1976-06-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43. In view of the importance of a policy of decentralization of government installations to the operations of government, to the public service and indeed to the people of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the President of the Treasury Board table all Treasury Board guidelines with respect to the government's policy on the decentralization of government departments and agencies.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PERFORMING ARTS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, motion pictures have a profound cultural and economic effect on all Canadians. No one concerned about the preservation of Canadian culture can deny the influence of films on our attitudes and way of life in general. Since Canada is now the largest foreign market for United States films in the world, where for example 96 per cent of the feature films exhibited in Ontario are U.S. made and, considering that the distribution of motion pictures in Canada is largely American controlled, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House urge the government to bring forward a film policy which will ensure the development and distribution of a viable and sustained production of Canadian films.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering the incredible statement just made by Quebec minister Claude Simard that although they are highly contaminated by PCB and unfit for consumption, one should not worry since eels taken from the St. Lawrence are 97 per cent sold on export markets; and considering that this poor specimen of humanity was echoing similar statements by two federal ministers-including the present Minister of State for Fisheries-despite the fact that serious reports indicate a PCB rate averaging eight times higher than the maximum security standard allowed by the Department of National Health and Welfare, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier);
That the House now discuss the entire matter and review the duties and responsibilities of the authorities as regards pollution and health to avoid on one hand that Canada and Quebec be accused of poisoning foreign countries and on the other hand to avoid that the Canadian people lose further confidence in their leaders since they can no longer rely on food security standards within the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I have been informed that the management of Air Canada intends to lock out the employees of the Air Canada finance branch in Winnipeg. In the light of the continuing internal problems of the Air Canada finance branch, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):

June 16, 1976
Finance
That this House instruct the Minister of Labour to take the necessary action to prevent a lock-out of employees at the Air Canada finance branch by Air Canada management until the federally-appointed mediator has had an opportunity to complete his inquiries into the labour problem and file his report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Such a motion can be presented only with unanimous consent. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: No.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD SUGGESTION DECISION IN CASE OF WORKERS AT THOMPSON BE REPEALED-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Anti-Inflation Board has rolled back the wage settlement of Local 6166 of the United Steel Workers of America in Thompson, Manitoba, to a point at which it is below the salaries earned by steel workers in Sudbury; in view of the fact that this decision not only contravenes a section of the Anti-Inflation Act which allows for wage parity within a sector but also creates difficulties in persuading people to accept work in Thompson, and in view of the fact that the government has the authority to over-rule a decision of the AIB on exactly those grounds, and has done so in the past, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That this House instruct the cabinet to over-rule the Anti-Inflation Board on this issue and award Local 6166 of the Steel Workers of America a contract equal to that of steel workers in Sudbury.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provision of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that some trust companies are turning mortgages over on a one-year basis and encouraging this practice by offering discounts of one quarter per cent on the initial mortgage, which poses serious problems to home buyers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath);
That the Minister of Finance examine the practice of trust companies selling one-year mortgages.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be considered by the House only by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


An hon. Member:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Considering that bilingualism in air communications is an essential matter that will determine to what extent Francophones can put any confidence in the future of bilingualism in Canada and considering that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) said himself how impressed he was by bilingualism in air-to-ground communications in Paris, which proves that bilingualism is also possible and logical in air-to-ground communications in Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin);
That this House call on the government to establish immediately and without delay a policy of bilingualism in air communications, since it has been proven that in this field it is possible and logical to respect the policy of bilingualism which is essential to the survival of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion, which requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. It has to do with the air traffic controllers dispute and the prospect of a nation-wide strike. Since it is the position of the air traffic controllers, based upon their assessment of the situation, that a contract has not been formally ratified, nor has a collective agreement been duly signed, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he can clarify the position of the government in this regard, in particular, the statement he made himself outside the
June 16, 1976

House with respect to the right of the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association to hold a legal strike?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: According to Treasury Board lawyers this strike would be entirely illegal and we shall take whatever steps are needed to prevent illegal actions.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: My supplementary arises from the nature of the minister's reply and the fact that the government has been unreasonably slow in resolving the prime issue in this dispute, namely, the appointment of a suitable replacement for Mr. John Keenan-I might say this slowness has had the effect of jeopardizing the good relations which had developed between the parties during the negotiating process. Would the minister tell the House when an announcement might be made regarding the appointment of a successor to Mr. Keenan, and can we expect it before this weekend?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is possible to appoint a replacement for Mr. Keenan before the return of the Minister of Transport who is now travelling abroad.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for clarification purposes. Having regard to the statements which have been made by the president of the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association, Mr. Livingston, to the effect that an air traffic controllers' strike now appears inevitable, may I ask the minister to clarify recent press reports and advise the House whether it is now the position of the government that it has definitely taken a decision to apply for an injunction if a strike is called?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I stated yesterday that in the last two years we have tolerated no illegal strike and that we will take whatever action is available to us to make sure there are no illegal strikes. If we have to go to court, we will do so.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Since it is the shared opinion of both the government and the opposition that safety, and safety alone, is the issue at hand, would the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that any decision as to the safety of bilingual air traffic control will be left to the commission of inquiry and not to the ex cathedra judgments of an absentee Minister of Transport?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has made it very clear that safety is the first and most important consideration.
Oral Questions


John Allen Fraser: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the right hon. Prime Minister said that safety was the first and most important factor in this area, but then he went on to say, as reported at page 14514 of Hansard:
What we are asking all concerned-the workers, members of the opposition and indeed members on the government side-is to have an open mind on, and objective approach to, this question.
My question to the Acting Prime Minister is this. Would the Acting Prime Minister assure us that until there is some judgment on safety from an independent commissioner, the hon. Minister of Transport will be asked to refrain from making a difficult situation even more difficult by making statements that indicate that the government's mind is already made up, no matter what the evidence may be?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I see nothing in anything that the Minister of Transport has said to indicate that he is not entirely objective and acting in the public interest, and I resent any suggestion to the contrary.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS EFFECT ON PROVINCIAL REVENUES OF ALLEGED CHANGE IN TAX SHARING FORMULA-STUDIES OF EFFECT ON REVENUE FOR POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Considering that the federal government guaranteed to the provinces in the tax changes announced in 1972 that they would not get less revenue during the course of that revenue sharing agreement, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister why the federal government has now unilaterally changed that formula with the result that retroactively all of the provinces are now going to get less revenue than they had anticipated?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a question that should be directed to the Minister of Finance who will be back in the House very soon, I expect. The government is very conscious of the undertakings which were made at that time. I believe they have lived up to them and I do not think the kind of conclusion that the hon. gentleman has put forward is valid.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It would have surprised me immensely if the Acting Prime Minister had admitted the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I should like to go to a minister who should know something about the changes in the formula and direct my question to the Secretary of State. Has the Secretary of State's department done a study of the proposed changes in cost sharing proposed by the federal government and of the effects of the changes in terms of the share of revenue paid to the provinces for post-secondary education?

June 16, 1976
Oral Questions


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, if there have been any studies done on that matter, they would have been done by the Department of Finance.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that as the minister responsible for this program-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


An hon. Member:: Ask your question.


John Edward Broadbent: I will go back to the Acting Prime Minister. Assuming that the studies have been done, will the Acting Prime Minister now take steps to ensure that these studies will be made available to all the provincial premiers, many of whom complained about the absence of this data, and specifically I am thinking of the request of Premier Hatfield of New Brunswick?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister dealt with these questions very adequately I thought yesterday, much to the discomfiture of the opposition. There is nothing I can add to that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Could the minister advise the House whether he intends to remove from the Unemployment Insurance Act section 36.3, under which a claimant is disqualified if he has the heart to go to work on an extension? If he works for six weeks and his employer goes bankrupt, that claimant is disqualified under section 36.3 and is no longer entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, if, as I understand, the hon. member is referring to what we call the 4-week rule under which a person cannot work more than four weeks without having his claim terminated, it is certainly our intention in the amendments we are presenting to the House to correct this situation which we think should be changed.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REACTION OF PROVINCES TO PROPOSALS RELATED TO MEDICAL CARE AND REVIEW OF JOINT PROGRAMS
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that put by the leader of the NDP and is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Can the

Acting Prime Minister tell the House what the reaction of the provincial premiers was to his established program financing proposal in so far as it relates to the Medical Care Act and the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should have thought the reaction would have been given by the Premiers of those provinces. I am sure the hon. gentleman would not expect us to repeat what we hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: The premiers, as far as I can see, are able to speak for themselves very adequately.


Paul Yewchuk: In view of the repeated mention in his established program financing proposal of a joint federal-provincial review of health legislation and programs, would the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether he and the premiers had any discussion about the circumstances of such a review?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will direct that to the Prime Minister who was present at the meeting, which I was not.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that arithmetically the railway workers actually rejected the Hall Report by a narrow figure, can the minister advise whether the railway workers realized, when they voted, that significant items had been settled before the appointment of the Hon. Emmett Hall, and that the Hall Report was confined to matters of wages only?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that there may be some question as to just how many of the 95,000 railway workers in this country who voted really knew there were a lot of items, almost all, outside of wages that had been negotiated and removed from the bargaining table prior to the ballots going out. There is no question about that. I would also advise the hon. member that although a simple majority did marginally reject the Emmett Hall report, ten of the 16 unions had a majority within their own unions accepting it. The formula in terms of the constitution of the various unions committed the minorities to what the majority did. On that basis, in terms of the bylaws of the unions involved, it works out in theory to an acceptance of the Hall report by 54 per cent. Thus the associated railway unions advised me of their acceptance yesterday and are prepared now to sit down with railway management to negotiate an agreement on the basis of the Hall Report. I believe that means optimistically that there will be no strike in the railways as for as this year is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 16, 1976


POSSIBILITY MINISTER WILL ASCERTAIN WHY AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS WANT TO STRIKE
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
As there has already been an agreement between the CATCA and the Treasury Board and as that same association has decided to go on strike because of racism, is the Minister of Labour willing to meet the union to ask how they justify the possibility of a strike and to persuade them not to strike strictly on the basis of their contempt for the French fact in Canada?


John Carr Munro: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member, as I am sure he is aware, that the employees in question here-I understand his question although I did not hear the earlier part of it unfortunately-who are direct employees of the government do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Labour Department. As you know, we are involved in disputes for all those employees in federal jurisdiction outside of direct employees. So we have no direct role in this matter. Although I have some considerable sympathy with the area the hon. member is talking about I think his question probably should be directed to the President of the Treasury Board.


FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING CORPORATION
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. I should like to know whether a successful agreement has been negotiated between the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and the province of Saskatchewan where a situation has existed in which some $500,000 was siphoned off as a result of dual levies, first for the filleting cost at the local level and, second, the charge that was added because of the over-all filleting costs at the central plant.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, while not accepting at all the premise and the words used "siphoned off" which were indicated in the hon. member's question, I know that some weeks ago I met with the minister responsible for this area in Saskatchewan. We had agreed at that point that the position could be shared on the problem of recognizing Saskatchewan's particular situation. This would be a decision of course for the board of the corporation. I have no indication that this has not taken place but I will check into it.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, when the minister is carrying on his discussions will he determine whether the agreement that apparently may have been reached will result in greater returns to the fishermen themselves or whether it will only be the processors in Saskatchewan who will be in a better financial position.
Oral Questions


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I understand that both problems are closely related, since many of the fishermen belong to the co-operatives engaged in the activities in Saskatchewan. I certainly think that anything which allows the fishery in Saskatchewan to return better prices to the fishermen should be encouraged. On the other hand, I would remind the hon. member that the province did ask the federal government to put together this corporation. Their input should not be limited so that it is only on the sideline and only looks to the benefits to their own province because there are four provinces involved.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, I would direct my question to the acting minister. Keeping in mind that interest rates on mortgages have been increasing by three-quarters of one per cent for the last four years, I am wondering whether the minister is aware that some trust companies are offering one year mortgages, and if he is aware of this what action is he taking to correct that situation or to look into it.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is a well known practice of mortgage companies to offer lower interest rates on mortgages of one year. They also offer five-year mortgages which are renewable after five years and the interest rate of course is a little higher. If the hon. member has a specific case he wants us to look into, I guess I would accept the question as notice.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Then, Mr. Speaker, I would direct this question to the parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that trust companies are offering a discount of one-quarter of one per cent, I wonder if the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or the Minister of State for Urban Affairs is aware of this and what they intend to do about the come-on offered by the trust companies in view of the long term implications this has on the amount of interest paid by Canadians taking out mortgages.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just answered. It is common practice to offer lower interest rates on one year mortgages.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS POSSIBILITY OF RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION TO REDUCE QUEBEC'S TAXATION FIELD
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the right hon. Prime Minister, I should like to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board.

Oral Questions
In view of the fact that the federal-provincial conference came to an end yesterday and it seems that, in any event, the provinces will lose $750 million as a result of it, and that in the case of Quebec, it will mean a decrease of $250 million, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether in his discussions with the Quebec premier, the latter was given guarantees which might leave him some hope that the federal government will reverse its decision and that he will comply with the settlements already agreed upon? As a result of his statement, we have to believe that the Quebec premier still hopes to recover those $250 million. If he does not, it would seem that the Quebec premier is trying to keep the truth from the Quebecers.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand there will be a meeting of finance ministers in July and certain points will be discussed again. This enables Mr. Bourassa to say that there may be some hope. But on the other hand, the agreement concerning the guarantee to the provinces which was reached at the time of the tax reform terminates in 1976. Thus we meet our part of the commitment.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Considering the minister's remarks, it seems in any case that if I stick to his concrete answer this represents a decrease in income of $250 million for the province of Quebec at this time. Is it right?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Not this way, Mr. Speaker. At the time of the Canadian tax system reform, we assured the provinces we would protect them against changes during a certain period of time, but this period is already terminated and the Minister of Finance undertook to discuss the conditions of the new agreement, if any, during the meeting of the finance ministers next July.


UNITED STATES IMPORT QUOTA ON SPECIAL STEEL PRODUCTS FROM CANADA-POSSIBLE DIVERSION OF FOREIGN SHIPMENTS TO CANADA
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the United States has imposed import quotas on special steel products from Canada, can the minister say what action the government is contemplating, if any? Will a complaint be lodged under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that if we are going to take any action I would not want to indicate it specifically in advance. However, we have indicated a complaint, not in the GATT context as the hon. member has mentioned but to the U.S. directly, and we are considering what further steps may be undertaken.


Jack Burnett Murta: In a supplementary question I would like to ask the minister whether there is any possibility that foreign shipments destined for the U.S. may be diverted to the Canadian markets, thus compounding the problems that our steel manufacturers will have. Has the government looked into this problem and, if so, could the minister inform the House?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, to some extent. I have not heard of it in precisely that fashion but if the hon. member or anyone else for that matter knows of any such action, we would be glad to hear about it. I think the hon. member would know as well that one company is primarily affected, and of course we are in constant touch with them.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS BASIS ON WHICH GRANTS MADE TO PROVINCES-REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF EFFECT ON PROVINCES OF FEDERAL PROPOSALS
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister. Will he assure the House that if the Prime Minister is really as concerned about equalization grants being as effective as possible for the low income provinces, as he stated yesterday, that his government will base those grants on the two top provinces within our federal system?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have heard this proposal made on behalf of certain provinces. It will be considered, but I could not give any assurance that that would be equitable across the country. I am sure the hon. gentleman understands the importance of some restraint in government spending and I hope he supports us in this point of view.


Andrew Hogan: I want to suggest to the Acting Prime Minister that it would be the most equitable to do. In relation to the Prime Minister's remarks yesterday on cost sharing I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he will table in the House or present to interested members of parliament the federal estimates of the effect of the federal proposals that were made at the first ministers conference, for example, on a province like Nova Scotia or New Brunswick over the next five years.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I could not undertake to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Why not?


Mitchell William Sharp: These discussions are just in the preliminary stage. As my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, has said, there will be further opportunities when the finance ministers meet to look more particularly at these problems. The purpose of the federal government in putting these proposals forward was to get some sort of reaction in principle before getting down to the necessary bargaining.
June 16, 1976

Oral Questions EDUCATION


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the government's posture of devout nuclear virginity and stern anti-proliferation of nuclear arms, may I ask if in the light of sustained and widespread reports of possession of substantial nuclear stock piles by the Republic of Israel, the minister can advise if the government of Canada has made any investigation of, or inquiry into, the serious allegations and, if so, has it cautioned the friendly government of Israel regarding the dangers of adding further highly incendiary elements to the already explosive Middle East situation?


LABOUR CONDITIONS
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. I have been informed, and it has also been announced in the news media in Winnipeg today, that the management of Air Canada intends to lock out employees of the Air Canada finance branch in Winnipeg. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour to take necessary action to stop the lock out of employees of the finance branch until the federal mediator has completed his inquiry into the labour problems and filed his report with the Minister of Labour.


John Carr Munro: I believe the hon. member is well aware of the fact that we have had a mediator in on this situation for considerable time. Unfortunately, up to date, he has not been able to resolve an outstanding issue between the parties over which there is considerable emotion. I must say that this news about the possible lock out by Air Canada of the finance division is a relatively new development in the whole situation. We are looking at it very actively in the department right now. What we can do we will do in order to resolve this dispute and ameliorate the effects of any dislocation to the maximum extent possible.


A. Daniel McKenzie: If Air Canada proceeds with this lock out, I understand this will be the first time that a Crown agency or a government agency has locked out employees. Will the minister investigate to see if Air Canada has the legal right to lock out employees?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will, although I would be less than frank if I did not say that I believe that just as the union is in a strike position, so can the employer, from the legal point of view, be in the lock out position.


PROPOSAL TO CREATE FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL BODY TO DEAL WITH CERTAIN ASPECTS-POSITION OF PROVINCES
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that the government wants to attach strings to post-graduate education by the creation of a federal-provincial body to oversee certain aspects of education, can the minister tell the House if the provinces have agreed to this and what the make up of this proposed body might be?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member's description of our proposal is very accurate. I do not fault him for that, but it is not accurate. What we are saying at the federal level is that there are areas of national concern, areas to be described as national goals in post-secondary education. What we would like to do is to set up a mechanism, with the co-operation of the provinces, within which we can talk about these things, and we specified certain areas. Without putting words into the mouth of the provinces let me say that there was general sympathy for the idea and concern about the exact forum. I have written to the chairman of the Council of Ministers of Education suggesting that ministers of education and myself meet early in July to examine this proposal more fully, and I am optimistic that I will get a favourable response to that proposal.


William Gordon Ritchie: Can the minister tell us if this proposal is primarily concerned with language training and postgraduate education?


James Hugh Faulkner: Certainly, it is true that we are concerned about the implications of two official languages at the level of post secondary education, but that certainly is not the only area we would like to explore with them. We have talked about the state of Canadian studies and the problem of accessibility of low income students to our universities. These all seem to be issues of national importance. We are not trying to insinuate our way into the curriculum development of the university. We are not threatening academic freedom. We just believe these are issues of national importance, and in view of the fact that we are participating rather handsomely in terms of financing the postsecondary level, we should have an arrangement to discuss these matters with them.


FISHERIES
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Fisheries.
Since Mr. Claude Simard admitted yesterday at the Quebec National Assembly that the St. Lawrence eels are contaminated by PCB-polychlorinated biphenyl-and unfit for human consumption, and since 97 per cent of all eel catches in Quebec are exported, can the minister tell us
9SS70-21

June 16, 1976
Oral Questions
if he will take the necessary action with his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to stop the export of poisoned fish or if he will warn those responsible to stop this pollution to keep the good reputation that Canadian exports enjoy?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I hope that what the hon. member said about poisoned fish will not have any repercussions on our market. I believe this type of statement can be irresponsible if it is not based on facts and well controlled scientific data. Having said this, I want to point out that we are extremely strict for export products. The inspection services of the provincial fisheries department and those of the federal government have close relationships in this regard. For inspections, in fact, the powers are delegated to federal authorities by the provincial government of Quebec. However, I do not foresee any difficulties. I shall check on the statements of the hon. member, but until then I hope no one will make any alarmist statements.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Can the minister tell the House whether he is cooperating with his provincial counterpart from Quebec, Mr. Claude Simard and, if so, why has Mr. Simard made such a statement? This did not come from me. The statement was made by Mr. Claude Simard and reported by newspapers this morning. I am well aware that it is nonsense to say that fish exported by Canada to other countries is poisoned. I find this ridiculous, but if they work together, how can the Quebec minister report such nonsense that could discredit our exports?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the normal precaution before reacting to a verbal statement based on a press report is to check exactly what was said. This is what I shall do.

[English)


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services, of which I have given him notice. In the welcome move of the superannuation section of the minister's department to Moncton, what assurances were sought by the government of Canada that the rights of the public servants who are being moved will be protected under the Official Languages Act?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question.
Treasury Board is now reviewing the conditions under which the government decentralization program should operate, in the case of employees. Of course, I made sure with local authorities about the extent to which a government unit using French in a proportion of about 30 per cent

would be welcomed, and I am sure that local authorities are prepared to cooperate fully with the federal government. As to protecting the acquired rights of employees now working in the government pension division, this of course comes under the policy known to everybody and adopted by Parliament.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour in the absence of the Minister of Finance. In the town of Kitimat, some 20 union members have now been arrested and jailed as a result of their belief in the AIB guidelines-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: -and it is also true that in the town of Thompson, Manitoba, we have another community being torn apart. In view of the confrontations which are now developing in the country, not between the companies and the unions but between the AIB and the unions, would the minister advise if he has investigated the option of overruling these AIB decisions, particularly when an historical relationship has been the problem, and whether his government has investigated whether any action can be expected from this government to overrule AIB rulings when northern communities are torn apart and strikes develop as a direct result of those rulings?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has pointed out two instances, but I have already indicated that the railway unions, in which there are 95,000 men involved, are prepared to negotiate on the basis of the Hall settlement, which hardly indicates a widespread confrontation over these particular guidelines.
In any event, not to detract from the hardship of the two communities about which the hon. member is talking, let me advise him that I hope the unions and the membership involved are aware of the appeal procedures now applicable in this situation. As far as Thompson is concerned, the administrator is in Thompson today gathering facts with respect to the situation in order to make his final ruling. There are procedures set out in the Act for appeal from his ruling and also reference to the cabinet. I am sure that the leadership is aware of that situation and will take advantage of the appeal provisions of the statute.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In the town of Kitimat it was a case of the workers in that town believing the AIB guidelines and winding up with an 8.9 per cent settlement, whereas their counterparts at Eurocan in the same community received an approved 18 per cent settlement from the AIB. My question is this: where this kind of disparity arises, not as a result of that decision but as a result of the confidence of the workers in the anti-inflation program, will the minister now make some representation to the company and the
June 16, 1976

AIB to re-open that contract and see that these massive inequities are corrected in these northern communities?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: The appeal procedures are available under the Act, and I might say that the party of which the hon. member is a member made strong representations with respect to the inclusion of these appeal procedures, to which we responded.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: Just a minute, please. I believe that there is enough latitude there to have this situation reviewed, if they wish to take advantage of the procedures. Certainly, in terms of any contact with the Department of Labour or our staff with respect to these difficulties and any requests for representations to be made have not been made with respect to the Kitimat situation.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State (Fisheries). The minister has indicated that his department plans to double the level of boardings and inspections this year in the ICNAF area, which will mean about 1,200 boardings carried out with the assistance of the Department of National Defence and the Department of Transport. This will, of course, require additional funds for new ships, and I would like to ask the minister whether there will be supplementary funds provided for this purpose.
Second, since the taxpayers of Canada have contributed $58 million toward the construction of the 200 ton experimental hydrofoil ship HMCS Bras d'Or, commissioned in 1971 and now mothballed until 1981, has the minister given any thought to utilizing this expensive prototype in fisheries surveillance work, even though the ship does not have a weapons system or sonar devices, which are not necessary for surveillance?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the doubling of the number of boardings can be done with the present hardware available in terms of ships and planes. In the case of the tracker aircraft there will have to be some upgrading of the present equipment, particularly radar. We do not expect to have a supplementary estimate for this. We are absorbing part of it in the fisheries program by cutting corners in other places, and other departments involved are also absorbing the increased cost, utilizing the existing destroyers and the existing aircraft, and in the case of the Ministry of Transport, existing vessels, particularly icebreaker capacity which we need in the region of Hamilton Inlet and off the Labrador coast at certain times of the year.
Oral Questions


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister? In trials in 1969, the year after she was launched, the Bras d'Or established the reputation of being the fastest warship in the world by reaching the approximate speed of 62 knots. Since she will be 12 years old in 1981, the end of the mothballing period, does the government intend to let the ship wear out while sitting high and dry at a yearly cost of $30,000? What are the government's plans for this expensive prototype?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall make inquiries.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON STATIONING AIRCRAFT AND SHIPS IN NEWFOUNDLAND FOR PATROL WORK
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of State responsible for fisheries concerns the maximum use of existing aircraft and surface craft. Bearing in mind the doubling of the number of boardings for enforcing ICNAF regulations and the increased surveillance which will be necessary as a consequence of our declaring our 200 mile economic zone, does the government intend to station aircraft and surface ships in Newfoundland, in order to maximize their use?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily accept that there will be need for increased surveillance in the 200 mile zone. There is the right to arrest, the right to issue permits, the right to cancel permits, etc. There will be the obligation on the part of the foreign vessel to inform Canadian authorities where it intends to move from week to week, and so on. This should simplify matters but I do not disagree that we will need a credible surveillance. As for the stationing of aircraft, I might say that at the moment it is planned to have aircraft stopping in Newfoundland with crew changes to take place after one week or ten days, depending on the requirements of the military. The servicing of these aircraft, which have reached a certain age, can best be carried out at the Halifax facilities, but we intend in future to have a greater surveillance capacity in Newfoundland than we have at present.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, before the question period I tried to move a motion under Standing Order 43 with respect to the decentralization of government departments. My motion may have been misconstrued. I was not asking for cabinet minutes with respect to that matter. May I ask the President of the Treasury Board if guidelines have been established by cabinet or Treasury Board in a form which can be tabled in this House to do with the decentralization of government departments? I ask this because it is a matter of importance for the administration of the Public Service of
14564

June 16, 1976
Oral Questions
Canada, the personnel involved and areas and municipalities involved. Are there such guidelines? If there are, can the minister arrange to table them? If not, will he arrange as soon as possible to have them prepared, so that everyone will know the ground rules with respect to decentralization?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have myself made a few speeches on the matter and outlined the ground rules for the federal government decentralization policy. I will inquire whether there would be some information I could table and which could be acceptable to the hon. member. I must say, however, that, according to my recollection, we established this policy last year and afterwards it became one of the most important planks in the leadership campaign program of the hon. member for Rocky Mountain seeking to be elected leader of the party. He is now leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister please tell the House if his department has internal, I stress internal, regulations strictly governing the use of polychloride plastics in the construction of public projects, owing to their potential danger as a fire hazard?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. There are extensive regulations coming under the national building code and the Canadian Government Specifications Board as well as regulations under the national fire code. In cases where we, ourselves, do not have them, reference may be made to the American society for testing materials. All of those comprise a thick document covering a whole range of polychlorides. If the hon. gentleman is interested in something specific, I will be glad to advise him.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the minister's reply, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs? If the Department of Public Works considers polychloride plastics as a fire hazard so serious that they have introduced strict regulations regarding their use, why does the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs not even require such products to be labelled under the Hazardous Products Act?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I shall simply have to find out and inform the hon. gentleman.


FAILURE OF FORD MOTOR COMPANY TO REPLACE DAMAGED TRUCKS
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Since Harley Peterson of Condor, Alberta, purchased a new one-ton Ford truck in June, 1975 which he found, after taking delivery, to have been damaged in transit, and since the Ford Motor Company of Canada has refused to replace the vehicle with a new, undamaged one, would the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in his efforts to protect Canadian consumers, personally put ministerial pressure on that company and ask it to fulfil its obligation to Mr. Peterson, and thereby protect Canadian consumers generally?


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour? Since it will soon be two years since Dr. Noel Hall was given the important assignment of reviewing all aspects of railway pensions, is the minister in a position to give a new forecast as to when that report might be submitted and presented to the House?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I had notification from Dr. Hall approximately three weeks ago indicating that he has taken time off from the university, gone on a sabbatical, taken the various material and actuarial studies with him, and would complete the report shortly. I expect it any time, hopefully by the end of June or the middle of July.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How long is the sabbatical?


INCOME TAX
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Has he determined the answer to my question of June 14, as to how the government knows if Canadians who are paying interest on off-shore or foreign mortgages have declared this obligation to the Canadian government?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, we have looked into this matter, as raised by the hon. member. Unfortunately, we can do little. Really, it involves a bookkeeping problem for banks in the United States. We ran into the same situation in Florida but were able to convince the internal revenue service that something should be done, and it was. We shall make similar

June 16, 1976

Order Paper Questions
representations in the area about which the hon. member is concerned, as well.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. I apologize for not sending him notice; at the same time I commend him for his recent announcement about the decentralization of government services.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister will soon be in the position to announce a similar decentralization involving Cape Breton Island, an area which, as the minister well knows, suffers from very high levels of unemployment. If the minister cannot answer today, we are very patient and will be glad to hear from him in the next week or so.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, up to now my rate of announcements has been one a year. I expect the hon. member will have to wait one year before we announce another decentralization.


Mr. Speaker:: Presenting Reports from Standing and Special committees.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the question period the Minister of Labour inadvertently misled the House when he suggested, with respect to the contract under which workers at Kitimat are controlled, that there is some appeal procedure available to them under the AIB legislation. The reverse is the fact. The contract has been signed; the problem is with regard to re-opening the contract. There is no provision in the law for that. I do not think the minister would wish to leave the wrong impression with the House, and perhaps would like an opportunity to correct what he said.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity the hon. member has given me in this regard. I was considering getting up tomorrow. I was referring to the Thompson situation when I indicated that there is an appeal procedure open to those workers and that my office would be available to them also. I was not referring to the appeal procedure as it applies to Kitimat.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of the film workers in the Anglophone Canadian film industry. I advise you, Sir, that the member of parliament for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) and the member of parliament for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) are associated with me in this presentation.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are marked by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 5,091, 5,163, 5,166, 5,330 and 5,552.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): Since the implementation of the programme of grants awarded for the purchasing of non-commercial housing (a) how much was spent in the Constituency of Temiscamingue (b) how many persons in the Constituency expressed their desire to receive such grants (c) how many received a grant (d) what was the distribution of such grants in the Constituency?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: (a), (c) and (d) See Table following; (b) Data on the number of applications are not available.
Note: Data on activity under the NHA are compiled by municipal county in Quebec, and not by Federal electoral constituency.
$500 Home Owner Grant-Municipal County of Temiscamingue
Municipality	Number of Grants	Amount $Angiers	1	500Belleterre	3	1,500Duhamel West	1	500Evain	31	15,500Lorrainville	5	2,500Moffet	1	500Noranda	23	11,500Notre-Dame-du-Nord	3	1,500Rouyn	110	55,000
June 16, 1976
Order Paper Questions
Municipality	Number of Grants	Amount $St-Edouard-de-Fabre	3	1,500St-Placide-de-Bearn	2	1,000Temiscamingue: Town	17	8,500Ville-Marie	7	3,500Unorganized	2	1,000Total	209	104,500


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was the smoke control system tested before completion of the building at Place du Portage and were certain deficiencies found and, if so, what were they?
2.	Was the system retested on completion of the building and (a) if so (i) on what date (ii) by whom (b) if not, was a letter sent to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs asserting that everything was in order and, if so (i) who signed it (ii) on what date was it sent?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. (a) The
Division of Building Research of the National Research Council conducted a series of research tests in March 1973 prior to the completion of the building and submitted a report to the Dominion Fire Commissioner. As a result of these tests, the National Research Council modified and refined the criteria for smoke control system design which were published as Change Series 3 of the National Building Code in October 1973; (b) Deficiencies found in these research tests were; (i) The smoke control shaft was found to be leaky in the sense that concrete block is more porous than poured concrete, (ii) The air supply ducts were interconnected between floors which tended to neutralize the suction pressures of the venting action by the smoke shaft, (iii) The roof hatch of the smoke shaft was found to be defective, (iv) Unsealed openings were found in masonry walls through which ducts and pipes entered vertical service and pipe shafts, (v) Air flow was found to be diverted into stairshafts on opening of an exit door to a stair on test floor. Doors were installed in stair shafts to prevent chimney effect in a stair enclosure.
2.	(a) No. (i) Not applicable; (ii) not applicable, (b) No. (i) Not applicable; (ii) Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was a sprinkler protection system programmed for completion on all floors of Tower A of Place de Ville during 1976 and, if so (a) how far advanced is the installation (b) what is the estimated date of completion?
2.	Was a similar sprinkler protection system programmed for Towers B and C and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Was such a system actually ordered for Towers B and C by a directive of the Department of Public Works and, if so, for what reason was this directive ignored?
4.	What are the reasons such a sprinkler system was not installed in all three towers at the time of construction?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. No. (a)
Not applicable; (b) not applicable.
(Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier).)
2.	No. These are privately owned leased buildings and subject to requirements of City of Ottawa Building Bylaws. Sprinkler systems were not required by the National Building or Fire Codes except in basement areas.
3.	No.
4.	At the time of construction, there was no requirement in any code or bylaw for sprinkler protection in other than basement areas of a building.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): Has Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation granted loans to certain municipalities in the Constituency of Temiscamingue for the construction of senior citizens homes and, if so (a) what municipalities are concerned (b) what are the names of the establishments (c) what are the (i) amounts (ii) terms of the loans?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: CMHC has made one loan to Quebec Housing Corporation to finance the construction of a housing project for senior citizens, in the municipal county of Temiscamingue. The project, Maison Pie XII, is located in the City of Rouyn, and the loan totalled $790,844, to be repaid over a term of 50 years at an interest rate of 6-7/8 per cent.
Note: Data on operations under the NHA are compiled by CMHC on the basis of Municipal Counties in Quebec, not on the basis of federal electoral constituencies.


Mr. Horner: 1.	How many bilingual districts have been named in each province to date?
2.	In each case, was the (a) provincial government (b) municipality involved consulted before such districts were designated?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1.	The Official Languages Act provides under Section 9(1) for services to the public in both official languages in certain locations, including 'the National Capital Region'. Section 12 of the Act provides that '... the Governor in Council may from time to time by proclamation establish one or more federal bilingual districts ... '. The Governor in Council has not proclaimed any bilingual districts to date.
2.	Not applicable.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 5,469?
June 16, 1976


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has there been a reduction in the purchase of Manitoba Light Crude by 40% and, if so, for what reason?
2.	How long will this reduced allocation last in this time of oil shortage?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the hon. member's question is as follows: 1. During the month of April 1976, an equipment failure in the refinery of a major user of Manitoba crude oil caused a temporary reduction of about 5,000 barrels per day in the demand for this oil. 2. Demand for this oil was restored in May.


Mr. Blais:: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My question No. 4,957 has been on the order paper since March 15. It deals with complaints with regard to price increases and rollbacks by the Anti-Inflation Board. The question relates to a board which ought to be able to give the answers very, very quickly. However, this has not been the case. I ask the parliamentary secretary to take notice of my point of order and to ensure that the Anti-Inflation Board expedites the answers to these questions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
ALLOTTED DAY S.O. 58-STATE OF TEXTILE INDUSTRY Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East) moved:
That this House views with alarm the accelerating collapse of the Canadian textile industry, rejects the fatalistic inertia of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and demands serious action to counter the ruinous pressure from excessively high import levels.
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, before touching upon the particular and central subject of this debate, namely, the Canadian textile industry, I think
Textile Industry
it is very timely that we discuss in this House this afternoon some of the things relating to the economy and the atmosphere created by the government vis-a-vis business in general.
It goes without saying that governments are not meant to represent big anything; they are meant to represent the people. That is almost a cliche. It is something we sometimes forget. Of course governments are not meant to represent big institutions, be they unions or big business.
I want to underline time and time again this afternoon that a government cannot and should not be the spokesman for any particular segment of society or the economy. Having said that, I want to state that the government has absolutely no excuse for what I call the degree of anti-business bias that it has shown under eight years of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), our former leader, mentioned in Nova Scotia some nights ago that the time for confrontation between major interests in society is over, and the time for conciliation is here. I agree. If anyone in this House thinks I am kidding about that, just go from one end of this country to the other and talk to businessmen. They will say that never in the last 40 years have they been given such a hostile reception as they have been given by this government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: Hon. members opposite do not like to hear the truth. It is going to take more than the seraphic smile of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) to rectify this situation. This anti-business bias and anti-business climate are even exaggerated in the case of the Canadian textile industry.

Mr. Speaker, what are we dealing with in the House today? We are discussing whether or not, in the near future, we shall have a textile industry in this country and I wish to state most emphatically that unless we do something right now, we shall not have any.

It has been said time and time again by businessmen in this country that business leaders and businessmen from other countries receive here in Ottawa a much more cordial and decent reception than our domestic businessmen. I think the minister will have to explain this. We have brought this motion before the House of Commons today purely and simply because we on this side of the House believe that if immediate action is not forthcoming, not just promises and words, much sooner than later we shall not have a Canadian textile industry.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke with several executives in the textile industry. In my view there is no cooperation in this area between the Ottawa officials and the industry which can compare with the kind of cooperation existing in the United States between Washington and the textile industry.
In Ottawa decisions are made without consultations with the private sector, with the industry. I do not wish to blame the minister in question all the time but his officials are often in the foreground and he is responsible. On many

June 16, 1976
Textile Industry
occasions, and I am sure many hon. members will agree with me, businessmen and textile manufacturers are informed by government officials that a decision has been made without any previous consultation.
I think it is very important to call attention to this state of affairs. For the last five or six years, as I have gone around the country, businessmen in the textile sector have been telling me they cannot understand the hostility shown to them by federal civil servants. It is almost as though they were not welcome here in Ottawa. I know the minister is not entirely to blame.
I want to say at the outset that I agree with much of the government's policy in connection with the textile industry. The fact is, however, that the policy we build up in the House of Commons is not carried out or, when it is carried out, it is too late-the damage has been done. This is a general consideration, one we should speak and think about in the House. I am not going to start being sensational, but I believe this is a problem which faces each and every one of us as parliamentarians, be we on the government side or on the opposition side. In the last year or so I have talked to many ministers who have told me privately that on many occasions the intentions of the bills and the orders we have drafted in the House of Commons have been completely controverted in subsequent regulations made by the bureaucrats-the whole intent of the law has been controverted by civil servants interpreting it in their own fashion or putting up roadblocks or, as in the case of the textile industry, failing to apply it. This applies to many policies which we have approved as legislators in the House of Commons. This being the case, as I believe it is, let us debate the issue openly because it is my opinion that in many instances the government has built up a monster in the form of a bureaucracy which nobody can control. [Translation]
As far as textile is concerned, I fully agree with the policy as a whole but, unfortunately, we are here to find an answer to a very serious problem for several members, especially members from Quebec. I would say that in general I totally agree with most of the government's policy but it should act responsibly, and it is not a policy which is implemented often enough by the officials concerned.

I would simply like to say this: I am very suspicious, after being around here for a few years-


An hon. Member:: Too long.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are just a young fellow.


William Heward Grafftey: I am more than suspicious that some very influential officials and some cabinet ministers believe that the textile industry in Canada is expendable. They are not alone in this point of view. I have talked to businessmen in big cities, men who have nothing to do with the textile industry and who have never lived in textile towns, who say that the textile industry is expendable. That is the

conventional wisdom within much of the bureaucracy which has to apply textile policy.
The minister is a good minister in many ways. He is loyal to his civil servants, unlike some of his colleagues. But if he is really frank with the House he will admit he has run into this head-in-the-sand conventional wisdom that, for one reason or another, the textile industry in Canada is expendable. If this is what the minister is hearing from his advisers, whether in the private sector or in the public service, I think he should level with us because we are talking now about the survival of an industry which is important not only to Eastern Canada and to various other areas of the country, but to Canada as a whole. It is imperative that we find a good solution and a long term solution to the problems of a troubled industry.
In my view it would be disastrous to accept the conventional wisdom that somehow or other we can get along very well in this country without a textile industry. I want to make it abundantly clear that we in the Progressive Conservative party are committed to the existence of a viable textile industry here in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: I can almost hear the minister saying, when he replies to the debate, "We, too, are committed to that objective." But, Mr. Speaker, ministers on the other side have been saying that for far too many years, and every year the situation has been getting worse and worse. I am not speaking only on behalf of the industry. I am speaking on behalf of all Canadians who want this industry to continue. Ministers whose responsibility this is will have to replace mere words with action and prove the sincerity of their undertaking. The industry does not need any more studies, commissions, reports, and committees of investigation. What the industry needs is a firm declaration from the government that there is a national will in favour of its continued existence, along with concrete measures which will bring some hope for the future.
I have always said that the federal government is shortsightedly living off the short-term windfall benefits resulting from the sale of our natural resources while letting in cheap imports. This is not to say, Mr. Speaker, that these imports will always be cheap. Once we have destroyed the means of Canadian production, what happens? One of the hon. members who sits opposite said to me the other day that he used to be able to go into a store and buy shirts, for instance, made in the Far East at a price far cheaper than anything we could match here, but that this situation was now coming to an end; the imported shirts were getting more and more expensive.
The government talks about the benefits the public derives from cheap imports. Mr. Speaker, those benefits are very short-lived. Take binder twine, for instance. We warned the government time and time again of what would happen if a domestic supply of binder twine were not available to farmers. People who should have known better allowed this industry to be destroyed by cheap imports, using the excuse that the farmer was benefiting from lower prices. What has happened? Only a year or so [DOT]after the local industry was destroyed the price has risen by three times.


An hon. Member:: Four.
June 16, 1976


William Heward Grafftey: I apply this situation, by analogy, to the textile industry. Consumers should not swallow the bait that they would be better off by getting short-term benefits. Quite apart from that, what happens when our natural resources run out? From what source can the government expect further windfall benefits to finance social programs?
The point is this: we have been saying, both inside and outside the House for a number of years, that the government has no industrial strategy. If we are wrong, then in the name of goodness will you tell the House what it is? Will you tell the businessmen about it because they are waiting to hear you? I do not intend to get mixed up in philosophy, in a discussion of the merits of private industry and free enterprise versus socialism, and so on; what I am asking is this: in the name of goodness tell us where you want business to go, because we don't know. I am not saying we want Mr. Howe or his ghost back. I am asking for some indication of a general industrial strategy for this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to intervene, and I do not do so because the time of the hon. member has expired, far from it. I would just invite the hon. member, who has been addressing himself directly to the minister, to address himself to the Chair.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly correct my mistake, and I apologize once again.

I just want to underline in general the necessity for an industrial strategy for Canada, which is no more emphasized than by the situation in which the textile industry finds itself at the present time. I should like to make one last general remark before citing some global statistics vis-a-vis the textile industry. I have always felt that, unlike any other country that I know of, particularly in the western world, many of our senior bureaucrats and some ministers of the Crown think that the textile industry is expendable. They have this old-fashioned international trade philosophy, which I suggest is about 40 years out of date, that says "So long as you guys take our natural resources, some of our foodstuffs and our raw materials, to heck with the textile industry, it is expendable". I have heard that alluded to, being on the opposition side for so long, and I am sure the minister would like it to be prolonged.
We do not always get to talk with the senior bureaucrats as frankly as the minister does, but I am pretty darned sure that that is the advice he gets. It is a saw-off-"You take our natural resources, our foodstuffs and so on, and we will keep talking to the textile industry and try and keep them happy, though we really do not think they are viable". That is a disastrous situation.


Mr. Pelletier:: You are too much.


William Heward Grafftey: You say I am too much.

Did the hon. member talk with the leaders of Sherbrooke?
Textile Industry


Irénée Pelletier: Yes, at meetings that you did not even attend.


William Heward Grafftey: I want to put a question to the hon. member because his intervention seems quite strange at this time. Did the hon. member talk with the union leaders, with the heads of companies? Are they satisfied with the present government's textile policy?


Irénée Pelletier: That is not the question.


William Heward Grafftey: I agree, that is not the question. You have the answer and the best thing for you to do now is to keep quiet a little while.

There is also the question of the Third World countries. I am proud to be a Canadian, and I say that in a non-partisan way, in terms of our responsibilities in international trade and so on. There is nothing partisan about this. But there is another conventional wisdom which says that if we get tough in the textile sector we will be damaging the ability of the Third World countries to export. I have heard that debate. The fact is that Canada is doing one heck of a lot more than any other country in terms of permitting the Third World to be viable exporters, whether of textiles or any other materials.
I am not going to get into the general debate as to whether we are tough negotiators or not. I am as aware as any member of this House of the rightfully legitimate aspirations of emerging Third World countries, emerging not in the political sense but in the economic sense. But while we are leading the world in our understanding of this, I am sure that even the Third World countries do not want our textile industry to disappear completely, as it is beginning to do at this time. The reason we are debating this question today is that we on this side of the House firmly believe-

-that if immediate measures are not taken in the very near future, the textile industry will disappear.

Are we talking about completely sacrificing this traditional industry when we talk about our position in relation to the third world? This is nor an original statement of mine, but I will repeat it. Obviously what is needed is a rationalization of our approach. Some might say, what does the word "rationalization" mean?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member again, but there is a point I should like clarified by the hon. member and the House at this time. It concerns a point of procedure.
Hon. members are aware that the motion before the House at this time is one moved by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour). The fact that be moved the motion means, according to citation 166(4) of Beauchesne, he is considered as being the spokesman for the official opposition, and he is considered as having spoken. He is also the one who is entitled to speak for 30 minutes as spokesman for the opposition and according to Standing Order 58(13) only one member of the official opposition and one member of the government are entitled to 30 minutes. Since the hon. member for Regina East, under the
14570

June 16, 1976
Textile Industry
rules, is considered to have spoken, and that right having been used, hon. members will agree with me, perhaps by unanimous consent, that the House would allow the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) to go beyond his time and complete his remarks. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank you sincerely. I understand your ruling and I appreciate the House's courtesy. That means that I still have 10 minutes left. I took the 20 minutes allowed to me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have asked for more than that and the House agreed. If the hon. member wants to limit himself to 10 minutes, that is his own decision.


William Heward Grafftey: To those officials and others who declare the conventional wisdom that the textile industry is expendable, to those in their ivory towers who have never visited a textile town, I am going to say this. I realize that the textile industry is spread across Canada in every province. But in my own part of Canada when you talk of a textile town you are talking of a one industry town. These are towns with a population of 12,000, 15,000, 25,000 people. Very often a large primary textile plant is the only employer. Do not ask me why. Sometimes these towns have industrial commissaires, as we say in French, but they never have any industry in addition to the textile industry. Up until recently labour has not been generously paid; les salaires ne sont pas fameux. Especially the older workers lack mobility. In human terms and in terms of suffering, it is not just ordinary unemployment that hits a textile town; it is devastating unemployment, grinding unemployment, unemployment of the worst kind.
These workers not only lack mobility, Mr. Speaker, especially if they have been working until they are 45 or 55 years of age and then have to find work somewhere else. Apart from the fundamental consideration that any country with a secondary industrial base, such as Canada, must have a viable textile industry, I appeal to those-and I declare there are many-who say that the textile industry is expendable to reconsider their point of view, and I ask them to visit towns not only in Quebec but all over Canada that depend on this one industry.
If the United States government had let happen in the U.S. what we are now letting happen in Canada, the United States textile industry would have disappeared over five years ago. Domestic consumption in Canada accounts for about 46 per cent of textile output, extending to approximately 200,000 jobs. Compare this with Japan where 90 per cent of the industry is domestic. I have already alluded to the United States. Eighty per cent of the consumption of textiles in the United States is of goods from the domestic industry, as is the case in many of the EEC countries. As I am sure many hon. members are aware, this is accomplished through quotas instead of by tariffs. If we can hold our own with the EEC and the United States there would be a minimum of 150,000 more jobs created in Canada. This is not going to be easy. There are 200,000 jobs involved in making the textiles imported into Canada from abroad, and I suggest that 150,000 domes-

tic jobs could be created because of the superior productivity of Canadian textile manufacturing.
The Canadian textile trade represents 1 per cent of the world-wide market or, as I said before, 200,000 jobs, and imports represent 54 per cent. That is, there are 200,000 jobs approximately in other countries, and I have already alluded to the increased productivity in Canada, so that we stand a good chance of creating 150,000 more jobs here in our own country. Canada's consumption is 2 per cent of world consumption, whereas manufacturing represents 1 per cent of world production.
Having listened, not only to industrial spokesmen, but to many others including union spokesmen, it is my view that if we froze imports we could bring production up to a satisfactory level. That would not mean we would diminish the status quo of the Third World countries. It would probably take four years to get production up to the level of 80 per cent of the domestic market by Canadian manufacturers.
As I said before, the United States has comprehensive quotas from yarn to finished product, and I believe this is what the Canadian industry vitally wants. It is the domestic industry which keeps prices low. If we lose the viable domestic industry, and I have already made the argument in respect of the binder twine situation regarding agricultural products, then prices may well skyrocket. This is arguable but not so arguable as prices are now; however, if we eliminate domestic competition I suggest prices will skyrocket.
Trade agreement rules are the same for the United States, Canada, and many other countries. As I have said time and time again-

-and at the beginning of my remarks, the rules as applied in other countries are not applied by the civil servants here in Canada.

Of countries that are rapidly developing, only Canada is short-term in its outlook in that we do not have comprehensive tariffs, although I have argued this afternoon basically for the quota approach. The suggestion is to freeze the basic quota on imports, and the domestic percentage of production increase will be Canadian without affecting the status quo of Third World imports. Quotas should conform to the average of U.S. and EEC quotas.
The Canadian textile industry is advocating a quota policy similar to that of the United States instead of placing the emphasis on tariffs. Foreign imports would not be cut back, but instead would be frozen until Canadians regained a share of their market equal to the United States control of its domestic market. When this occurred this freeze on imports would be replaced with a quota system which would be kept on par, with U.S. quotas.
It is fair to say that we are talking about a four-year period or something in that general time frame. I think it is also fair to say that Third World countries would understand the rational approach we are taking in this regard.
Before moving the motion, and I think from what you have said, Mr. Speaker, I might have some difficulty in
June 16, 1976

that regard, but we will cross that bridge when we come to it-


An hon. Member:: It has already been moved.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I am very fortunate when it comes to the rules in being not too far away from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
The Standing Committee of the Senate on Banking, Trade and Commerce was seized of many problems concerning the Canadian textile industry. Before moving the motion I would like to put on record some-


An hon. Member:: At least you are consistent.


William Heward Grafftey: I would like to put on record some of the more salient points that were touched upon there. The minister is already aware of them, but I think they should be headlined.
In spite of increasing textile and clothing exports the Canadian negative trade balance has grown by an average annual rate of 16 per cent since 1969, and had reached $1.1 billion by 1974. This is not only a serious matter for the textile industry; we on this side of the House suggest it is a serious matter also for Canada. I have already referred to the delays that take place in implementing decisions, and I note here the lengthy and damaging procedural delays which often follow the completion of any inquiry of the Textile Clothing Board. We know that in nine separate cases four months lapsed between the time the board's reports were submitted to the minister and the date when the reports were tabled and made public.
We often hear, and I think very unfairly, that the domestic industry in Canada does not have a good rate of productivity. Let me point out simply that, compared to other countries, and I have already underlined this in terms of job creation, productivity is pretty good. Let us consider comparative statistics here in Canada. Productivity in the textile industry has increased over the past decade at an average rate of 5.1 per cent compared with 4.2 per cent for all manufacturing. I think that is a pretty good record. Let me say to all those critics who suggest that some parts of our textile industry are obsolete, they are obsolete in many instances because the industry will not invest in new, modern plants until it gets some long-term direction from the federal government.
In addition to problems created in the industry by delays and the lack of vigorous administration of textile policy, there are many elements of the policy itself which militate against its stated objective, that is, to provide a sense of direction and a framework and conditions within which the textile and clothing industry can plan and invest with a greater degree of confidence.
Finally, another element of the policy, or lack of it, which has adversely affected the whole industry relates to the required climate of confidence and stability and the necessity of the board to recommend immediate removal of restraint measures or to refrain from recommending new measures on the basis of short-term marketing considerations. I think anyone who recognizes the working of the appeal board and the delays in the short-term considerations recognizes what an important matter this is.
Textile Industry
In closing I would say it is apparent to us on this side of the House that the Canadian textile industry is in serious danger. We brought this debate on this afternoon because we believe that unless we have no more commissions, no more studies, no more of this and that, but instead immediate action, the industry will be in greater danger.
I sympathize with the minister because he will have to come down pretty hard on a lot of senior officials who will say to him behind closed doors, "We are expendable, and many of these things will have to go down the drain before we can export this, that, and the other thing." I hope the minister will level with us and give the country in general, and the textile industry in particular, a strategy of hope for the future.

For the reasons I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, I cannot move this motion. Would you enlighten me, Mr. Speaker? Frankly and sincerely, I find the situation rather complex. May I second .. . but the motion is already seconded-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion has already been moved. Notice appeared on the Order Paper and the motion was moved by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour) and seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). The hon. member was just speaking on the motion.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I thank you ever so much for your very kind assistance. Under the circumstances, obviously the only thing for me to do at the end of my three speeches is to ask the House to support our motion.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, even though the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) did not move the motion I should like to congratulate him for his good intentions. I certainly also wish to express my admiration for his passion regarding the position of the textile industry. I think this does him a great deal of credit. Nevertheless, I think I would be less than frank if I did not say that I found some of his remarks somewhat too simple in the sense that they did not answer the questions. While I can understand the deep emotion behind his concern about the industry, the situation is not as straightforward as he would put it, nor do we have any really clear indication what the Conservative party would be prepared to do officially in this regard.
When the hon. member says that he wants quotas put on and wants to lower imports from other countries completely over a period of years, I can understand that as it affects Canadian workers. However, I cannot understand it as it concerns our international responsibilities. Surely the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, who is well known in this House of Commons for his sentiments regarding assistance to countries around the world, is not serious when he says that Canada should stop all imports from other countries, if I understood him correctly, or place an immediate quota on them until the industry revives, and then when the industry revives, establish some high level of import quota.


William Heward Grafftey: I did not say that.
95570-22%

June 16, 1976
Textile Industry


Max Saltsman: The other thing he did not make very clear is whether his party is a high tariff party and whether it wants to see the tariff increased. There is in fact a very considerable tariff on textiles now. I fail to understand his argument when he says that if there were no foreign textile industry Canadian prices of textiles would be higher than they are now. In fact the reason we have some of the highest textile prices in the world is the protection given to the textile industry in Canada, as inadequate as the hon. member may think it is.
The point is that the consumers of Canada are clearly being asked to pay higher prices for the goods they consume in order to protect a vital industry in this country. The question is to what extent can we bring up the level of protection, and to what extent does his party officially stand as a high protection party, and is his leader prepared to go back to Alberta, or to any of the other western provinces which historically have had a grievance with Quebec and Ontario, where the textile industry is located, and where the people have said that they have had to pay through the nose in order to provide jobs in Ontario and Quebec when they could have bought this type of goods at a much lower price, and advocate that?
I think it is grossly unfair for the hon. member in this kind of a situation to say that he thinks there is a problem. In some ways I think this motion misses what is the core of the problem, not only in the textile industry but in other industries as well. I agree with the hon. member when he says that the absence of an industrial strategy is one of the problems. The government never has developed an industrial strategy or, if it has, it has been a piecemeal policy that is squeezed out of it from time to time by accident. Nor do I understand why the hon. member for Brome-Mis-sisquoi would take off on the personnel of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The fault lies squarely with the government. A government is responsible for policy.
Why is it that whenever anything goes wrong the Conservative party always places the blame not where is squarely belongs on those who have authority but rather on the public servants. The public servants take orders from the minister and the government who are responsible for policy. If there is something wrong with textile policy they should blame the government and the minister if they wish, but they should not blame the public servants who will do whatever the government tells them to do.
Surely the hon. member is not telling us that if his party were to form the government they would not be able to do anything because public servants would prevent them doing it, or that they would have to have wholesale layoffs of public servants in order to have a textile policy. Surely that is not the case.
I think the most serious reason we have this great present difficulty in the textile industry is the high level of unemployment. When you have 7.4 per cent to 7.5 per cent of the population unemployed no one can think straight about what should be done in terms of our responsibilities to our own people as against our responsibilities internationally. Everyone starts looking inwards and tries to protect every single job. That is very understandable. The point is that there can be no solution for the textile industry or any other worthy industry so long as 7.4 per cent of

the people are unemployed, because then the first priority of every member of this House becomes one of getting people back to work and ensuring jobs for the future. The danger is that jobs may be found to our detriment as a country living among other countries in terms of our own responsibilities to other people.
While we have problems in this country and must consider those problems, I do not think our problems are of such a nature that we have to turn our backs on the rest of the world and say Canada will become protectionist and that what happens in other countries is just too bad, that charity begins at home. Therefore it seems to me that the first priority must be full employment in order to get the textile industry going again. Only under conditions of full employment can any rationalization of industry take place. I have been a person who has looked at this industry over many years. The industry has been in trouble as long as I can remember. There has been one trouble or another. When we have a high level of unemployment such as exists now, then of course demand is low in the country and the purchasing power is not there to pick up a lot of the output. But the industry was in trouble as well when we had a fuller level of employment.
It was not so many years ago that representations were being made to members of parliament to open the flood gates of immigration in order to feed the textile industry of Canada because it could not get people to work in the industry. The point is that under full employment, as difficult as that may be, what happens is that change can take place. When you have full employment, when there are alternate jobs, people can move between industries. The industry can rationalize itself. It knows that there is consumer purchasing power.
What has happened is that some of our textile firms have done very well. They have upgraded their products; they have adjusted the kind of products they make to the high style market and to the ^dnds of things that do not have to compete with the low wage countries or the mass-produced textiles which can be produced in other countries around the world. They have adjusted, but they have done that under conditions of full employment.
The other concern I have about the speaker who preceded me is that the whole tone of his speech up until the very end was one of concern about investment in the industry, about the employer in the industry. We in this House of Commons must be concerned about everyone. I start from a somewhat different premise. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi I guess was saying that what is good for employers is good for the workers. I have come to another conclusion, that what is good for the workers has to be good for the employers because workers are far more numerous than employers and are less able to look after themselves or adapt to employers.
Under conditions of full employment workers in the textile industry have a number of choices they can make. They can be retrained or they can go to other jobs. Because industry is changing they can find employment, and there is a much better future for them and often for their employers as well. It is a disgrace in this country, and I blame the government for it, not the public servants of this
June 16, 1976

country-I blame the policy makers of this country for the state of our manufacturing industry.
In this morning's Globe and Mail there is an article by Wayne Cheveldayoff in which he lists the deficit in our manufacturing industry. He writes:
Last year, Canada imported $9.8 billion more of manufactured, inedible end products than it exported-more than double the $4.5 billion deficit of 1972.
Part of that, of course, was textiles but all of it was end products, the kind of things that provide jobs in this country. I agree with the mover, or rather the non-mover of the motion, that the government has traded off raw material irreplaceable exports for jobs in Canada. This was just as true when the Conservatives were in office as when the Liberals were in office. They could never make up their minds whether they wanted Canada to be an exporter of raw materials or to develop its secondary manufacturing industry. They were going to please everyone, but the point is that you cannot please everyone and the evidence is quite clear.
To the extent that we export raw, unfinished goods, we have to import something in exchange. You cannot go on exporting without importing. What is there to bring back? We do not need raw, unfinished goods, so we bring back manufactured goods such as textiles, but textiles form a relatively small dollar part of the sum of $10 billion. What we are doing in fact is exporting jobs when we export raw materials. That is the kind of thing over which the bureaucrats do not have any control. That is a policy decision of the government, or the absence of any policy decision in terms of an industrial strategy, and that is what causes our problem.
The effect of continuing the export of raw materials is to raise the value of the Canadian dollar, especially when on top of exporting raw materials we start raising a hue and cry about the vast amount of capital we have to import into this country in order to build things like the Mackenzie pipeline and other kinds of high capital intensive units such as opening new mines and establishing the infrastructure associated with mines. You cannot create jobs that way. The effect of importing capital is to raise the value of the Canadian dollar, and as that happens it destroys the competitiveness of Canadian secondary industry and it creates a high level of unemployment in this country.
I think it is important when we deal with a subject of this kind to lay the blame where it belongs. We call for the appropriate solution, which must be a policy of full employment. The government has obviously turned down that solution as evidenced in its last budget when it is quite prepared to accept 7.4 per cent unemployment in the country. Difficult as it is for the textile industry, it will be equally difficult for every other manufacturing industry in the country. I think the government must stand condemned for its failure to bring in an industrial strategy, its failure to understand the economy of this country, and if it does understand it it must stand condemned for not acting in terms of its budgetary measures to reduce unemployment in Canada.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to thank the sponsor of today's motion which relates
Textile Industry
to the textile industry and is extremely important, as was said earlier, particularly for Quebec and Ontario. Everyone knows the great importance of this industry for the economy of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario as well as other parts of the country.
As everybody knows, textiles are essential to the life of a modern people. Is it any wonder that Canadians are among the largest users of textile in the world? Annual purchases of textiles in Canada average in excess of 33 pounds per capita. Canada comes second after the United States for the average textile consumption. Canadian textile plants are located, as I just said, in industrial parts of Quebec and Ontario, close to the large urban markets. More than 80,000 Canadians, that is 6 per cent of the entire manufacturing labour in our country works in the textile industry. Every job in the manufacturing sector creates employment for 1.17 other people in the service, maintenance and repair sectors.
Therefore, the textile industry gives employment to more than 175,000 people who themselves support families, which adds up to over half a million people. The annual production exceeded $1.8 billion last year and the industry is 80 per cent Canadian-owned, which is quite important when one considers that any mature country must have its own textile supplies.
Mr. Speaker, these figures are extremely interesting and show how important the textile industry is in Canada. On the other hand, this industry is not a new one. In Canada, during the forties and the fifties, the primary textile and clothing industry came first as regards the number of jobs provided. In 1972, however, it fell to third place and primary textile plays a crucial part in regional development, particularly in Quebec. The textile industry is typical in that it employs mainly a large number of women. This industry, as I just said, is 80 per cent Canadian-owned.
And in the paper published in the February, 1976 issue of the Canadian Textile Journal, statistics and solutions are suggested which, I am sure, the officials in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce have or should have taken into consideration. To this date, we have not seen any recommendation from the federal government taking up the suggestions made by the textile industry itself. Whenever you make recommendations to this House, you are told it has not been proved right. It has been said that there were contradictions in the requests filed by certain manufacturers.
And yet, after having read the briefs submitted by the Textile Manufacturers Association, we have still not seen any government action involving the textile industry. Again this week, I asked a question of the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) on a similar industry, the footwear industry. He answered that the only recommendation he had made was first to ask the Minister of National Revenue to make inquiries under the Anti-Dumping Act. Inquiries made under the Anti-Dumping Act will not now solve the problem of the textile and footwear industries.
His second suggestion was he hoped the footwear industry would fall under the jurisdiction of the textile industry. Now, the February 1976 issue of the Canadian Textile

June 16, 1976
Textile Industry
paper said the Textile Board was not as efficient as we believed it would be when it was established. According to the textile industry, it seems to be bogged down in bureaucracy. We have serious ground to believe that, to raise questions and to put some to both levels of government. The Canadian Textile industry is not the only one to blame for a reduced production, because the provincial government and the federal government especially cannot escape their responsibilities. They have an important part to play in promoting development and growth in the textile industry through better control of imports.
This is becoming increasingly important, especially in view of the fact that while the textile trade deficit was $347 million in 1964, it had reached $918 million in 1973. This means that during the 10-year period, the deficit increased 165 percent. The question arises whether some other industries favoured imports to that extent, and which. However, the Canadian textile industry maintained its activities at the best possible level of efficiency. Capital investments by the industry during that 10-year period totalled $1.5 billion. However, it is unthinkable that any industrialized country would accept to import over 50 percent of its requirements, but unfortunately this is what is happening. It is also unthinkable that any industrialized nation should accept to import over 50 per cent of a basic product as essential as textiles. We have experienced a substantial growth in Canadian consumption in terms of pounds per capita.
The Canadian textile industry offers wages and conditions comparable with the best in the world for that industry. In Canada, a worker gets two weeks' pay after one year of service, compared to one week in the United States. On top of that, the Canadian worker gets 10 paid statutory and other holidays each year, while six only are provided in the United States. I say all this to prove that the textile industry is an old industry in Canada, a basic industry, a specialized industry, and that manufacturers are competent, that they have properly administered their industry. Nevertheless imports are their most dangerous enemy.
Here I am going to be told that we cannot avoid imports, that because of the standard of living in other countries, products which cost less in western countries must be allowed to come in and that we cannot prevent the Canadian people from buying less expensive products when they can be imported. We have here, Mr. Speaker, problem of political economy. We have here a problem of dollars and cents. The result is that, if we are to keep our industry in Canada so as to be our own masters in our own house, as we said on many occasions and particularly as the Liberal government opposite did at the last election, by investing at home and having our industries here, we must have a protectionist policy, and we must have protectionist without penalizing the Canadian people. This means that we must protect both our industries and the consumer. But we cannot protect the consumer because the salaries we have to pay make it impossible for us to produce as cheaply as eastern countries which are able to export textile into Canada because even the raw material in cheaper overthere than here because of the differences in living standards and labour cost. Therefore since we cannot compete with those countries we must protect our own industry and adopt protectionnist trade policies and we must also have a protection policy for the consumer and his purchasing

power, otherwise there is no way out. We shall always be submerged, flooded with those foreign products which we could very well manufacture ourselves. Instead of producing textile, footwear, furniture and other essential products, we shall see our skilled workers, our experts and manufacturers unemployed or bankrupt. As for those people who will be unemployed, we shall have to give them welfare and unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot solve the problem solely by regulating imports. We must have commercial and economic policies which give individuals and consumers the required purchasing power to buy domestic products according to the standard of living and salary conditions that exist in Canada. Mr. Speaker, this economic system would allow us to balance purchasing power, prices and our production capacity. We shall never be able to compete against other countries. This minister, like his predecessor, who is now president of the Anti-Inflation Board, did not solve anything by creating a Textile Board.
Absolutely nothing has been solved and now the same thing is offered as a solution to the problems of the Canadian footwear industry. This is what shoe manufacturers have asked, but for my part, I have absolutely no confidence in a board which was unable to solve from an economic view point the textile situation in Canada and which will be now asked to solve the problems of the footwear industry in Quebec and the rest of our country. This board, which was unable to solve the problems of the textile industry, will not be able to solve those of the footwear industry.
Canadian shoe manufacturers have in good faith asked the government in their brief submitted in February, that the Textile Board control or supervise the footwear industry. Those manufacturers may not then have realized that the Textile Board, like all other boards unfortunately is a sham established to convince the peopel that the problem will finally be examined, that solutions will be found and that the problem will be dealth with. And that does not happen.
They spend time, they spend money, they exchange correspondence, the minister tells the House he will urge the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) to look into the Anti-dumping Act with regard to cheap imports. But for months and years we have been hearing in this House Ministers of Industry, Trade and Commerce repeating the same tune. And each week we see industries that have to go out of business.
As the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Graff-tey) said a moment ago, in my riding and his in particular, an industry with hundreds and hundreds of employees has recently been forced to wrap up its operation; I am talking about Brock Mills. It was a prosperous, well managed industry which had proven its merit, which produced good quality and which was exporting throughout the world. Well, now, that industry, because of the department's inertia in the field of textile as in other fields-they always hide behind excuses such as our international trade-has been forced out of business. The government takes refuge, it always hides behind the problem of our imports.
June 16, 1976

Mr. Speaker, as long as the government will rely on imports from other countries to provide Canada with the necessary products and to satisfy the Canadian consumer, either our imports will cost millions and billions of dollars or our unemployment and social welfare measures will cost millions and billions of dollars. We cannot indefinitely come up with the excuse of external trade to solve the problem of the textile, footwear, clothing, and furniture industries and those of the other basic industries in Canada. We must have an economic policy which could help balance the national purchasing power of Canadians with the total of prices.
We must also have a protectionist policy for the Canadian consumers, producers, employees and employers, otherwise we won't find any solution. Tomorrow, Japan will not be our main competitor in textile, it will be another country. The day after tomorrow, again it will be another country which does not have the same standard of living, the same working conditions, the same salaries, which does not live like us, Canadians; however, we are obliged to have idle labour or people who live on welfare benefits even if they are experts, even if until now they have made a living in some basic industry in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the government could say; give us the solutions. We offered some time and time again to finance ministers and to industry and trade ministers, but they do not take them into account. Why should we waste our time giving solutions to this government which does not want to know anything, which does not want to hear anything and which relies only on its bureaucracy.
We can only criticize the government. Why? Because it does not want to hear about solutions. They seem to think that the solution is only within the Liberal party. Only the Liberals have received the light from the Holy Spirit and only they can rule the country. In spite of all the solutions we propose in the House, nobody listens to us. The solutions put forward by members of Parliament are not taken into account any more than those put forward by Canadian manufacturers in the footwear, textile, clothing or other basic industries. They are laughed at. For example, the same problem occurred recently in the agricultural field.
Bureaucrats run our administration and, unfortunately, our ministers in the House only repeat aloud what the bureaucrats think. I am sorry, I hate to say this to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) whom I consider as a nice guy, as someone who gives answers in the House, but, on the other hand, I think that the bureaucrats hiding behind the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce do not advise him as they should. I also regret, Mr. Speaker, that as soon as a minister tries to "shake his officials, his bureaucrats and his technocrats and begins to assert himself, he is transferred to another department.
As soon as a minister begins to take control of his department, to know his way around and to assert himself in order to find worthwhile solutions, unfortunately he is transferred to another department, and we are back to square one. When I see a cabinet shuffle, I am sad because I feel the minister being transferred was just about to find the proper answers. Would it be because he has become too troublesome, too much of a nuisance for his officials that
Textile Industry
he has to be transferred? I am getting very suspicious, Mr. Speaker.
We only have to read the numerous briefs submitted to us to find, for instance, that the Canadian footwear industry lost 46 per cent of its domestic market. During the first six months of this year, Canadian manufacturers shipped 23,158,000 pairs of shoes, or 46 per cent of all shipments on the Canadian market, while imports accounted for 27,628,000 pairs, or 54 per cent of the market.
Mr. Speaker, those figures were given to us by the industry, by those who made that footwear. The brief was presented to the Canadian Committee on Tariff and Trade on October 10, 1975. At the end of the brief, on finds the recommendations or conclusions put forward to the various departments and, in this case, to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Still, those solutions are not to be found in the act. They are no longer acknowledged, nowhere to be found. That means that they are not taken into account, that the arguing and "fooling around" continues in the system that had been set up.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I have to speak in this fashion. We are aware of the difficulties our domestic industries are experiencing, we know that every year people come to us out of concern when they realize the industry is decreasing its output by 25, 30 or even 40 per cent. Those people wonder, at 40 or 45 years of age, where, after having worked in the textile industry for 20 or 25 years, they can find a new job when that industry has to fold up.
Those are the problems put to us, the representations made to us by our constituents and we must take them into account. That is why I say that, if we had praise and congratulations to offer the minister, we would be happy to do so. On the other hand, as we have to bear the pressures of the public, of the people who earn their living in the footwear industry, on the employees and employers whose livelihood depends on that industry, we are forced to bring those matters to the attention of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is responsible for the situation. However, I do hope we will not have to wait ten years till this is achieved, and that the minister will take whatever means are necessary to remedy the situation in an industry that is extremely important to Canada and especially to eastern Canada.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I can undertand to some degree the confusion on the part of hon. members opposite as to who was the mover of the motion before the House, since I think the language is more that of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) than that of the hon. member under whose name the motion appears. I know there are many humorous stories about "politicians viewing with alarm," but I never thought I would see this language included in a motion moved in this House. In case hon. members have not noted the excessive language in the motion, may I read it to them? It says:
That this House views with alarm the accelerating collapse of the Canadian textile industry, rejects the fatalistic inertia of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and demands serious action to counter the ruinous pressure from excessive high import levels.
It would be hard to include in that kind of motion many more spectacular words.

June 16, 1976
Textile Industry


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I wish I had said it.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am glad this motion was moved, because it gives me the opportunity to say some things about the textile industry.
First, of course, the textile industry is a problem sector of the Canadian industrial economy. After listening to hon. members opposite-indeed, I suppose to many people on this side-one might get the impression that this is the only country in the world in which the textile industry is in difficulty; whereas I know, from my travels, that the industry is in great difficulty in all industrialized countries, and in some less developed countries as well. What we have heard today has been, for the most part, largely a repetition of the sorts of things which have been said about the industry for many years. I think it is fair to say that, by and large, they are generalizations.
With the greatest of respect for the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, whose speech I enjoyed immensely, as I always do, he used "textiles" as an all-embracing, all-encompassing word, as if only a single commodity were involved; whereas the textile industry is made up of many different sectors.


Mr. Lawrence:: The whole thing is sick.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member suggests that the whole industry is sick. I do not know where his shirt was made; probably it was made in Taiwan.


An hon. Member:: The industry is your responsibility.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not mind if hon. members want a little sparring match, but I wanted to be serious and give hon. members some information. I hope hon. members will do me the courtesy of allowing me to make my remarks.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: We are waiting.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: As I was saying, the textile industry is complex and involves many different sectors, some of which are frequently at odds with each other. I am thinking, for example, of the basic material aspect of the business as opposed to the finished goods aspect. I hope in the time that I have to demonstrate where quite frequently these can be at odds and can make it even more difficult to devise a comprehensive and all-embracing policy.
Let me first put to rest something which the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi said or suggested, that is that in some way or another there is a view in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce that this industry, and I think I use the word he used, is expendable. The simple truth is that that is not so. He asked me to level with him and the House.
I can say that I do not recall a single instance in which anybody has made that point. I might say that is one of the documents at which I was looking, there is a clear-cut comment by the department that a viable textile industry is an important sector for Canada and that it is a large employer. It confirms in fact something which the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi said, namely, that they are an employer of a particular type of worker for whom it is

not always easy to obtain alternative employment. For that reason it is even more important for it to be kept in as good a shape as possible.
Statistics that have been thrown around in this debate can be read in many different ways. However, I hope that some I quote will give a rough idea that things are not as bad over the whole industry as has been said. Nor are we as much the victims of imports as has been suggested.
For example, in the total textile market, that is, primary and made up goods, and I make that distinction because it is important, in dollar terms, domestic producer shipments amounted to 77.6 per cent of the total market for 1975. In dollar terms, of total textile imports, and this is an important point, 72 per cent came from industrialized countries and only about 20 per cent from low cost countries. That is something that very frequently gets overlooked.
We tend to assume that the problems of the textile industry are because of large imports from some of the so-called low cost countries. In fact the biggest country from which we import and the largest quantities is the United States, followed by some of the countries in Europe. I make that point because it indicates that the idea of tariffs, or even of quotas in the conventional sense'of the word, is not really going to be all that much help in terms of the United States market. For example, in recent weeks a good deal has been said about certain kinds of polyester yarn coming in from the United States. It has been suggested that this has obviously been harmful to the Canadian industry and, in fact, that there might be dumping involved. The truth is that there is no evidence of this. In fact it is primarily because the polyester market in the United States is soft. Therefore prices have come down in that country.
This brings up a continuing problem in this industry. That is the fact that styles, fashions, and public demands change. In this particular case there has been a dramatic decline in the popularity of the double knit market in terms of fashions. There are other members of the House who might be better able than I to comment on this. This has had a very traumatic effect in terms of that aspect of the industry.
There are three factors that exercise the greatest impact on the structure of the textile industry. I should like to address myself to one of these because it relates to something which the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi said, namely, the size of the domestic market. Part of the difficulty we have in this industry, as in many others, is the relatively small domestic base on which we have to work by comparison with, for example, the United States or some of the larger areas such as the European Economic Community, or Japan. In other words, we do not have that very big domestic market on which to draw. This gives us problems in the textile industry in terms of scale and also in terms of the range of the demand of the public.
In Canada we cannot produce the whole range of textile products, apparel, and related items because of our comparatively small domestic base. This is one problem that is related to the question I mentioned a moment ago, that is, that consumers desire variety which tends to fragment the production line and makes it much more costly.
June 16, 1976

Somebody in the textile industry said to me the other day in one of my meetings that if you stood at the corner of St. Catherine and Peel in Montreal for the whole day, you probably would not find two ladies going by with exactly the same kind of dress or same pattern of dress. That gives some indication of how broad the range is that has to be produced. I repeat, since it is a relatively small base on which they have to work, it adds to their costs.
I already mentioned the proximity of the United States. Incidentally, in comparing the Canadian textile industry with its counterpart in the United States, and I have said this before, there is some validity in the examination. It can also be misleading since the economies of scale which I mentioned allow the United States to get better production runs and better costs.
In this connection it is interesting to note some of the references that were made only recently by one of the largest unions involved in the textile industry. I would like to quote from it because I think it is a carefully thought out study. The union is the Centrale des Syndicats Demo-cratiques, the CSD. It recently presented a highly professional analysis which I recommend to hon. members who have a special interest in this subject. I quote from the study:
Imports are the scapegoat of this industry. We do not mean to say that their importance is negligible-we have already noted the increasing part of the Canadian market which they are securing-but rather that, even if the domestic market were completely monopolized by Canadian producers, the rate of expansion in textile industry would still not be comparable to that of the key industries. As we said earlier, the decline in this sector is partly due to its very nature (i.e., the weak revenue elasticity of the demand for its products).
In the same report there is a reference to comparisons with other countries and the base in terms of how we protect our industry versus other countries. Here they quote the industry spokesmen:
Textile imports, they maintain, are respectively $10, $22 and $9 per capita in the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Community, whereas they are $30 in Canada in 1969-70.
This may have changed somewhat since that time, but probably not significantly.
According to these figures, Canadian producers seem to have relatively little protection against foreign competitors.
That is the impression given by the statistic.
In fact, the situation is quite different. Per capita imports in no way indicate the degree of protection; these figures are based essentially on two factors: the size of the country and the relative cost of production of textile fabrics in each country. The size of the country determines its reliance on the outside world;
That is what I was commenting on a moment ago.
-the larger the country, the lower the figure for per capita imports ... If these comparisons are limited to countries similar in size to Canada, Canadian textile producers seem well protected, per capita textile imports being respectively $78, $63 and $69 in Holland, Belgium and Sweden,-
These are countries of smaller populations, relatively speaking, than ours, but in the same general range. Therefore the suggestion that we are less protective is not borne out by the facts or statistics.
Also there is some real question as to whether short of total abolition of imports, you can carry out the protective mechanisms in terms of textiles very much beyond what we are doing at the present time without increasing costs,
Textile Industry
as the hon. member said would happen if we let the textile industry die. The same would probably apply if we put on very heavy tariff protections beyond what we have now. When all is said and done, we are going to need and will continue to need considerable fabrics from offshore.
I mention here what I referred to in my earlier remarks, namely, the difficulty between the finished goods manufacturer and the primary goods manufacturer. Obviously in most instances the finished goods manufacturer wishes to get his materials from as wide a range of resources as possible. He likes to have in large part an assured domestic supply, and at the same time to be able to draw on offshore markets.
One of the reasons for continuing studies, and I agree with the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi that they can go on interminably, but unfortunately are necessary, is that we have to get the apparel people and the primary production people together to try to figure out if we are going to go to a global quota system, as has been recommended, and how this would work in a satisfactory way for both sectors and for that whole range of products.
As I mentioned earlier, the industry is not in as bad a shape as some of the worst "doom and gloom" commentators suggest. The fact is that a recovery is now under way in several sectors. Other sectors are, as I mentioned, in real difficulty; nobody quarrels with that statement, and we are considering what additional steps may be necessary, particularly with regard to the polyesters and related products.
Incidentally, I should like to get together with the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi because the statistics I have on employment in the industry differ from those he quoted. In any event, proportionately there was exactly the same percentage of lay-offs in the United States in the year 1973-74 as in Canada. In other words, there was a general recession brought about primarily by the oil prices of 1973; so many of these products have a petroleum base that large inventories were built up world-wide as a hedge against anticipated problems. These did not materialize to the extent expected and there was subsequently, therefore, a sharp decline in production and sales. To a large extent, that situation has now ironed itself out and here in Canada a recovery is in progress in most sectors. Indeed, some are working at effective capacity, so the picture is not one entirely without promise. I have already mentioned the double-knits; I want to see what we can do about the materials used in these.
There is increased capacity in certain low-cost countries which produce garments, and this has resulted in increased pressure from imports, for example in the area of men's suits, shirts, and outerwear. In all those categories, action has been taken by the Textile and Clothing Board. Virtually all the low-cost countries from which we import are subject to some form of quota. The only case in which we have not gone as far as the board has suggested relates to certain types of outerwear, and we have placed these under surveillance to determine from which country these garments are coming so that we may consider in realistic terms what quota arrangements might be necessary. Only last week, for example, we put a global quota on work

June 16, 1976
Textile Industry
gloves. A whole range of other finished goods and materials is already subject to quota. Thus I do not think it is fair to say that no action has been taken or that public servants have not moved as quickly as possible when crises develop.
I do not, however, deny the legitimacy of the claim that the process is on the slow side. I have looked into this and asked that once a report comes in from the Clothing and Textile Board there should be no delay in taking appropriate action. In this connection I am faced with something of a dilemma. We could table the report quite quickly after it is received from the board, but the policy has been to hold off publication of the report until a decision has been made on the action to be taken.
I notice the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) is laughing. My point is that if we table the report without announcing simultaneously a decision as to the action to be taken, a whole new series of representations might be generated, and this might delay the process still further. For the present we think it advisable to receive the report, decide on a course of action, and then make an announcement accordingly. If hon. members believe a variation in that procedure would spend up the process I would be glad to hear their views.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi made some comments about studies. While this is not my first line of attack on any problem, I might tell him that we do have a study under way at the present time at the request of the parties concerned. Incidentally, I have appointed a union representative to the committee for the first time. The group to which I refer has instructions to report by the end of this month and its terms of reference, together with the preamble, might be worth reading.
In the light of representations that have been received to the effect that:
(a)	the Canadian market for textiles and clothing continues to be severely disrupted by imports,
(b)	there is a need for improvement in the administration of the import control elements of the textile policy, and,
(c)	the currently employed "selective" approach to special measures of protection against "low-cost" imports is ineffective,
it has been decided to form an ad hoc committee composed of three senior executives from the Canadian primary textile industry, three from the Canadian apparel industry, one representative from each of the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, the Assistant Deputy Minister, Industry Development and the Assistant Deputy Minister, International Trade Relations of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The Committee will be chaired by the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
The mandate of this committee shall be to:
(1)	review current conditions and prospects in the textile and clothing industries and in their market situation,
(2)	review the administration of the policy in relation to import competition,
(3)	examine the appropriateness, given existing legislation and instruments, of implementing the policy in terms of Articles 3 and 4 of the Arrangement Regarding International Trade in Textiles and Article XIX of the G.A.T.T.,
(4)	report its findings and recommendations to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce not later than June 30,1976.
This committee, I am informed, is working very effectively and is considered likely to come up with firm recommendations for immediate implementation. I have no hesitation in saying that I am prepared to move quickly once

some consensus is reached as to what the appropriate action ought to be.
There are many other issues I could discuss if there were sufficient time. One of the things I should like to mention is the whole question of our attitude toward so-called emerging countries. I agree that we must do, as indeed we are doing, a commendable job as Canadians in relating to those countries. I have said to them as recently as March of this year, in the five countries of southeast Asia, that they ought not to think in terms of their industrial development, basing it on such as things as textiles, or one of the problem areas we have, footwear. It will not only make it more difficult for us to be of assistance to them in terms of what they can export to Canada; they will also be competing among themselves in a way which inevitably will be very harmful to their underdeveloped economy.
Having said that, the reality is that for the less developed countries one of the easiest and most labour intensive kinds of activity into which they can move once they start developing economically tends to be textiles. Therefore we have to negotiate with them voluntary quotas in some cases; or, in the last analysis, if they do not work, we must sit down with them and tell them that this is the maximum amount that we are prepared to bring in from a particular country.
Nevertheless we also have to understand and recognize, as one of the committees of the House stated unanimously in a report on international affairs, that we have to provide some kind of access to these countries if we are going to be credible in terms of other things that we are seeking to do internationally. Therefore it is a thin line between protectionism, if you like, in terms of looking after domestic industry, which clearly must be the number one responsibility, and at the same time not talk out of both sides of our mouths at the same time, as it were, when we talk to these undeveloped countries.
I think that up to now we have done a reasonably good job to keep the situation in some kind of balance, particularly, I repeat, since the biggest single source of imports into Canada is still the United States by a very wide margin. There the relationship as to how we work out bilateral agreements, or whatever might be possible under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, is much more difficult and complex than is the case with the less developed world.
While acknowledging that there are major problems in this industry, I have to reject, of course, the idea contained in the motion that virtually nothing is being done and that in some way or other we are allowing a flood of low cost imports to destroy this particular industry. I most emphatically say that whatever may be the case in some sectors of private industry, where I have heard the view expressed, as the hon. member also said, that the textile industry is expendable, I have a complete appreciation of the view expressed by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi that this is an important, indeed essential industry.
It is made all the more so for another reason he mentioned which, by the way, I could broaden beyond his reference to textiles. One of the things that is positively frightening when you contemplate economic development
June 16, 1976

in Canada is the incredible number of one industry towns, not merely textile towns but towns with industries like pulp and paper and mining. The vulnerability of so many of these communities is really a nightmare to contemplate if we do have some kind of across the board slump in some of these rather basic industries, of which of course textiles is one. For that reason, if for no other, it certainly deserves the support not only of the government but of the country.
From what I have said-and I will be glad to provide a detailed list of protectionist (if that is not too strong a word) actions that have been taken-I think it is clear that where there have been identified problem areas some action has been taken, perhaps not as much as the industry might like in some instances, but nevertheless some action has been taken. In terms of this new study, if the global quota turns out to be a more practical approach, then we will look at it seriously. But remember that the basis of the policy, which was endorsed by every member of this House, was against that kind of concept and was based on a high or relatively high tariff, certainly high by today's standard, of about 25 per cent, and selective action on particular commodities or sectors which were giving trouble.
To go to the global quota would be to move completely away from that concept, which I repeat was universally approved of at the time it was introduced about four or five years ago. But if it has to be done, then there is certainly nothing in terms of the laws of the Medes and the Persians about what we have now. We are quite prepared to look at an alternative approach.
I take it that my time is just about up, Mr. Speaker, and I simply want to say that I believe we are taking as well as moving toward some quite decisive actions in the textiles field, and that as the general recovery goes on I hope this will also be reflected in this particular sector, namely, the textile industry.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks made by the hon. minister with great interest and I should just like to make one comment. He has on a number of occasions been described as a master of circumlocution, but when it came to his description of how he handles the reports of the textile and clothing board, I really thought he outdid himself.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Oh, come on. Why don't you give me the answer to the question I asked?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: If you listen you will get a few answers.
I rise to take part in this debate for a number of reasons. I first became interested in the problems facing the Canadian textile industry and its synthetic fibres component because it is a major employer in my constituency and the area which surrounds it. But this is not merely an issue of local concern. A number of communities throughout the country are directly affected, and the issue has implications for the secondary manufacturing sector as a whole and for our international trade policy.
The plain fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian textile industry and the associated Canadian fibres industry are in serious trouble. They are losing control of the Canadian market and that has meant and will mean lay-offs, cut-
Textile Industry
backs in capital and research and development investment, a huge trade deficit, and a shift of new investment to the better protected market in the United States.
The causes are complex-competition from countries whose wage levels permit them to undersell domestic manufacturers in the Canadian market, lack of global quotas, and the situation which currently exists in the United States and which has a spillover effect on Canada, to which the minister referred. Something clearly needs to be done.
That is all very well, the doctrinaire free trader may say, but this industry already has tariff protection, anti-dumping laws do exist, some quotas on imports are in place. If these industries are in trouble even with this protection, it is conclusive proof to the doctrinaire free trader that the industry is not competitive in the market place and should be phased out so that the resources allocated to it may be transferred to more productive sectors of the economy. Moreover, he would agree that by opening up our market to imports from Third World countries we not only ensure cheaper prices for the consumer but we assist in the development of those nations' manufacturing sector.
I have heard these arguments repeatedly, and at first hearing they sound very persuasive. Why worry about the demise of the textile industry? To hear this argument one would think its passing would be a national blessing that would, in one fell swoop, bring us a step closer to industrial rationalization, cheaper consumer goods and a fairer distribution of wealth with the developing nations. But it is not quite that simple. We are talking here today about an industry which directly employs 200,000 people, which contributes $5 billion to the Gross National Product, and provides the main economic base for many communities in this country.
Let us be clear about it; we are not talking about the phasing out of an industry as part of some national industrial strategy which will provide alternate employment for its workers and new industries for the communities affected. No, indeed, we are talking about an industry which is in danger of being phased out by default. Indeed we are talking about a situation which has developed in large part because the government has failed through procrastination and inertia to take the steps necessary to fulfil the expressed intent of the Canadian textile policy as it was set out in 1970.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We have a policy on paper which pledges to create conditions to provide a framework for planning, investment, and development in the industry, and to reverse the decline which it experienced during the 1960's. Yet this policy has been applied with such a lack of conviction, with such procrastination, and in so irresolute a fashion it has disrupted planning, discouraged investment, and cut back on development in the industry. The government vowed to help save the industry, and then has acted as if that expression of its good intentions was sufficient to carry out this difficult and complex task. That simply is not good enough.

June 16, 1976
Textile Industry
A chronic weakness of the government has been that its departments often work at cross purposes to one another. Here we have something even more appalling; a ministry whose implementation of a policy works at cross purposes to the announced intent of that policy.
It is time the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce decided whether or not it wants a strong textile industry in this country, regardless of what the minister had to say this afternoon in his obsequiously expressed concern for the industry. It has to make up its mind whether or not we want a strong textile industry in this country and, if it does, whether it is prepared to take the steps necessary to give that industry a reasonable chance to survive and grow. If it concludes that this industry should be phased out, then let it say so directly and accept the consequences of that decision. If that is what the government intends, let it plan now to cushion the blow to the employees and the communities that will be affected. Let it assess the adverse impact of that step on the balance of trade; let it calculate the effect of that balance of trade deficit on interest rates. Let it investigate the spinoff effects on such related areas as the petro-chemical and synthetic industries. In short, let it cease its present inconsistency between its theory and its practice.
Consistency is the least we should expect, but it is not enough that the government make a decision on this matter. It must make the right decision. In my considered opinion we do need a strong textile industry in Canada. We need it as part of a strong secondary manufacturing sector, both to provide employment and to enhance the strength of the national economy.
Nobody but the most shortsighted nationalist or the most doctrinaire protectionist wants to gouge the consumer to shelter artificial and inefficient industries in this country. But the Canadian textile industry and the synthetic fibre industries associated with it do not fit that stereotype. They are efficient and they are productive. Their annual level of price increase during the past decade is 2 per cent less than that of the manufacturing sector as a whole. Considerable capital investment has been undertaken; $1.7 billion in the last decade, to modernize plant and machinery, and productivity in that decade has gone up 5.1 per cent a year compared to 4.2 per cent for all manufacturing.
The Canadian textile industry is in trouble today not because it is inefficient and unproductive, but because it pays substantially higher wages to its employees than most of its international competitors, and because it is not possible for it to negotiate global quotas. Far from being heavily sheltered or heavily subsidized, the Canadian textile market is relatively wide open. We have only a minuscule part of our market covered by import quotas, 6 per cent as compared to 7 per cent in the United States, and those quotas which amount to only 6 per cent are often shortterm as opposed to the three to five-year import quotas many other countries impose. Moreover, they have to be negotiated item by item for each sector of the industry, a time consuming, complex, and frustrating procedure which places the Canadian textile industry at a great disadvantage compared to other industrialized countries which do utilize the global quota system. The result is that when

some country wants to engage in distress selling, the natural dumping ground is Canada.
Canada is certainly doing its share to provide export opportunities for Third World countries. We hold a smaller percentage of our domestic market than any other country, and that would be the case by a margin of some 15 per cent even if the recommendation of the Senate committee, that 65 per cent of the Canadian market be held for Canadian manufacturers, were accepted without amendment.
I have great sympathy for the cause of economic development in the Third World, and I agree with many of the proposals they put forward at the recent UNCTAD conference in Nairobi, Kenya, to ensure fairer prices for the commodities Third World countries produce. But let us not delude ourselves into thinking that the Canadian market alone is big enough to provide an outlet for all the developing world's textile industries and all of their produce.
If we really want to help these countries, let us work to get the European Economic Community and the United States to open up their textile markets somewhat wider as part of an international agreement. That would be one way in which we could help developing countries. We cannot, as the former minister of industry, trade and commerce said when he brought in the Canadian textile policy in 1970, "assume alone the responsibility for an unliberalized textile world." By attempting to do so we may progressively destroy our own industry while providing only marginal benefits to the developing countries. That is not enlightened compassion, it is senseless sacrifice of a key sector of the national economy of little use to the nations on whose behalf the sacrifice is made.
If we were to abandon every sector of the economy which cannot compete with international competition because of labour costs then we would indeed be embarking on a journey down a slippery slope. Except in a few resource based industries, and those in which transportation costs provide natural protection, we have very few industries in this country which are immune to the plight in which the textile and fibre industries now find themselves.
It used to be that we could overcome labour cost differentials by having better access to technology than the low wage countries, but that advantage is fast disappearing. Let me give you some figures in this regard. In salaries and research facilities, a basic two-person research team composed of a scientist and a technician costs between $65,000 and $90,000 a year. For research and development to be warranted there must be a stable domestic market that will offer the kind of dollar return in business that warrants this expense. But because the textile industry has been losing control of the domestic market, it has cut back on research and development. The situation in my own area illustrates this trend.
Prior to 1970 in Kingston and the Islands and in Fron-tenac-Lennox and Addington there were three Canadian research organizations devoted to the synthetic fibres manufacturing business. Since then Celanese has closed down its Canadian research facilities. DuPont has closed two labs related exclusively to fibres research and has cut
June 16, 1976

its personnel in research and development fibres work by 70 per cent, leaving only some research and development work at its central research facilities in Kingston. All these cutbacks and shutdowns resulted directly from market conditions. In other words, our major competitive advantage, that is, better technology, is being eroded because we are losing control of our market. Surely this is a vicious circle which is of serious national concern.
But the danger goes deeper than that. Technology can now be transferred around the world more and more rapidly. It can be moved at a fairly early stage of its life cycle to lower wage-cost countries. This has special significance to Canada. Because our domestic market is smaller-and the minister referred to this-than that of the United States or the European Economic Community, manufacturing is frequently only warranted several years later than in larger market units. If this market size delay closely corresponds to the time delay in applied technology transferred to lower labour cost situations, then Canada will be in a uniquely disadvantageous position in the future.
We have been discussing the plight of the Canadian textile industry. This is a matter of legitimate and great concern. But the greater concern must be as to whether the same syndrome of drift and indecision on the part of the government will make what is happening to the textile industry a preview of what will happen to the whole of secondary manufacturing enterprise in Canada. That sector is usually one of the more stable elements in our economy. If it goes, we are left with only the resource based industries and the tertiary service sector. More and more we would revert to the colonial-type economy, hewers of wood and drawers of water, which we rejected 100 years ago. More and more we would be dependent on our non-renewable resources to make our way in the world. As a nationalist I cannot consent to that kind of future. The first leader of this country made it his life's work to prevent such a future, and that is one tradition we on this side intend to maintain.
We are paying a price now for moving by default in the direction I have just outlined. Our textile trade deficit last year was $1.1 billion. To balance that outflow of cash Canada is maintaining high interest rates. And with what result? Escalating costs for running the federal and provincial governments and for building roads, schools and hospitals across the country; high interest rates on mortgage loans, and high rents for apartments; unemployment in areas where it is difficult to find alternative employment. The result is that depressed communities and regions in this country will wither and stagnate even more.
Taking all these consequences into consideration we are paying a big price for slightly cheaper clothing and it is symptomatic of a deeper malaise. Through drift, inconsistency, procrastination, and inertia the government is slowly but surely eroding Canada's economic base. There is no challenge to national purpose, and fundamental issues are being treated with bandaids. There can only be one result, Mr. Speaker, national mediocrity. Let us turn away from that road. Let us begin by setting the textile industry in order and let that be the first step toward ensuring the continued growth and development of a strong, efficient, and productive secondary manufacturing sector of which Canadians can be proud.
Textile Industry


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate and to deal with two specific points. First of all, I should like to point out the government's positive record of assistance to the textile industry since May 1970 and secondly, to deal with the present conditions in an important Drummondville textile plant, the Celanese Canada Limited.
With regard to the history of the textile industry in Canada, allow me to briefly recall the following facts: we know that early in 1970, a study of the textile and clothing industry was carried out by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. This study was conducted with the co-operation of other departments concerned after consultation with officials in the industry, the unions and the provincial governments directly involved. The study was undertaken for three main reasons: first, important basic changes in technology, production and demand have created new competitive conditions in those industries in Canada as well as abroad.
Second, the policy designed to settle the problem created by cheap imports had become most difficult to administer, causing undue delays and concerns detrimental to both producers and workers. Third, textile plants, unions and provinces had expressed strong reservations regarding the existing policy in terms of employment and future investments in the industry as well as their impact on regional expansion.
In its review of the situation, the government has taken into consideration the possible contribution of those industries to the whole economy, the need for employment stability, the regional and local implications, the consumer interests, the importance of our export trade and of our international responsibilities. The resulting policy has been set out following the review of the textile and clothing industries. The textile policy has been formally announced by the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, namely the previous representative of my constituency of Drummond, on May 14, 1970. This policy had four main items. First, gradual recovery of the industry towards viable production sectors capable of sustaining ever stronger competition at the international level; second, improvement of legal mechanisms and administrative procedures to deal effectively with the problems of prejudices suffered by Canadian producers because of imports; third, transitional assistance to corporations and workers; fourth, assistance in the areas of technology and marketing.
In the course of the implementation of this policy, the following steps have been taken by the government: The establishment of the Textile and Clothing Board was announced on November 5, 1970 and its three members were appointed on the same date. As everyone knows, the board must make an investigation at the minister's request and it can launch an investigation at the industry's request or on its own. Since its inception, the Textile Board has conducted inquiries on 18 textile and clothing products, for a grand total of 45 inquiries, studies or reviews of these products. Further, it is now looking into two products that were not reviewed previously and reexamining three products that have already been the subject of an inquiry.

Textile Industry
At the present time, eight low cost countries or countries that have nationalized trade are subject to various export restrictions involving 12 products, over and above total restrictions on imports of shirts for men and boys. Other actions have also been taken. A number of programs are being used to help the textile and clothing industries restructure their operations, improve their efficiency and expand their markets. First, from the financial assistance view point, we have the General Adjustment Assistance Program which has been amended to include measures particularly tailored to textile and clothing manufacturers who are now applying their restructuration plan.
Since 1970 44 companies received grants under this program for a total amount of $22 million guaranteed by the government. In addition, 11 companies received grants totalling $45,000 during the same period. Under the Productivity Enhancement Program-PEP-grants covering up to half the cost of feasibility studies were made available to 97 companies for a total amount of $762,000.
Research and development were encouraged: 25 to 30 businesses received assistance every year under the Industrial and Research Development Incentive Act-the IRDIA program. The marketing of products or methods resulting from research work since 1970 brought about expenditures of $2.7 million under PAIT, the Program for Advancement of Industrial Technology.
A second program to promote exports: Canadian companies in the export business received considerable support and produced good results. A third program-manpower training and rehabilitation-and a fourth program-assistance to fashion design-under which millions of dollars were spent by the federal government to help one way or another the textile and clothing industry in Canada. There is also the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. We know that under the Regional Development Incentives Act assented to on July 9, 1969 to promote the creation of productive jobs in designated areas in Canada needing special measures to promote economic development and social progress, textile companies received between 1970 and 1975 grants offers of over $29 million.
Recently, the Senate had a special inquiry, and the minister appeared before the Senate committee. The following points were made: first, that the recent representations made by the industry to the Senate committee as well as to the minister personally contain elements of truth but are not accurate on the whole. It was also determined that when the industry singled out imports from low-cost countries statistics show, as the minister pointed out earlier, that the great majority of imports come from developed countries, particularly the United States. Third, it was shown that imports from low-cost countries are an important factor in the problem as a whole. It was also shown that industry hires a large number of people difficult to retrain. Finally, it was pointed out before that committee that industry showed vision, imagination and that its efforts to rationalize and modernize structures were successful. I am happy with the suggestions of the minister who says that in his opinion the textile industry is essential, that it is an important industrial sector, that he is aware of the legitimate desire of the industry for stability and that he has no thought whatsoever of sacrificing the

textile industry to increase Canadian imports from developing countries.
There was some reference to an ad hoc advisory committee of clothing and textile industries which was recently established. The minister spoke in detail of the mandate of that committee, and I am glad to find out that following my intervention in the House on May 19 last, asking for the representation of employees from the textile sector on this important committee responsible for reviewing the whole textile policy in Canada, this request has been agreed to and the minister confirmed today that spokesmen for textile employees are now members of that important committee so as to express the constructive views of the employees from that important sector of industry who want to protect and keep their jobs.
This leads me to talk about the specific problem now prevailing at Drummondville, in the riding of Drummond which I represent, in the plant of Celanese Canada Limited. The dispute in this plant is no longer a private confrontation between management and labour. More than 1,600 textile workers having been without their regular jobs for several weeks, almost two months now, it is clear that the situation has become dramatic for them, their families and the whole community.
As soon as I was elected member of parliament for Drummond nearly two years ago, I asked local employers to make a special effort to improve employment conditions and wages in a region where wages were among the lowest in Canada. Most businesses in the area reacted well and made an effort, and the situation is now improving. I warmly contratulate all those employers and I thank them for their cooperation.
As concerns the Celanese plant, which is the largest employer in Drummondville, I must say that I am disappointed to see that it does not seem to want to react favourably to my appeal. In view of the constant and increased efforts on the part of the federal government to help the textile industry, as I have just shown, it would be normal that Celanese Canada of Drummondville demonstrate a greater social conscience. This long lockout by Celanese is an insult to the population.
I find it completely unacceptable and scandalous that a multinational company can so deny its responsibilities as good citizen and can betray so arrogantly not only its employees, which make up a high proportion of the local manpower, but also the rest of the population in an area which is desperately trying to increase its low economic growth rate. In view of its importance and of the evolution of Drummondville, this plant should cooperate, offer itself as an example, and consequently, not abuse a right conferred by the Quebec Labour Code. In the present case, this radical position is clearly irrespectful of the rights and qualities of the textile employees who have certainly not been among the best paid workers in the past and who are now nearly defenceless and resourceless.
It is more than time for Celanese to show, as an important citizen of Drummondville, a true social conscience, like it should in a society which wants to be just and needs to renew itself. It is because I am concerned for my constituents' economic and social welfare which is now in danger that I make an urgent appeal to those responsible: 1-for this lockout to stop immediately; 2-for negotiations
June 16, 1976

to take place in good faith and without delay; 3-not Celanese employees to be granted the excellent working conditions that they deserve and that the employer can give them.
I finally succeeded in reaching the general manager of this company last Thursday, June 10, and I asked him to put an end immediately to this lock-out. He told me that he could not then promise me that he would do so in the near future, but that he would talk about it to the other managers and his superiors. Today, June 16, the lockout is still on and nearly 1,600 employees are deprived of their means of subsistence. Incidentally, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all those, and there are many of them, who make peaceful demonstrations in good faith or who help Celanese employees in other ways. I urge all the population to support morally the employees who are victim of the lockout at Celanese, and I hope that landlords, businessmen and creditors will be patient with those people who are now without any means of support. Those humanitarian gestures can only add to the pride and credit of my fellow citizens.
If, today, for the love of strategy, the big employers want to use lockouts systematically in their fight against big unions, for God's sake let them avoid doing so on the back of the vulnerable textile sector, on the backs of 1,600 workers at Drummondville, and above all, let them choose another battlefield than a city like Drummondville where efforts are being made to improve the low rate of economic growth. My stand, in view of the circumstances, is definitely not incompatible with the spirit of the anti-inflation act and its regulations, quite the contrary.
The Celanese Company at Drummondville which employs, as we know, over 500 employees, benefits from the exception provided by the act. The workers' contract was signed before January 1, 1974. In addition, the contract expired some time in April 1975, that is before the antiinflation act became effective on October 14, 1975. Consequently, in view of the act and resulting regulations, and especially regulation No. 44, the Celanese workers are considered exceptions and are not limited to 12 per cent salary increases; so they can negotiate without any ceiling; when an agreement is reached with the employer for an increase of 18 per cent, 25 per cent or more this agreement must be submitted to the Anti-Inflation Board for approval. The board can endorse the agreement as submitted or change it; if it does change it there is an opportunity to appeal since an amendment was made recently to the Anti-Inflation Act.
As we can see, a special consideration criterion applies to labour groups who signed their last contract before January 1, 1974 if that contract expired before October 14, 1975 and a new contract was not signed before October 14, 1975. In other words those contracts were signed before the fast escalation of the cost of living that started in 1974. So protection is given to those employee groups like those of Celanese in Drummondville.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) who restated today the importance of the textile sector of the industry and who declared to be ever more prepared to support that industry. I thank him for heeding my intervention in the House of Commons on May 19, 1976 and
Textile Industry
allowing the spokesmen for textile workers to participate in the important ad hoc committee responsible for reviewing the whole textile policy in Canada and presenting a report before June 30.
I for one intend to continue to fight fiercely for the improvement of the textile and clothing industry situation in Canada and I do not intend to stop making interventions in the House of Commons as I have been doing in the last two years and particularly on November 18, 1974, November 28, 1974 and May 19, 1976. I wish to continue interventions like those I made one month ago before the regional economic expansion committee to get better wages for textile employees through subsidies from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to the textile and clothing industry in Canada. I intend to have more meetings like those I had last year with representatives of all textile industries in Canada, here in Ottawa, and the many other meetings I have had in the two last years with textile employee representatives here in Ottawa or elsewhere in my riding. Lastly, I wish that Celanese Canada Limited revise immediately its radical strategy in Drummondville, as I asked earlier, in the interest of the people I have the honour to represent.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to make some remarks on a subject which is so important and, having heard a few speeches, I am deeply convinced that some hon. members are really interested in this problem. I would like to congratulate in particular all my colleagues who agreed to take this day to discuss this subject, because we recognize the importance of this industry. I extend special words of praise to my colleague the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) who made some very interesting remarks.
At the same time I listened to the minister who himself attempted to prove that it is not a matter of ill will, but it would seem that answers and solutions are not forthcoming today. Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to the absence of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who told me he would have been really pleased to take part in this debate but he is out of the country with a parliamentary committee. He is particularly concerned for the workers of his riding.
Other members have dealt with the hardships faced by the textile workers in their respective regions. Well, I wish as well to refer to those of my own region, and to a large city of my riding in particular, the city of Joliette. As everywhere else, claims have been made there both by the management and the unions, and for several years, even though it has been emphasized that since 1970 the government has made special efforts for the recovery of this area for the benefit of this class of workers. It seems that the effects are not as yet being felt and consequently, in Canada as everywhere else, there has been a drastic cut in two industries of my riding: their staff have been reduced from 210 to 160 and from 75 to 20 respectively.
Mr. Speaker, imports seem to be one of the major issues. I could not miss this opportunity to make a few comments to urge the government to take more efficient action than was taken in recent years.

June 16, 1976
Textile Industry
I know, Mr. Speaker, there are some commercial trade agreements. We all know that but we wonder, and rightly so, whether the government should not attempt to secure Canadian production. In my view, it is important to secure at least this minimum requirement which the people concerned and even the unions have discussed with the responsible minister and the board. They have met the representatives of the political parties and the unions expect a minimum of production in the textile industry and its by-products.
I suggest that it is important to remind the government that it is vital to maintain a minimum of our Canadian production, made by Canadians and for Canadians. It would be dangerous and we know it too well, as the same thing is happening in other areas, to see that the Canadian people are under the obligation to buy foreign products. We have seen the aftermath of such a situation in the oil industry, and we will see it in other areas. Because of the lack of a well-defined policy, we will have to rely on foreign products and God knows what price we will have to pay then.
Therefore, even if it raises some difficulties, I believe it is important for the government to commit itself to support the industry, and the textile industry in particular, to encourage it, to attempt to find proper remedies and to have the courage to impose the necessary controls unless we are prepared to see it disappear on a national scale. In brief, Mr. Speaker, this must be our goal.
We on this side of the House could accuse the government and limit our debate to these accusations but we know that since 1970 the government has shown an interest in this matter. But one thing for sure, Mr. Speaker, even if the government does its best, what is happening? If some hon. members claim that the government did find solutions we still are in a difficult position and the textile industry workers are far from being satisfied: employees, management, members of the unions and union leaders alike. What is clear is that the actions of the government and the investigation committees have unfortunately taken much too long in providing us with the analyses and giving us the appropriate answers.
It is clear that the situation is deteriorating and that things are getting tough not only in the textile industry but in many other areas. So, the question we should ask ourselves is what sort of economic performance can the government offer the country? That is the whole question. Recently, Mr. Speaker, we had the visit of thousands of milk producers. We had hundreds and hundreds of workers from all walks of life over the last few years. Today, we are dealing with one topic: textile. The government has been saying for a decade that it will improve this area and find solutions. It set up commissions yet no one is satisfied. I personally believe that the government has lacked the courage to implement the controls which are necessary to save a Canadian industry. They may boast about and point at the massive investments poured by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion into several industries, I still think that we had better first preserve those which exist already. And when an important class of workers is allowed to be dismissed, are we sure we are in a position to recycle them for other fields? Those are questions that we must ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker?

Therefore, from the discussions we are having today, it is obvious that we do not have the power to solve the problem, but we believe that as representatives of our constituents and considering that those 250,000 workers are deeply concerned as are the owners who invested heavily, it is our duty to press the government into taking more effective measures. We hope that we will be able today to point out specifically those difficulties and entice the government to consider them more carefully and to find solutions, which is their reponsibility. The government has the power to administer this country and to find the required solutions.
In view of the lack of satisfactory measures, are we allowed to think that the government has run out of possibilities to create and find the initiatives that are required? We ask ourselves certain questions, precisely about that absence of reasonable and necessary solutions.
Mr. Speaker, I know that some of my colleagues wish to take the floor after me and I will limit myself to these comments, and refrain from repeating certain statistics already put on record by other speakers. But I dare hope that we can straighten out one point in particular, whenever mention is made of a Canadian trade balance showing a deficit of some $875 million in the field of textile alone. This shows, I believe, a special lack of interest for that industry.
Under the circumstances, and taking in account those problems and the representations made by the representatives and the union workers particularly involved, I would believe that the government will listen more carefully still; and I would like also to point out that recently unions were able to have a discussion with the minister and the Commission. The member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard) has pointed out earlier that it was most interesting to note that the minister has seen the need to invite union representatives in order to discuss such important and alarming issues.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I hope that this day will have well served the interests of this class of workers and I hope that the government will respond more efficiently than he did today. While recognizing the good will of the minister, I believe that the desire and the efforts of the government, if there were any, were clearly inadequate. Should the workers and industry owners be asked that question?
Let me go back to this objective, which I feel is essential, that is to save our Canadian industry and to maintain a domestic production for Canadians; the government in that area will have to do something more significant and more effective than whatever he has done up to now.


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I, with others in the House, am indebted to the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour) for the opportunity to debate this important subject. I am indebted to all who participated in the debate not only for their contributions but also for observing the time limit on speeches. I am particularly indebted to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who preceded me for limiting his remarks. I shall try to finish before six o'clock, to allow one more government

June 16, 1976

spokesman the opportunity to speak. I understand that an hon. member opposite wishes to make a few remarks.
I,	and I suppose most of my colleagues in the House, always enjoy hearing the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) speak; this afternoon was no exception. But I know that others share my view when I say that this afternoon the minister's remarks lacked conviction. I was disappointed by his speech, disappointed because the minister used as an excuse the fact he was getting conflicting views from within the industry. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) likes to use a similar phrase, which is without validity.
I suggest that if the minister is getting conflicting views from within the industry the fault lies solely with our selective import policy. Inevitably, if the government is to impose selective tariffs and controls, it will obtain conflicting views from within the industry. Each manufacturer in the industry, whether he manufacturers yarn, fibre or finished goods, will want to look after himself and his employees. Therefore if the government pursues a policy involving selective controls or tariffs, it should not be surprised when it receives conflicting views from the industry.
I agree that originally the present policy was initiated with the blessing of hon. members in all parts of the House. But the policy has not worked.
I was also disappointed by the way the minister used statistics, supplied presumably by his department; I was disappointed to hear him talk about the textile industry in terms of dollars, when for generations the output of the industry has not been measured in dollars but in pounds of yarn, or the equivalent. Therefore it did the minister no credit when quoting statistics to speak in terms of dollars and cents. Perhaps his departmental officials are at fault; I do not care. That industry's production has always been measured in pounds, and the measurement has not changed. Let us speak properly in this debate and talk in terms of pounds.
There is no question in the minister's mind about the serious condition of the textile industry. He and I may disagree about the degree of seriousness. Be that as it may, we on my side of the House think this is a matter of extreme urgency and attach great importance to any proposals for solving the difficulties of the industry.
Hon. members have spoken of volumes of production and the percentage of the domestic market served by domestic producers. I do not think there was much discrepancy between the figures the minister used and those used by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey). I have always used the same statistics to which the minister referred, statistics which were tabled in the standing committee. They show that we have gone from the position where we supplied 64 per cent of our domestic market in 1964 to a position of supplying but 46 per cent in 1975. That drop in itself is alarming. But it is all the more alarming when we compare figures for this country with those pertaining to our trading partners. I believe that the United States industry supplies 88 per cent of its domestic market, and in Common Market countries, indigenous industries supply about 80 per cent of those markets. The statistics concerning pounds of production are enough to
Textile Industry
alarm anyone. They show how serious the situation has become; it warrants immediate consideration.
I do not quarrel about the establishment of the ad hoc committee but agree with the minister; the mere establishment of a committee will not lead, inevitably, to the solution of the serious difficulty. I appreciate the minister's frankness in saying that while he respects the committee and looks forward to a report he does not think it will solve the problem. Hopefully the committee will make the extent of the problem clearer. No industry in Canada has been subjected to more surveys, questionnaires, investigations, and reports than the poor textile industry. I would hate, as a manufacturer of textiles, to face tomorrow morning yet another inquiry into by business. I think the industry is sick and tired of this procedure. I think the same can be said for that part of the industry based in Quebec. I do not think conditions in the textile industry in Quebec are much different.
I know the difficulties large textile manufacturers face in creating the basis of the economic life of their communities. Most of the members of the association in my part of Ontario, myself included, are manufacturers who employ, generally, fewer than 100 people. Usually our manufacturers are located in small, rural-oriented communities and provide a small but firm but economic base for those communities. I wish to express my concern on behalf of those people.
In terms of employment in the whole industry, I do not think the statistics need too much elaboration. Forty-six per cent of the domestic market employs roughly 200,000 people, according to statistics I have received. That means for each 1 per cent of the market we have we provide roughly 4,350 Canadians with jobs. Seventy-five per cent of the market would result in an increase of roughly 125,000 positions within that industry. At the Senate committee it was clear that the minister felt that Canada could not expect to supply 75 per cent of its domestic requirements. He may be right, but I am not prepared to agree to that point.
When one talks about employment in the textile industry it is often discouraging when one hears the accusation that this is a low paying industry. I have to reject that. It may have been historically true. I do not know. My first job as a 12-year old student was in a textile plant. I think I got 33 cents an hour, which was pretty good pay in those days.
In terms of current industry I notice that we pay substantially higher than, for example, the United States. In terms of productivity, it is extremely serious in terms of economic conditions today when an industry is failing to produce to its capacity, or reasonably approaching its capacity. The lack of reaching capacity is as equally inflationary as increased prices and wages. In other words, if we are losing the potential to contribute to our Gross National Product, that is equally as inflationary as substantial pay increases or price hikes. Therefore in terms of an entire industry, if Canadian textiles are producing at roughly 60 or 70 per cent of existing plant capacity, we are contributing that loss of potential to the inflationary pressures besetting our economy.

June 16, 1976
Textile Industry
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi mentioned the potential loss of this entire industry. The minister says that is simply not true. I do not doubt his word. However, certainly many of those in the industry perceive this to be government policy. That is terribly serious, particularly for a small businessman. If he perceives that government policy is such as to permit the eventual elimination of the industry, whether his perception is right or wrong, there is no possible way that he is going to make capital investment in his company either to create more jobs to maintain a satisfactory level of efficiency or to increase his production. Therefore I say to the minister that while that may not be the policy, and while he was very clear on that, that is the perception among many in the industry. The fact that that perception exists is in itself a very serious matter.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi talked about what would happen if we lost an industry and were at the mercy of exporting countries. I have been through that with regard to baler twine, which was also mentioned. It is a simple fact of life.
Those who have spoken have touched briefly on the relations between the department and the industry. Again, it may be a fact or it may be a perception-to me, it makes absolutely no difference-those in the textile industry perceive their relations with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as confrontation. Whether that perception is correct or incorrect, it matters not. If that is a broadly accepted fact by those in the industry, it is an extremely serious matter. Those in the industry believe they are not being consulted. They believe they are not being consulted before trade negotiations take place. If that is a fact, and frankly I believe that it is, the minister has a very serious problem within his department. I wish him well in the solution of that problem. I do not want him in any way to minimize how strongly small businessmen, at least those I know, feel that they are in a continual confrontation program with the department. That is not the minister's nature and I urge him to direct his mind to that particular problem which exists among people in the textile industry.
We have been talking about tariffs today. I suggest they are not the answer. In my opinion, many of them have been simple window dressing. The eventual answer has to be quotas. They have to be global. It has to be comprehensive. I do not know what other way to approach the matter.
The minister is considering that. I look forward to his remarks following the report of the ad hoc committee at the end of this month. The minister knows the problems. They are set out in the preamble to the terms of reference of the ad hoc committee. The first deals with the import situation. I know that we import from both developing countries and the United States. I know the share the United States has in the market. I know and accept as a fact that the minister has warned the developing countries they cannot continue indefinitely at this level. I acknowledge, as the minister said, that we have international obligations and a fine line to walk.
What impressed me about the testimony in the Senate committee, and I wish he had said it today, is that we should be thinking more in terms of exporting expertise to these developing countries. There are trade commissioners who have retired, and I believe that is one example the

minister gave before the Senate committee. We should have been doing this for years in agriculture. Instead we played the role of Lady Bountiful and handed out a few million here and a few million there, without making any effort to make the developing countries self sufficient. I agree that instead of increasing our import levels from them, it is equally important to send them that expertise, whether it be in agriculture, industry, urban affairs, or fighting pollution. I encourage the minister to develop that particular line of thought and that particular policy.
With respect to our self sufficiency and reliance on other countries, the department is prepared to accept that Canada may not be self sufficient, if I read the evidence correctly in the transcript of the Senate hearings. I do not know why it accepts that. I become terribly discouraged when I see how counterproductive the DREE program in relation to the textile industry have become-and the minister is very familiar with this-in the Maritimes. People from Ontario and Quebec went into the Maritimes when those businesses failed and picked up machinery and inventories at bargain prices. I know how discouraging that must have been. I make this as a personal observation.
I urge the minister to consider developing some form of short-term freeze, and I mean by that three, four or five years, on the level of imports. He set the groundwork by warning the developing countries about this in order to give the industry a gradual opportunity to increase to a reasonable level its share of the domestic market. I think the minister can do that without betraying our international obligations and without an adverse effect on the consumer. I would give the industry an opportunity, which is so important to it, to plan its capital investment for the future.
I realize that may be a rather dramatic action. It may not be as easy as a stroke of the pen saying we are freezing imports at current levels. However, I urge the minister to consider that one short term approach to this problem. It would certainly give the industry some confidence in the sincerity of the government in so far as its problems are concerned.
The second item in the preamble to the terms of reference of the ad hoc committee is better administration of those import control elements that we now have. I suggest the mechanics are there. I believe the Textile Institute has said frankly to the minister, "Yes, you have the mechanics; We are satisfied with what you have; It is just the way you are implementing the system." The minister has acknowledged that the system is too slow.
The other day I got a list of references made this year to the Textile and Clothing Board. The date of the brief regarding acrylic yarn was January 6, the report was made on February 11, and the public announcement on April 14. A brief in connection with sweaters was submitted on January 19. No report has been issued. Nylon and polyester fabrics, March 15, no report; worsted fabrics, April 5, no report; knit fabrics, May 7, no report; polyester yarn and hosiery, updating of reports earlier released-I do not know the date of the brief.
Another aspect of the subject is this: when some form of control is imposed, what measures do we take to enforce it?
June 16, 1976

I suggest to the minister that while we have the necessary mechanism at our disposal we do nothing to enforce it. On the other hand, when the authorities in our neighbour to the south hear of a ship halfway between Taiwan and the U.S. carrying a cargo the discharge of which would breach the control measures established by the United States, that ship is directed not to unload those goods at a U.S. port. The whole world knows that this is U.S. policy, and that is why it is so effective.
The third item in the preamble has to do with the present "selective" approach to special measures of protection against low-cost imports and the suggestion that it is ineffective. I mentioned this earlier. I cannot agree that the prohibition of the entry of fabrics solves anything when one may import the yarn on the one hand and the finished product on the other. My view is that, unhappily, the present approach has not worked. It is obviously not the approach taken by the United States or by the Common Market. Unfortunately, although I agree it received the approval of all concerned, it has not proved to be effective enough.
I wish the committee well in its deliberations. I look forward to its report at the end of the month. In conclusion I think I can do no better than quote the minister, if he will forgive my bad manners. This is what he said in another committee:
There is no view anywhere in the government that the textile industry is dispensable. It is an important industrial segment in Canada and it is our intention to do whatever is possible to give it a degree of viability.
In that regard I completely support the minister's position. But I have not seen him put his money where his mouth is to this date.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened closely to the suggestions made by opposition members, and I have taken some notes. I was somewhat amazed to see the phrasing of the motion introduced by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey). As the minister stated at the beginning of his speech, when the phrasing and the remarks by the hon. member from Brome-Missisquoi are considered, and this is literal, he supported the federal textile and clothing policy.
Overall, I believe he mentioned twice he was satisfied with the current textile and clothing policy. However, some other members referred to the possibility of reviewing the level of imports, and some referred to the need for certain protectionist measures. In my view, the textile situation is not as gloomy as certain would have it or would imply, as the minister indicated. I suggest the goals are quite clear and the minister stated he was about the textile industry, a vital one in Canada. This was an important segment of manufacturing industry, and he was aware of that industry's hope for stable employment. I think that these points are made up of basic points excessively impor-
Textile Industry
tant for the employers and especially the employees of the textile industries. One of these is that we should not sacrifice the textile industry to increase our imports from developing countries. Again, I think this is an excessively important point. Mr. Speaker, everybody makes reference to figures or statistics and I could follow along on this line because everybody here says that everything depends on the basis chosen for the comparisons, whether they are made on a money, pound or shipping basis. By the way, from 1970 to 1975, our clothing exports increased by 44 per cent. During the same period, our textile exports increased by 34 per cent.
So everything depends on the figures and the comparisons which we want to make. There is one point which has not been raised today-and I think it should be-it is that we should promote some kind of enthusiasm within the consumers. We should develop some kind of advertising campaign to incite the consumers to buy made-in-Canada products. I think that this point is extremely important even if we ask that protectionist measures be taken and, here again, all kinds of solutions may be proposed but I think it is necessary to create a certain feeling in Canada so that in the stores the Canadian consumer may buy and demand products made in Canada. I think this is extremely important and if each one of us behaves according to his own conscience, we could see how we could bring our own excessively imprtant solution if we really believe in this industry.
I made my own experience, I do not know much about the textile industry but, considering my new responsibilities, each weekend I try to go either to a shopping centre or to a department store to see how many products made in Canada I can find; I realize that there are many but that, here again, Canadians themselves are not aware of the purchasing potential they represent to promote the textile and clothing industries in Canada.

An increased willingness to buy Canadian would be one element in the solution of that problem.

Mr. Speaker, it is the last contribution to this debate which seemed to me very useful. The minister detailed all the various policies being applied and I think that a report prepared by an ad hoc committee with representatives from the three provinces, the manufacturing industry and department officials will soon be tabled. The minister indicated also that the unions will take part in that committee which will review the whole textile and clothing policy and which is expected to produce a report on that question before June 30.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 58(11) proceedings under the motion have expired.
It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Thursday at 11 a.m., pursuant to special order of Monday, June 7.

Thursday, June 17, 1976