1971-09-28

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF SECRETARY GENERAL OF NATO, MR. MANLIO BROSIO

Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I bring to the attention of the House the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a distinguished guest of the Canadian Parliament, whose presence here today honours us, Mr. Manlio Brosio, Secretary General of NATO.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

On behalf of my colleagues, I extend the most cordial welcome to you, Mr. Secretary General.

The Secretary General is in Ottawa on the occasion of the seventeenth annual meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly. I am sure hon. members would want me on their behalf to extend a very warm welcome not only to the Secretary General, but also to the President of the Assembly, Mr. Romain Fandel, and to all the eminent parliamentarians who represent with such dignity the national assemblies of the NATO community.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PRIVILEGE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects all Members of Parliament. I appreciate that the issue to which I want to refer has been before this House on a number of occasions previously. I refer to the failure of the government to make payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. I appreciate, as I have said, that the matter has been before this House on many previous occasions. There was a question of privilege raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), on September 13. There was a debate under Standing Order 26 on September 16. I know also that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) tried to bring forward a motion dealing with the impeachment of the relevant ministers of the Crown on September 21, and that there was an opposition day, a debate and a vote on September 23, as well as a number of motions under Standing Order 43 and numerous questions from members of the Official Opposition as
well as from members of the party which I have the honour to lead.
However, Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege arises out of new things that have occurred in the last number of hours. Yesterday during the question period the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in answer to a question, stated:
Mr. Speaker, those payments have not been made-
Then, according to press reports, outside the House of Commons he said, and this is reported in quotation marks:
"We admit that the government is in default and we don't want to stay in default much longer," Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said outside the Commons yesterday.
He warned that the government would pull its new legislation back within "a matter of weeks or days" if it does not get through Parliament.
"If the farmers through their Conservative members say they want $60 million instead of $100 million, then fine."
That is what the Prime Minister is reported to have said outside Parliament yesterday, in addition to which the minister responsible for the Wheat Board is out in the west allegedly speaking to farmers on the Prairies and asking them to decide whether payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act are to be made by the government or whether they want to support Bill C-244. The statements by the Prime Minister and by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board in my respectful submission create a new situation which deserves your attention, Mr. Speaker, and the attention of Parliament. What all this adds up to I say to you, Mr. Speaker, to the members of this House and to the people of Canada, is a deliberate and scandalous contempt for the law by this government. The law is being scorned by the government and Parliament is being scoffed at by the government.
The Prime Minister and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board are saying to the people of Canada and Members of Parliament, "we know we are breaking the law; we know we are in default and we intend to continue to be in default until such time as the bill, which we think is a good bill, is passed by this Parliament or until such time as we withdraw that bill for some reason or other and then must obey the law now on the statute books". I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of the government, as it is of every citizen of Canada, to obey the law as it is, and to obey it not conditionally but to obey it as the law requires.
I also suggest to you that the Prime Minister, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and the government are distorting the facts to the people of Canada in statements which they are making. The question at issue is no longer whether people are being paid under one act or another act. The question at issue is whether the people of Canada and this Parliament will permit the government to break

September 28, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
the law and to continue breaking it at its will with impunity; whether this government will be permitted by this Parliament, because apparently we are hamstrung and have no way out, to continue in its breach of the law without protest and without an accounting through a careful investigation of the situation by an appropriate committee of Parliament.
I appreciate that there are some legal problems about this kind of issue being an issue of privilege. I appreciate that it is Your Honour's duty to deal with these procedural matters, but there are times in the development of the law, as every student of the law knows, when existing precedents and existing legal strait jackets have to be ignored in order that justice may be done instead of the mere dry form of the law being applied. I suggest to you, as a student of the law, that it is simply beyond acceptance for us to decide that this Parliament cannot send a matter like this to the relevant committee of this House to be studied, that we are helpless, without remedy and that the government, merely because it has a majority in the House of Commons, can use its majority to railroad through a breach of the law with impunity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: I therefore suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of the statements made by the Prime Minister and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, there is a new situation which requires new thought and that it would be a great contribution to Parliament, to the parliamentary process and to the notion of democracy and law in this country, if Your Honour found ways, as I think there are if precedents are ignored, to permit the following motion which I would move:
That the admitted default of the government in violation of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) has given the Chair the required notice of his intention to raise this matter by way of a question of privilege. This, as usual, has given me the occasion to think again about the very important issues which lie behind the matter raised by the hon. member for York South. It is not the first time that this matter has been raised for the consideration of the Chair. The hon. member for York South himself has referred to the many instances during the last two weeks or so, indeed since the opening of this session, when the matter has been brought before me for consideration through questions which were raised on the first day by a number of hon. members, in motions which were made subsequently, in an adjournment motion, in a submission that the matter should be considered by way of breach of parliamentary privilege, and a request for the impeachment of certain members of the government. All these, of course, have given the Chair several opportunities to reflect on all aspects of this very serious matter.
With respect I suggest to the hon. member that it is very difficult for the Speaker, who is required to interpret and administer the rules and procedures of this House, the Standing Orders of the House and the precedents by which it must function, to say that the situation now exists where the Chair must disregard or disobey those rules. I forget the exact words of the hon. member, but his

suggestion is that the time has come for the Chair to ignore our procedural precedents. I suggest that the hon. member is asking a great deal of the Chair.
It seems to me that when this matter was raised originally by way of a question of privilege, I indicated to hon. members what the precedents were and under what conditions the matter might be brought for consideration by a committee under the guise of a question of privilege. If I remember well, I quoted the well known precedent going back to the days of Mr. Speaker Michener when a similar matter was brought before the House and the rule was set down by the then Speaker as to what procedure was to be followed to have the conduct of a minister or ministers impugned and considered by a committee.
I suggest that this has not been done by the motion now proposed by the hon. member for York South for consideration by the House. His contention is that statements which have been made outside the House since yesterday or during the past few hours change the situation, that such ought to be taken into account by the Chair in ruling that there is a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege. I understood that this was the essence of the argument of the hon. member for York South, and indeed that was the way his notice was given to the Chair. The hon. member in his notice said that he wanted to raise a question of privilege related to statements made in and out of the House yesterday concerning the government's attitude toward the requirements of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. I do not see how I can take into account the precedents to base a prima facie case of privilege on statements made outside the House of Commons.
There are many precedents on this account. Hon. members may well remember an interesting precedent which goes back to June 10, 1964, when a similar matter was raised by the hon. member for Yukon who suggested that the Chair could not found a prima facie case of privilege, could not ask for the withdrawal of certain words, because such statements had been made outside the House of Commons. This is reported at page 4139 of Hansard of June 10, 1964 and is based on a number of precedents. The hon. member for Yukon at that time, among other references, quoted Beauchesne's Fourth Edition at page 57 where the following citation is found:
The Speaker's jurisdiction does not extend to words outside the House.
I would not think that in the circumstances, in view of this additional precedent, that it is incumbent upon the Chair to follow the advice of the hon. member to ignore the legal precedents, to ignore the rules, and to say that we ought to consider the matter he has raised by way of breach of parliamentary privilege.
I have thought about the matter very seriously, and as objectively and as fairly as I could when the matter was raised originally, I believe by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), by way of a question of privilege, but I cannot see that the additional factors brought to light by the hon. member for York South in support of his proposed motion should change the decision I reached on the previous occasion.
September 28, 1971

Division


Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the persistence of the government in not upholding the law and carrying out the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, I consider it inappropriate that this House should consider any further business and I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That under the provisions of Standing Order 25 this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should point out that the hon. member did not have the floor for the purpose of proposing a motion, but that might be cutting things a bit fine. If I were to interpret the parliamentary rules very strictly, I would say it is not customary for a member, on a point of order, to move a dilatory motion, which is what is being done now. But this would not help very much because I am sure that within the next five minutes a motion would be placed before the House by a member who had the floor, not on a point of order, and so I see no purpose in not putting the motion at this time.


Mr. Jerome:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it may be that Your Honour is anticipating what will happen when we do move to motions, but nevertheless there could be announcements made at that time. I know the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) proposes to make an announcement on motions concerning the business of the House for the rest of this week, and that might very well have an influence on your decision.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that I can take this kind of suggestion into consideration. I cannot foretell that perhaps on motions later today, or at five o'clock this afternoon, or at the time of adjournment this evening, some announcement might be made which could cast a different light on the situation. I have to rule that the motion has been made by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and I see no reason why it should not be put now.


James Alexander Jerome: With the greatest respect, Your Honour, you said that we were not now on motions and that this motion is contrary to the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not what I said. The Standing Order provides that the motion can be made at any time, and it is not necessary that it be made on motions. It is moved by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), that this House do now adjourn. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? 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.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as acting House leader I would like to advise Your Honour and the House that we will be calling Bill C-262. When third reading is completed it will be followed by Bill C-259. That procedure will be followed except on Thursday which will be an opposition day.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 AGRICULTURE POTATOES-ESTABLISHMENT OF SUPPORT PRICE

Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 26, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin), the adjournment of the House in order that Parliament may discuss the estab-

lishment of price support for potato growers in view of the hardship they are now undergoing.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette has filed with the Chair the notice required by Standing Order 26. Careful consideration has been given to all factors to be taken into account before determining whether a matter should receive priority treatment. Specifically, the Chair has given detailed consideration to conditions prescribed in paragraph 16 of Standing Order 26. Although the matter raised by the hon. member for Joliette is one of great importance and undoubtedly of public interest, I have not been able to arrive at the conclusion that business on the agenda for today should be set aside in order to discuss the hon. member's motion.
I therefore regret that I cannot put the motion at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As the proposed meeting with the provinces is now being suggested for December, some 10 weeks away and apparently at a time that would not be useful for discussing any shared-cost programs to be effective this winter, is the government preparing a federally financed program to provide jobs or opportunities for work to be announced prior to that time?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have always made it clear that the federal government was studying plans and projects which might be announced in due course. I believe I have always made it clear as well that these would be done, in so far as they were under federal jurisdiction, without waiting for a federal-provincial conference. It was in response to opposition requests that I said a federal-provincial conference was being convened by me. I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition found it necessary to say that I was dishonest in using the federal-provincial conference date as a way of getting out of our task of fighting unemployment. I wonder if he regrets using that word.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is confused.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It was another statement of my right hon. friend that I characterized as dishonest.


Mr. Baldwin:: It is nice to have a choice.
September 28, 1971


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. I am not writing off the usefulness of the proposed meeting because it might be a suitable time to discuss appropriate programs for next summer. I should like to ask the Prime Minister what he hopes to achieve from this meeting in December with regard to jobs for this winter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a transcript of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. He said and I quote his words-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering whether the Prime Minister is rising on a point of order or a question of privilege. I was prepared to recognize the hon. member for Charlevoix on a supplementary question. The hon. member for Charlevoix.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. I am sure the Prime Minister is anxious to answer the question I asked about what he hopes to achieve from this meeting with regard to jobs this winter.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has already recognized the hon. member for Charlevoix. Perhaps the Prime Minister might reply to both questions at the same time.



INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
TROIS-RIVl£RES-MEASURES TO AVOID LAY-OFF OF EMPLOYEES BY DOMTAR
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce a question similar to that asked by the Leader of the Opposition.
Since the Domtar Co. in Trois-Rivieres intends to dismiss 650 employees as a result of the unpegging of the Canadian dollar, is the government ready to grant a subsidy to enable the Domtar newsprint plant to continue its operation and to prevent layoffs? If so, what kind of assistance is the government ready to grant?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has already announced in his budget speech various measures, some of which are of a general nature and others more especially concerned with the said industry.
The House is now considering Bill C-262, which is also likely to help. The province of Quebec has already announced reductions on wood cutting fees, which will also help. We are considering other alternatives. A number of ministers and representatives of this industry have scheduled an early meeting.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin), but I am under the impression that the question that he asked was not exactly supple-
Inquiries of the Ministry
mentary to that of the Leader of the Opposition. I think that the latter himself would like to put a supplementary question. I shall recognize the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) in a moment.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I return to my question and ask the Prime Minister what he hopes to achieve from the December meeting with the provinces regarding jobs this winter?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Leader of the Opposition rising on a point of order?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate that he has asked the question twice and has received no answer. As he knows, that is the privilege of the minister being questioned.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am not rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to trespass on your good nature, but it is usual to give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to ask a couple of supplementary questions and I trust I shall have that opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition never trespasses on my good nature; that is why I recognized him again. What I am suggesting to him is that he has asked the same supplementary twice. He has the right to ask a supplementary, but no answer having been given to his supplementary question I have no alternative, unless he has a different supplementary question, but to go to another questioner.


An hon. Member:: Make it a good one this time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope hon. members on that side will not get too excited. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the study that the Prime Minister indicated nearly two weeks ago he would be making following the release of the latest figures on unemployment by Statistics Canada has been completed, and when may we expect the job-creating action that the Prime Minister indicated?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition will recall that I mentioned a study and analysis in relation to the rate of participation of young people in the labour force. I must say that I regret that the Leader of the Opposition said I was dishonest in talking about this. He should understand that the participation rate of young people in the labour force is not the same thing as the rate of entry of young people into the labour force. It is the participation rate of those who are of labour force age that I was studying. Here


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I understood it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and he still does not understand it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South.

Is the hon. member for Charlevoix rising on a point of order?


Martial Asselin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
You stated a moment ago that my question was not related to the one asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Information was wanted on the government's intentions with regard to new jobs and to the measures taken to fight unemployment. That is why I wish to ask the minister a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: I told the hon. member that, in my opinion, the supplementary question was not directly related to that of the Leader of the Opposition. I feel that, before coming back to the hon. member, in order to allow him to ask all the supplementaries he wishes, I should recognize the hon. member for York South who has a supplementary. Immediately after that, I will recognize the hon. member for Charlevoix.



UNEMPLOYMENT-SUGGESTED ADVANCEMENT OF DATE OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE FROM DECEMBER 6

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister the following question. In view of the fact that the rate of unemployment expected this winter will unfortunately be very considerable, and in view of the fact that works by the provinces and municipalities will also be needed in order to reduce unemployment to any considerable extent, would the Prime Minister reconsider advancing the date of the federal-provincial conference, which according to reports is now scheduled for December 6, to the end of October or early November in order that plans may be made by the municipalities and provinces as well as by federal authorities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me I did make it clear to the House that, as far as this government was concerned, it has been making every effort it could to find an early date for the conference-not that we have used the lack of such a date as an excuse for not acting but that we did realize the anxiety of the House and everyone in the country to have this date set as soon as possible. This is why the government proposed an early date. When the leader of the New Democratic Party suggested a date late in October, he was obviously assuming that one week after the Ontario election there could be a federal-provincial meeting of some significance. I assume he is presuming that the Conservative leader will be re-elected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We on the government benches are not so certain. We rather think that there may be a change toward a Liberal administration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Therefore we cannot share the view of the leader of the New Democratic Party and Premier Schrey-er that Mr. Davis will again be premier of Ontario.


Gerald William Baldwin: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River on a point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: I think Your Honour has held that we are not entitled to ask questions that call for an opinion. Equally the Prime Minister cannot give an opinion, especially when it is an unsound one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am going to try again despite the fact that the Prime Minister is playing games with a question as important as unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: May I tell hon. members opposite that yesterday the Prime Minister said that some of us were playing politics. If the Prime Minister's answer was not that, what was it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that we are not progressing very effectively this afternoon. Perhaps we might return to the question period with the hope that both questions and answers will be short and to the point.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is ready to reconsider moving the date of the meeting, now set for December 6, to an earlier date than December 6, if possible at the end of October or some time in the first part of November? If the end of October is not possible, would he consider some time in the early half of November so there would still be some time to make plans for winter employment? May I also say that the Prime Minister should not answer in the light way that he did-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did make it quite clear to the House, and indeed I made it quite clear in my letter yesterday to Premier Schreyer, that I would welcome a much earlier date if one could be found. If the leader of the NDP can arrange with the provinces for an earlier date, that would be perfectly satisfactory to us. This involves a matter of finding a date on which 11 heads of government agree, and that is not always an easy task. That is why I began last July to suggest dates to all the premiers. That is why we proceeded as in the past in good faith by inviting the provinces to state whether or not they could come on the dates I suggested and, if not, what later dates they preferred.

September 28, 1971

The reason I say we should not play politics in that regard is that this practice has always worked well in the past. I am sorry that a certain premier is using this information, which up to now has been held confidential, as political ploy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, when you are able to restore order I should like to put my point.


An hon. Member:: Say something, David.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that it is not conducive to the dignity of Parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: -for the federal Prime Minister to make the kind of statement he has about a premier of a province.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: I suggest to Your Honour and to the right hon. gentleman that the premier of that province is as anxious about the unemployment situation as the Prime Minister has been and that in view of the actions of the government the premier is probably a great deal more concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I note that the right hon. Prime Minister wishes to rise on the same point of order. It seems to me we have been dealing with the same point of order since the first question was asked this afternoon. I really do not think we have achieved very much by these exchanges. I would suggest to hon. members that perhaps we might try to go to a subject other than the one we have been debating for the last ten minutes, that is, whether a certain meeting should be held on a certain date or should not be held on that date. Questions have been asked and answers have been given, but it does not seem to me that the questions or the answers this afternoon have been conducive to settling the matter. Perhaps hon. members will be in a better mood tomorrow and we might then make a little better headway. If we continue in this tone I really do not think we will achieve anything.
I still have not had the opportunity to recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue for the purpose of asking a question, and the hon. member for Charlevoix, in a spirit of co-operation with the Chair, gave up his opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I hope that eventually we can give other hon. members who want to ask questions on other subjects an opportunity to do so and forget for the moment at least the point of order.
(Translation]
Inquiries of the Ministry
I think that, in all fairness, I should allow the hon. member for Charlevoix to put his supplementary. After that, I shall give the floor to the hon. member for Temiscamingue.



INDUSTRY


Martial Asselin: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to put a supplementary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
A while ago he said the Minister of Finance had announced, in the budget, measures designed to remedy the situation I described.
As those measures did not have the expected results and Domtar is going to lay off 650 employees, could the minister tell us whether the government will soon announce another program to give the required help to save those industries, especially the Quebec pulp and paper industry?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to think that the dollar reevaluation is the sole reason for these difficulties. It is one among several others. I indicated that certain steps had been taken and that a meeting between government officials and the industry was scheduled. Obviously I welcome suggestions from the hon. member. Usually in this House hon. members suggest that I should close our door to imports and subsidize exports. This is rather difficult in view of our commercial interests and our commitments under GATT and other agreements.


Martial Asselin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Charlevoix is rising on a point of order. After dealing with that point of order, I will recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, oftentimes in this House when opposition members ask government members what programs they have in mind to correct a situation, they ask us what we would suggest. I should point out to the hon. minister who has just given me this answer that the Canadian people elected this government so that it could take decisions and govern.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Temiscamingue.



FINANCE


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the difficult economic situation now existing in Canada, is the hon. minister or the government consid-

September 28, 1971
8228__________________________________
Inquiries of the Ministry
ering the possibility of increasing the price of gold in Canada? In fact, a spokesman for the Group of Ten has advocated the revaluation of the gold standard, which would, I think, greatly spur the economy. Is the minister now studying this solution?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I read in newspapers that very important meetings were being held within the framework of certain international programs. I think the Minister of Finance, on his return, will want to report on these meetings.
* .* *



INDUSTRY


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the substantial lay-offs in the pulp and paper industry across the country and the lay-offs in the automotive industry, generally contributing to the over-all critical unemployment situation, does the government propose to revise its policies under regional economic expansion and use these programs in an expedited way to create jobs this winter? Has this matter been discussed or will it be discussed with the provincial premiers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this matter has received attention from the federal government and we believe that not only one of the objects but one of the effects of the department is the creation of more jobs in that type of region in Canada. If in our discussions with the provinces they can suggest a more effective way of using these programs we will certainly be glad to discuss them, but we will not wait for this conference to take place to improve our methods if we find ways to improve them.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in view of the lay-offs at Domtar, the anticipated lay-offs at Bowaters and the layoffs in the automotive industry, what immediate steps does the government propose to take to alleviate this critical situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is a measure before the House that has reached the third reading stage which is one of the very effective measures we hope to take to counteract some of the reasons for these lay-offs.



PULP AND PAPER-REASON FOR DOMTAR LAY-OFFS

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister which is prompted by his last remark when he referred to the reasons for these lay-offs. I should like to ask what action he proposes to take or what priority is to be given, considering that the Domtar officials have not pointed a finger at the actions of the United States government but have singled out the action of this government as the reason for these lay-offs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if I am correctly informed, one of the reasons they have pointed out was the fact that the Canadian dollar was floating and that the rate of exchange went up. The House knows as well as I why this action was taken a year and a half ago to float the dollar. I think the House realizes also that had we not done that we would now be in a much less tenable position vis-a-vis the United States to hold the discussions we are carrying on with them at this time.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, what priority is the government going to give Canadian industries' complaints that actions by the government have had detrimental effects throughout the nation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would have to tell us what actions he has reference to. I am sure there have been a host of accusations from the other side and I should like to answer his question as precisely as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will be running short of time very soon, but the hon. member has the right to rise on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the remarks of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the last remark of the Prime Minister. The House does not permit members of the treasury benches to ask questions of backbenchers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for Skeena.


Donald MacInnis: I will see you outside and you can give me the answers.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the municipal winter works program was most valuable and helpful in the past to municipalities, and knowing of the need of municipalities, especially the smaller ones, to make plans beforehand in respect of such projects, is he prepared to make an announcement as early as possible, certainly prior to the expected December 6 federal-provincial meeting, about a municipal winter works program in order that the provinces and municipalities which may want to take advantage of it can do so before winter sets in?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, any announcement which would be on a subject within federal jurisdiction and which we decided to make would be made well in advance of the federal-provincial conference. I believe the purpose of the conference is to discuss methods under joint jurisdiction or methods by which in
September 28, 1971

co-operation we can help alleviate the economic difficulties of the country, but I repeat again this is not to say that any measures we want to take in the meantime will not be taken because of the late date of the conference.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the previous municipal winter works program which was very valuable, as everyone knows, was discontinued without reference to a federal-provincial conference, would the Prime Minister consider reinstituting it and making an announcement about it within the next few days?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not believe the assessment made by the hon. member that the previous program was very valuable is shared by everyone in this country, least of all by the municipalities themselves. They found that very often it was a wasteful program and asked the federal government to bring in better measures, which we did, and we have the manpower retraining program.



SUGGESTED ABOLITION OF EXCISE TAX AS STIMULANT

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Does the government intend to remove the 12 per cent excise tax in order to boost the Canadian economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member suggests it, we will consider it.



UNEMPLOYMENT-INQUIRY AS TO PREPARATION OF WINTER WORKS PROGRAM BY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has asked a number of government departments, specifically Public Works and Regional Economic Development, to prepare a winter works program? If so, could he give us an understanding of the expectations he has set for the departments in question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there may be some misunderstanding about the use of the words "winter works". I take it that when this phrase is used reference is made to a previous program which existed in this country for a period of years. When I say that this particular program is one which was discontinued by the government, this does not mean that some program for work in winter will not be envisaged by the government. But I want to make it clear to the hon. member that the winter works program of which he seems to be speaking is not necessarily a program for work in the winter which of course is one we would envisage.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the question in clearer terms. Has the Prime Minister asked any government department to prepare any specific programs for this winter aimed at alleviating unemployment? If so, can the House be apprised of the expectations.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes; I believe a fortnight ago I informed the House that I had consulted several ministers responsible for economic matters in the country and asked them to give their immediate and deep attention to the problem of providing more work during the winter months. As I said, if an announcement has to be made as a result of their decisions it will be made in the House.


John Howard Lundrigan: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member wishes to ask a third supplementary. I will recognize him but perhaps he will allow the Chair to go to the next question thereafter. There are about ten minutes left before the end of the question period.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister is investigating the increase in the Canadian population which he announced a few weeks ago, would he also investigate the reason for the decrease from 840,000 to
648,000	in placements by the manpower department between 1966 and 1971 even though the budget increased by 50 per cent during those years?



AGRICULTURE


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Referring to his statement of last Friday that he was to meet the agriculture ministers of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia regarding the difficulties which are facing potato producers, I would like to ask the minister whether the meeting was held and, if not, whether the provinces interested in that kind of production will be invited to discuss and find a solution to the problems of the producers.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The meeting started at five minutes to eight this morning. There were a number of alternative suggestions made, some of which cause us some difficulty in our international trade which they are now aware of. However, the officials of the provincial Departments of Agriculture and my department will continue to try to find an acceptable solution to alleviate this problem.


Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask the minister whether representatives from Quebec were present at that meeting. If not, did Quebec make representations asking for federal assistance, considering the nature of the problems involved?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think I ought to explain to the hon. member that this meeting was held this morning at the request of the two provincial Ministers of Agriculture who wished to come to Ottawa to have a meeting with me.

September 28, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



POTATOES-ASSURANCE TO PRODUCERS RESPECTING SEED EXPORT MARKET

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, could the minister now give an indication, following the meeting with the Ministers of Agriculture for Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, as to what assurance the potato producers in these provinces will have with regard to the very vital seed export market to the United States which has been very much in jeopardy because of the appreciation in the value of the Canadian dollar and the recently invoked 10 per cent import surtax in the United States?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a measure of assurance contained in the speech I made to the House about two and a half weeks ago.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, since I believe it was obvious from the minister's speech that these two provincial ministers wanted to meet him in order to obtain some specific assurance that the very important seed exports to the United States from their provinces which have already been jeopardized to some degree will not further deteriorate, is the minister not able to offer some indication to the many producers in these two provinces as to the extent of any assurance?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in that speech I dealt with the differences in how processed and non-processed products would be handled. I do not think I could add anything that would be useful because it was such a clear speech that I think it should be understandable.



POSSIBLE PIPELINE THROUGH CANADA TO TRANSPORT ALASKAN OIL-DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTS

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the statement made by the Secretary of the Interior of the United States indicating that delay in the planning of the Alaska route may result in a decision to build a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay through Canadian territory to the United States. I wish to ask the right hon. gentleman whether there have been any discussions between the Canadian government and the government of the United States regarding such a pipeline in recent weeks or months and, if so, by whom have these discussions been conducted?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any discussions which have been held in recent weeks or even in the last few months. I am not aware of any discussions having taken place since that which was last mentioned in the House, and I believe that was late in the spring or early in the summer.
(Mr. Olson.J



POSSIBLE PIPELINE THROUGH CANADA TO TRANSPORT ALASKAN OIL-PROVISION OF DATA AND STUDIES TO U.S. TASK FORCE

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the Canadian government provided any data or studies or any access to Canadian soil to the United States government for the gathering of data for their pipeline task force headed by Mr. Jack Horton?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether there have been some official exchanges between the Canadian and American governments in that connection. I know that some studies are now being made by the Canadian government and private enterprise.
As for the American decision, we are not better informed than other members; we know that President Nixon has made a statement and that the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Morton, came out with two apparently contradictory declarations. We are considering the situation and we will be reporting to the House, if necessary.



POSSIBLE PIPELINE THROUGH CANADA TO TRANSPORT ALASKAN OIL-NOTICE OF MODIFICATION OF UNITED STATES POSITION

Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: I wonder whether the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development could indicate whether he was given any advance notice by Mr. Rogers Morton, United States Secretary of the Interior, of his announcement three days ago that he was changing his position and for the first time would consider a Canadian route as an alternative to the Prudhoe to Valdez route?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Again I bring to the attention of hon. members that we are rapidly running short of time. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley West for one last supplementary question on the subject.



POSSIBLE PIPELINE THROUGH CANADA TO TRANSPORT ALASKAN OIL-ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL STUDIES BEFORE APPROVAL

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can combine my two supplementary questions into one. I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he can assure the House that before the Mackenzie Valley route is approved, all ecological studies and their implications will be thoroughly assessed? Further, when does the minister think he will be in a position to give a definitive answer, yes or no, to the Mackenzie route based on independent Canadian investigation?
September 28, 1971



Hon. ]ean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Mr. Speaker, we cannot at this time say whether we would accede to a request for the construction of a pipeline for oil and another for gas. We are studying the situation and, when applications have been received with regard to this, the government will make a decision. We cannot do so at the present time.



INVESTIGATION OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM IN ORDER TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of the statement of the Secretary of State to the annual conference of the Social Development Council of Canada that the privileged classes received greater benefits from the Opportunities for Youth program than did the people who needed it most, is the Prime Minister now going to initiate an inquiry into specifically who benefited from the $67 million in student employment funds this summer so that programs designed to meet the real areas of need may be devised?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not seen the statement, but it is obvious that if the Secretary of State mentioned this it was because he had in mind looking for ways of improving the program. As the House knows, the Secretary of State has asked that a report be made on the success or otherwise of this summer's program. I am sure that as soon as possible he will be coming to the House with a report on that and, hopefully, we will be looking at ways in which we can spend the taxpayers' money even better in the future.



HOUSING


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Last week I asked him a question concerning the situation governing a condominium development called Les Abeilles. At that time the minister indicated that he would be making a study and would report to the House. At what stage is that study, and can he give us any factual information regarding the protection of the buyers, and also as to what efforts are being made to fix the responsibility for this ungodly mess?


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister of State for Urban Affairs: Without accepting the premise of the final comment of the hon. member, I think I did indicate in reply to him the other day that we had taken steps through CMHC to protect the buyers of houses in that project. We have indicated to them that CMHC, which has now assumed ownership through an arrangement for the benefit of creditors, will complete the homes and repair them where
Inquiries of the Ministry
necessary up to the standards set forth in the terms of the loan approval.
Second, we have indicated to the purchasers on record in that project that if they are in any way dissatisfied with the arrangement we will agree to get CMHC to repurchase the homes at any time during a period up to 18 months from now at the price they paid and allow them some consideration for expenses incurred if they wish to move.
As to the continuation of the review that is under way now, I have not received any final report. There are two prongs to that. One is within CMHC itself and, in addition, there is the commissioning of an independent technical report from a highly qualified and reputable firm of engineers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister that if he wishes to complete his answer it must be done by way of a statement on motions because we are running short of time.



MEASURES TO ALLEVIATE WORLD MARKET COMPETITION

Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
What policy does the government plan to implement in view of the re-organization of trade blocks in the world, and how will the Canadian economy subsist in the next few years if it tolerates cost increases such as those we experienced in the last few years while being able to meet the competition on world markets?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that his important question is so general that the hon. minister should normally answer by a statement on motions.



FINANCE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government and he as head of the government are receiving any pressure from the International Monetary Fund regarding the repegging of the Canadian dollar which at present appears to be rising and will rise above the value of the American dollar, making it even more difficult for Canada to be competitive in trade?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I told the hon. member yesterday or the day before, I know of no such pressure. I did say that the idea was being put forth from various sources. Everyone would like to see the other country do something about its currency in the hope that it itself would not have to take any hard decisions. There have been representations from the International

September 28, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Monetary Fund for Canada to peg its dollar or, alternatively, to revalue it higher, but I know of no pressure in the sense of very strong official representations from any particular source or country to that effect.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has
the suggestion referred to by the Prime Minister come from the United States, among other countries, that the Canadian dollar should move up to a higher level in relation to the U.S. dollar?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: To my knowledge such pressure has not come from the United States, but I would have to verify the discussions which took place at all levels.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of indications that there may shortly be a transfer of Lancaster Hospital in Saint John to the provincial authorities, can the minister give the assurance that public service employees who are involved will be given the same protection as to their conditions of service that applied in the case of other hospital transfers?


Hon. lean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Negotiations are going on at present between the government of Canada and the government of New Brunswick with reference to the Lancaster Hospital transfer. As a matter of fact, there was an agreement between both governments as far back as 1968. The negotiations are not completed, but I wish to assure the hon. member that all possible consideration is being given to employment conditions and to other conditions of our employees presently at Lancaster Hospital.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: I have a supplementary and related question, Mr. Speaker, which I wish to direct to the President of the Treasury Board. It affects Lancaster Hospital and other hospitals. What is the status of the arbitration of salaries of nurses employed by the government of Canada?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the notice of intention to ask the question. I should advise the hon. gentleman that arbitration hearings at the request of both parties were held in the early part of August, the third and fourth, I believe, and the arbitrator has undertaken to render a decision in not more than six weeks from that date.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As a result of the meetings he has held with officials of the Indian Association of Alberta respecting the developments on several reserves in northeastern Alberta regarding the boycott by Indian schoolchildren, can the minister inform the House what steps are now being taken to resolve this dispute?
(Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, following the two meetings I had on Thursday and Friday with the President of the Indian Association of Alberta, we agreed that Mr. Ross Moses, my special assistant, will go tomorrow to the Cold Lake area to investigate the matter and report immediately. We also asked the Indians to exercise pressures on the local band in order that the children be sent back to school as soon as possible, because it is not good that the children's education should be used to push demands with the government.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise the House whether any firm proposals will be put forth by his officials to the representatives of the Indian bands which would work toward a solution of the problem that has arisen there?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the demands had to do with education. Then the questions of economic development and drinking water were raised. This is really an intricate situation and we are not in a position to offer any solution to these problems. My special assistant will report to me this week and if we can make any recommendations, we will certainly do so.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: May I ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has already had a supplementary. We have just about reached the end of the question period. Perhaps the hon. member might allow the Chair to recognize the hon. member for Waterloo now and we might continue this subject tomorrow.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Vegreville that when he was recognized in the first instance the question period had already expired. I think he should be satisfied that he had the opportunity to ask a question and a supplementary while other members were still awaiting an opportunity to ask questions. I would suggest to him, as respectfully and as kindly as I can, that I will make every effort to give him an opportunity to ask his further supplementary question tomorrow.

September 28, 1971



FINANCE


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. It is in connection with the level of the Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the United States dollar. Has the government made an appraisal of where it thinks the Canadian dollar should be vis-a-vis the American dollar and, if so, is it planning any action to maintain it at that particular level?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when we freed the Canadian dollar a year and a half ago we decided it should be left to the market forces to establish the rate, and we have not interfered significantly in the operation of those market forces.


Max Saltsman: May I take it from the right hon. gentleman's answer that the policy of the Canadian government is to let the dollar go to whatever level the market dictates even if that means a level of $1.05 in U.S. currency?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the supplementary is not in order. It is debate. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for South Shore and then call orders of the day.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the serious depletion of our fisheries resources off the coast of Atlantic Canada, will the minister be making a report to the House on the discussions and conclusions reached at the sixteenth Atlantic Fisheries Technological Conference presently being held in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, and which concludes its hearings on September 29? Will he be taking action on any of the recommendations made by this conference?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: No, Mr. Speaker, but I should be in a position to make a report to the House after October 8 when representatives of the fishing industry and the fishermen will be here in Ottawa to discuss this problem of consideration on the Atlantic Coast.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I waited until the end of the question period before raising this point of order. Some may think it is somewhat frivolous, but it arises out of the exchange between the right hon. Prime Minister and the hon. member for York South when there was a new exhibition of Prime Ministerial pantomime in the House. I should like to know whether the Prime Minister was serious in inviting the hon. member for York South to try to convene a federal-provincial meeting before December 6.
Employment Support Bill
I ask this question because we had one of these gratuitous and facetious invitations from the Prime Minister earlier this session, in May, when the hon. member for St. John's East tried to have a report of the Atlantic Development Council tabled in the House. At that time the Prime Minister told him, "If you have a copy, table it." The hon. member for St. John's East then stood and tried to table the report. There was a hassle, and Your Honour had to point out that, despite the Prime Minister's generosity for which he is known worldwide, it was not possible for the hon. member to table the document. The only reason I am raising this point now is that I want to know whether the hon. member for York South, if he seriously accepts the invitation of the Prime Minister, will be allowed to make a statement on motions on his attempts to convene a meeting?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was under the impression that the hon. member had completed his point. I am prepared to make a ruling, but if he has not completed his statement I would not want to interrupt him and would allow him to finish his remarks.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The only concluding remark I want to make is that throughout these question periods it has become increasingly evident that the Prime Minister is abdicating responsibility, and many people in the country are wondering whether he wants to run a government or a holiday magazine.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 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 third time and do pass.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as we go into third reading on this bill, I would like to clarify some of the points that have been made in the House and in the committee so that we may be aware of the problems that have been raised. It is very obvious that the bill itself is not designed to solve all of the problems of unemployment in Canada, or all of the problems of industry. It is designed specifically to mitigate the problems that have arisen as a result of the imposition of a surtax by the United States on Canadian exports to that country. It is designed also to provide a vehicle to cope with similar problems that might arise at another time as a result of

September 28, 1971
Employment Support Bill
such action by other countries. Hon. members should view the legislation in that light, and in that light only.
During the course of our debate, both in the committee and in the House, from time to time a question was raised on the possibility of countervailing action being taken by the United States against exports from Canada that might benefit from this measure. In the standing committee the minister stated that, in theory, any form of government assistance, direct or indirect, visible or invisible, given to exports could attract some kind of U.S. countervailing action.
In the past U.S. actions along this line have not been very consistent, and so it is difficult to ascertain what the U.S. might do in this instance. There have been instances where the United States applied countervailing measures against some countries, and totally ignored the possibility of applying them against other countries. A long time ago they used countervailing action against countries which sold them raw materials at prices which the Americans thought were too high. Presumably they might again use countervailing action in that way, but the most interesting use of countervailing action by the Americans has been in instances where other countries applied import surcharges against their products. I am sure in applying countervail, the United States will be cognizant of action that they themselves have taken in the past.
In the context of the employment support program we believe, and sincerely believe, that United States countervailing action would not be warranted. The whole purpose of this bill is to avoid serious employment dislocation in Canada. It is not an export subsidy. There is no obligation on the part of a company receiving assistance to maintain any export level. The assistance provided by this program is provided mainly to tide over affected companies until the surtax is removed or until such time as they can make adjustments which may be necessary in their products. A company is free to do so by developing new product lines, introducing new products, developing new markets or in fact anything other than production as long as it maintains an agreed level of employment. That is the key factor, an agreed level of employment. The program will not give Canadian firms an unfair competitive advantage in export markets. May I remind hon. members that assistance will be given only to the extent needed to maintain employment levels; no more and no less.
The assistance under the program will be available to firms of all sizes. This point was discussed in committee and I want to make that clear, assistance will be available to firms of all sizes, large or small. The point that is important is the degree of unemployment in a particular plant. The program makes no distinction based on the size of the applicant and, of course, assistance will be provided on a plant basis.
During the course of debate yesterday an amendment was proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and I should like to refer to an argument raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in that regard. The hon. member said that it would be possible to debate the matter, that is a new set of regulations, if the matter were deemed important enough. What is an important matter, Mr. Speaker? I submit to you that what is important to one member of this House may not be the least bit important to the majority of other

members. If a price support program were announced for the apple growers of Okanagan Boundary riding, I would think it the most important program to come before this House and if the amendment suggested was passed, I would believe that to be such an important item that it would have to be referred to the House. To another member from Alberta or Saskatchewan, if the National Energy Board were to decides to change the regulations to include a new pipeline across Canada, that would be of undoubted importance and those members would want to refer it to the House.
There are many other examples of this type of situation and we could end up by referring every matter to the House of Commons, spending day after day, seven hours of debate after seven hours of debate after seven hours of debate-we would never come to the end, in order to deal with the matters that some member of this House considered of vital importance.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention that the government intends to put this program into operation just as soon as it can be approved so that assistance can be provided immediately to the companies and the employees needing it. We want to forestall the possibility of employment disruption and we want to do that as quickly as possible. I should like to thank hon. members on both sides of the House and in committee for their assistance in processing this bill so quickly. I think all members have recognized the importance of it and we have had a great deal of co-operation.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I should like to add one point concerning the debate yesterday. We had some discussion at one point and a little confusion on the motion of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) concerning the possibility of changes in the reporting procedure contained in clause 21 of the bill. While we did not succeed in coming to an agreement on changes in the reporting procedure that would satisfy the hon. member and his party, the minister has agreed, and I can assure the House on his behalf, that he is prepared to submit quarterly reports to the House rather than annual reports. If this will make it possible to give hon. members on the other side more access to information, we are prepared to accommodate them. We say quarterly because we feel this would be more practical than monthly and would be often enough to overcome the difficulties discussed in yesterday's debate. The minister is also prepared to provide additional information if it can be done without infringing upon the private business interests of the firms concerned in the program.
I wish to thank hon. members for their assistance in the speedy passage of this important legislation to which business and labour in Canada are looking forward eagerly.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on third reading of this measure to indicate is that I intend to support it but that I am rather reluctant and uneasy in doing so. In the next few moments, I should like to point out some of my doubts in the hope that when the regulations are drawn up it may yet be possible for the government to make provisions that will help many individual companies which I feel cannot qualify under the provisions outlined to us in this measure and before the committee.
September 28, 1971

One of the reasons for my uneasiness is that this bill is explicit; it is an act in support of employment. In other words, it is just another adjunct to the whole program of unemployment insurance and is not, as we pictured it, a bold and determined effort to sustain our industry when faced with the problem of the surcharge. I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, because this seems to be the main government thrust in protecting our industry from the obvious economic dangers involved. Coming as I do from a province where industry is vastly important, I believe I have reason to express some doubts that this measure will serve the purpose for which it was so hastily designed.
Testimony before the committee and following on the statement made by the minister in the House, make it quite obvious that the actual aid to industry in Canada is going to be limited by the very regulations that are proposed to be drawn up to make this bill operative. If my memory serves me correctly, when this measure was introduced in this House the minister said that in his opinion a survey would show that perhaps 160 industries would be directly involved. This figure, 160, does not mean very much unless you compare it with some other figure. The figure I should like to use is taken from a compilation by Statistics Canada which indicates that in 12 months 5,600 new industries were formed in the province of Ontario alone, if my memory serves me correctly. Yet, here, the minister has spoken of helping 160 industries in Canada. I was interested to learn that 2,300 or 2,400 of the 5,600 new industries I have mentioned will employ less than five people and that only 67 of that entire group will employ over 100 people. This indicates that there will be a tremendous number of companies which, although affected directly or indirectly by the surcharge, will have no hope of being "resuscitated" by the measure before us.
To illustrate my point, may I indicate that in the committee hearings the most striking phrase used by government spokesmen and witnesses regarding the application of this measure was, and this was repeated time and again, that this measure would be employed when there was a severe disruption of employment. They spoke of disruption of a regional nature. It will be difficult to assess whether a small industry employing, say, 20 or 25 people which loses 20 per cent of its business and has to discharge five or six people will suffer from a major disruption in employment. Actually, the parliamentary secretary explained, and I think he was justified in so doing, that disruptions of this nature might constitute problems connected more with employment agencies or unemployment insurance than with any problems as to whether such industries might qualify for assistance under this measure. That is where the government and I part company. It seems that this measure is specifically designed to help large corporate entities and a tremendous number of small businesses cannot hope to qualify.
Under the provisions of the bill there could be a 90-day delay in payments, even after the qualifications of the company involved have been ascertained. Mr. Speaker, that 90-day delay could be a matter of life or death to some of the industries affected. It is all very well to say that a company must lose 20 per cent, 30 per cent, or any
Employment Support Bill
other figure that one cares to use, of its export business before it can qualify. The point is that there are many industries which are definitely and directly affected by the surcharge which do not, by themselves, export a single item. The production of many such small companies consists of component parts which are furnished to major industries. Those industries assemble the component parts and export them to the United States and other countries. It is difficult to anticipate how any company, so affected indirectly and employing a small number of workers, could ever hope to retrieve any portion of its business losses through this measure.
I feel that many hundreds of businesses across the country could be hurt by those actions from which we are trying to protect our businesses. The major business concerns of this country, which by their nature are big, will be in the position to claim some of these moneys. I do not think we fully realize the tremendous intrusion in the normal flow of business that measures such as we are discussing can effect. There are in the corporate empires many learned men who have foresight and drive enough to take advantage of a government measure such as this. I am very much alarmed about the way in which this bill will be applied.
During the committee proceedings, it was illustrated to us that a department of a corporation or a subsidiary of a corporation could put itself in the position of qualifying for assistance under this measure. I believe the parliamentary secretary indicated that there would be no strings on the money, provided the level of employment is kept up. The money could be used to develop major research, to develop new products, to develop new production levels and machinery, to develop a new sales force in lieu of a production force-in other words, to change the entire characteristics of the business. This is all very well if you consider it from a philosophical or ideal approach. Practically, however, you must consider the power of the labour unions in directing whether a man or men may be shifted to another part of the operation or whether a man can be taken off a lathe and sent to paint a fence in the back. All this makes me think that this measure, in certain situations, will have no application whatever.
Added to that is the general feeling abroad that the actions of the country to the south are temporary only. They may last for 90 days, three months, six months, 12 months or even two years. What bothers me is this: many large corporations in the business world with tremendous production facilities can take advantage of these grants to sustain employment and production levels by doing nothing else but stockpiling thousands and thousands of units. Nothing in this measure prevents a company from taking such action. After all, they would be maintaining employment; they would be creating employment that the government is so seriously concerned about. Consequently they will stockpile units, knowing full well, Mr. Speaker, that the surcharge will end eventually. Think of the beautifully competitive position such a company will be in when it has a tremendous stockpile of units, two-thirds paid for by government grants. It will be able to ship the units overseas to any country it pleases. I say this is a major weakness in the bill. The tremendous volume of

September 28, 1971
Employment Support Bill
units or goods so stored will create tremendous pressures on local markets.


Mr. McCleave:: We shall see a postponed glut.


Harold Warren Danforth: As my hon. friend says, we shall see a postponed glut. We are deliberately asking for more trouble because of direct government intervention in the affairs of the business community.
The business community is aware of something else. They know that under any program run by any government department, the assistance you obtain is not always the result of direct need or the fact that you are completely qualified for assistance. Too often it is a question of "Do you have the right person in the right department to catch the right ear at the right time?". I am afraid that under the regulations proposed for this particular measure, a tremendous opportunity will develop for the very companies which need it the least to make available to their subsidiaries the greatest amount of government money, whether these subsidiaries are Canadian owned or directed from outside the country.
There is one other factor which we should very seriously consider. We are bandying about this estimate of $80 million. It was brought out in committee that the $80 million is just a figment of someone's imagination. It was picked out of the air. It is an estimation of what might be expended if this measure is operative for six months. It could be $80 million, but if this program runs for 12 months the figure could be $160 million, $200 million or $250 million. No one has any idea of the amount of money involved. What we are doing is handing a piece of legislation to the government which they say will be of a permanent nature and will take care of any contingency that is now taking place or will take place in the foreseeable future. Parliament is granting the government a blank cheque. It can spend as much, wherever and whenever it wishes on whatever corporation meets its fancy at a particular time. This is what disturbs me. We are talking about $80 million. Will that $80 million be for the relief of industry or will $25 million be for the out-of-pocket payments to the bureau which will be set up to administer it and $45 million for industrial payments? These are the questions I wanted to bring before Your Honour. I am uneasy about this aspect of such a bill.
To recap, I do not feel that this measure is going to be the prime solution to this problem. From its very concept, the haste and manner in which the regulations will be drafted and the way the program is being set up, I do not think this measure can possibly perform the function which this government is relying upon it to perform. The $80 million, $150 million or $200 million which we are talking about will not be spent on exports. In other words, we will not be accomplishing anything. We will not be increasing the gross national product, but we will be deliberately creating a glut. Is it not conceivable that either through a spinoff or in conjunction with these tremendous sums of money, we should develop an export outlet which could determine what markets we can service, even under this particular difficulty? We should not only be concerned about maintaining'the present output of our industry, but increasing this output by export sales.

Other countries, such as Japan, West Germany and industrial countries whose production is the envy of the world, are not taking measures which will gradually encircle the country and cut down their industrial potential, but are exerting pressure to break out of the shell and increase their industries.
I have grave doubts about this measure. We always seem to take a negative attitude in the face of adversity, regardless of the direction from which it comes. The only exception in this case is the government has recognized that industry is facing a problem and it is trying to do something about it. Too often in the past we have seen the same thing happen and the government almost seemed oblivious to the problem. An agricultural section of Canada has faced a severe drought and almost complete crop loss. The catches are no longer there for our fishermen. As far as their business is concerned, they almost face extinction. I could cite many other examples in the past few years when nothing has been done. We talk about $80 million. If one of our major purchasers of grain were delinquent in paying for 100 million or 200 million bushels of grain, as has happened in the past, the economic impact on the people is far greater than that of this surcharge, yet we would not be able to move.
My one great disappointment in connection with this bill is that the government in its wisdom has determined to completely eradicate any opportunity for the primary producers of this country to take advantage of its provisions. I refer to agriculture, fishing, the pulp and paper industry, the mineral industry, all those which produce primary products. According to the definition section of this bill, they are not eligible. We desperately tried to convince this government that they should be included, but the government determined they should not. This is very unfortunate. There is going to be a good deal of hardship. We must accept this measure because the government has offered no alternative. It may help 2,000 or 3,000 Canadians to maintain their employment, but as a solution to the problem before us I do not have any confidence in it whatsoever.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take note of the offers made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howard) on behalf of the minister to make more information available to members and the public with regard to the operations of this bill once it has been enacted into law. I welcome this concession. It is in the interests of all from two points of view to take every possible step to make more information available on this piece of legislation.
First, we in Parliament are being asked to give what amounts to a blank cheque to the government. Without getting into the argument that took place on this subject yesterday, when legislation which provides for a wide area of discretion to the government is passed there is some obligation placed on the government to make as much information available to members as possible. Second, any steps that can be taken to make further information available to members of this House and the public will be in the government's own interest in terms of its negotiating position with other countries. This will strengthen the government's hand in terms of making it

September 28, 1971

clear to other countries which might be concerned about this legislation that we do not have anything to hide. It will show that the government is laying its cards on the table, making information available and that we are not attempting to hide our operations in any way.
It is in the government's own interest to make information available to the public, certainly in terms of the government's negotiating position with other countries in the very difficult international situation that exists at the present time. All members of this House will want to do everything possible to ensure that Canada's interests are presented in a way which will result in a suitable and satisfactory solution for Canada to the problem which now exists.
With regard to the bill now before us for third reading, I have to again raise one of the points discussed during the second reading debate. I refer to the fact there is no real policy framework within which this bill has been devised and formulated. It has become abundantly clear from the minister's statements, lack of answers in some respects and lack of specific information on how this bill is going to operate that there is a large vacuum, an absence of policy on the part of the government. In fact, in many respects the government has no answers. It has never provided answers on where Canada is headed in the present difficult situation. I would acknowledge that the government had to do something in the present situation. In the absence of any alternative they had to adopt some emergency measures. It is quite clear that the actions taken by the United States in particular will have some impact on the Canadian economy. It is also clear that those actions are going to hurt various sectors of our economy.
I think it will be recognized within Canada that it is only natural and right that there should be some response by the Canadian government. I think that other governments in the world, particularly the United States government, recognize as well that they have to expect some counteraction by other countries such as Canada in response to the unilateral action announced by President Nixon on August 15.
I hope this bill will be of some assistance in the present difficult economic situation. For our own part, we are doubtful that it will be of any real benefit, that it will accomplish anything in terms of whatever objectives the government is trying to achieve. We have already made our points regarding why we feel these objectives, whatever they may be, will not be accomplished. If the bill is passed, receives royal assent and goes into operation, then we will have to wait and see what transpires. We hope that on the basis of the discretionary authority that the bill gives the government some useful programs will be developed. It seems to me very difficult to evolve any sort of meaningful program, whether in terms of this bill or any other possible measure, unless we have adequately defined national objectives and have determined just where Canada is going. Some change in the direction our policies are taking would seem to be indicated at this time.
Most members on this House would want to see steps taken by Canada to ensure that trade barriers are lowered in the world. Looking at the other side of the coin, they
Employment Support Bill
also want to see that as few barriers as possible are erected. I am sure the government would have the support of all members in the House in any steps it took to ensure that trade barriers are lowered and kept lowered in the future.
It seems to me that the government has to consider the course of its policies regarding development in Canada. It must consider what direction this development policy is going to take. Are we going to adopt policies that will result in giving us a greater degree of control over our own affairs and destiny? Are we simply going to be subject to the whims of fortune-whatever they may be-on the economic national scene? What we have to keep in mind, whatever course of action we decide to take, is that the basic purpose of economic policy and developmental strategy is the building of a society within which we place a certain value on the welfare and wellbeing of human beings, a society to which Canadians are proud to belong, a society that has concern for others both within the context of the structure of the nation and within the context of the international community.
I should like to stress this last point for a moment because, in spite of our natural consideration for the national wellbeing of Canadians and the future of Canada, we have to keep in mind that Canadians live in an international community and that, by the very nature of our history, our wellbeing is tied up with international economic affairs. We must recognize that in effect this planet is becoming smaller, that we have to live with our neighbours in all parts of the world, and that the international community is becoming more closely linked together. In that context, we want to do everything possible on the international economic scene to reduce the power that is presently in the hands of very few nations, power that influences in a very fundamental way the course of affairs of many nations in the world. As is painfully obvious at the present time, many countries have very little ability to control their own economic and social destinies in face of action taken by other countries.
Since we gave this bill second reading, there have been further developments in the world economic scene. It is perfectly clear that the surcharge announced by President Nixon on August 15 is not temporary, that is it is going to be in effect for some time. We will have to decide just how to deal with that situation, and must recognize that there will not be an early lifting of this import surcharge, contrary to what was said earlier by some United States officials. It is also clear that we will have to have a realignment of world currencies. This has become particularly obvious during the last few days. In addition, it is becoming obvious that, given the present situation, there will have to be some upward revaluation of the Canadian dollar. We must examine the implications of this, how it is going to affect various sectors of our economy and determine who is going to be hurt as a result.
We must also take note of the consequences of the economic policy which the government has been following over the last number of years. The fact is that the government's economic and tax policies, as we have known them in recent years, have been geared to the development of industries which primarily are engaged in the production of raw materials for export. This production requires large capital investment, which means there

September 28, 1971
8238_____________________________________
Employment Support Bill
are large inflows of capital into Canada. Even though this capital produces many goods for export, all too often it produces very little in the form of gainful employment for Canadians.
We now have a very severe upward pressure on the Canadian dollar occasioned by the large outflow of exports of raw materials. The government now finds itself face to face with the consequences of its own economic policies of recent years, and this pressure is one more indictment of the very bad policies the government has been following. As a result of the policies that the government has been following over the past 15 to 20 years, many Canadian industries have been placed in a very difficult financial position. We must also recognize that unless we find an early solution to some of the problems facing Canada and other nations, it is possible that a trade war will develop. We must do everything to ensure that such a war is avoided. At the same time, Canada must take a very firm stand on some of the problems facing us and see that Canada's interests are protected in international negotiations.
During the second reading debate, I suggested there were two major points that should be noted by members of the House. The first was that the economic policy which the government has been following is now in a shambles. The fact is that one of the basic assumptions upon which the government's economic policy was based has now been shown to be false. The assumption was that in late 1971 and early 1972 there would be a significant upturn in the United States economy, and that there would be such an overflow of benefits that the government ought to take them into account in considering a policy for Canada. This has now been shown to be completely false.
Certainly, the United States has taken action to gear up and step up its economy, but those actions have not been in Canada's interest and are not going to be to Canada's benefit. Certainly, it is just the opposite. This indicates that the government was on a faulty course, and it shows the government was not thinking of Canadians first, as it should have been. I think it was a false assumption and one for which this government stands to be severely condemned.
Second, we have also had demonstrated to us the heavy dependence of Canada on the United States economy and the fact that we have a high degree of foreign control over our own economy. This locks us in, in many respects, not only in terms of corporate operation by government policy. If the government attempts now to tamper with the export of raw materials, which I think it certainly will have to consider, this will affect Canada's relations with the United States. We have put ourselves into this box. The government's faulty course of action has led this country into a trap by allowing our economy to become so heavily dependent on the U.S.
I note that we now have the Liberal party climbing on the bandwagon of Canadian nationalism, as it is sometimes called. However, I think some of the statements made in recent days by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and other spokesmen on behalf of the government, are going to sound rather hollow to many Canadian people. It

seems to me that Canadians are not going to be easily fooled by the statements of the Prime Minister and others that we now have to do something to gain control over our economy and to make sure we are the masters of our own destiny. How can they say this honestly, in a forthright manner, in face of the policy vacuum which existed in recent years? The government has held off for months and even years producing this policy statement on foreign ownership. Certainly, I do not think these late-in-the-day statements from the Prime Minister are going to go down very well with the Canadian public.
There are a number of policy steps which could be taken by the government that would be of very real benefit to Canadians in present circumstances. Let me briefly mention some of the points I feel should be considered by this government. One of the first, and the most important, is to take all possible action to lower interest rates in Canada. The government has maintained in recent days that it has taken action to lower interest rates in this country, and I cannot argue with that. At the same time, however, it will have to be recognized by the government that it is still following a tight money policy. Certainly, the current level of bank and interest rates in this country have been acknowledged by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and other government spokesmen, to represent a tight money policy. This fact has to be recognized by the government. The government will have to take further action to bring about a lowering of interest rates in Canada with the consequences which will flow from such action. The government must also take steps to slow down capital movements into Canada. This is certainly one of the things that does create imbalances in our exchange rates and our balance of payments situation.
Third, the government urgently needs to adopt expansionary fiscal and monetary policies to a greater extent than it has up to the present time. The answers of the Prime Minister in the House during the past few days were very disappointing in that he failed to indicate in any way that the government was prepared to take any real initiative in dealing with the unemployment situation in Canada. He seems to be more interested in shadowboxing than in taking any concrete measures.
Fourth, we must have more monitoring of foreign-owned subsidiaries in Canada. This is something which has been advocated on many occasions. Many questions have been asked in the House, and the government has had special studies commissioned by some well-known experts who came up with the recommendation that an agency should be established to monitor foreign-owned subsidiaries in this country.
Fifth, we must give consideration to levying a selective export tax on our raw materials. I hope the minister will note the manner in which I phrased that suggestion: we should give consideration to this. I recognize that when dealing with different commodities there are various pros and cons which have to be taken into account, but certainly this is one of the possibilities that should be mentioned in the negotiations the government will be conducting.
Sixth, I suggest that some definite steps should be taken to assist both agriculture and fisheries under present circumstances. Such provisions are absent from the present legislation, and I will come back to that in a few moments, Mr. Speaker.
September 28, 1971

Seventh, the government should give serious consideration to embarking upon a real selling effort for Canada and a policy which would result in new trade patterns and alignments with other countries in the world. We should not look at just the dark side of this picture, we should look at the bright side as well. While the immediate situation Canada is facing is very serious and has very serious consequences, the other side of the coin does present Canada with an opportunity to bring about the type of re-alignment of its trade patterns which has been advocated by many people in Canada for many years, but in respect of which the government has done very little.
Thus, I think the general view of the NDP on the bill is that it is inadequate, but we will have to wait to see what results will be obtained. We feel it really does not represent an answer to the problems facing Canadians at the present time. The manner in which the bill has been drafted might cause one to say that the proper title should be the corporate welfare assistance act rather than the Employment Support Act. That would be a much more suitable title for this bill.
We have already expressed our disappointment that this bill is going to apply only to manufacturing industries. We recognize there are very real problems facing some manufacturing industries in Canada, and in particular many of the people who are employed in these industries, but we feel there are other problem areas in Canada. This is why I want to return to a discussion of the position and the problems of agriculture and fishing. We moved a motion during the report stage which would have adopted the principle of including agriculture and fishing within the framework of this legislation in so far as that might do any good, but this was ruled out of order. At this moment I am not taking issue with the ruling, but this was the purpose we had in mind. We wanted to see some action taken to help the farmers and fishermen under present circumstances.
When we look at this matter, we have to keep in mind what is happening to farmers and fishermen in this situation. The government's own analysis provides some information on this aspect. This analysis, which was published some time ago, shows that animal and vegetable products, as one of the group of exports to the United States, are more affected by the measures announced by President Nixon than any other sector of the Canadian economy. Some 63.5 per cent of exports of animal and vegetable products to the United States, using 1970 as a basis, are subject to the import surcharge. This compares to 24.8 per cent of the over-all exports from Canada to the United States. This 63.5 per cent is higher than the figure for any other sector outlined by the government. There are some individual or groups of commodities in respect of which there is a higher figure, but in terms of a sector analysis, animal and vegetable products, which include both agriculture and fisheries products, are more severely affected than any other group of products.
What has the government's response been to this? When the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) spoke during the debate on second reading he said the government was going to use the Agriculture Stabilization Act; they were going to conduct a commodity by commodity review and then take action wherever it was needed. What action have we seen from the government? All we have had from
Employment Support Bill
the government has been some inane answers in which the government suggests it is still looking at the situation and trying to decide what to do. In fact, one of the most recent questions was asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), last Friday. He asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) the following question:
In view of the statement to the House by the Minister of Agriculture that the effect of the surcharge on agriculture would be handled commodity by commodity, is there under way a study commodity by commodity of how the surcharge is affecting Canadian agricultural production, and may we be advised very soon in the House of what the policy will be and how these specific instances will be taken care of.
Then, the Minister of Agriculture answered:
Yes to the first part of the question, and as soon as possible to the second part.
That seems to be the old refrain we hear from Liberal cabinet ministers whenever it comes to doing anything about agriculture or the problems of the farmers. When it comes to the problems of some other industries in Canada, where admittedly problems do exist, they come up with policies, however inadequate they may be. When it comes to farming or fishing, however, all they can say is that they are conducting a commodity by commodity review and that they will come up with a policy as soon as possible. That is the old refrain the farmers have been hearing and they are becoming tired of it. I am sure that even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) may be beginning to understand that some people in western Canada are getting cynical when they continue to receive this answer week after week and month after month. A great deal of concern has been expressed on this matter by farmers and also by the fishermen.
One example of the concern is expressed in a letter addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) by Mr. E. K. Turner, President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. This letter was sent to the Prime Minister on or about September 9, and in it Mr. Turner stated that Canadian farmers deserved financial compensation for injury resulting from recent United States economic policies.
In his letter to the Prime Minister the President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool also noted that Parliament has under consideration legislation to take care of the expected build-up in the numbers of unemployed in Canada as a result of international developments. Then, he pointed out the fact that animal and vegetable products which comprise some 15 per cent of exports from Canada to the United States, using the 1970 figure again, would be subject to the United States import surcharge. He stated that the amount involved is some $422 million which is 15 per cent of the total value of our exports. Therefore he suggested, on the basis of the government making $80 million available as compensation for the adverse affects on Canadian industry of the import surcharge imposed by the United States, that certainly there was a case for ensuring that some $12 million or 15 per cent of the $80 million be made available to farmers and fishermen to compensate them for the added difficulty they face in an already difficult situation.

September 28, 1971
Employment Support Bill
Then, Mr. Turner pointed out another very important matter, namely that the structure of farming and fishing in most instances is different from that which we encounter in dealing with other industries in Canada. In his letter to the Prime Minister he said:
. . . but the net effect of under-employment of labour and underutilization of other production resources because of the surtax could have a severe effect on the individual producer of certain commodities.
Then, he pointed out further that farmers are selfemployed, as are many fishermen, and therefore are in a different position from those in some other industries. Mr. Turner went on to point out he was happy to note that at least the government was prepared to accept the principle that the government has an obligation to help industry in Canada when it faces problems such as are being faced at the present time. Certainly, if that principle is to be accepted, then the case for helping agricultural producers and fishermen is as good or better than that for helping any other sector of the Canadian economy. I think it must also be noted that Canadian farmers already face a very difficult situation. They have suffered very severe declines in income and they are suffering as a result of the competition they have to face from the treasuries of other countries. They have been left to face this competition with very little help from the federal government. This, I believe, is a factor which should be taken into account.
Some of the concerns of western Canada have also been pointed out by the Western Producer in an editorial dated September 23. The editorial reads:
Practically every farm leader in Canada has publicly protested the Canadian government's apparent lack of concern for farmers, who, just as in the case of other industries, are bound to feel the adverse effects of recently-adopted U.S. economic policies. As we noted in this space last week, the government, on the very first day of the new session, announced its plans for assistance to industry.
The reference to industry was, of course, to western agriculture. Then, later the editorial continues:
It seems to us, and to a good many others, that the government was caught flat-footed without a clue as to what should be done to provide farmers with some measure of assistance that would at least partially soften the blow of falling prices and shrunken markets which are bound to be the result of the U.S. protectionist program. Other than some vague suggestion that existing price support legislation might be used, there was nothing to indicate in government answers to opposition questions that any serious thought had been given to crisis faced by the farmers.
Then, again later on the editorial points out:
But the keynote of federal government agricultural policy to date is that everything has been too little and too late, and on occasion, anything but effective.
Mr. Turner's plea for equal consideration of farmers with other segments of industry in this matter is particularly appropriate at this time. He seeks, not special privileges, but an equitable share of a fund set up by the government, ostensibly to assist all industry affected by the new U.S. policy. The government's response to Mr. Turner's request will be enlightening in many ways.
Mr. Turner made other comments to the effect that businessmen and others across the country are worried about the squeeze and that there are 400,000 individual farmers in this country facing a very severe squeeze as well. What does the government intend to do about the situation? We have heard nothing but noncommittal answers from both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture.

I think it should be emphasized today that we face a very serious farm income situation in Canada and that farmers faced a crisis long before the current situation developed. The fact is that farm income has been dropping severely in recent years. When one compares the different sectors of the Canadian economy, possibly even the minister may be impressed by the problems faced by the agricultural sector of our economy. We could point out the various categories of income in Canada. I have before me a table released by Statistics Canada, an agency which comes under the jurisdiction of the minister. I presume he has received a copy and I hope he has given it some very close study because it notes that interest, dividends, and miscellaneous investment income of persons between 1969 and 1970 increased from $4,169,000,000 to $5,400,000,000. That is an increase of some $440 million, 9 per cent or 10 per cent. For non-farm, unincorporated business the net income rose from $4,410 million to $4,551 million, not much of a rise but certainly some increase as well. Wages, salaries and supplementary labour income, which also includes the salaries of all highly paid executives and other people, rose from $43 billion to $47 billion, which is a healthy increase. With respect to agriculture, however, the net income received by farm operators from farm production dropped from $1,644 million in 1969 to $1,162 million in 1970. That is a drop of almost $500 million in one year, a drop of one third in one year. It seems to me that this is a crisis of the first magnitude in Canada, and one which should receive top priority from the federal government.
But what do we hear from the government? They are conducting a commodity by commodity review. They will announce their policy as soon as possible. For years their policy has been to do as little as possible and to do nothing whenever it is possible. I think we have also seen within the past year a number of indications that the government is committed to a policy of doing as little as possible for the farmers of this country, as little as it can get away with. I do not intend to debate some other measures which are and have been before this House, but I think they do need to be drawn to the attention of the House within the context of this debate. We have had before the House for debate, as hon. members know, the government's proposed grain stabilization plan. The government is trying, through this piece of legislation, to limit its commitment in terms of dollars to assist agriculture in Canada. It is trying to find some ceiling on the amount of money that it will make available to grain producers in western Canada. Regardless of what the minister says or what the government says, this is the reality and the impact of this piece of legislation.
Then, we can also take a look at what the government did when the Canadian dollar was freed over a year ago. The minister and the House know that members of the NDP supported this measure in principle. But we also recognized that, because of the very diverse type of economy we have in Canada, there would be some adverse effects as well. We recognized and pressed on the government the adoption of the principle that help should be given to any industries which were adversely affected by the freeing of the Canadian dollar a year ago. The minis-
September 28, 1971

Employment Support Bill
ter, later on in answer to a question said "oh yes, we help various manufacturing industries and some other large firms in coping with the problems they face". But what did they do for agriculture? Absolutely nothing. The minister knows very well that there are various sectors of farming and fishing in Canada which are very dependent upon export markets.
Let me give one specific example. Wheat producers had to take the brunt of an immediate 6 cents per bushel drop in the price of wheat. The government allowed them to take it; they allowed this to go on without any interference or any assistance in any way. This is indicative of the government's attitude and approach to agricultural matters, Now, we have the new situation which I have been describing in which the government is just adopting a stand pat policy in dealing with agricultural problems which have arisen as a result of recent economic developments. I cannot stress too much the importance of this question. I feel this is one of the fundamental questions which we are facing in Canada at present. Are we going to see a rural society in this country in the future or is the government going to follow a course of action and a set of policies which will allow our rural society to be destroyed, to simply wither away, or possibly even a set of policies which will help it to be destroyed? I think we need some answers from the minister and from the government, not in any vague terms or in terms of any fairy stories about the situation being under review. I think we need some concrete answers from the government as to what it will do to help agriculture in the present situation. We have had nothing up to the present time and I think that results in a very serious lack of confidence in the government.
Because I feel this matter is so important and one that needs to be given further consideration within the context of this debate, I propose to move a motion which relates to clause 11 of Bill C-262. As members know, this is the clause of the bill which provides for the payment of grants to assist manufacturing industries in particular. Hon. members will also be familiar with the motion which I attempted to introduce yesterday in the House at the report stage and which it was not possible to introduce at that time. This would have provided for the inclusion of agriculture and fishing within the terms of that section. I cannot move an amendment which would make specific reference to the additions that I would like to see made to clause 11 of the bill, but I think I can make my intent quite clear in moving the amendment which I now place before you. I move, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave):
That Bill C-262 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for the purpose of reconsidering clause 11 thereof.
I commend this amendment to the consideration of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has a copy of the proposed amendment that was just read by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton). My impression is that the amendment is in order and I will rule that way unless hon. members want to advise the Chair to the contrary. The Chair is prepared to put the motion.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the remarks made by the leader of our party, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) and by my colleagues, the hon. members for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and Compton (Mr. Latulippe) on motion for third reading of the bill, I would like to inform the House that we are more strongly opposed to this measure after it has been referred to the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. We have voted against referring this bill to the committee and we will oppose its passage to the end, because it aims at protecting millionnaires rather than workers by favouring the piling up of surpluses which will not be exported to the United States, thus damaging consumption in Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What a broad viewpoint.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I know what I am talking about since I am a member of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs where I had the opportunity of hearing various submissions. I have also received letters and telegrams pointing out the dangers of this bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howard) stated this afternoon that this bill was meant to clarify certain matters raised before the committee rather than to provide subsidies to support employment, although this measure provided subsidies to this effect. This is not the kind of statement that would shed light on the various ways in which the bill can be interpreted.
I do not intend to repeat the effective and realistic proposals which my colleagues have submitted to the government, although I would be tempted to do so following the statements I heard from several hon. members on the government benches saying: Let us have better suggestions than those contained in this bill.
This proves once more than none are so deaf as those who will not hear. I shall therefore endeavour to impress upon hon. members on the government benches to use reason instead of blindly following their leader, as they are accustomed to do, or again, I will point out to the people who are conversant with federal matters, the erroneous meaning of the bill.
If we pause to consider the objective of the bill, we read the following in clause 3:
The purpose of this Act is to provide a means to support levels of employment in Canadian industry when other countries impose temporary import surtaxes-
In my opinion this is more a pretext than a goal to achieve for the government which will certainly not miss such a splendid opportunity to create a new commission whose function will be to protect those who protect it. In fact, you have noted that as soon as the government has a small problem they create commissions so as to act finally as they please but which they use as a protective screen against all-too-often justified criticism.
For an industrial corporation to become qualified for federal help, the production factor will not be taken into account. Besides this was stated by a government official before the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic

September 28, 1971
Employment Support Bill
Affairs. It will be merely a question of maintaining employment at a normal level.
But how to maintain employment level when the manufacturer can limit production? Will the workers have to remain on the payroll without working or will the old winter work program have to be revived for our industries so as to make it possible for them to amortize two-thirds of the losses they have sustained because of the 10 per cent surtax?
A witness even suggested that the company could have other work done by workers affected by a production slowdown. On the whole, according to arguments put forward before the committee, if a manufacturer lays off workers, he will not get the assistance provided under Bill C-262 and if there are no lay offs, no guarantee is given that the manufacturer will be able to make out his case before the board.
Each case will therefore be thoroughly considered and should the board still have doubts after all those safety measures, clause 15, which to me is but a proof of patronage, will lend assistance to the board members. That clause reads as follows:
Where a manufacturer who makes an application under this Act for a grant is unable to comply with any regulations applicable in his case and the Board is of the opinion that a grant to the manufacturer would not be outside the purposes of this Act, as described in section 3, the Board may, having regard to the purposes of this Act, recommend to the Governor in Council that a grant be authorized under this Act for that manufacturer.
In brief, we have just been told that the minister concerned can decide whether any manufacturer who does not meet all the industrial standards at least meets the political standards making him eligible for grants.
Then, why should a commission be established, since, in the end, the minister himself will decide? However, we are not at all surprised, because we can see therein the methods usually used by this government. You are for us or against us, the master-minds of the government seem to say. But woe unto opponents, for the ministers keep an eye on them and the powerful party organizers-some of whom have acceded to the Senate-will find out whether they are deserving contributors to the election fund.
That is one of the true aspects of the bill now before the House. Besides introducing this bill under a misleading title, this government does not tell the whole truth to the public, making it believe that the measure will cost only $80 million in grants, and $350,000 in administration costs. I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that these amounts apply only to the balance of this fiscal year. This means that before the end of this fiscal year, the minister must ask the House to vote supplementary credits. It is always the same old method. The House is asked to consider a bill said to be of a provisional nature and which involves little expenditure in order to sweeten the pill. Later on, the people have to face the sad fact of a bill of a permanent nature costing workers millions of dollars in terms of taxes and designed for the benefit of foreign companies. It always boils down to fleecing the little fellow for the benefit of the big financier.
Indeed, according to a testimony heard in committee, this bill will cost at least $250 million solely for assistance, to which must be added approximately half a million

dollars to cover commissioners' fees and administration expenses. Such is the truth.


Jean-Luc Pepin: How awful!


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Let us stop deluding the population and let us be honest. We will thus avoid deceiving the Canadian people.
A casual look at the industries affected by the 10 per cent American surtax, shows that the capital of practically all of them is American in a proportion of 80 per cent. Thus, President Nixon hits Canada in two ways since he compels American subsidiaries to turn over to him 10 per cent on products manufactured in Canada and since he grants a 10 per cent assistance to American industries which will promote production at home.
And we good Canadians fall headlong into the trap, calling upon our small taxpayers to supply the United States with over $250 million to protect American capital in Canada. Instead of making this anti-Canadian gesture, the government should have had the courage to stand up to the Nixon administration and use those hundreds of millions to be granted under the present bill to promote production of our secondary and tertiary industries, so that we stop sponging on the United States and produce more of our own consumer goods.
In fact, we produce barely 40 per cent of our requirements in Canada, while we are the United States' number one source of raw materials. That shows the absurdity of our position and the irresponsibility of a government which brings forward such a solution to the American surcharge. The most logical course would have been the one pointed out by my colleagues, i.e. outright abolition of the 12 per cent excise tax which, like all the others, was a temporary tax at first but which we have been paying for many years now.
What was Mr. Nixon's intention in putting this 10 per cent surcharge on all imports of countries dealing with him? He just wanted to make up for the United States' balance of payments deficit. How typical of a country feeling more powerful than all others. The president of the United States thought maybe that this would compel the countries of the Group of Ten to revalue their currencies upwards. In any case, the American government can see that the reaction came quickly. In fact, on page 10 of La Presse of September 8, one could read:
The Nixon plan is attacked by GATT
-The U.S. protectionist measures were unanimously censured by the great commercial countries as well as by the Latin American countries at a meeting of the GATT special task force, according to reliable sources.
The group met to study the trade decisions taken by President Nixon, and particularly the 10 per cent surtax on imports. The representatives of Japan, Great Britain, the European community, Canada and Latin-American countries judged the measures illegal under GATT and most inappropriate. The task force studied a document it received Monday from the International Monetary Fund on the United States balance of payments. The conclusions of the IMF have not yet been published, but the same source indicates that the American deficit is due mostly to capital outflows from the U.S.A.
Mr. Speaker, that is what international organizations think of the situation.
September 28, 1971

In reply to those protests, a few days later, on September 14, one could read the following in a Montreal paper:
The Six request that Nixon remove the surcharge.
The Six have agreed to consider a realignment of monetary parities on the international level only if the United States remove the 10 per cent surcharge on imports.
That decision was taken by the Council of ministers of finance for the Six last night, after an agreement had been reached on the position to be fought for in reforming the international monetary system. The text adopted by the Council states that the Six pointed out the seriousness of the American decision to levy a 10 per cent surtax and grant fiscal concessions in favour of domestic investments and exports.
These steps interfere with the making up of realistic rates of exchange. They impede the realignment of parities. Furthermore, they could well cause serious disruptions in international trade.
Consequently, the European Community is solemnly asking for the removal of the Washington measures.
Well, maybe there is some good in all this because when the Six met, it was even proposed that the international monetary system be revamped. I feel that Social Credit is coming anyway, not only at the national level as stated by the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans), the former maverick Communications Minister-who asked that the Bank of Canada be used to issue new funds as the only way to boost the Canadian economy-but even at the international level, since the Six unanimously requested a reform in the international monetary system. Incidentally, Le Devoir of September 9, 1971 had an article entitled: The Six Agree on Common Goal, and I quote:
The international monetary system, born of the Bretton Woods agreements, must be reformed: failing a common position to solve the crisis created by the United States on August 16, the Six of the Common Market have at least managed, after four weeks, to agree on a common goal.
That goal is the complete reform of the international monetary system. In the light of those events, what did the government do? It missed its only chance to back track by helping directly our fully owned Canadian industries without being accused of provoking dumping into the United States, or directly violating the GATT agreements. May I point out to the House another article published in La Presse on September 8, 1971 and entitled: Direct Violation of GATT Agreements. I shall read only a few excerpts because the article is too long. I quote:
The emergency plan which has just been launched by the Trudeau government to assist industries most seriously affected by the 10 per cent surcharge established on August 15 by President Nixon is a direct violation of GATT and may have repercussions in the United States as well as abroad.
Indeed, even if the federal Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin, suggests that the $80 million allotted for that emergency plan are meant to lessen the impact of American measures on labour, they amount to export grants none the less. Now, such practices have been denounced by the General Assembly of GATT as "non-tariff walls".
As for Canadian government authorities, always ready to copy the United States, I wonder why they did not imitate Mr. Nixon when he decided to give 10 per cent to his domestic industries to encourage them to produce more goods for American consumers. Thus not only would they have maintained the employment level, but they would surely have contributed to reduce the unemployment rate and help Canadian consumers.
We blame this government for imposing to the people in the lower income brackets this despicable tax which has
Employment Support Bill
but one purpose, protecting our pro-American millionaires.
If we wish for the suppression of unemployment and the growth of our economy, these will certainly not be achieved through the imposition of new taxes, but by abolishing those taxes which hinder our Canadian industries' survival and favour the American companies.
That is the reason why all our industries one after the other are falling into American hands. The people mainly responsible for this type of emigration are those presently sitting on the government's side.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, we are against the bill before us at the present time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Before recognizing the hon. minister, I should like to inform the House regarding matters which will be raised tonight at the time of adjournment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latu-lippe)-Finance-Government attitude on negative tax formula; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-Fruit-Request by British Columbia growers for export assistance-legislation to protect against dumping of agricultural products.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Olson (for 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 third time and do pass, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Burton.
Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for speaking at this time. I would have preferred to wait for the end of the debate, but, unfortunately or fortunately, I must leave for Houston, Texas, in a few minutes, so that I will not be here tonight when this bill is approved with great enthusiasm.

September 28, 1971
Employment Support Bill
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) and I thank him for his long lecture on international trade and other matters. And, listening to him, Mr. Speaker, I said to myself: Professors never do change. Is this not so? At every opportunity they give a lecture and I hear the oh's in Hansard.
Mr. Speaker, the main argument of the hon. member for Regina East is that this bill is not perfect and this I am willing to admit. It will cure neither a cold in the head nor corns; it is not a comprehensive industrial policy. It does not propose an agricultural or a monetary policy, and neither does it create an internation corporation. In short, there are lots and lots of things which it does not do. But, this bill is not meant to do everything the hon. member would like it to do. It did not please the hon. member for Regina East simply because it is not perfect. And therefore, I imagine that the hon. member and his party as well as the Creditistes are going to vote against it because it is not perfect.
Mr. Speaker, I point out that the decision of the two parties concerned expresses a low-standard evangelism. It would be a great help to the government if the whole House voted for the bill to show Americans in particular that public opinion in Canada is not insensitive to American measures.
I shall attempt with perseverance to find, both in the speech of the hon. member for Regina East and in that of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), a few sentences saying that in fact the two parties concerned were in agreement with the legislation. But it will not be an easy task and once again, I hope that in a few minutes the two parties, being aware of their responsibilities and having made all provisos and necessary precisions, will none the less vote for Bill C-262 in order to make it publicly known in Canada, in the whole world and specially in the United States, what stuff Canada is made of.
Mr. Speaker, some say that this bill will not cope with all the problems that this surtax will create in Canada. I agree with that. At the present time, just the uncertainties brought about by the American decisions will disturb Canada-U.S. trade relations and will occasion, in a great many cases, the loss of contracts as well as certain difficulties for some Canadian firms. In a word, I mean that this bill attempts to save the house, the Canadian industrial structure which has been set up at the cost of many efforts over the years by industrialists as well as workers and governments. We are trying to save the house; we may lose a few pieces of furniture, but the commendable efforts of the government at this time should be acknowledged by all.
The hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) seeks through his amendment to refer the bill to a committee for consideration of clause 11. I suppose his main purpose would be to submit to the committee the amendment he moved yesterday and which has been ruled out of order by the Chair.
The hon. member's interest is essentially the protection of farmers and fishermen. That would be his motivation.

If the hon. member had read beyond the figures he cited for animal and vegetable products affected by the sur-

charge he would have discovered that about 85 per cent are processed and therefore covered by the bill. This includes the $175 million applying to whiskey and $200 million applying to fish. I am not saying that all this whiskey will be protected. I am not saying that at all, because all the whiskey producers might not need the support of the government in this instance. I am saying that the 85 per cent of products subject to the surcharge are covered by this bill. Therefore, the hon. member is delaying action. He wants to send the bill back to committee just for that 15 per cent left out of the bill. I recognize that the 15 per cent is important to those people who are in that 15 per cent category. But then the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has already said that he will bring about ways and means of helping those people. I think the Minister of Agriculture has a splendid record for responsibility. As a matter of fact, I know that my colleagues in the cabinet committee at this time are discussing just that matter. So, I suggest the hon. member is being very theoretical, very professorial-if I of all people may use that expression-in trying to delay the bill. He is trying to satisfy his own sense of responsibility which, in this case, is very misplaced.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not attempt to reply to the hon. member for Roberval because that would take too long but I shall see, or rather I shall try to see that the people are made aware of the remarks he made this afternoon. His statement that only Canadian firms should be protected by the legislation will, I believe, create quite a lot of dissatisfaction particularly among Quebec workers who work for such companies. I feel the hon. member, if he is sincere, should hold a press conference immediately to say that he is most anxious that workers in Quebec and throughout Canada, employed by firms with foreign origins, should not be protected by the legislation. I think at that time he will not get a very hearty reception.


Mr. Fortin:: They will not be protected anyway.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member has to make up his mind one way or another. At first he said that this measure is only for the rich, especially rich Americans, and now he says that workers employed in factories with predominantly American capital will not be protected. I know very well that logical thinking is not the strong point of Social Credit but there are nevertheless circumstances where it is possible that abuses-


Mr. Loiselle:: They never have understood anything and they never will understand anything.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, abortion and death sentences are at present the big topics within Social Credit. This indicates perhaps that an abortion or the death sentence is in sight for that party.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to be more serious when I answer the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth). I think that his remarks this afternoon are quite serious and that he is truly concerned about the effects this legislation might have in certain cases.

I consider him to be a very experienced member and a very responsible one, so I think I should spend some time
September 28, 1971

trying to answer the points he made. If I understood him well, and I hope that I am quoting him correctly, since I resented it very much yesterday, and Hansard proved me right, when the hon. member's leader misquoted me considerably last night and I should not like to do the same thing to him today. He said that he thought only 150 companies would stand to benefit from this bill. That is not right. I think my hon. friend was impressed by what I said in my first speech on the subject, as reported in Hansard at page 7558. I said:
The survey conducted by my department also indicates that there are some 150 companies which would have difficulty surviving if the surcharge lasted up to a year,-
That was an assessment of potential damage and not an assessment of how many companies would stand to benefit from the bill. This is a very important distinction. As a matter of fact, we questioned 1,700-odd companies, as mentioned at page 7558 of Hansard. The opinion of my department at this time is that about 300 of that number are exporting more than the 20 per cent of their production which they need to export in order to qualify for assistance under the bill. That means that about 300 plants will stand to benefit from this bill. I emphasize again that clause 15 covers hardship cases. It may well be that some companies exporting 12 per cent, 13 per cent or 15 per cent will still have their cases judged in the light of that clause. So much for that point.
The hon. member is also worried that small companies might not benefit from this bill as much as bigger ones would. I want to repeat what was said in committee. I know that there was a bit of "wobbling"-that is the only word which comes to my mind at this time. The final undertaking in committee is very clear. There is no distinction as to the size of the plants. The only factor is that employment in the plant must be "significantly" affected by the surcharge. This may involve a labour force of 2,000 or a labour force of 10. Two or three employees out of 10 could mean "significantly" affected. The size of the company is not a relative factor in the implementation of this bill. It is certainly not to be considered in the way the member thought it might.
The hon. member made a good point. He said he was afraid that unions might create some difficulty. I am sure that the member supports me in the hope that unions will also show some flexibility in these matters. If everyone is going to stand on his rights, on the conventions and practices of former years, of course there will be added difficulties. However, I hope that company officials and union leaders will show intelligence in helping to implement this bill.
The hon. member also stated that companies might use this assistance to stockpile. I already indicated, and I repeat, that this is one of the five, six or seven possibilities offered by this bill. A moment ago my parliamentary secretary stated very strongly that continuation of exports is but one of seven or eight different possibilities and that stockpiling or adding to inventories is one of those. The member was wrong when he said the government was favouring that direction. I do not think it was just eloquence when he said that under this bill the government might be paying "two thirds of the cost of units". That is
Employment Support Bill
not the case. The assistance which will be provided will be two thirds of the surtax applicable to goods exported to the United States in 1970. I am not going to go into detail. It will be two thirds of the surtax that would have been paid, not two thirds of the cost of units. If the government had decided on that, it would indeed have meant fantastic support. I presume that the member inadvertently made that suggestion.
I think I have covered most of what I intended to deal with, Mr. Speaker. I hope I will have the pleasure of receiving a telephone call from you tonight in Houston, Texas, Mr. Speaker, or from someone on the government side, informing me that the bill has been passed and that the two reluctant parties, the New Democratic Party and the Ralliement des Creditistes, have surprised everyone by showing intelligence, flexibility, goodwill by voting in favour of this bill, thus giving occasional-I do not mind if it is occasional-support to the government when a question of national importance arises.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed with the minister's speech. I am extremely sorry he has to leave us now in order to go to Houston. I have been there, so I am sure he will have a marvellous time. I am not trying to be facetious, as I know that this is impossible, but perhaps the minister can drop in on Washington to let them know about the unknown country. The minister stated that if we pass this bill, it will show how we are going to deal with two specific problems, the loss of contracts and the economic difficulty which Canadians and Canadian industry will face as the result of the 10 per cent surtax.
I wish to point out to the minister that I am quite aware of what the Americans are doing. We cannot really fault them. They are attempting to bring some economic stability to their own country. At the same time, however, I wonder whether they know who we are. The minister has an opportunity of going to the United States. Perhaps he can add another paragraph to the speech that has been prepared, and I do not fault that, and give some information about this country which even President Nixon does not know. I refer the minister to a press release relating to a presidential press conference issued by the United States Information Services datelined Washington, September 16. In this the president gives some indication as to who his friends are, who are the important trading partners and what importance he places upon these respective parties. On Saturday, September 25, 1971, the Globe and Mail picked up this theme. I quote from the report of the press conference:
This is a time for our friends around the world-and they are all competitors-to build a new system with which we can live so that we don't have another crisis in a year. With regard to the Japanese, incidentally, I think I can best summarize our dilemma in this way: After the Japanese were here I found that, both from the information they gave and the information we had ourselves, that Japan is our biggest customer in the world and we are their biggest customer in the world.
That is the part with which I find some fault, Mr. Speaker. I can give the minister a copy of the Globe and Mail lead editorial of Saturday, September 25, 1971, in which they took issue with that statement. I quote from the editorial:
The New York Times, which is respected for its paper-of-record

September 28, 1971
8246______________________________________
Employment Support Bill
approach to both domestic and foreign news, rated Canada's importance in the upheaval as worth only five inches of space at the bottom of page 42. Shows the dimension of the Canadian fact as it exists in the United States.
If any punctuation was lacking, President Nixon added it in a press conference on Sept. 16 when he said,-
I just alluded to this, but I will continue with the reading of the quote. I think this editorial speaks on behalf of a lot of Canadians.
-''After the Japanese were here I found that, both from the information they gave and the information we had ourselves, that Japan is our biggest customer in the world and we are their biggest customer in the world."
That statement didn't happen to be true on either count. In the first six months of 1971 the United States exported $2.1-billion worth of goods to Japan and $5.2-billion to Canada. In the same six months the United States imported $5.9-billion worth of goods from Japan, and $6.01-billion from Canada. Even on combined export-import dealings the U.S.-Canada package is far greater than the U.S.-Japan package:-
I am trying to tell the minister that something is wrong. Unless the President is misquoted in the statement that he believes Japan is their greatest trading partner, I think this editorial is true. This is the unknown country. The government should work hard through this minister who is going to the United States this evening to create an impression on the President of the United States, one which will be heard by the United States.
Members on this side have questioned the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as to why he does not pick up the phone. Perhaps in my ignorance, not knowing the protocol in this matter, I thought the telephone was a means of prime communication. In view of the disastrous effects of the United States' attempt to satisfy their own demands, I suggest that the Prime Minister of Canada-I do not know whether he has ever talked to the President of the United States; I suggest he must have-should find the situation important enough to pick up the telephone and say to the President that in view of our extended boundary, unguarded, and the action we took in unpegging the dollar, which does not call for retaliatory methods against us which may bring us to the point of disaster. "As a result of our common language and trading patterns, Mr. President, what are you doing to us? We understand you must help your country, but what are you doing to us?"
That is all the opposition is asking, and for the life of me I cannot understand why the Prime Minister does not take this step. Perhaps I am uninformed and do not appreciate the protocol involved in this matter, or perhaps the Prime Minister may think that he is above and beyond picking up the telephone to call the President of the United States; I do not know.


Mr. O'Connell:: Has the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) done that?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He is not in a position to pick up the telephone and call the President of the United States. This government continues in its arrogant way, with its complacent attitude and its apathy. But I must not digress because hon. members are eating up my time. It is nice to see members on the other side getting involved in this debate. Sometimes we get such asinine comments from

them that I wonder whether they send their copies of Hansard home or burn them in shame.


Mr. Muir:: Especially the buffoon from Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney).


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I did not say that.


Robert Muir: I am saying it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) says, his time is limited. Perhaps we should give him a chance to continue his remarks.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. But how can one become unexcited and be impassionate with interruptions of that calibre? In the cut and thrust of debate, when you are challenged you must reply.
I do not pretend to be an expert on this bill, as those on the government side do, but I want to put before the government a few of the concerns that have been expressed in this House. With the mandate that we have collectively on this side of the House, we have every right to bring them to your attention, Mr. Speaker. There is no desire on our part to hold up the bill; we just want to point out its inequities.
The title of this bill is "An act 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". I think it should be extended to read "and as a result of inefficient government fiscal and monetary policy". That has been underplayed, or left out, but in fact how can one criticize the bill to any great extent? Obviously, we are in a position where it is necessary to give some relief. But what we are talking about here are the consequences which flow from U.S. policies that affect our daily life; no reference is made to the fiscal and monetary policies of this government that have left industry in an awful mess.
I have watched the legislation go through this House and it seems to me that the free enterprise system no longer means anything. Perhaps to some hon. members it does, but in view of what the government has done in restricting the means and methods whereby we can reach high production, and therefore in the long run have full employment, whatever that may mean-perhaps 3 per cent unemployment-I wonder where we are going.
I appreciate the concern of the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth). I know the minister attempted to allay his fears, but from my first reading of the bill I get the impression that it is similar to providing corporate welfare, and perhaps it should be administered under the direction and leadership of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro).
It seems to me that the giants of industry certainly will need help and deserve help, and that is one thing. On the other hand, there are countless industries in Hamilton that feed these giants and do not export, and they will be directly affected by this surtax. After all, we are only providing assistance up to about two-thirds of the surtax that would be paid, which in the long run means that somebody is going to be short. As a result, companies are going to lose contracts, their workers are going to be faced with unemployment, which in turn means that those
September 28, 1971

firms that feed these bigger companies are going to be left high and dry. The minister was not too clear on that. We have hundreds of companies in Hamilton that are extremely concerned. They do not export their products but, rather, manufacture products to feed these bigger companies. What is going to happen to them?
I am not sure what clause 15 of the bill means. It refers to a "special case" and perhaps it is a catch-all phrase. It is a complex clause that no one has explained to me. It provides:
Where a manufacturer who makes an application under this act for a grant is unable to comply with any regulations applicable in his case and the board is of the opinion that a grant to the manufacturer would not be outside the purposes of this act, as described in section 3-
Section 3 says that the purpose of the act is to provide a means of supporting levels of employment; that is the gist of it. Are we going to bring in under the legislation all companies as a result of the following words, "the board may, having regard to the purposes of this act, recommend to the Governor in Council that a grant be authorized under this act for that manufacturer"? Does that mean that even though a manufacturer does not export, that he is not affected by the import surtax, he can make an application and, in accordance with the principle of the bill, be given assistance?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a pretty blank cheque.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, it is a sort of blank cheque. So the first concern I have with this bill is, what is going to happen to these smaller industries? That is why the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), in an admirable speech the other day, made so many points. I do not want to go over them, but he talked about the long-term economic policies of this government. This bill is a sort of patchwork solution to this emergency, but we are still faced with the awful problem created by the economic policies of the government as they affect Canadian productivity and employment.
We are used to hearing the President of the United States go to the people and make various points in his state of the nation speech. I asked the Prime Minister whether he would like to do this in order to bring the people of Canada up to date. I am not saying anyone has been dishonest in respect of the state of our economy, but what has been done has been patchwork and ad hoc. One minister says one thing and another minister says something else.
I should like the Prime Minister to tell the country exactly what we are doing, where we are now, where we are going and what our plans are to offset what everyone has concluded will be a disastrous winter. The people are entitled to such a statement. The Prime Minister says, "Leave it to the Minister of Finance". The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) lost his credibility months ago. Nobody believes him any more. Every prognosis he has made has been wrong.


Gerald William Baldwin: His economic slip is showing.
Employment Support Bill


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Why should the Minister of Finance make the statement? Let the Prime Minister be wrong for a change, perhaps even more so than he has been in the past. All I am asking for is such a statement.
On August 15, 1971, President Nixon inaugurated a series of economic reforms based on this statement:
The time has come for a new economic policy for the United States. Its targets are unemployment, inflation and international speculation.
These reforms affect not only ourselves but all industrialized nations whose economies are linked with the United States. As I said before, this affects Canada and what we are doing in this situation is important. This surcharge hits manufacturing in two ways. Companies in now buoyant industries will have trouble increasing their sales in vital U.S. markets so they will delay hiring more workers. Companies in lagging industries could lose sales if the surcharge continues for long. They may end up laying off workers and creating further structural unemployment.
The points to consider are that our manufacturers cannot raise prices, while those of United States competitors are frozen, without losing ground both at home and abroad. Wages for Canadian labour will not be frozen as they are in the United States. Canadian producers will face yet another squeeze on their profit margin, with the result that still less domestic capital will be available for investment. An added problem is that the industries affected by the surcharge are also those which have been weakened by the 6 per cent rise in the exchange rate since June, 1970. If the surcharge continues for several months, in my respectful submission these industries could be seriously damaged.
Another point of concern to me is the effect of the DISC program. What is the government doing about this? That legislation could be disastrous to the economic solidarity and viability of Canada. The Domestic International Sales Corporation would provide tax deferral on earnings from export sales, and it is likely that the legislation will be in effect by January 1, 1972. This measure would provide a substantial stimulus to United States producers to increase their export sales, with a resulting favourable effect on the United States balance of payments.
The Canadian Export Association fears that the export promotion scheme applied to American companies through DISC may, if successful-and there is no reason to believe it will not be-present a serious problem for Canadian exporters competing for the same markets. This problem is in addition to what we are talking about when discussing this bill. The federal government last year estimated that the DISC proposal would give United States exporters a 6 per cent advantage in competition with Canadian manufacturers, although the effect would vary from industry to industry. It is anticipated that United States companies would be permitted to borrow from DISC for the purpose of retraining employees and changing plants to meet competition from imports. As a result, the competitiveness of U.S. goods would be increased, applying pressure to both Canadian exports to third country markets and the United States and to domestic sales by Canadian manufacturers. I want to know what the government has to say about that matter
8248

September 28, 1971
Employment Support Bill
because it is part and parcel of the problems we are dealing with in this bill.
Have representations been made to the United States about these questions and the disastrous, unwarranted and unacceptable effects this program will have on Canadian exporters? Do we have any liaison or dialogue with the United States in this regard? Has anyone picked up the phone to discuss this matter with American officials? These proposals will come into effect on January 1, 1972, which is just around the corner.


An hon. Member:: It is not passed yet.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I heard a voice in the wilderness saying the legislation is not passed yet. Is he saying that the government intends to wait until it is passed and then go to the United States and ask them to withdraw it? Is that the way they do business on the other side of the House? I hope that is not the situation. Perhaps we should send a couple of these expert parliamentary secretaries to Washington. Sometimes I have more faith in them than I have in the minister, because they want to get ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ricard:: They applaud themselves.


An hon. Member:: That was worth hanging around to hear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I could say something about a couple of them over there, but I will not do so because I would probably get mean and I do not want to do that. Let me return to what I was saying about the DISC program. The major, long-term impact of the DISC legislation involves parent-subsidiary relations of multinational corporations, both U.S. parents with Canadian subsidiaries and Canadian parents with U.S. subsidiaries. The bill would create a tax incentive to supply foreign markets from United States-based manufacturing operations rather than from Canadian plants. Has this question been explored, and is there any way out of it? These are several questions to which we cannot get answers.
Associated with this incentive would be a significant effect on the investment decisions of multinational corporations as to where plants would be located and which plants would be expanded in the future. The tax deferral incentive would result in a tendency for corporations to expand or locate in the United States. Let me refer to the steel industry which is primarily located in Hamilton, Ontario. I think we should show concern in this area. This industry is the backbone of our nation. In some areas certain types of manufactured steel goods will be covered but, generally speaking, the major Canadian steel companies have been surveying customers in the United States and Canada to determine the effect of the surcharge on the demand for steel products. Flat rolled product sales will be most affected because they bear the greatest percentage increase under the surcharge, while structural steel rails and fastenings are subject to a lower tariff and are less vulnerable.
An official of the Steel Company of Canada estimates that if the surcharge is continued for the remaining months of 1971, $5 million, or 10 per cent of the company's average annual sales to the United States, might be lost

and that over a year the loss in sales could be $9 million. It is not only important to Hamilton, it is important to the nation to know what is happening to this industry.
When we realize that the steel companies will be compensated to the extent of two-thirds of the surcharge, we are pleased. But it does not matter what the figures are, somebody else will suffer. I have in mind all the companies directly involved with the steel industry. As a result of United States economic policies they will be placed in a position where they will be no longer productive and no longer able to maintain or further employment. They are not directly covered by this bill, unless clause 15 includes them. In any event, if you do not export you cannot take advantage of this bill, and if you cannot export then somebody will be a loser.
I will not take up any more time but I should like to say this is a proper step. No one in his right mind would say it is not, no matter on which side of the House he sits. There are things missing from the bill about which the government should be concerned. This legislation is only a partial answer. One must remember the complexities and conflicts which will beset this country as a result of the government's fiscal and monetary policies. In my opinion these problems are not being met. We do not know when they will be met, because every day we ask the Prime Minister questions about his immediate plans vis-a-vis provincial meetings and do not receive satisfactory answers. Let us hope the government realizes the difficulty they are in. I understand that even their backbenchers realize it, because the latest report in the Toronto Star indicates that they have a revolution in caucus concerning the incompetency of their ministers. These are not my words; they are what I read. It is reported that there is a revolution in the Liberal caucus because of the incompetency of their ministers and lack of viable, acceptable policies for the economic development of Canada.
In conclusion, I hope our suggestions sink in, because we on this side have been telling them since God knows when in the past two years that they are moving in the wrong direction. I hope that when this debate is finished-


An hon. Member:: Do you mean you are going to let the bill go to a vote?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -within a short space of time the words of wisdom which have come from this side will not have fallen on deaf ears.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt any speaker who may follow, but I seek consent of the House to revert to motions for a moment because, further to Your Honour's suggestion of some time ago in respect of Bill C-259, the House leaders met and a form of motion has been agreed upon by the various parties. If the House would consent to revert to motions, I would propose a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman).
September 28, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to revert to motions for the purpose of moving the motion to which the hon. member has referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I would move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman):
That, notwithstanding the terms of the ways and means motion upon which Bill C-259 was introduced, this House deems that the said bill was properly introduced within the terms of Standing Order 60, provided that the form of the said ways and means motion shall not be accepted as a precedent in any future case;
And that it shall be an instruction to the committee of the whole on the said bill that the admissibility of any proposed amendments thereto shall be governed by the bill as read a second time and shall not be limited by the said ways and means motion although all other procedures relating to financial or tax measures shall apply.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We are a generous opposition.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the House leaders met and we have overcome the difficulty which Your Honour properly pointed out. We accept the proposal. There is one condition which I believe should be placed on the record. It is our understanding that the proposal contained in the motion will mean that the government will not be permitted to introduce further amendments of substance affecting ways and means or extending beyond the terms of the bill without, of course, a proper resolution or notice being given. I think that is the plan but I thought I should make definite that this is our interpretation of the effect of the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when this point of order was-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure we are on a point of order. My understanding is that we are now on motions. I interrupted the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) because I understand the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) is rising on a point of order.

Is the hon. member for Bellechasse raising a point of order?


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to draw the Chair's attention to the fact that since the interpreter could not catch the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Jerome), I cannot give my consent because I did not hear exactly what he said.
Income Tax Act


Mr. Speaker:: I will try to remedy this problem by reading the motion as slowly as possible:

This may be cured by the Chair reading the motion:
That, notwithstanding the terms of the ways and means motion upon which Bill C-259 was introduced, this House deems that the said bill was properly introduced within the terms of Standing Order 60, provided that the form of the said ways and means motion shall not be accepted as a precedent in any future case;
And that it shall be an instruction to the committee of the whole on the said bill that the admissibility of any proposed amendments thereto shall be governed by the bill as read a second time and shall not be limited by the said ways and means motion although all other procedures relating to financial or tax measures shall apply.
Perhaps the House would allow me to return to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the point of order that is the subject of this motion was raised, perhaps I went too far in admitting that the House leaders had agreed to the form of the resolution which led to the difficulty. At any rate, honesty is a good policy. Your Honour then suggested that the House leaders who got us into the trouble should get us out of it. That is what we have tried to do. I hope we have succeeded.
Our understanding is that the terms in which Bill C-259 was printed and presented to this House on second reading are now to constitute the form of the resolution. In other words, from here on we are not limited by what was in the draft, but we are limited by what is in the wording of the bill itself; that is, Bill C-259 as printed becomes, for the purpose of this debate, the resolution rather than the draft bill that was first given to us. We accept that, but because it is rather novel we want to underline the wording in the motion that this practice is not to be taken as a precedent. I realize the difficulty in respect of precedents which are not to be taken as precedents; they often are quoted later as precedents.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Employment Support Bill

[Stage Direction]
September 28, 1971


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Olson (for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) 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 third time and do pass, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Burton.
Mr. Norman A. Caiik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, the preceding speaker on Bill C-262, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), made a couple of points with which I should like to deal for a moment. First of all, he indicated that this bill will assist the large industries and he felt that that was proper, but he did not really feel that it would help the many small industries in his riding or those across Canada because they do not export directly to the U.S. Many of them are subcontractors or suppliers to firms which in fact exported to the U.S., and perhaps the level of production which was ultimately exported through the final manufacturer was sufficient to qualify that manufacturer under the act but the subcontractor would, in fact, be prohibited from qualifying because of the terms of the act.
This question was dealt with at considerable length in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs when we dealt with this bill. The minister made it perfectly clear that in cases where a manufacturer was in fact a subcontractor and his goods were ultimately destined for the U.S. through another producer or exporter, such a firm would in fact qualify. I think that is a very important point which should be borne in mind by all members when viewing this bill.
The hon. member also indicated that he did not really know what clause 15 of the bill meant, and he quoted from it. I should like to dwell on this question for a moment because I consider clause 15 to be one of the most important clauses in the bill. Clause 15 provides, pretty clearly in my view:
Where a manufacturer who makes an application under this act for a grant is unable to comply with any regulations applicable in his case and the board is of the opinion that a grant to the manufacturer would not be outside the purposes of this act-
-the board can recommend to the Governor in Council that a grant be given in any event. I led a considerable discussion in the committee on this clause, because obviously it gives rather wide-ranging powers to the board and it is very important that we understand how these powers will be used and exactly what the government had in mind when it inserted clause 15 into the bill.
In committee it was made perfectly clear by the minister, in direct answer to questions which I put to him, that clause 15 allows the board to make this provision applicable in any case which meets the three basic criteria in the legislation. These three criteria are, first, that the base year to be used in calculations in the determination of the amount of production for export is the year 1970; second,

that two-thirds of the amount of the surcharge applicable for that production is the maximum amount of the grant; and the third criterion is in respect of 20 per cent of the production being exported to the United States.
The board can receive an application from a firm that does not meet any one of these criteria or any combination of them, and if it decides that it is within the purposes of the legislation to maintain a certain level of employment in that firm it can make the grant or recommend that the Governor in Council do so. This is a pretty wide-ranging power which overcomes many of the difficulties that members of the committee have expressed in this House in respect of the application of the bill. I think that is perfectly clear.
One other point that the hon. member for Hamilton West made is that only two-thirds of the allowance in respect of the surcharge is payable, and that someone is going to lose. Obviously, that is true. If the board decides to give a grant up to the maximum of two-thirds, obviously the firm affected, in order to maintain employment, will pick up the other third. I do not think anyone has ever implied anything different and I think it is only reasonable to expect that the government, in co-operation with industry, will try to overcome the effects of this surcharge.
Another point that I think should be brought out with respect to the two-third allowance-the minister made this clear, I believe, in the House, as he certainly did in the committee-is that it is not two-thirds of the total cost of maintaining people in the employ of the company but, rather, two-thirds of the surcharge itself. I will go into that matter a little later, because I think it is important to understand that this is not some kind of give-away program, in most cases involving large sums of money, and that companies do not have to give anything in return.
The hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) and others referred to this bill as being in effect a corporate welfare assistance act. In my view that is not true. I would like to discuss that matter for a moment because the NDP proposed two basic amendments to the bill. One was with respect to clause 11, to include farmers and fishermen within the provisions of the legislation. If one really believes that this bill is a corporate welfare plan, then why would one want to extend the principle to cover farmers and fishermen? It seems to me that the charge laid against the legislation by the NDP is sufficiently grave that they would have to vote against it, no matter how it was amended, and in particular that they would not want to broaden its scope.
The other NDP amendment dealt with disclosure of information, seeking monthly reports from the government detailing names of firms that receive aid, the amount of the grant in each instance, the levels of production and employment before and afterwards, and other information, all of which in my view would not change the purposes of the bill. Such an amendment would cover the way in which the bill is administered and in which the government is to report to the House.
If these two NDP amendments were adopted, would it mean that the NDP would support the bill? If they would support the bill with these two amendments incorporated
September 28, 1971

in it, would that change the legislation from being a corporate welfare assistance act? I cannot see how it would. I suggest there is a degree of inconsistency in the logic of the NDP in this particular case.
The primary purpose of the bill is to maintain employment. In committee, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) suggested an amendment, one which was not moved in the House, providing for a regulation stipulating that the level of employment must be retained at a minimum of 80 per cent. Initially, many members of the committee thought this really was not a bad idea, but upon reflection we felt that by stipulating 80 per cent we would be saying to the board that it would be quite acceptable if the level were only 80 per cent. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, all members of the committee would like to see employment maintained at 100 per cent of the pre-surcharge level.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you move an amendment?


Norman Augustine Cafik: If the hon. member wishes to ask a question when I have finished speaking, I will be glad to answer it. But may I point out in reply to his question that it is quite evident that if the board were burdened with stringent obligations regarding the exact level of employment, we would be tying its hands and frustrating the purposes of the bill.
I wish to give a specific example of what the proposed two-thirds payment to firms means in dollars and cents. I take the hypothetical case of a firm doing $1 million worth of business, $500,000 worth of its production being exported to the United States in base year 1970. Let us assume that 50 employees of the plant are involved in the production of the exported goods. The surcharge on $500,000 would be $50,000. The maximum allowable grant, without looking at the escape provision in clause 15, would be $33,000. Presuming that the firm is going to maintain the previous level of employment, it will have to retain 50 employees, and presuming the cost of each is $6,000 a year, it would cost the firm $300,000 to keep those people on the payroll. From the government that firm would receive, through the provisions of this bill, the large sum of $33,000. That does not strike me as being some kind of corporate welfare assistance act.
I listened as carefully as I could to the hon. member for Regina East, and if I heard him correctly-I shall apologize if I am wrong-he said that when the Canadian dollar was floated the cost of our products bought by consumers abroad increased, and the NDP at that time had suggested that help be given to industry to offset this difficulty. If they believed it ought to have been done, then why do they not believe it is advisable to do it now? Why do they feel that such help given today is a welfare program for corporations, but at the time when it was only the germ of an idea in their minds they felt it was good and was consistent with their philosophy? I suggest there is a degree of inconsistency in their arguments.
I wish to refer to the speech made earlier today by the parliamentary secretary. I congratulate him and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for going such a long way toward meeting the NDP amendment put forward by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, by announcing that the government is willing to give reports to the House of Commons on a quarterly basis rather than
Employment Support Bill
once a year. I think that is a reasonable response to the request for monthly reports sought by the NDP amendment.
After the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby had proposed his amendment in the committee, I asked the minister if he was willing to make detailed information available to the House of Commons and yet at the same time try to protect the element of confidentiality which he believed was so important. The amendment sought the names of specific firms receiving benefit. In his reply the minister indicated that he was willing to give the House of Commons details in terms of the number of grants made under the bill, the number of firms that received those grants, and facts in relation to the level of employment prior to and following passage of the act.
I believe that met the primary thrust of the argument put forward by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. It was a good argument and I agree with the hon. member that we must be in a position to judge whether the legislation is being administered properly and is achieving the desired objective of maintaining employment. I believe that the government's intention to make information available on a quarterly basis, and in the terms outlined, will allow us to judge whether the act is being administered so as to achieve the basic objective of maintaining employment. I congratulate the department, the minister and the parliamentary secretary for giving such serious consideration to the matter.
It has been mentioned on numerous occasions that these grants will be available to foreign-controlled industries. I can understand that argument in respect of the 13 or so programs under the Department of Finance; I think very good arguments can be put forward that it should not be done in individual cases. But the thrust of this legislation is to maintain employment, and it seems to me that an employee working for a foreign-controlled firm in Canada is still an employee and he still wants his job as much as a man working in a neighbouring factory which might be Canadian controlled.


Mark Willson Rose: That is a good point.


Norman Augustine Cafik: The objective of this act is to maintain employment, not to deal with the question of foreign control. I grant this is a very important question and one on which I feel very strongly.


Mark Willson Rose: Which way?


Norman Augustine Cafik: In relation to this bill, however, I think it is folly to make a distinction between foreign control and domestic control in relation to Canadians working in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: That is a good point.


Norman Augustine Cafik: The hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Dan-forth) spoke in this House today and said this legislation is a type of unemployment insurance. I think that is stretching the imagination pretty far. If we had wanted to put these people on unemployment insurance and take no action as a result of the American surcharge, it would

September 28, 1971
Employment Support Bill
have been quite easy not to bring forward the bill at all. The object of the bill is not to create unemployment, to put people on welfare or on unemployment insurance but, rather, to keep them employed and, I hope, usefully employed. Any accusation to the effect that this is a new kind of unemployment insurance leaves a lot to the imagination and very little to reason.
The hon. member also spoke about a great deal of help to large businesses and none to small businesses. The minister dealt with this matter adequately in the House, indicating quite clearly that there is no minimum-a firm with five or seven or even three employees may make application. The important factor is that a significant number of them are affected and about to be laid off or likely to be laid off as a result of the surcharge. That is the only qualification, so I see no reason for anyone to be concerned about the content of this legislation or the regulations and say it is only for big business. Many of us realize that much of big business, particularly primary industries such as the automobile industry, is not affected by the surcharge, so a host of large corporations in Canada are eliminated from the provisions of this bill.
If I understood the hon. member for Kent-Essex correctly, he indicated that the department should ensure that the contents of this bill are known to all business in the country because many of them do not have the knowledge or perhaps the expertise to take advantage of its provisions. I would suggest that indicates it is good legislation.
I think all hon. members should bear in mind-I am sure most do-that we as individual members have a serious responsibility as representatives of our people. I for one want to make sure, without any action by the department, that every industry in my riding is thoroughly aware of the implications of this legislation and the consequences to them. To that end I have established an industrial seminar in my riding to be held on November 6 to deal not only with this bill but the myriad of bills before us for the purpose of stimulating economic growth and activity across Canada.


An hon. Member:: Information Canada.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I want to make sure that the people in my riding do not suffer in the way that the hon. member for Kent-Essex feels his constituents may suffer, and I personally will do something to make sure they are informed. I consider that to be part of my job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: The hon. member for Kent-Essex also said that this bill will not do anything positive to create new markets, etc. But that is not the purpose of the bill. Surely the hon. member is aware that there are many government programs designed for that purpose. The measure of emphasis that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has put on the question he raised is illustrated by the fact that in 1962-63 there were only three programs designed for that purpose; today there are 12 industrial assistance programs. Last year the government had over $200 million allocated for that kind of purpose, but in 1962-63 only $35 million was available. I do not think that every act has to do all things for all people. We have acts

to do the things the hon. member has in mind. All we have to do is look at them. If a member has problems in his constituency, he can find out about these programs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: There is PAIT, the Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology, which is very useful. There is the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, the industrial design assistance program, the program to enhance productivity, and a host of others. They are all designed to do what the hon. member feels ought to be done by this bill. But this bill, Mr. Speaker, is designed to make sure that we maintain levels of employment as a result of this temporary surcharge.


Mr. Benjamin:: How temporary?


Norman Augustine Cafik: I do not think it can be expected to do other things. In committee I proposed five amendments to the bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What happened to them?


An hon. Member:: Where are they?


Norman Augustine Cafik: They were all passed and accepted by the government.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote them?


Norman Augustine Cafik: I wrote them.


An hon. Member:: Attaboy!


Norman Augustine Cafik: If hon. members opposite would like to put forward reasonable amendments they might be accepted too.


An hon. Member:: Come on Cafik, be fair.


Norman Augustine Cafik: In any event, clauses 12, 13, 15 and 18 were all designed to do away with the term "levels of productivity". Initially the act was designed to maintain levels of employment and productivity, and I proposed that we eliminate the reference to productivity. I did this for a number of reasons. First, I feel that the maintenance of productivity could well be a violation of GATT. If these products would normally go to the United States and now could not because of the surcharge, and yet we maintained production in order to keep a certain level of employment, what would we be doing? Perhaps we would be suggesting to manufacturers that they should produce exactly the same amount of the same goods as before. But what would they do with these goods-export them to the United States? If they could-and they can now-why would they need the act? Because they are too expensive? What happens then? Do we stop buying? Are they needed?
I believe there must be a degree of flexibility so that we do not create a kind of hothouse productivity for its own sake. Firms must be flexible if they wish to maintain employment. They may use the money to seek markets in other parts of the world, or for development and so on. This is an important change and I thank the government for accepting these amendments.
I support this bill, Mr. Speaker. I have one last point to make and that is that I believe it is very useful to maintain
September 28, 1971

Employment Support Bill
in employment people who are now working and are affected by the surcharge. However, it does not, nor is it expected to, do anything about putting those presently unemployed back into the work force. This is an important point.


Harold Warren Danforth: Right on.


Norman Augustine Cafik: The reason I raise the point at the moment, Mr. Speaker, is because this bill sets a pace and a tone and creates a precedent which I think is very important. First of all, it seems to me to imply that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is willing to look at our unemployment problems, something I am glad to hear. Second, it establishes a precedent-that the government is willing to give money to maintain employment. I do not think it would be much of a step after that for the government perhaps to give money in order to create or stimulate new employment. I have suggested this in the House on two or three occasions, and personally to the ministers concerned.
I think first we must introduce a program which I would term an employment stimulation fund. Under that program we could give loans, grants or a combination of the two directly to industry, in direction relationship to the number of new people that the industy could put on its payroll, provided, of course, that the industry's activities were viable and meaningful. I hope that this bill will not only help those who are threatened by unemployment as a result of the surcharge, but that it will also serve as a useful precedent in spurring the government on to do more for those who unfortunately are unemployed today.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question now?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, by all means.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member had the courtesy to refer to an amendment that I presented yesterday. Would he not agree that the purported concession that the minister perhaps would have been inclined to make with respect to my amendment in terms of quarterly reports to Parliament would not have included how much money particular firms were to be given, would not have included levels of employment before and after the grants were made to those firms and, therefore, would not have provided the essential information which I deemed to be necessary in my amendment?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, in response to that question I would say, first of all, that the minister in the House-I was present at the time-indicated that these quarterly reports would be made. In the committee he indicated quite clearly, and I know the hon. member was present at the time, that levels of employment before and after grants would be contained in this report. There would be no reference to levels of production. That was part of the hon. member's amendment. I have cited my reasons for being opposed to such reference and I believe that the minister feels the same way. He would give all the relevant pieces of information that I believe the hon. member wants, save one. The hon. member apparently thought it essential to know which firms were getting how much
money, in specific detail. I, frankly, do not consider that information, interesting though it may be, to be directly relevant to whether this legislation is achieving its objective.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Answer the question.


Norman Augustine Cafik: The minister indicated in committee, and I believe that this is in itself a substantial answer to the question, that any hon. member is free to contact the department with respect to loans made under the act, and specific information will be given as to details and firms. Nevertheless, so far as a report to the House of Commons is concerned, that will not be done.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton), I sympathize with the purpose behind the amendment. He seeks to send the bill back to committee, the idea being that we should allow the agricultural industry to participate to a greater extent in the benefits of the legislation. This suggestion was brought forward in committee and turned down, and in the report stage discussion it was again brought forward. I understand that Mr. Speaker found difficulty in accepting suggestions put forward. Therefore, it seems to me there is no point in referring this bill a third time to the standing committee, since nothing more will happen to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Gordon Ritchie: I hope that the bill, which I find not to my liking but which accomplishes a certain amount, will pass tonight. Since the surtax was imposed by the United States certain courses of action by the United States and other trading nations of the western world have become clearer. This bill points up a lack of any real understanding by this government of problems that lie ahead. The government completely fails to understand what might be done.
At this time it seems obvious that President Nixon likes the 10 per cent surcharge and it will not come off until international currencies are realigned in favour of the United States economy. The President and Mr. Connally seem to have been very blunt about this. Pleading our case will not work, and the Americans seem quite willing to suffer economic retaliation against them. Mr. Nixon's protectionist policies are proving to be more popular at home as each day passes. Mr. Nixon is nothing if not a political president. Only when President Nixon and John Connally are convinced that the policy has done its job and rectified the American balance of payment will the surcharge be removed.
Perhaps Canada is the unfortunate bystander in the struggle to have Japanese and European currencies realigned upward in relation to the United States dollar, which must be done to relieve the massive imbalance of the American balance of trade. In any case, we cannot fault the Americans for being unwilling to continue to operate under such a high imbalance of payments. Most of all, we cannot fault them for being reluctant to run their economy for the benefit of the rest of the world.
Since 1967 Canada has been moving from a deficit position in merchandizing trade with the United States. We registered a surplus of $182 million in 1968, $371 mil-
8254

September 28, 1971
Employment Support Bill
lion in 1969, over $1 billion in 1970 and almost $800 million in the first eight months of this year, or close to $1.2 billion on a whole year basis. This shows that Canada has benefited enormously in the American market, even if this surplus of merchandizing trade has been largely offset by the invisible income of the United States in interest and dividend payments from Canadian investments. The figures indicate that we have benefited substantially as a result of our trade with the United States.
Turning now to Bill C-262, it has become apparent that the Canadian government in responding to the United States surcharge is steering a very tricky course. The problem is how to pass new American levies without being wrecked on the rocks of the United States antidumping laws. Ottawa, in this matter, should have had the advice of experienced trade experts. Ottawa invented the device of the voluntary quota which has always been accepted by our oriental friends with extreme politeness. In this case it is not likely that the Americans will be very polite.
One of the problems this bill faces is that if manufacturers are to be assisted in meeting the surcharge there is a risk that the Americans will apply counterbalancing duties. These may be applied even if our commodities get by the anti-dumping duties. We are given to understand that Mr. Paul Volcker, Undersecretary of the United States Treasury, is studying our legislation. It seems likely that the Americans have built into their legislation similar protectionist mechanisms. Our own remodelled antidumping laws of 1969 empower the Governor in Council to impose a surtax when the government is satisfied that "goods of any kind, the growth, produce or manufacture of any country, are being imported into Canada under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to Canadian producers." This perhaps explains why the present bill is being presented as something other than an export subsidy measure. It perhaps explains why the bill is presented as permanent legislation although it is filled with phrases dealing with the particular surtax problem of the moment. Whether or not it will prove acceptable in its new disguise remains to be seen.
It is very difficult for anyone, even an expert, to distinguish the difference between employment maintenance and export subsidy. Presumably we export primarily to maintain employment, yet the bill would indicate that this is not necessarily so. The bill indicates that our "non-subsidies" of $80 million are directly linked with exports to the United States because a firm must normally export 20 per cent of its produce to qualify. The export figure is measured as a percentage and exports lost as a result of the U.S. surcharge are to be considered.
Considerable time was spent on the bill in committee. Committee members asked pointed questions as to whether or not job maintenance payments are likely to arouse the suspicions of Mr. Volcker and in that way bring down the wrath of Washington. I thought the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howard) was quite adept at making the point that the outlays were not tied to anything in particular. He quite freely stated that whether the men were kept busy painting the back fence, making additions or sweeping out the shop, the seven-man board would not be very alert in delving into these devious make-work programs. The

parliamentary secretary seemed to indicate that the board will not have time to check very closely the use of these funds.
It will be interesting to note who will be the board members to staff this new arm of the government. Surely they will have to be a different type of member from those we have seen in the past. We will not need the sharp, alert people who will be on the anti-dumping tribunal or in the proposed new authority for regulating business which is to operate under the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford). These will indeed be men of limited vision who will not look too hard at where this money will be going.
This bill makes no mention of another problem that is very obvious. What about manufacturers who qualify under the 20 per cent rule, seeking to enlarge their share of the domestic market at the expense of their firms which do not qualify? This might at first seem acceptable because it might lower prices at home, but in the end it hardly appears ethical to the business community to have some firms underwriting others with public money. An obvious requirement of the board is to have seven top men with very circumscribed vision. They must be unable to see funds that go for export purposes, especially to the United States. They must be tolerant of those who paint the back fence and sweep out the plant four times a day and, finally, they must be alert to make sure that none of the money is used against domestic competitors.
There are many disadvantages to this legislation and many ramifications that will present problems to the board. Many companies sell into the American market less for the financial return than for the contribution to efficiency because of the additional volume. For many of them the American surcharge means they will lose that market, and unless they make up the additional production elsewhere they will suffer in their domestic operations. Then there are those industries where sales in the American market are based on price. The lumber industry is an example. Then what about the effect of the surcharge on exports by Canadian primary producers to their subsidiary, secondary producers in the American market? All these things are very obscure. The impact of the surcharge on the Canadian economy seems to vary greatly. The estimated loss ranges from $400 million to $900 million. No matter what way you look at it, the Americans must see this measure as a form of subsidization of exports which invites retaliation.
What, then, are the other avenues open to the government to combat the surtax? The simplest and most obvious is a reduction in the corporate tax rate. This would stimulate the economy. The purpose of this bill is to preserve employment. If we cannot maintain our exports to the U.S., this will stimulate increased consumption in Canada and the possibility of finding increased markets abroad. Both Europe and Asia, with their increased currency values, should be easier targets for our exporters. Americans are determined to reduce their take of foreign goods and they want to have the employment represented by these goods maintained in the United States. In order to create jobs it would be best to shift employment to
September 28, 1971

other sectors of the economy. A revision of the corporate tax rate should help accomplish this.
Different selective tax credits to export industries which demonstrate an increase of new business should have been considered. The reason this government has rejected such approaches seems to be that it is firmly hooked on the belief that it alone knows what is best for the economy. Rather than non-discriminatory tax relief, it is continually reverting to grants, loans and other assistance which are creating economic dislocation.
The advent of the American surtax is the most important economic event that has occurred since World War II. It has radically altered the trading pattern of the world in a way that is still very obscure. We are learning that the world does not have to buy from Canada and we must take resolute action to pilot our way in the new situation. This bill is a small recognition of the problem but it still adheres to the policy that government knows best and that the revenues of the federal government are to be kept high. When it is considered that the three levels of government took 46 per cent of the gross national product for the first six months of this year, it follows that the private sector of our economy cannot function in an efficient manner in such a confined tax space.
I support this bill as being of some help, but I think the thrust is wrong and more useful measures could have been adopted.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather difficult to understand how this measure will meet the problems which we face. When the United States announced the 10 per cent surcharge it dropped a bombshell on the world generally and on the Canadian economy in particular. The speech in this House that best outlined the reasons for this action by the United States was made by the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kier-ans). He outlined the reasons why this action was taken by the most powerful trading nation in the world.
I do not understand how the western trading nations can operate effectively or economically as long as the 10 per cent surcharge remains. The way the economy operates today, the nation with the money and the power is the one which stands ready to support the financial structure of the world economy which it dominates. We have now reached the point where the nation which dominates world economy is turning to its partners and saying they will have to carry the bag. If we were the beneficiaries of the system, there might be some logic in telling us that we would have to pay to maintain the system-but we are not the beneficiaries, we are one of the satellites of the system.
For the government to say to the House that this bill is the answer to problems of this kind seems to be begging the question. One of the shortcomings of the bill is that it does not take care of the effects that the United States surcharge will have on much of the production in the area of Canada from which I come. If the bill were to meet the current situation-namely, that one part of Canada will be left out in the cold-it would be necessary to consider the global trading situation of the western world. Surely it must be evident that this measure will not meet this overall situation. Along with introducing this measure the government should be saying to this House and to the
Employment Support Bill
people of Canada that it has a long-range view, that it is going to reorganize our manufacturing and production resources to meet a situation where the major trading nation in the western world has decided to cut out a major part of the products of its trading partners. It seems almost bordering on the ridiculous that a major nation like the United States does not want our products, or at least the major part of them, and then we devise means of getting our products into a nation that does not want them.
I believe that prior to the Second World War, but certainly since, we have taken a continental approach to the North American economy and tied ourselves in with it, assuming that this would bring us a high standard of living and a large measure of economic security. Our whole policy has been based on this premise. We now find that this policy is not going to work. We told United States investors that we were going to build a tariff wall around Canada from which they would benefit, give service to Canadians and at the same time ship their products back to the United States. Some of the resource industries also received tax benefits.


An hon. Member:: Tell us what you would do.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In addition to paying for all this investment and losing our money on mutual funds and other funds operated by insurance companies in Canada, do you know what else we are going to do, Mr. Speaker? We are going to subsidize the United States consumer to the extent of the sum this bill provides to assist Canadian workers in Canada.


Mr. Mahoney:: Oh, come on.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I am not kidding. If the objective is to put goods manufactured in Canada into the United States market-


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: The objective is to keep Canadians working.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: If the objective is to put "made in Canada" goods into the United States and the government is paying part of the wages of the workers who made those goods, then we are subsidizing to that extent United States consumers. I do not care how you cut the cake, that is the net result.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) is seeking the floor.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question at this point?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: When I have finished, Mr. Speaker. Then if the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) chooses to ask a question, if I have the answer I will give it to him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) has the floor and I think he should be permitted to make his speech.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I am putting forward the picture as I see it. If hon. members on the other side do not accept my logic,
24319-34*

September 28, 1971
8256_____________________________________
Employment Support Bill
then that is their privilege. I was saying that the Canadian government has made a proposal to the House that is supposed to keep the Canadian economy healthy. But I maintain that the proposition advanced by the government is unsound, and for the reasons I have advanced. Even at that, the government's proposal is effective only for certain industries; others will be left outside the scope of the bill.
One question that has been asked before is: What about those industries that do not qualify for assistance under this measure for one reason or another? I know of at least one industry in my own constituency that has informed me it will simply have to close its United States agency and cut its exports to nil. I am sure that this industry will be beyond the scope of the government's bill. If the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney), who is grinning at me from across the way and has been needling me, wants to be honest I am sure he could cite cases in Caglary of industries that are in the same position.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: We all recognize the problem, but what is your solution?


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Yes, tell us.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: If I proposed a solution to the members on the other side of this House, they would not accept it.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Try us.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I have been arguing against a nonsensical grains bill for the last several months, but not one member on that side of the House has taken any notice of what I have said. So if they will not listen to me on a matter of which I have some knowledge, how can I expect them to listen to me on a matter on which I would not be considered an expert? In any case, it is the responsibility of members on the other side of the House to bring forward a measure that will meet the situation.


Norman Augustine Cafik: We have.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: But it will not meet the situation. I have talked until now about the general application of this measure. When you get down to its particular application to primary producers, it is a failure. Its provisions do not apply to them. We have had presented to the House a measure to deal with a surcharge that the United States has placed on Canadian products, but it is a measure that deals with only part of the picture.
One company in my constituency exports 20 per cent of its products to the United States. If this company is affected by the U.S. surcharge it can probably make an application under this measure for assistance. But the primary producer who is affected by the U.S. surcharge can make no such application; he is left out in the cold.
It has been said that a processing company must maintain its price to the consumer. But at what level, Mr. Speaker? Hogs fluctuate up and down in price every day. Prices have been down to rock bottom at $19 a hundred in Saskatoon for months, yet the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has not lifted a finger to remedy the situation. The minister has been asked in this House what he is going to do about a whole range of agricultural products and he has stated that he will look at these products

commodity by commodity. Today he finally announced that he had taken a look at the situation regarding potatoes. But when is the minister going to get around to taking a look at the rest of the products?
An hon Member: Rye, barley and tobacco.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Yes, when will the minister get around to including tobacco? We have not been told in this House when he will get around to including assistance to the producers of these products. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) said today that 85 per cent of processed agricultural products will be included. I do not know how he arrived at that figure, but the figures we have indicate that 65 per cent of our agricultural products will be affected by the U.S. surcharge. We do not have any exact figures, but even on the government's figures what guarantee do we have that this protection will be of assistance to the producer?
The minister also referred to whisky as one of the main products. I suppose rye whisky is made from rye.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Guess again.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: If I guessed again I might suggest that some corn is also used, keeping in mind the usual remarks of that hon. member.


An hon. Member:: Just like the speeches of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney).


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In any event, rye and barley are two grains seriously affected by the surcharge, and those grains are sold at below the average price of a year ago.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I can't hear you.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Then you should stick your thumbs in your ears.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: It is your colleague from Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) who is bothering me.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: We should have had a clear statement from the Minister of Agriculture as to the policy in respect of farm products and how we are to meet this problem. Subsidies on farm products are being discontinued at the time this policy is proposed to assist manufacturing industries. We had in the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act a measure of assistance to the wheat farmer. This legislation could have been extended to take care of barley and rapeseed growers. This program was accepted without question by the United States, other competitors and importers. The logical thing to do at this time of extreme pressure from the U.S. and export markets is to continue that program and devise a companion program to assist our primary producers. In that way they might have something in the way of insurance for the years ahead when they may expect extreme export pressures. Instead of that, we are asked to adopt a stabilization program set up on percentages. This is a sort of never-never program. There is no way I can sell this government's proposal to the farm people in the communities of western Canada. As far as they are concerned, this is a non-program.
September 28, 1971

Employment Support Bill
All I can say to the government and to the people on that side of the House is that we must look at Canada's trade patterns and trade orientation in a different fashion. We must redirect our objectives before the government negotiates with other trading countries. Our objective is to obtain as large a piece of the western world trade pie as possible. That is the aim of our competitors. We are all fighting for a piece of the same pie and it is no longer big enough to go around. The sort of shinplaster approach offered in this bill is not good enough.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How do we know they will pay? The government did not pay the farmers.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: That is true.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had asked the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) whether he would answer a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member knows that a question can only be asked with the consent of the hon. member who has the floor.


Norman Augustine Cafik: In his speech the hon. member indicated that if the purpose of the act is to continue to put goods into the United States of America, we will be in effect subsidizing the U.S. consumer. I should like to ask the hon. member what clause of this bill states or implies that it is directed toward that objective. The bill is clearly designed to support employment in firms affected. Perhaps the hon. member would clarify that matter for the House.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I would be surprised if even the government were naive enough to bring forward a bill intended to subsidize the United States consumer. I said that the effect of this bill and the government's action, in so far as we use the taxpayers' money to pay a portion of Canadian workers' wages in order to export goods to the United States, will benefit U.S. consumers.


Norman Augustine Cafik: That is not the purpose of it.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: It may not be the purpose, but that is the effect.


Mr. Ronald Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope I am not disturbing anyone by entering the debate at this time.
This House is now studying Bill C-262 entitled "An Act 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".
In my view, Mr. Speaker, the bill might just as well have been called "An Act to support U.S. consumption".
Here is what a columnist of Le Devoir wrote and I quote:
American consumers will still use Canadian sources of supply at the old prices; Canadian exporters will absorb the surcharge by reducing their sales price and they will be compensated by federal
subsidies. The Trudeau government has therefore chosen to subsidize the American consumers through their Canadian suppliers.
It cannot be said that this is an innovation since we use that method constantly, for instance, when we grant interest free loans of millions dollars to foreign countries. Several Canadian shipyards operate currently under that method. Thanks to special loans and subsidies, thousand-year-old countries are building ships in Canada with our money. We, Canadians, therefore subsidize foreign consumers by emptying our fairly depleted pockets.
This is somewhat comparable to having four or five Canadians, who cannot afford to have their own cars, contributing from $700 to $800 each to a foreigner that he might buy one. Now, we must not be surprised if with such methods the number of our unemployed increases. For the second consecutive year, with the coming winter, Canada will be experiencing one of the highest level of unemployment for decades.
It is true that the American surcharge of 10 per cent on exports will not help Canada. Moreover, if the tax remains in effect for a year, our country will lose $900 million and have some 90,000 more unemployed. If we want to blame our powerful neighbour for such a high loss of revenue, it would be easy enough since this figure of 90,000 in fact only represents one seventh of the Canadian unemployed during the first months.
Our unemployment is a Canadian deed which will be amplified by the American decision. The Canadian people are not only affected by an unemployment problem but particularly by a consumer problem.
Statistics show that at the minimum, two fifths of Canadians live on the poverty line and Quebecers make up two thirds of them. Ontario has seen the number of its welfare cases rise by 43 per cent in the course of last year.
From shore to shore, poverty is the most persistent problem. Thousands of Canadian families are stagnating in physical and moral misery, in the midst of a wealthy society.
So this government has taken the bit between its teeth and introduced a legislation to "support employment", which would allow the granting of subsidies to industries badly affected by the surcharge.
Among other points to clarify in this bill, there is, in my opinion, that of the percentage. I am amazed at the way of sorting out exporters according to the quantity of goods exported. As for larger businesses which have operated for many years, have succeeded in making their products known abroad, and whose turnover is greater than a certain percentage, it will be easy to class them.
On the other hand, the smaller firms or those that have developed their business mainly in Canada will not receive such subsidies because their export percentage does not reach that required by the new act. Why such discrimination? Up till now, has the present government not asked the same of all firms? Has the government taken their turnover into account before imposing the 12 per cent tax on their production? Has the government asked what was their turnover before asking them to deduct taxes from their employees' salaries? Their foreign business was not sufficient to entitle them to some assistance but it was never low enough to exempt them from taxation.

September 28, 1971
8258_______________________________________
Employment Support Bill
Such is the lot of our Canadian manufacturers. One law for the rich and one for the poor. For a government that brags about creating a just society, that is an odd way of operating.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) who is piloting this bill must be aware of the results of its enforcement. In fact, he was warned of them by telegrams. Canadian manufacturers know the danger facing them, and among those who made known their views to the government a group, in particular, namely the Glove Manufacturers Association of the Province of Quebec Inc. of Loretteville was very clear. On September 8, 1971 it wrote to the hon. Jean-Luc Pepin, Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and I quote:
Mr. Minister, we hereby confirm the telegram sent you to-day: "RE: Bill under consideration regarding help to industry. Consider such legislation discriminatory for our members exporting 8, 10 and 15 per cent of their total production. They will suffer prejudice in relation to those being awarded subsidies.
Some of our members have been exporting to the United States since 1967 up to 8, 10, or 15 per cent of their total production.
If the bill is passed as it is these members will get no help whilst those exporting 20 per cent will be encouraged to the prejudice of smaller industries.
Our members already have to fight not to be swamped by the flood of gloves imported at ridiculous prices from the Far East and from other countries. It seems to us that all the manufacturers who export should be helped. This would be a way to encourage small industries.
We hope that you will consider our request.
Sincerely yours,
The Glove Manufacturers Association of the Province of Quebec
The furniture industry is another area affected by the 10 per cent American surcharge which also plagues shoe manufacturers in Saint-Emile-de-Loretteville, Ancienne-Lorette and Que bee City. In short, the problem is the same throughout the province. While those people have already experienced the hardship caused by massive imports from other countries the Canadian government now is preparing to administer the mercy stroke with provisions such as those of Bill C-262!
The hon. minister may say that there is in this bill a clause which provides for special consideration in the case of industrialists who do not reach the export percentage mentioned in the bill. In fact, we find that the legislation now before us contains a paragraph which allows the government to indulge in patronage.
Mr. Speaker, I dare say these things because I have seen the Department of Regional Economic Expansion operate. For instance, we know that owners of small businesses with a hundred employees or so and savings of $50,000 were told: Gentlemen, we cannot subsidize your business because the amount of your savings shows that you can pull through by yourself, while we have seen government grants made to companies with several thousand employees, worth millions of dollars and having long since demonstrated their ability of pulling through without assistance. That is why we are so deeply concerned about the bill.
Here is what the bill says in paragraph 2 of clause 15, on page 6:

(2) If, following a recommendation under subsection (1), the Governor in Council so directs, the Board may authorize payment of a grant to the manufacturer for an assistance period in such amount as it considers appropriate for the purpose of maintaining employment and production at a plant of the manufacturer, subject to such terms and conditions, if any, as may be set out in the directions of the Governor in Council.
Mr. Speaker, terms and conditions will be set out by the Governor in Council. Let us imagine that the latter says to the manufacturer that under the act he is not eligible for a grant but can be given some assistance under certain conditions. What conditions? Will it suffice to show a membership card or will it be necessary to subscribe to the election fund of the Liberal party?


Mr. Rondeau:: Both.


Roland Godin: The Canadian government is introducing Bill C-262 for the purpose of controling the unemployment situation, which is deteriorating from day to day. It must however be recognized that the amount of $80 million to be paid out is a drop in the ocean compared to the amounts the government continues to extract from Canadians by way of the 11 per cent tax on building materials and the 12 per cent tax on all goods manufactured in Canada.
It is clear that the government has lost control of the country's economy and is operating the country on behalf of another power. It is an open secret that our present system is heading for disaster. The whole population is aware of the danger, since we are living in 1971.
If we go back, we realize that in the past the population had much more faith in its administration.
Around 1935, for instance, the impending disaster was felt only by experts. And among these, I believe I can name the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Mackenzie King who, in 1935, made the following statement:
Capital flow should be related to the domestic social and industrial needs of the Canadian people.
Once a nation loses control over its currency and its credit, it does not matter much who in that nation makes laws. Once in control, money lenders will ruin any country.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister also said:
As long as control over currency and credit has not been restored to the government and acknowledged as being its most obvious and most sacred responsibility, any talk of democracy and Parliament supremacy is vain and futile.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: This is still true in 1971.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, money lenders, once they are in control, will lead any country to its ruin. This is what the right hon. Mackenzie King stated in 1935.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: That was the time when he spoke the truth.


Roland Godin: Never before had high interest rates prevailed as much as they have since 1967, in other words since the liberal government did away with the ceiling on interest rates.
We, members of the Creditiste party, have fought the adoption of Bill C-222 and we are still opposed to that bill which allowed banks to raise their interest rates.
September 28, 1971

The present situation proves we were right and we are still convinced-


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: This is true!


Roland Godin: -that this rise in the interest rates is the main cause of inflation and other related problems in our country.
Indeed, the bill now under study is just a poultice on a wooden leg.
If there is still a little honesty in this government, more should be done. In order to help Canadian consumers to meet their needs, to build a healthy and stable economy, to maintain a strong domestic market, I think the government should take its responsibilities by regaining control of its credit first, and then by eliminating forever the 11 per cent tax on building materials and the 12 per cent excise tax on all products manufactured in Canada.
With its strong majority, this Liberal government can also introduce emergency legislation to solve the consumption problem in Canada. Under Bill C-262, we are about to subsidize U.S. consumption. Let us then complete the program with a legislation on Canadian consumption which will make grants available for Canadian products consumed in Canada.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not be too long, which will be pleasant news to some hon. members opposite, but I think one should question where we are going in this nation and whether Canada can thrive or survive in the situation in which we find ourselves. We must ask ourselves whether or not we are prepared to do anything about it.
Canada is faced with the problem of trying to bring about greater employment and at the same time we are trying to apply stopgap measures which will have very little effect in the long run. It was pleasant to hear some of our colleagues at the NATO conference tell us about the employment picture in their countries. At the same time, it is disappointing for us to view the employment picture in Canada. When one listened to the NATO delegates this week one was made aware of the fact that there is practically no unemployment in their countries, while in Canada we have 6.5 per cent unemployment. One wonders where Canada is going and whether it can survive in these circumstances.
Surely, if we are to continue selling our heritage, our national resources, we should ask ourselves whether or not we will survive. We have to ask ourselves, when we are confronted with the surtax imposed by the United States, what the United States really thinks of Canada. When I look at the news items of the last two days I begin to wonder what would happen if the neo-Fascist racist who referred to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as the crypto-Communist from Canada became president of the United States.
If we are to survive, I suggest we should take action to protect our sovereignty and, in fact, to protect the people living in this nation. If we do not, it will be too late to find out why we have unemployment. It is rather ironic to look at the newspapers and see the headline "New York Speech-Tough Talking Sharp Lashes U.S. Surcharge''.
Employment Support Bill
The article appeared on September 21, 1971. I heartily agree with what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) said in his speech. I wish he would stand up in the House and be as forthright here as he was in New York. The article reads:
In one of the toughest speeches delivered in the U.S. by a Canadian minister in the post-war era, Mr. Sharp repeatedly attacked what he dubbed "the Nixon doctrine" as an abdication of U.S. leadership.
Further in the article he is quoted as follows:
"These proposed permanent protectionist measures call into doubt the basic assumptions of our trading relations with the United States and indeed of world trading arrangements generally," he said.
He suggested, while claiming not to accept, the premise that the U.S. "in narrow and shortsighted pursuit of its own interests has adopted a beggar-my-neighbour policy towards Canada".
At the same time, we are asked to pass a bill in the House which does little in effect to deal with unemployment in this country. It seems to me that if the government can refer to retaliatory measures against the U.S., they should say exactly what they are talking about. If there are regulations to be included in this bill, the government should tell the House of Commons what the regulations will be so that an intelligent vote can take place.
Many people may argue about nationalization so far as industries are concerned. So far as I am concerned, Canadians must safeguard, right now, their independence and their power of decision. So long as we are able to give out the type of money that we are talking about-namely, some $80 million-to companies but have no safeguards and no power of decision as to how it will be spent, because the power of decision is not in this nation but, rather, in the boardrooms south of the border or elsewhere, how can we ask members of this House to support the bill when in reality the bill means that we have no control over the money? I suggest that the grants under this bill will bring no long-term benefits to the communities wherein industry is located. It is just a stopgap measure which means little in the long run.
In my opinion we should receive answers to certain questions. We should ask what the government intends to do to prevent taxpayers' money in the form of assistance from going out of the country. I should like to ask what assurances Canadians have that these grants will not be used by foreign-controlled industry to assist the buying out of the few Canadian-owned industries that remain. There is nothing to indicate that this will not be the case.
Another question that we must ask ourselves is whether the situation of lay-offs in Canada is not similar to what is happening in the United States. I refer to the "Labour News Headlines" referring to paper lay-offs. It reads:
A number of cities (in the U.S.) are making "paper lay-offs" of employees to rehire them with funds intended to provide jobs for the unemployed under the Emergency Employment Act, the nation's top manpower official disclosed (Thursday). Malcolm R. Lowell, Assistant Secretary of Labour, said that the administration was very concerned about these "paper lay-offs".
I suggest that we could be faced with exactly the same situation in Canada. We may have paper lay-offs in order that corporations and industry here may in effect get a piece of this pie of some $80 million unless there is a regulation requiring them to disclose how the money will

September 28, 1971
Employment Support Bill
be spent, how many people will be affected and what is the level of employment, which in effect was the purpose of the amendment which the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) proposed last night. I think we must look at the situation and find out whether we can in fact trust the international firms to play it straight about the level of employment and play it straight with Canadian dollars. Unless the decisions are made in Canada, how can we expect outside industry to play it straight with Canadian tax dollars?
I see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) is still in the chamber. It is unfortunate that provision is not made to have on the employment support board representatives of employee groups in Canada. If we are concerned about the methods of reorganizing workers in particular fields, then workers should have their representatives on the board. In some countries employees are represented on various boards where decisions are made which affect their livelihood and employment generally.
I wish to quote a statement made by the vice-chairman of the Science Council of Canada, published in the Ottawa Citizen of September 10, 1971. The newspaper report reads:
Lack of government incentives is responsible for the retarded growth of the manufacturing industry in Canada, the vice-chairman of the Science Council of Canada says.
"Nothing has been done to make secondary industry healthy, and more and more multinational corporations are exploiting the Canadian market," Dr. Roger Gaudry told 40 senior industrial and government executives attending a development seminar at Queen's University.
Unemployment would accelerate and industrial research suffer if the situation wasn't altered.
It may be fine to suggest that we can put $80 million into supporting certain sections of the economy at this time, but apparently we cannot put $80 million into other areas of the economy where immediate employment could be created. Here I am talking about housing and sewage plant construction, which could provide immediate employment with beneficial results filtering all down the line.
Some hon. members opposite wondered how we could propose an amendment to include farmers and fishermen under the provisions of this bill. It seems strange that these two important areas of the economy, farming and fishing, have been completely omitted from the bill's provisions. I do not know why hon. members opposite cannot agree to extend the protection of the bill to farmers and fishermen. It seems the bill is not intended to help those areas of the economy which have suffered most during the last few years of Liberal government. Surely consideration should be given to these areas of our economy.
If we are concerned, we had better consider who controls the destiny of Canada. If we are concerned about whether Canada can survive, why don't we take action immediately? Why do we have to wait for the government to bring down a white paper on foreign ownership? The government promised it would indicate what it intended to do to protect Canadian ownership of industry and would tell us what it would try to do to buy back ownership of certain industries. But nothing is being done. Now

we are presented with this stopgap measure to pay $80 million in order to protect employment. Surely hon. members should be concerned about the destiny of Canada and should realize that if we do not act immediately, Canada will not survive.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, upon learning that the U.S. government had decided to impose a 10 per cent surcharge on imports of manufactured products, the Canadian government was faced with serious problems. It was confronted by a huge problem for small men and the solution as proposed by this government reminds me of Albert Camus' philosophical works which said that Sisyphus had been doomed forever by the Gods to roll uphill a stone which always rolled down again.
The solution put forward by this government is the same it offered in the past to solve other problems. The problems are different, but the same solutions are suggested. The same burden is dragged along and the Liberal government seems eternally condemned to do so by the gods.
Mr. Speaker, the solution which the government wants to impose will have the same effects as all other steps it has taken in the past in an attempt to solve the employment problem in Canada.
The government feels that we must prevent the American surcharge from creating more unemployment in Canada. Such is its objective. We must prevent that by all possible means. However, the government has only found one: To grant to the industries-which in many cases are branches of American companies operating in Canada- grants to enable them to subsidize American consumption. In other words, the United States are thus put on the same footing as underdeveloped countries. I agree with subsidies to help the Arab refugees in Palestine or the Pakistani refugees. But granting subsidies out of the Canadian taxpayers' money to help the American consumers is an outrage: we cannot go along with that.
That is exactly why-


Roch La Salle: That is not true-


Gérard Laprise: The member for Joliette says it is not true, but that is exactly what is going to happen-
I have here to prove it an article published in La Presse on Wednesday September 8, 1971, and I quote:
-these are obviously grants to export. But such practices have been denounced by the General Assembly of GATT as "non-tariff barriers".
In other words, this rescue plan is no more no less than a retaliatory measure directed against the United States, designed to counteract the effect of the American surcharge in Canada.
The procedure is, all in all, rather simple: in the case of a Canadian product with a listed price of $100 in the United States, the surcharge would raise this price to $110. But through the federal government, if a Canadian exporter feels that his sales are jeopardized by this price increase, he may get from Ottawa a compensation for two thirds of this increase, that is $6.66, which would allow him to reduce his selling price to $103.33.
This is to enable businessmen to sell at a cheaper price in the United States. We thus come to the conclusion that the $80 million will be used to subsidize Americans so that
September 28, 1971

they may continue to buy Canadian products while our production system is almost solely based on foreign consumption. To export or to die. If we cannot export, we die in front of an abundance of Canadian products.
That is how the production system is set up. And as soon as other countries, either the United States or other industrial nations, raise tariff barriers to prevent us from "exporting" our unemployed, we are immediately faced with practically insoluble problems.
Instead of subsidizing Americans the Creditistes suggest, as did their leader in his speech during the debate on second reading, and as have done also other Creditistes, that we should subsidize Canadian consumption by removing the 12 per cent excise tax on manufactured products and the 11 per cent tax on building materials. Thus, we would increase the purchasing power of individuals who would be able, depending on their wishes and needs, to tell industry what to produce and in what quantities.
The government has three ways of arranging the $80 million grant to the United States: first, it could collect $80 million worth of taxes from taxpayers, which means that Canadian workers would have that much less to spend on essentials.
The $80 million reduction in purchases would cause hardship to Canadian industries which would go out of business, thus creating unemployment, in the same way as if we were exporting less to United States.
There is another alternative open to the government if it does not increase taxes in the amount of $80 million, that is to reduce other departments' budgets, tighten up credit, and reduce public works. This solution will also create unemployment. Therefore, the result is the same.
However, there is a third way: To borrow money. As a matter of fact, the government could issue bonds by borrowing $80 million to subsidize the Americans. Then, there would be interest to be paid every year, during an undetermined period, on these $80 million. Then, through income taxes, the government will go and get this money in the taxpayers' pockets in order to pay interests to those who will kindly finance this loan of $80 million.
I remember reading the reports of the first federal-provincial conferences taking place in 1942. At that time, a former Conservative leader, the hon. John Braken, who was Premier of Manitoba, said something like: Our tax system is set up in such a way as to take money from the poor to give it to the rich.
As for those $80 million, the government will not take them from the pockets of the poor. They will not be supplied by the lumberjack, nor by the miner, the farmer or the settler, nor by the construction worker, but by capitalists, high finance and trusts. But when it comes to taxing individuals to pay interests to the trusts, they will go to the common taxpayer and make him pay tribute to the capitalists who feed government loans.
I cannot approve that decision to solve the problem with which, among so many others, the government is concerned. I, too, like my colleagues, think that we should abolish the sales tax on manufactured goods, particularly those which come from the manufacturing industry. The 12 per cent tax should be abolished, as should, especially,
Employment Support Bill
the 11 per cent tax on building materials in order that every family may be able to own its own home.
Then will we keep Canadian taxpayers and consumers happy; we will encourage renewed growth in Canadian industry, which will be an effective step toward the solution which all of us, I think, want to bring about in order to solve the unemployment problem in Canada.
In order to determine clearly which members favour an improvement in Canadian consumption, and whether we should be concerned primarily with keeping Canadians or Americans happy, we will call for a vote on third reading.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, before the end of this debate, I would like to express certain thoughts.
I already had the occasion to say a few words about this most important bill. I believed in the goodwill of the government and that it would try to counteract the disruptive effects of the American surtax. Once again today, I heard some members address many criticisms to the government. I would like to reiterate tonight some comments about this surtax.
I think the government must do something. I think its efforts are valuable. Having listened to some members, it seems to me that the government is giving grants directly to the United States. Allow me to say that I disagree completely with these allegations. Unlike some of my colleagues, I think that corporations must be helped, even if they are controlled by American interests in Canada. EVen if some members seem seriously concerned about this measure, industries located in their ridings will be very happy if they can benefit from the subsidies, which in turn will allow citizens to retain their jobs.
I have confidence in the bill now before us. Will this measure be sufficient to offset the difficulties which the American surtax will entail? This, I think, nobody can tell.
It remains, nevertheless, that when a minister proposes a measure, he proves that he is making an effort to assist Canadian industries, and God knows how much such help is presently needed. I think that this legislation should be supported and that it would be unkind to avail oneself of this opportunity to engage in petty politics about such an important matter. Of course, Canadian industries need government subsidies. I am wondering therefore why we are delaying so much the passage of this bill.
My comments will be very brief because I do not want to waste the time of the House, but I think that I had to put forth these opinions, not only to justify my position but to remind hon. members that a decision had to be taken. The government has' submitted this measure and I believe we should pass it without further delay. I hope the government will not hesitate to add to or to increase its grants, if necessary, and I truly believe that we need one, two or perhaps three months to really determine the disruptive effects of the American policy on our industry.
I therefore dare hope that the government will not hesitate to grant additional credits if required. There is nothing in the bill that says that if the $80 million are not enough, a further $80 million will be added. As has been stated previously, these $80 million will be certainly quite appreciated by the Canadian or foreign companies oper-

September 28, 1971
Employment Support Bill
ating in Canada since they will help them to maintain their employment level.
Considering our increasing difficulties and since, from time to time, we hear that factories are closing down, I think it is high time for the government to take this action and I certainly will not hesitate to support this measure and urge my hon. colleagues to do the same.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I thought I might evoke some sort of favourable response by saying that I gather there is general disposition to conclude this bill this evening. I do not intend to detract from that. I briefly wish to put forward some ideas that I am sure will not persuade hon. gentlemen in the Liberal party in any way, because their minds are obviously set and they will proceed with the bill regardless of the validity of the objections to it and explanations regarding its shortcomings.
I want for a moment or two to talk about one of its shortcomings relating to one group of people in this nation who for a long time, so far as their economic position is concerned, have been denied justice, fair play and fair consideration by this and preceding governments. I am talking particularly about commercial fishermen who are excluded from the bill and from any of its piddling benefits.
Our commercial fishermen have been denied equity in many areas. One that comes to mind quickly was dealt with yesterday in the question period. This government completely ignored the unanimous recommendation of the fisheries committee with respect to extending fishing zone jurisdiction to the continental shelf and the continental slope. I do not want to talk about what the fisheries committee did a couple of years ago, because that is not germane to the subject and would not be in order. Yet it is a fact that every Liberal member on that committee, every Conservative and every representative from my party voted in support of the idea that, immediately, our fishing zone jurisdiction should be extended to the edge of the continental slope and shelf. We realized that the fishermen of other countries were moving into those areas, had been doing so for a long time and were catching groundfish or bottom fish which properly and in a normal sense belonged to Canada. The government rejected that idea, creating inequity for fishermen on both coasts of this nation.
Another area of inequity relates to the government's program of buying out fishing vessels from the salmon industry. On October 2, next weekend, there will be an auction of 50 salmon fishing boats, I think it is, that were bought by the government from fishermen on the west coast. These boats will now be auctioned off to those who want to buy them. Of course, any Canadian who buys one of these salmon fishing boats will not be able to use his boat to engage in the salmon fishery in Canada. The government's purpose is to reduce the salmon fleet and to reduce the number of people who are involved in salmon fishing. So the Canadian who buys such a boat at the auction to be sponsored by the government at Delta Marine, Richmond, near Vancouver, on October 2 will not be able to use his boat for fishing. Otherwise he will be able to use it for whatever purpose he wishes.
[Mr. Salle.J
But there is no prohibition against a United States citizen who buys one of these boats. He may use a boat that was taken out of the salmon fishery of Canada, take it across the line into Alaska, Washington or Oregon, and put to sea in it. He may use it as a fishing vessel and thereby increase the size of the United States fishery fleet. He may catch salmon which are spawned in Canadian fishing channels, in Canadian rivers, and which are considered as Canadian fish. This is the inequity being perpetrated against the fishing industry in Canada. It is being deliberately brought about by the government opposite, which not only wants to see our fishing fleet curtailed but wants to see the Yankee fishing fleet increased to our detriment. I say that because the Americans will be able to fish for salmon which have come from our own Canadian rivers and spawning grounds.
We know the situation at Hecate Strait and the like. I do not want to go further into that question except to say that our fishermen who are disadvantaged by the 10 per cent United States surtax are not offered any degree of protection, assistance or help under this bill. Not only will the government's tax bill attempt to destroy the co-operative movement of this nation, but the provisions of this legislation will assist in the destruction of the co-operative movement. Let me read briefly one paragraph from a letter that the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Co-operative Association sent to the minister responsible for fisheries on September 16, relating to the 10 per cent surcharge. They say in part as follows:
Our association has felt the effect of this surcharge immediately, and most specifically in the sale of a carload of mild-cured salmon, which was already loaded when President Nixon made his announcement. Further it will affect us appreciably on the export of sole fillets and halibut flitches, where the duty has increased from 0.2 cents per lb. to 2.5 cents per lb.
Anybody in the least familiar with the fishing industry and the export of fish will know that an increase of that nature can be, and is, disastrous. I am merely putting forward my ideas for the record because I know that hon. gentlemen opposite in the Liberal Party have minds like concrete. They are well mixed and well set and are not disposed to listen to reasonable arguments. They want to continue participating in this "love the United States" program that they are embarked upon. Whatever is helpful to the United States is helpful to Canada-so they think. I think it is regrettable that the government has engaged in this sort of activity and has denied the primary producers of our nation fair play and justice under this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is on the amendment to the main motion. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
September 28, 1971

Division


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays	
have it.	
And more than five members having risen: The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel): Call in the members.	
The House divided	on the amendment (Mr. Burton)
which was negatived on the following division:	
YEAS
	Messrs:
Barnett	La prise
Benjamin	Latuiippe
Blackburn	Lewis
Brewln	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Burton	Orlikow
Caouette	Peters
Dionne	Rodrigue
Fortin	Rondeau
Gleave	Rose
Godin	Rowland
Howard (Skeena)	Skoberg
Knowles (Winnipeg	Thomson
North Centre) Lambert	(Battleford-Kindersley) -25.
(Bellechasse)	NAYS
	Messrs:
Alexander	Gendron
Alkenbrack	Gervais
Allmand	Gillespie
Andras	Goode
Asselin	Grills
Badanal	Guay (St. Boniface)
Baldwin	Guay (L6vis)
Barrett	Guilbault
B^chard	Gundlock
Beer	Haidasz
Blair	Hales
Borrie	Hogarth
Boulanger	Hopkins
Breau	Howard
Buchanan	(Okanagan Boundary)
Caccia	Howe
Cadieu	Hymmen
Cafik	Jamieson
Carter	Jerome
Chappell	Knowles (Norfolk-
Chretien	Haldimand)
Clermont	Korchinski
Corriveau	Lachance
Cflte (Richelieu)	Laing
Crouse	(Vancouver South)
Cullen	Lajoie
Cyr	Lambert
Danforth	(Edmonton West)
Davis	Lang (Saskatoon-
Deachman	Hum boldt)
Deakon	Langlois
Dinsdale	La Salle
Downey	Leblanc (Laurier)
Dupras	Legault
Duquet	Lessard (LaSalle)
Ethier	Lessard
Fairweather	(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Forest	L'Heureux
Forget	Loiselle
Francis	Lundrigan
Messrs:
MacDonald (Egmont)	Rochon
MacGuigan	Roy (Laval)
Maclnnis (Cape	Rynard
Breton-East Richmond)	Scott
Mackasey	Serr6
MacKay	Smerchanski
MacLean	Smith
Macquarrie	(Northumberland-
McCleave	Miramichi)
McGrath	Smith (Saint-Jean)
McKinley	Southam
McQuaid	Stafford
Mahoney	Stanbury
Major	Stanfield
Marceau	Stewart (Cochrane)
Marchand	Stewart (Marquette)
(Kamloops-Cariboo)	St. Pierre
Marshall	Sulatycky
Mazankowskl	Sullivan
Monteith	Thomas
Moore	(Maisonneuve-
Nesbitt	Rosemont)
Noel	Thompson (Red Deer)
O'Connell	Tolmie
Olson	Trudeau
Otto	Trudel
Penner	Turner (London-East)
P err a ult	Valade
Portelance	Wahn
Pringle	Whelan
Prud'homme	Whicher
Ricard	Whiting
Richardson	Woolliams
Ritchie	Yanakis-137.
Robinson


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I declare the amendment lost. Is the House ready for the question on the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those in favour of the main motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In accordance with what the Chair believes to be the disposition of the House, we will proceed with the vote without ringing the bells.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I declare the motion adopted.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair would ask hon. mempers whether there is a disposition to forgo the adjournment debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we would be glad to do that. In fact, we would be glad to forgo all business until the government meets its obligations under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we too would be happy to forgo the adjournment debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock.
At 10.29 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, September 29, 1971