Mr. Woolliams:

I suppose everybody is entitled to one enemy. As the former leader of the New Democratic Party said, who has not got an enemy? When he asked that, a fellow stood up at the back of the hall and said "I have not got any enemies". When Mr. Douglas asked him why he had none, he said, "I outlived them all!" I continue:

Despite Mexican constitutional provisions that no one may be held incommunicado and that everyone has the immediate right to an attorney, such provisions are usually ignored or blurred in practice by prosecutors and police.

This violation of constitutional rights does not invalidate the case under Mexican law.

In conclusion, I would hope the recommendations I have made this afternoon asking that a strong petition be delivered, asking that the matter be brought before the human rights and civil rights bodies of the United Nations, asking that we ourselves should make a study of the situation in a white paper, will be accepted by the government and endorsed by all members of the House. I am certain that if presented in the

right light the grievances I have outlined, grievances which affect many young Canadians and Canadian families, will be remedied by goodwill and international understanding.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):

Mr. Speaker, this is an historical moment in my life, naturally. It is the first time I have had the privilege to speak in this chamber. In a way I feel partly at home because of the general ecclesiastical look of the place and from the fact that the traditional place of holding Parliament was an old abbey. I have not seen anyone beginning to say their brevaries here but the feeling of being in an abbey is part of this place. I have noticed that a few things are not carried through in the traditional ecclesiastical way, though; one is that the choir, which I would say is above you, Mr. Speaker, gets very little chance to sing, and another is that the congregation in general is not as well behaved as in most churches I have attended.

Historically again, I would like to say that I am the first person from my family, which emigrated from Ireland some 150 years ago, who has had this privilege to stand here. It is also historical in the sense that I am the first representative to speak from the new riding of Saskatoon East, which is cut off from the old riding of Saskatoon-Humboldt. That riding and its former member have both disappeared into history.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Ogle:

Saskatoon East is a small riding territorially. It takes in only that part of Saskatoon that lies east of the Saskatchewan River, and a little fringe of rural ground around the city. Many hon. members, like myself, availed themselves of the free ride the Canadian government offered us to attend the funeral of our former prime minister, the Right Hon. John Diefen'oaker, who is buried now within the riding of Saskatoon East. Many tributes have been paid to Mr. Diefenbaker in these last days, and rightly so. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) suggested his spirit was still within this room. That, I am sure, is true. But I should like to lay aside, once and for all, a rumour which was quite widely circulated in the west. The rumour that something would happen at the tomb on the third day is completely false. I can vouch for that because I actually live only about 250 yards from the tomb of Mr. Diefenbaker. I am watching it carefully.

Hon. members visiting Saskatoon that day, including many who were doing so for the first time, were in the centre of one of the institutions that our province holds in high esteem, the University of Saskatchewan. At the present time there would be at the University of Saskatchewan something like 10,000 students who come not only from Saskatchewan but from many areas of Canada. We are proud of our university, we are proud of its staff and we are proud of those who go to classes there.

I would like also to say that in Saskatoon East I do not want anybody to think that we are lacking energy simply because the minister of energy represents Saskatoon West. As a matter of fact, we have plenty of energy and the minister of energy

October 15, 1979

himself lives within our constituency. Now, I am old enough to know, and I like to think I have faith enough to believe, that there is always the possibility of a conversion, and although the minister of energy and the member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has been a long-standing friend of mine for many years, I do believe that at this time he should have a bit of a conversion, particularly with the stand he is now taking with regard to the dismantling of PetroCan.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Ogle:

In my nomination speech and all through the campaign that I carried out for many months I stated in that first speech, and many times afterward, that it was my intention to defend human life from its conception until its natural end. In doing so I tried to lay down quite simply the fact of my basic belief in human rights which has been expressed by many members of this House already in this session. My basic belief is that each human being has been given the right to life and that this right continues until they naturally die. These rights are sometimes of an individual nature and sometimes of a collective nature. They ought not to be infringed upon at any time.

Now, both in our country and in the world infringement of human rights continues. During that short space of time that we human beings have to live on this planet, you and I, Mr. Speaker, and all others have somehow or other to struggle and fight to see that the rights of all human beings are safeguarded, and one of the rights that I consider to be basic to each of us is the right to health. That right encompasses and takes into account all the other human living conditions that are necessary to make it possible for a person to live as a healthy person. And when 1 speak of health I speak not only of the physical health which we all hope to have, but also of the psychological, moral, spiritual and emotional health which makes it possible for a human being to live as a human being and, more important, makes it possible for a nation to live as a healthy nation and the world to live as a healthy community of nations. So when I speak of health, I do not speak merely of the medical state which so frequently is used as the whole standard; 1 speak of the whole integrated reality that makes up the well-being of all people.

As 1 have said, it is one of my basic personal convictions that the right to health is one of the most important rights we have as human beings, and that if we as Canadian citizens want really to make a mark at the United Nations it is important that we show the way with a model of ourselves rather than with a pointing of the finger at others who have so far not reached that level of health.

It was basically because of this that 1 was disappointed in the Speech from the Throne. 1 found quite quickly that there was not a single mention of health or the social principles and bases which are needed to bring about a healthy society. The question of health and more specifically the question of medical care have in no way been totally settled in this country. A

The Address-Mr. Ogle

former member of Parliament of my party, Tommy Douglas, said this past weekend in Toronto that he believes that there is a grave danger for our country because the medical care system we now have is under serious pressure and could, in a sense, disintegrate. In the next few minutes I would like to direct some of my remarks to that particular problem and crisis. I agree that it is one of the main problems in our country today.

In passing 1 will say that the right to health is not listed as such among the rights of the United Nations, but in article 25 a much broader stand, what I like to think of as rights across the board, was stated as follows:

Every human being has the right to a standard of living adequate to ensure his health and well-being, as well as those of his family-particularly as regards their need for food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, as well as the necessary social services...

In May, 1977 at the World Health Assembly our country went on record when it adopted the global health goal, which is as follows;

That the main social targets of governments and the World Health Organization in the coming decades should be the attainment by all citizens of the world by the year 2000 of a level of health that will permit them to lead a socially and economically productive life.

I personally feel we should keep that goal before ourselves all the time.

In the coming years there will be many areas of health about which I would like to speak. One of them will be the whole question of human nutrition and food. 1 have lived part of my life in the developing world. I have lived with starving people whose main problem was lack of food, but I think that wc and people like ourselves who live with bounty but who many times are overfed and undernourished must seriously look into the whole question of food as it is used and eaten in our country. We must look critically at artificial foods and ingredients which make "natural" food anything but natural food.

On the question of medicare once more, I have heard various speakers in the past week in this House refer to medicare. Many of them claimed that they had a great deal to do with its founding, but I personally had the experience of living very close to the heart of the medicare crisis of 1962 in Saskatchewan when the first universal medicare plan in North America came into effect. The battle began on July 1 of that year and continued until July 23. There was a basic tearing apart of many people because of the intensity of that head-on struggle, but it finally resulted in a signed declaration in Saskatoon on July 23 which gave the province of Saskatchewan the first medicare plan in North America.

At that time I was younger than I am today, of course, but by a particular accident of fate I was living directly between the two sides. The government of Saskatchewan was headquartered in the Bessborough Hotel, and the medical profession was headquartered in the medical building just a few hundred yards down the street. Directly in the centre of that was the old Catholic Centre of which I used to be the director. During those 23 days I literally lived in no man's land.

190

October 15, 1979

The Address-Mr. Ogle

However, at the end of the 23 days there had been a basic social change in the history of our country. I feel now that those 23 days had a great influence on my life in relation to many other social questions. It was an education to be there and to see that finally social change of a basic nature came about only when a group of people had in themselves a vision and, more than a vision, the courage to bring about that vision even though everyone seemed to be against them.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Ogle:

From that beginning in Saskatchewan in 1962 the notion of a medicare scheme spread to other provinces. However, that came after. Because there was a problem of magnitude-medicare would affect everybody-a former prime minister, now deceased, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, made an historic decision and appointed in 1961 Mr. Justice Emmett Hall to study the health needs of Canadians. I believe the resulting report should seriously be looked at again by all Canadians because that document outlines the basics of medicare.

Some of the recommendations in that report have been put into effect, but many have never yet been attempted. There are visions in that document which have not really come to light anywhere as yet, but I invite one and all to look again at that document. In the document there were four basic principles which were necessary to have a medicare scheme function. The first was that there should be comprehensive coverage; everyone should be in the scheme. The second principle was that there should be universal availability; that it would be possible for everybody to receive health care. The third was that there should be portable benefits; one could travel from one place to another and still be taken care of. Finally, it should be administered by a central, non-profit administration. That has worked, more or less, in different places and in different ways, but in the last year or so I feel that obvious cracks have begun to appear in the system. Doctors are now opting out, which has a different wording in different places. There is double billing or something else, which is to say that the system is not being followed. Premiums are now going to be charged in Newfoundland, for instance, which again goes against the very basic nature of the medicare idea.

When things like this begin to happen, we have a dangerous situation on our hands. To draw an analogy, the four principles to which 1 referred could be regarded as something like the legs of a chair. If one leg of a chair was shorter than the others, the chair would be wobbly and a very uncomfortable place to sit. If one began to cut the legs so that a balance could be obtained by giving up a part of one of the legs, the chair really would not become balanced. A more critical situation would develop, finally causing the person sitting on the chair- and I do not know what words I can use in the House-to fall to the floor. That is what will happen with the medicare scheme and plan unless something of a drastic nature is done to stop the erosion that is taking place.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Ogle:

Now I should like to quote from the speech which Tommy Douglas gave in Toronto this weekend in which he expressed ideas that are very close to mine. 1 should like to state the ideas of a person for whom I have great respect and who, in total truth, can be called the father of medicare, namely, Mr. Douglas. He said, and it is true, that the majority of doctors across Canada are operating under medicare plans. He said also that if fee schedules are not adequate under provincial plans, then fair schedules should be negotiated between the provinces and the doctors. There is no point in saying that all doctors are unjust, that is just not true, but they should be given fair fee schedules.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Ogle:

Mr. Douglas also said that there should be no opting out. That was a very clear principle in the Hall report.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Ogle:

Another thing that Mr. Douglas said, and which I feel is a very good point, is that if a doctor wants to opt out, then he should be allowed to do so, but he should opt right out and not use the scheme to get part of what he wants and something else to get some more of what he wants. The vast majority of doctors will remain with the scheme and receive an adequate income for their services, but if they opt out, then, I suggest, they should do without the public services which they frequently use under the medical care plan. That is a very serious point and one which I hope this government will take to heart. I hope that the government will ensure that that practice stops under the present legislation.

There are certain areas of health care which I think deserve special attention. I will pass over them quickly. I feel that health care in the whole area of industry is a point to which this government will have to pay special attention. In the area of health care, psychiatric care in the penitentiary system, special notice will have to be taken by the government. Odyssey, a group of inmates at Millhaven working for constructive, non-violent change, produced a working paper in August of this year alleging that medical and psychiatric neglect and abuse are rampant in Canadian penitentiaries. That should be dealt with immediately by the government.

Then there is the whole problem of the Indian native population. A serious injustice is being done to these people because of the appallingly inferior level of health care being provided to the native communities. The average life expectancy is 10 to 20 years less for a native; health and mortality is two to three times as high as the national average; their caloric intake is well below the national average; the number of doctors and nurses caring for them is well below the national average.

In the new charter which Mr. Hall produced the following is stated:

There is clearly an overriding national interest in the health of Canadians wherever they reside. We are a mobile people and illness knows no provincial boundaries nor other differences... What the commission recommends is that... as a nation we now take the necessary legislative, organizational, and

October 15, 1979

financial decisions to make all the fruits of the health sciences available to all our residents without hindrance of any kind. All our recommendations are directed toward this objective.

That paper is 15 years old but it is still extremely relevant.

As 1 only have a few moments left, may I recount a story in summing up and leave with the House something on which to reflect. The story has to do with neighbourliness and who is our neighbour. 1 will tell it as it is oulined in the Gospel according to Saint Luke.

The question of who is my neighbour and how must I care for him is an old one. According to the Gospel, a lawyer asked Jesus one day, in an attempt to justify himself, "And who is my neighbour?". Jesus replied that a man was once on his way down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell into the hands of thieves. They took all he had, beat him and then made off, leaving him half dead. Now, a priest happened to be travelling down the same road, but when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. In the same way, a Levite who came to the place saw him and passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan traveller who came upon him was moved with compassion when he saw him. He went up and bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them. He then lifted him on his own mount, carried him to the inn and looked after him. Next day, he took out two denarii and handed them to the innkeeper. "Look after him," he said, "and on my way back I will make good any extra expense you have." Which of these three do you think proved himself a neighbour to the man who fell into the thieves' hands? The lawyer answered, "The one who took pity on him." Jesus said to him, "Go, and do the same yourself."

It is an old story, a new story, the same story about three groups of people involved. The first group consisted of the thieves who came upon this person. Their principle of life was: What is yours is mine. So they took all he had.

An hon. Mlember: That is the NDP all right.

No, the Conservatives.

Mr. Ogle:

The second group of people consisted of the priest and the Levite, officially good people going down to the temple to pray. They saw the man, but he had a problem, he was half dead and this might make them unclean so that they could not pray, the law would not let them pray. Their principle of life was: What is mine is mine. But the poor Samaritan did not know all those rules; all he knew was that there was a person in distress, a person in need. So he stopped, and not knowing it all, picked him up, put him on his animal and looked after him. The last person's principle of life was: What is mine is ours. That is what I believe.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):

Mr. Speaker, let me add to those who have already joined in this debate my congratulations to you on your election as Speaker in the House of Commons. Should I ever transgress the rules in the House, please be assured that it will only be because of my

The Address-Mr. de Corneille unfamiliarity with the rules and customs, not because of any intention to violate the established procedures or to challenge the dignity of the House or of your office. May I also add these same sentiments in my congratulations to the Deputy Speaker on his preferment.

Indeed, I intend to do my utmost to avoid weakening and in fact to enrich the traditions and attainments of the House of Commons, which not only represents but embodies the very right to freedom. Even though, as can be seen in another important historical document, we feel that right is self-evident, a large segment of the world thinks otherwise. In fact, some of us have seen the rights of individuals savagely crushed in the Nazi holocaust. A calculated and meticulously executed genocide took place in that part of the world which claimed to be the cradle of culture. Six million Jews, and many more millions of non-Jews, perished. The most fundamental right of the individual, the right to live, was trampled massively and scornfully.

Many of the people who live in Canada today have tasted bitterly of that catastrophe of the holocaust either by the loss of loved ones who were its victims or who died sacrificially in the course of efforts by the armed services to swamp out this monstrous evil which inflicted such vast insult upon the dignity of the human person.

Unfortunately, mankind's torments did not end with the holocaust. On the contrary: the Nazi holocaust marked the starting point for a series of diabolical communist genocides, to which must be added the abominable carnages of reactionary rightist despots who were just as rapacious and cynical about the freedom and rights of man. We witnessed with horror the spread of contempt for the foundations of freedom and democracy. Because of that, the House of Commons constitutes a challenge of the spirit of man against those forces which, on this earth, would scorn the right to life and its sacred nature.

To be a member of the Parliament of Canada, Mr. Speaker, is therefore the highest privilege that one's fellow Canadians can bestow upon one. I am proud to be included among my distinguished colleagues in the House. I am grateful for this privilege which the people of Eglinton-Lawrence have bestowed upon me, and I am mindful that I am walking in the path and in the footsteps of individual predecessors, predecessors from my riding including the Hon. Donald Fleming, a former minister of finance, and more recently his successor, a distinguished former minister of finance, secretary of state for external affairs and, latterly, president of the privy council, Mitchell Sharp. I shall do my best to represent all of the people of Eglinton-Lawrence in the same way as my predeces-

October 15, 1979

The Address-Mr. de Corneille

sors did, irrespective of the political affiliations of my constituents.

In speaking to the resolution expressing our appreciation to His Excellency the Governor General, I should like to pay my respects to the mover and seconder of this motion. I should like to add to their observations that, as 1 heard the Speech from the Throne, I saluted its reference to the intention of the government to take certain steps which 1 believe would add to a series of reforms to parliamentary government which have been under way for years. I make particular, favourable reference to the government's announced intention to provide members of parliament as individuals with additional opportunity to work more effectively on behalf of their constituents by giving greater attention to private members' bills. The last government had already done much to help members be more effective parliamentarians by making it possible for them to improve their facilities and staff and by allowing television to report the events which take place in this House.

I was also happy to see reference in the throne speech to the establishment of a select committee to enquire fully into the special needs of handicapped and disabled Canadians. The human rights of these fellow Canadians are easily passed over because all too often they are out of sight and, therefore, out of mind.

1 also was pleased to note that special attention was paid to strengthen the role of the voluntary sector in our society. Although 1 have worked in the fields of commerce and finance myself, most of my subsequent career has been dedicated to service in non-governmental organizations, or N.G.O.'s, as they are called; in the service of the church; in the League for Human Rights of B'nai B'rith, and so forth. I have personally witnessed the tremendous contribution such voluntary organizations make, at no cost to the taxpayer. These organizations deserve encouragement, whether their orientations are spiritual, humanitarian, cultural, athletic, philanthropic, or whatever.

Although 1 rejoice to hear these references in the Speech from the Throne, it disappoints me that many of these reforms will lead only to the setting up of committees rather than to action. It sounds like "committees" rather than "commitment". It is, therefore, with deep regret that 1 have to say that although 1 wanted to be optimistic, although I had hoped against hope that I would discern some real progress, some real direction, 1 must now admit to profound disappointment.

The so-called program presented by the government of what it has in store for us fulfils my previous fears of what might happen if we had a Tory government. My analysis and conclusions have not had to be hasty. As members of Parliament we have had a long time, five months, to make our observations, albeit from a distance and through a glass darkly, but now with the throne speech at last face to face. What we see is a government of evasion; it is bland, it is blank, it is empty and void. I have searched deeply into my soul. I have asked myself, is this the kind of Speech from the Throne worthy of a new minority government? Is this speech adequate enough as a basis for legislation or for policy, or as a guide or a plan, or even an outline, as we cross the threshold of the 1980s? What

I find is a vapid, vacuous evasion of the problems of the world and of the challenges to our nation.

At a time when the world is shaken by revolutions and genocide, by oil shortages and arbitrary price hikes, by monetary instability and inflation, by international power plays and Third and Fourth World hunger and destitution, and at a time when our country, under pressure from these external forces, is in need of reassurance of sound policies on energy, interest rates and employment, we listen to the throne speech and wonder whether we are listening to a government that is on another planet. I have been searching my soul, as 1 know millions of Canadians have, and have wondered, after this long time of waiting since the election, whether the intervening time has possibly been used for anything more than to allow the pirates to divide up the political spoils at the captain's table while our Canadian ship of state is floundering on a troubled sea of world tensions in violent economic storms.

Imagine my amazement-our amazement as parliamentarians-to hear the pledge of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) in the Speech from the Throne that his policy is "to make my ministers more responsible to you". What inconsistency, what irony, what a paradox! How can they be more responsible to us when for months on end they did not call Parliament and would not give account to us? During all this time the ministers have not been responsible to us in this House nor in the other place. Does this long abstinence from parliamentary government set a precedent, or give any example, or lend any credibility to the principle of making "my ministers more responsible to you"? Hardly, do we feel, have they been responsible to this House.

As was the case for many hon. members, October 9 was the first time 1 ever laid eyes on many of these ministers since the election on May 22, and we had dissolution of Parliament in March. It has taken from May to October before we get our first chance to ask these responsible ministers to give an account. This is a jest. It is a travesty. Some of the ministers still have not had their first turn to speak, to give any account, and we are half way into October.

Most of the backbenchers will not have a chance to ask questions regarding problems in their ridings to these "accountable ministers" until next year. Is this consistent with the stated intent in the speech "to make my ministers more responsible to you", ministers who have not had to give account since May 22, except to the media which has nobly tried to squeeze from this dry rind some content which members of Parliament have yet had no chance to do? Is that a sincere and genuine concern for parliamentary reform, to keep the House closed down and shut while we get government by secret meetings behind closed doors in remote and comfortable retreats where the prying eyes of the dangerous press and members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition could not hear or speak, question or get a reply?

Yes, I am worried by the Speech from the Throne, and I lack confidence in the government that authored it. For exam-

October 15, 1979

pie, what are we told will be the government policy for energy? While in opposition, those hon. members who now form the government had endless months, nay years, to formulate such a policy. But they frittered that time away, those years and years and years, tearing down the policy of the last government, criticizing, nagging, carping and complaining. Their energy went into tearing down the energy policy. No wonder all they now have in their hands are reams of notes on how to tear down and destroy. Destroy PetroCan. Destroy our arrangements with Mexico and Venezuela. Destroy our federal international responsibility and involvement in offshore rights.

Since the election they have had months to do their work, and what do we learn from the throne speech? There is not a word in the speech about PetroCan, the single most important agent the Government of Canada possesses to protect us with regard to the most critical issue we face. This would be a forgiveable oversight if the government had not broken our energy mast in the conflicting orders that have been shouted from its crew members as to whether to raise or drop the sails-sale of PetroCan, no sales, half sales, have a sale, but only where crew members can buy-and as the sails go up and down they are being torn to shreds. They will not catch the wind and take us anywhere but down into the deep. It is a profligate destruction of our heritage. Our country is up and down for sale.

Yes, it is a policy of evasion. They evade the issue with smiles and chuckles while we flounder and our energy mast is splintered and broken. We are a country divided and confused about PetroCan, about energy prices which are not resolved. For this reason prices have already been set and have soared for our winter fuel for homes, transportation and industry, because the middlemen could not wait. It is too late now. The government has failed to chart its course and everyone else has had to make up their own minds. They have taken to the lifeboats to save their medium and small-sized fuel companies. They had no choice, with no guidelines, but to jack up the prices.

Evasion leads to licence. The rich get richer, the powerful more powerful. No wonder we have monopolies like the policy of evasion, of "no decide", of laissez-faire. They can rip us off unfettered, because the government has no policy or, rather, has a policy to evade, to pass, to make no bid. But how can you win the game if you keep giving away your cards and keep on passing? Evasion.

And what does the Speech from the Throne have to say about our foreign policy? It is amazingly evasive through its silence. Just as in the case of silence in the throne speech on Petro-Canada, so there is silence on foreign policy. There is total silence by the government on the handling of the issue of the Middle East. All we know is that a special study is under way, a study triggered by the most blatant and destructive fumbles in Canada's foreign policy for as long as my mind can recall.

The present Prime Minister, seizing upon what appeared to be a popular and meritorious yearning on the part of many, if not most, Canadians to move the Canadian embassy from Tel

The Address-Mr. de Corneille

Aviv to Jerusalem, which is the capital of Israel, during the election took this ultimately desirable and even sacred issue and dragged it down into the realm of partisan election politics.

What all those who love Israel want, whether we are Jews or non Jews, is that the issue of the moving of the embassy be based on the merits of the case, and be timed and effected in a way that contributes to the peace process. Jerusalem is a holy city and it should not have been a brick-bat for partisan argumentation. The ultimate objective of moving our embassy is too important to have hastily thrown it into an election contest which gave Canadians the impression it was done for votes instead of on merit. And worse yet, after we warned over and over again of the delicate nature of this matter and of the need for education, information, preparation and understanding, our advice was spurned, and in cavalier fashion the issue was pressed, without the needed resolve to see it through, which resulted inexorably in total debacle.

It was no favour which the captain of the election strategists did for Israel by making such a self-serving promise and dragging the sacred name of Yerushalayim-the city of peace-to the level of vitriolic argument. That damage can never be fully undone, because try as one might to rectify it, the discussion of the embassy has been totally removed now from the merits of the case itself. And the irony of it all is that the good reason and the only reason that the embassy should ultimately be moved is based entirely on the merits of the case. The timing and the setting and the motives were all-important. And it all was trampled upon for the sake of pledges made for opportunistic reasons and timing seemingly unrelated to the justice of the cause at stake.

The result of this lack of policy, and then of vacillation instead of swift, decisive action one way or another, has been to compound our troubles. It has thrust us into a situation where Canada now appears to be susceptible to blackmail, bullying and belittling. We have desecrated the name of Jerusalem, lost our honour, and now we decide that it is time to find out, not only what to do, but also how much damage we did; how much tribute we will have to pay or how many compromises we will have to make to regain lost friends or contracts. What ignominy! Is this how we protect human rights in the world? What was the message in the Speech from the Throne on the Middle East? Was it that we were not going to be susceptible to backmail, that we have our own policy? Or was it silence or evasion, as with PetroCan?

What do we hear about human rights in the world in this speech? Is there anything at all about genocide or about the hungry in the Fourth World crushed to death by OPEC oil costs and inflation? There is nothing in the speech except that we will be getting a committee on foreign policy. But we do get ministers telling us from the flora side that human rights will come up like flowers, while the fauna side forages upon the money pastures which alone could make our promises to the Third and Fourth Worlds a reality. How sad to see our reputation in the field of foreign affairs, built up so assiduously and patiently by past hon. members like Pearson, Sharp,

October 15, 1979

The Address-Mr. de Corneille

Jamieson, and the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen), brought so swiftly to the level of infamy in the Year of the Child-un enfant terrible? Our foreign policy mast has also been snapped by the hoisting and dropping of sails in a cacophony of discordant orders from the captain and his first mates.

But, Mr. Speaker, these are but a few illustrations of how large and important areas of national and world concern, which have been in the headlines for months, are now passed over by silence and by evasion. The policy-and it is delivered-is evasion; the plan is that the way you keep the citizenry happy is by handing out the new Tory confectionery-Smiles and Chuckles, and snickers-while they divide up the spoils. And can you blame them for chuckling? If you managed to squeeze into power with the second largest popular vote, with a minority of seats in the House, propped up by hon. members belonging to another party which you are meanwhile privately and publicly seducing, and with a minority of seats in the other place, getting aid and comfort from the fact that you are doing so little that the media cannot get a target on you, you would chuckle too, Mr. Speaker.

Who could ask for more than a throne speech without commitment and a media that is left open-mouthed and speechless? The Speech from the Throne is amazing, not for what it says but for what it does not say. Never has so little said so little in so few words to so many.

Mr. Speaker, I have had to save till last my deepest concern. It frightens me the most. It has to do with the survival of this country, with the Canada I love. I see under this government the division of this country into satrapies like Chinese provinces under the war lords of the Kuomintang, each war lord reigning sovereign in his province, resulting in a confusion of policies, in competitive wars between provinces for businesses, head offices and investments, in raising barriers to migration of workers from other provinces, like the wars between the war lords of old.

What is the philosophical justification for a federal government that in the name of "less government" really means almost no federal government and more and more provincial government, which means more inequality and more divisive forces unleashed? This laissez-faire policy which sells out Canada comes under the confectionery name not of "Chuckles" but of "community of communities". Behind this exercise in semantics is the insidious suggestion that the way we can get unity is to stop the confrontation, and to hand over, in the interests of dialogue and understanding, those rights and responsibilities which our constitution and our Supreme Court state this Parliament, the Parliament of Canada, is expected to exercise. Some dialogue!

Mr. Speaker, let me say that I think I know something about dialogue. The dialogue that has come about through ecumenism has been the greatest event in this century. Religious wars and hatreds have given way to respectful dialogue between Catholics, Protestants and Jews. The ancient walls of

contempt have fallen away through dialogue. And all this has been premised upon the concept that in dialogue you call people into being rather than to cease to be. It is right, and one thing to call the provinces into being. That the Fathers of Confederation more than did. But it is another thing to say that the federal government should not have that same right, which was the central goal and objective of the Fathers of Confederation-a strong central government.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of pious criticism from others about the danger of confrontation. But, Mr. Speaker, dialogue is called confrontation. One speaks of the "confrontation of dialogue". It means that in dialogue one does not evade the issues. One does not dissolve oneself. One does not diminish oneself. One does not assimilate, capitulate, surrender. So at present we are not getting dialogue. In fact, the terminology "community of communities", used in conjunction with the criticism that in the past we have had too much confrontation between the federal and provincial governments, is being used as a cover in the retreat from a federal system to a confederation of ten states, or is it twelve now? It seems to be part of the grand design of the Conservative party to hack us up. First we had the blueprint of "two nations"-deux nations. Now it has proliferated. Now it is a "community of communities", maybe something like "ten nations"-dix nations ou plus. And if you throw in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, maybe 12 tribes-douze nations-ou presque\

Mr. Speaker, I repeat, it is on a dangerous course that our ship of state is floundering. It is no course at all. It is not a dialogue. It is not a discussion out in the open. It is not a facing of issues and facts. There are secret discussions where the media are not present. There are, worse yet, secret deals. It is not just once or twice; it is the way things now are done. The war lords put down their demands, linked often with their political interests, and the federal government in private agreements gives away to them what belongs to the family of Canada and describes this process as a "community of communities". Mr. Speaker, that is not a community. Let us not hide behind the subterfuge of words. Canada is at stake. Evasion is not dialogue; evasion is anti-dialogical. It is unhealthy. Dialogue means confrontation. It means that the federal government, this Parliament and all of us who are members have the right to hear, to listen, to be in the dialogue. It means to have open deals openly arrived at.

Ontario has the right, not just the premier and his minority party but the majority of the people, like the people of my riding, the people of Toronto, the people of the province, to hear what those deals are that give away our future as Canadians. Our heritage, our offshore energy and mineral rights for 200 miles, our resources, belong to Canadians. We have to be at the table where all can see the hands and learn to share. The federal government has the right, nay, the duty, the responsibility, to stand for all of us, to protect all of us. Rather than for this government to appeal to the greedy hopes of war lords in each province that their area might strike it rich, we have to make sure that all Canadians strike it rich.

October 15, 1979

Instead, Mr. Speaker, we have evasion. We have silence. We have paradoxical phrases like "community of communities" which sound a lot too much like "sovereignty-association", an "Alberta heritage fund for Canadians"-Albertan Canadians, that is-and "humble pride", or is it "proud humility"?

The Speech from the Throne bodes ill that the government will continue to be passive, will avoid difficult decisions and evade responsibilities. It will continue to play hide and go seek with the press, to make agreements secretly arrived at, to pass out goodies to some provinces that they have no mandate from Parliament to pass on. They seem to hope to appeal to some greedy impulse of some provincial leaders that they just might strike it rich, rather than appealing to them that through co-operation as Canadians they might strike it "equal". They offer to sell or give away some of our Crown corporations, appealing to the profit motive, instead of holding them in sacred trust for all Canadians for this and future generations.

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen so far is not dialogue by the federal government. Rather, it is a policy of passing out the goodies, and it fits all too well into the mentality of cynical machine politics, of political patronage, of how they keep them happy. But what will they do tomorrow when all has been given away from the federal store and there is nothing left, when they all start to fight with one another? Mr. Speaker, at present I see no dream. At present I sense no vision. I see only each of us being sent into self-centred solitudes and the dark night of reaction is setting in.

Ultimately we will have to go back to statesmanlike, courageous leadership that will resume the dialogue, which by definition involves confrontation, to leadership that on behalf of the federal government will speak the truth in love to this nation, singly and in its parts, and say "Our heritage fund is Canada".

Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):

Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee to the House that I will speak no doom and gloom such as we have just heard from the the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille).

My colleagues, the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald), are to be congratulated for the superb manner in which they moved and seconded the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I join with other hon. members in endorsing the Speaker's election to his high office. Having watched him on television for quite some time and now being in this great house and watching him in person, my long-time admiration for his abilities has been more than reinforced. I offer my best wishes to him. We on this side of the House will try to make life in this session pleasant for him. To the Deputy Speaker and to the hon. members for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) and Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott), I offer my best wishes as well.

I represent the riding of Brampton-Georgetown, comprised of Brampton, a community in the region of Peel, population

The Address-Mr. McDermid

125.000, and the old town of Georgetown, now a part of Halton Hills, a community in the region of Halton, population

19.000. Both of these communities have growing populations. My riding is the fourth largest in Canada in terms of electors. The mayor of Halton Hills, Peter Pomeroy, and the mayor of the city of Brampton, Jim Archdekin, lead two very active and fastgrowing communities.

The past two members of the Ontario legislature have given honour to the community of Brampton, both being worthy members and both being premiers of the province of Ontario. Colonel Tom Kennedy was the provincial member for Peel from 1919 to 1959, forty years, with a brief break between 1934 and 1937. Our member of the provincial legislature is the hon. William G. Davis, the present premier, who just celebrated 20 years in the legislature serving Peel, Peel North, and now Brampton. He was honoured Friday past by his constituents, former constituents and friends. These are large shoes for me to fill federally-names like Sam Charters, Richard Blaine, John Pallett, Ellwood Madill and, yes, such liberals as Bruce Beer and Ross Milne. But the man I idolized, and who was lost to Canada at a relatively young age, the man who first attracted me to politics, was Gordon Graydon, who graced this House from 1935 to 1953 and was opposition House leader. His widow, Daisy Graydon, still lives in Brampton and is a great help to me and I appreciate her support.

Georgetown citizens have had excellent representation in the Ontario legislature, for instance, the hon. Jim Snow, the hon. George Kerr and Julian Reed. Federally, names like Sybill Bennett, Sandy Best, Terry O'Connor and across the House I am sure hon. members remember Dr. Harry Harley and Dr. Frank Philbrook. Now I have the honour to represent the riding. I would sincerely like to thank the citizens of Brampton-Georgetown for their votes. I will do all within my power to justify their support.

I am proud of both Brampton and Georgetown, Brampton being my home town, Georgetown being my father's home town. My great grandfather came to this country, a tea merchant from Glasgow, and opened a general store in Georgetown. My grandfather was postmaster in Georgetown and my father a United Church minister, who served the congregation of St. Paul's United Church for 26 years in Brampton.

Brampton and Georgetown have expanding and new businesses; for example, CN's new Malport, Dominion Glass Co. Ltd. which just opened a $10 million expansion. Ford's national parts depot, American Motors, Northern Telecom, Kitchens of Sara Lee, Neilson's, Smith and Stone, Abitibi Paper, and many many others all contributing to the economic well-being of the two communities.

There is still a small but significant rural area in Brampton and Georgetown. There are productive dairy farms, beef farms and produce farms which grow some great apples. The Gray brothers, two young farmers, have just invested over a quarter of a million dollars in a computerized milking parlour in my riding. This sort of investment shows great faith in the future of Canada and in the field of agriculture in the area. It is the

October 15, 1979

The Address-Mr. McDermid

home of the world famous Armstrong brothers standard bred breeding farm, which is the home of the Armbro horses who win their share of purses at standard bred tracks around the world. In memory of the late Elgin Armstrong and Ted Armstrong, the founding brothers, a new multi-million dollar facility was opened recently just north of Brampton by the premier. Elgin Armstrong's son, Charles, is now running the Armstrong business and was named businessman of the year this past week by the Brampton board of trade. My congratulations to Charles.

You can see, Mr. Speaker, that I represent an exciting and growing part of the province of Ontario and 1 look forward to representing it for many years. Seated geographically to your left-and, 1 might add, well placed, because that is where they all are politically-are a group of hon. members who like to talk about redistributing wealth, a very worth-while ideal. But all of them want to redistribute the wealth before it is made.

The new Government of Canada clearly recognizes that we cannot redistribute what we have not first created. The previous administration tried, heaven knows they tried, and in doing so, plunged this country into a deficit that is costing every Canadian taxpayer $700 per year just to pay the interest, never mind paying back the capital that is owing. It is the fastest rising cost in government. What a legacy to leave the young people of Canada! We in the government plan to rectify this situation so we can proudly say to our young people, "Here, take this country, we pass it on to you in great shape without that albatross, that huge debt, to drag you down."

There are a number of items on my checklist that this government and the people of Canada must do to reduce the debt and tackle inflation. We must realize that there is something decidedly illogical about demanding at one and the same time more and more government services, less and less taxation, higher and higher living standards and the adoption of a zero growth economic approach. We must tackle our balance of payment problem by recognizing that we are a trading nation with a pressing need for a healthy, vigorous and productive manufacturing sector. We must recognize the crucial role of profits and of other forms of savings in making this possible. Profit on this side of the House is not a dirty word. We must create a fair and just environment for the foreign capital which, like it or not, we are going to require in the future. Most important of all, we must create the type of domestic climate that will provide individual Canadians with the incentive and ability to furnish more and more of their country's capital needs. We must recognize that we cannot allow our unit costs of production to get out of step with those of our major trading partners, and we must realize the irreparable damage which indiscriminate and irresponsible use of the strike weapon-whatever its short term gain to the participants-will do to our ability to survive in the international marketplace.

We must move quickly to reduce significantly our per capita consumption of energy through appropriate conservation measures. We must now tap our frontier resources and mount a massive effort to develop alternative energy technologies.

Above all, and I say this for my friends on the socialist side of the House, we on this side will not stop apologizing for the enterprise system, as they like to do. Any economic system that can deliver what ours has, despite the roadblocks that have been consistently thrown in its way, has a great deal going for it.

It is trendy and chic in certain quarters to continually castigate our economic way of life for the way in which it supposedly favours the privileged at the expense of the underprivileged. Any objective and unbiased analysis of Canada's social development policies and income redistribution programs, however, will quickly give the lie to such an assertion. Furthermore, I would remind those who persist in perpetuating this myth that there is probably no greater injustice that a society can perpetuate on the weak and helpless than to erode the will and initiative of the enterprising and the strong.

I must also confess to some degree of bewilderment at the proposition put forward by the opposition parties that the road to economic salvation lies in ever-increasing government involvement in the workings of the competitive enterprise system. It is well established that the highest living standards are enjoyed by nations where the enterprise system predominates. On the other hand, countries where state capitalism is the vogue are certainly not noted either for their high standard of living or for the efficient and equitable distribution of goods and services. In an article outlining the superiority of the market economy, Gottfried Haverler, professor of international trade at Harvard University, asks:

How else is one to explain the wide difference in living standards that exists between West and East Germany; between Greece and Yugoslavia; and between Austria and Czechoslovakia, bearing in mind that the paired in each case enjoyed comparable living standards in the pre-communist past.

Certainly our competitive enterprise system may have its faults and shortcomings, and we should not hesitate to move in order to correct them, but let us not lose sight of our system's strengths-its respect for the dignity of human achievement, its rejection of the indignity of human enslavement and its uncanny ability to harness the power of human endeavour toward the realization of common goals. It is these basic and fundamental strengths that provide the competitive enterprise system with its aura of perpetual relevance, which in turn forms the core of its superiority over all other forms of economic endeavour. And this human achievement, the strengths of our system, will be allowed to flourish under this government. That is what the message is in the Speech from the Throne delivered so capably by His Excellency the Governor General.

There are many other aspects of the Speech from the Throne that please me, and in particular the statement that "in co-operation with the provinces and industry, a national tourism strategy will be developed". I have had the pleasure of chairing a caucus committee on tourism this past number of weeks. We met with the Canadian government office of tourism, provincial government officials of tourism and many members of the private sector involved in this important

October 15, 1979

business, and it is important. Tourism in Canada is a $11 billion business, accounting for 5 per cent of the gross national product and employing over one million people. Eighty per cent of the tourist businesses are classified as small business. For far too long this important sector of the economy has been virtually overlooked by previous administrations and this must be changed. It was obvious to the committee after hearing the various presentations that duplication of efforts was being experienced in Canada. It was also obvious that the foreign travelling public was confused in that they are being bombarded by the federal government and the provincial governments in marketing of all types without apparent co-ordination in their efforts.

The Tourism Industry Association of Canada or TIAC, an association which is the umbrella organization in Canada, is actively promoting a tourism plan for Canada with the Canadian government spearheading the activities. After many hours of discussion the committee agreed it was a very necessary component if we in Canada are to improve our tourism deficit position. The committee's presentation was made to the minister responsible, the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson) and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark). It was agreed that this was vital to the well-being of tourism in Canada and would become the policy of this government, and there is no dust settling after that decision. At the federal-provincial meeting of tourism ministers this week in Newfoundland this matter will be discussed.

The objectives of the plan will be to maximize the contribution to the national economy, keeping in mind the following: our international balance of payments; the quality of life and development of the community; the conservation of the environment of the country; the preservation of the nation's cultural heritages; the special contribution tourism can make to regional economic expansion; and the optimization of Canada's rich resources capable of supporting a tourism industry. The objectives are to be reached by dividing the tourism industry into two areas, marketing and industry development. The task is great but our government is dedicated to the upgrading of the tourism industry and to co-operating much more fully with the private sector and the provinces in achieving this goal.

Many other recommendations have flowed from the committee's work, such as an awareness program for Canadians of how valuable tourism is to the economy and to them directly; that the attitude of government staff who come in direct contact with the travelling public be improved; that a closer liaison between Parks Canada and the tourism industry be achieved; that a faster, more efficient method of tourism statistics gathering be devised; and last but not least, a recognition of the importance of the tourism industry be expressed by the government in adding the title of "tourism" to the Minister of State for International Trade's title. The industry has asked for their own minister and ministry. It would be irresponsible of me to recommend another ministry when in fact we are trying not to create but to streamline various departments, but I would urge the Prime Minister and his

The Address-Mr. Bujold

government to give very serious consideration to this request so that tourism's importance in our Canadian economy will be given due recognition.

As a new member, may I publicly thank everyone, the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues, my constituents of Brampton-Georgetown, my colleagues from all sides of the House, the staff on the Hill and in the various ministries, and my own personal staff for helping me over the first few months. It has been an exciting and educational period in my new chosen profession, and I look forward to a very productive session.

Mir. Remi Bujold (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased and honoured to take part today in the throne speech debate. First allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate you for the trust shown in you by the House of Commons and especially by the government party which recommended your appointment to the position that you now hold. Your sense of responsibilities, your integrity as well as your fairness are the qualities recognized by all members of the House. At the risk of repeating what has already been said, I wish to point out that the role you will play in the months to come will surely not be without any difficulty. 1 therefore wish you much success in your duties as Speaker of the House.

I also extend my congratulations to the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman and the Assistant Deputy Chairman of the Committees of the Whole House. I am also pleased to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Undoubtedly it was for them the best possible way to begin this new legislature.

My preamble, Mr. Speaker, would not be complete if I failed to pay tribute to my predecessor in this House from 1962 to 1979. I refer to Mr. Albert Bechard, a man who always represented with dignity the constituency of Bonaven-ture from 1962 to 1968 and that of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine from 1968 to 1979. I wish him well in his new job as Canada's Consul General in Louisiana. Finally, I would like to thank most sincerely the voters of the riding of Bonaven-ture-lles-de-la-Madeleine for the faith they have put in me during the last general election. I will do everything I can not to disappoint them as they expect a lot from their federal representative, considering their remoteness from large centres as well as the many communication difficulties they face.

On this first opportunity I am given to address this House, Mr. Speaker, I will not describe the great resources and beauties of the riding of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine. I will do rather like my eminent colleague from Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) and invite all my hon. colleagues to come and visit the Gaspe area and the lles-de-la-Madeleine, as thousands of tourists from this country and all around the world do every

198

areas. This would avoid the enormous deficits incurred by airlines currently serving the area, and give a better transportation network to the various districts in eastern Canada. Hopefully the sale of Nordair will be a step in that direction. And I take this opportunity to invite the Minister of Transport to speed up this matter which has been under consideration long enough.

As 1 emphasized earlier, the new government has no apparent concern for the vital segments of our economy. Farmers were expecting a lot from the throne speech. They were greatly disappointed. Not a word, not a policy statement pointing to this government's approach in that area. What will our dairy producers do in the face of milk quota auctioneering? How is the problem of the astronomical cost of transporting produce into the large centres going to be solved? It is my hope the new government will not do as they did in the case of the Montreal harbour strike, when they waited for months before acting, letting disputes drag on and on. Mr. Speaker, our farmers deserve better treatment. I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) will take strong action, I hope that agriculture will become as much a priority for this government as energy and fisheries.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me turn to a significant omission in the throne speech, the constitutional crisis now facing the nation. Like my hon. leader, I am far from believing that the new leadership the right hon. Prime Minister is apparently trying to establish is capable of solving the Canadian crisis. I doubt that the constitutional problem can be solved by granting every provincial demand. Indeed the right hon. Prime Minister does not seem to pay much attention to that most urgent and serious problem in Canada, if the press conference he gave last week is any indication. The Prime Minister stated the significance of the referendum should not be exaggerated. He felt that it was much more important to ensure a permanent federal presence in Quebec.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I should like the Prime Minister and his colleagues to tell us how saying no to the decentralization of various departments within Quebec will ensure this presence in Quebec. Those are some of the questions I am directing to him. He also stated, and I quote:

-that the referendum was in fact only one of many events to take place in 1980.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this fails to recognize the importance of the situation in the province of Quebec and the seriousness of the constitutional crisis we are going through. What is still worse, Mr. Speaker, we have heard his Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Jarvis) indicate that the government's participation will be minimal. How could it be otherwise, for they have only three hon. members in the House of Commons and two ministers in the Senate? So, how can that presence make itself felt strongly? Obviously the minister had no other argument to plead in that regard. But there is worse when he says, and I quote:

The Address-Mr. Brisco

In addition, we do not have the strength to wage a big campaign in Quebec. One must recognize one's weaknesses.

Mr. Speaker, to my mind, that is implicit recognition of the fact that the Progressive Conservative government does only represent the nine other Canadian provinces and does not represent the province of Quebec in the House of Commons. As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, we are now up against a secessionist government in Quebec, which will not hesitate to resort to all the means necessary to achieve its ends, and by handing it certain powers the Canadian government will not allay its hunger.

In the face of the gathering storm in Quebec, I feel that those who hold deep convictions about Canadian federalism, and specially the members of Parliament, must see to it that this country remain a model of unity despite the diversity of its parts. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that some of the suggestions of the opposition, in particular with regard to Quebec, will not be turned down in order that the unity we all hold dear might be strengthened.