Hear, hear!

Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in this first session of the Thirty-second Parliament, and I want to take this opportunity to extend to you and your colleagues in the Chair my most sincere congratulations and wish you well. 1 would also ask you kindly to convey to Madam Speaker, in addition to my most respectful regards, the expression of the great pleasure I as well as my colleagues in this House take in seeing her talent being put at the service of her colleagues in the House of Commons and to express also to her the great importance we attach to the fact that a woman who in recent years left her mark in the history of this country should now rank first among her peers in the House of Commons.

I also want to mention the excellent work done by the movers of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, and 1 want to thank the hon. members for Rimouski (Mrs. Cote) and Sudbury (Mr. Frith) for the generous vision they gave us of Canada and also the positive tone and pace they gave this debate in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

The Address-Mr. C. Lapointe

As you know, Mr. Speaker, our country is going through one of the most critical periods in its history. Economically, we are faced with an extremely difficult situation where, on the one hand, we have to fight at the same time the unemployment that is affecting dramatically the poorer areas of this country and, on the other hand, to take difficult monetary and fiscal measures to overcome and fight inflation.

Politically, the situation is even darker, Mr. Speaker. The very future of Canada, our country, is being threatened by the separatist views of the Parti Quebecois and its friends. The coming weeks will be decisive and the referendum scheduled for May 20 in Quebec concerns all Canadians from coast to coast and, above all, Quebeckers. This will be for us, Mr. Speaker, a fundamental choice for our collective future. Will we choose to renew our faith in Canada, to reassert that we belong to Canada, that great country that offers so many opportunities and challenges, or instead, Mr. Speaker will we choose to live isolated within narrower boundaries, because we are afraid of those Canadian challenges and because the opportunities offered leave us gasping?

That is the choice we will have to make: that is the choice of existence we are confronted with by the booby-trapped question that is put to us by the Pequiste government, whether we want to admit it or not. At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, we must ask ourselves why Canada exists, what led our forebears, the Fathers of Confederation, to sit around a single table and ask: Why should we not pool our resources? Why should we not seek the compromises and means necessary to ensure the fulfilment, the flourishing of our two peoples?

Mr. Speaker, during the discussions which led to the development of the federal agreement between 1865 and 1867, two great principles were in the foreground. These principles are the most generous and the noblest to which any human being can and must adhere. Mr. Speaker, I am speaking about sharing and generosity. These two principles, along with the courage and the tenacity of the builders of this country have made of Canada a rich and free country where it is good to live. It was not an easy task to build such a large country. Our ancestors had to face many difficulties.

Even today everything is not perfect but we can still consider ourselves one of the luckiest nations on earth. The other question that we have to ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, is what this federal agreement has given us in the last 113 years. Not only are we living in a country with one of the highest standards of living in the world, but even more important, we are living in a country where basic freedoms are truly respected, in a country where the concepts of sharing and generosity have evolved into one of the most advanced wealth redistribution and social legislation systems in the world and in a country where our rights as a French community are respected

April 22, 1980

The Address-Mr. C. Lapointe

and where we have been able to develop culturally, economically and socially.

Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to take part in a great adventure for civilization. We have the opportunity to build day after day this new man born out of the contacts between two great civilizations, the French civilization and the English civilization. This new man, whose behaviour is influenced by the civilization and the way of life of the first inhabitants of this country, our native brothers, this new North American man, formed also by all the wealth brought to this country by the new Canadians who have come here from everywhere in the world, this new man, a Francophone in our case, Mr. Speaker, has the opportunity to live in the second largest country in the world, a country which has never known war, a country born out of negotiations based on a common will to live together in the spirit of sharing and generosity. Or course, all this has not always been easy and in many cases in the past, Francophones in this country have been treated unfairly. But must we enter the future backwards, with our eyes riveted on past mistakes, Mr. Speaker? Or is it not better to consider the enormous progress accomplished during the last thirty years, and build our future on what is already established?

At the present time the spokesmen for the Parti Quebecois are appearing in every forum of Quebec to try in an underhand manner to make our fellow citizens believe that the federal state, its Parliament and its government are foreign institutions. It is suggested that Quebec has always been the poor cousin of confederation and that French-speaking Canadians have constantly been exploited by the English in Canada. That is exactly what the Pequistes tried to prove in their white paper that distorts historical facts. Thus in all the speeches they make these days, culture is one of their favorite examples. They outdo one another in expressing their disgust at the federal government, this foreign power, as they like to say, which has been trying to dominate and control the French culture in Canada. How can they make such contentions, Mr. Speaker, when we know that the Canada Council, created in 1957 by the federal government, helped so many artists in Canada, in Quebec and French Canada, such as Borduas, Riopelle, Julien, Leclerc, Vignault and many others, have successful careers, develop their talents and make a name for themselves in the artistic community not only in Quebec but throughout Canada and even at the international level.

Some of those who benefited most from the Canada Council choose today not to remember. The same thing happened, Mr. Speaker, in the early fifties. You will recall that television was in its infancy and the then government had decided to endow this great country with a national television network. In 1952, Parliament decided to create the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. And in the same bill, Mr. Speaker, this government of foreigners, as the Parti Quebecois calls it, also established the Societe Radio-Canada, a corporation which enjoys an exceptional degree of financial and artistic autonomy, a corporation which through years promoted the development of French culture in Canada and the discovery of several talents in all realms of television.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note also that in 1979, last year, 36 per cent of the budget of the whole corporation was given to Radio-Canada, the French network, and that 4,300 employees of this corporation now work in Quebec. There is another aspect, Mr. Speaker, which can exemplify the two basic principles of our federation, sharing and generosity, and that is the economic sector. With your permission, I would like to review briefly some industrial sectors of Quebec, starting with traditional industries like textiles, clothing, footwear and leather goods. What is the situation in the textile industry, Mr. Speaker? Statistics show that 48,000 employees of that Canadian industry or 51 per cent of the total Canadian work force are located in Quebec. And 45 per cent of all Quebec's textile production is sold in other Canadian provinces. In the apparel industry, 70 per cent of industrial plant is in Quebec, accounting for 66 per cent of the Canadian total. And as in the case of textiles, 47 per cent of all clothes made in Quebec are sold in other Canadian provinces.

What is the federal government doing to protect that predominantly Quebec industry that is threatened by foreign imports enjoying cheaper textiles and clothes costs? The national government acted to impose quotas on imports and increased tariff protection, which is now guaranteeing stable markets and safe jobs to the Quebec textile and clothing industries. The same goes for the leather and footwear industries. With 10,000 employees in Quebec, or 43 per cent of the total Canadian labour force in the industry, 50 per cent of all footwear and leather goods production is made in Quebec, of which 57 per cent are sold in other Canadian provinces.

The sectorial approach introduced at the federal level in 1973 greatly helped that industry. The use of tariffs and import quotas coupled with the assistance programs not only protected jobs in that industry in Quebec but also led to new job creations since 1976. One of the programs of great value for Quebec in the leather and footwear industry is the adjustment program under which businesses are offered both grants and loans at favourable interest rates. From 1974 to this day, 66 per cent of grants, and 56 per cent of loans under that program went to Quebec. The federal government also contributed in 1976 to the establishment of the Shoe and Leather Institute of Canada with headquarters in Montreal. That institute is very important for Quebec, where 50 per cent of its activities are concentrated. Mr. Speaker, these figures speak for themselves. I am deeply shocked to hear our opponents in the Parti Quebecois suggest that Quebec gets less than other provinces in government help to the textile and shoe industries.

Let's not deceive ourselves, Mr. Speaker, our fellow citizens from Calgary, Kamloops, Winnipeg or elsewhere in Canada

April 22, 1980

who buy textile and clothing, leather goods and shoes made in Quebec could buy these same items from Hong Kong, South Korea or elsewhere at a much better price. But, Mr. Speaker, as I have said previously, the very essence of Canadian federalism is sharing. That is why we want all Canadian consumers to help protect these industrial sectors which provide Quebec with many jobs. To prevent members of the Parti Quebecois from claiming this is economic terrorism or lies, and to avoid a repetition of the Premier of Quebec's statement this morning on Radio-Canada that Quebec federal MPs in Ottawa are all damned liars, I wish to quote from one of the studies the Parti Quebecois itself published in 1980, the Bonin report, entitled: A propos de l'association economique Canada-Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I am quoting from pages 417 and 418 of this report:

Shipments from Quebec to the rest of Canada originate mainly from the labour-intensive industries to which special customs tariffs are applied: food and beverages, leather, textile, hosiery, clothing, furniture. These industries are largely dependent on the Canadian market and, as is to be expected since they need special customs tariffs to survive, they do not export very much outside Canada. Should the Canada-Quebec association take the form of a free-trade zone, part of the Canadian market could be lost to some Quebec firms since Canada, in retaining its own trade policy with respect to third-party countries, would be free to shop elsewhere if conditions are more favourable.

One other point is worth raising for it could also in the short term leave Quebec with less room to manoeuvre. If these highly protected industries are labour-intensive industries (and this is possible even though they could be called "low wage" industries), it follows that a liberalization of international trade in these sectors would be detrimental to workers employed by them unless transitional measures are provided which also include adequate compensation.

It is not only the traditional sectors of the Quebec economy which benefit from being part of Canada, Mr. Speaker, and 1 would now like to refer briefly to the shipbuilding industry. Two weeks ago when I attended the launching of two ferries in the Marine Industries shipyards of Sorel, I once again had reason to feel indignant. In his speech, the Quebec transport minister stated that Quebec was not getting its fair share of shipbuilding contracts because the federal government prefers to grant subsidies to the other provinces.

Mr. Speaker, I am seriously starting to wonder if our separatist opponents are capable of reading statistics correctly and if they do not suffer from some kind of paranoia toward the federal government. If one examines what happened during the last 18 years, from 1961 to 1979, one can see that grants and subsidies contributed by the federal government for shipbuilding have amounted to $625 million for Canada as a whole. Out of this amount, Quebec received $223 million which represents more than 36 per cent of the total and out of these $223 million Marine Industries of Sorel got nearly half or $102 million. So, Mr. Speaker, when I hear people like the Quebec transport minister say that other provincs have always enjoyed preferential treatment for subsidies to shipyards, to say the least I think they are using certain figures and statements which contradict reality.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the contracts awarded by the Department of Supply and Services for naval repairs or alterations in 1978-79, we see that these contracts totalled $38.1

The Address-Mr. C. Lapointe

million for the whole of Canada. Quebec's share of this amount was $32.2 million, or 84 per cent of all contracts. And yet, Mr. Speaker, some people have the audacity to tell us that Quebec is the poor cousin in Canada and that the federal government gives it nothing. I find this attitude quite unacceptable and it revolts me as a Quebecker and a Canadian.

Aeronautics is another sector where Quebec is far from lagging behind the other provinces. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, more than 46 per cent of the entire aeronautic industry is centred in Quebec and creates employment for about 20,000 Quebeckers. And the federal government is certainly partly responsible for this favourable situation in Quebec. You will recall that in the early seventies, when this sector of the indsutry was going through a difficult period, the then minister of industry, trade and commerce, the hon. Jean Chretien, urged the federal government to purchase the Canadair plant which at the time was employing 1,500 people. Nine years later, Mr. Speaker, Canadair employes over 6,000 people, which is due in part to the Challenger program which was heavily subsidized by the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, I have already said a few words about the textile, the shoe, the leather and the clothing industry, and about shipbuilding and aeronautics, which are all important sectors of the Quebec economy. However, there is one sector to which I would like to address myself more particularly and which concerns our very roots in this Canadian nation, and 1 am of course speaking about the agricultural sector. If there is one sector, Mr. Speaker, where the concepts of sharing and generosity apply, it is in agriculture.

One of the criticisms we hear most often is that federal agricultural policies have been more favourable to westerners, and to the detriment of easterners and especially Quebeckers. However, certain basic facts are being forgotten, Mr. Speaker. We have only to recall that western Canada has 89 million acres under cultivation compared with six million in Quebec. As for farm workers, they represent only 5.6 per cent of the work force in Quebec compared with 17 per cent in the prairies.

Although the potential of farm land in Quebec represents only 6 per cent of the total for Canada, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that 13 per cent of all employees of the federal Department of Agriculture are stationed in Quebec. And although this farm potential is relatively small compared with the whole of Canada, Quebec receives a substantial share of federal agricultural programs. These programs tend to reflect the importance and the peculiarities of our various regions. For instance, we can mention the crop insurance program under which $10 million were paid to Quebec farmers between 1973 and 1978. The Federal Farm Credit Corporation has also helped Quebec farmers to a great extent, and for the sole fiscal year 1975-76, the federal government approved 1,116 farm loans to them, for a total of some $85 million.

318

April 22, 1980

The Address-Mr. C. Lapointe

What are we to say now about the supplementary Canada-Quebec farm development agreement which the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has signed with the Quebec government? The purpose of this agreement is, for instance, to improve farm lands in the Montreal region and to encourage land redistribution in eastern Quebec, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean and Abitibi-Temiscamingue. This agreement calls for some $62 million in federal contributions over a period of six years.

Still in the agricultural area, I would like to take a closer look at the dairy industry which is of capital importance to Quebec farmers. Indeed, in 1977-78, 75 per cent of Quebec farmers drew at least 60 per cent of their revenues from dairy products. The federal government is aware of that and has considered and still considers it to be most important. But there again, Mr. Speaker, I prefer to refer to that study by the Quebec government entitled A propos de I'association econo-mique Canada-Quebec and I want to quote from pages 150 and 151 the following excerpt:

It can be said that federal programs for the dairy industry are less varied than those for grain growing. Indeed, they consist almost exclusively of transfer payments to dairy producers. So the prime concern of the federal dairy policy remains the support of producers' income and marketing techniques play a lesser role than for grain. On the other hand, the dairy industry comes under a highly protectionist policy under which it enjoys privileged access to the Canadian market; the importance of liquid milk and most dairy products is subject to a quota system; certain processed products enjoy more than high custom protection (dairies, for example).

From the strict point of view of Quebec dairy producers, it would be difficult to say that the federal government's dairy policy has an unfavourable impact: nearly half the amounts spent on that policy between 1960 and 1976 were paid in Quebec, particularly in the form of payments to producers; not only did this amount represent a considerable addition to the revenues of Quebec producers, but since the creation of the CDC-

-the Canadian Dairy Commission-

-their total income has increased even more rapidly than that of Ontario producers. In addition, the Quebec milk processing industry enjoyed custom and other forms of protection. That industry sells about 25 per cent of its production to the rest of Canada and only 2 per cent abroad. However, it holds a privileged position (about 40 per cent of the added value) in the Quebec food and beverage industry.

Since in that study made by the Quebec government statistics on dairy policy did not go further than 1976, I thought it would be important and interesting to mention what happened in 1977-78. In that financial year, the federal government paid in direct subsidies to Quebec producers $128 million or 48.6 per cent of total payments to dairy producers in Canada. It means, Mr. Speaker, that in 1977-78 Quebec dairy producers received 52 per cent of federal milk subsidies, that is to say an amount of $238 million.

As concerns its contribution to the Canadian food assistance program to developing countries the province of Quebec also got its full share. In 1977-78, the Canadian International Development Agency, through the Canadian Dairy Commission bought 53.4 million tons of butter and 236.9 million tons of powdered milk in the whole country. Of those purchases, 95

per cent of the butter and 84 per cent of the powdered milk came from Quebec. Agriculture is a rather important sector of the Quebec economy and the federal government is determined to maintain its assistance to Quebec farmers.

I might continue along the same line, Mr. Speaker; as concerns grain transportation, the Parti Quebecois keeps accusing us of sending all the money out west and always fails to mention that, when we invested $100 million to help western farmers ship their grain and asked the Canadian Wheat Board and western producers to build hopper cars with those $100 million, they always fail to say that Quebec, that is to say Canadian Vickers, Marine Industries or Bombardier, gets a large part of the money for those railway cars.

The same thing holds true for VIA Rail, Mr. Speaker, since a $115 million contract was awarded by the federal government to Bombardier for the design and construction of a new, state of the art, LRC train. I could say much more on the economy, but I think that some of my colleagues want to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker. I also think that the deceitful referendum question asked by the Parti Quebecois calls for only one answer: no, no to this dream, no to the adventure that this party wants to take us on. And this No vote, Mr. Speaker, is the only positive action we can take at this point in time. As His Excellency the Governor General mentioned in the throne speech, a No vote in the referendum, a no to the question asked by the Parti Quebecois is a Yes vote for the renewal of federalism in Canada.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):

Order, please. Ordinarily I would recognize the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who has sought the eye of the Speaker, but in view of the hour, and with the consent of the hon. member for Joliette, we would understand that he will be the first to speak tomorrow, and with the consent of hon. members I will see the clock as 9.30.

There is no debate tomorrow.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):

He will be the first to speak on the next occasion for debate on the address in reply.

Mr. Nielsen:

Mr. Speaker, I understand the debate is being adjourned, but we have five minutes tonight for the hon. member.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):

As I said earlier, if the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) would like to take the floor for the remaining five minutes, obviously it is his right to do so.

If the hon. member for Joliette wishes to begin his speech, he may do so.

Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):

Mr. Speaker, I frankly admit that I have barely enough time to greet and congratulate you

April 22, 1980

as well as Madam Speaker and her assistants. I would also like to take advantage of those few seconds to congratulate the mover and the seconder. You pointed out that it was difficult to make a good speech, but you would expect me to do it, I am convinced, because there are problems which particularly concern me. First, however vague it may be, the throne speech deserves a few comments and 1 am also interested in order and in national unity. Under the circumstances, 1 would rather remain the first member to speak when the debate is resumed and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, as well as my colleagues, that 1 will have some relevant comments to make on those two subjects.

I would ask that the vote be taken rather than begin a speech which would not have all the impact that it deserves. This is all, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):

Order, please. It being 9.30 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38(4), to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House.

The question is, therefore, on the amendment to the amendment (Mr. Kristiansen). All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):

All those opposed will please say nay.

Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):

Call in the members.

Madam Speaker:

I declare the amendment lost.

It being ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2(2).

At 10.02 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, April 23, 1980