October 19, 1977

?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NDP

John Edward Broadbent

New Democratic Party

Mr. Broadbent:

Mr. Speaker, in the context of making the economic argument, I want to say something about the cultural reality as well because it is important in a country, whether it is our country or any other. There are two broad ways of looking at society. There is the way of the people who produce their goods and services, our farmers, our fishermen, our steelworkers and our autoworkers, that is, the economic aspect of life, and there is another aspect. You cannot radically separate it from the economic aspect, but you can do so analytically. I am referring to our cultural life.

I think that in Canada there are two vital cultures in existence. There are many subcultures, but there are two vital ones-the English and the French cultures. I want to say something this afternoon first about the English language culture because I am of the generation that does not turn to the United States, to England or to continental Europe for what I respond to in terms of the English language creativity. I do not have to read Saul Bellow. I like Saul Bellow, but I can

turn to people such as Atwood, Mordecai Richler, Graeme Gibson for fiction and poetry. We are at a higher level of creativity now than in any other period in our history and at world standard levels.

I am speaking of my culture now, the one from which I come, the English language culture. In terms of music, an English Canadian can be proud. He can listen to Maureen Forrester or Glen Gould, musicians of world renown, and he can listen to Oskar Morawetz in terms of creative composition. The point I am making is that there have been a lot of positive things said about Francophone culture, and I agree with them, but in the last decade and a half there has been a sense of pride and accomplishment, in English Canada, in English Canadian creativity which is second to none in the Englishspeaking world, and I am proud of that.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NDP

John Edward Broadbent

New Democratic Party

Mr. Broadbent:

Perhaps on a personal note-I do not make personal observations too often-I think there is something different about the mental framework, and I hesitate to make this point as well, but those under 45 or 40 years of age, as opposed to other Canadians perhaps-this I do not know- had, as I did when I was a student in the early 1960s, the opportunity to study abroad. I was in England and I had the choice to make whether to stay in England and study for an English Ph.D, or come back to my own country. There was no conflict for me; I saw no lowering of standards if I came back to Canada.

So I decided I would study where there was the best person in the world in my field, and the best person in my field happened to be at the University of Toronto, a man named Macpherson. So I studied in Toronto and did my Ph.D. there. The point I want to make is that there is a change going on in our land, in our generation. We no longer feel we have to go to Harvard or to LSE or to Oxford to get our degrees. In fact, we are now exporting our scholars. As the Prime Minister well knows, the fellow who is heading the political science department at Oxford now is a man named Charles Taylor, a very distinguished Canadian.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NDP

John Edward Broadbent

New Democratic Party

Mr. Broadbent:

The point I am making is that there is great vitality in our land, there is a high level of creativity in the English Canadian culture, in the English language. In the cultural domain something exciting is going on in the province of Quebec. If great things are happening in English Canada, they are also happening in Quebec. We have heard a lot about that recently, but we have not always responded well. They do have their writers, they do have their poets, they do particularly have their song writers and their singers. There is a joie de vivre in that province that should make all of us proud as Canadians.

What I am asking is, what can we do, as the federal government, in the cultural domain in this national unity debate in which we are involved? I can state quite bluntly that there is little that I see we can do in terms of legislation. Most

October 19, 1977

of the areas of cultural control in the province of Quebec or in other provinces are within provincial jurisdiction. Rene Levesque or any other premier in the province of Quebec has control over the educational system. They have the opportunity to use cable television, and we need to make certain amendments to our legislation to open up to all our provinces the exclusive control of 80 per cent of 90 per cent of the cable outlets. There is no reason why they should not have it. It is good for Quebec and it is good for all the other provinces, so long as we keep a few networks national.

The essential point I want to make in the national unity debate vis-a-vis the provinces, and particularly the province of Quebec, is twofold. First, we should not say to Quebeckers that they have to choose, that in their psychic make-up they have to be either Quebecois of Canadian. I say that the attitude of the Prime Minister-and 1 respect it because I know it is honest- has been, in my understanding of his career in politics and his political writing, to say to Quebeckers, "You must choose. You must renounce your nationalism. You must renounce your sense of being a Quebecois and be a Canadian, or the other way around".

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Oh, come on; that is not so.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NDP

John Edward Broadbent

New Democratic Party

Mr. Broadbent:

The Liberals say no.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Rémi Paul

Mr. Prud'homme:

Not the Liberals; the Prime Minister.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Give us an example.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NDP

John Edward Broadbent

New Democratic Party

Mr. Broadbent:

I am asked for an example. I will give the hon. member an example. It was not the former leader of the Conservatives or their present leader, nor was it my predecessor, who said of Quebec nationalism that it was a form of tribalism. It happens to have been the Prime Minister. There was no attitude on the part of the leadership on this side of the House of any of the parties that Quebec nationalism was unacceptable.

I repeat my argument and I welcome any challenging of the facts. The prime Minister was honest in his argument. He has always seen nationalism in Canada, as well as elsewhere, as being regressive, reactionary, as being an oppressive force, and he believes that with conviction. I say he is wrong. Nationalism need not be regressive; it can be creative. What we have needed in our country is not the repression of Quebec nationalism but a heightened sense of nationalism elsewhere, so that we can bring the two together to do something in our land.

The question of Quebec nationalism or cultural life is not primarily a constitutional matter; it is very much an attitudi-nal matter. Those of us in federal politics must open ourselves in a spirit of equality to our fellow Canadians in the province of Quebec and say to them that they need not choose between being Quebecois or Canadien. They can be both. We must understand that their historical, cultural and linguistic roots are very deeply embedded in their province, but there is no

The Address-Mr. Broadbent

contradiction between living that cultural reality as a Quebecois and being a Canadien.

I do not know if we are going to win that battle, because if there is not cultural vitality going on in English Canada-no question about independence-there is, indeed, that going on in the minds of Quebeckers, and any one of us would be dishonest if we did not address ourselves to that question. If I understand my Quebec friends well-indeed, if I understand my wife, who shares that culture-there is an identity problem, and the Quebecker is going to be trying to sort out, in this period in history, whether it is sufficient to work it out within a federal framework and whether a Quebecois can really make it as a human being within the Canadian structure.

I do not know in advance the answer to that question, but I do know that all we at the federal level can do on that important issue is welcome that attitude in Canada which says that we want Quebeckers to feel part of our land and that we are going to do everything we can. That does, indeed, include minority language rights right across the country. I agree with the Prime Minister on that, but where I disagree with him and his analysis about the significance of that, is that for me, as I understand what is going on, establishing rights for Francophone minorities in other provinces is not what will ultimately persuade Quebeckers to stay within our union or to depart.

I plead for serious understanding of that point, if I am right. Those rights are important, but for Quebeckers what is really important is not the welfare of minorities outside the province of Quebec; what is important for Quebeckers in 1977 is to be convinced that their homeland, the province of Quebec, is a place which can continue to exist as a vital and creative Francophone community within the union.

That, to me, is the issue which has to be sorted out, fundamentally by Quebeckers, and if I understand the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) correctly, that is his argument too. He says that minority rights are important across the country, and certainly they are in the long run, but in dealing with the Quebecker as he or she is now, we have to persuade the Quebecker that it is within the province of Quebec, basically, that he or she can live as a Quebecois.

In the great debate which is going on with regard to the cultural domain there is not a lot we at the federal level can do except be persuasive and perhaps modify cable television legislation. We must win the hearts and minds of the people of Quebec on that issue. However, there is also something we can do in the economy. I have repeated that with considerable emphasis in the past year. I have not disregarded the cultural domain, by no means, but the cultural domain ties into the economy. I was in Trois-Rivieres and in Sept Isles on a trip not long ago. Quebeckers there told me that they wanted jobs. They were concerned about textile policy and about shipbuilding policy. They said they would respond just as Canadians in Newfoundland, British Columbia or Sudbury, to a national government which wants to deal with the national economy.

So if we want to deal with national unity, it is not a matter of separating something called national unity from the economy. Both go together. What we need, particularly now in our

October 19, 1977

The Address-Mr. G. Caouette history, is a sense of national purpose. We need to recognize that what is going on in French Canada and in English Canada is very similar to what is going on in Western Europe. Ordinary people on both continents, in advanced industrialized societies, are saying that they want a greater say within economic enterprises. They want more liberty in terms of economic institutions and in terms of controlling their own destinies. They are saying they want a greater degree of equality in terms of the output of those economic institutions.

If this is happening in both Quebec and English Canada- and I think it is-we must remember why Quebeckers voted for the PQ. Overwhelmingly, studies show they were voting that way because they wanted practical reforms of this kind. English Canadians want the same kinds of reforms. So if the Prime Minister wants to show national leadership-because he is in a position to do it; he is the Prime Minister-he should bring to this country a sense of great national purpose, a revitalization of the expectations of English and French-speaking Canadians alike, and establish anew in this land the belief that jointly we can pursue the age-old goals of liberty and equality, at the same time remaining Francophone or Anglophone in our basic culture.

I now move an amendment to the motion which has been moved. It has some bearing on what I have just said. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):

That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:

"and this House regrets in particular the announced intention of the government to reintroduce the $1.2 billion in tax concessions provided in the March budget to large corporate interests, it being the view of this House that at a time when manufacturing is operating at only 80 per cent capacity, what we need instead are tax cuts for middle and lower income earners and an increase in direct job creation programs as requested by the premiers of all the provinces of Canada.".

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
SC

Gilles Caouette

Social Credit

Mr. Gilles Caouette (T6miscamingue):

Mr. Speaker, as is the custom, I would like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. During these two days, yesterday and today, we had the opportunity of seeing the political game at work. One day we listen to the Speech from the Throne and we hear one thing about one subject and, the day after, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) comes here to tell us the exact opposite of what was said yesterday in the speech. Today the Prime Minister started his remarks, in the short section he reserved to that issue, by saying that we did not need new economic theories, new economic stategies, whereas in the Speech from the Throne it was said, I quote:

High rates of unemployment and inflation are clear signals of the inadequacy of economic strategies appropriate to simpler times.

Therefore, we must change our methods. I was pleased to note that the throne speech gave us that new image, that new philosophy or at least the awareness that the economic systems of the 16th century should be altered to apply modern economic systems to our contemporary problems. Unfortunately, the

Prime Minister turned right about today and said that we must not proceed too quickly, that we must have a national conscience. There is no problem. Well, the problems due to unemployment are ascribable to the unemployed.

Foreign countries and not this government are responsible for the problem of inflation. Imports and other countries such as the United States, France and others are responsible. We forget to improve the well-being of the Canadian people and the blame is put on external causes. The same thing is true about the debate on Canadian unity. No, this government once again is not responsible for the problems. It is not an economic issue, but the Parti Quebecois is to blame. If there are some unemployed in Montreal, if Montreal is experiencing a Financial crisis, the Canadian economy has nothing to do with that, it is due to the election of the Parti Quebecois. It is as if we would say that New York is on the verge of bankruptcy on account of Negroes in the southern states. This emotive game is used to divert attention from the fundamental and central issue which is the economic problem and new solutions and theories to be applied to the economy. If Quebecers are not satisfied with Confederation and returns received from the federal government, it is not because the federal government spoke English or French but because economically they do not feel as if they were entitled to live honourably as others do throughout Canada.

When I travel in British Columbia or in the Maritimes and I meet someone who is poor and there are many in each province; in some they speak English, in the province of Quebec they speak French. Therefore, it is not a linguistic problem but an economic one. The problem is the following: some people cannot live in their homes the way they like. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said: Oh, yes, things are going just fine. Everything has doubled since 1945. Production has doubled in Canada, doubled here and doubled there. But he forgets to say that the cost of living has doubled and even quadrupled since 1945.

They claim they are improving our situation! Indeed, modern technology and the inventive skill of man are there to create automation and make the burden of the workers easier, but thanks to an economic system the right hon. Prime Minister refuses absolutely to change, these workers are made to suffer, because the inventive skill of man has created something to help them.

While, in this day and age, technology can improve productivity both quantitatively and qualitatively, it penalizes workers by depriving them of their right to work and the power to buy the end product of the machine. Here they say they are improving the situation! The government knows how to play with words, but as evidenced in the Speech from the Throne, the government is striving to lay the blame on somebody else's doorstep, refusing to assume its responsibilities. One cannot help being impressed by a phrase such as this in the Speech from the Throne: On a national scale, unemployment now constitutes a very serious obstacle to economic growth.

Now if growth is not as expected or does not move fast enough unemployment is to be blamed. Unemployment is a

October 19, 1977

consequence of mismanagement and lack of economic growth, not the cause of the lack of economic growth. That problem is created to begin with. Reference is made to an era of leisure, but the new developments which could give people the purchasing power to buy the production of machinery are overlooked. There are now very few slaves, but still we hear that there is too much unemployment, and then, investments are made in automation that indirectly creates unemployment; and whereas we give them more leisures, whether they be called unemployed or otherwise, nobody wants to give them the purchasing power which could be used to buy all that is machine-produced.

That is precisely one of the basic problems. When the government says: Well, we cannot do anything else but borrow in order to finance our development. But as long as loans are made, the finance people are not unemployed. When has the government ever mentioned that? Never. The government is willing to go on, unbridled, borrowing money, unconcerned with the interest rates, with the country being in debt, borrowing more to finance our own development, borrowing money in the United States or somewhere else in the world, that we can afford to do. There is to be no restriction on that, and we can even go further. In the Speech from the Throne, it is said, that as of today, we have to help our private sector undertake abroad projects requiring large investments. What is going to be saved by that?

How will this solve the unemployment problem, the economic problems of Canada, of Quebec, or of the other provinces? Absolutely nothing. Our companies are now being encouraged to invest money elsewhere, like Noranda Mines is doing, to cease production in Northwestern Quebec, and after reaping profits in Northwestern Quebec, they want to spend or invest this money in Brazil to the tune of $325 millions. Indirectly, we are paying for this.

However, as soon as we try to change this system, we create inflation. Social Credit members have been telling the government for the past 35 years that the present economic system is creating inflation and unemployment at the same time. Day after day, prices are hiked and workers demand higher wages. If we grant them higher wages, prices will have to be raised and, finally, we put in a machine that can produce twice as much as 10 employees.

Those employees are laid off; they are out of work and therefore are no longer entitled to live.

Full employment was suggested at one time. This is precisely where we must make a choice. Do we want full employment or do we want a system that respects the individual? If the government wants to solve the problem of unemployment, there is an easy answer. Tomorrow morning, let us hire the unemployed and have them dig holes and move mountains, and if there are too many machines around, we can always give the workers a pick and a shovel and have them work manually, and if there are still too many unemployed, they can use teaspoons; this will give work to more people. But this is ridiculous.

The Address-Mr. G. Caouette

If man had the intelligence to create a machine to replace him on the production line, our government should have the intelligence to find the way to distribute the production of this machine to meet the needs of Canadian consumers. This is a solution. But for this, we would need new theories or techniques which are not being applied at this time. Governments are more at ease imposing quotas and stopping production. At some point they told producers that their output was too high. There is one group of starving unemployed-I see that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is here-who would very much like to have milk on their tables. They cannot because it is too expensive and they cannot afford it. And in the meantime our dairy farmers would be quite happy to produce what is needed to help them. But they cannot, because of the quota system. At the same time we go on importing from other countries. Last year we imported 46 million pounds of cheese, representing some 500 million pounds of milk. That milk was not produced here, it was produced in the countries whose cheese we imported, while we were telling our farmers they were producing too much milk. And we curtailed production. Such is the government's policy.

My colleague from Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) referred today to another problem in that area. Instead of our farmers being paid subsidies, a conflict between various agencies is being fought on their backs because of the federal government. They are denied the possibility of expanding at home, of creating jobs at home. People are capable of creating jobs for themselves when they have an opportunity to do so. In a free enterprise situation they are capable of going a long way. But there is every tendency to belittle them, to deprive them of that potential through all sorts of regulations.

The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) stated earlier that federal control should be increased. The tendency is to squeeze the lemon. Unfortunately, there are here in Canada a whole lot of lemons that are sick and tired of being squeezed. Now about import quotas. In Quebec as in the other provinces, the textile industry is going down the drain, the shoe industry is in the process of being stamped out, but this government has been allowing massive imports: fifty-four million pairs of shoes were imported into Canada last year. This means roughly two pairs of shoes and one pair of slippers per capita. In the meantime we are plagued with unemployment. In the shoe industry, more than 50 per cent of the people lost their jobs. In 1968 there were 208 shoe manufacturers in Canada. In 1977, 150. Then people say: We have so many problems. What will we do? .

The Speech from the Throne tells absolutely nothing, apart from phraseology like: If we have unemployment, blame it on the unemployed; if our economy does not work well, it is because the unemployed are idle; if the unemployment rate is so high, that is the unemployed's fault, not that of the economy as such.

On the other hand, the government can reduce taxes for financiers. As I was saying a few minutes ago, the government

October 19, 1977

The Address-Mr. G. Caouette

never had any qualms when it wanted to grant loans abroad in order to stimulate development in Canada. They never thought about imposing wage and price controls on that, no, no. When it comes to financiers, there are no controls, they are free to charge the interest rates they want. No discussion about that. Go ahead, boys, interest rates do not matter. They even go so far as telling financiers in the budget speech that they will give them some extra help, that they will get tax cutbacks. That is all right!

Those people get help; their taxes will be reduced. However, the poor little taxpayers, those who can hardly survive today, are not mentioned. It is dangerous to help them. They must be kept in extreme poverty because it is easier to control them. This is the position of the government.

What does the Speech from the Throne reveal on the whole? Absolutely nothing. Simply an attitude which has never changed. We could hope for a change in the economic position of the government until the speech of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). After his speech, we understand that he wants absolutely no changes. He even gave us statistical data to demonstrate that we were in the best of all countries, in the best of all worlds, without any problem. There were several snags but they do not depend on the government. No. They are never concerned. Everyone is concerned except the federal administration.

The dollar has even been assessed today. We have been told that it has reached its lowest level since 1930. But once again it is not the fault of the federal administration. No! It is the fact of the other countries. If we have failed to maintain adequate productivity, if we have failed to encourage entrepreneurship by taking measures to stimulate individual creativity, if we have failed to do all that, it is not the fault of our government. No, it is always the fault of other countries. So the dollar is devalued and then we are told that now we will be able to export more. But I ask what will we export? Our manufacturers and our manufacturing industries have been ruined by imports during the last years and again this year. And what shall we export then? Our natural resources like we did before? This does not solve the problem, not at all.

We hear about energy. We must save our energy! We are going to build a pipeline to carry our oil products from the north to the Americans, and also a little for us in eastern Canada. Fortunes will be spent at that. In the meantime, one after the other the ministers tell us, just like the Prime Minister in the Speech from the Throne: Canadians will have to learn to tighten their belts, otherwise they will be forced to do so. That is the attitude of the government. On the other hand, has anyone been bright enough-and this is not the first time I have told them-to go and find out about the patents or registrations of new inventions meant to conserve energy, to decrease consumption of various sources of energy?

For instance, I refer here to gas in automobiles, or fuel for heating homes. In 1973, I told Minister Macdonald, who was then with Natural Resources: Have you had the decency- instead of telling Canadians to lower their thermostats and close their doors in winter when the weather is cold so that too

much energy is not wasted-have you had the decency to go and see at the patent office if there might not be new inventions that could be used to save energy? No! he had not had the decency to do so! He does not have any more today, even after having changed departments and all that. On the other hand, excuses are found. In a question on the order paper it was asked whether, since 1940, the patent office had received applications for registration of inventions meant to reduce the consumption of gas in automobiles or fuel for home heating systems? How many had been patented and rejected? Why? When? What savings were expected from those patents? The government, who is oh! so concerned about the economy, about reducing the consumption of energy, of pollution, replied: There have been 4,900 patents.

Second question: How many were accepted? How much was saved? It is estimated that it would cost about $10,000 and several man-days. It is absolutely ridiculous! We spend more than three million a day for oil products but we figure $10,000 is too much to try to find some ways to reduce gas consumption for automobiles.

In 1956, I drove a vehicle which could run 65 miles to the gallon as a mechanic had added some part to the carburator. He had obtained a patent. To protect the multinationals, at that time, they sent the RCMP to smash the "device" so that it would not be registered. That was dangerous! Today, nothing has changed. They do not look for a solution. They talk, they write down speeches from the Throne but when the time comes to solve the problem, they flatly refuse. And they try to blame Canadians. Tighten your belts, but you companies, keep wasting as ever!

Again in the Speech from the Throne, the federal government is saying that it will create a royalties' program for petroleum products. That would be better than the income tax scheme we have now. The only taxpayers who cannot hide their incomes are the wage earners. Maybe the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), but outside that... People who really have a high income or companies, let us not worry about them, they find a way to conceal their revenues. We would like the government to establish a royalties' program as Alberta did in 1935. In that way, the province of Alberta managed to straighten her economy cashing royalties on natural resources in Alberta.

On national unity, we heard all kinds of talks today, from every side, before it was finally conceded that this is an economic issue, which involves the rights of individuals-to a decent life-may I, as a Quebecer, as a Canadian, live in my province or in my country as a human being or should I starve in this country? The same question arises in different provinces, in Alberta as well as in Quebec. That is in the final analysis the issue of national unity. So what does the government have to do in this? It has to create a favourable economic attitude to the satisfaction of the people of a province or of the provinces or Canada as a whole. Then there will be no talk of separation and all that. When people are satisfied, see that

October 19, 1977

they have the right to live at home as they should, they will accept the economic basis that they will be given by the government.

I also read in the Speech from the Throne:

This discontent in such a wealthy country-[DOT]

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Are you a federalist?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

David Réal Caouette

Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):

Yes, I am a federalist but not of your kind.

When I hear the prime minister say that they do not want the status quo, I say the status quo is not in the suggestions he made, it is in his attitude toward the provinces-that is where the status quo is. A new constitution where the provinces will decide among them what they want to put in common and what they want to keep within their own jurisdictions, in the way the present Confederation was formed. The federal did not create four provinces; four provinces created the federal. Until we come back to that spirit of confederation the problem of national unity in Canada will never be resolved. Not with attitudes of confrontation as the prime minister showed this afternoon. Not at all! Through arrogance such as the liberal party is now using across this country, never! It will be through the respect of the entities that form this country and letting them decide among themselves how they want to discuss what they want to put in common and what they want to keep under their provincial jurisdictions. Once we have accepted that, this aspect of the national unity problem will be resolved.

It is strange that when the province of Quebec-and I do not want to defend Quebec in this regard-introduces a bill, Bill 101, which restricts education within the province and its jurisdictions, the Federal government should react in this way since in the past, it did not take such a stand against provinces like Alberta or British Columbia when they denied French speaking children access to school. Once more, they try to blame someone else for the lack of administrative leadership by the Federal government in the past eight years. It is not a matter of confrontation but of frank and honest discussion, not the kind that can be found in the Speech from the Throne. They say that status quo is maintained by the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, whose attitude is to dictate, try to boss everyone instead of sitting and discussing with people, laying out some bases and saying we should discuss from these bases. This is where the problem lies.

And in the Speech from the Throne, it is still not clearly specified.

... the government will be proposing specific initiatives to be taken in collaboration with the provinces ...

The government is not prepared to sit and discuss with the provinces. On the contrary, they are prepared to take specific steps and this is an example of the status quo which is referred to and of this government's present attitude.

So, on the whole, what is there in the Speech from the Throne? They have tried precisely to put the blame on everybody's shoulders and failed to assume responsibility for their mismanagement. This mismanagement is not hard to prove;

The Address-Mr. G. Caouette

ten or 15 years ago, when you told Canadians about inflation, that the present economic system was creating inflation, that when they bought a house at a 10 per cent interest, it would take 10 years to double its price, ten years ago perhaps the people did not understand that very well, but today, they realize that inflation is at their doorstep, that their dollar cannot buy them a dollar's worth of goods. As I said in a question to the Minister of Finance and in a speech: the Canadian dollar is not even worth 18 cents of production.

The then Minister of Finance, Mr. Turner, stood up suddenly and said: "No, it is 22 cents". But this is where he made a mistake: Whether 22 or 18 cents, the Canadian dollar does not have the value of a dollar of production. That is the problem. If you want to buy products, your dollar does not have the value of those products so you have to give two or three to buy one dollar's worth of products. What we recommend is that the government base the value of money, of credit and of the bulk of Canadian purchasing power on production. It will then solve the problem.

When finance ministers tell you openly that one dollar is worth 22 cents of production, there is no need to look very far to see where the problem lies. It keeps on growing as time goes by, since we leave the financial community increase its rate of interest and since all this fuels inflation. Twenty years ago, one could buy a house at 5 per cent interest. Today, it is 10 per cent. At 5 per cent interest it took 20 years to double the price; at 10 per cent it takes just 10 years and at HV: per cent, as it is the case today, it takes eight years and even six years and a half in certain cases.

After that we are told that inflation does not come from somewhere else, that it is created in our country by the financial system, the economic system, and that we cannot do anything about it. From the outset they say we have to find new economic methods, but they hesitate when they have to sit down and discuss to try to put them in force. They do not want to go too far, they are afraid and they refuse to admit it.

Funny how things have changed everywhere. Cars are not what they were 20 years ago; there have been important changes in the production of food stuffs; everything has changed everywhere. Clothing has changed, construction has changed, techniques, aircraft, everything has changed. One thing that never ever changes is the economic system. You do not touch it. You must not touch it. It would be highly dangerous to touch it. We hoped, and here I conclude, that the Speech from the Throne would reveal a new attitude on the part of the government. Unfortunately, that attitude has vanished with the paper the speech was written on. It no longer has any worth. The government's intents were very well outlined by the Prime Minister this afternoon when he said that they want to make the guidelines, that they do not want to consult people. They still want confrontation and in the final analysis we see, as I have mentioned several times, that we still are confronted with Mr. Trudeau's and the Liberal party's status quo, that is arrogance in not being able to discuss honestly and honourably with a population. What they want is to back them up to the wall and then say: Well if you are

October 19, 1977

The Address-Mr. G. Caouette

stuck, we are your saviours, listen to us, follow us, we will help you. So I think that Canadians have understood that attitude and I think that on the whole-

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Gérald Laniel (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. Unless the House gives its unanimous consent to allow him to complete his remarks, I will declare that it is six o'clock. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

David Réal Caouette

Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):

In conclusion, I would like to say that Anglophones across the country understand-and I have felt it during my trips out west-they really understand that through discussions and not confrontation, it is possible to solve our problems. And I am pleased to repeat what our former leader, Real Caouette, used to say across the country: I do not believe that by teaching French to an Anglophone he

will become a Francophone. No. I do not believe that by teaching English to a Francophone, he will become an Anglophone. No, but, I think that by communicating together, by listening to one another or working together, it is possible to be and to become true Canadians; but again, we must have the decency to sit together, to discuss problems honestly and not through the use of the confrontation system. In meetings held throughout the country, the people readily agreed to discuss, to express some ideas and make concessions on different matters and issues. It remains for the Canadian people to sit down, as I said earlier, and discuss, analyze and work out a constitutional solution in a co-operative mood rather than in a spirit of confrontation as the government is doing at present.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Gérald Laniel (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

It being past six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).

At 7.07 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

*

Thursday, October 20, 1977

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink

October 19, 1977