October 26, 1977

?

An hon. Member:

No!

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Permalink
PC

Roch La Salle

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):

I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I listened carefully to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). He made a speech which will once again create much hope, but anyhow I do not question his statements. First I would like to know whether there have been butter imports since January last. If not, will there be some from now until April next? Second, on behalf of fluid milk producers-and if I have to implore the minister I will do so-can he tell us today when he will be sending the subsidy cheques to producers who are now experiencing problems of which the minister is aware?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Permalink
LIB

Eugene Whelan (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Whelan:

The hon. member has made some accusations and asked some questions. If the House wants to give me half an hour I am perfectly willing to answer him. The dairy question alone is a complex one. He intimated to the House, and probably to the viewing audience, that we are withholding subsidies from all the industrial milk producers of Canada. We are not doing that. The industrial milk producers are getting their full subsidy. But we have asked the provincial producers

of fluid milk to contribute $12.5 million across this nation from Victoria through to Halifax, and some of the provincial milk marketing boards have agreed; in some cases legislation has been passed enabling this contribution to be made to the skim-off. We do not at the present time intend to abandon the position we have taken. We think it is something that can be legitimately asked.

We think that those who are taking fat off whole milk and putting the skimmed milk and 2 per cent milk on the market are contributing to the surplus industrial milk situation. The fluid milk producers are benefiting from dairy milk policy to the tune of $281 million a year. If they had to deal strictly on the basis of world prices for dairy products, that is how much it would cost the fluid milk producers in Canada for a program of that kind.

The hon. member has been complimentary about the program I announced today-the forward-looking approach I have taken toward agriculture.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Oh, oh!

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Permalink
LIB

Eugene Whelan (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Whelan:

He is concerned about the importation of butter. We have announced exchange of a butterfat program. I hope the hon. member realizes that if we can sell on world markets condensed milk, for example, we would have no butterfat problem, no skim milk problem; we would be exporting the whole product. In return for that we have agreed with some of our trading partners to import butter if necessary. That would be of greater benefit to the dairy producers and more beneficial to the treasury of the country as well. It would be of greater benefit to the dairy producers because they would then have to spend less of their income for export subsidies on skim milk powder. For every pound of butter you make, you make double the amount of skim milk powder.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order, please. I wish to be fair, but I see many members indicating they want to ask questions. There is only an hour and a half left and at least ten or 12 members were wanting to speak this afternoon. I do not see how we can meet the schedule. I think maybe I should allow only one more short question and short answer, if there is consent.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

No!

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

There does not appear to be consent to continue. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Permalink
PC

Jacques Flynn (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Flynn:

Mr. Speaker, when you asked for unanimous consent just now I distinctly heard two members say no and refuse unanimous consent for more questioning of the minister.

I think you should ask the question again, Your Honour, to see if there is unanimous consent.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Well, I must say that any hon. member who is not satisfied with what the Chair has heard can always stand up and raise a point of order and notify the

October 26, 1977

Chair accordingly. Nobody stood up, and I therefore concluded there was no question being raised. The matter has now been settled, and I am recognizing the hon. member for Provencher.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Permalink
PC

Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):

Mr. Speaker, at the outset 1 would like to congratulate the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) and the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood) for their participation in the debate. I, along with many Canadians, felt deeply honoured by the presence of Her Majesty as she participated in the proceedings at the opening of this session of parliament.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to a fairy tale which probably many of us learned about in our younger days. It is a Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale entitled "The Emperor's New Clothes." The story goes something like this.

The emperor loved clothes and spent very little time on matters of state. One day two cheats or charlatans came to the castle and told him they were weavers of the very finest cloth. They asked him if they could weave some cloth for him. He gladly consented.

This went on for some time, and as the days approached when the cloth was to be completed, the emperor sent one of his most trusted ministers to check on the progress of the operation. When the trusted minister got there he looked at the loom, and on it saw nothing. But the two charlatans pointed out the wonderful imaginary pattern in the wonderful cloth that they were weaving. The minister, very concerned about the wrath of the emperor, decided to go back to the emperor and tell him the story the two charlatans had told him.

This went on for some time, Mr. Speaker, until one day the emperor came to look at the cloth that was being woven and he, too, was conned by the very same story his minister had been told.

To put the fairy tale in perspective, the day came when the emperor came to the weavers to put on his new suit of clothes. He took off his clothes and put on his imaginary new clothes. Then, having said there was going to be a great procession through the town, he walked through the town and the courtiers hung on to the imaginary train, until they passed a small child.

The small child, unlike the adults who were looking at the emperor and exulting about his wonderful clothes, simply said, "The emperor has no clothes". And the people said, "Listen to the innocent. The innocent says the emperor has no clothes; indeed, the emperor is naked".

That story, though fairy tale, launches us into the very type of situation in which we Canadians find ourselves today. The throne speech, to many Canadians, was to be the cloth whereby we were going to get a new dimension, a new hope for the future. We find the emperor, who has been the so-called Prime Minister of this country for the last nine years, following the throne speech, and again following his participation in this

The Address-Mr. Epp

debate, is devoid of new ideas. Indeed, the emperor is naked, naked of any direction, and naked of any future hope for Canadians. Surely the Speech from the Throne should be a thrust. It is an opportunity for the government to show Canadians that it is capable of leading. Unfortunately, the Speech from the Throne was devoid of credibility. It gave no hope to Canadians. Much more, Mr. Speaker, once again it placed a wedge between Canadians and those who are to govern, showing there is no trust in the government of the day.

What is the record, Mr. Speaker? In 1968 Canada was united. The euphoria of Expo and of the related Centennial activities was such that it bound Canadians together. Today, whether one assesses our economy or our future as a country, the government gives little cause for hope. Is there any hope for the one million unemployed in Canada? At the present time our unemployment rate is running at approximately 8.3 per cent. Statistics can be very cold; one million unemployed is bad enough, but even more important, when we look at Canadian workers under the age of 25 we find that their unemployment rate is double that of the Canadian average.

It cannot be said any better, Mr. Speaker, than in the words of the Speech from the Throne. This extract is to be found at page 2 of Hansard:

The human hardship imposed by the current level of unemployment in Canada is deeply disturbing. It is neither just nor tolerable that in this country there should be so many men and women deprived of the dignity of self-supporting work, unable to meet their financial commitments and plan confidently for the future. It is intolerable that so many are deprived of their right to secure and productive lives and that their families bear an unfair burden of worry, uncertainty, and deprivation. On a national scale, unemployment now constitutes a very serious obstacle to economic growth.

By their very words, Mr. Speaker, the government stands indicted. The evidence is one million unemployed. Every member of this House knows that, as the winter months come and go, this unemployment rate will increase. What is the government's response? The only response it has given is another make-work project, another $150 million of largesse. That $150 million comes from where, Mr. Speaker? It comes from the taxpayers of Canada. This is but a short-term solution.

We need a better manpower strategy, Mr. Speaker, one which will create an economic climate which is conducive to steady growth. We need to create approximately half a million jobs per year, and this projection is valid until approximately the mid-1980's. At the present time we are creating only about one half of the needed jobs. We will never create those jobs, we will never create that climate, by shor term make-work projects. What is needed is a manpower and industrial strategy whereby the private sector is encouraged and in fact given incentives-not handouts, because that is welfare of another kind-so it will not see everything which it produces taxed away.

I want to get to this point a little later, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that today we have stepped over the boundary of fair taxation and reached the position of confiscation. That is the situation in which we, as Canadians, find ourselves today. We are confiscating much of that which belongs to individual

October 26, 1977

The Address-Mr. Epp

Canadians; it is taken by government and redistributed in a very unequal and unfair manner.

As a western Canadian, Mr. Speaker, I ask for how many years have we argued, begged, and pleaded with the government to bring forward an industrial strategy whereby we will be able more equitably to develop our own agricultural products and commodities? Where is the industrial strategy? Instead, Mr. Speaker, we had the Calgary Conference on Western Economic Opportunities. Western aspirations are no closer to reality today under this government than they were at the time that conference was held in 1973. We need to create jobs, Mr. Speaker, permanent jobs, not government handout jobs. But this government is not going to provide those jobs.

As for productivity, all Canadians who have studied this question know that our standard of living is largely dependent on the fact that we are an exporting nation. Seventy per cent of our trade, both imports and exports, is still with our neighbour to the south, this despite the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has attempted to erode the confidence in and the good relationship that we have had with our neighbour to the south. Our cost of manufacturing is from 20 per cent to 25 per cent higher than it is in the United States. Added to this, the United States has other advantages, such as a more southerly latitude and economy of scale with a population ten times that of ours. So at the best of times it is difficult to penetrate that market. As a result we have lost jobs. Why are we not competitive, Mr. Speaker? It is because we have created an environment of high production costs, whether one talks about wages or whether one talks about taxes.

Another factor which is becoming more and more apparent at this time is that the regulatory agencies, both federal and provincial, are constantly encroaching upon the private sector and adding to those costs. The only way we can finance trade at the present time is by the export in raw form of our agricultural products and very often of our national resource commodities. When the world market goes soft, as we keep hearing is the case today, we lose our competitive advantage.

The world recognizes, Mr. Speaker, that we are in great difficulty. There was an article in the Globe and Mail of September 28, 1977, simply entitled "Japan shocks Davis"- that is Premier Davis-"with a stern rebuke over strikes, taxes". The article went on to refer to our labour force, and then had this to say:

The Japanese business leaders cited higher corporate income taxes in Canada as the second most important reason why Japan looks to the United States.

Lack of productivity has also resulted in lack of investor confidence. Where is investment confidence today? Why is it that Canadians do not want to invest in their own country but rather look to the United States as a better place for their capital? Why is there a flight of capital? I say it is largely due to the lack of economic leadership on the part of this government and successive finance ministers.

In the 1960's, Mr. Speaker, we heard it said more and more that profits were too high. In fact we often hear it said that the word "profits" is a dirty word. One simple fact in our economy is that profits create jobs. Again no leadership has been given

by this government in creating that type of climate. The government's response has been to change its minister of finance. Again I say that the emperor who is to lead has been found naked, devoid of leadership.

As for inflation, Mr. Speaker, granted inflation is a factor in every economy of the western industrial world, the fact of the matter is that inflation rates in Canada today are increasing despite controls. Other countries, including the United Kingdom along with their unemployment rate, have a lower rate than we have. Surely we have become the sick man of the international economic community; it is no longer Britain.

We all remember the Prime Minister saying in 1974, "Zap, you're frozen". To my mind, the reason why the anti-inflation regulations have been ineffective is that the government lacks credibility, because it said one thing in a campaign and then, when politically expedient to do so, said something else.

Governments must tell the truth. When they do not, it is the people who suffer and get a jaundiced and wrong view of governments. Therefore they say that all of us cannot be trusted. The biggest losers in this shell game have been the Canadian people.

What has been the result of this lack of leadership? What about the sliding dollar? It is not sliding any more, it has sunk below 90 cents. It has sunk to the 1932 level at the height of the depression. We must remember that the dollar is 90 cents as against a declining American dollar. It has come to the point where a cartoonist like Ben Wicks portrays two people walking down the street: one is about to pick up a piece of paper, and the other one says: "Frank, don't bother, it is only a Canadian dollar."

We are the laughing stock of the industrial community. As a result, because of our heavy international foreign borrowings, those borrowings are becoming more expensive every day.

The government has shown the greatest lack of leadership in government spending. I am referring to governments at all levels. At this time close to 43 cents out of every dollar, which is made in goods and services, is taken by the three levels of government. In order to put it in practical terms, it means that a Canadian worker earning $15,000 a year will pay direct and hidden taxes in the amount of $6,800. That is what it is like to be a Canadian today.

To put it another way: during January, February, March and to the middle of April, he or she will work in order to pay federal and provincial income taxes. He or she will continue working during the rest of April, all of May and half of June to pay the rest of his or her taxes. On June 15 or 16, finally he or she will be entitled to work for themselves. What has happened to incentive? The government is silently sitting by, hoping it will go away like a bad dream or a bad headache.

I see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) is in the House today. I have respect for him, but he should be told that he has a big job to do. Unfortunately he does not have a Prime Minister or a cabinet who are willing to say the things that

October 26, 1977

need to be said, and much more important, are not willing to follow the things that should be said. The Prime Minister is not willing to do this because he is an interventionist into the market place. Ele enjoys it, he wants it, and that is the direction in which he wants to point Canada. All he will do at this point in time, if it is not politically expedient for him to do it, is ease off. The minute it is possible for him to do it politically, he will do it once again.

We have repeatedly heard about the taxpayers, that it is the corporations which are paying the high taxes. The 1975 Canada Year Book indicates that 85 per cent of all working Canadians are individual or salaried earners. These people are the ones who have to pay the shot.

One might say, if we have a 43 per cent level of taxation, that hopefully the in-trust money is being spent well. Is it? What did the Auditor General say in his report? 1 should like to refer to the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1976, which reads in part as follows:

The present state of the financial management and control systems of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada is significantly below the acceptable standards of quality and effectiveness.

Where does the government spend money? The government keeps on asking where we would cut back. In order to give this House an example of where I would cut back, I will refer to an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press and was reprinted by the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. It received wide circulation during the recent Manitoba election. When asked the question: "Who is the largest spender in Canadian advertising dollars", one might say General Motors, Ford, or Proctor and Gamble. Elliott Research determined last year that Proctor and Gamble was No. 1. Who is No. 1 today? Today the government of Canada spends more money on advertising than any single corporation in Canada, without taking into consideration the spending of the Crown corporations. Is that restraint? If one were to add to that the spending in advertising by Air Canada, Canadian National Railways or CN Telecommunications, just to name three, what would be the advertising dollars then? A lot of these programs are compulsory.

I should like to refer back to that article and quote from it in part:

It must come as a bit of shock to discover that the advertising cost of programs such as persuading Canadians that filling out income tax forms-already required by law-can be fun, or telling everyone, at a cost which exceeded that of energy saved, that Environment Canada is really an energy miser after all . ..

Today the Government of Canada consumes more money than does Simpsons-Sears, Bell Canada, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Dominion Stores, Nabisco, Pepsi-Cola, and the Royal Bank of Canada combined to sell their wares. One must remember that these firms are competing businesses. On the other hand, the Canadian Post Office, which has a monopoly, considers it necessary to spend $350,000 to improve its image, a task that would be more readily accomplished if the money were spent to improve service.

One can refer to the ministerial use of aircraft. That was brought forward once again in this session of parliament. The

The Address-Mr. Epp

people of Canada will be conned no longer. They will not be bought by their own money. The evidence of that is what happened in Manitoba during the election last week. Prior to that election the campaign strategy was very simple. The campaign strategy of the Progressive Conservative party, which has now been sworn in as the government of Manitoba, was that we would run on a policy of restraint. For many people that was not a very popular move. They said that people must be given promises. We said that Canadian people, and specifically the people of Manitoba, were not willing to be conned; tell them the truth and they will respond.

Apparently the press did not believe us. On October 3, 1977, an article appeared in the Financial Times of Canada by Roger Newman. That article was entitled: "PCs Hopeful but Unlikely in Manitoba Vote". I should like to quote the last paragraph of that article, which reads as follows:

If the vote was held today, most observers think Manitobans would elect a minority NDP government, with perhaps a weaker Tory contingent as the official opposition and the Liberals as a fairly strong third party. Since no dramatic issues are being debated, the parties could end up in something close to a three-way tie, with the result that a rematch might be necessary within a year.

What is that non-dramatic issue of which Mr. Newman speaks? It is that we said to Manitoba that spending must stop and taxation must be reduced. Also we said that there would be six taxes we would eliminate, one of which was succession duty.

I asked the Minister of Finance the other day whether he would follow the lead of the Manitoba government, whereby a farmer or an owner of a small family owned business would be able to transfer or sell, without the penalty of capital gains, to a close family member once during his lifetime. I am in agreement with that because it would enable the family to retain the family farm or business.

As 1 have said before, we have gone beyond the threshold of fair taxation to confiscation. This government is confiscating the rightful property of Canadian taxpayers. These family farms and businesses have been paid for; taxes have been paid on those farms and businesses, and yet the government wants capital gains. The government complains about youth leaving the farms and not carrying on with their fathers' businesses. The reason is very simple: confiscation.

We must return to living in a society with incentives. We live in a technological age, and we must adjust to that age. The Minister of Finance should reduce government spending on non-productive sectors such as advertising and direct more money into research and development.

Let us put research and development on a better footing in order that the technology with which we can develop can be used for the creation of new jobs in the technological age. My concern today is especially for the transportation industry and for energy.

Not only is the economic situation such that the emperor is naked, he is also devoid of any new ideas with respect to Canadian unity. We will never solve the question of Canadian

October 26, 1977

The Address-Mr. Epp

unity so long as the regions feel they are outside the decisionmaking process in the country. That is what we feel in western Canada. I do not want to speak only as a western Canadian-I want to speak as a Canadian-but there are regions in Canada which feel they are being left out, and the government must wake up to it. There is a close link between the economic stength of the country and the desire of Canadians to remain within the country, and the unity question will have to be solved.

References have also been made in the House to the language law. Let me say clearly to all members here that, as a Manitoban, 1 do not apologize for what has been done in Manitoba because Manitoba has always had the reputation of being an ethnic province, and as ethnics and citizens of that province all we ask for is equality. We do not ask for a special status or for special rights. All we ask for is equality, and it is time that the government woke up to the fact and announced that all Canadians are equal and that there are not some who are more equal than others.

The same thing applies to a referendum or to any new organization on the constitutional level. We want no special deals, no special status for anyone or for any region of Canada. Unity will not be the product or the outgrowth solely of a change in the economic fortunes of Canada or of constitutional changes but, rather, as was said in the throne speech read by Her Majesty:

This discontent in such a wealthy country must find its causes in the human spirit, and it is there also that the unity of the nation must be found.

If 1 were to condemn the government for anything-and I would not even refer to the economic situation which is bleak, and I have painted the picture to describe it, nor to Canadian unity which has been destroyed by the Prime Minister during his ten years in office-it would be for its lack of moral leadership, its lack in human spirit.

I want to quote from the speech given to the Canadian Club on October 17, by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. He said:

The age of the social conscience, social justice and concern seems to have coincided with the age of crime, pornography, mugging and international terrorism. What started out as a liberalization of restrictive social conventions seems to have developed into a dictatorship of licence.

This dictatorship of licence has gripped Canada. It has not only gripped Canada but it has gripped the western world. I do not want to miss any words when I say that one of the reasons for the malaise which we are experiencing today is that the Prime Minister has tried to destroy many of the moral values on which this country was founded because, with a humanistic approach to life man becomes all important, man becomes the only one, he becomes the 1. All values based on Christian principles are set aside once you put I in the centre of things, and this Prime Minister has done it. That is why we are experiencing this malaise.

The Prime Minister has frequently been in the vanguard of change, and, I say very directly to you, change for the worse, not for the better. Under the guise of civil libertarianism, we thought we would gain greater civil liberty, but civil liberty

has been replaced by licence. For these three reasons alone it is high time that the government packed its bags and left because Canada cannot afford another term of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I say to you very clearly: Canadians awake. It is time, and the time will come at the next election.

[ Translation]

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Gaston Isabelle

Liberal

Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great honour for the member for Hull to address the House and have the opportunity to participate in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. First I would like to thank the hon. members for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) and Malpeque (Mr. Wood) for the excellent speeches they have delivered in the House on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. In spite of their limited political experience, they have proved to the House and to the Canadian nation that they know their ridings and that they will be excellent spokesmen for their constituents.

Mr. Speaker, when I heard some of the speeches delivered in this House on the national unity issue, I was deeply shocked and, as a physician, I made a diagnosis. It was more psychiatric like since those speeches, to be more precise, bordered on schizophrenia.

1 also noted that the hon. members who made these speeches committed most of the capital sins, from hatred, envy, anger to jealousy. Surely some hon. members and the next generations will see these hon. members as participants in a candid camera stint. I should like to return to one of my pet subjects, namely the federal presence on the Hull side of the river, or rather in the Francophone part of the national capital region. You are doubtless aware of the climate of uncertainty and skepticism which now exists concerning the federal government intervention in Hull.

From the allegations and comments of the people, we get the impression that the federal government is no longer welcome on the Quebec side of the national capital region, and particularly so since November 15 last. It is therefore important to emphasize again the basic objectives and principles which warrant the presence and action of the federal government within the Hull area. As far as I know, Hull, the Ottawa area, and the province of Quebec as a whole still belong to the Canadian Confederation. At the conference which took place in 1969 and which dealt with the constitutional issue, it was the elected representatives of the whole of Canada, namely the first ministers of Canada, who decided of their own free will to create a national capital with areas from both sides of the Ottawa River.

I therefore invite all those who cried scandal and constitutional rape as soon as the government of Canada showed its presence and even its existence to suggest a more democratic and more constitutional mechanism to enable the Quebec side of the capital area to take advantage of the benefits of being in the national capital region. As the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde) said so well on May 28, 1975, in Hull, it would perhaps be a good idea to put

October 26, 1977

the city of Hull on the calendar of virgins and martyrs to better negate the constant and legitimate demands which have been made by the whole population of Quebec and its elected representatives for the federal administration to be truly present in Quebec, in the Hull area, which demands go back to 1917. It is therefore necessary to stop suggesting that the federal government presence in Hull is only a pious wish or an exaggerated statement on the part of politicians.

The federal government made a commitment and has kept it. It is present in Hull. Not only do we intend to remain there, but throughout the years, we have decided to amplify our presence, to increase our staff, even though the present figures have been somewhat adjusted since the beginning, which means that in the future, there will be more so-called federal buildings in this area, so that despite those who do not want to recognize it, the federal government will assume sole responsibility. This systematic obstruction to the establishment of the federal government in Hull is only a form of shabby and lowly politics. I therefore invite people to be far-sighted and recognize the long-term objectives that are suggested for the establishment of a national capital area on the side of Hull.

You are certainly aware that if we look at the history of the region, before 1969, the National Capital Commission was for all practical purposes the only federal, provincial or municipal agency planning or developing anything on the Quebec side of the national capital area. Despite this technocratic vacuum, the National Capital Commission has implemented the suggestions made by French urbanist Jacques Greber in his development plan for the federal capital. Only in 1969, as I said a moment ago, following the resolutions by the federal-provincial conference on the constitution where the premiers as well as the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) agreed that the cities of Ottawa and Hull and the vicinity form the national capital area, did the governments concerned decide to have the city of Hull become part of the reality of the capital of Canada.

The adoption of that resolution was to allow the Quebec and Canadian governments to work out an operation policy and programs aimed at eliminating the many disparities and equalizing the development opportunities of the Quebec side of the national capital area. It is thus important to recall that already at that moment federal action was aiming first at a real federal presence on both sides of the Ottawa River and, second, at the needs, concerns and requirements of the people of Hull and the area. That cooperation has unfortunately not always been easy. For example, when in 1969 Ottawa decided to expropriate a district located on the Hull Island, some Quebec officials hurried to have that district expropriated by the Quebec government just before the federal expropriation, on the alleged pretext of providing needed space for building Quebec government offices.

Since then, this great Place du Centre project came painstakingly into being but actual construction work was not undertaken until there was a federal commitment to use most of the buildings. Obviously without such federal undertaking, that piece of land would have remained at best a parking site

The Address-Mr. Isabelle

until the year 2000. Our presence and action in Hull is in no way related to an electoral speech full of stale promises. What we are bringing is a massive injection of money into the economy which will amount to $500 million by 1985. A deep sense of respect for other levels of government and people in general pervades our planning and development which is aimed at creating a national capital area for all Canadians while preserving the western Quebec character of Hull. And the principles underlying our work are simple; they are based on a selective idea to create and maintain a capital which symbolizes Canada as a nation.

Mr. Speaker, Hull had to become part of the national capital area, while assuming its role as a western Quebec metropolis if it wished to reap the social and economical benefits which can be derived from such a position. We still want to discuss the planning and development of the National Capital region with the Quebec government. As always, it is important that we set out together our mutual objectives and while building a capital city on both sides of the river, that we respect the will and interests of the various governments of that region, since, in carrying out this important task, the federal government is not an opponent, least of all an enemy, but an essential partner.

If we want to make this project a success, we must keep communications open and establish direct and frank links between the three levels of government as far as current activities are concerned. In this respect I have been rather surprised at the Quebec government's negative response to the regional community of the Outaouais over the past few months, as if the people elected to run this agency were not competent enough to fulfil their responsibilities in the much publicized issue of the filtering plant which incidentally is not over yet. This near control over the decision making process can only make the heavy hand of the bureaucracy appear even heavier at all levels and slow down the process of decisions and consequently the implementation of certain programs which will finally cause tremendous increase in the cost of these projects which will have to be borne by the overburdened local taxpayers.

And if the presence of the federal government, Mr. Speaker, has made itself clearer today, it is because since 1917, as I mentioned earlier, all elected representatives of the county of Hull and parts of that riding as mayors or aldermen have requested the federal government to spend money in their community. Everything started in 1909 with Dr. Fontaine, the then mayor of the city of Hull, who asked Ottawa improvement commission for $5,000 in order to improve the City Hall park. Then it went on, Mr. Speaker, with Mackenzie King who stated on April 6, 1927 his intention to create a federal district commission which was not supposed to restrict its work to the Ottawa side but expand it on the other side of the river as he used to say, then referring to Hull.

In 1956, Mayor Moncion appeared before the Joint Senate and House Committee on the development of the National Capital and stated: "I am pleased to address these justified remarks to the federal district commission on behalf of the

October 26, 1977

The Address-Mr. Isabelle

population of Hull and its city council". He also said that on several occasions the city of Hull had requested the construction of government buildings within its limits and that he was taking the opportunity to reiterate his requests. And to those who are screaming blue murder at the decision taken by federal authorities to erect government buildings on Hull sites and saying that Hull had a labour vocation, the mayor of this town said in 1956: The city of Hull, which was formerly an essentially labouring town is gradually changing in character due to its geography and it is destined to have an increasing number of people whose occupations will be in the government sector.

Mr. Speaker, must I remind the House once more that in 1956, when the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons met, the President of the chambers of commerce of western Quebec said before this committee: The share of federal buildings in the city and the region of Hull is truly pitiful. We have the printing bureau, big deal! And he went on to say: Does federal district mean that all or nearly all federal buildings will necessarily be on the Ontario side? If the federal district is homogeneous and serves the same purpose, why such discrimination? He wanted ten or more federal buildings on the Quebec side because if a series of federal buildings were to be built along the Ontario side of the Ottawa River, a series of similar buildings would have to be built on the Quebec side. And if one looks behind the National Library, one can see that Hull has completely changed since 1969.

I could quote some statements by former Hull mayor Marcel D'Amour. I could quote from former mayors like Mr. Alphonse Moussette, Mr. Raymond Brunet, Mr. Adeodat Lambert, Mr. Armand Turpin, Mr. Thomas Moncion, Mr. Henri Gauthier, Dr. Fontaine, Mr. Jean-Marie Seguin, Mr. Marcel D'Amour and even the present mayor, Mr. Rocheleau, who, as I said earlier, have all advocated these massive investments on the Quebec side of the Ottawa region. And Mr. Marcel D'Amour, then mayor of Hull, stated to the committee on the constitution in 1971: We believe that Hull, like Ottawa has the same vocation as a federal capital. And I wish to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that contrary to what one might think, even though Ottawa is the centre of the federal government, it still has the same duties, the same obligations as any other Ontario municipality. Now, Hull might become the centre of the federal government while remaining directly under the province of Quebec's jurisdiction. Its institutions would still come under Quebec's jurisdiction just as those of Ottawa come directly under the jurisdiction of the Ontario government.

And I might quote other evidence, particularly the statements made by Mr. Jean-Marie Seguin who said precisely, as we know, that under the order pursuant to article 16 of the constitution, Ottawa is the capital of Canada. However, we believe we are included in the national capital of this country. We are convinced of that despite all legal descriptions. This is what we think.

Mr. Speaker, one can often hear on the Quebec side that people do not want the federal government's interference or even its presence but I have gathered some statistics which have also been compiled by other media and I quote for instance from Le Droit which carried out a survey, on May 2, 1969, thanks to CKCH news service. Those who were responsible for this survey have published in the paper of that day a very relevant question, which might be of some help to those who are preparing the referendum in Quebec. The question reads as follows: Should Hull separate from Quebec? The question is clear enough and 83 per cent of all respondents said yes.

Second question: Would Hull benefit more from a federal district? Eighty-four per cent said yes.

1 also had my own poll, which 1 would call a "home-made poll". On February 12, 1973, I asked a question which I sent to all electors in the federal riding of Hull. Are you in favour of regrouping the municipalities in the Hull-Ottawa area under a tripartite administration, namely federal, Quebec and Ontario? I must say that 8,159 persons sent in a reply, out of 26,616 heads of households to whom cards were sent; in other words, 32 per cent of them answered. For a poll of that kind, it was a record because few get a 32 per cent rate of respondents with that type of questionnaire. So, back to the first question: Are you in favour of regrouping the municipalities in the Hull-Ottawa area?

Mr. Speaker, 82 per cent said yes. The second question is not important because I asked: How would you call that kind of district? I must say that 26 per cent supported the national capital district. Some may say that this is ancient history, but according to a survey made by station CKCH in October 1975, during an open line program, the question was: "Would you favour a federal district or not?" An 86 per cent majority was in favour.

And referring to the earlier suggestion that for many the federal government's presence in Hull is a cultural nuisance in terms of assimilation and so on, a scientific survey was made in 1970 during the Hull mayoralty election. That survey was done by the Le sondage d'opinions du Quebec. Question No.

10 was asking for the surveyed persons' opinion on the erection of federal buildings. Ninety per cent of the people surveyed stated that the erection by the federal government of office and other buildings in Hull was a good thing. Such is the will of the people in Hull. In addition, there are those who suggest daily that we should build some Great Wall of China between Ottawa and Hull. They are far from knowing the facts. Here are the facts, Mr. Speaker.

I shall not speak for the western Quebec constituencies that border mine, in other words Gatineau and Pontiac. I shall leave it to my colleagues to elaborate on the figures. But in the constituency of Hull representing the western part, Touraine, Aylmer, Deschenes, and the city of Hull, I must say that 10,385 Hull people are working in Ontario, which includes the federal government, and 2,485 work partly in Ottawa, partly in Hull. This accounts for a total 14,645 people working in Ontario. Adding the other 3,000, we get nearly 17,000 or

October 26, 1977

18,000 people working for the federal government and in Ontario. The practical conclusion therefore is that whether we like it or not, we depend on Ontario and Ottawa as a federal capital for employment in the Hull area.

To the present Quebec government which has been regularly sending its ministers in the Hull area to cock a snook at and to make fun of the federal government by making all sorts of statements I would not dare repeat here because they are not serious, I would say that it should go back to the history of that area which has been so long forgotten by Quebec and will still be forgotten by the present government, for we are too far away from Quebec City.

What the Quebec government wants now is a repetition of the Plains of Abraham drama, perhaps not on the military but on the intellectual field. That is why they come traipsing in Hull. They come here to flatter the people and promise them things and funds the federal government has already given them or is going to give them under shared-cost programs. They also forgot to tell them that in the last nine or ten years the federal government has given $950 million to civil servants who work in Ottawa but live in Hull and spend their money there. Everybody knows that such a massive input of money in a given area does much for the industrial and economic development of that area. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that for a long time I have encouraged my colleagues from the cabinet and this House to understand the history of the national capital area so that eventually we amend section 16 of the constitution to include Hull and the area, in other words the municipalities within the national capital area so they will be part of the nation's capital.

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago the federal government amended its legislation on the reorganization of its departments when it deleted under the mention "head office" the word "Ottawa" and added the words "the area of the national capital". So, if we belong to the national capital area and if we are part of the federal capital of Canada, I do not see why we could not amend section 16 to become a "national capital". We should demonstrate to the nation what the government really wants to do as concerns biculturalism and bilingualism and even transportation-to become a kind of laboratory, the place where we experiment things before we implement them throughout Canada and this should be done within the national capital area that should be the showcase of federalism as it has been understood since 1867.

Mr. Speaker, we have been too long in the shadow. The Hull area has been for too long in a state of stagnation to go back to it, but I am afraid that is the aim of the present Quebec government. But the people from Hull and the area are confident because they know they are in the shadow of the Peace Tower and that since Confederation the protector of that small minority has always been and will always be the father of the nation, the federal government. A capital, Mr. Speaker, is not only the seat of government but also the symbol of the power and unity of a country, the home of the

The Address-Mr. Symes

national spirit and we can achieve this only by amending section 16 of the constitution, something which will not require us to go to London. An order in council would be enough.

So 1 hope I got the message across. I know that many members from other constituencies do not really understand what is happening. Everybody is confused when the matter of the National Capital Commission is brought up. As the Fullerton report said, we are overgoverned. No generation will tolerate the political confusion which prevails in the national capital region, on both sides of the river.

I hope that future generations will cut through in order to rationalize this whole system which is an undescribable mess. I therefore invite my colleagues to address themselves to the problem of the federal presence in Hull and to the problem of the national capital region, to become more familiar with the situation so that when the matter is brought up in the future they may be in a position to make a judgment.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Permalink
LIB

John Napier Turner

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):

Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Permalink
NDP

Reginald Cyril Symes

New Democratic Party

Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):

Mr. Speaker, I see that by a recorded vote which will be due shortly the time allocated to me has been cut in half. However, I wish to mention a few important points in this very important debate on the future of our country. In the Speech from the Throne the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) outlined plans and directions where his government hopes to take the Canadian nation.

My question to the people of Canada is: what confidence can we as a people have in the Trudeau government considering the economic and political crisis in which we now find ourselves? After all, this is the same Prime Minister who has been governing Canada for the past nine years. What has been the result?

We have the highest unemployment since the great depression, 8.3 per cent of our labour force out of work, over one million Canadians. For every 100 unemployed, there are only four full-time jobs available. Inflation is running at 8.3 per cent, despite the anti-inflation program. We have a cash deficit of $8 billion, and the Canadian dollar has sunk to its lowest level since the depression. As well, our economy is only operating at 92 per cent of its capacity, meaning a loss of some $ 16 billion a year in goods and services not produced.

To top it ail off, we now have a separatist government elected in the province of Quebec which is determined to break up the country. All this has occurred under the leadership of the Prime Minister who promised Canadians in 1968 a just society and a united Canada.

What justice is there to the unemployed nickel worker in Sudbury, or to the unemployed construction worker and his family in Sault Ste. Marie? What sense of unity is there for the people of Atlantic Canada who have experienced chronically high unemployment year after year, and indeed to the young Quebecois who finds himself out of a job because his province equally experiences high unemployment?

October 26, 1977

The Address-Mr. Symes

After nearly a decade of Liberal rule this country is on the verge of political breakup and economic collapse. It did not happen by accident. We did not slide into this unaware. Many of the causes of the crisis we are facing today are a direct result of the policies of the Trudeau government.

What are the causes of this record unemployment? Surely a large part of the blame has to be the fact of our dependence on a resource based industry in oil or minerals or pulp and paper. We are now at the mercy of multinational corporations which manipulate world markets and prices. One has to look no further than the situation at Sudbury with the INCO Company. We have a lack of Canadian ownership and control. Ninety-nine per cent of our oil industry is foreign owned, as is 60 per cent of our mineral industry. No wonder investment decisions and layoff decisions are beyond our control.

We also have in this country a lack of industrial planning. We are still to a large degree hewers of wood and drawers of water. Jobs, of course, are where raw materials are manufactured. What has happened so often in Canada is that Canadians take the raw materials out of the ground and ship them to another country to be manufactured. It is in that other country where jobs are created. Unless we reverse that trend and get more processing and manufacturing of our raw materials here, we will never solve our chronic problem of high unemployment. Indeed, what will happen to the people of northern Ontario when the iron ore, nickel, copper and gold start running out?

The third reason for our high unemployment is the deliberate policy on the part of the Prime Minister and the cabinet of dampening the economy and allowing unemployment to rise as a means of attacking inflation. Between 1974 and 1976 the economy lost $25 billion and more than 600,000 man years of employment because of this kind of policy. Under the antiinflation program more than $300 million has been taken from the pockets of workers through wage rollbacks, and when workers have less to spend on goods and services, factories have to lay off employees and other enterprises are forced to close. Today our factories are operating at only 80 per cent of capacity, business investment is down, and bankruptcies are a record high. Is it any wonder that unemployment has reached such levels?

The cost of unemployment is enormous not only to the unemployed themselves, and to their families, but also to the average working Canadian taxpayer. Unemployment insurance payments for the first half of 1977 totalled $2.1 billion, an increase of 14 per cent from 1976, and the total cost this year is projected to be more than $4 billion. The government has to supplement the UIC fund with taxpayers' money. Further, the government has lost $17 billion in tax revenues. Since the unemployed do not pay the taxes they would be called upon to pay if they were at work, working Canadians are called upon to pay higher taxes to make up the difference. In 1976 every man, woman and child lost $520 in goods and services not produced because of unemployment.

The social costs of unemployment are equally serious- family tension, marital break-up, alcoholism, increased crime and so on. Added to this one must take into account the disillusionment of young unemployed people-46 per cent of the unemployed are under 25 years of age. The cost of unemployment is so great that unless the government takes immediate and positive action there is clearly the prospect of a terrible crisis in the months ahead. Our party has outlined in this House and elsewhere an emergency economic program to create around 300,000 jobs. Details of this program have been made known on other occasions and I do not have time to repeat them now. Suffice it to say we would redirect some of the provisions in the last budget-redirect that $1.5 billion in tax concessions which the minister gave to the large corporations into personal income tax cuts to get Canadians buying more, and factories upping production. Our program for job creation is self-financing. It would not mean more deficit financing or an increase in the tax burden imposed on working Canadians.

In addition to this emergency job creation program it is imperative we develop a long term industrial strategy for Canada so that jobs are not tied to the boom and bust cycle of our resource industries. We in northern Ontario know what boom and bust means. We have seen it decade after decade. We are all aware of the plight of the 3,500 people who are going to be forced out of work by the International Nickel Company, but I say to the people of Northern Ontario that this is only a foretaste of what will happen unless we can devise an effective industrial strategy. If we are shocked by the INCO lay-offs we shall be in for more shocks in the copper, zinc and related industries in the absence of a mineral development policy.

In 1974 the federal and provincial governments published a paper entitled "Toward a Mineral Policy for Canada" in which they outlined strategy in terms of increased diversification, processing and manufacturing of minerals here in Canada, of a greater tax return from these resources and in terms of conservation. Three years ago that policy was formulated. What has happened since then? We are not advancing. I think of Falconbridge Nickel, for example, which is now exporting nickel to Norway for refining and processing. I recall that in 1975, the Conservative provincial government of Ontario, under great pressure from the multinational mineral industry, deferred for five years a tax provision to the effect that multinationals could not deduct the cost of processing Ontario minerals abroad into account when preparing their statements of provincial mining tax owed. This was a five-year postponement of a provision designed to encourage the processing of minerals here in Canada to create jobs for Canadians.

If this was not bad enough, the Conservative government in Ontario gave Falconbridge Nickel, which is processing nickel in Norway, a four-year exemption from a new Ontario requirement that ores be processed here in Canada.

Falconbridge and the other companies always threaten they will shift their operations and investment elsewhere if taxes are

October 26, 1977

too high. But it is evident from what I have said that the government has no coherent development strategy to require the mineral industry to accept Canadian development priorities. My suggestion is that we set up a federal-provincial mineral export planning council to co-ordinate government bargaining and planning with respect to this industry so that there will be no repetition of the INCO lay offs in Sudbury and elsewhere.

What was the other policy objective? It was to secure a greater return to the people of Canada from taxes for the resources which belong to them. What a joke that has been! The mineral industry has got off very lightly compared to other sectors of our economy in terms of taxation. Eric Kierans has demonstrated in his report to the Manitoba government that between 1965 and 1970 they were given $2.5 billion in tax concessions. And what have we to show for that? International Nickel developing mines in Guatemala and Indonesia and laying off Canadian workers! We have got to end this kind of corporate tax concession and impose a tax regime which ensures that development occurs here in this country and that jobs are provided for Canadians.

There have been too many band-aid approaches to job creation in this country. Canada Works and DREE grants are not going to do what is needed. We need a co-ordinated plan for industrial development. We must reverse this trend to exporting all our raw materials; they must be manufactured and processed here in Canada.

I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):

That the amendment be amended by inserting immediately after the word "markets", the following words:

"all of which is clearly demonstrated by the Government's failure to develop a particular strategy for Canada's nickel industry which has resulted in INCO's recently announced lay-offs at Sudbury, Thompson and Port Colborne,"

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Permalink
LIB

John Napier Turner

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):

It being 5.30 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section (4) of Standing Order 38, to interrupt these proceedings and to put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the amendments before the House. The question is on the amendment to the amendment (Mr. Symes). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

No.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Permalink
LIB

John Napier Turner

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):

All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Yea.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Permalink

October 26, 1977