its history. Events have conspired to present us with the most critical problems we have dealt with since confederation. The political and economic issues facing us today are, in my opinion, unprecedented. They require well-thought-out, long-range solutions that will have to involve short-term sacrifice by many of us. There are no simplistic socialistic solutions. Nothing less than the very survival of our country rests on the successful resolution of these issues. Consultation, rather than

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. Vankoughnet
confrontation, is the only course to follow in this reform process.
On the economic front several pressing matters demand our immediate and undivided attention. Among the most important is the energy issue. The dependence on imported oil and the price it is costing Canadians and their government is a dangerous policy. Only a realistic Canadian price will be able to encourage conservation and allow the financing of alternate sources.
Steps must be taken immediately to get Canada on the road to energy self-sufficiency. The inevitable consequence of such a policy is an increase in oil prices. We cannot continue living in this fool's paradise that sees Canadian consumers subsidized and sheltered from the hard facts of rapidly rising OPEC prices, and production costs at home. The present government acknowledged that in the Speech from the Throne. Such a promise dictates that prices will go up.
An effective means of conserving energy is to develop rapid transit systems for urban communities. As the price of gasoline climbs, it will be more attractive for commuters to switch to mass transit.
The Urban Transportation Development Corporation is located in my riding. This corporation was established by the Ontario government to promote mass transit. Here is a case that warrants government action and support. It would be a crime to see such a corporation die, only to have the government turn to a foreign market three or four years later to buy the same product that could be produced here, sold here, and even exported.
We have to get serious about this country's energy future, and the sooner the better. We are in a unique position among the countries of the world to make Canada self-sufficient. Let us get on with the job.
The generally poor performance of our economy is cause for great concern among Canadians. Our unemployment record is totally unacceptable. Our employment record can be improved. In a country with human and natural resources such as we have, Canada should not have such serious problems. Yet we have, and they have persisted for a number of years.
Although there are no easy answers to our economic problems, there do exist partial remedies that many observers feel would contribute to the solution of our economic woes. One of the easiest and most readily accessible steps that the government could take to demonstrate the need to solve our economic problems is staring it right in the face. It is simply called cutting government spending, through good management. Most economists and financial analysts agree that government spending has been a major contributor to Canada's current economic status.
I find it difficult to believe the Minister of Finance when he says the government will restrain its spending. The House has heard that statement too many times to give it serious consideration. This practice of unlimited government spending simply cannot continue. The government debt has to be reduced. Federal spending has to be curtailed. Growth in the
civil service has to be realistic. These measures will greatly improve the financial position of the federal government which, in turn, will help facilitate an upturn in the economy. One of the first economic indicators to reflect a healthier economy is the interest rate, which is currently too high.
The time for decisive action is upon us. The federal government must demonstrate that it is ready to sit down with the provincial premiers and discuss a renewed federalism. But the discussion will have to take place within the context of accommodation and conciliation, not confrontation. Needless to say, this approach has to be mutual.
It is clear our federal system as it now exists is not capable of accommodating the legitimate aspirations of our country's regions. Admitting that, and attempting to overcome it, does not mean that our federal system has not worked. It means that, as originally constituted, it no longer meets the needs of a country 113 years older and wiser. Change is a healthy prerequisite of any relationship, whether between individuals or people and their government. It must be clear from the start, however, that this change should still be made within a strong federal context. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the premiers can and should be hard bargainers when they sit down to discuss constitutional change. But they must sit down and discuss present day Canada, and they must do so without dilatory tactics.
One aspect of our present federal arrangement which I feel it is imperative we maintain is the constitutional monarchy. Any attempt to alter or downplay this tradition which has made our country the best place in the world in which to live, will only worsen the division which some believe exists. It is unfortunate that we in this promised land, of which there is no equal, tend to deflect our attention from problems as they present themselves and concern ourselves with the way people look at the problems. The monarchy is too deeply rooted in our culture and history to be removed from our political experience. It is not the cultural aspect which is of concern to me but the threat by cunning people to upset political order and remake it according to their desire. Our forefathers have built the potential for a great nation-the greatest on earth. Why is it difficult for Canadians to appreciate how fortunate we are and what great opportunities exist for us to make this a great nation in the midst of a troubled world?
Madam Speaker, these are just some of the many pressing issues facing Canadians and their government. It is ironic that as we head into a new decade the challenges of the future are compounded by the failures of the past. Equally ironic, but no less deserved, is the fact that the administration which created so many of these problems should be the administration which is being asked to resolve them.
Now, when we are facing our most serious challenge since confederation, is the time to put those resources to work for us. We must reach within ourselves and rekindle the spirit that brought our country together over one hundred years ago. We must draw together as Canadians in an effort to save Canada
May 12, 1980

as we have in other major conflicts in which many Canadians paid the supreme sacrifice. We must rediscover the common element which originally united us and lay to rest the destructive forces which now divide us. We must accept each region as part of Canada, and its people as our fellow Canadians. We must share and take pride in our common heritage, and not dwell upon our differences-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 1 hate to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. He can continue only if he has unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not object, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member continuing for a minute or so, but it was understood when we established the 20-minute rule today that speeches would be limited to 20 minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais).


Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today in the context of the throne speech debate. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the two members (Mrs. Cote and Mr. Frith) who so generously accepted to move the motion in reply, in view of the intentions expressed by the present government regarding its legislative program for the coming session.
1 would have liked to speak about the problems of my riding, in view of the size of the area 1 represent, which is 600 miles of coast line by 1,250 miles long. I would also have liked to speak of Fort Chimo, Blanc Sablon, Anticosti Island, Baie Comeau, and Schefferville, of the problems of television, of maritime transportation, of tariffs, of the difficulties we are experiencing with the postal service, but in light of the major debate now going on in Quebec, it is important, I believe, to try and define the problems facing Quebeckers.
First, Mr. Speaker, 1 want to say that the people I represent are proud to be members of a country called Canada. But this pride has been marred by some frustrations during this referendum debate. It is to some people's advantage to exaggerate those frustrations, so that some of our English Canadian friends may wonder what are the true intentions of the people of Quebec.
I would like to answer those questions immediately by saying simply that Quebeckers for the most part want to stay in Canada but, given an ambiguous question, they are now in a period of deep reflection and perhaps contradiction, and if that is the way it is, it is because the government now representing them in Quebec does not have the courage or at least the honesty to ask them a real question.
So I think that the real answer of the people of Quebec was recently given twice to a man called Pierre Trudeau, and if the
The Address-Mr. Maltais
members of this House want to give me the time to do so, I would like at the same time to tell them that Quebeckers, as you may realize, gave their definitive answer on two occasions in the past 12 months and it was every time stronger than ever before. So I say that you must first admit that the people of Quebec are happy to be in Canada but would like to see certain changes made.
The area I represent is somewhat a Canada on a smaller scale. I have in my riding, of course, Francophones, Anglophones vis-a-vis Newfoundland-I have 5,000 Anglophones who are completely vis-a-vis Newfoundland-I have a good group of Inuits in Fort Chimo, extremely proud people, with a lively culture, happy of what they are, who would also want to continue to develop their heritage. I am thinking, among others, of Charlie Watt, who represents his group very well. I am also thinking of Mr. Gerry Paquin who has been in Fort Chimo for 15 years, a civil servant who is doing an extremely good job representing the federal institutions over there.
I am also thinking of Mr. Charlie McCormick who administered, who built the Anticosti Island, lost right in the middle of the St. Lawrence. I am thinking of Mr. Francis McKinnon, in St. Augustin, a fisherman, a contractor, a builder. I am thinking of people like Charles Begin, Claude Menard, people like Mr. Rene Coicou, who are mayors of their communities. Mr. Coicou is a very colourful man for the place, being himself from Haiti, but represents his community by being the local mayor. You see that people over there know what sharing means and are not racists. Mr. Charles Begin who has been in Schefferville for 20 years and has been forging in that area a very flourishing area but also very difficult area to reach because there are no roads there. My constituents are builders. As I said earlier, they are native people, Inuit and Montagnais. There are Ben Mackenzie, of Maliotenam, and others who still cover 380 miles on foot and portaging to go fishing and trapping in Labrador. These are all elements of the same constituency, and I believe that a constituency like my own riding of Manicouagan is truly a microcosm of Canada.
However, what is extremely dangerous is to see people who want to destroy us and who, instead of stating clearly their intentions, use insidious words, comments or questions, so that all they are trying to obtain in Quebec on May 20 is a symbolic Yes, a booby-trapped yes, after which the government will take over and provide its own interpretation. I would like to tell the people of Quebec that until May 20 they still have control over their reply to the question, but that after May 20, the government will be able to interpret their answer to the question and that this is where the danger lies. This is why we have to fight as French Canadians to ensure that our rights will be respected and to prevent people from being misled because it will be too late to go back afterwards. I shall simply ask Quebeckers to think about Labrador. When Labra-

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. Maltais
dor became part of Newfoundland 30 years ago, there was a legal conflict, but very few people considered this issue important. However, in 1980, the Quebec premier is making a lot of noise to attempt to take back Labrador for its energy and mineral wealth. If Quebec separates, ten years from now will we French Canadians have to claim once again rights which have been ours in fact and in law for 300 years?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock p.m., I do now leave the Chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying just before the six o'clock adjournment, it is very important that Quebeckers keep the country because in a few years' time we might relive exactly the same scenario as now, in which Mr. Rene Levesque is trying to secure the rights to Labrador knowing full well that it belongs to Newfoundland; this is the same man who is willing to do without three-quarters of the country. I want to tell my fellow citizens of Quebec that we can change party representatives, we can change the country's administration but we must not change the country. That is important. This, in my opinion, is what we must focus on in view of the Parti Quebecois' question.
We must never do away with our rights to the country. That is our priority. That, Mr. Speaker, is what every man and woman in Quebec will think about. This formerly French territory, now called Canada, had Tadoussac as its first capital and we were the first to cross this land; one can carefully read the book by Felix-Antoine Savard entitled: "La dalle des morts" to realize that there are French names all across the country, that French blood was shed all across the country. We must succeed in proving to our fellow citizens that we are welcome everywhere. I myself had the opportunity to travel from Halifax to Vancouver and I was welcomed everywhere. But of course, in Quebec as well as in English Canada, one encounters narrow-minded people, but they comprise an infinite minority.
We must look at the future. How can we unlock it? Let me tell you that what people in my age group would like is the opportunity to learn the second language easily. For a French Canadian, this means an improved educational system that would allow one to go and communicate with the people in the other part of the country, people from the west. And the same should be asked for westerners, in other words that the provincial education system allow them to learn French, in order that a meaningful dialogue can be obtained. Ultimately, this country's major tragedy may be that we never had institutions under which people could go from east to west, we never had the opportunity to study in Vancouver or Halifax. Nothing
allowed for that encounter that in my view would have developed a genuine understanding.
And here we are at this point in history mounting up a trial, whose real actors lived in Canada in the fifties. What I would ask of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) is that he call, not a constitutional conclave, but a meeting of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), the NDP leader (Mr. Broad-bent), the provincial premiers, the provincial opposition leaders in order that, outside of any personal political pride, in camera, people of good will evolve, that they build the foundations of a new Canadian constitution based on the Pepin-Robarts documents. This is what young people in our age group expect.
What we are seeing now, both in English and in French Canada, is the grapes of impatience. For too long we have been limited either in a French-speaking Quebec or in Englishspeaking provinces. But Acadia would like to have its particular identity recognized, so would southern Ontario, northern Ontario, the St. Boniface area and Maillardville. We want in earnest to meet. Maybe the government should provide more moneys under a plan called Katimavik, give young people the opportunity to truly implement our Canadian experience. This is lacking. Instead of always brooding over the past, instead of remaining self-centred, we should think of the coming generation. That one will really be the outcome of the 1867 confederation.
I would like to quote from an article published in Le Devoir under the signature of Andre Nadeau, a young Quebec student. It goes:
I have no more desire to feed on words, whether of Marxist or nationalistic flavour. I want to read, I want knowledge to act, but first and foremost on myself, on people around me.
1 do not want to change the world because all theories aimed at changing it have caused more deaths than all nuclear bombs together. To me, democracy is based on one principle: everyone controls his own life.
Social problems become more complex and wider, yes, but everyone must try to find specific answers without relating them to a system which is as theoretical as it is utopic. I cannot believe anymore that the status of women or the issues of underprivileged groups and ethnic minorities are related to the revolution. So we must pursue our fight about issues more specific than universal-
In other words, instead of great nights, let us have mornings in the sunshine and instead of a utopic future, a realistic present.
Our young people want to free themselves from the yoke of drawn out debates, they want to act, which means that this government shall find, in co-operation with opposition parties, formulas that will make self-achievement possible in our country. And if everyone had had a chance to live the Canadian experience, we would not be trying to find someone to blame but, on the contrary, to build a much stronger country.
I always like to refer to my own Manicouagan riding as we experienced that situation. I think of the Gallienne, of Jomphe,
May 12, 1980

the poet, of Elavre-Saint-Pierre, of people who succeeded in building a real country in a very difficult climate and under very harsh conditions. And the North Shore is now in full bloom.
I am thinking here of a fellow like Louis-Ange Santerre who has written about the North Shore. And also of a man like Lemeac, and Jeannine Boisclair who have managed to make their way to areas where roads still have to be built, even in my own riding where, in some places, television has yet to come: still, the people who live there want to build. Instead of having the Canada we dream of, we spend our time discussing and recalling the battle of the Plains of Abraham. We need the will to change, but are we capable of making those changes happen? I say we do, Mr. Speaker, and the young of our generation are ready to act.
But it is up to the government to take the initial step that will allow the young, and the not so young, to fulfil themselves. We should stop going around in circles, and get to work without further ado and lay the cornerstone. At this point, I want to congratulate the Leader of the Official Opposition who, coming from the western plains, learned French, not only enough to speak it, but to master its meaning, and that is wonderful. The same applies to the Leader of the New Democratic Party who speaks French. That is what Quebeckers must understand. It is a matter of having our rights respected, while recognizing at the same time that others are making real efforts. Despite painful situations, there is obviously good will on the other side. And if that is possible at 40 or 50 years of age, I say to myself: Great guns! It is possible to achieve at 15 and 18 years of age, within a really good system of education, that will enable us to understand each other, to meet, to communicate! That is the greatest problem in this country: a lack of communication.
Once again, addressing my Quebec fellow citizens, I ask them to really look at the changes that have taken place in this country in the last 20 years. I ask them to ponder, in all honesty, on the extent to which the system has been good to us, to see how much more interesting it is for a Francophone, whether he be from Quebec or Acadia, to stay within Canada and make the most of his rights, because true equality lies in equal rights and not in numerical equality. That is what must be realized and the young, like to the old, must weigh the possibilities involved.
Think of a fellow like Gilles Vigneault who, instead of living his poetry, lives off it saying, "Human beings are people of my race". Yet, he is of among the first to want a fence around Quebec. That is what the people of Quebec should understand, that the people who would fence them in on a parcel of land are the very ones who sing of brotherhood, freedom, equality and sharing. I denounce that fact and I ask Quebeckers to reconsider the matter.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that the time allotted to me is limited but I still have a few minutes left. At the very end of my comments I would ask our friends from English Canada on both sides of the House to come and meet Quebeckers, more
The Address-Mr. Maltais
often immediately after May 20. Do not hesitate to come to Quebec because it is also your home. I think that it is time that you cross the Ottawa River and that you really try to hold a dialogue. It is far from being too late, because Quebeckers are ready to listen and most of them have a practical attitude and are ready to walk together with English-speaking Canadians, they are ready to co-operate with our Montagnais and the Inuit, they are ready to build this country, but they will never give up their rights. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will read a marvelous poem written by Felix-Antoine Savard, the author of "Menaud, maltre draveur", the father of our authentic poets who enabled the French Canadian culture to be recognized outside Quebec throughout Canada and even in Europe. The poem entitled "Hymne a mon pays" reads as follows:
HEUREUX les peuples epaules sur le Nord!
6 Polaire, Souverain diamant immobile!
Somptueuses aurores boreales qui presagez les soleils du matin, voici que notre avenir a nous s'est leve.
Que s'eleve aussi notre hymne viril et fraternel!
Je t'aime, 6 mon Pays, epaule sur le Nord.
Et de vous, je prendrai conseil,
6 puissante et belle nature, plaines, fleuves et montagnes, riches solitudes inexploitees encore, terres des forets, des mineraux et des bles, patrie des nids d'amolir dans les roseaux de la toundra!
Pacifiques tresors de mon pays, de vous je prendrai conseil.
Et j'ecouterai 1'appel de I'immense et jeune liberte.
Et desormais, a mon frere, de quelque race ou langue qu'il soit, je dirai:
Viens avec moi!
Ce pays par Dieu nous fut donne.
Viens! nous travaillerons ensemble, cote a cote, et nos coeurs rapproches battront d'accord, au rythme des merveilles.
Ohe! voila que l'avenir aux innombrablcs soleils, voila que notre avenir i nous s'est level
Et pour toujours, nous oublierons les vieilles, funestes querelles qui empoisonnaient nos ceeurs.
Et desormais,
dans les chemins de droiture et de justice, nous marcherons ensemble, dans la paix d'un pays sans haines ni rancunes.
Et nous ecouterons l'appel d'un Canada riche et jeune encore.
Oh! oui! tres heureux, les peuples epaules sur le Nord, et marchant
fixes sur l'imperturbable etoile

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. Howie
des intangibles, des sacrees verites de toujours!
Je t'aime, 6 mon pays!
Et, a toi, mon frere, de quelque race ou langue que tu sois, de nouveau, je dirai:
Viens avec moi! Regarde!
Cela nous fut donne,
I'incomparable et libre terre, et 1'avenir matinal et beau, semblable a un heros de force portant d'une main 1'aurore, et de l'autre, la nuit,
et chantant l'hymne viril:
Heureux sous le regard de Dieu et le signe de l'immuable Polaire,
Heureux entre leurs trois oceans, les peuples comme le notre epaules sur le Nord!
Heureux les peuples accordes!
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, shortly before the last election a well-known Liberal in my constituency published a book entitled: "How To Get Elected". He attributed it to a mythical Senator Plumtree as told to Arthur T. Doyle. It was intended to be a parody on political life. In it the non-hero stays perpetually in office by avoiding real issues and telling the majority of his constituents what they want to hear and what they wish were true. According to Senator Plumtree, who reminds me of the American cartoon character Senator Snort, the politician has no higher responsibility than to win and keep office. Little did the author know that the book would be adopted literally by his party as a national campaign guide. Of course, we really do not expect a humorist to point out all the possible dangers of a philosophy or program which he proposes in jest. But in the real world we cannot escape the consequences of political cynicism and irresponsibility, especially when this behaviour is rewarded at the polls.
I know that 20 minutes are not nearly long enough for a member to describe every blow dealt to the health and progress of this country by the last Liberal campaign. For that reason I will speak mostly of the impact on the province and the region which I represent. But, before turning to those concerns, I have one comment to make about the national implications of the last campaign. I refer to the Liberal party attitude toward Alberta.
Not since 1917 has a major political party set out so deliberately to vilify one section of the population solely to curry favour with the rest. There was no genuine policy issue involved in this attack on western producing provinces, particularly Alberta. The Liberals detailed no energy policy. It was a calculated attempt to offer maritime and Ontario voters a scapegoat for their fear and insecurity about energy, to legitimize what the pollsters told them was growing resentment of western prosperity. The Liberal candidate in my
constituency came right out with a newspaper advertisement proclaiming that the 18-cent federal excise tax increase would go into the Alberta heritage fund. I grant you the appeal was frequently more subtle elsewhere, but the intention remained unmistakable. There was no acknowledgement that the west's resources are finite and that experience has taught westerners not to expect any help from federal Liberal policy in establishing the basis for permanent prosperity.
There is no mystery why western provinces feel obliged to guarantee their own future. Instead, we hear about greedy Albertans ready to let easterners freeze in the dark and about the un-Canadian attitude of the blue-eyed sheiks. Of course the end result is to reinforce the westerners' lack of faith in the fairness of federal policy and their suspicion of the term "national interest." The crowning indignity is all this pious talk about proportionate representation as if constituency democracy, not Liberal cynicism, is to be blamed for the lack of elected western representatives in the cabinet. This is an insult to the intelligence of westerners, and so I might add is the false analogy with the problem of representation in Quebec.
The west has specific current reasons for rejecting the Liberal party. Despite that rejection, the political system remains competitive. Canada's real political problem is that parties which represent Canada's most dynamic regions never have a genuine opportunity to govern. A party which won an absolute majority of seats in four of the country's five regions last May was given barely enough time for housekeeping legislation. A party virtually shut out in two regions now governs with a secure majority. I am surprised that the philosopher king of federalism will not admit that this is the real political time bomb in Canada.
The maritime provinces, too, have historic grievances and problems. The promise of confederation for this region was a sharing of economic opportunities and benefits with central Canada. During the first 60 years, natural economic forces, internal weaknesses, and insensitive federal policies, especially in the field of transportation, destroyed the potential for balanced trade between the two regions. The maritimes became a captive market for tariff protected central Canadian manufacturers, and paid for them by selling natural products to traditional foreign customers.
For decades the lack of economical opportunity at home forced hundreds of thousands of maritimers to leave the region. These included some of the most ambitious and best educated people. Maritimers need no lessons from French Canadian history to understand social decapitation.
Beginning in the Second World War the federal government developed a variety of expedients to mitigate the worst effects of this situation; direct social benefits, equalization payments to provincial governments, aid to traditional primary sectors, the military presence which have all raised incomes and the standard of social services. DREE's support for infrastructure and its industrial incentives have created employment,
May 12, 1980

although a distressingly low proportion of it seems to be permanent. Worse still, DREE's own studies show that most of the federal money spent here flows back to the manufacturers, retailers and financial institutions based in central Canada.
The December budget took a more flexible and realistic approach to industrial development. The tax contracts offered to firms locating or expanding in the maritimes and Gaspe could be tailored to the nature of a specific project and would have rewarded only viable enterprise-a favourable contrast to the practice of subsidizing the capital costs of speculative ventures. The new provisions for research and development, combined with DREE's new emphasis on small industries using local products and workers, were further indications of a new realism and a determination to improve economic conditions in the maritimes.
Nor did the budget neglect the special needs of existing industries. The provision allowing farmers, fishermen and others to deduct salaries paid to spouses from taxable income would have had its greatest impact, proportionately speaking, in the maritimes. By offering substantial incentives for the modernization of our fishing fleets, the budget offered a hope of reversing the growing dominance of foreign fleets. The previous government was determined not only to build a modern fishing fleet, but also to create a substantial Canadian merchant marine. This project is of vital interest to all of Canada at a time when we spend $4 billion annually for foreign shipping services, and when the new United Nations Code for Waterborne Trade, which guarantees trading countries a proportionate share of the traffic, is about to come into effect. Obviously there are special opportunities here for coastal provinces because of their location, their port facilities, and the existing skills and traditions of their people.
Just before the election I was pleased to receive and endorse recommendations of the port of Saint John's master plan study. More than a year in preparation, it brings together all of the opportunities Saint John could seize over the next ten years, and spells out the requirements. The recommendations should receive serious attention and immediate action by the new government.
Naturally, I urge the present government to continue our initiatives in respect of the maritimes, and to accord them the same high priority. There is no logical reason why they should not. These are not partisan or philosophical questions at all. Still, I find it hard to be optimistic.
I was staggered recently when I re-read the speech I delivered at the first session of the Thirtieth Parliament in 1974. Then, as now, I faced a newly elected Liberal majority. I take the liberty of quoting myself:
There must be more positive action taken by government now in meeting the energy problems of our Atlantic region and of the country as a whole. We must not only be concerned about the supply and the use of our non-renewable energy resources such as oil, gas and coal, but more thought must be given to our renewable energy resources such as tidal and conventional hydro power.. . which can be used or sold independently of the whims of the Arabs or any other foreign influence.
In five years the Liberals did virtually nothing to meet this obvious need. The same can be said about their failure to
The Address-Mr. Howie
modernize the fishing fleet, their apparent failure to notice that economic incentive programs were not creating permanent jobs, and their indifference to visibly growing dependence on unemployment insurance. In fact their solution to the latter phenomenon was to disqualify claimants and thrust them on to provincial welfare rolls.
Did they learn anything from their defeat in May, 1979? I have yet to see the evidence. With their strange bedfellows, they brought the government down on a budget which addressed these needs, and fought stubbornly against reality on the matter of energy-long-term pain for short-term gain.
Will they now deal seriously with this region? The chances are not good. First, they have to wriggle out of their cynical oil pricing commitment to Ontario, to get a large share of oil revenues without raising the excise tax, and reach an agreement with producing provinces while overcoming the hostility and suspicion their campaign created in the west. I doubt that they can do this, no matter how much time they have. Within two years they will be back to governing by the month, from Gallup poll to Gallup poll. Half the cabinet will be out looking for leadership votes, and the other half angling for positions in the new regime. Neither preoccupation augurs well for the nation's most ignored political bloc.
Even before then, there will be other distractions: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) will be busy rationalizing his interest rate hypocrisy and appeasing the Foreign Investment Review Agency fans. There is a sad irony here.
So-called economic nationalists have no trouble recognizing the costs of a branch plant economy to Ontario, but they do not see that the maritimes suffer from the same kind of colonial status vis-a-vis central Canada, only more severely.
Finally, will the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) use his discretionary power with such alacrity in clearing up unemployment insurance anomalies in the maritimes as he has in helping workers in Windsor, which has three cabinet ministers? I desperately hope I am wrong about this and that, like Saul on the road to Damascus, a miraculous change of character can take place. But it is so much more convenient to maintain the state of dependency with welfare for the region and special crumbs for the party faithful.
Although York-Sunbury is generally more prosperous than most of its neighbouring districts, it has its own forgotten and disadvantaged citizens, as well as unique problems and special opportunities. In York-Sunbury we have Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, the largest army training area in the British Commonwealth. When the Clark government left power the base development plan called for a $40 million training facility to come on-line in 1985. It is important that this facility be moved forward to provide employment for a large number of Canadians who are seeking work in the construction trades. Increased use of the training facilities at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown is a matter of utmost importance to provide more trained soldiers for our armed forces and the very important spin-off for the military town of Oromocto, and, indeed, all of central New Brunswick.

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. Howie
Also in my riding is the University of New Brunswick, one of Canada's most outstanding seats of learning. Since 1973 a great deal of effort and planning has been devoted to the development of a forestry complex which would integrate federal, provincial and university interests related to that subject area in one cohesive set of facilities in our capital city. These efforts have culminated in a conceptual master plan that is in the process of implementation. The provincial government and the university were joined by the Clark government in a commitment to this important complex, and it will be my purpose to keep the federal government reminded of that commitment and urge its implementation.
One of the keys to the creation of a real dynamic for economic expansion in New Brunswick lies right now in the hands of the federal government. The New Brunswick electric power system produces 2,200 megawatts of power. Very shortly a project for the production of thermal power will bring on-line 640 megawatts from the Point Lepreau plant. This is a capital-intensive program and, if the federal government paid the total cost of this plant, the result would see 640 megawatts of very cheap power impacted on the system of 2,200 megawatts. Clearly, the resulting energy cost would be very low and would create a real climate attractive to industrial expansion in New Brunswick. Prince Edward Island is tied to the New Brunswick system by a submarine cable and that province, too, could benefit from such a grant.
Nova Scotia, on the other hand, has a system producing about 1,600 megawatts of electric power and is in the process of developing 300 megawatts of electric power produced by thermal plants at the mouth of the Lingan coal mines. Two other plants producing 300 more megawatts of power are on the drawing board. If the federal government paid the capital cost of these plants, it would confer a similar benefit on Nova Scotia.
The point I am making is that the federal government can reduce the cost of electric energy in the maritime provinces and that there is a direct relationship between the amount of its investment in capital cost and the resulting cost of electric energy to users in the maritime provinces.
1 would like to refer briefly to development in the northern part of New Brunswick. The ports of Dalhousie and Belledune are the subject of an ongoing study to determine the future role they should play. I look forward to an early completion of this project because I believe there is an important development role for these ports. On a related matter I support the development of an efficient smelter to process ore and provide good jobs in New Brunswick. Can we expect the government to insist that ore from the Canadian Arctic will be processed here too, instead of in a distant land?
The gateway to commerce and development in the maritime provinces is found in the ports of Saint John and Halifax. These deep-water, year-round ports jut out into the Atlantic Ocean and provide excellent facilities for the largest ships in the world. The full development of these ports can see vessels
from all over the world coming here in armadas of profit. Assembly plants will find it advantageous to locate in these two growth centres, and all of the maritime provinces, through a modern transportation system, can share in the prosperity by becoming staging areas for the increased commerce that has always followed port development, like night follows day.
The former minister of public works pledged to propose in his estimates an item for dredging the Miramichi harbour and river. It is there. Will the new government move ahead with dredging the Miramichi, and will it do it without a cost recovery clause, and will the former government's undertaking to repair the Chatham wharf proceed at once as planned?
The serious bread and butter problems which I have laid before you, Mr. Speaker, are within the competence of the Government of Canada to solve and, in arriving at solutions, to lay the foundations for higher standards of living and greater happiness for our country and, indeed, with our country. One province, seized with the despair of the failed attempts of the past, is witnessing its government providing a simple strategy for its residents, and that is to start over again, alone. We must prevent other parts of our country from reaching this level of despair, and we must ensure that the separatists of Quebec do not succeed.
It is not enough to point out the high cost of separatism or, through a brilliant exercise in semantics, to destroy the credibility of their leadership. These will undoubtedly help, but it must also be equally important for us to be prepared to change the status quo and enunciate the benefits of our confederation.
But first, what is the concept of Canada. The most attractive answer to that question was recently given by Premier Richard Hatfield of New Brunswick on March 21, 1980, when he spoke in the legislative assembly of that province. In closing, I would like to share his answer with the House:
I believe it is that our country is one where peoples who speak one of two languages, and experience and contribute to one of two cultures, can share the pride and responsibilities of one nation and because we attach such importance to our own language and our own culture, and want them protected and enhanced, we respect the language and cultural aspirations of those whose mother language is neither of the two official languages of Canada. Mr. Speaker, for that concept and the political structure that has been designed and proven over the years to sustain that concept, I am prepared to negotiate and to support reforms to the constitution of Canada that will preserve and uphold the dignity and pride of being a Canadian.


Mr. Ron Irwin (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to address this House at this time. I would echo the congratulations which many hon. members have expressed to Madam Speaker, a gracious and able person.
I represent the riding of Sault Ste. Marie, one of the northern Ontario ridings. Like most Canadians I am deeply concerned with the coming referendum. Much has been said about the impact of the referendum on French-speaking Canadians inside Quebec, but very little about the impact on those outside Quebec. As a matter of fact Levesque seems almost indifferent in his speeches to the fact that there are French Canadians outside the province of Quebec living in Canada. To acknowledge this in any detail would perhaps take
May 12, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ron Irwin: Real Therrien, vice-chairman of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, once told me, "A country is not a piece of paper; it is a frame of mind." That definition has remained in my memory. What is the frame of mind of this country right now? I would say confused.
Last week 62 Ontario academics, unionists, clerics and artists said, "A Yes victory could lead to negotiation on the basis of equality between English-speaking Canada and Quebec."
In Saskatchewan, provincial MLAs, men of esteem, Dick Colver and Dennis Ham, have formed a party so that the west can have a vehicle to separate and join the United States of America.
The association culturelle franco-canadienne de la Saskatchewan has endorsed the Yes vote even though they are not in favour of separation.
These events happened in Saskatchewan and Ontario. But every province has had similar events recently. The frame of mind of the country worries me. We can no longer afford the luxury in Ontario of another Penetanguishene French school fiasco. We can no longer in Saskatchewan have only two schools in which more than 80 per cent of the courses are taught in French.
We can no longer turn a polite but deaf ear to the Franco-Manitobans. Time is running out. We are at a crossroad and we either sink or swim together. Simon Fraser, the great British Columbian explorer, wound up with a university named after him, but the other nine paddlers in his canoe were French Canadians! So, Mr. Speaker, it might be more appropriate to say that today we either sink or paddle together!
In this large country of ours there is a great need to know more about each other. I think the federal government must be much more positive in the field of communication. A. W. Johnson, the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, has made some excellent suggestions in his document, "Touchstone for the CBC." He writes:
It is as important for Quebeckers as it is for Nova Scotians to be sensitive to, and aware of, Canadian folk heroes from any part of the country, Canadian mythologies, major political arguments in British Columbia or Newfoundland, the issues in the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, or the prairie drought.
He continues:
Much greater use must be made for instance of French network correspondents throughout Canada.
He feels that French Canadian regions outside Quebec must have more locally produced news of their own communities. He says that we must develop programs popularizing Canadian folk heroes. He says:

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. Irwin
The French network must accelerate its examination of others such as Champlain or La Verendrye, Alexander Mackenzie, or Banting, or events which have jolted our national history such as Batoche, Lundy's Lane, The Klondike, Leduc, the Plains of Abraham, the Battles of Louisbourg, and Lake George and Champlain.
He states that we must:
Search for younger Francophone writers and directors and those not only in Montreal but throughout all Quebec and other Francophone communities in Canada.
We must embrace, as a government, these positions. The problem that the CBC has is funding. We do not need change the British North America Act to provide that funding. We have the power. What we lack is the will. I suggest that when the CBC budget is up for review we increase it, specifically for the matters I am discussing, as espoused by Mr. Johnson, and that the CBC be directed to do exactly what he has set forth in the document. This is a positive step. This is the frame of mind that will give us a sense of country.
These are general goals of the CBC. In New Brunswick there is a more immediate goal that must be achieved. In Campbellton and Moncton, New Brunswick, many young Acadians have clearly sent us a message. At the moment the French programming in northern New Brunswick comes from Quebec. The Acadians feel that they have a distinct culture of their own. And they are right. They object to more U.S. signals coming into New Brunswick without first addressing their concerns. They feel, and have forcibly said so, that a signal in their own language must emanate, not from Quebec, but from New Brunswick. The CBC agrees and, I understand, is in negotiations with the relevant Carleton station in the Gaspe, and a Moncton entrepreneur. The over-all result could mean original programming emanating from Moncton. That is the way it should be. This is important to the Acadians, and again, this House needs no constitutional change to effect the aspirations of the Acadians.
The funds should be made available to the CBC, again on direction that the job be done. There is a certain irony here. If the provinces had had the control of broadcasting that they appear to want, I am certain that there would be no French CBC services on the basic service in at least three provinces. I am also certain that there would not have been the effort to establish French originating programming in certain provinces and regions that the CBC has attempted to do.
It is the federal government, through the CBC, that has set these goals. Generally these goals have been supported, not only by the government but by all members of this House. We should be proud of those positions, and at the same time press forward through adequate funding. Rhetoric will not solve the problems. The CBC needs the tools.
How do we reach Quebeckers? How do we convey our concern? How do we tell them that, as Canadians, they are our brothers? When Gilles Vigneault wrote:
Mon pays, ce n'est pas un pays, c'est 1'hiver.
I can visualize his country because it is mine too. And when he writes:
Mon jardin ce n'est pas un jardin, c'est la plaine.
I know what he is talking about, as when he writes:
Mon chemin, ce n'est pas un chemin, c'est la neige.
Is there a difference in our homeland in northern Ontario and northern Quebec?
Mon pays, ce n'est pas un pays, c'est 1'hiver.
I am not ashamed to tell you that the first time I heard this song sung in northern Ontario, I was deeply moved. A Quebecker in four short sentences touched the essence of my country. Vigneault goes on to write:
Ma maison, c'est votre maison.
Well, to Quebeckers, northern Ontario is your home too.
Is not the film maker, Claude Jutras, or the painter, Pel-land, or the writer, Felix-Antoine Savard, as much a part of Canada as Quebec? Because Gabrielle Roy is from Manitoba, does she not write for all of us when she describes northern Quebec or the Inuit?
I do not understand Mr. Levesque. I once called him a martyr; I once said he was a patriot, but I no longer understand him. I have tried to, but I cannot. How can one pull out a tooth and grow a new one? How can one sever an arm and replace it? How can an arm sever a head and then say, "See how much better off the body is now that I have my head in my hand?"
We in the federal Parliament do not own Canada. We are merely managers as elected from time to time. We have nothing to give, in the sense that it belongs to us. It does not. What we manage already belongs to all the citizens of Canada, including the citizens of Quebec. If anything is taken, it will only be taken from oneself to give to oneself, not necessarily in the same condition.
I would like to say this, Mr. Speaker:

I want to tell you that for a period of three years I had the privilege of travelling this country from coast to coast with the CRTC. More than ever 1 am now convinced that without French Canadians there would be no Canada today and I am not referring only to Quebec.

I am not only talking about Quebec, I am talking about Bathurst, Moncton, Kapuskasing, Sudbury, St. Boniface, and right across this land.
1 can only say that within my power as a member of Parliament-

-so long as I am a member of this House, no French Canadian will ever be denied his rights in any province of Canada.

There will be times when it will be difficult, but it will be done. It must be done. We as Canadians, all of us in this chamber, will do it. And we as Canadians, throughout this abundant land of ours, will endure.
May 12, 1980

Our Canada will be our children's Canada and their children's Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to convey my congratulations to Madam Speaker on her elevation to this high office as Speaker of the House. I would also like to congratulate you, sir, on your appointment as Acting Speaker. These positions that you and Madam Speaker hold are very important. I know that Madam Speaker as well as the Deputy Speaker and the Acting Speakers will grow in their jobs and in their experience.
I represent the riding of Nanaimo-Alberni which is located on the west coast of Vancouver Island comprising a midsection of the island, including the west coast and the east coast of Vancouver Island. The riding was previously represented by a very well-known Canadian, Mr. T. C. Douglas. I have often been asked how it feels to follow in the footsteps of Tommy Douglas, but I do not think I can really answer that question. I do not think I am following in his footsteps any more than many other people in Canada are doing in terms of the leadership he has shown in economic and social issues. I know that the people of Nanaimo-Alberni and Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, which was his riding before redistribution, are proud of Tommy and are proud that his riding is now represented by two members of the NDP, myself, and in the southern half of the riding by the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).
Before I pursue an issue in which I am particularly interested in my role as the New Democratic Party fisheries critic, I will take a few moments to describe my riding. It is a riding of which I am very fond and very proud. I do not particularly want to expand on the virtues of Nanaimo-Alberni all that much, because there are those who really do not want too many more people coming to the riding to live, to bring with them the kinds of problems that overpopulation may bring. It would also lessen my opportunity to represent both sides of the island because of its bigger population.
Nanaimo was built as a coal mining town starting in the 1850s. It got its start through coal, and it looks as though coal is going to be an important aspect of Nanaimo again.


Walter David Baker: Coal is king.


Edward Allan Miller: Yes, coal is king. Unfortunately for the 1850s and possibly the 1980s it looks as though coal will be shipped out and with it the jobs associated with the manufacture of steel products. The coal resource leases on Vancouver Island are apparently being purchased by oil companies. These are companies that have made profits in oil and are now looking for other resources to exploit and thus gain control of those energy resources, keeping the control of them away from the hands of the Canadian public.
There is a very important lumber, fishing and shipping terminal in Nanaimo. It is a wealthy productive town and
The Address-Mr. Miller
shares with Port Alberni the distinction of being a very large and important west coast port for the lumber industry. There are over 6,000 woodworkers in the city of Port Alberni and the surrounding area. It is also an important fishing community, being a west coast port with a sheltered harbour and facilities for fishermen, recreational vessels and deep sea vessels.
On the west coast, communities called Ucluelet and Tofino, and many native Indian reserves share one of the most beautiful areas in all of Canada, that is, the west coast and Pacific Rim Park. Last year this area attracted 750,000 tourists to those two small communities on the west coast. These numbers are expected to increase this year. The riding is well represented and well financed through fishing, lumber and the tourist industry. It also has a large and growing small business community which is at the moment struggling under the burden of high interest rates and the experience of two consecutive governments which have been unable to alleviate the pains that high interest rates are causing to the people.
In my riding fishing is the area that is now of most concern in B.C. One must not forget the forest industry nor the fact that the two do not often go hand in hand. There are a lot of accusations that logging practices in B.C. have destroyed many of the natural producing streams for pacific salmon. I think that is a justifiable criticism of the forest industry. It is a lack of co-ordination of activities between the fishing industry and the forest industry. But, given the right kind of determination and programs, this co-ordination could be brought about.
Canada has a bright future in the fishing industry. We are all aware that Canada has adopted a 200-mile economic zone off our coasts, and that 200-mile zone gives us control over the management of the stocks. This is particularly so on the east coast of Canada where we have seen an increase in the cod stocks, hopefully back to the record periods. Estimates are that by 1985 we will have doubled the productivity in the cod stocks on the east coast of Canada.
The expectations of that have brought to the east coast fisherman an influx into the industry, and are probably causing a situation where we have too many fishermen chasing what will always be too few fish.
On the west coast, expectations in the fishing industry are also high. They are not so much because of the 200-mile economic zone because we are not fortunate enough to have a large continental shelf and the productivity this demonstrates in the eastern provinces. But in B.C. we have a very lucrative fish, namely, the Pacific salmon. This species is much demanded in Japan, the United States, and in Europe.
In 1977 we also implemented under the present minister the salmon enhancement program. The expectations of the program are that we will be able to produce by the year 2007 190 million more salmon per year than we are doing right now. That productivity is entirely possible if this resource is managed properly. However, if it is managed the way it has been managed recently, it will not be attained.

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. Miller
I would now like to deal with some of the problems I see in Canada getting to the position to meet the expectations fishermen and the general public have at the moment.
The salmon enhancement hatchery program initially was to be in its first phase a five-year program. This was at a cost of $150 million. But because of government restraint and other political factors, I would suggest, the program has been expanded to a first phase of seven years. We are now in the position where we are looking at phase two and what can be accomplished in the phase two program. On the one hand, Canadians should not be expected, however, to be putting money into one program to raise salmon and, on the other hand, to be abusing that resource. But that is what we are doing in British Columbia.
An example in my own riding is the Big Qualicum River Hatchery. This is a demonstration hatchery. The Department of Fisheries is very proud to bring Japanese and American visitors to show off the hatchery. This has been very successful. Student tour groups are paraded through the hatchery regularly. The hatchery flows from a pristine lake, a deep cool water lake, in which the department has built three intake valves so it can adjust the temperature of the water in the river. This allows for proper incubation in the spawning channels and in the hatchery throughout the year. The river is completely controlled in terms of its temperature, water control, and its level. It produces 40 million to 50 million chum fry a year, one million chinook fry, and three million coho fry for the commercial fishery in the Strait of Georgia and the sports fishery there.
Recently the land on either side of that river has been purchased by developers and logged right down to the river, resulting in silting and degradation of that hatchery to the point where, as a result, we are not going to reach the limit of its productivity.


An hon. Member:: Sounds like Liberal management.


Edward Allan Miller: The fisheries department had the opportunity of purchasing the property in the area of the hatchery. The comment was made, "we are not in the practice, and we are not in the business of real estate." I suggest that maybe they are not in the business of protecting their own hatcheries and maybe they are not in the business of raising salmon. Coming after the logging operation is a subdivision proposal. We are jeopardizing a $416 million project for the sake of subdivision, logging, and further development.
Riley Creek on the Queen Charlotte Islands is another example of how governments and their departments ignore potential hazards to the salmon industry. With regard to logging on deep slopes, a warning was given by one of the fisheries officers. In fact the fisheries officer, recognizing the damage possible from those steep slopes and slumping, slipping in, etc., actually laid charges against loggers and logging companies. My party objects to individual loggers being charged, loggers being told to go into an area and log and cut.
We were certainly in favour of charges being laid as an example to logging companies to protect salmon spawning streams.
The fisheries officer was not backed up by the justice department. Consequently he quit his job. Subsequent to those charges being laid, there was indeed, flooding, slumping and blocking of that creek. We are destroying our creeks and rivers in British Columbia through poor management of the logging industry, through neglect in our municipal wastes and industrial wastes, yet the Canadian public is putting $150 million into salmon enhancement projects.
We are going ahead with hydroelectric dams in Canada that are destroying spawning streams and the runs of salmon. We are looking at the Garrison diversion which is going to jeopardize our inland fishery, a fishery that also has an exciting future in lake fertilization and new innovative techniques to raise more fish in our inland waters and provide more economic benefit to the prairie provinces.
What else are we doing in Canada? We are destroying our lakes in Ontario and Quebec through acid rain, with permission to industry to destroy our natural environment, destroy the habitat that our fish resources must have in order to meet their growth patterns.
The Atlantic coast is an extremely exciting possibility. My colleague, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie), made mention of a new program the Conservative government brought in for renewal of the fleet in the Atlantic provinces. I agree with him. It is a good program. It is required; it is necessary. However, I caution those people who feel we can get into a new fleet immediately in the fishing industry on the east coast without doing some planning.
On the west coast of British Columbia we now have a fleet that is four or five times larger than it needs to be in order to catch the available fish. That simply dissipates the income from the resource. In the case of this year where we have lower returns on all five species of salmon, it is going to result in bankruptcy to many fishermen who met the expectations that the minister, the public and, I suspect, the department felt for western Canada. The same kind of expectations are held on the east coast. I caution the minister before going into a huge new fleet on that coast that he table in this House a fleet development plan which will indicate what kind of fleet we require to meet the growing demands in the world markets for a better quality fish.
I attended the Fisheries Council of Canada meetings in Montreal just last week. The key to Canadian success in developing world markets for salmon, cod and other ground species is going to be quality. For too long Canadians have been able to sell their product to, maybe, undiscerning consumers. We are now having to expand our markets to Europe, Scandinavian communities, and other nations that are used to eating fish and know good quality.
The Fisheries Council of Canada have recognized that their obligation is to develop better methods of preserving, processing and shipping the product that they hope to sell on world
May 12, 1980

markets. It is going to require very careful planning from the ship stage to the shipment stage, through the processing of our products right through to the sale on foreign markets.
The challenge to this government, this House and the fishing industry is very clear. We have to protect our environment in which those resources grow. We have to develop better techniques in fishing, preserving, and marketing. It is a tough challenge for Canada because other nations are competing for the same markets.
In closing, that kind of a challenge can be shared in almost every department of government. Certainly the challenge is something that all Canadians need. Canadians at this time are about to witness in Quebec a vote on sovereignty-association, separatism, a renewed confederation or a new federation. That is the challenge that we all need.
As a member as far away as any other member from Quebec where the referendum will be held on May 20, I want to say on behalf of my constituents that we all have some concerns about Canada. We all have things we would like to see. We would like to develop a national pride, a national goal, and a national determination. We in Nanaimo-Alberni encourage governments and the public to meet the challenge of a new Canada, a Canada of which we can feel proud, a Canada in which we feel some national pride, a Canada, and this is one of my particular interests, that sees a Canadian merchant fleet and Canadians travelling around the world flying their own flag and shipping their own products.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, first let me, as other members of this House have done, congratulate you on your appointment to this very important post and, through you, to congratulate Madam Speaker-

-and I am very proud, just as any Quebecker, of the role she is going to play in the House of Commons.
Tonight, Mr. Speaker, it is as the new President of the Treasury Board that I take part in this debate in order to bring some clarifications on certain important themes of the Speech from the Throne, and to make known some of my personal objectives, interests, convictions and priorities.


Gordon Edward Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that, in accordance with the ritual we follow, the next speaker should be a Progressive Conservative member, and my hon. friend was on his feet. That is the schedule to which we agreed the other day and that is what we have been following.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. I want to respect the intervention by the hon. member. As he probably knows, the Chair is made aware in various ways and from time to time of members who might catch the Speaker's eye. While it is certainly not officially the habit of the Chair to keep any particular list, I have tended to follow that recognition of speakers that appears to me to be consistent with the views of
The Address-Mr. Johnston
the various members of the House. In any event, I did not see a member to my left stand on this occasion-I may have made a mistake this time; I am not sure. But if I did, it happens that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) caught the eye of the Chair and, once having done so, that hon. member remains recognized. I will review my thinking and see whether or not some hon. member to my left has been displaced. If that is the case, the situation will be adjusted.


Donald James Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 promise to keep my comments short so as to give the hon. member ample time in which to speak this evening.
To summarize, I shall say that in the part of the throne speech which deals with the development of our economic potential, there is the following statement:
It is the intention of my ministers to continue the policies of expenditure restraint and improved government administration.
The throne speech is right to make government administration part of our economic development. Let me explain why. If we want to reduce expenditures it is not because it would be wrong for the government to spend, but because we are asking Canadians to limit their expectations and demands. It is, therefore, essential for the government to do the same. We want to improve our government administration not only to save money, but because while we are asking Canadians to increase their productivity, the government administration must do the same. We want to reduce the deficit, not because of the magic of higher or lower figures, but because our deficits make it necessary for us to compete on financial markets, and because we realize that the costs of such deficits result in a heavier burden.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that my comments today, together with my past public statements and writings, will help those who inevitably pigeon-hole and caricature ministers, especially presidents of the treasury board. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that I am not a secret holdover from the previous Tory government, neither am I a "blue Liberal" nor a "closet slasher". As a Liberal of the radical centre I am continuing the strong tradition of responsible government management of my Libera] colleagues at Treasury Board, namely, Judd Buchanan, Bob Andras, Jean Chretien, and Bud Drury.


Walter David Baker: I thought this minister could do better than that!


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is not ambitious!


Donald James Johnston: The formal commitment of the Liberal party to expenditure restraint, renewed in the Speech from the Throne, dates from 1975. It has been repeated several times in the ensuing years and, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated in August, 1978, we must provide "more for less".

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. Johnston
Restraint remains our commitment, but we must also recognize that inflation adds some cost to government which simply must be met. For example, are we to de-index old age benefits? I say, and the Liberals say, no! Are we to cut essential welfare programs to meet the temporary cost of higher interest charges on our public debt? Again, the Liberals say, and I say, no!
Another example is the emphasis we place on investment in the energy sector and on rail systems and port facilities- investments which society must make for future generations. Bear in mind that even such productive capital investments as these add to the deficit, because in Canada's accounts they are not capitalized as they would be by businesses or by individuals.
Before I comment on my principal goal of more effective and efficient government management, let me put the costs of government into perspective. Contrary to widespread belief, the costs of the federal government itself are a relatively small and diminishing part of the total costs of government. Subsidies and government transfers to individuals, other levels of government or businesses, made up 52.2 per cent of government costs in 1979-80. Public debt accounted for 16.5 per cent; defence for 8.6 per cent, and payments to Crown corporations made up 3.1 per cent. The cost of all other programs and agencies, including Parliament, amounts to less than 20 per cent of our expenditures. While I am determined to control these costs, I have no illusions that I can make sufficient savings through improved government management to eliminate the deficit. Efficiency can help, but, ultimately, to reduce the deficit we must either cut programs or we must increase revenues.
Let me move briefly to a central theme: the importance of adopting a sensible and strategic policy of restraint without making a fetish of the numbers. Such a policy has three main elements-first, to manage government well so that the direct costs of government at least do not grow in real terms and, hopefully, will be significantly reduced; second, to ensure that expenditures on social programs are focused primarily on helping those who are least able to help themselves and that expenditures on economic programs are focused primarily on investments which will promote economic growth, develop our economic potential and thereby increase our revenue base; third, rigorously to evaluate all programs from time to time to ensure that they are meeting their objectives and are being well administered.
In this three-part strategy, restraint is a goal, but not a goal in itself. Emphasis must be placed on the most effective and equitable use of our scarce resources. But we must not shy away from a good investment, one which will support economic growth and contribute to government revenues, just because it adds to the expenditure side of the column. No well-run business would do that, nor should our government.
I would like, but I do not think time will permit, to describe the new expenditure management system which we are putting into effect, so I shall leave those comments for a future date. However, there is one absolutely key area of management to
which I must make reference tonight, it is so often overlooked, that is, the management of human resources in government. The government is currently reviewing a number of policies in this regard and I hope to be in a position to announce some of the government's conclusions in the very near future. I am particularly concerned that we review, update, and expand our policy for training employees-


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: -especially to assist with the retraining of any employees whose positions are declared surplus. It is not the policy of this government to set arbitrary targets for the reduction of the public service. The size of the public service has been under control for several years and has been declining in numbers for the past two. It is our policy to have the leanest and most efficient public service, to evaluate each program and ensure that it is well administered, but we are not committed to reduction targets as such.
I have been particularly heartened to encounter in the public service of our country dedicated, competent, and responsible people who share my objective of good management and my determination to achieve it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: In government management we should be willing to accept nothing short of excellence.
[ Translation]
In spite of my considerable responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, as President of the Treasury Board my main interest at present is the future of my country without which those other matters would be irrelevant. The economic potential of Canada is far greater than the entire potential of regions.
Last week 1 had the great pleasure of going to Victoria and Vancouver in British Columbia. During exchanges of views with representatives of the federal government and businessmen, I was struck by the level of optimism and enthusiasm about the economic future of that area of the country. Well, needless to say the natural resources of western provinces will no doubt guarantee a very promising future not only for that area of the country, but for all of Canada.
We are sometimes inclined, Mr. Speaker, to forget that basic character of our federal system. If we must travel to western Canada to realize fully its beauty, it remains that its wealth can be ascribed to our national tax structure, that is the cornerstone of our federal system. Whether we live in a city like Kamloops in British Columbia or in Trois-Rivieres in my own province, we derive substantial benefits from that wealth.
Laurier stated that the twentieth century belonged to Canada. He was right, Mr. Speaker. When it comes to prosperity, freedom, beauty, economic potential, Canada still ranks amongst the most fortunate countries in the world. Laurier
May 12, 1980

was not referring to Quebec, Ontario, the western provinces or the Atlantic provinces, but to Canada as a whole. He always understood the enormous potential of a united Canada.
We are now nearing the end of the century. From what I see across Canada, the next century will also be ours as long as Canada remains united. Only our federal system could give us that opportunity. Mr. Levesque uses every chance he gets to attack our federal system. He likes to blacken the picture. It is a considerable challenge as Canada is the envy of the whole world. Consequently, he cannot do so without distorting the facts and he does that systematically. Mr. Levesque is urging us to turn our backs on Canada, to give up that enormous wealth that is ours, that Canadian heritage, he would like to take away from us our Canadian citizenship as well as all the security, protection and pride it gives us.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, those who support the No side and those who support the Yes side know full well that separation can only lead to negative economic consequences. Knowing full well those consequences and those enormous sacrifices, many of my Quebec friends are going to vote Yes.
Why, Mr. Speaker, should English-speaking Quebeckers not accept those same inevitable sacrifices? They have already accepted the Frenchification of Quebec society, often with enthusiasm, because they realize the advantages of speaking two languages, two among the most important in the world, and French probably the most beautiful, except maybe, Mr. Speaker, when I am speaking it. However, I do not apologize, I did not have the opportunity I am now giving my four daughters who are studying in French schools.
But why do they want to turn their backs not only on the Canadian territory but also on French-speaking Canadians living outside Quebec? And why, Mr. Speaker, do I and other Quebeckers, including my friends sitting on the government benches, why do we reject the PQ option? Why, in face of the same circumstances, the same facts, do we believe in the future of a united and strong Canada? Because, Mr. Speaker, we feel at home everywhere in Canada, our English-speaking fellow citizens are welcome everywhere we have relatives across the country-in my case, my father in British Columbia and my mother-in-law in Nova Scotia.
The whole country belongs to us and we are very aware of that. I would like it to be the same with all my French-speaking friends. However, that is not so. They feel at home in Quebec, but there are still obstacles elsewhere. Unfortunately, there are still some prejudices. I think they are one of the main reason why people will vote Yes. Yet, despite those prejudices, despite the criticisms voiced by our Commissioner of Official Languages, we have witnessed in Canada some profound changes in the last ten years. See what is happening in Quebec; a Frenchification of society and the acceptance of this phenomenon by the English community. Even outside Quebec, it is astonishing.
The Address-Mr. Joe Reid
Well, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I like what I see across Canada as far as these changes of attitude and this acceptance of the Canadian reality are concerned, in other words the coexistence of two linguistic groups. Mr. Speaker, a rose by any other name is still a rose and it is not a new constitutional arrangement that is going to lead to a renewed federation but rather these progressive changes of attitude. These changes of attitude are well started and as the saying goes, all is well that ends well. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to consider that Canada's language glass is half full, not half empty, and I will fight with my colleagues to fill it.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Chair to please note that I am now standing in my place. May I begin, too, by congratulating Mr. Deputy Speaker on his appointment and by asking you to pass on to Madam Speaker my congratulations on her election to the distinguished office of Speaker of this House. I wish for her, as other colleagues in the House do, a long term marked with honour and distinction.
This is the second time in far too short a period of time that the people of St. Catharines have elected me to bring to this Parliament their concerns. I am grateful for that opportunity, and very honoured. I want to thank those constituents who made it possible, but also I would like to thank all the constituents in St. Catharines and assure them that, no matter what political persuasion they might be, as their member I am here to speak for St. Catharines.
While 1 do not wish to enunciate all those positive things which make St. Catharines such a great community, it is important to give some of the local background so that I might enunciate the real problems with which they are confronted. Nor do I intend tonight to reiterate the concerns put forward so well by so many of my colleagues in this House, as they concern themselves and worry about the Canada of tomorrow and the forces which tend to pull us apart. But I want to tell the people in this House and the people of Canada that the community of St. Catharines and of old Niagara are as chauvinistic in their Canadianism as they are anywhere else in this country.
In many ways my constituency is a favoured one. Situated in the banana belt of the Niagara Peninsula and surrounded as it is by vineyards and fruitlands, it is known as the "Garden City". With a delightful climate and more parkland than any other community of its equivalent size, indeed it is a beautiful place in which to live. As a consequence many of our senior persons tend to come to our home area and there take up their residence. Not surprisingly, the Financial Post in a very recent edition showed that St. Catharines citizens are second only to Victoria in their satisfaction of their city, in all of Canada. This satisfaction stems not only from the abundance of parkland, but it is an active integrated community rich in cultural activities. At this time I would have to say that our Folk Arts Council, comprised of some 33 groups of different national backgrounds, represents the cosmopolitan mix which we have
990

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. Joe Reid
in our peninsula. The Folk Arts Festival which is just about to start in the month of May draws thousands of people from Ontario, Canada, and indeed across the border from the United States of America.
St. Catharines played a far greater role in the early history of Canada than most people realize. It had its beginnings in 1790 when the United Empire Loyalists found refuge and a future in that area. One of those early Loyalist settlers was a man of great vision, William Hamilton Merritt. He single-handedly spearheaded one of the most ambitious early Canadian enterprises, the Welland Canal system. We have just finished celebrating the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of this great waterway to which is owed so much of Ontario's, of our own, and indeed of Canada's economic development. St. Catharines has sometimes been known as a city which canals have built. Today ships from 75 different countries transport goods to and from the interior of our country through the heart of the city, through the Welland Canal system.
Shipbuilding and drydock repair were natural offshoots of this early canal activity and are to this day. Today 5,000 workers in the Niagara region are employed in jobs directly related to the marine industry, working aboard ship, at the Port Weller drydocks, and on the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority in the operation of the Welland Canal itself. With the longest coastline in the world, fronting as it does on three of the world's oceans, and with the longest most utilized deepsea waterway, Canada is most dependent upon marine transport. No one will deny that marine transport is the most efficient transportation mode for bulk cargoes. For many decades the marine policies of this country have failed to reflect this fact, and our fishing, shipping and shipbuilding industries have suffered accordingly.
During its short term in office, the Conservative government made a strong commitment to the restoration of a Canadian merchant marine fleet. An extensive study was carried out and a report was about to be presented to cabinet for approval just at the time the election was called. With the world's greatest inland waterway available to us and with access to all of the ports of the world, the people of my area continue to wonder why Liberal governments, past and present, over the years continue to sell our natural resources in bulk on a pick-up and carry basis. The opportunities for the marine industry, as well as the technological spinoff therefrom, will inevitably be lost to the Canadian economy with the continuation of this government's reluctance to support a strong marine industry.
While it is said that tolls on the Seaway have not been increased in its 20 years of operation until three years ago, the proposal of a 100 per cent increase over three years is already having a user deterrent effect. Already significant traffic diversions are being made away from the Seaway route, and any increase in tolls is bound to accelerate that trend. History has shown that Seaway toll increases are accompanied by a loss of general tax revenue, if they are and as they are, assessed against Canadian corporations.
But the major basis of our economy in St. Catharines is the automobile. Once 9,000 of my constituents worked for General
Motors, our largest employer. The balance of the auto trade in our city is made up of parts manufacturing which in better times employed a further 3,000 persons. As we all know, the whole industry is in trouble both on our side and in the United States of America. Market planners made a grave error in failing to predict rising oil costs and buyer resistance to the large automobile, and now they are caught.
St. Catharines is fortunate in being a General Motors town, as the marketing of General Motors has been more effective than that of its other major competitors. It has progressively attracted a larger portion of the motor vehicle market. General Motors will be revamping its St. Catharines facilities in 1981 to provide component parts for a front-wheel drive small engine automobile in order to meet the shift in consumer demand, but that will be in 1981. There will be, then, even if only temporary, extensive lay-offs in our community while this change is taking place.
In the short term our automobile parts manufacturers will experience setbacks as most are still involved in the production of parts for larger automobiles. Some of these manufacturers supply Chrysler and so are doubly affected by the events of the last while. These manufacturers are looking for further improvements in the automobile trade pact and are crying out, as is the whole industry, for more government assistance to carry on research and development.
Research and development should be a key priority in the government's approach to the economic development of this country, and in no area is this more important than in the automobile industry today. It is well known that research and development are most effective when industry and universities work together. In St. Catharines we have that ideal working situation with General Motors, auto parts manufacturers and Brock University within a few miles of one another. To date Brock, which has a great interest in the industry, has been receiving very little in the way of grants or promotions.
General Motors pointed out to me the other day that, whereas between 50 per cent and 90 per cent of auto industry research and development in other countries, such as the U.S.A., France, Great Britain and Japan, is provided by their governments, our federal government funds only about 12 per cent.
The next ten to 20 years are going to be the crucial ones in terms of dramatic technological change in the automotive industry, and if Canada is to have a stake in the future of this industry it must act now and quickly. Studies have already indicated that other forms of energy, such as ethynol and methynol, which are based on feedstocks and on the forest resources with which Canada is so richly blessed, can be economically viable. The technical changes to our present automobile engine would be relatively minor, so conversion to these fuels could be made with a minimum of hardship to the automotive industry and to its workers. With our manpower, our energy resources and our industrial capabilities, there is no reason Canada should continue to see its future role in the
May 12, 1980

world automotive trade as one of simply assembling American automobiles.
If I may digress a little further on this one important topic, I would like to mention that our already high unemployment rate, now approaching 15 per cent, is further aggravated by the lack of specifically trained workers not only in the automobile industry but in the marine industry as well. Both are continually seeking in Europe the highly-skilled workers needed to carry out certain specific technical functions. I find it odd that we should be recruiting overseas in times of such high unemployment at home. Surely we should be training the young people and upgrading middle age workers through apprenticeship programs to meet the needs of our developing technologies. Surely we should be anticipating the future needs of these industries. This kind of training was one important focus of the Conservatives' youth employment program outlined in the former minister of finance's budget. Niagara College, our local community college, is ready, available and just seeking government assistance and community support to enter into such a training program.
I have already mentioned the city of St. Catharines as being the "Garden City" of Canada. This is partly due to the fact that our city is surrounded by the most productive fruit and grape growing lands in the whole of Canada. As a result of the importation of different vine strains from Europe, grape growers have greatly improved the quality of our local grapes, and the wine industry is assuming increasing importance in our region. Typically, however, the improved wines have been making greater headway in foreign markets than they have right here in this country where the old Canadian adage "if it is imported, it must be better" still prevails.
The delighted reaction to our wines at a wine tasting reception held here on the Hill last fall was ample proof that we do not have to beg Canadians humbly to "buy Canadian"; we simply have to convince them to "try Canadian", and our work will be done. Three years ago there was not one Canadian wine on the top ten best sellers list in Canada. Today I am proud to say that two of the five top best sellers here in Canada are Canadian wines.
The fruitlands surrounding our area have proved to be a mixed blessing to our municipality. Efforts to preserve this productive land have been put to severe restraints by the urban growth and development of St. Catharines. Therefore, existing industries are not being expanded and new industries are being established elsewhere. The young, seeing little employment future locally, are leaving their home communities to find work elsewhere.
We have in St. Catharines a community of conflicts: the second most satisfied city dwellers of Canada, and a declining growth rate; a city with a well above average standard of living and one of the highest unemployment rates in Canada; and a community with great industrial potential and an actual no-growth local economy. You see, Mr. Speaker, by a funny twist of fate the wealth of our region, which attracted so many originally, is now working against its growth and prosperity.
The Address-Mr. Joe Reid
It is easy for others in Ontario and elsewhere to speak out for the importance of the preservation of our fruitlands. We too believe this is important. This government must play an active, positive role if it wishes to preserve these fruitlands against the pressures of urban growth and development.
I feel that by the election of the Conservative party last May the people of Canada expressed their concerns about the economic dilemma in which Canada found itself at that time. When the minister of finance of that government presented his budget to Parliament last December, he did so knowing that a combined program of government fiscal restraint and longterm energy planning was the only way out of this dilemma. He knew that the government and the economy would be increasingly paralysed if the $11 billion budgetary deficit were not controlled and reduced. He knew that without a long-term energy policy the $9 million per day which the Canadian government was paying to subsidize oil could, under OPEC control and in the light of known Canadian oil sources, only increase dramatically. He knew that inflation must be curbed at all costs, even if the short-term cost meant a higher rate of interest.
That budget did not, however, forget those who would be hardest hit by the immediate impact of these measures; the mortgage holder, the small businessman, the farmer, the fisherman, and families with incomes less that $21,000.
If the Speech from the Throne and the mini-budget shortly following it are any indication, and they should be, it seems we can expect very much of the same kind of short-term policies, with no concrete plan of attack to begin reducing the national deficit, and no long-term energy policy to ensure Canada's energy future. For the most part the government offers only vague solutions to some problems, and measures intended to cushion Canadians from the impact of others which they feel are too tough to face-today, that is.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the government's proposal for an all new, all Canadian blended oil price. All this jargon means is that instead of paying for the oil increase at the gas pumps, Canadians will be paying it in their taxes.
What worries me is that if the real cost of oil does not hurt the Canadian's pocketbook at the gas pump, Canadians who are the greatest consumers of energy in the world will be encouraged to go on wasting imported and domestic oil.
What the government should be doing is providing policies and incentives to industry to develop quickly not only fuel efficient cars, as I mentioned before, but actual new types of fuel and corresponding engines.
Before closing I would like to touch on a very vital area, an area which was absolutely excluded from the throne speech. 1 have in mind the question of the environment. There are two environmental issues of particular concern to the St. Catharines region. One is the effects of acid rain; the other is the continuing pollution of the Niagara River.
Solutions to both problems are made more difficult by reason of our proximity to the United States. That great industrial segment of the U.S. is just over the river and across

May 12, 1980
The Address-Mr. Collenette
the lakes from us, and control on an international basis is a complicated matter, indeed. The former minister responsible for the environment considered acid rain one of the priorities of his ministry, and initiated the first international air pollution agreement with the United States late last year. I trust that this issue will be accorded the same importance by the new government and that no precious time is lost due to the change in government.
The pollution of the Niagara River continues to be a matter of real irritation to many on both sides of the river. Just recently we went through the troublesome time of granting a permit to a corporation in upper New York state, and yet this corporation would discharge its treated industrial waste into the river. It is my opinion that, although there must be at all times stringent controls on such programs as SCAs, such projects divert attention from other major fouling sources. Millions of gallons of waste, subject only to primary treatment, are being discharged daily into the Niagara River by riverside municipalities as well as by local industry. If as much zest were applied to the cleaning up of these sources as has been applied in controlling SCAs contribution, we would greatly improve the present condition of the Niagara River. Action against these older pollutants must be taken.
This is a crucial time in our country's history, Mr. Speaker. We are heavily in debt. We are in the grips of an unprecedented rate of inflation. We are heavily dependent on other countries for our technology and for our capital. We are lacking any kind of clear energy policy for our future. We are divided socially, and we are fragmented politically. If ever there were a time when this country needed strong, reliable leadership, it is now. The problems of this nation have been long identified.
The Liberal government now has the majority it needs to get on with the job. For the sake of our country's future, let there be no further delays and let there be no further misunderstanding at home or abroad.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, as you know, according to the House order the allotted time for a speech is 20 minutes. The hon. member has not finished, but 1 understand that you, sir, are adhering strictly to that rule. I regret that the hon. member did not get a chance to finish his remarks.
This is the first time I have had an opportunity to address the chamber in a formal way in this Parliament, other than on points of order dealing with House business. It gives me great pleasure to talk on the seventh day of the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. 1 would like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the motion, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mrs. Cote), and the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith). To you, Mr. Speaker, and to your
cohorts in the Speaker's chair, I wish you every best wish and success for this parliamentary term.
I would like to associate myself with the words spoken this evening by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) and the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin), who spoke about the emotional commitment that people have toward keeping this country together. In particular, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie gave a perspective from my province of Ontario. I would like to associate myself in particular with those emotional sentiments that he put forth.
However, I want to take more of a hard-nosed and practical look at what the referendum means to people in Ontario. There have been articles in various newspapers saying that Ontario is asleep, that English Canada is asleep and is not really paying too much attention to what is going on in Quebec. That could not be farther from the truth. In my constituency office on Saturdays I meet with people, as do all hon. members. Many of them have indicated to me that there is a genuine disquiet, an anxiety on the part of the people in metropolitan Toronto, and 1 am sure it is throughout the rest of the province of Ontario, as to what will be the outcome of the vote next Tuesday.
There are definite feelings. Perhaps people are not writing letters to newspaper editors or they are not making a lot of noise, but they are in deep thought about the ramifications this vote will have for the future and integrity of the country. As a member from Ontario I would like to talk about Ontario's role after the referendum, no matter how the question turns out. I believe, according to the recent indications of support which seem to be gathering, that the No forces will win.
But what will happen after the referendum is of crucial importance to this country. Ontario has had too much of its own way for too long. We have been called the fat cat of confederation, the engine of confederation, or the one who has benefited most from confederation. That is the truth. That position has changed, is changing, and must change if this country is to survive. As a member from Ontario, I am prepared to go back to my constituency in the next election and talk about the new kind of Canada that we must create.
I want to talk about resources in that context but I do not know if 1 will have time this evening. Since we may not come back to this debate before next Tuesday, I would like to talk in particular about the whole question of enshrining minority language rights and minority rights in general in a new constitution. About two years ago, prior to the May, 1979, election, I remember sitting next to Premier Blakeney as I was flying back to Toronto. We had a very enlightening conversation about his attitude toward not entrenching minority language rights in the constitution. The friendly debate lasted all the way back to Toronto. It was Mr. Hatfield's contention that language rights and minority rights in general can best be safeguarded by legislatures.
It is my contention that that could not be farther from the truth. I think that this is a vital component, a question that has to be answered in the whole referendum debate. This is what bothers Quebeckers. I think that they are looking down the
May 12, 1980

road 20 years when their proportion of the total population in Canada will decline even further. They want to know whether their children and their grandchildren will have their linguistic and cultural rights guaranteed in a Canada of the year 2000.
I share those sentiments, and I think that it is incumbent on all members of this House and all those who represent constituencies outside Quebec to make sure that in the lifetime of this Parliament-whether it be unilaterally by this House, as the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) proposed last Friday or, as I hope, by general consultation at a federal-provincial conference-we, once and for all, enshrine language minority rights in the constitution of this country, if we ever hope to look people of French language background in the eye and say that they are welcome in this country. I came back from forced retirement in private life to this House of Commons because I feel so deeply about the need for constitutional change in this country. I think that we must come to grips with this situation in the next three years before the next election.
Legislatures have not been good guarantors of minority rights or language rights. Let us go back to the Manitoba of 1891 and the schools' question which effectively blocked out the French language in that province and made the French there part of a dwindling minority. That is the effect of legislative action in 1891 in Manitoba.
In Ontario during the First World War, regulation 17 effectively meant the same thing for French language education in Ontario, to Ontario's shame. It is all very well for Premier Bill Davis to go around the country pontificating on the great things which he has done over the last few years. I will admit that Ontario has made great strides, but where was Ontario in the last 50 years?
Let us look at the legislatures and how well they guarantee minority rights. Let us look at Bill 101 in the province of Quebec and how it will treat the English language minority in that province. It is quite obvious that legislatures cannot guarantee linguistic and minority rights. Even this House of Commons was derelict in its duty. 1 believe that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was sitting in the House in 1941 or 1942 when this House sat in silence as members of the Japanese minority in this country were interned. That was perhaps one of the most-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we were not silent. In particular, the late Angus Maclnnis was on his feet speaking out very strongly on that issue.


David Michael Collenette: I apologize to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but it appeared that the House in general was silent on this particular issue, to allow this particular thing to happen.


Mr. Lambert:: Not the Liberals.


David Michael Collenette: I will take the admonitions from the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and say that it was the Liberal party. It was not the finest hour for the Liberal party and there are members on this side who want to
Adjournment Debate
make sure that the Liberal party, the Conservative party, the NDP and members of this House will never again see a minority subjugated in the way in which the Japanese were during the Second World War.
Before you call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I would submit to you that only with an entrenched bill of rights, only with language rights enshrined for all time in this country will we have linguistic and cultural harmony. I do not accept the argument of the premier of Saskatchewan and 1 do not accept the argument of the premier of Manitoba who believe that this cannot be done.
If I get the opportunity to speak on this subject again before the referendum, I should like to turn to some other aspects dealing with how the referendum is impacting upon the province of Ontario, and how Ontario and English Canada in particular should respond.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a nation of 23 million people out of four billion people in the world. We have a small armed force of about 73,000 people, very poorly equipped with only conventional weapons. We are but one voice at the United Nations, and only occasionally are we members of the Security Council. In fact Canada's influence on international affairs is, in a number of ways, very limited, to say the least. We can, however, preach disarmament because in fact we are virtually disarmed. While we can preach moralistically on this line, we lack the power and influence because we are, in fact, not a great nuclear weapons state.
There are many areas, however, where Canada does have influence and power and moral consistency, and can show international statesmanship and leadership. Canada is a major supplier of nuclear technology and nuclear energy; Canada is a major player in this game, and a major factor in nuclear proliferation in the world.
This is one of the most important topics facing the world right now, and in the past Canada has shown leadership on the subject. For example, the late Prime Minister Lester Pearson showed an earlier initiative in 1965 when he said that the

May 12, 1980
Adjournment Debate
government had decided that export permits would be granted with respect to uranium sales only if uranium was to be used for peaceful purposes. Before such sales would be authorized the government would require an agreement with the importing country to ensure that the uranium was to be used for peaceful purposes only. That Canadian statesman set the scene and a tone of leadership for Canada that Canada has been fairly consistent in following over the years.
Canada reacted later to what was perhaps our failure in India and its use of a nuclear device exploded at the expense of Canadian technology and resource. They responded with a five point program that was found correct and right in its place in time. Later they talked in terms of full scope safeguards which were another advancement in the international scene and another initiative taken by Canada. Two years ago these initiatives started in the world and perhaps, culminating in a disarmament conference, people recognized more intensely the problem of nuclear proliferation. As a result of recognizing the problem they set up a very special committee, the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation. This evaluation is now in and the results are pessimistic.
At the same time as these results arrived on our doorstep we see Canada, formerly a leading nation, weakening. At this time which is a pivotal point in the history of the world in this nuclear fuel cycle evaluation, this proliferation question is at a turning point and it is crying out for leadership, and Canada is in a position to give that leadership. That is why I am so alarmed at the position of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), who is an international statesman by all accounts. That is what I have been told; I keep hearing it. And what do we see him doing? We see him backing down. The Prime Minister, in answer to questions in this House of Commons, instead of replying yes, that he would take this report and lead new initiatives in this world, replied no, that we do not intend to lower Canada's export stance, that we are not going to raise our safeguards and we are going to try not to lower them. This is Canada reaching out in expediency, abandoning its position of moral leadership in the world in this important area where it can have influence. In how many other areas does Canada have some say, some power or some influence? We have this major technology and major supply of the product, and we can in fact take many new initiatives.
The Prime Minister asked me in response to my questions: "What new initiatives can we take?" 1 say that one of the major areas of weakness in our program is our incapacity to follow the leadership of the United States in the control of spent fuel. The United States in negotiating contracts has a condition of demand for the return of spent fuel in any contract signed. We could add that to our safeguards. We could call conferences. In fact at these conferences Canada has a voice and it has a power. We could threaten security of supply in the world because of our influence over supply, technology, raw materials and fuel, through temporary suspension of delivery.
We can bring control to the nuclear fuel cycle in purchasing states. We can control that area more tightly. I am surprised, in talking of sanctions with the Soviet Union, that we supply nuclear fuel to the Soviet Union.
I will finish with two minor points, Mr. Speaker. Fourth, atomic energy regional disposal and storage centres are other initiatives. Finally, is the return of spent fuel to the supplier nations. Our leadership role has been right and good. It is sound in this world of instability, but as the world becomes more unstable it becomes more important that our Prime Minister should take these new initiatives now, and not duck from them with the status quo.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, in response to the comments made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), I should point out that Canada's nuclear non-proliferation policy is one of the most stringent in the world today.
In December, 1976, the Canadian government announced that it would only enter into a new nuclear co-operation with non-nuclear weapon states which have made a binding commitment to non-proliferation and have accepted international safeguards on all of their peaceful nuclear activities. The latter is frequently referred to as NPT-type fullscope safeguards.
In addition to this general commitment, Canada also requires under its December, 1974, safeguard policy, the negotiation of a nuclear co-operation agreement with all countries with which it is engaged in nuclear trade. These agreements incorporate a number of specific provisions such as prior consent right over retransfer with regard to nuclear material, equipment or technology of Canadian origin.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) pointed out recently here in the House, Canada has been in the vanguard of those advocating effective safeguards. There is no question of Canada lowering its national safeguards requirements.
In this context it is worth referring to the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation which was concluded by a plenary conference in Vienna in February. It must be emphasized that INFCE was an international technical and analytical study, not a political negotiation. Its primary aim was to identify effective measures which can and should be taken to minimize the risk of nuclear proliferation while enabling nuclear energy for peaceful purposes to be made widely available to meet the world's energy requirements.
INFCE, which as noted above was not a political evaluation, did not identify a "technical fix" for nuclear proliferation. It did, however, result in a consensus report agreed to by forty-six countries in which a considerable number of ideas were put forward for subsequent study by governments in developing their nuclear energy policies. It is Canada's hope that the international community will, on the basis of this consensus, be able to work together in promoting the continuing evolution of an effective international non-proliferation regime within the framework of which international commerce in nuclear items
May 12, 1980

for peaceful purposes can take place. Canada is exerting its best efforts in this regard.
As already noted, there are a number of proposals currently before the international community for evaluation and possible implementation. Among these proposals are the question of fullscope safeguards as a condition of export, measures to minimize the risk of proliferation arising from sensitive phases of the nuclear fuel cycle such as reprocessing, international plutonium storage, international spent fuel management, regional fuel cycle centres and international waste depositories. All of these subjects are complex and have positive and negative aspects in varying degrees. Canadian officials are participating in international discussions on many of these ideas. It is, however, too early in those discussions to make a definitive judgment as to the ultimate merit of the various proposals.


PARKS CANADA-CANCELLATION OF PROPOSED RELOCATION OF REGIONAL OFFICE FROM CORNWALL TO PETERBOROUGH
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks tonight grow out of an answer in the question period given by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) to my concerns about the cancellation of the Parks Canada move to Peterborough. The minister's answer as to the justification for this cancellation of the move was, and I quote from Hansard for May 5:
My concern is primarily for the morale and the interest of the workers of Parks Canada.
I wish to read into the record the statement of the workers of Parks Canada in their bulletin of August 15, 1979, in which they say, and I quote:
It has been stated in the press that a majority of Parks Canada employees are opposed to the move and this supposition is being used to bolster the case for retaining the office in Cornwall. From informal conversation and through an institute meeting held today, I have ascertained that the majority of the PIPS membership-
That is the Professional Institute of the Public Service.
-are prepared to move to Peterborough and all are pleased that at last a definite decision has been reached.
I remind this House that this is just one more case of crass political politics, pork-barrelling, or whatever you wish to call it. In reality it was the Liberal government which initiated the studies that determined the facts that it would be more economical and feasible to operate Parks Canada in Peterborough, more centrally located to Ontario than in the southeast corner of the province in the city of Cornwall.
It was also the former Liberal government that made the first recommendation in 1973. The then minister, the hon. member for London West (Mr. Buchanan), announced to the people of Canada that Parks Canada was moving out of Cornwall. It was further announced by the then minister of the environment, Hugh Faulkner, the Liberal member of Parliament for Peterborough prior to myself, that he had it in place, that it was a reality and that it was coming to Peterborough.
Adjournment Debate
The only thing that went wrong in the Liberal planning of the Thirtieth Parliament was the fact they lost the seat in 1979 to a Conservative. The result of that election in 1979 caused the Liberals, after seven years of study, to review again the position of the Parks Canada office as to whether it should go to a Conservative seat now that a Liberal had lost the riding of Peterborough.
The net result of that study in 1979 reaffirmed through the main estimates committee meeting in the Thirty-first Parliament that the government could save $200,000 a year by having Parks Canada in Peterborough where it would operate more effectively and efficiently. That is in the minutes of the environment committee dealing with the relocation of Parks Canada.
The Quebec branch of Parks Canada moved out of Cornwall in 1975. The Ontario branch was to move out of Cornwall as soon as Cornwall received the ministry of transportation driver training branch. That took place. In the election of 1980 the Cornwall Liberal member, now a cabinet minister, campaigned that if he was elected it would go to Peterborough over his dead body. I remind the House that to keep this minister alive, it will cost the taxpayers of Canada $200,000 a year as they operate ineffectively and inefficiently from Cornwall. It will cost the relocation back to Cornwall of 23 families who have purchased homes in Peterborough. It will create a wasteland in downtown Peterborough where they have purchased a property and facility through an arrangement to operate Parks Canada on a five-year $800,000 lease.
I would remind the House that this is nothing more than crass political politics. It is pork-barrelling of the worst kind. It is moving not only Eldorado to a minister's area in the north from a Conservative riding in the southern part of Ontario, it is also moving Parks Canada from a Conservative seat in Peterborough to a Liberal constituency in Cornwall. For long enough we have watched this type of barnyard politics as the animals in the farmyard nuzzle in with snouts to the trough endeavouring to take every dollar out of the taxpayers of Canada, regardless of waste, regardless of planning, regardless of their own studies, in the interests of their own ridings so as to pork-barrel every dollar of the taxpayers' money into ministers' constituencies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the facts concerning the proposed move are these: The move was first initiated by a Liberal administration. It was deferred by a Tory administration and it was rescinded by the present Liberal administration, the present Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts).
In making the decision to rescind the move the Minister of the Environment took into account, of course, the morale of the employees. But he did not overlook the question of costs and the effects on the Parks Canada administration. Once a

May 12, 1980
Adjournment Debate
decision had been made on May 5 to rescind the move which the Liberals had initiated and which the Tories had deferred, the minister immediately directed that the cost be identified with a view to providing full compensation for any cost incurred or financial losses by employees. It is the minister's intent to return the employees as nearly as possible to the financial and career circumstances which would have prevailed had the move never been contemplated.
These are the facts, Mr. Speaker, but 1 am sure you have noticed, as I have, that the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) has not been very preoccupied with the facts in his address tonight. He talked, instead, about politics. I would remind him that two can play that particular game, the game of politics, and I would remind him also that even in the business in which he and I find ourselves there is room for scoring some honourable, legitimate political points. From what he has done tonight, I am aware that he is already quite familiar with how to score cheap, cowardly political points.
If the hon. member wanted to talk about the politics of the situation, why did he avoid telling the House what he knows very well to be the case-that it was the administration of which he was a part which deferred the move for ten whole months-ten painful months for the people of Canada? They had it in their hands to go ahead with the move but they did nothing about it. They only deferred it.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Not true!


Roger Simmons: If the hon. member says it is not true, I would remind him of one other fact which he did not bother to tell his constituents in his convenient selection of truths: the announcement to defer made on August 3, 1979, was made by none other that the hon. member for Peterborough himself. The man who now wants to get on the side of right and justice is the man who announced the deferral last August.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member's time has expired.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-WINNIPEG-REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT ON RAIL RELOCATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to deal with a matter which was first raised in a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) on April 25. This is the matter of rail relocation in the city of Winnipeg. At that time the minister answered in a way which I felt was unsatisfactory. His rationale for not making a complete commitment at that time to railway relocation had to do with the costs of such a project. He said that it would cost too much to relocate the rail yards in the city of Winnipeg, and in order to back that up he quoted figures from a study known as the Dillon report. This study quotes very high costs for rail relocation in the city of Winnipeg.
I should like, first of all, to question the validity of those figures. By and large, the study takes no account of the benefits of rail relocation to Winnipeg, and by and large the
costs are unsubstantiated. In fact the consultants did not go to the CPR to get their facts, and this was reported to us by a CPR official at a public meeting on Sunday a week ago.
The land value in this study is for vacant land rather than developed land. There is no account of business taxes or property taxes which would accrue if the land were freed from use as a railway yard and were developed for other purposes such as residential and business uses. There is no mention in the study of the need by CPR for increased acreages in their new yards, although when the CNR yards were relocated they required less acreage in their new yards than in their previous yards. Also, the study makes little or no mention of the positive impact on the local economy.
I would point out that at present the Winnipeg Construction Association indicates-this was in the month of April-that unemployment in the construction industry was at 24.7 per cent. Certainly a move to rail yard relocation would be a stimulus to the local economy and would have benefits in terms of creating employment. Also, the study fails to mention the cost to small business of a major accident in these yards or of the possible evacuation of the city. In terms of Mississauga, the estimates were of $25 million a day lost in terms of small business, this is minus the costs of police, fire and ambulance services. Also, in this context I question, in the case of a city like Winnipeg, whether it would be possible to evacuate such a city. We have no major urban centre to which evacuees could be taken.
So the Dillon study upon which the minister relied gives an exaggerated picture of the costs and does not really outline the benefits. Recently we heard a new statement by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) in which he indicated that he may be considering granting $25 million over a five-year period. While I welcome this crack in the wall, my question is whether or not it is a real commitment to rail yard relocation or simply a cosmetic, political manoeuvre.
We know that the Liberal government has made many public statements in favour of relocation, by ministers such as the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other members of the cabinet, but by focusing on the costs, perhaps we make it too easy for there to be bickering among the levels of government as to who will pay for rail yard relocation and we do not come to grips with the essential question. I think that a more valid focus which would test the commitment of the government would be if we were to ask for action under the Canadian Transport Act which would allow for the CTC to investigate any carrier which might be undertaking actions injurious to the public interest. This has already been called for by some citizens in Winnipeg. It would allow the CTC to investigate whether or not such incidents as the methanol spill in Winnipeg would merit the relocation of the yards in the public's interest and would get us out from under the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act which seems to have us embroiled in the question of who is going to pay, each government waiting for the other government to move first. So I
May 12^1980

think we should look at this question primarily from the point of view of the public interest.
If we use the Canadian Transport Act, we can get the CPR before a forum with some authority. That can get us the real information with regard to costs and also the real information with regard to whether or not it is in the public interest to move them out of the city. Certainly I believe that it is a necessary move at this point.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, a similar question was put to me by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie). I answered it on April 28, and the answer given can be found on page 504 of Hansard.
It is evident that all people concerned readily admit that rail relocation for the city of Winnipeg is the ideal solution. It is highly desirable, and to the benefit of the city, to revitalize an area which has been troubled by the impact of the railway in that neighbourhood. I would point out to hon. members of the House that the Rail Relocation and Crossing Act does not compel the federal government to undertake rail relocation projects. Rather, it provides the mechanism whereby these projects can be undertaken and it permits the federal government to assist financially in these projects, if and when funding is available. These mechanisms and procedures would also establish if the economic benefits outweigh the costs involved.
The hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) asked if we had determined whether the economic benefits
Adjournment Debate
would not outweigh the costs involved. Really the onus to prove that point is on the applicant. The city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba have never agreed to file the prima facie case to prove their own priority rating of the proposed rail relocation. Until April of this year, the city and the province have simply indicated that they want a licence to proceed with the grade separation overpass at Sherbrook-McGregor. Then early in April of this year, sort of as a last ditch stand, council passed a motion that they would ask the federal government to proceed with rail relocation. They would allow the federal government to proceed with it. The province would put up one-sixth and the city would put up one-sixth, if the federal government would put up two-thirds. None of this is in accordance with the formula of a 50-50 sharing of the costs involved.
The previous NDP government did not want to file the prima facie case because it would only concur with the relocation of the yards and not the main line. The present provincial government has not indicated that it is prepared to participate in this rail relocation and does not eye it as much of a priority as the CN east yards or other developments in the city of Winnipeg.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where do you stand?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: I am in favour of rail relocation. [Translation}


Mr. Deputy Speaker::