1971-09-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion under Standing Order 43 in a case of urgent and most pressing necessity.This matter is the imminent possibility that the United States Congress and government will give its exporters a further advantage over Canadian manufacturers in the Canadian and foreign markets by allowing its exporters to suspend payment of income taxes indefinitely.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams):
That this House urge the Acting Prime Minister to make a statement in this House today setting out the government's plans, if any, to counteract the disastrous effects upon Canada's trade and general economy if the American government puts this policy into effect, rather than reacting after the event.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), to move the following motion under Standing Order 43:
This House is of the opinion that:
Inasmuch as the U.S. brass, many big U.S. environmental protection and other agencies to the contrary, can set off the biggest underground blast ever at Amchitka Island;
That they can set it off in the least spoiled part of the Pacific Ocean in the midst of an earthquake zone and with the certain result that deep-seated rocks and deep-seated underground waters
will be contaminated with radioactive waste for thousands of years; and
Inasmuch as we've got to stop this travesty on justice, this flaunting of one of nature's fundamental laws as soon and as finally as we possibly can;-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member going to indicate what the motion will be? I must say I did not understand that the motion had been put. Of course, if it has the Chair will take note of it.


Mark Willson Rose: I am reading my motion, Mr. Speaker.
Therefore be it resolved that this House of Commons express its unequivocal objection to the proposed nuclear device test scheduled by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission on Amchitka Island for October and that we communicate this resolution to the President of the United States of America forthwith.
I am sure there will be unanimous consent because the preamble to my motion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mark Willson Rose: -was taken word for word from a speech by the Minister of the Environment-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot argue the case in favour of unanimous consent. He has explained the circumstances of the motion. The motion is before the House. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Mr. Lewis:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether it would assist Your Honour and the government if I suggested that we would be prepared to have this motion passed without debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: There are yeas and nays, and it takes but one nay to determine that unanimous consent is not forthcoming.


An hon. Member:: The President of the Privy Council said yes.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I want to direct a question to the Solicitor General. It is one which

September 10, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
all the people of Canada consider to be of national importance. Once again it deals with the subject of national security, and we have not been able to get the information we seek.
May I preface my question by one sentence? Last night the minister said in the House as found on page 7699 of Hansard:
Finally, it should analyse the information as a whole, not merely from a strict police point of view but in a much wider spirit, that is, taking into consideration social, economic and political factors.
My question is: what are the political factors which the minister has in mind that will be considered by Colonel Bourne and his headless unit?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, any reference to a political, social and economic context deals of course with state institutions or the governments of a country, and by giving a narrow interpretation of the political dimension in that context the hon. member simply shows the extent of his reasoning.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to ask a supplementary question. My interpretation may be narrow but I am trying to get the minister's interpretation of his own language. I put this to him: Will members' files, that is, secret files whose existence has been admitted in the House, be examined by this new unit, and will information contained in those files be known to this headless unit or force?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the statement that there are files on hon. members. I have said so before and I repeat it. There is no general policy to the effect that there is a file on each member of the House.
Files are opened only when adequate and valid information is available to justify such action. That applies to all Canadians.
In the circumstances I have described, it is quite certainly out of the question for this unit to have regular and very wide access to files on Canadians. In fact, the objective is not to conduct police operations but to analyze an evolving social context in Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the investigation which is going into another matter, is it government policy to have secret paid informers on security matters in Canada giving information either to this headless group or to a group which has liaison with this headless group?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that I shall have to repeat myself. I say there is no question of conducting police operations. It means, therefore, that nobody will have to report to this working group. Police operations will be conducted by the security and intelligence service of the RCMP. That will not change. It is the present practice and nothing will be changed.



CIVILIAN SECURITY FORCE-REQUEST FOR REFERENCE OF SUBJECT TO COMMITTEE

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: In view of the statement made in the course of a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio interview this morning and in view of continuing questions which are being raised, would the minister not reconsider his position and agree to send this matter to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs where we could deal with it in a more orderly fashion?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear. If not, I am ready to answer more questions; but I delivered a speech on the matter before the Association of Police Chiefs in Calgary on September 2. I have the report of that speech which I can table if it might help hon. members to find out what are the goals of this working group. If any member wants additional information, all he has to do is ask for it.



LABOUR RELATIONS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister in relation to two companies, Douglas Aircraft of Toronto and Chrysler Canada Limited of Windsor. Is the government aware that Douglas Aircraft has refused to make a wage offer and that Chrysler Canada Limited of Windsor has refused to implement a wage increase already agreed upon on the ground, the unions were told, that there is a wage freeze in the United States?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of this but I will certainly inquire into the situation.


David Lewis: Would the Acting Prime Minister assure the House, and indeed the people of Canada, that the Canadian government will inform the companies concerned that this country will not tolerate the importing of wage freezes from another country to be imposed against Canadian workers, and that these companies must not import United States policy into Canadian wage negotiations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the leader of the New Democratic Party that it is not necessary to inform these companies. Everyone in this country knows that the Canadian Parliament makes the laws in this country and that these are the laws to be observed.


David Lewis: Apparently certain subsidiaries of United States companies do not know this and have not known it in the past. Will the Acting Prime Minister take steps to see to it that the U.S. wage freeze is not imported into Canada when such is not Canadian policy?
September 10, 1971


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is not Canadian law and it is not Canadian policy.



INDUSTRY


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I should like to direct to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the minister's department has in the past, as it did under his predecessor, prepared certain corporate citizenship guidelines for multinational corporations operating in Canada, does the minister intend to meet representatives of these multinational corporations in Canada, particularly United States-owned corporations, to discuss with them not only the wage and price freeze in the United States but also the implications of the DISC program that President Nixon presented to the U.S. Congress yesterday and how this will affect the Canadian Economy?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the guidelines that were established previously are still applicable. My officials and I have been meeting over the last weeks with as many Canadian representatives of international corporations as possible. With respect to the case raised this morning we are having an inquiry made.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order, if the hon. member would forgive me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I apologize to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


David Lewis: A very mild one, Mr. Speaker. The minister's mike apparently was not working. I know he heard the question but I did not hear what his reply was. Would he be good enough to repeat it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was only repeating what the Acting Prime Minister said. I said that the case raised had been raised with me earlier this morning, or rather last night, and I am having the matter investigated this morning to see how true it is. I think it is of the utmost simplicity that we should find out what the case is before offering comments.



UNITED STATES INCENTIVE PROGRAMS FOR EXPORTERS-REPRESENTATIONS TO GROUP OF TEN RESPECTING CONFLICT WITH GATT

John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. It relates to government policy
Inquiries of the Ministry
and this is why I am directing it to him. In view of the proposals advanced by President Nixon in the United States Congress yesterday, particularly DISC and other incentive programs and the tax credits for U.S. exporters, is it the intention of the government to have the Minister of Finance, when he meets the representatives of the Group of Ten, to communicate to the group that these proposals run counter to the GATT proposals, and is a formal protest going to be made to the Group of Ten?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when these proposals were originally put forward, not in this session but in the previous session of Congress, the Canadian government made known to the United States its opposition to these proposals at that time. That continues to be our policy. We are very strongly opposed to these measures whether or not they contravene GATT.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary for the purpose of clarification. Were any of the proposals of DISC laid before the previous Congress whereby the Canadian government had an opportunity to voice any opposition or position on the corporation, DISC?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is apparently just beginning to take an interest in this matter. The DISC proposal was before the previous Congress but did not pass.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Since the introduction on Tuesday of Bill C-262 in the House, has the government of Canada received the views of the United States government on this legislation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Commons one of the ministers or the Prime Minister said that the Canadian government had not discussed this legislation with the United States government in advance of its introduction into the House. I have no doubt whatever that the United States administration and others are looking very carefully at it today.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the Acting Prime Minister did not quite hear the question. Since the introduction of the legislation has the government of Canada received the views of the United States government and, more specifically, has it objected on the basis that it may contravene their own anti-dumping legislation?


Mitchell William Sharp: We do know that the United States government has been looking at the legislation but we have not had formal representations from them.

September 10, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



ESTABLISHMENT OF SUPPORT PROGRAM FOR CONSUMERS

Mr. Oza Tetrault (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since he seems to be prepared to subsidize American consumers through the $80 million program, in order, supposedly, to support employment in Canada, can he tell us whether he intends to suggest to the government the establishment of a program to support the consumer industry in Canada, as two persons out of five in this country are underfed, inadequately clothed, inadquateiy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member's question has now been asked, maybe the minister could now answer it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, as I said at least 20 times in the House yesterday, the bill now before us has a very special purpose, that is to seek to solve the problem which the surcharge has created by preventing unemployment from increasing. I am sure that once this bill is passed there will still be mortal and venial sins committed in the economic, social and political system of Canada.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Once this bill is passed, does he intend to bring in a bill to make up for the venial and mortal sins he has just mentioned?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the definitive position of the provincial premiers urging that further action on the farm adjustment program be postponed until a committee of provincial Deputy Ministers of Agriculture arrives at alternative proposals, will he indicate to the House whether the government intends to abide by this wish and, if not, how he intends to proceed with these proposals?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly interested in taking their views into consideration, but I have to remind myself and hon. members that the proposals in this program have been before Canadian farmers for almost two years now and we have put a very high priority on getting something moving by way of making the program operative.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, since there is evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with the program, are the
(Mr. Sharp.]
minister and his officials reviewing and reconsidering the proposals as set forth in the original white paper with a view to encouraging farmers to remain on the land rather than having them move off?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, of course that is not the objective of the program at all. It is to make viable farm units so that farmers can stay on their farms and have a reasonable return from their operations. I would say also that a great deal of the dissatisfaction with the progress of the program is that it is not operative today.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Could the minister indicate whether he is prepared to meet with the committee that has been established by the deputy ministers of the provinces across Canada in order to discuss this program further?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to meet with them at any mutually convenient time but we have had several meetings with them during the past summer and indeed going back farther than that.



RYE-POSSIBLE RELIEF FROM EFFECT OF UNITED STATES IMPORT SURTAX

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the statement by the minister to the House that the effect of the United States surcharge on agricultural commodities would be considered commodity by commodity and as the effect of the surcharge falls heavily on rye, now being purchased by elevators in Saskatchewan at 65 cents a bushel, which must be an all-time low since the depression, will the minister take immediate action on this commodity?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, as I announced in the comprehensive remarks I made to the House the other night, we intend to do that on a commodity by commodity basis, but we certainly cannot take action until we see what the effects are and they are not well known in respect of any commodity yet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There appear to be a number of supplementaries, but with the consent of hon. members we might go to another subject and return to this one as soon as possible. At this time the Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the difficulties and uncertainties facing the airline industry in Canada, especially the regional air carriers and also Air Canada, and their inability to be able to effect long-term planning because of the lack of a
September 10, 1971

definitive policy statement from the minister, when will the minister make a statement to the House on regional air policy, particularly in light of the recent criticisms levelled at the government by the chairman of Air Canada?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to answer that question as briefly as you would wish me to. I do not agree that there is not a definitive regional air policy at the present time. In so far as I am concerned, except for certain modifications which are of a relatively minor nature, the statement I made in August of 1969, I believe, still stands as the regional air policy.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the minister if he can reconcile the statement he has just made with the statement reported on July 31, to have been made by the chairman of Air Canada to the effect that the present regional air policy was all wrong?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member recognizes that the question, asked in those terms, is really argument and is not in order.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. Does the minister feel it is desirable, having in mind the morale of the employees and the image of Air Canada, to have the chairman of the board, in an unprecedented way but certainly with courage, going round the country criticizing the government for lack of policy in this matter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it has been a traditional rule of this House and of the government, which has been reaffirmed on innumerable occasions, that the Minister of Transport ought not to interfere with the public utterances of the chairman of the board. The chairman of the board has said what he wished to say. I just do not believe, as I said a moment ago, that the regional air policy is all that vague or uncertain.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, would the minister have a discussion with the chairman of the board-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.- member for Vancouver-Kingsway.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mrs. Grace MacInniB (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister say if needed improvements and enlargements to the Vancouver docks are still being carried out and, if not, why the work has been curtailed?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I did not hear the question. Was it the Vancouver docks?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes, the Vancouver docks. May I repeat the question? It was not ducks; we do not have that kind 24171-68
Inquiries of the Ministry
of weather there now. Can the minister say if needed improvements and enlargements to the Vancouver docks are still being carried out and, if not, why this work has been curtailed?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I find difficulty in answering because I have no knowledge of a suspension of work or any requirement for further-is it the Vancouver docks?


An hon. Member:: Not ducks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether there might not be a private consultation between the hon. member and the minister. We do not seem to be progressing very quickly on that question.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Vancouver Harbour facilities. I amend my question.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is in British Columbia.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, any city that can raise its tonnage by seven and a half million tons in the last three or four years is not doing too badly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Winona Grace MacInnis: May I ask a supplementary?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.



HARBOURS


Winona Grace MacInnis: I am not
going to try that minister again, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that some 15,000 to 20,000 tons of driftwood, including a large amount of refuse, are floating around in Burrard Inlet, can the minister say what the National Harbours Board is doing to fulfil its obligation to keep the port of Vancouver clear of driftwood and refuse?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. When you get a six to seven million ton increase in freight you obviously get an increase in refuse. In answer to the hon. member, at the urging of a number of people I arranged to have the burning of this driftwood stopped because it was an annoyance to certain people in Vancouver. The problem is now that quite honestly we do not know what to do with it. We are up to our hips in driftwood. I am going to Vancouver on the weekend and this is one of the problems I hope to be able to resolve.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Has the minister

September 10, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
received a telegram from the Canadian Airline Pilots Association requesting early implementation of the treaty on aircraft hijacking and is the government preparing legislation on this matter in accordance with their promise some time ago?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there has been very considerable activity in connection with this convention on air piracy. In order to give a complete answer I would require a little notice but we have the matter under active study at the moment.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that the United States has now signed the international agreement on air piracy, bringing to ten the number of countries that have done so, can the minister advise the House and the Canadian Airline Pilots Association just when some action by Canada can be expected and whether it will come this fall or not until 1972?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Without trying to pass the buck, the decision as to when the legislation will be introduced would, I assume, be a matter for my colleague the Minister of Justice. In so far as the principle is concerned I can say, as he has in the House, that we are prepared to endorse this international document.


J. Michael Forrestall: Can the minister advise whether he has been made aware of the contents of the telegram forwarded to the Minister of Justice yesterday by Captain Simpson and, if so, whether any consultation between the Minister of Justice and himself is planned for the near future?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The association was good enough to send me a copy of the wire to the Minister of Justice and it arrived late yesterday afternoon. It is my intention to consult with the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if I could ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a brief supplementary it will be allowed but we are running short of time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is very brief. In light of the fact that the Department of Justice or the Minister of Justice has not got the legislation prepared, I wonder whether the House would now agree to second reading of my bill in that regard?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Can he indicate whether the government is preparing any major strategies to combat the unprecedented high level of unemployment expected this winter, and when will these strategies be made known to the Canadian people?


An hon. Member:: Next spring.


Mitchell William Sharp: As the
House is aware, the most urgent problem before the government, before the House and before the country is the problem of unemployment, and all steps are being taken to reduce it to a minimum. I hope that the measure now before the House will be proceeded with quickly because at least it helps to hold unemployment down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: On the basis of that non-answer I ask the minister whether the government is considering the convening of a high level meeting of federal, provincial and municipal officials for the express purpose of considering the domestic economy and the unemployment problems facing the nation in order to get a co-ordinated and early attack on the problem and, if so, when will this meeting take place?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not think the convening of such a conference is particularly necessary. There is very active co-ordination now between the provinces and the federal government through a whole series of regular meetings. If the problem could be solved by holding high level meetings they would be held but as the hon. member knows the problem is much more difficult than that. I repeat, let us get on with the business before us now which has to do with the maintenance of employment.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government has made any predictions as to the expected level of unemployment for this winter, and can the minister say whether officials in the government departments have determined that there will be more than one million people out of work before the winter of 1971 is through?


Mitchell William Sharp: The government does attempt to make forecasts from time to time. This is necessary, always has been, and continues to be the practice, but it does not publish these figures unless there is some very-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver East.



PACIFIC GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: My question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the announcement by the government of British Columbia, through the voice of the Premier of British Columbia, of plans for the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway to the Yukon and Northwest Territories, was the federal government consulted by the provincial government about these plans and does it intend to support them financially as has been done in some circumstances with other railways in the past?
September 10, 1971________________COMMONS DEBATES__________________ 7707


Hon. lean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any definite plan drawn up by the British Columbia Premier. However, he cannot, without the authorization of the federal government, build a railroad in the Yukon. We are always striving to be on good terms with the government of British Columbia. In that field, as well as in others, I believe that my colleague the Minister of Transport may have had discussions with the government of that province. For my part, I have not had any.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the Minister of Transport whether he has been approached on the matter of the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway to the Yukon and Northwest Territories and, if not, has the federal government any plans for another railroad development in the north?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, a report by a firm known as Hedlin-Menzies which was prepared primarily for the federal government, the Department of Transport, but it also had information of value to British Columbia. It was delivered to British Columbia some time ago and subsequently I met with the premier. A federal-provincial committee has been organized representing both levels of government to discuss the whole question of a rail extension through northern British Columbia and, hopefully, into the Yukon.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. As the matter of rail extension in northern British Columbia by Canadian National Railways has been dragging on for years and years, can he give any indication of when this federal-provincial committee may conclude its discussions and make an announcement, particularly about action by the CNR?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would hope it would not be too long. It is a very complicated and technical document involving, I think, five or six potential routes and there has to be a great deal of on the ground study of these routes. But both the government of British Columbia and the federal government are anxious to get the study completed as soon as possible. If the hon. member does not pin me to this specifically, I would hope that within the current year we could reach some resolution of the question.



HARBOURS


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a related question. When is the minister going to make an announcement concerning what his department is going to do about harbour development at Prince Rupert?
24171-68J
Inquiries oj the Ministry


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I am disclosing any confidence in any improper way when I say that I have indicated again to the government of British Columbia the willingness of the government of Canada to declare Prince Rupert a national harbour. Negotiations to that end are now under way. Hopefully, this will be one of the matters that I will discuss when I visit British Columbia this weekend.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the government's apparent commitment to avert further lay-offs in Canadian manufacturing, was the decision of Polymer, announced on September 3, to lay off 72 employees in Sarnia on October 4 taken in consultation with the government and with the approval of the government? If not, is action being taken to ensure that Polymer Corporation conforms with government policy on these matters?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the difficulties that Polymer is experiencing now have been documented in the press. It has lost a very important contract to Japanese competition, and I presume that the lay-off of the 72 people referred to by the hon. member is partly due to that.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Has the government established a policy with regard to employees and lay-off practices in all Crown corporations and agencies and, if so, when will the minister be making a public announcement to that effect?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will make the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for these matters, aware of the question.



TRANSPORT


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the recent announcement that senior citizens are to receive the benefit of reduced fares on the railways, an action with which I think all members of the House would agree, would the minister use his good offices to see that the same fare advantages are also extended to the blind and the disabled?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That is certainly a most commendable suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to convey it to the railways.

September 10, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY



FOREIGN OWNERSHIP-IMPLEMENTATION OF WATKINS REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS-ESTABLISHMENT OF MONITORING AGENCY

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the recent measures taken by the United States which adversely affect our national economy, would the government consider implementing without further delay the recommendations of the Watkins report on foreign ownership and the recommendation of the House committee on foreign affairs to set up an agency to monitor the activities of foreign-owned subsidiaries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to waffle in my answer. The government, of course, has adopted some of the recommendations of the task force that was established by my predecessor when Mr. Watkins was not quite as extreme in his views as he is today.


Max Saltsman: In light of his answer, can the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether the government has any plans to monitor foreign-owned corporations to make sure they do not divert production from Canada to the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no intention of establishing such an agency but the government has other means of knowing what is going on in these corporations and ensuring that they obey Canadian law and not American law, as his leader has said.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister.
The former Minister of Communications, the hon. member for Duvernay, stated yesterday that our policy should provide for a liberal monetary action capable of satisfying our capital requirements, that is, that the provinces should borrow in this country, and that the Bank of Canada should make funds available through financial channels-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the hon. member intends to put a question and not to repeat the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Duvernay.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether this government is presently considering this solution to assist the provinces and thus stimulate the growth and development of our economy?



TRANSPORT


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that a bottleneck has existed for the past two or three years on the Tobermory to South Bay ferry

service, where there is ever-increasing traffic, what action does the government propose to take to remedy this situation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, a number of meetings have been held with the government of the province of Ontario, the most recent on July 26 or July 27. Our officials have subsequently met and the idea is to try to find some federal-provincial agreement under which this service would both be improved and ultimate responsibility for it assumed by the province of Ontario. I would hope that can be done during the fall.



NEW QUOTAS AND INCREASED DUTIES ON PORK PROPOSED BY JAPAN-CANADIAN INITIATIVES TO POSTPONE AND REACH PERMANENT SOLUTION

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the expressed intention of the Japanese to impose new quotas and increased import duties on pork to become effective on September 30, 1971, has the government taken any initiative under GATT to have the Japanese postpone this action, and has the government intervened to work toward a permanent solution? If not, does the government plan to move in this direction?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I take notice of that question, Mr. Speaker.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Is it the intention of the minister to give a favourable response to the request of the city of Toronto for financial assistance for the erection of a domed stadium?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I was not able to hear the question.


John Gilbert: I will repeat it. Is it the intention of the minister to give a favourable response to the city of Toronto's request for financial assistance for the erection of a domed stadium?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that is most unlikely, and I have not had a direct request from the city of Toronto to that effect.
September 10, 1971



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
(11:50 a.m.)
Inquiries oj the Ministry

Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since the southwestern Ontario corn crop is about to be harvested, and since in past years American subsidized corn has glutted our market and storage facilities, will the minister take steps in advance, through countervailing duties or import quotas, to prevent the depressing of corn prices to Canadian farmers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we are having a meeting with the representatives of the corn growers of southwestern Ontario today. One of the great problems is the same as we had in 1968, insufficient storage space with the result that all of this corn that is harvested with a high moisture content must go to market in a very short space of time. We hope that something can be worked out. It is not a problem of marketing the total crop over the year. It is just a problem of congestion over the harvesting period.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that some 553 days have passed since the minister and the government accepted the unanimous recommendation in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-the exact date was March 6, 1970-can the minister now inform the house what action he has taken on his commitment at that time to initiate Ottawa-New-foundland-Quebec discussions on the question of a high road system to serve Labrador and the Quebec north shore, and is the minister now prepared to produce the report on the feasibility studies on that subject which at the same time he agreed would be undertaken?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the report is at the point where it can be submitted yet; I do not believe it is completed. The kind of talks to which the hon. member has referred have taken place and I can say that considerable progress has been made on a conceptual approach as to how this project might be undertaken. If the hon. member would like a recorded report of the progress made to date I can either send it to him in letter form or arrange a meeting with the officials so that he can see what has been done up to now.



PROPOSED TAPS TANKER ROUTE-FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Has the minister since last June made any further representations to the United States government in opposition to the proposed oil tanker route from Valdez, Alaska, to Cherry Point in the state of Washington?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite certain about the dates but it is my impression that representations have continued since that time. If they have not, certainly the United States government has a full account of our position and of the adverse effects that we believe will take place if that route is followed. These representations are under study by the United States administration. I have been assured of this by the Secretary of State himself.



POSSIBLE OIL OR GAS PIPELINE FROM ALASKA THROUGH CANADA-APPROACHES BY UNITED STATES GROUPS

Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Acting Prime Minister. Have any approaches been made to any government department since last June by any United States group for an oil pipeline or a gas pipeline route from Alaska through Canadian territory?


Mitchell William Sharp: Not so far
as I am aware, Mr. Speaker. May I just add a word to my previous answer. The Minister of the Environment is in Washington today and I am sure will be pursuing the other question with his counterpart.



CANADIAN INITIATIVES AT INTERNATIONAL LEVEL


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In light of expressed fears that a major trade war could develop in the western world, is the government taking any continuing initiatives at the international level to bring about trade consultation between the major trading nations of the world?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, such consultations are, of course, going on currently within GATT, within OECD, within the Group of Ten and within the International Monetary Fund. Indeed, it is one of the most serious problems before the whole world trading and economic community and it is being so treated. Certainly there is no necessity for the Canadian government to take any more initiatives than it has taken already. One must include, of course, the fact that we are very prominent in all these organizations.

September 10, 1971
Employment Support Bill


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about reached the end of the question period. Perhaps the hon. member for Peace River might ask his supplementary.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the apparent ineffectiveness of the actions of the government overseas with regard to these issues, will the government review its policy of neo-isolationism, enlivened with occasional jet diplomacy, of doubtful value and see if it cannot obtain a better opportunity to make proper representations which will be heard in the capitals of the world?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether that question as asked is in proper form.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, September 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-262, to support employment in Canada by mitigating the disruptive effect on Canadian industry of the imposition of foreign import surtaxes or other actions of a like effect, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Saltsman (page 7633).
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night, I was saying that the federal government should manage its affairs according to a formula of income, expenditures and revenue, while in personal, family, social, corporate, municipal and provincial affairs, the formula production, consumption and capitalization should be applied.
The national production must be adequate to meet the needs of the citizens as well as of the required capitalization for the security and development of the country. Broadly speaking the Canadian economy is doing well although many citizens, many families cannot benefit from the vast resources of the national production.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) clearly proved it in his account. He gave us a description of our economic situation. He said that our national production in 1971 had reached $91 billion, and if our economy succeeded in reaching such a high level of production due to technology and scientific development, I will point out to the minister that if we have a production of $91 billion, on the other hand we only have a consumption of $54 billion. We consume 60 per cent of our production, and that owing to our exports which in the main go to the United States.
And if Bill C-262 is being discussed today, it is because we have produced too much and have not consumed

enough. Exports and consumption accounted for only 60 per cent of our production. Now we have capitalized close to $37 billion out of a production of $91 billion, namely 40 per cent. So I suggest that our capitalization is unduly high and that we do not consume enough. Therefore, if we are to solve our problem, we will have to organize our economy so that we can consume more. Although our production increases at such a rate, we have thousands of unemployed in Canada and thousands of citizens are welfare recipients. Consequently those people do not produce.
noon)
If our entire economy was geared to help the people, that is if all the citizens worked, our production could reach $100 billion. Our natural resources are quite sufficient to provide the necessary primary products. This is precisely when the government indirectly intervenes. Since there is overproduction and under-consumption, the government intervenes and it would rather pay people to remain idle by giving them unemployment insurance benefits and welfare allowance, in order not to increase further the volume of our production.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the members that before we overcapitalize we must have a sufficient level of consumption. That is one of our major problems. One should feed the living before developing instruments and cope with the present before making reserves for the future. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, that is where we should come in. Yesterday I was in agreement with the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. LaSalle) when he called for the establishment of some kind of board, of groups of citizens to meet and study the economic situation in Canada. However, such study should be carried out rationally. We cannot blame nature for not supplying human beings with all they need. God bestowed everything on nature, and in plenty; there has always been too much for everyone and enough for each one.
The board should include experts, engineers, economists, university professors, political men, officials of banks, companies, the stock exchange, trust companies, associations, unions, presidents and advisors of all big intermediary groups, movements and political parties.
Why then admit our inability to control a situation dependent upon us, our direction, our influence, our policy and our economic methods that have been wrong for several decades? Instead of defending established positions and their now alarming results, let us declare the status quo. Let us calmly recognize the general state of the whole national economy that is based on natural resources and the requirements of all Canadians considering the aim of economic activity and the unlimited production means at our disposal. That is what the board the minister created should do and be. It should not be a board to stand between the government and industry in an attempt to expand exports to the United States, to lessen American restrictions, but rather a real economic commission socially oriented to effectively solve Canadian problems.
It is up to us to solve those problems, Mr. Speaker. If our production and financing methods are fully effective, our wealth distribution methods are just as marvelous for Canadians who are employed, but there remains to effect
September 10, 1971

the distribution of a guaranteed personal vital minimum to those without work or capital, but who are entitled to live out of our tremendous national production.
Mr. Speaker, if we want to compete with other countries and really control our economy, we must achieve economic independence and to that end, finance our secondary production. That is the point I wish to make. I would like the minister to listen, and if he feels like it, to do something about our secondary production, because if we want to compete with other countries, we must cut down our prices and produce at lower cost. We cannot produce at lower cost because of 12 per cent taxes and interest rates of 11 and 12 per cent. Transportation is very costly and everything is taxed and overtaxed. We cannot produce at low cost.
If we really want to conquer foreign markets, if we want to sell or dispose of our surplus goods, we must also reduce our production through other means than those used today, because they merely cause production costs, prices, salaries, etc. to increase. Everything is going up which is very harmful to imports. We will import when our prices are more attractive.
The minister is now trying to take indirect action in order to reduce prices by 10 per cent, so as to maintain our market at the U.S. level. If we do that, the Americans will think that we are trying to thwart them and they will find other ways of preventing Canadian products from invading their market. Canada could do the same, but that would not solve the problem.
There would be a practical solution in the marketing field, that is through financing inventories up to consumption. Under the present system, on the contrary, there is a flaw there which opens the door to all sorts of abuses. Marketing today is a very difficult problem for producers, because of its financial aspect which puts it at the mercy of all speculations. Inventories represent billions of dollars of which the producers must assume the burden, and they also represent millions of dollars in interest on capital, and that is included in consumer prices.
Because marketing is controlled entirely by financiers and speculators, producers are constantly being prevented from selling their products and have no other alternative but to let themselves be tossed about by the unscrupulous speculators who control such sales.
The minister should find a formula whereby inventories could be financed, because manufacturers are forced to limit themselves to seasonal products which are stored. Through their formula 88, the banks now finance that warehousing, at a 12 per cent rate of interest, which amount is added to production costs.
We advocate a formula whereby this storage could be financed by new central bank credits, because we are dealing here with new and real production that should be financed through interest free credits, reimbursable when the goods are sold.
We could thus certainly reduce the cost of production and compete with foreign countries. That is one way of reducing the cost of our products.
The second would be to finance our industries at a reasonable interest rate. The 12 per cent tax should also
Employment Support Bill
be removed, thus relieving the government from the necessity of granting subsidies. By the same token, the cost of living and of products would go down. That is one of the solutions that we suggest.
The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) was saying yesterday that opposition parties do not find solutions. But I would ask him to open his ears and his eyes. There is one solution, and a logical one at that. I believe that if the proposed Board were to seriously consider the economy, we could get wonderful results and prove to the whole world that we are able to manage our economy in a logical, sound and permanent way, while enabling our citizens to buy at reasonable prices and to receive the compensated discount which is designed to reduce commodity prices.
In these sectors where there is overproduction, the government surely can, through its bank, grant compensated discounts in order to reduce prices, thereby enabling Canadians to purchase more products with less purchasing power. This is another solution which the Social Credit has long been advocating. I am not the one who found it, it was discovered by people much more intelligent and learned than I am.
In the fall, for instance, potatoes are harvested which will eventually reach the consumer within the next twelve months. One therefore has to wait for the potato inventory to be supported by the producer, and for the potatoes to be sold to speculators at ridiculous prices so that the producers may recoup the money they invested. If not, the producers are exploited by the speculators.
Financing under the present system-I am referring to formula 88-when sales are slow on account of the season, the producer is compelled to reimburse his loan. When he cannot sell his products, he has to lower his prices. Then they produce and sell at a loss to reimburse the bank at a 12 per cent interest rate under formula 88.
This is when the government should step in. The minister should seriously consider those proposals. If he does not like the ones we advocate, let him come up with better solutions and, failing this, let him at least try the ones we are bringing forward. Surely it is possible to find some solution somewhere to improve our obsolete economic system.
The people of Canada are entitled to expect a financial system whereby the volume of currency and credit in circulation can be maintained at a level allowing citizens to purchase goods offered for sale at a fair price and to live without inflation or deflation, supplying the Bank of Canada with the credits required for its operations, and making funds needed by municipalities, school boards and, generally speaking, all developments requiring corporate capital, available at cost price, provided possibilities of production and demand exist. Such loans should be reimbursed to the extent of the depreciation of the social assets created. And all this should bring about eventual reduction and liquidation of the public debt, a horrible burden which grows heavier year by year. Taxes and levies are used as dues to high finance. The costs rise each year. Government bonds are sold at ever-increasing interest rates for the benefit of financial bigwigs who then get millions of dollars they have never earned.

September 10, 1971
Employment Support Bill
We should create an independent national credit commission responsible to Parliament for the administration of the financial policy. That is what the committee we have been talking about should study and apply.
The commission would have the duty to set up an accounting system to show Canada's assets and liabilities, increase and depreciation, using to do it the various statistics services that exist or will be established to calculate at regular intervals the increase in Canada's real wealth and the additional amount of purchasing power to be gradually distributed.
These are solutions that we have been the only ones to advocate in this House. It certainly seemed funny, on several occasions, that we should advocate such principles before this House or before the leaders of our economy, but these are human, Christian, valuable principles worth being considered and put in practice by this government, since it has the power.
This government holds the power: Let them keep it, but let them satisfy the people. Let them give Canadians what they are entitled to, namely, legislation founded on facts, recognizing to each individual the right to live decently. We are not asking for anything else. We have been elected to request it from our leaders. Let them stay in power, provided they apply the reforms required in order that all may live honourably and decently.
I will not say more today. I believe I have given a fairly complete picture of the economic situation by mentioning those few facts. Some will open their eyes and will take our proposals under consideration so that we may arrive at a solution that will be satisfactory from the standpoint of the people to whom all goods and services would then be available.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: I have listened very attentively to all the hon. members who have spoken on this bill. It is obvious to Your Honour, I am sure, that there are really two subjects being covered. The first is the bill before us, and then there is the question of long-range economic solutions, one which has been touched upon by just about everyone who has spoken. The two aspects are obviously closely intertwined and I do not really see how one can speak on the bill itself without delving into other matters which are, of course, more fundamental in nature.
Having listened to some criticisms of the bill, I can sympathize with those who do not support it. However, I do not see what else the government could have done. No one has suggested any immediate remedies that could be taken in view of the urgency of the matter-and this is a bill dealing with an emergency. Hon. members will recall that immediately after the President of the United States had dropped his bombshell, all Canadian industries which heavily depended upon exports, of which there are quite a good number, panicked. Their bankers panicked on the Tuesday and Wednesday and said to these industries: "Look, we have financed your inventory sales up to now knowing that you have been able to sell to the United States market with a 5 or 6 per cent differential. Now, you are going to pay another 10 per cent, so how can we

continue to finance your inventory"? We also know that a great number of workers were laid off and that panic took hold of a lot of businessmen and manufacturers of products for export. Therefore something had to be done immediately, and I suggest that this bill, which I hope will be passed this afternoon, will still be in time to give our entrepreneurs a little confidence and some assistance of an immediate, short-term nature.
Comment has been made on the sum of money provided by Ihe bill. Eighty million is not a small amount. Apart from that, hon. members will realize that trade and industry are not exclusively within federal jurisdiction. Indeed, the premier of Ontario has already said that he is going to introduce a like bill to provide assistance, and I hope that other provincial governments will do the same. This will bring the total amount of assistance pretty close to the $160 million that is required. So how can hon. members argue about the amount provided here? Surely, one does not expect the Canadian government to foot the entire bill when there is also a certain acknowledged responsibility on the part of the provinces.
With regard to the board that is to be set up, it will have to deal with all sorts of situations and I cannot imagine how the government or its departments would have been able to adjudicate upon any applications that might be made for assistance. Therefore, a board is necessary and I am very pleased to see it given pretty wide powers. Obviously, it is not going to hand out money indiscriminately; a case for assistance will have to be proven. Applicants will have to prove there is a need for assistance as a result of the application of this surcharge. I also hope that this board will watch future events and ensure that these corporations do survive, and that possibly market prospects other than in the United States will be investigated.
So all in all I think this bill is a good one. I think it was the only action that could have been taken to deal with this situation, and its effect will be immediate. It will give confidence to the business community. At the same time, they will know the assistance is temporary, that the $80 million is available for six months only, or for the balance of the fiscal year. So really the federal government is putting up the equivalent of $160 million over the course of one year. Add to that provincial contributions and we are getting pretty close to the 10 per cent of the $2.5 billion that is involved here. Therefore the bill deserves the support of all parties in the House and I think it will get that support when it comes to the vote this afternoon.
I would also join issue with a matter raised by many hon. members, one put forward specifically and very articulately by the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kier-ans). I do not think it is sufficient for members simply to say that his was a fine and wonderful speech; they must come to grips with some of the principles contained in that speech, principles that have been adopted throughout the nation by our young people, our business community and others.
I am not going to repeat what the hon. member for Duvernay and others have said about the problems facing the United States, though I would disagree with him in several instances, but one of the things that has been forgotten in this debate is the position of the multinational United States corporation. As the right hon. member for
September 10, 1971

Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is wont to say, "The chickens have come home to roost".
As Your Honour knows, the accumulation of capital in the United States is astoundingly large. Through the establishment of multinational corporations, large investments have been made in countries throughout the world. Some of these corporations claim they are no longer United States companies but rather a Japanese subsidiary, or in another case a Brazilian subsidiary, and so on. Since people in business are motivated to make money, what has really happened has been that the investments made in Europe, Japan, Taiwan, South America and Canada have financed industries that employ cheaper labour, or which have cheaper power resources. In addition, these multinational United States corporations export their products to the United States.
It has been said that perhaps as much as 28 to 30 per cent of the investment in the European Economic Community is United States investment. It has also been said that 20 to 25 per cent of Japanese capital investment is United States capital. We know that over 50 per cent of Canadian industry is United States owned, and possibly 60 per cent of South American industry is backed by United States investors. This means that the United States is now faced with the problem of erecting barriers against goods manufactured in other countries, where labour is cheaper, by their own multinational corporations.
There is another question which the hon. member for Duvernay and others did not face. It is one that the United States has not faced and I do not think we are really facing it. I refer to the fact that in the long run one country cannot compete with another country, despite the erection of tariff barriers, unless its labour is more productive than labour in that other country. It so happens that labour in Canada and in the United States is nowhere near as productive as labour in Germany, Japan, Taiwan and other countries. As I have said before, a look at figures published by Statistics Canada reveals that Canada is ninth in the world in the matter of productivity per man hour. We are behind countries like Greece, France, Spain and Portugal. Yet we want a standard of living that is second to none.
This is why the United States and Canada have to face up to the point made a few days ago in the speech made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), namely that we have to find some method of solving labour-management disputes other than by work stoppages, which account for about 80 per cent of lost productivity. In addition to the work stoppage itself time is lost before the stoppage, and also after resumption of work because the parties are seldom satisfied with what has been achieved. We are still functioning under this antiquated system but Japan and Germany have discarded it. No wonder they out-produce us. I suggest we will not make much headway until this situation is remedied.
Hon. members have mentioned the DISC program. I referred to this program in some detail in the spring of this year when the bill was being considered by Congress. I will not take the time to explain that program now because it was explained very carefully and accurately by
Employment Support Bill
the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) and I think hon. members are quite knowledgeable about it now.
In addition to that we have the other part of the United States programming or economic planning which completely divorces itself from any sort of trade agreement. You cannot tell me that this unilateral action by the president complies with GATT. Nor can you tell me that the support of transportation by the German government comes within GATT. All the subsidization by the Japanese in respect of promotional sales does not fall within GATT.
The point I am trying to make is that we must come to the conclusion that there are no longer any agreements. The only country slavishly following the GATT agreement is Canada. We must conclude that the United States has returned to economic isolation. It is out for itself, and it must be in order to survive. I venture to suggest that the ideas expressed by the late president, John Kennedy, have been discarded. The United States has no intention of having any responsibility toward trade or trade agreements. The United States is out to save its own economy, and for that reason, in spite of all hopeful wishes, this surcharge is not going to disappear now, in five years time or in ten years time. If you were an American entrepreneur struggling with labour productivity and you were given this 10 per cent gift would you allow the president to take it away merely because it hurt Canada? I suggest that is nonsense.
We must come to the conclusion that the United States is no longer concerned about what happens to Canada or any other country.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Steven Otto: We do not blame them.


An hon. Member:: Wrong.


Steven Otto: To blame them is absolutely foolish because they are not the first to break these agreements. They were not the first to introduce a DISC program. I pointed out in very great detail to this House about three years ago that the Japanese government provides money for the expansion of exports. It provides not only the cost of sales promotion, but it allows three years losses to be absorbed by the Japanese government. It discounts all notes and pays almost all transportation costs. The Japanese have a very efficient system of productivity and allow monopolies. They say to an industry that it can have the whole of North America as its territory, but must show a 3 per cent increase in sales. During that time no other Japanese industry can enter that area. How can we compete with Germany when they have the Rhine canal on which the barges are owned by the government, the masters are paid by the government and German manufacturers pay only one fennig per ton to ship goods 180 miles to the seacoast? We pay $6 a ton, not one-third of a cent.
I do not think the United States should be blamed. They have seen that all the agreements were coming to nothing and that they were stuck in the middle. What we have to say is to hell with the United States as far as we are concerned. Are we going to say we cannot go it alone or are we going to say we have all the assets, the equipment and the manpower to become economically independent?
7714

September 10, 1971
Employment Support Bill
We must utilize the CDC. We must have a careful look at our labour picture and we must develop our position. The government now has to decide whether it is going to say we cannot make it alone as an economic nation or that we can. I venture to say that 90 per cent of the people in Canada will say that we can and that all we need is conviction.
We have just about all the assets one can think of, and we have to make up our minds whether we are going to continue to follow these antiquated agreements. We have a transportation system in Canada but this is a large country. Possibly we will have to subsidize and automate the system. We may have to subsidize the cost of transporting products from areas in Canada to the seacoast in exactly the same way as the other countries are doing.


An hon. Member:: We have been saying that in Saskatchewan for a long time.


Steven Otto: We must also decide what our policy will be in connection with corporations. If we are going to charge the corporations for everything they have and charge the entrepreneurs in the same way, we will not compete with other nations which are helping to establish these industries elsewhere. This government will have to pay the majority of research costs because small industries cannot absorb them. The government will have to pay for a good deal of the promotional costs.
We must make sure that the efforts of our External Affairs department are directed toward trade rather than the cocktail circuit. We must forget this old idea about the External Affairs department having representatives in various areas to keep in touch with other nations. We must place the emphasis on trade and commerce as part of our whole system. We must have the Bank of Canada assume its rightful position, as mentioned by the hon. member for Duvernay. We must also change our monopoly laws to allow industry to exploit the market of 22 million people. Every product has its most efficient level of production. In some cases this amounts to millions of articles and in others only a few thousand. I believe we have the market if we rationalize our industries and amend our laws to allow competition within rational limits.
We have failed miserably in respect of our bargaining position. We know that most of the United States steel industries would shut down if they could not get our Labrador iron ore. The United States has small iron ore sources, but they cannot be used economically. They have sources in Brazil but they are a long way from the United States and I doubt very much whether Brazil is a place where one can invest confidently. The fact is that the United States steel industries continue to operate because of their access to our Labrador ore. We have this bargaining position. If our ore is to be used, the factories producing these goods should be established somewhere in the vicinity of Nova Scotia or elsewhere in that part of Canada. We have the natural gas, the water, the electricity, the nickel and all those things absolutely essential to this industry. We must have the guts to say to the United States that we will continue to sell these resources which produce a certain number of jobs but we want a certain percentage of those jobs for Canadians. We do not intend to be hoggish, but we want a certain percentage. We must

have agreements similar to the automotive agreement with all those industries internationally related between Canada and the United States.
We must also explore markets elsewhere. We are going to be an exporting nation but we really cannot export much more than we import. Of course, we could in terms of dollars because we could sell all our resources. Indeed, we could balance our payments internationally by selling nothing but resources and taking back nothing but manufactured goods, but this is not going to solve the problem of unemployment in Canada. We must think about these things. We must also have a government which is dedicated to the principle of supporting and expanding our industries so that we can compete profitably in other parts of the world. We must rationalize our products and say possibly that shoes are not the right product for Canada but that aircraft is because we have the electricc power and the aluminum as well as other advantages in creating a large aeronautics industry which can outsell any other nation in the world. These are the type of things we must do. Above all, however, the government must say once and for all that we will stand alone and will not start any trade war. We must use our resources to our best advantage and bargain as any other nation. We can no longer accept the idea that there is some sort of world trade agreement to which only Canada is subject and no one else. I believe this can and should be done.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think this government must face two very vital issues. Are we to say from now on that we are so tied to the United States economy that we cannot possibly work independently? If that is the case, then I believe the government should say so. If, on the other hand, the government concludes that we do have the resources which are necessary in order to be economically independent then it should state so. I suggest it is the latter course that Canadians will accept. I suggest the Prime Minister was elected as Prime Minister not because he said we have to follow the United States but because he gave the impression to Canadians that he would lead not only this country but the world. I cannot accept the idea that merely because we only have 22 million people we are nothing. Nations have conquered worlds with less than one tenth our population. What we need is conviction, dedication and esprit de corps. I suggest these are the things this government must do following this bill.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, one of the first observations one must make in participating in the debate on Bill C-262 is that this bill has created a widespread interest, certainly on the part of all members of the House. I wish to make a few remarks on this bill as it relates to the industry of agriculture. The bill has been brought forth as a measure to deal with the specific problem created by a specific action of the United States which affects all industries in Canada which rely to a great degree upon exports to the United States. We are led to believe that the purpose of this bill is to alleviate the impact of the United States surcharge on Canadian goods. We are led to believe this bill is designed to help all industries. I believe in all sincerity, that one industry, agriculture, is conspicuously absent from the provisions of the bill. In this regard, I might say that the bill is
September 10, 1971

noteworthy probably more for that which is not in it than it is for that which is in it and what it is supposed to do. To make a very simple observation, one can only say again that agriculture has been shortchanged by this government.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) spelled out at great length the disastrous impact the United States import surcharge would have on the agricultural industry, and then failed to give us any assurance that the impact would be relieved by governmental action. He indicated that processing plants would have the opportunity to apply for assistance under the program. However, there is nothing in this bill that will give the primary producers any assurance of relief. In two sections of his speech the minister pointed out that there will be a serious disruption in the market and that the impact of this measure will be severe. Certainly, it will be severe because generally the import surcharge affects roughly 25 per cent of our exports which go to the United States. In respect of agriculture, however, it will affect some 65 per cent of our exports. Surely, if that is the ratio in which the effect will be felt, there should be ample justification for singling out agriculture as an industry which will need the greatest amount of assistance.
In looking at some of the effects on agriculture, I wish to point out the severity of these effects in respect of our markets. This has been outlined in fairly succinct form in the Alberta Wheat Pool Budget of September 3. In order to give members some idea of the impact this measure will have on Canadian agriculture, I should like to refer to the resume of the Alberta Wheat Pool Budget which indicates the difference in tariff that will be paid on goods going into the United States. Of course, this resume deals generally with those products which are exported from Alberta to the United States. For example, Canadian fresh pork exports, which were worth $24.1 million last year will now be paying 2.5 cents per pound instead of 0.7 cents per pound. Bacon and ham, not canned, the exports of which amounted to $3.4 million last year will pay 3.25 cents per pound instead of 2 cents per pound. Live dairy cows worth $11.9 million will pay 3 cents per pound instead of 0.9 cents per pound. Cattle over 700 pounds, amounting to $11.4 million, will pay 3 cents per pound, an increase from 1.5 cents per pound. This item, of course, is subject to a global quota of 400,000 head.
Then we come to barley. The other evening we tried to raise this matter when the Minister of Agriculture gave us no assurance or hope in respect of the grain trade. Barley exports, worth $12.6 million, which paid 7.5 cents per bushel will pay an additional 10 per cent of purchase price, a total levy of about 21.5 cents per bushel. This is an increase which certainly will affect the market so far as world competition is concerned. We are still smarting from the results of the unpegging of the dollar last year which resulted in a 6 per cent increase in the price of export commodities, particularly grain, while we were trying to maintain the competitive position of our feed grains and malting grains in the United States. Malting barley worth $2.5 million will pay 40 cents per hundredweight, an increase from 30 cents per hundredweight. Creeping red fescue seed, worth $3.1 million, will pay 2 cents per pound, an increase from 0.5 cents per pound. Animal feed, worth $4.2 million will pay 14.5 per cent ad 24171-69J
Employment Support Bill
valorem instead of 4.5 per cent ad valorem. Brewers grains, worth $5.9 million, will pay an additional 10 per cent of purchase price on the present 22 cents per ton.
Biscuits and other baked grain products worth $10.7 million will pay 13.5 per cent ad valorem instead of 3.5 per cent ad valorem. Live swine, worth $4.3 million, will pay 2 cents per pound from 0.6 cents per pound. Seed potatoes, worth $3.2 million, will pay 10 per cent of price plus 371 cents per hundredweight, a total of about 90 cents per hundredweight. These adjustments will have serious effects on agriculture in Alberta and in Canada, yet there is nothing in this bill to signify that any positive action is going to be taken to directly assist the primary producers.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: At page 7588 of Hansard for September 7, 1971, the minister said that programs will be initiated to provide:
-for the losses or some of the losses that have been suffered as a result of disruption in those market areas as well.
We heard that same old story last year when the unpegging of the dollar seriously disrupted the agriculture industry and we are still waiting for some relief there. I am sure that all hon. members and people of Canada realize that agriculture is in a most seriously depressed state, and when you add this burden to those engaged in the industry, it spells disaster for many.
The minister says that we are going to use the provisions of the Agricultural Stabilization Act but we have seen very little use of that act which was brought forward in 1959. It is a very good act and if used properly would do a lot to alleviate some of the pressures we now face in agriculture. The relevant factors to be taken into consideration are clearly spelled out in section 2, subsection (2) under the heading "relevant factors" which reads as follows:
In prescribing a percentage of the base price of an agricultural commodity under paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition "prescribed price" in subsection (1), the Governor in Council shall be guided by the estimated average cost of production of the commodity, and such other factors as the Governor in Council considers to be relevant.
Certainly, that gives the Governor in Council adequate and sufficient powers to guarantee prices to the producers, based on the relevant cost ratio. We have seen what has happened to the price of eggs and pork across the country. The minister has seen fit to withdraw the wool subsidy which threatens that industry, but at the same time he maintains that we must diversify. The sheep and wool industry is one example of the possibility of diversification from wheat and other surplus commodities. However, this bill has not been used to give the producers that added price protection, although there is adequate provision in it. If it has not been used up to now, what assurance is there that it will be used to alleviate the impact of the import surcharge as a result of the American action? There is no assurance at all. It is just a bunch of political haymaking.
As I said before, we have a situation in agriculture where farm incomes are depressed and rural communities are being desperately affected. Small business enter-

September 10, 1971
Employment Support Bill
prises relying on the agriculture industry are being seriously affected as well and this will aggravate the problem further but there is no assurance in this bill that it will provide any relief whatsoever in this regard. This is a loosely worded bill and leaves many questions unanswered. Much depends on the regulations and a great deal of power is left in the hands of the minister. We must ask ourselves just who is going to get assistance, how it is going to be given and what assurances there are.
The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act is still law but the ministers of the Crown are not fulfilling their obligations. In my opinion the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is categorically flouting the law. Under this act, the government has a legal obligation to distribute $61,600,000 for the crop year 1970-71 and the money is not being paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Canadian Wheat Board so that the funds can be distributed. In addition, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund the federal treasury owes to the Canadian Wheat Board the sum of roughly $26 million for the crop year 1971-72. The majority of these payments should have been made months ago, but instead the government has seen fit to play party politics using the farmers' money as blackmail to force through this House a bill which is entitled the grain stabilization bill but the majority of farmers want no part of it.
If this government is not going to fulfill its obligations under the statutes that have already been approved by Parliament, how can we believe that it will live up to the principle and spirit of this measure? Had the $61,600,000 been paid to the Canadian Wheat Board, as is provided under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, it would have meant a final payment in June of something like nine or nine and a half cents a bushel. In this era of depressed incomes, this would have been very welcome. I suppose that the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board will bring in the bill about November 1, so that he can get a little bit of political mileage in the Assiniboia by-election. He will bring in the bill and say, "we do not want any filibustering now because the farmers out west need this $100 million". We saw what happened in the last provincial election in Saskatchewan. They tried the same trick but it did not work. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. members, this money is due and payable to the farmers of Canada and it should be distributed forthwith. May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair. The House will meet again at 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, prior to the luncheon recess, I was pointing out the public's lack of credibility in the administrative capacity of the government, and the fact that we can no longer place any confidence or trust in what it says or does. This is why I have some reservations about this bill.
I mentioned the Agricultural Stabilization Act, which the Minister of Agriculture referred to when he outlined the position of the government with respect to agriculture.

It explicitly states that the board has the power to ensure that the prescribed prices for agricultural products in effect from time to time shall bear a fair relationship to the costs of production of such commodities. As I said before, the prices which the farmer receives for agricultural commodities have decreased relatively disproportionately to the costs of production of those commodities, yet we have seen no positive action taken under the provisions of that act. I simply ask, how are we to believe that positive steps will be taken now under the provisions of the Agricultural Stabilization Act in alleviating the impact of the Surcharge.
I also made mention of the fact that the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, which still remains on the statute books, has been flouted. It has not been lived up to, although it is still in effect. This may directly involve a breach of statutory duties by the Minister of Finance, by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, and by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner).
In section 3, the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act explicitly states that the Minister of Finance, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, shall pay to the board "an amount equal to the portion of the said stocks that exceeds one hundred and seventy-eight million bushels at the commencement of that crop year-", This was not done. In section 4, it goes on to outline the manner in which these payments are to be made, on a monthly basis. This is not being done. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board has failed to demand that the payments be made. So, as I said before, there is over $61 million owing for the crop year 1970-71, and $26 million owing for the crop year 1971-72. Also as I said previously, the minister charged with parliamentary responsibility in respect of the Wheat Board has publicly declared that this sum of money, which is roughly $90 million, is not going to be paid.
I also believe that the Minister of Justice has violated his statutory duties. He is a member of the Statutory Instruments Revision Commission, and has omitted to include the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act in the Revised Statutes of 1970, something which he was required to do under section 2 of an act respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada.
I am not a lawyer, but I maintain that there is a matter of political blackmail involved in this proposition. The government has seen fit to introduce a bill, the Agricultural Stabilization Act, which includes provision for the rescinding of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, but this bill has not yet been enacted. As I said previously, these moneys are due and payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Canadian Wheat Board, and they should be distributed through it to the farmers of Canada without further delay.
There is no doubt in my mind that there will be a certain amount of political manipulating in the administration of the bill we are discussing, the same as we have seen with respect to the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, and this is all happening at a time when the agricultural industry is seriously depressed. The effects of the surtax are only going to compound the issue. As I said before, the agricultural industry is one which is going to be affected to a greater degree than any other industry.
September 10, 1971

Conspicuously absent from the bill is any mention of the agricultural industry. Certainly, that industry is worthy of our consideration and it deserves recognition equal to that given to any other industry. I think it is time the government dedicated itself to making agriculture a national asset and a national priority. It will not do that by applying recommendations of the task force report which suggest that we can only cure the problems of agriculture by removing two thirds of the farmers out of the industry. When we couple the effects of the surtax to the effects of our poor record of marketing and to the effects of poor returns on our product, it becomes obvious that the plan of "occupational genocide" is fast becoming reality. To substantiate this observation, one merely has to look at the Dominion Bureau of Statistics Report on farm net income for 1970. Paying particular attention to prairie agriculture, one finds that in 1966 the realized net income on farming operations in prairie Canada, that is, in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, amounted to some $1.12 billion. This figure decreases progressively, to the point where, in 1970, the realized net income of farms in prairie Canada amounted to some $500 million, a reduction of more than 50 per cent, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, when we consider that serious problem and couple it to the effects of the surcharge, we can only assume that the situation will be aggravated and will add to serious disruptions and, indeed, hardships affecting the industry of agriculture.
Before the bill is passed, I believe that the Minister of Agriculture owes to the House and farmers of Canada the duty of supplying those farmers with some definitive answers. His statement the other night in the House was more or less in the form of sweeping generalities. Before the bill progresses to final passage, I think he ought to give this House some explicit facts. For example, I think he should tell the House what those special programs will be to which he referred in his remarks recorded on page 7588 of Hansard:
We intend to initiate programs that will indeed provide for the losses, or some of the losses that have been suffered as a result of disruption of those market areas as well.
He owes a duty to this House, and to the people of Canada, to tell us what those special programs will be. I believe he must also tell this House and the primary producer how the producer is to apply for, qualify for, and receive assistance under the provisions of the bill. I believe he owes a duty to the House to advise us whether the regulations of the bill will make specific references to the industry of agriculture. I believe he also must tell us what kind of consultation his department and his officials will havfe with the respective producers in this country. He should also tell us when the advisory committee under the Agricultural Stabilization Board will be summoned to meet with the minister to discuss the impact of the surtax. I believe he should also answer more fully the question I put to him on September 7 with reference to the kind of assistance that might be forthcoming with regard to the feed grain situation, and barley in particular. At that time he said:
I do not want it to be misunderstood that there will be a complete payment through either the Agricultural Stabilization Board or the employment support act, but there are avenues open and I
Employment Support Bill
give an undertaking tonight that we are going to look at these on a commodity by commodity basis ...
I believe we should know what these avenues are and when they will be used. If the minister fails to discharge his responsibilities, we can only assume that he is being bamboozled and overpowered by his cabinet colleagues, that agriculture is not considered as being of priority importance, and that he is merely serving as a puppet for the Trudeau regime.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, two points stand out in Canada's present situation when we examine the problems with which Bill C-262 attempts to deal. The first is the failure of the government's economic policy and the naked position in which it has left Canada. I suggest that the government's economic policy is now a total shambles. The government has had the rug totally cut out from under its feet, because for some time they have followed a policy of restraint and of holding tight rein on the Canadian economy. In large measure this was in anticipation of an expansion in the United States economy some time in the latter half of this year. Of course, that expansion was bound to come at some time, on the basis of many indications from that country. It was also assumed that there would be significant "slop over" benefits from this expansion for Canada; that had to be taken into account in our own economic planning, to the extent that that might be engaged in by this government. Mr. Speaker, this has not been the case. This is not what happened.
President Nixon's announcement of August 15 was designed to help the United States. It was not designed to help Canada. Actually, it has had the opposite effect. In the final analysis I think this can be said of President Nixon's announcement: Although he wanted to see some adjustments made in the international economic situation, some of which certainly have to come about, in the final analysis, he considered the interests and problems of the United States first, and not those of Canada. This I think is entirely to be expected. Canada continues and has continued to "second guess" the situation.
It is quite obvious that Canadian officials and the Canadian government were nervous, because they thought they had learned a lesson from the last round of Canada's economic cycle. On the upturn, they had not given sufficient weight to the upturn in the United States economy, and that certainly had a significant bearing on what took place in Canada. Now Canadian officials will have to say, "Well, we have made another mistake". Canadians will have to pay for that mistake, Mr. Speaker.
I suggest that the government's economic policy, along with its fiscal and monetary policy, has consisted of one fiasco after another. They could not control inflation, as they said they would and as they said they did. They could not control unemployment. They could not control Canada's economic relations with the United States or bring them into some sort of sensible balance. We have witnessed a record of ineptness, incompetence and bungling by the present government, in my view.
The second major observation that might be made about our present situation is that all this underlines our dependence on the United States economy; it underlines the impact on Canada of the high degree of foreign own-

September 10, 1971
Employment Support Bill
ership that we have in Canada today. The hon. member lor Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) in his speech to this House yesterday aptly took note of the fact that at present we are playing a role in Canada that has been assigned to us by the United States, in its dominant role in the global economy. One of the tools that the United States is using to maintain the dominant role that it presently plays on the global economic scene and to effect this assigned role for Canada is United States investment in Canada. This role is maintained not through any insidious and conspiratorial decision making on the part of any entrepreneur but, rather, by a process which involves the decisions of many people where certain assumptions come into play. This is reflected in decisionmaking with regard to economic development in Canada to such an extent that certain developments are given priority on the Canadian scene and certain other developments are downplayed.
There has been concern regarding the actions of United States firms in the present situation. What are United States firms going to do in the present situation? Are they going to maintain their present operations? What will be the actions they take in connection with the legislation now before the House? We are also concerned about our trade relations with the United States. A high percentage of our trade is carried on with that country. Between 65 and 70 per cent of both our exports and imports are with the United States.
I want to make it clear, as I have done on previous occasions in this House, that a great deal of trade with the United States makes good sense. They are our closest neighbour. There are many instances in which it is good economic sense to carry on certain trade with the United States. However, the fact is that today a good deal of the trade carried on with that country is not necessarily because it makes good economic sense or is the best deal Canada can get. It is a case of administrative arrangements involving international and multinational corporations which are thinking primarily of their own corporate interest and not necessarily of the national interests of Canada, the United States or, for that matter, any other country.
The fact is that we have allowed ourselves to get into this position. We did not develop our facilities for growth, capital investment and accumulated savings in this country as we should have. To a great extent, Canadian business has sold us out over the past 25 years. In many cases it has opted for a junior partnership in the large multinational American corporations. It has accepted the role assigned to Canada of supplying raw materials for the American industrial machine.
It might be noted as well, Mr. Speaker, that we have to take account of capital flows into Canada and what takes place in that regard. In his speech to the House of Commons on September 7, as recorded at page 7581 of Hansard, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) said:
There has also been a substantial decline in the flow of longterm capital into Canada over the past several months, which undoubtedly reflects to some degree the request which I made to provinces, municipalities and corporations to restrict their borrowing abroad to the greatest extent possible because of the upward pressure, at places, on the Canadian dollar.
The Minister of Finance failed to note that there is another reason for the downturn in the actual importation of capital into Canada, namely, that it is no longer necessary for many large multinational corporations to import capital into Canada in order to carry out economic expansion they wish to undertake in this country. In many cases they can raise internally the capital they wish to spend in Canada without in any way reducing the effective control they have over the operations concerned.
We also have to note that the facts of the situation are not, as has been so often painted, that Canada is in such a vulnerable position that we are necessarily a weak nation and have to go on our knees begging to Washington. In many respects the United States is the vulnerable partner with regard to some aspects of the present situation. At the present time the United States is dependent on us for much of its raw materials. In many cases they are conserving what resources they have on hand. This is reflected in the fact that the United States has exempted from the import surcharge a good many of the raw materials that come from Canada.
In this entire area of foreign ownership of the Canadian economy, our dependence on the U.S. economy and economic events in the United States, we have seen a very notable absence of government policy. Of course, we have been promised the long-awaited policy statement, action or white paper. We are not quite clear what it will be and I am not sure whether the government is clear what will be forthcoming. That is not clear. It seems that tomorrow gets further away all the time. However, the fact is that the government has promised a policy statement and action in this field, but nothing has been forthcoming.
It seems that we continually have new developments which eclipse one situation after the other. At the same time, the Canadian government goes on with its business as though nothing has happened. For example, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion continues to make large, giveaway cash subsidy grants to foreign owned firms in order to carry out expansion or to undertake new operations in Canada. The government continues this policy in spite of the concern that is held in Canada, concern which the government and members of the government have expressed on various occasions. There is no indication that they are going to stop. I suggest the government must stop such policies.
Is the government suggesting that we do not have any alternative or any means to carry out the developments that are needed in various parts of the country and the improvements that are needed in many industries. If that is the case, what is the purpose of the Canada Development Corporation? If anyone suggests that this new instrument is inadequate in the way that its policy has been structured, I have to agree. However, if some of the

September 10, 1971

proposals by this party had been accepted, the Canada Development Corporation could be the vital tool that is needed to assist economic development in Canada and certainly economic development for some of the less favoured regions.
The government must have some plan in mind. I suggest they are going to announce this new plan just before the election. After they have sold out the country and have opted out of the many alternatives open to them, they will come along with a new policy just before the election and, after they have sold out Canada, say they will save this country.
What this legislation before us today does is outline the nakedness of the government's position. It, in effect, gives a blank cheque to the minister. We really do not have any criteria or guidelines set out in the legislation. I understand that the draft regulations may be available to us at some point. I will certainly be very interested in studying them to see how far they go.
It is quite obvious that this legislation was very hastily drawn. It is another patchwork solution, something this government is very adept at doing. I suggest they wanted to show the government was doing something to deal with the situation, but does it really do anything? Is the government really doing anything to help the situation? This is a very debatable question, one which could be argued back and forth.
An interesting statement has been issued by the general manager of the Canadian Electrical Manufacturers Association. In commenting on the government's proposed legislation, he said:
Resulting unemployment is not likely to occur in dramatic lay-offs of hundreds of people in one place at one time. Consequently. government compensation of the kind offered will be difficult to claim and the prospect is not reassuring.
This is only one indicator, but it is worthy of note. It indicates some of the concerns that have been expressed by many of us with regard to this legislation, namely that it will not do what the government claims it will. The fact is there are no basic solutions put forward in this legislation. To some extent, I suppose, the government does indicate that this is an emergency piece of legislation. Emergency legislation is necessary from time to time, as long as it does deal with the immediate situation and open the way to finding longer term solutions. There is also the question: who is really helped by this legislation. I am not at all sure it will have the effect claimed for it by the minister or that in fact the title of the bill, the Employment Support Act, will be justified when it comes to putting this measure into effect.
The minister says this is a first step among other things the government intends to do. I hope the government has other measures in mind. I hope these measures will contain more substance than the legislation now before us, otherwise Canada will be in a pretty bad position. I notice as well that this legislation is directed primarily toward assisting manufacturing industries. All of us have to recognize that many manufacturing industries will be hurt as a result of the new situation and that there is some need for action. It is possible that jobs will be lost and this must be of concern to all of us. I am
Employment Support Bill
sure the minister will do his best to give effect to this legislation so that it will be of benefit to those affected. He is regarded by many people as being a good technician and he will no doubt do his best to make the best of a poor job in terms of the legislation. I note that the minister is very fast to move when it comes to helping industry, and giving hand-outs to industry, but this is not the case when it comes to other sectors of the economy.
Here I must take note of the agriculture industry. This morning during the question period reference was made to some of the problems faced by agriculture. At that time it was stated: well, we are going to have to wait and see. That is not what is being done with industry; the government claims it is taking action now, that it is doing something in the bill before us. So they are doing something. If they say that is their intention, to take action, I do not quarrel with them. But what is their attitude with respect to agriculture and to some of the industries we heard about, for example, the fishing industry? Well, we are going to wait and see, we are going to study the problem, we are going to look at it and it may be we shall figure out what to do.
Surely the government has taken note of its own study and work on the impact of this legislation on Canada, because it has been noted with respect to animal and vegetable products imported by the United States from Canada that some 63.5 per cent of these imports will be subject to the surcharge on the basis of the latest figures for 1970. This is higher than for any other industrial group set out by the federal government in its studies. Certainly there are components of other industrial groups which reflect a higher percentage, but by and large it is the group comprising animal and vegetable products which is most severely hit by the action of the United States government. We also have the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) when he said in debate last Tuesday, as reported on page 7586 of Hansard:
I should like to note that because of the nature of agricultural production and trade and because of the trade pattern which has evolved over the years, the impact of these measures taken by the United States on our agriculture industry could be particularly severe.
Later, the minister said that the application of the surcharge weighs particularly heavily on agriculture. So the minister himself has noted the effects of the surcharge upon agriculture. But what is the government going to do? It is going to wait and see. Certainly, it is obvious that they may help some producers, some secondary industry which processes agricultural products, through the bill now before us. How much this helps agricultural producers is a question which could be studied further. The Minister of Agriculture said the other day that they were going to give agricultural problems arising out of the new situation a commodity by commodity review. He also said they were going to use the Agriculture Stabilization Act. In the first place, I might note that there are a few exemptions from the Agricultural Stabilization Act which are of interest to some of us in western Canada in particular. I am sure the Minister of Trade

September 10, 1971
Employment Support Bill
and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has heard that barley, oats and wheat coming within the Wheat Board area in western Canada are specifically exempted from the provisions of the act. Wheat, of course, is not affected by the import surcharge but oats and barley are affected and these are two important crops in western Canada.
Further, when we take a look at the operations of the Agricultural Stabilization Board in recent years we find that the level of support provided to some sectors of the agriculture industry and for some agricultural products is such that I believe it can be generally agreed that this machinery will be of very little value to farmers in Canada. I suggest the government is covering up, that it is doing very little to deal with agricultural problems arising out of the United States action. At any rate, it is clear they are not ready to provide any more money, at least up to the present time. This is typical of the government's attitude when it comes to agricultural problems.
We have seen the same thing when it comes to the transitional payments which the government is proposing in legislation now before the House of Commons. I do not intend to debate that subject at the present time but I wish to note that this is one example where the opposition parties have made it perfectly clear that if the government were prepared to separate that part of the bill from the other provisions of the legislation we would be prepared to give it immediate passage without further debate. The government was not prepared to do that. We have had further evidence in recent days through the failure of the government to make the payment to the Canadian Wheat Board which is required by law under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. We are not going to have adequate money for agriculture. The whole principle of the stabilization plan proposed in another bill is to limit the government's contribution and assistance to the agriculture industry. Contrast this with what the government is prepared to do for many other industries in Canada.
The viewpoint of some in western Canada was expressed by the Premier of Saskatchewan in a news release on September 8. Premier Allan Blakeney had this to say:
It would appear that the federal government has left the primary producers of Canada, particularly farmers, "out in the cold" once again. Although we haven't yet seen the legislation, indications are that the government has moved with great and commendable speed to provide $80 million to protect manufacturers and processors from the effects of the U.S. economic measures. But apparently the government will do nothing of a similar nature for primary producers.
This is a disgraceful situation. When Ottawa floated the Canadian dollar, the farmer got hurt; whenever there are ups and downs in the world market situation, the other countries subsidize their agricultural producers while Canada's farmers are ignored by their government. Such would seem to be the case again.
If we are to give this legislation the type of examination that it requires, and if in fact we are to pass a sound judgment on the legislation, it is necessary to examine it within a broad policy framework. I suggest that no policy framework has been laid before the House. In his speech the other day the Minister of Industry, Trade and Com-

merce attempted to do his best to outline at this particular stage some of the "nuts and bolts" issues that are dealt with, but he did not deal with the broad framework within which the measure must be considered.
The Minister of Finance gave the House another of his reviews of the economic situation in Canada and said that everything is going to be all right, that things are going up and no one need worry at all. I suggest this simply is not good enough. The minister said that this measure is the first step in the government's program to deal with the situation. I suggest that this is an obvious patchwork solution, another of the many patchwork solutions that have been put forward by the government.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You said that before.


John Stratford Burton: Both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who I am glad is listening, said that the government is considering other measures, but we have been given no information about such measures at this time. I can understand that it may have good reason for not wanting to tip its entire hand, and I do not quarrel with that at all, but no information has been given to the House about the policy framework of the government or the priorities which the government must establish if it is to deal with this and other economic problems in Canada.
I think this point was made very well yesterday in the speech of the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans). He pointed to the need for national objectives on the part of the government and for a framework within which policy can subsequently be developed. I suggest that the needs of the nation as a whole should be given higher priority. We should ensure that this nation has a high degree of independence and can carry on its own affairs and make its own decisions, rather than be totally dependent on one or more foreign countries, however good neighbours they may be.
A number of suggestions have been made during this debate in regard to steps the government might take to deal with the present situation. A number were proposed by my leader the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), my colleague the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) and others. The government should be implementing a number of measures now, one of the most important of which is to lower interest rates in Canada.
Such a step would have an obvious impact on exchange rates in this country and I suggest would be of more assistance than all the give-away grants that the government could possibly make. At the same time we could continue our floating exchange rate policy with which, as the minister knows, the members of this party basically agree. I suggest that not only would the manufacturing industries covered by this bill be assisted, but so would agriculture, the fisheries and the economy of Canada in general. Certainly, it would be better than the Bank of Canada simply taking holding action in exchange transaction, which it is undoubtedly now doing in order to try and stabilize the situation.
September 10, 1971

We should also note that President Nixon made it clear there is not going to be any excess profits tax applied in the United States and that probably action would be taken to control interest rates. This would make it all the more necessary for Canada to take action to control our interest rates; that is, if we are to obtain any sort of satisfactory economic balance.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the high interest rates in Canada have helped boost our exchange rate, making things more difficult in Canada in many respects. For example, it has increased costs of many Canadian businesses. Actually it has affected every sector of the Canadian economy. I think it will be difficult to find any one single action that could be taken by the government at the present time which would have as significant an effect as the suggestion I have made in reducing costs. The lowering of interest rates in Canada would, I suggest, significantly reduce costs in all sectors of the economy.
My second point is that we must consider ways and means to slow down capital movement into Canada. One step we should take in this regard is to stop making grants to foreign owned and foreign controlled firms. This would help slow down movement of capital into Canada since such capital is not our primary need at the present time. In addition, consideration might be given to imposing a tax on capital inflows of this kind, particularly in view of the undesirable effect such inflows may have at the present time.
Thirdly, I suggest that we undertake expansionary fiscal and monetary policies. This subject has already been dealt with by other members of my party. One of the priorities should be tax cuts for people in the lower income brackets. This might embrace a number of different taxes. The government should take action to boost its own expenditure and public investment in order to stimulate the Canadian economy.
The fourth step that should be taken is the monitoring of foreign owned subsidiaries in Canada. This is a necessary step in view of the immediate situation this country is facing. What is the government doing in this connection? Recommendations have been made to the government on many occasions, including recommendations by some of the government's own advisers, such as Professor Melville Watkins when he was advising the government a few years ago, but the government has never seen fit to act on those recommendations. As a result we do not know what the government is going to do, since it has never pronounced itself one way or the other.
Fifth, I suggest we should give consideration to levying a selective export tax, which would be one way of extracting money from some of the oil and gas companies that are not making their appropriate contribution to the Canadian treasury at the present time.
Sixth and lastly, I suggest some definite moves should be taken to assist both agriculture and the fisheries in the present situation. These industries are in a desperate position. They have been hurt badly in many parts of this country and are facing a very difficult cost situation. Simply once again to leave them to bear the brunt of the current problem is not showing them any kind of equita-
Employment Support Bill
ble consideration within the government's policy framework. This is why I am particularly glad that my colleague the hon. member for Waterloo moved his amendment, and I intend to support it.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Oitawa West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) made a number of statements and emphasized the need for long-term measures. In his presentation he made a number of points with which I, personally, do not agree and I should like to make some observations upon them.
Without question his speech was very well organized. It was original, stimulating, and commanded the attention of members on all sides of the House. I suspect that this is the role the hon. member most particularly enjoys- that of bringing major public issues into a public forum and raising the level of the debate itself. I am proud to belong to the same party as he, though I do not always share his views. Nevertheless, I think all of us recognize his deep intelligence and social conscience.
However, it seems to me that the analysis which he presented to the House yesterday is a dangerous one. In the first place, by his own admission, Canada is more vulnerable than perhaps any other nation to measures that restrict the flow of international trade. Therefore, we cannot arbitrarily place barriers against the flow of materials which are vital not only to our neighbour to the south but to our own economy. In the second place, I believe the hon. member stated some half truths when he spoke about contributions by way of taxes from resource industries in the export sector. Third, and most importantly, I believe that the kind of analysis that the hon. member presented contributes to a dangerous economic isolationism which perhaps finds its most extreme expression in some members of the New Democratic party who so avidly applaused yesterday those sections of the hon. member's speech.
As to my first point, Mr. Speaker, I have heard the hon. member for Duvernay argue in previous circumstances that something like 25 per cent of Canada's gross national product is derived from export industries. On a per capita basis, we are one of the world's greatest trading nations. We absorb 28 per cent of the exports of the United States, though we are one-tenth the population of that country. The converse of this, however, is that we are also the most vulnerable of nations. This is not to deny that other nations are vulnerable-Japan and Germany are equally so. Reduction in exports will have a small impact on the gross national product of the United States. Indeed, it is estimated that only some 4 per cent of their gross national product is derived from export industry. A reduction in exports of Canadian products, however, will have a severe effect on our employment. If any nation in the modern world has a strong economic interest in the preservation of international trade, stable currencies and a reduction of barriers to trade, that nation is Canada. I believe the Minister of

September 10, 1971
7722______________________________________
Employment Support Bill Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) stated these facts very clearly at the beginning of the debate.
The hon. member for Duvernay made a number of general statements in yesterday's debate that are reasonable enough on the surface, but dangerously deceptive in the conclusions that are to be drawn from them. He said, for example, that the exports from resource industries, particularly mining, oil and gas, did not contribute to employment, which he correctly named as our number one national problem, did not contribute to tax revenues and did not, in any significant way, help Canadians. He seemed to go much further than this. He said that nonrenewable resources are our stock of capital and that we are violating the trust to future generations when we permit a cubic foot of natural gas, a barrel of oil, or a ton of our metals to be exported unnecessarily. These statements he appeared to make without qualification in a form that gave me, and I am sure other hon. members, a great deal of concern.
Any hypothesis must stand the test of facts. The first fact I challenge the hon. member for Duvernay to verify is this. What taxes is he talking about? In a previous speech he delivered this spring, he restricted his comments particularly to corporation business taxes. Presumably, he has done the same thing now. The resource industries that he is talking about, Mr. Speaker, pay local municipal property taxes, in varying degrees it is true, but they do pay them. Secondly, the employees of these companies who work in Canada pay personal income taxes, and personal income tax has become a much higher percentage of government revenue than it was in previous years.
At the very best, the hon. member's argument is an argument for tax reform which certainly has its merits, but it is not an argument in terms of resource export policy. Mr. Carter made the case for tax reform very forcefully, and I must confess that in a number of respects I have sympathy for his point of view on that particular point.
I am going to ask hon. members of the NDP opposite, those who applauded so very lustily yesterday, what will they say to the residents of Thompson, Manitoba? If we took the advice we were given yesterday and stopped exports of nickel would the people now living in Thompson be there? Granted, the community has a smelter and processes the ore, but in that part of his argument there is a conflict. The member stated very clearly that the export of such commodities was a betrayal of our national trust. Will the hon. members of the NDP who sit in this House representing constituencies in Manitoba go into Thompson and say to the people living there, the town of Thompson should not exist and we should not allow the export of so much nickel? If we are elected to the federal House we are going to make sure there are no more Thompsons created. Will they say that? Can any of us conceive that if any member from that party is prepared to go in and say these things in Manitoba he would receive any encouragement whatsoever from the New Democratic premier of that province?
Let us take another example, the potash mines of Saskatchewan. This is a non-renewable resource, presumably of the kind the hon. member for Duvernay had in mind while speaking. Will the members of the NDP go and tell the newly elected premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Blakely, that he must stop the export of so much potash? Will they say it is a mistake to export potash excessively because this is a violation of a trust that we owe to future generations of Canadians? The members of the New Democratic Party have had to face this issue more squarely, or should I say with two opposing points of view, to a greater degree than any other party in this House. Indeed, the Waffle wing, which seems to command a fair amount of support in their ranks, puts forward an ill-conceived theory of economic isolationism that is hardly credible in our generation and combines it with an emotional appeal to socialize industries.
Coming again to the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Duvernay, he says one should distinguish between renewable and non-renewable resources and apply different policies. One has to examine this and ask what are the renewable resources; forest products and fisheries? Will he please tell us how we can sell more wheat? He feels we should export still more, but please tell us how we can do it. Certainly none of us are in disagreement with the need to seek better markets wherever they may be found. Having regard to these products, it is a counsel to perfection to say this is what we must export and other things we must not export because somehow this is a betrayal of a trust.
The greatest danger of all this lies in the way in which these arguments re-enforce the anti-Americanism which is emerging as part of our cultural life. The economic arguments are half truths and not whole truths, but the emotional implications are the kind of thing that give me much concern. One of the great tragedies of the Viet Nam war is the legacy of anti-Americanism it has left, particularly with English-speaking Canadians. Had this misguided and most tragic military operation not taken place, there is no doubt in my mind that many Canadians would have felt much closer to their neighbour to the south than they do today. Indeed, it seems to me that the most extreme expressions of economic isolationism in Canada-and from this I must be emphatic in dissociating the member for Duvernay who is much too intelligent to take this position-come from people who oppose the Viet Nam war.
This conflict has brought a number of immigrants into Canada, in many cases motivated by high ideological reasons, and in other cases, simply motivated by a desire to escape the military draft. These immigrants are highly literate and assimilate very quickly into our cities and have a considerable impact on public opinion in Canada. In my opinion, however, it is most unfortunate that arguments concerning foreign ownership of Canadian industries, the export of non-renewable resources, and in the measures to maintain employment in our manufacturing sector, might be re-enforced with a latent emotional expression of hostility to the United States of America which arises from totally different reasons. This is a most dangerous combination.

September 10, 1971

The measure before us today is a temporary measure and we all recognize it to be such. The hon. member for Duvernay, however, has done a remarkably good service to us in calling attention to the reasons why these special imposts described by President Nixon may not be really temporary. If America is to maintain her military commitments in Europe and in Asia, if America is to maintain her technological commitments in the race to the moon, the development of computers and government subsidies of research in many centres, and if America is to maintain a firm commitment for the purchase of essential raw materials abroad, then America must take very drastic measures to re-establish a substantial export surplus on commodity account.
We should be under no illusions that this means jobs will be taken out of manufacturing industry in Canada and placed in manufacturing industry in the United States. We are simply too big a customer of the products of the United States for it to be otherwise. We are too important in their balance of payments for it to be otherwise. This is, I think, the greatest contribution the hon. member made in his speech yesterday, in calling attention to the need for solutions for long-term problems. Unfortunately, in his remarks concerning nonrenewable resources he proposes the wrong solution.
Take, for example, the case of oil. The leader of the New Democratic Party would, according to his own words, place an export tax on oil and natural gas. What about development, for example, of the Alberta tar sands which contain resources, not of a billion barrels, but hundreds of billions of barrels, enough to supply this entire continent for a long time. One company today produces crude oil from these sands at great cost, and it is true to say without profit on its operation so far, but the exploitation of this tremendous resource is just on the verge. Are we to sit back and say, no, this cannot be exported, or do we want to build processing plants to handle the tar sands, to export the crude oil derived from them, to create employment, new communities, property taxes for municipalities and corporation taxes for the government of Canada according to appropriate tax laws?
What about the immense finds of natural gas on the remote Arctic islands? Do they sit for 50 or 100 years before the Canadian market creates a demand for them, if it ever does? Or do we establish a policy of setting national targets, of setting aside what we need for the foreseeable future for Canadian use, and exporting a moderate amount of anticipated surplus?
Broad markets and the extension of resources go hand in hand. If there is no incentive to spend millions of dollars to find out what exists in the Arctic we have no reasonable prospect of meeting the expenditures to discover what does exist there. In spite of the exports which have taken place to the United States, perhaps even because of it, our proven oil reserves are at the highest level in Canadian history. What about the iron ore of Labrador? Indeed, I have heard one or two members of the party on the other side say that they thought the development of these iron ore resources was a mistake.
Employment Support Bill
They have argued that the quality of life in new communities created is inferior and that the hardships people endure to live in them cannot be justified. Frankly, I would not presume to pass such a judgment.


John Howard Lundrigan: What a stupid statement. Where did you get that silly idea?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: It was said to me by one hon. member of this House whom I shall not name. Those who would undertake to make such judgments assume unto themselves a wisdom which Solomon could not have possessed. It is clear that without export markets for iron ore, Labrador deposits would not have been developed. Without foreign capital, the immense sums of money required could not have been found. I contend that what we have to do is strike some balance. We cannot ignore our obligations to future generations. We cannot squander our resources recklessly. But let us ask a fundamental question: To what extent should we impoverish the present generation, deny it employment, the opportunity to create new communities and to expand Canada in the interests of preserving unknown benefits at a future date?
I have one last point. It seems to me that the hon. member for Duvernay took a very static view of resources. What is a resource today and commands a market may not be a resource tomorrow. The day an inexpensive process for desalination of sea water is developed, the demand to import fresh water from Canada will fall very appreciably.
In the Ottawa Valley at the present time there are literally hundreds of worked-out mines. As an amateur rock polisher it has been my habit to visit a number of these mines. I have done so and have learned something about them. But one thing stands out. There is no longer mica in the deposits, but if mica were there today there would be no market for it. There is no longer phosphate rock in the deposits, but if phospate rock were still there it could not compete with the phosphate rock being marketed by many other countries. There is no longer graphite there, but if small graphite deposits existed it would not pay to work them by the hand methods that were used a century ago. They are not big enough to justify machinery being used. These deposits were worked and men and their families at that time earned their income from working them and exporting their products. But if we had had in existence a century ago a policy of preventing exports, these would be geological curiosities and little else today.
In today's world there is a rapid rate of technological change. New products are used, new technologies are used, substitutes are developed. I have not, and do not subscribe to the theory that you lock the key on the great storehouse of Canadian resources and let it sit there for generations to come. Surely the prudent thing is to develop and, if necessary, export a reasonable proportion of these resources which can be demonstrated to be surplus after our own requirements are met.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great honour to be able to follow for 10

September 10, 1971
Employment Support Bill
or 15 minutes the eminent member from Ottawa some-where-or-other and make a few remarks, hopefully to counter in part the prostitutional approach to the resources of Canada which has emanated from the speeches of various members of the Liberal party in the last few days. It is also a delight to take part in this debate with the other speakers who have participated.
I believe this is the first time since I have been here that we have had a full representation of Liberal speakers in every sense. Yesterday I believe we had five speakers representing the Liberal point of view, and today we have had a full measure including the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) who made an eminent 15-minute speech. I do not know the reason for all this. Obviously it reflects a type of concern about which we as Members of Parliament and the general public are not yet fully apprised. I hope this will become clear as time goes on.
I wish to make a few very modest remarks about a particular aspect of the Canadian economy. I do not presume to be able to talk about President Nixon, Secretary of the Treasury Connally and these great international statesmen because my background, my coming from a small, rural part of Canada, does not permit that kind of immodesty. However, I shall speak about an eminent Canadian industry.
I am, of course, rather surprised to find that during the last several weeks the events have shown the absolute contempt of the leaders of the United States toward the Canadian system of government, or at least toward the present government. I remember sitting in the living-room a few weeks ago with a number of my friends from the east coast and listening to a review of Secretary of the Treasury Connally's remarks about Canada, the journey of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and his entourage to Washington and the response. I must confess to a small bit of shame that we have reached the point of degeneration where the United States people treat us with the same disrespect in many ways as they have treated some oriental countries or far eastern countries.
I believe these people in the United States, temporarily at least, have forgotten we are their northern neighbour and are not in effect a Chinese republic or some such country. There appears to be a sort of contempt on the part of the Secretary of the Treasury toward the Canadian delegation. I am sure this comes as a result of the last three years of rabble-rousing on the part of the leader of this country in international escapades in the Soviet Union and other places where he has gone on record as openly criticizing a neighbour which has been a steady part of the backbone of our economy.
I wish to make a few remarks about one of the industries which I say has been left out completely from the benefits which can accrue to Canadian industry from the $80 million which is to be provided under this bill. The hon. member for Ottawa West and other hon. members referred to the fact that the primary industries in our country are being completely downtrodden, and all the problems the government is trying to overcome in respect of this surcharge.

The forest industry is now in a complete slump and is ignored completely. The fishing industry of Canada, in which last year there were exports to the United States of over $200 million, has been completely overlooked. A number of speakers have referred to the major problem of conservation in the fishing industry because various countries of the world have been coming to our shores, ignoring our national rights and territorial fishing rights and scooping up the marine renewable resources which are so vital to the total Canadian economy.
Yesterday the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) announced that there is to be a meeting with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) at which there will be some high-level talks about the problem of conservation. This is after three years of pressure from here and, of course, coincidentally on the eve of a provincial election in the province of Newfoundland where everybody is scared of having the eminent Premier and Canadian clown of politics turned out. I am sure there is no political correlation here. Then we had the action of the Minister of Finance which tended to push up the value of the Canadian dollar. The end result is that Canadian exporters of fish to the American market lost 5 per cent or 7 per cent of their exports, which had a profound effect on our fishing industry.
Now we get the 10 per cent surcharge. I would like the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), who certainly can understand what I am going to say-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Thank you.


John Howard Lundrigan: 
Jean-Luc Pepin: May I ask a question? Would the hon. member give us the figures of the rise in price of these fish in the last year or two?


John Howard Lundrigan: What a lot of absolute hogwash! Is the minister trying to say that because there has been a firming-up in the American market which enables a fisherman to get a little more for his product, we should trade away that little profit?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker. I was just trying to get the hon. member to give a full picture of the situation and not a partial one.


John Howard Lundrigan: September 10, 1971
Employment Support Bill
Right now, today, is the time for the government to state its position on unemployment. We want to know what its projections are. I know that many studies have been made. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) is not in the House, but I know that he has asked his economists to arrive at projections for unemployment in the coming year and many economists in his department have concluded that quite apart from the impact of the American surcharge we are likely to have one million Canadians prowling round the streets this winter without a damned thing to do.
Why doesn't the Prime Minister stand up and tell the Canadian people what his employment goals are for the winter of 1971? Is he not willing to meet with officials of the various provinces and municipalities to assess the economic burdens that will fall on Canadians this winter and next spring? I would like to see the Prime Minister act now.
We all remember the statement of last December 3 and what happened before the Minister of Finance, Bungling Ben, finally decided that the government was going to make a low-interest loans program available to the provinces to fight unemployment. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) delayed until March before announcing the Opportunities for Youth program and asking young Canadians to offer suggestions with respect to it. I repeat that the time is now when a major statement should be made by the government on its plans to fight unemployment this winter.
I wish to conclude, Mr. Speaker, with one other point which will require half an hour to develop but to which I cannot devote that much time. On Monday next we will begin discussing the tax reforms that are going to take place in Canada. Almost since the first day that we came into this Parliament in 1968 we began to work on reform of the federal tax system. I believe the time has come when we must make a fundamental reassessment of our approach to our resource industries.
This afternoon I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Ottawa West. I do not know if he has a degree in economics, but his speech sounded as though it were written by an economist because it contained a lot of narrow economic jargon, in fact a lot of nonsense, trying to explain that our resources belong to us, that we can sell them now and to hell with tomorrow.
Nobody is suggesting that we should stop exporting iron ore from the Northwest Territories or oil from Alberta, but a much more pointed effort must be made to help the companies involved undertake more processing in Canada and thus provide more employment here. I repeat that the time has come for us to make a fundamental reassessment of our approach to our resource industries. We cannot do that through the proposed tax measures. This is a point I shall not develop further today but I give notice of my intention to do so at a later date.
In conclusion, I wonder why members of the Liberal party have spent so much time taking part in this debate although they have tried to give the impression that they wanted the bill passed in a matter of hours. I wish to tell

them that the issue has not yet come to an end and in the coming weeks the government will have to answer to members of this House and will have to issue a statement on its attitude toward the serious unemployment situation facing Canadians. It is to be hoped that during the Prime Minister's brief stay in Canada we will obtain some reaction from him.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baltleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, since I believe I am the last to speak in this debate, I wish to say I have not prepared a long speech. Some may say that is a good thing. But I do wish to make a few comments. The hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans), yesterday, and the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto), today, both made fine summations of the problems facing the nation. As I listened to the opinions of the hon. member for Duvernay they seemed to be those of an economics professor, and I do not think it is sufficient to look at these problems purely in the abstract.
That hon. member is also a politician, and if he is going to make suggestions on solutions for Canada's problems he should make political suggestions, practical suggestions. I wish to illustrate my point. Recently I visited the Yukon with the northern affairs committee which held hearings on a Yukon mining bill. We heard presentations from people in the mining industry. If we encourage foreign or Canadian capital to develop a mine or other primary industry, I do not think it is right for us to say later, "Now that you are established we are going to restrict your activities." If we say this we have a duty to provide alternative employment or business activity in the affected area. Some of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Duvernay overlooked that factor.
Mining is the only large-scale source of employment in the Yukon and if we move to restrict that industry we must offer the people there alternative employment. My suggestion is that we establish secondary industry there, that we build a refinery or smelter to process the ore in the area and say, as the Ontario government would say, "If you are going to mine in the Yukon you are going to refine in the Yukon." When you allow or encourage a vested interest to develop in connection with any industry, in this case mining, and then do away with it or restrict it in any way, you must offer an effective alternative solution. In my opinion the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) did not do that.
Let me use another illustration. In Calgary, or in Alberta generally there are Canadians with a vested interest in the export of our natural gas to the United States and there are Canadian politicians from Calgary who actively support such export. What happens, Mr. Speaker, when we export gas at cheap rates to the Americans? We ship our petrochemicals at rates which make it possible for the United States to produce commodities with which we in this country cannot compete. Let me illustrate my point this way. When we make ammonia nitrate in Calgary or when we make fertilizers like that, we cannot compete with the fertilizer made from natural gas which is shipped to Chicago.
September 10, 1971

I suggest that we should make practical efforts to solve these problems. Instead of shipping our gas to the United States at cheap rates, we ought to be producing fertilizer or other ethylene products and shipping them to the United States or other markets. As it is, we in Canada cannot compete with products which have been made in the United States from our natural products. To allow this to continue, I suggest, is not an adequate solution. This situation is causing some of our problems, among which is a lack of secondary industry and consequent lack of employment in Canada. I suggest, again, that in this respect we have a vested political interest in Calgary and Alberta. In that area Canadians are working against their own self-interests. By encouraging the export of natural gas and oil to the United States they are working against employment in Alberta.
I see that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is back in his seat. I am glad, because I wish to talk about an item that I think relates to him. Before the recent crisis connected with the American dollar, the surtax, and so on, arose, I suggested that instead of having $3.1 billion tied up in American funds we ought to buy some Japanese yen and Deutsch marks. If we had invested $1 billion in Japanese yen we would have made 5 cents on the dollar. As it was, we lost that much by holding American funds.
The minister may well say that we have some international responsibility and that we are trying to protect and help the Americans in their attempt to establish their currency on a firm basis. This may be true. However, if the minister has to argue this way, then I suggest to him that when the Americans put their surcharge on imports from other nations, Canada should have been excluded. If you are going to horse-trade around, you should be good at it. I suggest that if the minister is going to horse-trade around with those down-east Yankees, he had better sharpen his pencil because in this particular deal we come out on the losing end.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: You had better join the union.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: If the government wants to gamble with our money, which is what it does when it holds large amounts of American currency, it should have obtained a better deal from the American government when a crisis like this came along. I am the last to suggest that we want to wreck the American economy. We realize that that economy is important to us, that we have international responsibilities, and so on. Yet it seems to me that the Canadian government and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as well as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), have some responsibility to the Canadian people in looking after our interests. It is high time they paid more attention to what is happening and to what might happen when looking after our money.
I do not want to prolong the debate. There are only one or two ideas that I want to leave with the House. I suggest that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce should-


An hon. Member:: Resign.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Well, I would not quite suggest that.
Employment Support Bill


An hon. Member:: There is nobody better over there.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: I would not suggest that he resign because I do not think there is anybody better over there.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Some are
worse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: At any rate, we are in an awkward position. May I suggest something else to the minister and to the government. Too often we in Canada-by that I mean the government of Canada-leave things until a crisis develops. For example, we introduced the Opportunities for Youth program last spring because even in March we knew that a great many of our youth would be unemployed. The government said, "Let us introduce a crash program to solve the problem, it will do some of the things we want." Similarly, the crisis in the international field was growing and the government seemed to be unaware of it. Then all at once it happened, and now we have introduced a crash program involving $80 million in an attempt to solve a particular problem.
There is too much short-term planning. In addition to anything the government or the people on that side of the House could use, they could use a little vision as to what might happen the day after tomorrow; they should not just be concerned about today and tomorrow. It is high time somebody sat up and took notice of what is going on in the world around us, particularly since we deal in the international field and there are serious problems connected with international trade. After all, a great deal of our industry is tied to this base.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment to
the main motion, will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Whelan:: No.


Gerald William Baldwin: This issue may well be sent to a committee the members of which have a special interest in the bill which will be the next to come before the House. All of us, of course, have an interest in that bill, but the members of the finance committee are particularly interested in it and I simply wish to say to the leader of the House that I hope arrangements will be worked out so the sittings of that committee will not interfere with the presence of its members in this chamber when we are dealing with the tax bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the House ready for the question on the main motion?


Gerald William Baldwin: We are ready for the motion to be put, Mr. Speaker. May I make just one comment before it is put?

Some hon.	Members: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.	
Some hon.	Members: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.	
Some hon.	Members: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.	
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: I understand it is the wish of hon. mem-	
bers that we	proceed immediately to the vote.
The House	divided on the main motion (Mr. Pepin)
which was agreed to on the following division:	
	YEAS
	Messrs:
Alexander	Gray
Alkenbrack	Guilbault
Allmand	Gundlock
Andras	Haidasz
Baldwin	Hogarth
Barrett	Howard
Basford	(Okanagan Boundary)
Bechard	Howe
BeU	Hymmen
Benson	Isabelle
Blouin	Jerome
Borrie	Kaplan
Caccia	Knowles (Norfolk-
Cobbe	Haldimand)
Code	Lachance
Comtois	Laing
Corbin	(Vancouver South)
Corriveau	Lajoie
Cullen	Lambert
Cyr	(Edmonton West)
Danson	Lang (Saskatoon-
Deachman	Humboldt)
Deakon	Langlois
Dinsdale	La Salle
Drury	Lefebvre
Dube	Legault
Forget	Lessard
Forrestall	(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Foster	L'Heureux
Francis	Lundrigan
Gibson	Macdonald (Rosedale)
Gillespie	MacEachen
September 10, 1971

Messrs:
MacGuigan	Pringle
MacRae	Prud'homme
McBride	Richardson
McCleave	Ritchie
McGrath	Roberts
McKinley	Rochon
Mahoney	Roy (Laval)
Marceau	Ryan
Marchand	Sharp
(Kamloops-Cariboo)	Smith (Saint-Jean)
Mazankowski	Southam
Muir	Stewart (Cochrane)
Murphy	Stewart (Marquette)
Nesbitt	St. Pierre
Noel	Sulatycky
Nowlan	Thomas
O'Connell	(Maisonneuve-
Olson	Rosemont)
Osier	Thomas (Moncton)
Otto	Trudel
Paproski	Turner (London East)
Peddle	Wahn
Pelletier	Weatherhead
Pepin	Whelan
Perrault	Winch
Portelance	Woolliams-107.
 NAYS Messrs:
Benjamin	Laprise
Blackburn	Latulippe
Broadbent	Lewis
Burton	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Caouette	Ny strom
Gauthier	Orlikow
Gilbert	Rose
Gleave	Saltsman
Harding	Skoberg
Howard (Skeena)	Tetrault
Knowles (Winnipeg	Thomson
North Centre)	(Battlef ord-Kindersley)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills, private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Private members' notices of motions: November 2. 1970-Resuming debate on the motion of Mr. Baldwin, seconded by Mr. Bell:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization review Standing Orders dealing with private members* public bills with a view to making a report to the House with a recommendation that such changes be made as will allow a recorded vote on some of such bills.
Prevention of Military Aggression
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion stand. We are still hoping that this proposal may be included in the subject matters referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. For that reason I think we would only be wasting time by debating it now.
Motion stands.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, November 6, 1970, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take initiatives for United Nations reform to make that institution a more effective instrument for the prevention of military aggression, for the settlement of international disputes, and to promote co-operation, peace and prosperity and in particular to:
1.	provide that the decisions of the Security Council be enforceable;
2.	provide that the unused provisions of the charter be activated;
3.	provide that the International Court of Justice be empowered to interpret the United Nations charter;
4.	provide for universality of membership;
5.	provide for the establishment of global authorities related to the United Nations to deal with serious global problems such as the environment, population, development of seabed resources, and economic and social stability;
6.	provide for a United Nations stand-by peace force.
Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to put forward my name as seconder of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand). The hon. member's motion is specific and to the point. Perhaps the government would not want to take any initiative aimed at revising the charter itself unless it were convinced that those initiatives were feasible and would be useful. However, the government, as I hope all hon. members are, is in sympathy with the general purpose and intent of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.
A careful reading of the government's review of foreign policy indicates that it has made it a basic premise of the review that Canada should continue to work actively to achieve the goal of making the United Nations an effective instrument of international co-operation and to improve its capacity to discharge its charter responsibilities. That is the aim that I think we draw out of the government's study and the position it has taken on foreign policy. However, it seems to me that the hon. member who moved this motion has tried to pinpoint or highlight in a positive, definite way areas within which specific improvements could be made and has even gone so far as suggesting some things that should be done which in turn would require amendment to the charter as we know it today.
On November 6 last I listened with careful attention to the comments of the mover of the motion and I have

September 10, 1971
Prevention of Military Aggression since re-read the comments of the hon. members for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), Algoma (Mr. Foster), Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).
Many of the points raised in the motion are now under study by the United Nations. Indeed, the hon. member himself quoted from an address made by U Thant, United Nations Secretary General, to underscore the fact that what he was asking for was not impossible of achievement but was actually under discussion. He also suggested that Canada could take initiatives in some of the areas of concern. Indeed, paragraph 3 of his motion reads: provide that the International Court of Justice be empowered to interpret the United Nations charter;
In point of fact, the International Court of Justice has assisted the General Assembly, at its request, in providing interpretations of the United Nations charter. However, there may be a more positive and effective role for the International Court of Justice to play and I think the mover of the motion was trying to highlight that particular point.
Again, the United Nations has accepted in principle the goal of universality of membership and in its twenty-fifth anniversary declaration the General Assembly expressed the hope that all peace-loving states willing to carry out the objectives of the charter would become members. On this subject I read with some interest the comments of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, and I should like to align myself with the position that he took. He indicated in his address that universality must take on a different definition than that which it now has, to permit what he calls "split-countries" to become members. He referred specifically to Germany and Korea. Countries such as these should have membership in the United Nations.
The motion also refers to providing a United Nations stand-by peace force. This, again, is one of the possibilities under consideration in the special committee on peacekeeping of which Canada is a member. Canada has earmarked forces for use by the United Nations in peacekeeping situations.
The United Nations has also set up a committee on the peaceful uses of the seabed, which is studying the establishment of an international regime for the exploration and exploitation of the seabed resources beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. This committee is also studying international machinery to implement that regime.
Members who have been fortunate enough to attend as parliamentary delegates at the United Nations, and I count myself one of those, and other members of this House who make the United States their particular area of concern will know that the United Nations has called for a conference on the problems of the human environment, to be held in Stockholm, and Canada is fully committed to ensuring a successful conference which will no doubt have a good deal of influence in developing
international standards of criteria covering global-environmental problems.
As a member who represents a city which is on the border of the United States where we have our problems of pollution of the Great Lakes waters brought about by captains who show no responsibility, and in fact seem to show disdain for these international waters and dump oil and some of their bilge water which is polluted with oil which eventually finds its way on to the beaches of Canada and the United States, I must say we need more adequate surveillance of this kind of thing. The penalties and punishments are there, but until we can locate and pinpoint the particular individuals who are responsible we shall not get anywhere.
It may be that this is almost a parochial subject in that my interest is spearheaded toward the area of global-environmental problems, but if I were to highlight any part of this matter I think it would be that part which Canada plays in promoting economic and social stability in the United Nations system. I think in this area the United Nations has probably had its greatest success. The largest part of the United Nations activities paid for by both voluntary and assessed contributions is devoted to work in the economic and social fields. This work is undertaken by the United Nations Development Program and a complex system of international organizations such as the Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization, to name but two.
No doubt others participating in this debate, recognizing its wide ranging possibilities, will see fit to concentrate on one or two of these organizations and the splendid work they do. The mover of this motion knew full well when he moved it, as I did being the seconder of the motion, that it calls for amendments to the charter. It seems to me, on careful reading of the government's policy, that much more can be done now within the context of the charter itself, provided the majority of the member states, including the permanent members of the Security Council, are prepared to take action. Certainly we cannot force them to do so. Nor can we force the pace on the charter review, bearing in mind the serious differences of opinion between the major groupings in the organization.
One of the members in his comments of last November said that bearing in mind the different political philosophies and regimes involved it is amazing the United Nations is able to accomplish anything, let alone the many and varied accomplishments and successes it has enjoyed.
Members of this House are receiving letters, as I am, from concerned citizens not only about the former situation in Nigeria-Biafra but now, of course, the Pakistan problem. The charter of the United Nations does not permit its interfering in an internal conflict, notwithstanding the fact that there is serious loss of life as well as injury to persons and the countless thousands who are suffering from malnutrition and starvation. The United Nations can help and is doing a great, humanitarian job in India where that country permits the United Nations to come in and help cope with the refugee problem. How

September 10, 1971

much better it would be if Pakistan would permit these agencies to go into that country and to give this kind of aid to innocent victims of the internal conflict.
I am satisfied that this government considers in general that initiatives for improving the effectiveness of the United Nations should be taken within the context of the charter, except when it appears to it that the general consent of the membership could be obtained to secure a charter revision as in the case, for example, of the Economic and Social Council.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Certainly.


William Warren Allmand: Is the hon. member aware that since I first put my motion on the order paper last fall the United Nations General Assembly voted 82 to 12 in favour of charter review and asked the member countries of the United Nations to submit proposals for charter review by July 1, 1972? Is he aware of that new development since I placed my motion on the order paper?


An hon. Member:: That sounds like a set-up.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: If it is a set-up, it is a good one and I am happy that the hon. member saw fit to ask the question. I was aware of this particular development but I am sure many people in this country were not, and perhaps many Members of Parliament were not aware of it. I thank the hon. member for highlighting this fact and adding to the calibre of the debate by showing that not only has he brought forward this motion and spoken on it but, he now seeks to ask questions in order to put even more information on the record.
I am satisfied that the government might be prepared to accept the motion in a different form and if some of the specific recommendations were dropped. I for one think that is not very important, but it is important to outline the'specific areas in which we feel changes can be made, rather than couching motions in broad generalities, thereby not really striking home at areas where we feel changes should be made. That is, in effect, saying, "Changes should be made but we will not tell you where. We will leave it to the good graces of those who will be making representations".
I think members of this House owe it to the government and the United Nations to point out areas in which they think improvements can be made. Certainly, the United Nations is not above constructive criticism. By making these comments I am not trying to suggest that Canada has been inactive on recommendations contained in the motion; in fact, the opposite is the case.
Unfortunately, time will not permit me to go into too much detail but I think it should be noted that Canada did support a resolution approved by the twenty-fifth session of the General Assembly which asked the members of the organization to give their views on ways and means of making the International Court of Justice more effective. My hon. friend who moved this motion has highlighted this area.
Prevention of Military Aggression
On the question of peacekeeping, it seems to me basic to the foreign policy of Canada to work to make the United Nations a more effective instrument for the preservation of vital, international peace and security. It is almost trite to make the comment, but it should be highlighted. No one can dispute that the government supports and is heavily engaged in the special committee on peacekeeping and elsewhere in the effort to develop an effective peacekeeping mechanism which will enhance the ability of the United Nations to fulfil the intentions stipulated in the charter.
In addition to the efforts Canada has expended in the peacekeeping role, I think we can be justifiably proud of our role in promoting economic and social stability. It must be remembered that in this area Canada has played a useful and effective part in helping the United Nations to discharge its crucial responsibilities toward the developing countries. Canada is one of the major contributors to the voluntary economic and technical assistance funds in the United Nations family of organizations. The small amount of research I was able to undertake reveals that our annual contribution to these programs alone is slightly more than $112 million. I think it also bears repeating that Canada is one of the largest contributors to the World Bank institutions which so effectively serve the interests of the developing countries. A reading of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson's comments in "Partners in Development" should be a must for every member of this House.
In conclusion, I extend my thanks and compliments to the mover of the motion because it gives members of this House an opportunity to look outward, to do a bit of thinking and to express their points of view about our continued membership in the United Nations and the role Canada has to play, is playing and will continue to play. It is hoped that as a result of motions such as this the powers that be will see fit to make these kinds of changes-if not all those suggested, at least some that are highlighted.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on this motion. It provides an opportunity for wide ranging debate on a most important topic, that in the opinion of this House the government should take initiatives for United Nations reform. In his motion the mover states:
__reform to make that institution a more effective instrument
for the prevention of military aggression, for the settlement of international disputes, and to promote co-operation, peace and prosperity-
There are other items which he mentions. I wish to make particular reference to the wording, "co-operation, peace and prosperity". In paragraph 5 of his motion the hon. member further states:
provide for the establishment of global authorities related to the United Nations to deal with serious global problems such as the environment, population, development of seabed resources, and economic and social stability;
I should like to speak about the item "economic and social stability". In particular I refer to the work of

September 10, 1971
Prevention of Military Aggression one agency of the United Nations which has certainly fulfilled over more than two decades a very important role in economic and social stability. I refer to the role of UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund. Let me begin speaking about the role of this particular agency by quoting from a paper prepared by the Canadian UNICEF committee, dated September, 1970, commenting on the white papers entitled "Foreign Policy for Canadians" which were tabled in the House of Commons last year. The paper reads:
Consider the condition of children in developing countries, where their numbers alone are staggering. Forty percent of the total population of developing countries, some 700 million, are children under 15 years of age. It is estimated that every half minute a hundred children are bom in developing countries. Twenty percent perish at birth. Sixty percent suffer from malnutrition during the first crucial years, which often leads to irreversible physical and mental retardation. Less than 50 per cent who live to school age have a chance to attend even primary school, and fewer than half of those who attend will ever complete it. As the Commission on International Development, chaired by the Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson, succinctly stated:
"The physical and mental development of this generation is not only a matter of immediate concern, it is also of central importance to the whole process of development".
Today, our capacity to help the individual child is expanded every year. We know more about the child. We know more about the effects of deficiencies in health care, nutrition, education and housing. We have more specialized resources to help the child, yet our ability to extend these advances to the world's children on a massive scale is indeed limited.
Further on in the paper we find these words:
The program of the United Nations Children's Fund is designed to give assistance to strategic government programs for the direct benefit of children, always related to the overall economic and social development program within the country. The UNICEF program recognizes both the vital importance of children to the process of development and the fact that, where assistance to children is concerned, tomorrow is too late.
Operating with a 1970 budget of $54.5 million, UNICEF provides assistance to programs of health, nutrition, family and child welfare, education, pre-vocational training and emergency aid to assist children in 112 developing countries. The availability of UNICEF assistance is often the deciding factor in the introduction of these programs.
Based on total revenue, 92 per cent of the UNICEF budget is spent directly on programs in the form of equipment, supplies and operational services, only 8 per cent of the budget being spent on the administration essential to the proper planning and operation of the programs.
One of the most important features of the UNICEF programs is its catalytic effect within the recipient country. On an average, the equivalent of $2,50 is provided by the recipient country for every $1 of assistance provided by UNICEF. This local involvement in the program enables UNICEF to phase itself out once the project is viable and to extend its assistance in another area crucial to that country's children.
UNICEF has a unique position in the consciousness and affections of the Canadian public. The participation and involvement of three-quarters of a million young Canadian children at Hallowe'en is indeed significant. These children only collect over $666,000 annually-1969 figures-but gain through educational programs an early association with problems of overseas development.
And the plight and problems of the world's children in the developing countries.
The lasting nature of this experience is demonstrated by the ever-increasing number of spontaneous programs organized by
high school students throughout Canada and the "Miles for Millions" walk program. Fourteen agencies share the organization of "Miles for Millions" but in most cases the disposition of funds to these agencies is decided locally. In 1969 these local allocations to UNICEF increased by 84 per cent.
There was a further increase this year. Again, through the greeting-card program the Canadian UNICEF committee involves many hundreds of thousands of persons and companies through the purchase of UNICEF cards. I notice at Christmas time when I receive cards from many members of the House of Commons that more and more of them are using the UNICEF card because they know a portion of their contribution provides assistance to children in developing countries many of whom spend a very gloomy Christmas indeed. The Canadian UNICEF committee is a volunteer organization supported by an estimated 35,000 adult volunteer workers in all the provinces of Canada. Its annual contribution to UNICEF is among the highest in the world.
I do not want to pass the subject of the work of UNICEF generally and the work of UNICEF in Canada in particular without making reference to the Pakistan disaster and the efforts being made by Canadians in respect of that disaster. This illustrates very well the way an agency such as UNICEF fits into the scene when a major disaster strikes. I should like to read from a report issued in August on the visit to the Pakistani refugee camps in India by Paul Ignatieff, executive director of the Canadian UNICEF committee. He said:
The magnitude of the refugee problem defies description: it is undoubtedly the largest migration in accurately recorded history. The number of refugees who have now moved from East Bengal into India is equivalent to the entire population of Ontario- over 7 million. Only someone familiar with the logistics of supplying an army or a city the size of Toronto, could easily understand the problems being posed to the government of India in providing adequate shelter, food and medical services for this number of people. Obviously a problem of this magnitude requires assistance on a world wide scale.
He went on to say:
The assistance being provided to the refugees by the government and people of India is incredible. 4.5 million of the 7 million refugees are in camps and are being provided with shelter, food and medical facilities, as available, at a scale which is often better than that available to a great proportion of the Indian population.
As hon. members will realize, these camps are located near Calcutta, itself a disaster from the standpoint of human poverty and suffering. Speaking specifically of Canadian policy and the Canadian contribution, Mr. Ignatieff continued:
The Canadian government's recent decision against the provision of arms to Pakistan has created a unique affection for our country throughout India and gives us a unique opportunity to interpret the position of the developed world to the people and government of India. The government of Canada could further assist in interpreting India's attitudes to the developed world.
Particularly it is hoped that the government of Canada could use this reservoir of influence to increase India's acceptance of foreign material and personnel.
One realizes that the plight of the Pakistani people has been before the Canadian public since last November. In a sense, the current refugee problem in India is an emergency within an emergency. Nevertheless, it is hoped that the people of

September 10, 1971

Canada will show their compassion by trying to understand this very complicated situation and will give generously through donations to the Combined Appeal for Pakistani Relief. Currently, the Canadian public's donations have averaged 3 cents per person. Surely we can raise this to the price of a 15-cent cup of coffee.
In this report Mr. Ignatieff expresses a sincere vote of thanks to the Department of National Defence, the Canadian International Development Agency and the flight crews from 437 T squadron Air Transport Command for the airlift provided for UNICEF material. At the time of writing this report, seven Boeing 707 flights had been provided at an estimated cost of $50,000 per flight or a total contribution of $350,000. These flights are helping fulfil the first priority need of shelter by transporting polyethylene and sheet tarpaulins purchased in Canada by UNICEF.
He said:
When these flights are completed on August 10 over 50,000 tarpaulins will have been purchased.. .will provide cover for approximately three-quarters of a million refugees.
He commented that these flights require a minimum of three separate crews who incur most arduous flying conditions. I do not want to leave the subject of aid to the Pakistani refugees and the work being done by Canadians who understand this tragedy and take steps toward increasing aid without making reference to the trip this summer by three Members of Parliament, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) of the NDP, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) of the Progressive Conservative party, and the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance) of the Liberal party. At the invitation of the Indian and Pakistani governments, and with the assistance of the Canadian High Commission in India, these three gentlemen had an opportunity to view at first-hand the tragedy taking place there and to come back and prepare a report which has been placed in the hands of all Members of Parliament.
If hon. members have not read that report, I suggest that they do. It is a very sobering report indeed and one in which they set aside any party considerations and as Canadians and parliamentarians faced up to placing before Parliament their united view in respect of what they saw and what they thought could be done. At a time when many of us were on holiday this was a great effort on the part of these members and one which warrants the praise and attention of all members of this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Grant Deachman: We can say in respect of UNICEF, Mr. Speaker, that this is one agency Canadians can support not only through the medium of their government, but to a very considerable extent voluntarily and from their hearts. I say to members of this House and to the people of my own constituency that there can be nothing more satisfactory than taking part in the work of one of these agencies, and I suggest that UNICEF is one that merits assistance.
I want to thank members of this House for their attention this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and for the opportunity
Prevention of Military Aggression under the motion presented by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) to speak on this subject and to draw to their attention the work of UNICEF and more particularly the work of UNICEF in Canada. I am happy to say that this year I am a member of the board of directors and am very interested and indeed fascinated by the great work they are doing.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


An hon. Member:: Question.


Mr. John Roberts (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member who spoke before me, I welcome the opportunity that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) has given us to discuss these questions related to the United Nations. He is one of the members of the House whose enthusiasm and concern for international affairs I have long admired. I continue to admire those qualities even though he has ceased to be my landlord, something which put him in a position of considerable authority over me, and even though I find on occasion that his views are simple minded. He is direct in his approach to international problems and I am grateful that he has put the motion in this way before the House.
It is almost what you might call an omnibus motion, Mr. Speaker, except that I know you do not permit omnibus motions, because it covers so much ground and problem areas in relation to the United Nations. I would like to touch on each one of the six sections the hon. member has listed in his motion before going on to discuss at more length something that I think is of great importance, and that is the peacekeeping role of the United Nations and Canada's efforts to strengthen and enhance that role.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I had the good fortune and the privilege to be chairman of the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on External Affairs which prepared a report on peacekeeping, one which I recommend to all members of the House, one which I felt did not receive the kind of attention and publicity I hope it would have received, and one to which the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace contributed a great deal.
One criticism I would make of the hon. member's motion is its vagueness. For instance, when we look at the first section we find he asks that somehow we provide that the decisions of the Security Council be enforceable. Having placed it in that way, he really begs the very difficult question we face in relation to the Security Council because the real question is: Enforceable by whom, and against whom? On that he has been rather imprecise. I say this because at the present time there is no difficulty in making decisions of the Security Council enforceable if the members of the Security Council can come to unanimous agreement on what it is they wish to have done.
I rather suspect, although I may be mistaken and I hope the hon. member will correct me if I am, that he is thinking of decisions made by a part of the council, or a

September 10, 1971
Prevention of Military Aggression majority of the council and of how they could be enforced, perhaps against another member of the council or against a member of the General Assembly. If that is what he is talking about, then we are dealing with a very different kind of question. The wording of section 1 of the motion leaves unclear exactly what he is recommending and there is a world of difference between these two questions or issues.
The second matter he recommends in his motion is that the unused provisions of the charter be activated. 1 suspect that here he is referring to the military standing group which has met continuously but which has never managed to agree upon anything. The members who arrive for it open a meeting, sit there for half an hour and then leave without saying a word to each other. The reason for the inactiveness of this group is quite simply that dispute which has obviously dominated the United Nations for a great deal of its history, that split which developed in the cold war, that lack of unanimity and consensus among the great powers on the Security Council. There would be no problem in the activation of these provisions of the charter if we arrived at the stage where the United Nations was an institution working on the basis of the consensus of the great powers and if the great powers themselves were able to arrive at that consensus.
To continue with the hon. member's motion, the next section asks that the International Court of Justice be empowered to interpret the United Nations Charter. I point out that the members of the International Court have that power but the question is whether the court's interpretations will be binding on all the members of the United Nations. This, I suspect, Mr. Speaker-if a private member is allowed to suspect-reflects the bias of the hon. member whom we know is the president, and I may say the distinguished president, of the World Federalists Association of this Parliament.
While not saying so explicitly in his motion, I think what he is working toward is a conception that we should push the United Nations into becoming an institution of world government rather than an instrument of international political operation and co-operation. I would like to make some comments about that matter later on.


William Warren Allmand: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John (Moody) Roberts: Willingly.


William Warren Allmand: I wonder if my former tenant is aware of the fact that the words of my motion are taken directly from the speech of the Secretary General of the United Nations in 1970 on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the organization? In other words, the words in this motion are not my own simple ideas but the ideas of a man who has been Secretary General of that institution for several years.


John (Moody) Roberts: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that and I am delighted to hear they are not the simple ideas of the hon. member but the simple ideas of the Secretary General of the United Nations. That may explain some of the difficulties. I am glad the hon. member has seen fit to bring them to the attention of the House, but having
done so I am afraid he must take responsibility for the wording.
The fourth item he mentions in his motion is the desire to attain universality of membership in the United Nations, which is one of the explicit goals of the organization and something we all agree is necessary and desirable. But it raises practical questions. This relates most importantly to the question of the admission of Mainland China to the United Nations, that great nation which is now beyond the pale in terms of United Nations operations. It is no secret, Mr. Speaker, that I have long supported what has now become the government's approach to that question through recognition of Mainland China and the entry of Mainland China to the United Nations. That is an essential step for us to take. It is absurd for this institution to exclude from its membership)-or "not have participation in its deliberations" would be a much better way of putting it-the representatives of 800 million people.
But this will create great practical problems and here we arrive again at some of the things that the hon. member has recommended in other parts of his motion. For if Mainland China becomes a part of the organization and has a seat on the Security Council, will the possibilities be enhanced or diminished for agreement within the Security Council-something which is a prerequisite for making its decisions enforceable, which is the first thing recommended by the hon. member in his motion?
It is fine to be in favour of the universality of membership and the entry of Mainland China as a member, but we have to calculate what are the practical consequences of that. I suggest one of the consequences will be that it will not be easier for the United Nations to move in the direction of world government, to the type or idea of the institution that the hon. member supports, although it may well make it easier for the United Nations to become a better instrument of international negotiation and co-operation.
In the fifth section of his motion the hon. member recommends the establishment of United Nations authorities to deal with global problems such as the environment, population, development of seabed resources and economic and social stability. The hon. member who spoke before me dealt in part with this section of the motion. This is one of the areas where I think I would support the hon. member although, if I may say so, I think that the word "deal" in "deal with serious global problems" is a bit of a weasel word. What does it mean? Does it mean one can produce regulations, rules and quasi-legislation which can be applied to countries against their will, or does it mean that these authorities will deal with the problems in a co-operative manner, based on a consensus approach to international politics?
The last item the hon. member mentions is the provision of a United Nations stand-by peace force. Perhaps I could deal with this question a little later on in relation to my comments on the report of the subcommittee dealing with United Nations peacekeeping. Of course, most of the members of this House share the hon. member's sympathy and concern to enhance the United Nations, to

September 10, 1971

improve it and to make it more effective. Indeed, one of the proudest records of Canada's post-World War II foreign policy has been its continuing support of the ideals embodied in the United Nations charter and its practical help in assisting the United Nations in coping with the practical problems it has faced. I doubt if any other country has a more impressive, continuous, sustained record of support for the ideas and ideals of the United Nations than Canada. But I do not think it is enough to be sympathetic and concerned about the United Nations. We must also be very realistic about what this institution can do in international affairs and about its possibilities of development.
p.ra.)
To understand these possibilities and the hope that the future gives us, I think we must really look at the United Nations in the context of its history. It will be no surprise to members of this House when I say that the original, great expectations which were held by many people, particularly in the west, about what the United Nations might become after the war were quickly dashed in the cold war atmosphere that developed over the Polish question and after the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1948.
It has now become somewhat fashionable among the revisionist historians to try to reapportion blame for the events of the cold war. It is not my purpose to get involved in the historical question, yet it is obvious that the hostility, fear, suspicion and mistrust, perhaps inevitable, perhaps unnecessary should have developed in the late 1940s. This shattered the entire base on which the United Nations had been founded, the belief of the great powers that the wartime allies would be able to come together after the war and direct the affairs of mankind in a reasonable fashion. Indeed, one of the lessons that had been learned, it was thought, from the old League of Nations was that there had been too great a dispersal of power to the small and minor nations. That is why the United Nations charter gave to the United Nations power to limit the activities of states so long as they were not great powers, for the essential prerequisite of the United Nations enforcement action was the agreement of the five permanent powers of the Security Council. Of course, that agreement broke down very quickly.
At that stage the United Nations was still relatively small. It did not have well over the 100 members that it now has, with the representation of the third world which Canada worked so hard to get into the United Nations. There was real hope at that stage that the United Nations could be used as an instrument of the powers of the west against the Soviet Union, against one of the members of the Security Council. This was indeed the background to the 1950s and to the United Nations Korean force. Then we saw for a brief time the use of that international institution as a police power against one of the allies of one of its members.
That attempt ultimately broke down. The experience of the Korean effort on the part of the United Nations left the members with the feeling that "whatever else we do in future, we must not again become involved in that
Prevention of Military Aggression kind of operation." There was a feeling that if the United Nations was to be used in this way, in a way different from the original premise underlying its foundation, the result would be, inevitably, the withdrawal from the organization of the Communist states and its complete collapse.
The next phase of the United Nations coincided with the entry of a multiplicity of new states, from Africa and Asia particularly. At this stage we had a United Nations assembly which the people in the Security Council, or the great powers, could no longer easily control. The bulk of power, in the sense of voting power, lay with the new nations of the uncommitted world, sometimes called the neutralist world. These powers had problems that were different from the security concerns-perhaps one could say the security obsessions-which influenced the United States and the Soviet Union in their dealings with the United Nations.
These new countries in dealing with the United Nations were mainly concerned with underdevelopment, world poverty, economic difficulties, health organization and colonialism. Those were and are the problems which concern the third world. That essentially is the stage we are still at in the United Nations. It has become an institution which is dominated by the concerns, not of the great powers but of the small powers, the Asian and African powers, those of the third world. As a result of that, the great powers to some extent have lost interest in the United Nations since it is no longer quite as able an instrument for the pursuit of their aims and objectives as it once was.
It is within that context that we have to look at the hon. member's motion, because we have a United Nations which is a forum dominated by the interests of the small and middle powers. Yet the hon. member's suggestions could only become realistically enforced if we were to talk in terms of the United Nations returning to the original concept of the charter, that is, if the United Nations were to become an organization again in which the great powers were able to agree on what they wanted to do and used the United Nations as the instrument for enforcing it.
In other words, we have two conceptions as to how the United Nations could develop. One is that it could develop in the direction of being a world government; the other, that it could develop toward being one instrument-not all the instruments, but simply one instrument-in dealing with international political problems of our world. It would not be the most important, necessarily, but it would become one instrument which would help to bring about a stable balance of peace in the world. It would be a useful institution.
I suggest to the hon. member that the conception which I believe he holds, that of converting the United Nations to a world government, is an unrealistic one. I suggest to him that we should feel no embarrassment in looking at the United Nations simply as a political instrument within the context of international politics. Certainly, we in this House should not be concerned about looking at the United Nations as a political instrument. Sometimes

September 10, 1971
Prevention of Military Aggression it puzzles me why those in this House who are generally extremely realistic about the political considerations in our country and particularly in our constituencies should, when we deal in the realm of international politics, often cast aside international political considerations in the world and look at those questions only in the light of high idealism. Yet the United Nations, like parliament, is an instrument or institution of political power. The countries which go there, go there as sovereign powers. They are concerned about negotiations among themselves and they deal with international problems as problems of political power. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I endorse so highly the emphasis the government has placed on the
peacekeeping operations of the United Nations. This is the area where practical steps should be taken.
May I say this in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, since I see that we have unfortunately run out of time: I recommend to all hon. members of the House that they look closely at the eighth report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence respecting the United Nations organization, because there they will find the rest of the speech that I should have liked to make.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.