1976-05-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on an important and urgent matter.
Considering that for several years now, as a result of labour's legitimate claims Canadians have suffered the aftereffects of a number of strikes in the public and quasipublic sectors; that mechanisms did not appear adequate to solve trade disputes in these sectors; that representations made to the government have too often resulted in government intervention through legislation to force workers to return to work, and that such a situation generates conflicts to the detriment of the Canadian public and the economy, conflicts that could be avoided, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That a permanent tribunal of arbitration in conflicts of public interest be established to provide the assistance needed to parties involved to avoid strikes that are far too prejudicial to the Canadian economy. The terms of reference of this tribunal would be to meet the parties, promote better understanding between them, suggest solutions and, if need be, make its recommendations public.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There being not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion of pressing and urgent necessity.
In view of the difficulties which French-speaking Air Canada employees meet when they use French in their communications, in view of the obvious discrimination against French Canadians within pilots and air controllers associations, and in view of the fact that Air Canada, a Crown corporation, does not try to get a fair proportion of pilots from Quebec, who constitute only 7 per cent of the company staff, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the Minister of Transport order an inquiry into this matter and do his best to improve this situation in the near future.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion may not be put.


PROPOSED COMMENDATION OF OFFICIAL OPPOSITION FOR THEIR LACK OF CONFIDENCE IN ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That in the light of the fact that the members of the Official Opposition have persistently supported the government's anti-inflation program, which has produced the economic chaos cited in the motion on today's Order Paper, this House commends the members of the Official Opposition for presenting this day their motion of non-confidence in the government and in the program they have previously supported.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems that this is surely a matter that can be covered during the course of the debate.


HARBOURS
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.

May 12, 1976
National Defence
The Port of Churchill is approaching its biggest grain shipping season in the history of its 44 years of operation. The port cannot be operated by remote control from a location in eastern Canada. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That the minister instruct the National Harbours Board chairman not to accept the forced resignation of the present Churchill Port manager, and that the port continue to operate with an on-site port manager.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING CORPORATION
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Part III, Section 23, Subsection (2) of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act provides that prices paid by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation to the fishermen shall be agreed upon by the corporation and the fishermen, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith):
That this House direct the Minister of State (Fisheries) to use his powers to protect the rights of the fisherman in respect of fish prices and further that the minister order a complete disclosure by the FFMC of all costs by species relating to fish processing and marketing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the same provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion concerns the placing of listening devices off the west coast. In view of the contradiction between the statement of Vice Admiral Boyle on May 6 that there were listening devices on the west coast continental shelf and the statement of the Minister of National Defence on the same day that there were not listening devices of any foreign power on that shelf and in view of the statement of Lieutenant-Commander Ridgewell that it was his job to seek out non-United States devices placed on the shelf, I

would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House advise the Minister of National Defence that the United States, while friendly, is still a foreign power and further that this House request the minister to make a statement on motions today clarifying these contradictions and that he explain by what agreement or authority those devices have been placed on Canada's continental shelf and our territorial seas.


Mr. Speaker:: The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the revelation by CBC news that the government is about to issue new oil and natural gas regulations for the far north which will provide the most generous provisions in history to Canada's foreign-owned oil industry and lessen even further public equity and control over our vital energy resources, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth):
That this House instruct the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to refer the proposed regulations to the appropriate standing committee for full parliamentary and public discussion before the cabinet makes any final decision on new northern oil and gas regulations.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43. As a result, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an urgent matter calling for immediate attention.
In view of the fact that the government has failed to check the havoc of inflation and that the government's anti-inflation programs have caused a substantial increase in unemployment-in Canada, as is demonstrated by statistics which show that in April 1976 7.4 per cent of Canadians were jobless, or 769,000 people, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
May 12, 1976

That this House enjoin the government to study immediately the economic solutions put forward by the Social Credit Party of Canada to check inflation and provide all Canadians with a guaranteed income sufficient to ensure a comfortable living.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion may not be put.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY, HIS EXCELLENCY DR. GYULA SZEKER

Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you and other hon. members would wish me to call attention to the presence in our gallery today of a most distinguished visitor, His Excellency Dr. Gyula Szeker, the Deputy Prime Minister of the People's Republic of Hungary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS OF PAPUA, NEW GUINEA, MR. OSCAR TAMUR

Mr. Speaker:: Members will have noticed as well the presence in the gallery of Mr. Oscar Tamur, the Minister of Provincial Affairs of Papua, New Guinea, the first such visitor since the independence of that country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. It is related to the very sorry state being faced by heads of families, young people and students and the government's apparent cavalier and callous attitude to their plight. Given the fact that the Prime Minister last month stated that Canada was interested in promoting growth, which includes the quality of our lives, which creates new wealth for us to share among ourselves and with the less fortunate people of the world, will the Prime Minister tell us how he intends to promote that growth which will
Oral Questions
improve the quality of life for one third of a million unemployed young persons in this country? How do they fit into this new society, particularly with respect to jobs?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: We will be dealing with that in the budget.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I was certainly right when I said that the Prime Minister has taken a very cavalier, callous and unacceptable attitude with regard to the plight of these hundreds of thousands.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I suggest to the Prime Minister that he has his priorities confused when he is attempting to bring back the constitution rather than find jobs for our young people-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate at any time to interrupt the lead questioner in the question period; however, the subject matter that is before the House is an opposition motion with a non-confidence vote and it is with respect to the very matter which the hon. member is raising. If it is information he seeks which may affect the progress of the debate on the particular subject matter, I will not interfere with it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: With all due respect, Sir, I have in mind the statistics-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -but I will accept your ruling on this matter which is of extreme concern to me. I ask the Prime Minister, will he advise the House as to what action he intends to take, in the breathing space before the next round of constitutional talks, to encourage-and I say this very seriously-all levels of government and the private sector to direct themselves to the goal of full employment? Certainly, this must be high on the Prime Minister's priority list.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying when the opposition drowned me out, this is a subject to which we are addressing ourselves in the budget and in the debate which will take place later this afternoon. What surprises me on the part of the hon. member is that he does not seem to think that several things can go ahead at the same time. I would point out to him that his own leader, and the previous leader of the opposition, have enjoined the government to do what they could to bring the constitution back. I do not know why this hon. member is suggesting that we forget about that subject.


PERCENTAGE LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT GOVERNMENT CONSIDERS AS FULL EMPLOYMENT
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I think that at this particular time the vast majority of Canadians are not interested in bringing back the constitution as a priority.

May 12, 1976
Oral Questions
In light of the fact that the U.S. is now looking at 3 per cent unemployment as being full employment, can the Prime Minister take us into his confidence and advise us as to what this government is thinking about in terms of full employment? Does he agree with the Economic Council of Canada's goal of 5.8 per cent and, if not, what is his goal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has mentioned goals, but he should be interested in realities, too. He should know that Canada has a lower unemployment rate than the United States. He does not even realize that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MANPOWER
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that, as the minister indicated, the 17 summer programs in place for students will create 12,000 summer jobs for young people, and this is an insignificant amount when we take into account that the student employment population will number one million and there will be paying jobs for only 1.2 per cent of those seeking employment, would the minister indicate if he thinks this is an adequate effort? What plans does he have in the immediate future to provide employment to students?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Obviously, the hon. member chose to refer only to programs of direct job creation by the federal government. I indicated in a response to a similar question the other day that it is only one of the many efforts we embarked upon. The main effort, and the one offering the greatest degree of success quantitatively, is the increased co-operation with the private sector in placing students this summer. There are great efforts under way, and during the spring of this year they have been augmented by some of my own personal conversations with such organizations as chambers of commerce and others, to entice them to step up their hiring of students, and I have every reason to believe that that will be successful.


Jack Marshall: In view of the fact that the minister has indicated that the strategy will be to discuss with provincial governments the means of overcoming the employment situation for students, I wonder if the minister would be willing to make a statement on motions almost immediately to declare what programs he has in mind, because of the vital necessity and the priority which will have to be given this matter when the students get out of school. Would he also indicate what plans there are to increase student loans and other programs which will help students to further their education?


Robert Knight Andras: I have communicated to all hon. members of this House an outline of the various programs which have been embarked upon by the federal government, of which

my ministry is the lead ministry, but they also involve many other departments. That information has been available to hon. members for several weeks now. If the hon. member wishes further elaboration on motions at some future date, I will entertain that proposal, but the information is in his hands.
With regard to student loans, that matter is not in my jurisdiction; however, I will be glad to take it up with provincial governments and my colleagues in cabinet.


ALLEGED ABANDONMENT OF PROVISION TO RETAIN HALF OF LAND ON WHICH OIL AND GAS FOUND IN NORTH IN PUBLIC HANDS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for either the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I should like to ask if the cabinet has approved regulations covering the development of oil and gas in frontier and offshore areas in Canada, and more specifically, I should like to ask if one of these regulations, alleged to have been approved, will involve abandoning the previous practice of retaining one half of the land in which oil and gas has been found in public hands in favour of a policy which would relinquish all such land on a lease basis to private developers.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I will be making a joint announcement next week dealing with the new set of principles which will underline an oil and gas act for Canada and the principles of the oil and gas land regulations.


John Edward Broadbent: I appreciate what the minister has said. He said that he will make an announcement next week, but will he tell the House if the decision has already been reached on this crucially important matter to the people of Canada, and will he answer the specific question I just put to the other minister about one change which it is alleged has been made?


Alastair William Gillespie: I think the best way to proceed would be for the full announcement to be made next week. Let me assure the hon. member that it will be a very comprehensive announcement. There is a very large number of new proposals, many of which are interconnected and interlinked, and therefore, to single out one at this time and deal with it would very likely create a completely false impression of the whole thrust of the government's new oil and gas land regulations.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE DEVELOPMENT OF OIL AND GAS IN THE NORTH WILL BE PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT
John Edward Broadbent: I hope I am not investigated by the RCMP because of this, but I have a document which is labelled confidential, which has been asserted to have been approved by the cabinet and which in fact contains the points I just made, and I want to get
May 12, 1976

confirmation from the minister. However, in view of the fact that even a Liberal cabinet might make a sensible decision-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -will the minister confirm for the House, before he makes his announcement next week, that one of the decisions which it is my understanding has been reached would relegate Petro-Can to the ashcan in terms of public development in the north-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We can see where the gentlemen on the right stand.


An hon. Member:: Can you see where the fellows on the left stand?


John Edward Broadbent: Would the minister assure the House that the government will not permit the development of our frontier and offshore resources to remain under the control of the private multinationals which so fouled up development in the southern part of Canada and ensured that Canadians did not get the benefit they should from those resources? Would he give an undertaking to the House now that the development of gas and oil in the north will be a public development?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reassure hon. members opposite, of both parties, that the Liberal government has staked out a responsible, reasonable, constructive middle ground.


Mr. Fraser:: Is there any gas in it?


OLYMPIC GAMES
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since the Quebec government has developed special programs, including one entitled "Mission Quebec 1976", in order that the ratio of Quebec athletes taking part in the Olympic Games can reach 30 per cent of the national delegation, and since Canadian delegations for all Olympic sports seem to systematically disregard Quebec athletes, whose ratio would now reach hardly 15 to 20 per cent of the delegation, could the minister tell the House whether he intends to have an inquiry into this so as to ensure a fair proportion of Quebec athletes taking part in the Montreal Olympic Games?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have been very happy to notice, in the last few years, the growing interest shown by the Quebec government in amateur sport and its promotion. Clearly, the Quebec government has allotted considerably
Oral Questions
larger amounts of money to that field in the last few years than in the past.
Still, it is clear that the selection of athletes who will take part in the* Olympic Games is not based upon geographic, linguistic or religious ratios. The choice is made through national competitions sponsored by national sports organizations, and I really believe it would be wrong to intervene politically with a view to having proportionate representation by area.
Now, if there should be cases of discrimination, I should like to be advised of all the details, but every case brought to my attention to date and looked into seriously failed to prove that there had been any discrimination whatsoever.
Should there be such cases, be they British Columbia, Newfoundland or Quebec athletes or athletes from any province, I want to assure the hon. member that we would look into this very carefully, but we will nevertheless continue to rely on national sports federations to select the athletes.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that a search warrant is normally obtained in order to search the premises, property, or person of an individual suspected of having committed a criminal offence, will the Solicitor General inform the House of the nature of the criminal offence the Toronto Sun was suspected of committing, particularly when this is the first time in Canadian history when the premises of a daily newspaper have been subjected to a police search? Will the minister also please table a copy of the search warrant?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's statement of the law is not correct. Very often search warrants are issued to get evidence in the hands of individuals-


Mr. Woolliams:: Nonsense.


William Warren Allmand: -not because they are suspected but because they have evidence which could be used in pressing a criminal case. In this case there was an alleged offence, not against the Toronto Sun necessarily but an offence had been committed in that a confidential document had been given to an unauthorized person. In pursuit of the investigation as to who was responsible for that offence the RCMP had the search warrant issued in accordance with the law and are now pursuing that investigation.

May 12, 1976
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman did not answer my question as to whether he would table a copy of the search warrant. I would have thought that the Toronto Sun would have been asked to produce the document or whatever it was before the police were sent in.
My question to the Minister of Justice is to inquire whether his consent has been sought pursuant to section 12 of the Official Secrets Act to institute any prosecution in connection with a leaked letter from General Dare to Colonel Bourne or in connection with the police search of the premises of the Toronto Sun? If not, is the minister contemplating the laying of any charge?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the preliminary part of the question is, no. My permission has not been sought. I presume thereby that the RCMP is conducting whatever investigation is under way. If the RCMP feel that a charge is warranted under section 12, they will refer the matter to me.


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO CIRCUMSTANCES OF LEAKING OF LETTER FROM GENERAL DARE TO COLONEL BOURNE
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not say if charges were being contemplated, which was the last part of the question.
May I ask the Prime Minister, in view of the serious implications of the whole matter, particularly with regard to the maintenance of the freedom of the press, if the government will establish a special inquiry into all circumstances surrounding the leak of the Dare-Bourne letter and the events arising following the disclosure of its contents?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the answer, here, is the same as the answer I have given in other cases: that the police are conducting an investigation and that we are relying on the police to do their duty and do it well. I have answered many other questions of this type by saying that I see no need for an investigation. I believe that the police will or will not lay a charge, or ask one to be laid, according to their own sense of duty. I must say that I do not see any greater gravity in this case than in all the others.
The hon. member is concerned about the freedom of the press, and rightly so; but the freedom of the individual is also very important. I have not seen the opposition incensed because there were search warrants issued against individuals. Why are they suddenly excited because the police are interested in the press? They were egging on the police in recent months to get going after individuals. To me, the freedom of the individual is just as important as the freedom of the press.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBILITY DISCLOSURE OF GENERAL DARE'S LETTER BREACH OF OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The Prime Minister yesterday having said that parts of the contents of General Dare's letter are erroneous, and as I believe in the importance of the freedom of the press, a freedom next in importance after freedom of speech, will the minister say if he or his legal officers considered that General Dare's letter contains any information whieh, if disclosed, would breach the Official Secrets Act, and, if so, will charges be laid?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I told the hon. member for Yukon a moment ago, the RCMP, as the Solicitor General indicated, are carrying out an investigation. When they have completed that investigation, if they feel that charges are warranted against anyone, that matter must, under the law, be referred to the Attorney General of Canada and the law officers of the Crown.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. A search warrant having been issued to allow the RCMP to search for a document in a newspaper office, may I ask the Minister of Justice, the chief legal officer of Canada, what great secret was contained in that letter which, if disclosed, would breach the Official Secrets Act? What was there? What was so important as to warrant infringement of the freedom of the press?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the search warrant, as was made clear, was issued under section 11(1) of the Official Secrets Act. Whether the particular document searched for, or other documents, constitute a breach of section 4 of the act is a matter to be determined on the conclusion of the investigation.


NATURE OF OFFENCE COMMITTED BY LEAKING OF LETTER FROM GENERAL DARE TO COLONEL BOURNE
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister mentioned certain sections of the act. Surely, whoever issued the search warrant must have had reasonable and probable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed or was about to be committed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Prime Minister called hon. members hyenas. I can see why he calls you all hyenas.
May I ask the Minister of Justice what offence the person who issued the search warrant, or the police, believes was committed in the newspaper offices in Toronto?


Erik Nielsen: Table the search warrant.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, that, really, is a rather ridiculous question. No charges have been laid, and the hon. member is asking me to say what charges are involved.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is exactly what I am asking.
May 12, 1976


Stanley Ronald Basford: A search warrant has been issued-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the gentlemen of the opposition are expert at being hyenas.
The situation is that a search warrant was issued under section 11 of the Official Secrets Act on the information and belief of a Corporal Colter of the RCMP. That, clearly, does not indicate that a charge has been laid or may be laid.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and, through you, all members of the House. My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the recent appeal by 15 Republican members of the United States Congress in favour of more frequent meetings between the American and Canadian authorities, including regular meetings between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada, has the Secretary of State for External Affairs taken any initiatives in order to respond to that appeal?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have taken a number of initiatives to increase contacts between Canadian and U.S. authorities. Just last week in Nairobi I had a consultation with Dr. Kissinger. I shall have a further consultation with him next week in Oslo-


An hon. Member:: Try Washington.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and arrangements have been made to hold subsequent consultation in Montreal.


Claude Wagner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs propose to hold further meetings in order to set up an agenda for a series of meetings between the authorities of both countries for the purpose of reducing the tensions deplored by that group of United States Congressmen?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have already expressed my view of the evaluation conducted by the United States Congressmen. I had a consultation with Dr. Kissinger last week in Nairobi. We both discussed this question and both agreed that whatever tensions existed fictionally, they were not present in the relationship between Canada and the United States.
Oral Questions COMMUNICATIONS


CABLEVISION-PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF GUIDELINES FOR RATE SCHEDULES, METHODS OF PAYMENT, ETC.
Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Will the minister consider asking the CRTC to prepare guidelines covering such things as notification dates for new rate schedules, acceptable methods of payment, disposition of unused portions of annual contracts, etc., with which cable TV companies would comply when they are implementing new authorized rates to the subscribers?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the companies do advise customers of changes in rates and changes in contracts. However, I will make the representation of the hon. member known to the CRTC.


MANPOWER
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and concerns the fact that we have seen a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate among workers between the ages of 14 and 24 of more than 10 per cent since October, 1974. The elimination of the Opportunities for Youth Program will eliminate another 30,000 summer jobs which would have been available to people in this age group. In view of the fact that as yet we have seen no sign of jobs in significant numbers resulting from what the minister has called elaborate efforts in working with the private sector to stimulate replacement of students and young workers, can the minister tell the House how many jobs he can assure us will be created as a result of these elaborate efforts and some indication of what they consist of?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I already indicated that that information was conveyed to hon. members by a communication several weeks ago. Second, I point out that the quantitative results of that effort are mainly in the private sector. Even at the height of job opportunity funding by the federal and provincial governments over the last three or four years, it has been quite consistent that 85 per cent of the jobs have been found in the private sector. We are exploiting, through our efforts in working with the private sector, organizations for an improvement in that ratio. Indeed, that is where the greatest possible results would lie.


John R. Rodriguez: In view of all the pious platitudes which the minister has just enunciated, and in view of the fact that we have not yet seen any of these jobs, is the minister now prepared to establish an emergency fund from which municipalities and the agricultural community may draw

May 12, 1976
Oral Questions
to create employment opportunities with decent wages and conditions for our unemployed youth?


Robert Knight Andras: No, Mr. Speaker. We are not prepared to establish such an emergency fund, as interesting an idea as it may be. However, over the last two or three years we have taken definite measures to expose young Canadians to agricultural work through the creation of farm labour pools. I certainly invite students this summer to take a second look at work in agricultural activities. It offers them the possibility or work, although indeed it is hard work.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who I am sure is aware of the great importance of the tourist industry in Canada and the worry and concern of tourist operators. Will the minister assure this House that the need for passports, birth certificates or similar documentation on the part of Americans crossing the Canadian border this summer has been sufficiently publicized by his department so that the tourist industry, upon which so many areas of Canada are dependant, is not adversely affected by any delay in the issuance of documentation?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, this matter was brought to my attention last night through a report by one of the northern Ontario tourist organization operators. I can say quite frankly that I am not aware of the issuance of any instructions which will require passports or any such documents from Americans coming to Canada although there will be greater scrutiny of border crossings this summer for obvious reasons.


Stan Darling: Will the minister advise the House if any representations have been made to the United States government to expedite the issuance of passports to American tourists without jeopardizing security provisions in either country because the tourist operators are under the impression that when their American clients cross the border, they will be stopped unless they have either a birth certificate or passport.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I believe that impression is erroneous. I alluded to it a minute ago. I want to find out the source because that is not the intention.


HIGHWAY SAFETY
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In so 
far as officials of his department in the division of the Motor Vehicle Safety Branch have now completed their investigation into steering defects in Ford motorcars and defects in control arms which could cause a collapse of the wheel, and have now stated that these defects are a serious hazard to Canadian drivers, will the minister assure the House that these findings will be made public immediately? In view of the fact that this branch has much information in this regard not yet released, will the minister also assure the House that a list of vehicle safety matters under investigation will be made available to Canadian consumers, as was done by the highway traffic safety administration office in Washington to United States consumers?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the safety branch will take the appropriate steps as soon as the information is complete and make it available to the public in the proper fashion. I know the hon. member appreciates the standard of work which has been accomplished in that branch and in the department in that regard. In this particular case, there are some real concerns. However, it is also known that there is a basic warning in the operation of the vehicle to the person with a car with a defect. That will also be a matter taken into consideration. However, I can assure the hon. member that as fast as steps can be taken, they will be taken, as always.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr.   Heward. Grafftey@Brome-Missisquoi: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that officials now know there are steering defects, other defects and other matters being investigated with regard to Ford cars, will the minister, acting on behalf of Canadian consumers, ensure that these findings are made public today or tomorrow, or does he feel that the legal rights of the Ford Motor Company are more important than the safety of Canadian consumers? Does he feel-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I did not get up right away because I thought the hon. member was about to launch into a speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Not being a lawyer, I cannot quite grasp the significance of combining Ford rights versus safety information to be supplied to consumers. I presume that Ford of Canada have legal rights. Maybe the hon. member does not agree with me on this. With regard to the information, I will make certain that everyone is fully informed, as will the Minister of Transport. I am sure that Ford of Canada will have to make this information available to the Canadian consumers, particularly those owning Ford automobiles, in so far as the safety question is concerned.
May 12, 1976

With regard to the other matter, which the hon. member alluded to the other day, I repeat that Ford's legal rights are such that they must be considered innocent until proven guilty by the proper officials at which time I will not hesitate to act against the Ford Motor Company of Canada.
*	* sfe


HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. One month ago today in the absence of the minister, his parliamentary secretary told the hon. member for Fundy-Royal she was hopeful that at any moment the Canadian government would be ratifying the United Nations Covenant on Human Rights. Can the minister either report that this covenant has been ratified or indicate what is standing in the way of ratification of this document which dates back ten years?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot advise the hon. member that this convention has been ratified. I am still awaiting final word from one province, to the representative of which I addressed a telegram I believe yesterday, in the expectation that early action would be taken and a unanimous decision therefore possible.

|Translation]


INDUSTRY
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce concerning the situation of textiles in Canada.
Given the increase to 8.3 per cent of the unemployment rate in Quebec, is the minister aware that his present policy on imports in the textile industry, at a time when this industry goes through a serious and long period of slowdown and lay-offs, makes this industry absolutely unable to compete with the massive imports of artificial and synthetic fibers? Is then the minister in a position to tell the House what steps he intends to take to protect the jobs of Canadians who work in that industry?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it is not only a question of the steps to be taken but of the ones that have been taken. Within recent weeks we have applied quotas and constraints on at least four separate categories, in consultation with the industry and on the basis of reports from the textiles and clothing board. We are expecting an additional
Oral Questions
report from the textiles and clothing board on polyester yarn within a matter of days. I have indicated in the House and elsewhere that there is a committee made up of industrial representatives and officials which is now meeting to determine what 'changes in the policy are necessary. As soon as we get the most recent report that I mentioned with regard to polyester yarn we will announce as quickly as possible what is our decision in that regard.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
Does the minister know that at the present time, particularly in Quebec, where this industry predominates, many workers with more than 25 years of service are laid off or paid the minimum wage because of the increase in the imports of synthetic fibers, and does he intend-and that is the purpose of my question-to protect the jobs of these people, or create a program to relocate them on the labour market?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated a number of the steps we have taken. I repeat that on polyester yarn there is a study underway at the moment as to how it is going to be done. I do not think that anybody needs to be reassured more than the hon. member, and my colleagues from Quebec on this side of the House have kept me very conscious of this matter over the past several months.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Transport following his news conference at the noon hour concerning the setting up of an independent inquiry into the question of bilingualism and traffic safety. The conciliation board report specifically stated that there should be consultation with the air traffic controllers in the choosing of the commissioner and in setting out the terms of reference. Did the minister consult with them on these two points before he set out the terms of reference and chose the commissioner?


Otto Emil Lang: We did
have consultation, Mr. Speaker. For instance, we did give a number of names to the employees and we indicated that we were interested in getting their reply. On the other hand, when we did not have a positive reply with regard to the names we went ahead and selected a name that we were confident would have their full confidence and support in view of this gentleman's past record and history. We did not, however, want to delay the setting up of the commission because it is important that we assure everybody, including the controllers, that we are very determined to establish procedures for ensuring safety, and this ought not to be the basis of any problem for those who travel by air in this country.

May 12, 1976
Oral Questions


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, the minister failed to answer the second part of my question which was whether he consulted them on the terms of reference. As a supplementary question, following what he said in his news release to the effect that the report will subsequently be presented to parliament, in order to maintain the credibility of the assurance of safety all across the country would the minister table the report immediately in parliament once it is brought down by the commissioner inside the 90 days?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that we had communications with the organization. That is all we can do on our part. In terms of whether or not there was a sufficiently positive reply to qualify as what the hon. member calls consultation, I do not know.
As the second part of the question, it is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that our intention is to make available the report to all as soon as possible. I had thought that by saying that it would be presented to parliament I was doing that, but I can assure the hon. member that it will be made available immediately.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the minister aware of a telegram that was sent to all egg processors by CEMA to the effect that "Due to present confusion of government policies we feel we are unable to supply eggs in excess of Canadian surplus to table markets"? The telegram goes on to advise the processors that if they are not satisfied they are to contact the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Does the minister intend to ask the Farm Products Marketing Council to ask CEMA, which operates under federal government licence, to explain this what amounts to intimidation of the Canadian egg processing trade?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the question is a valid one. The role of CEMA is two-fold. I think that CEMA's role, which it is carrying out very well, is to stabilize the price of eggs in such a way that it is as fair to the producer as it is to the consumer. Its second responsibility is to supply a sufficient quota of eggs both to the individual consumer and the breaker trade. If CEMA is unable to do so I think that private industry would be gald to do so, and it should reflect a two and a half cents reduction in the price of eggs to Canadians, which is the amount the consumer must pay to help finance CEMA and assist it to fulfil its function as outlined by the law.
[Mr. Lang.)


MEASURES TO ASSURE SUPPLY OF EGGS FOR PROCESSORS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce; the minister has been made aware of this telegram. What steps is he taking to ensure that the legitimate processors of eggs in Canada will be assured of an adequate supply, notwithstanding any veto powers CEMA may have over iihport quotas? Because obviously this will have an effect on the price of confectionery and bakery products in this country.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for sending me a copy of the wire. The first I saw of it was when I came into the House. Prior to its receipt- and I will take the hon. member's word that this is the wire-I had already written to my colleagues in agriculture and consumer affairs and asked them to arrange for a meeting of officials to clarify the situation and to determine what the best course of action would be. As I read the telegram, if it suggests that these people ought to put pressure on in terms of getting a decision that is favourable to them or to any particular group which is not a rational decision in the over-all, then I think they can save the cost of the wires because they are not going to have that kind of effect.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Solicitor General. In questions raised yesterday and earlier today in the question period a request was made for a copy of the warrant in the RCMP investigation, and perhaps through omission the Solicitor General did not answer that part of the question. Would the minister be prepared to table the warrant referred to in the course of questioning so that we can look at it?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that. I might also say, since I was questioned about this, that the offence that was committed was an offence under section 4(1) (a) of the Official Secrets Act, which makes it an offence for anyone to communicate in any way the contents of a classified document to an unauthorized person. The reason for the warrant was not because we wanted to find out the contents of the letter- obviously we had copies of it-but to get the exact copy that was sent to the Toronto Sun so that we could get evidence as to where it was produced, how it was produced and who might have sent it. That is the important fact.


Walter David Baker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the course of his investigation into this matter has the Solicitor General inquired of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police whether or not, prior to carrying out the search, they had requested the Toronto Sun or one
May 12, 1976

of its publishers to produce the letter? Would he answer that question?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, when the RCMP went to the offices of the Sun they asked the officer in charge for the letter, but he refused to give it.


Walter David Baker: But before that.


William Warren Allmand: I raised that point. They thought it might have been counter productive, that the letter might have been destroyed and so they proceeded in this way. There is lot of information that can be had from a copy of the letter; for example, what type of machine did the photostating, whether there were any fingerprints on the letter and so on. This can be very helpful in gathering evidence.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Presumably the Official Secrets Act is designed to prevent falling into unauthorized hands information that would be dangerous to the security of this country. In any event, now this information has been published would the minister be good enough to explain to the country just what information in the letter would be dangerous to the security interests of this country?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not properly quoting the law. If he reads it he will see that section 4(l)(a) of the Officials Secrets Act does not say what he has just said. Furthermore, there is a principle involved here, which is in the law, concerning individuals who without any sanction leak documents which the RCMP themselves believe to be confidential and secret.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I suppose it boils down to this: Why was-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Why was that letter even classified in the first place? Would the minister tell us that?


William Warren Allmand: General Dare or some of his staff decided that this was appropriate.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being recognized at this time to make a brief but important announcement. The Royal Military College of Canada is celebrating its one-hundredth anniversary this year and as part of the centennial celebrations the college is being presented with a new Queen's colour. The presentation ceremony is to take place on Parliament Hill at 12 noon tomorrow, when His Excellency the Governor General will present the new colour to RMC.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: I should add that the ceremony will last approximately one hour. There will be seats held in reservation for members of parliament who arrive before 11.45 a.m. For those who are unable to attend for the entire event it will, of course, be possible to watch parts of the ceremony at any time from 12 noon till one o'clock from any part of the Hill. I hope members from both sides of the House will want to attend at least some part of this ceremony which is of great significance in the life of the Royal Military College of Canada as it celebrates 100 years of service to our country.


TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. John Campbell (LaSalle-Emard-Cote Saint-Paul) moved: that the fifteenth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the House on Monday, May 10, 1976, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 4,363, 4,365, 4,366, 4,370, 4,371, 4,375, 4,377, 4,379, 4,420, 4,422, 4,565, 4,883, 4,885, 4,886, 4,891, 4,896, 5,186 to 5,188 inclusive, and 5,204.

May 12, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Ste-Anne-des-Plaines and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Frontenac Institution and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Rockwood Institution and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Beaver Creek Correctional Camp and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Pittsburgh Institution and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Bath Institution and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Landry Crossing Correctional Camp and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Ontario Pre-release Hostel and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit-officers at Millhaven Institution?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit-officers at Saskatchewan Penitentiary?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit-officers at Dorchester Penitentiary?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Ferndale and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.

May 12, 1976


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Mountain Institution and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Agassiz Correctional Camp and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Pandora Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Burrard Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Coates: 1. Since March 1, 1973, how many new job openings were reported to the local Manpower Centre by (a) Victoriaville Hockey Sticks, Ltd., Victoriaville, Quebec (b) the Bonaventure Quebec Branch of Quebec Branch of Gelinite Inc., Sillery, Quebec (d) the Malartic Quebec Branch of M.D. Chartre, Val d'Or, Quebec (e) Sportsman Campers and Trailers Manufacturing Ltd., Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (f) Native Auto Salvage Co., Regina, Saskatchewan (g) SED Systems, Ltd., Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (h) Produits Chimiques Cote, Chateauguay Centre, Quebec (z) the St. Hubert Branch of Les Breuvages Leymoyne Ltee, Longueuil, Quebec (j) Olympic Pant & Sportswear Co. Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba (k) the Selkirk Manitoba Branch of Electro-Knit Fabrics (Canada) Ltd., Montreal, Quebec (1) Sunburst Ceramics Ltd., Lethbridge, Alberta (m) the Cornwall Branch of Atlas Hoist and Body Inc., Montreal, Quebec (n) the Ville St. Laurent Branch of Edith Serei Co. Ltd., Montreal, Quebec (o) Andersen Forest Products Ltd., New Denmark, New Brunswick (p) the Spring Manufacturing Plant for Carnell's Carriage Factory, Ltd., St. John's, Newfoundland (q) Columbia River Shake and Shingle Ltd., Nakusp, British Columbia (r) Dycks Containers and Forest Products Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba (s) the Arnprior Ontario Branch of Playtex Ltd., Malton, Ontario (t) Harden's Seed Service, Plum Couler, Manitoba?
Order Paper Questions
2.	In each case, how many of the positions reported were actually filled by persons referred to the firm by the local Manpower Centre?
3.	In each case, what has been the approximate turnover rate for the positions recorded with Manpower?


Robert Knight Andras: 1 and 2.
Reported	CMC
Job Openings Placements
(a)	80	60(b)	118	105(c)	2	2(d)	15	11(e)	49	30(f)	Nil	Nil(g)	12	6(h)	36	26(i)	7	5(j)	76	37<k)	481	442(1)	60	43(m)	140	114(n)	3	Nil(o)	5	2(P)	10	9(q)	2	1(r)	8	8(s)	282	105(t)	3	13.	This information is not available in CMC's.


Mr. Coates: 1.	Since March 1, 1974, how many new job openings were reported to the local Manpower Centre by (a) the St. John New Brunswick Branch of Universal Sectors, Ltd., Markham, Ontario (b) the St. Anthony Branch of Fishery Products Ltd., St. John's, Newfoundland (c) the St. John New Brunswick Branch of Petrona Atlantic Ltd., Mississauga, Ontario (d) the Port au Choix Branch of Fishery Products Ltd., St. John's, Newfoundland (e) Produits Belle Bale Ltee, Caraquet, New Brunswick (f) the Sawmill, Bernetz Township Quebec of Abieux Inc., Val d'Or, Quebec (g) Le Meuble Ltee, St. Charles de Bellechasse, Quebec (h) Cremerie St. Gregoire Inc., St. Gregoire de Nicolet, Quebec (z) the Rutherglen Branch of Goodman-Stanforth Division of UOP Manufacturing Ltd., North Bay, Ontario (j) Elk-Lake Planing Mill, Ltd., Elk Lake, Ontario (k) the Arnprior Branch of Noranda Metal Industries Ltd., Montreal, Quebec (1) Natural Recovery Systems Inc., Moncton, New Brunwick (m) Jos. A. Likely Ltd., St. John, New Brunswick (n) the Point Edward Plant of Thomas K. Fiander Ltd., Sydney, Nova Scotia (o) the Sawmill of Berion Inc. of Notre-Dame-du-Lac, Quebec (p) St. Lawrence Paper Bag Ltd. of Quebec (q) Les Entreprises J.H. Grenon Inc. of Ste-Anne-des-Plaines, Quebec (r) the St. Laurent Branch of Trans World Record Corporation, Montreal, Quebec (s) Les Embal-lages de Specialities Ltee, Montreal, Quebec (t) Boulangerie Samson Inc., Lauzon, Quebec?
2.	In each case, how many of the positions reported were actually filled by persons referred to the firm by the local Manpower Centre?
3.	In each case, what has been the approximate turnover rate for the positions recorded with Manpower?


Robert Knight Andras: 1 and 2.
13444

May 12, 1976
Order Paper Questions
Reported	CMC
Job Openings Placements
(a)	Nil	Nil(b)	200	191(c)	6	2(d)	1	1(e)	11	11(f)	116	97(g)	5	4(h)	8	5(i)	215	186(j)	13	5(k)	56	28(1)	30	25(m)	45	22(n)	7	7(o)	2	1(P)	14	9(q)	3	1(r)	73	31(s)	Nil	Nil(t)	12	93.	This information is not available in CMC'S.


Mr. Coates: 1.	Since March 1, 1975, how many new job openings were reported to the local Manpower Centre by (a) Chemcrest Corporation Ltd., Division of Willman Windows Industries, Winnipeg, Manitoba (b) True Foam Insul-Products Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia (c) Confection Johanne Inc., Louisville, Quebec (d) the Compton Branch of Les Produits Fores-tiers Procompt Ltee, Montreal, Quebec (e) Autoline Products Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba (f) West Pac Sportswear Mfg. Ltd., Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (g) Boeing of Canada Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba (h) Terra Nova Shoes Ltd., Harbour Grace, Newfoundland (i) Meubles Amqui Furniture Inc., Amqui, Quebec (j) Antica Inc., Ste-Anne-de-la-Perade, Quebec (k) Spinto Ltd., Granby, Quebec (1) Vadnais et Vadnais Inc., St. Florence, Matapedia, Quebec (m) the Plessisville Branch of Nazaire Frontier Inc., Quebec City, Quebec (n) the Dunham (Missisquoi) Quebec Iron Foundry of Daigle Aqua Inc., Longueuil, Quebec (o) H.L. Boisvert Inc., Coaticook, Quebec (p) the Pembroke-Stafford Township (Ontario) Branch of Boire and Verch Construction Ltd. (q) Progress Plastics Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba (r) the Nelson B.C. Branch of Nelson Ready Mix Contrete Ltd., Vancouver, British Columbia (s) the Bakery of Raven Enterprises Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba (t) Saskatoon Fresh Pack Potatoes Ltd., Saskatoon, Saskatchewan?
2.	In each case, how many of the positions reported were actually filled by persons referred to the firm by the local Manpower Centre?
3.	In each case, what has been the approximate turnover rate for the positions recorded with Manpower?


Robert Knight Andras: 1 and 2.
Reported	CMC
Job Openings Placement
(a)	19	14(b)	3	3(c)	34	21(d)	24	17(e)	7	7(f)	9	5(g)	1	Nil(h)	43	43(i)	14	13(j)	8	5(k)	10	10(1)	54	47(m)	33	31(n)	7	5(o)	Nil	Nil(P)	Nil	Nil(q)	7	5(r)	Nil	Nil(s)	Nil	Nil(t)	1	13.	This information is not available in CMC's.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the Estimates for 1976-77, which show a sum of $1,100,000 budgeted for "acquisition of land" in the St. Lawrence Islands National Park during the current fiscal year, what is the land that has been acquired or is in the process of being acquired or which is intended to be acquired and what is the legal property description in each case?
2.	Of this amount, how much is estimated will be spent on (a) Island (b) mainland acquisition?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. No properties have yet been acquired. The following properties are in the process of being acquired or are intended to be acquired subject to conclusion of satisfactory negotiations: A and B as described under the answer to Question No. 5,202. C. It is considered that the release of any further information may prejudice current negotiations and cause undue pressure on the persons with whom the Department is dealing.
2.	(a) Only islands are being acquired at this time. No estimates are available at this time of total costs to be applied against the current fiscal year, (b) Nil.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 3,967 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. I ask that question No. 5,092 be made an order for return. I also ask the consent of the House at this time to furnish a partial reply and to table the balance of the information at a future time.


Mr. Matte: 1. Since the inception of the Multiculturalism Programme, has the Minister responsible for Multiculturalism granted subsidies and, if so, in what amounts?

May 12, 1976


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Since the implementation of the Metric Conversion Programme at the national level, how much was spent each year by departments to (a) educate the public (b) apply the new system to material essential to the proper functioning of the department?
2.	How many persons are directly responsible for the implementation of the programme?
Return tabled.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other notices of motions be allowed to stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe) moved:: That this House, believing that the continuing tendency of this administration to reckless and at times contradictory intervention in the economy has created an atmosphere of uncertainty and lack of confidence with the public, and seeing that this uncertainty has resulted in rising unemployment, falling productivity, and unacceptable levels of real growth and inflation, expresses its lack of confidence in the government.
He said: Mr. Speaker, 769,000 persons are unemployed in this country. That is a national disgrace and a tragedy for those involved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: With the unemployment level at 7.4 per cent nationally, and as high as 14 per cent in the province of Newfoundland, there can be no greater evidence of the failure of this government in its economic policies or lack thereof.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thousands of students coming into the labour market this summer now face the bleak prospect of little summer employment. This is inexcusable. Worse still, it may have lasting repercussions in that many of these students may not be able to complete their scholastic program without the revenue they had hoped to earn in the coming summer months.
Today, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) simply said, in answer to questions on this important subject, that the government was addressing itself to the problem. That is shameful. What has the government been doing in the past 10 or 11 years that would give the Prime Minister the nerve
Economic Conditions
to stand in this House and say they are still addressing themselves to the problem?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The present administration leaves the impression that it is not concerned with unemployment because, after all, those who are out of work are cushioned with their unemployment insurance benefits. How shortsighted an attitude, when we bear in mind that some $4 billion is being expended on unemployment insurance benefits, compared to $758 million in the year before 1971 when the Unemployment Insurance Commission program was revised! We are now placing, and continue to place, an intolerable burden on those who are employed in this country, on the businessmen of the nation and on the taxpayers themselves who have to pick up the residual of benefit payments. This is an intolerable burden that need not have occurred had the administration been more prudent in handling our economy. That is the important thing to remember, and that is the thing this administration forgets.
It is not enough to say that those who are out of work are somehow not too badly off as long as their unemployment insurance benefits continue. The fact is that everybody loses when we have needless unemployment and the wealth of the nation falls. The important thing to which this government has not reacted to date is the review of the Economic Council of Canada entitled "People and Jobs". In that review it is pointed out that unemployment insurance revisions have now placed us in the position of being the most generous-if you like, the most liberal- industrialized nation in the world, having regard to our insurance benefit system.
The review points out that the eight-week minimum period after which one is entitled to draw unemployment insurance is by far the lowest minimum period of any nation with which we have to compete internationally. It estimates that .7 of 1 per cent of the unemployed-roughly
70.000	people in this country-are out of work, so far as the records are concerned, because they rely on an overly lax unemployment insurance system. The government knows this. It has hinted it may bring in legislation to tighten up the situation. I call upon the government to produce the legislation that has been talked about to tighten up the laxness in the unemployment insurance system that was so properly outlined in the Economic Council's report to which I referred.
We could perhaps not only save up to $350 million of that $4 billion of unemployment insurance benefits to which I have referred but, more important, it would ensure another
70.000	people who would be working and gainfully employed, which in turn would ensure that even more people would be employed.
That is the type of inconsistency to which we refer in our motion today in which we are asking members of the House to vote non-confidence in this government. Let us take a look at the last two years under this administration. I refer to 1974 and 1975. In those two years, in terms of real growth we have lost $330 for every man, woman and child in this country. That is the cost of the fall of real growth
95568 - 17)4

May 12, 1976
Economic Conditions
during those years. This nation, with our resources, with our trained people and with our agricultural lands, should be able to achieve a minimum of 5 per cent real growth per year. We have not been reaching that level since 1973. We did reach a 5 per cent minimum growth level on average per annum in the previous 20 years, but in 1974 we fell short by 2.2 per cent, and in 1975 we fell short by 4.8 per cent. Maybe that is the reason the former minister of finance was fired. That 7 point drop to which I referred in 1974 and 1975 represents $7.7 billion in our gross national product which has been lost and which I suggest must be regained for the sake of the Canadian people. This shortfall of $7.7 billion, $330 for every man, woman and child in the country, goes hand in hand with today's unemployment.
This is the challenge facing the administration today: Get our people back to work. Get our real growth to a trend level of at least 5 per cent per year. Let us remember that the $330 per annum that is being denied the average Canadian today through the mismanagement of our economy by the administration is almost $1,000 per Canadian family. They should not be called upon to make that sacrifice for the mismanagement of this administration. That is the loss to Canadians as a result of the ineptitude of the administration which I should like to outline in some respects today. In getting our people back to work, we consider the private sector should be the primary supplier of jobs.
We would hope that in the forthcoming budget the administration will orient itself to magnify the influence of the taxpayers' money by providing more jobs in the private sector. For instance, we should allocate research and development funds to the industries that will dominate the future. One example would be solar energy, in respect of which a small investment-small, certainly, in relation to the way this administration likes to spend money-in research and development money can result in a very rapid increase in the number of jobs, literally tens of thousands of jobs for Canadians which could be created in that field alone. Such research and development should be encouraged by private industry in the regions of Canada where our unemployment is the highest.
At the present time, why should private industry in the United States and Canada be opening research and development offices in the Irish Republic, taking advantage of their tax incentives, when such activity could just as easily be taking place in our Atlantic area? Knowing the way this administration acts, I have no doubt that Air Canada is flying such people to create new jobs in Ireland right over our Atlantic provinces. This administration must recognize that it is not further government participation or intervention, nor is it further massive government make-work programs, that are needed. It must recognize that what is needed is restoration of confidence in our future.
It is imperative that the administration should stabilize its position. It should encourage the setting of suitable goals and policies, and then let the private sector get on with the job of reaching the goals to which I have referred. It is the administration's task to set the atmosphere within which the economy can flourish. It is the private sector which should be called upon to produce the results.

In speaking about the incompetence of the government, let me first touch on our debt management. On page 94 of the Economic Review that was recently tabled, the following is pointed out:
Direct and guaranteed government-sector borrowing, which had more than tripled in 1974, increased by a further 35 per cent to $11 billion in 1975.
In short, we have had in the last two years a phenomenal growth in our debt so far as the federal and provincial governments are concerned. I suggest that growth in public debt has placed a needless pressure on the private sector and on the capital markets and has resulted in interest rates going up, to the disadvantage of all Canadians. I suggest, also, that indirectly it has created the unemployment we deplore so much. This load is perhaps more accurately reflected if we look at page 88 of the Economic Review. There, lo and behold, the government boasts about its Canada savings bond campaign. It states:
The 1975 Canada savings bond campaign in the last quarter of 1975 was highly successful. It raised $3,182 million net new cash.
It is further stated:
At the end of 1975 they represented 42 per cent of total government of Canada debt outstanding, compared with 40 per cent in 1974-
That Canada savings bond issue has done two things. It has tended to sop up the mortgage funds in this country which otherwise would go to private institutions for use in housing construction and the refinancing of present homes. The Canada savings bond issue is a contributing factor to the relatively high mortgage rates in this country, almost three percentage points more than we find, for example, in the United States. The second thing that I would point out about the government's handling of Canada savings bonds type of debt financing is that now they have, as is stated in the review, 42 per cent of the debt in this nation on a demand basis. That is not prudent.
Last evening, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), when questioned on this point, agreed that in the current year he hoped that this tendency to such a heavy orientation to Canada savings bonds type of financing would be moderated. I am glad they have come to their senses, but I ask: Why did they not come to their senses in the earlier years when this problem was building up? Again, dealing with this question of credit, I would like to refer to page 99 of the Economic Review which points out that our banks are perhaps in the tightest liquid position they have ever been in their history. The review points out that the preliquid assets ratio showed an even greater relative decline in 1975, falling from 10.1 per cent in January to 8.1 per cent in December. In short, we have basically been running a credit-oriented economy, with the government leading the way in debt expansion, to the disadvantage of all Canadians and indirectly it has created and contributed to the unemployment that we deplore.
Speaking about the handling of the government debt, I think that we, as members of this parliament, would not be responsible if we do not recognize what has happened, for example, to the huge pension funds that are being administered by the government of Canada, and the provincial governments. The fact is that these pension funds have been used, over the past few years, 100 per cent to finance
May 12, 1976

government operations. We now know, through actuarially sound studies, that within three years the outgoings from these pension funds will be greater than the income. The net result will be that unless contributions to the pension funds are increased, there must be some type of a tax subsidy to honour the pensions that will be drawn from these funds in succeeding years. I think it is important, when we are analysing the economic situation in the country, that we not cloud these issues.
Let us look at what the government of Canada has done with respect to the pension fund in relation to our civil service. It is common knowledge that they borrow from the pension fund of civil servants. In private industry it is illegal to do that. No company in Canada is allowed to set up an employee pension fund and then turn around and borrow from the fund in order to operate and, in the case of the federal government, to help cover a deficit that they need not have run up in the first place. This is the type of inconsistency that we feel warrants the members of the House stating they have had enough, that they have lost confidence in this government and that they will support the motion we are suggesting today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Another broad question is the general one of the government's interference with the business community, the over-regulation of business. I may, perhaps, bring this aspect of government activity into focus by referring to a recent article reporting a confrontation between Mrs. Ostry and Mr. Barkway. Mrs. Ostry is quoted by the Canadian Press in an article which reads in part as follows:
Canadian businessmen continue to wrongly regard government competition regulations as illegitimate interference in their affairs, Sylvia Ostry, Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, said Friday.
"Businessmen in Canada refuse to accept that competition policy is an ally of business... its central role is to strengthen private enterprise.
Then Michael Barkway, in effect, put her in her place. On the same platform he stated:
It seems to me there is great semantic confusion about the word competition. Your department believes in market forces-
He was speaking to Mrs. Ostry.
-until the point where it doesn't like them, and doesn't consider them to be in the public interest.
The article continues:
Mr. Barkway said business could not accept the government's position that firms should not be allowed to extend their market position or power.
"How else can competitive forces operate?" he asked.
He went on to point out the irony of having a government that feels it ought to regulate competition in the private sector while its own bureaucracies find themselves competing for both power and the taxpayers' dollar.
We urge the government to cease the habit of overregulating the private sector and then expecting that sector to produce results, including the jobs that we need in this country. I suggest that the administration hesitates to tell the Canadian public what they foresee in our future. Last evening, the Minister of Finance stated that unemployment would not go below 7 per cent this year. He
Economic Conditions
hoped inflation would go down to 8 per cent. He stated that our real growth would be from 4.5 per cent to 5 per cent. The minister would not even hazard a guess as to what might happen in 1977.
By contrast, the administration in the United States is now required, by law, to bring in a budget, not just for 10 months or 11 months as we will have on May 25 this year: in the U.S. they are required to bring in a budget for the following two years. They also, by habit, give an indication of the future five years as far as the American economy and the budgetary position are concerned. There is absolutely no reason why this administration should hide their activity, as they have been doing, with a shroud of secrecy. They must have their own analysts; this information must be available to them. Surely they are not operating completely in a vacuum. Why will they not reveal to the members of the House and to the public of Canada what they foresee our future will be? In this connection, the Institute of Policy Analysis of the University of Toronto states:
Unemployment this year will be 7.4 per cent by the fourth quarter and 7.7 per cent by the fourth quarter of 1977.
That is most alarming. They anticipate that our real growth over the next three years will not even start to catch up on our seven-point lag to which I referred earlier. They see growth in 1974 and 1975 at only 4.8 per cent and 4.4 per cent, respectively. Let me put it another way. If the institute is correct, we are now, in May of 1976, in the middle of a five-year period in which each year we will have a real growth below our capacity. By 1978, if the trend continues and if the figures that the institute estimates to be realistic are achieved, we will be 10 per cent below capacity, which will represent 300,000 Canadian jobs that will not be available and that would be available if this administration were handling the economy properly-300,-000 Canadians out of work through the shear incompetence of the present administration!
This failure in achieving our desirable goal of a minimum 5 per cent a year will be felt most severely by our younger people who should have every reason to believe that jobs will be available when they require them. With more prudent economic management we could achieve fuller employment and less inflation than is now contemplated by the government.
Let us look at some of the further inconsistent policies this administration has followed in recent years. It is these policies which are creating our problems today. They have put us out of phase with the economy of the United States. Let us think of the repercussions of that. In deciding not to counter inflation in this country until a year and a half after the Americans had moved to counter their inflation, we now find, for example, that our exports have fallen but our imports have remained relatively high. As a consequence, the trade deficit, with which we are all familiar, has heightened. Mr. G. V. Jump, of the Institute of Policy Analysis at the University of Toronto, has said that export growth will be the chief stimulus to increase output and employment over the coming quarters. But what is the position in which the administration has put our exporters? I suggest that they have been saddled with an

May 12, 1976
Economic Conditions
unrealistically high dollar in relation to the American dollar.
The administration has failed to facilitate sales effectively throughout the world, and in fact has jeopardized many of our Canadian industries through poor negotiations in GATT. As the administration makes our exporters less competitive, and even harms our existing industries, it deprives the people of future job opportunities which they would otherwise take. These trade problems resulted in a trade deficit of something like $5 million last year, and a further $5 billion this year. Speaking of last year, the trade deficit was more like $8 billion. This is how the administration had to cover that type of deficit: it first sold almost $3 billion of non-renewable resources which we will never have again. That is how the administration covered $3 billion of the $8 billion deficit it had with the rest of the world.
Second, the administration encouraged the borrowing from foreigners of $4.7 billion, which in turn will aggravate further balance of payments problems because we will have to pay interest of approximately $400 million year by year on that staggering amount. Third, it allowed our foreign exchange reserves to run down by approximately $400 million. That is the present administration in action. How can this House have any confidence in it?
Let us again look at the tourist imbalance. That is perhaps another example of what has happened as a result of our economy being out of phase with the American economy. Last year, our deficit on the tourist account alone was some $700 million. And what do we find? The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in reference to tourism, proposed to spend $1 million less this year than it did the year before, in spite of the fact that our tourist deficit had jumped $400 million. How inconsistent can you get in governmental action?
Again we have the odd situation that, faced with an imbalance of over $700 million with regard to tourism, we now find, to use the words of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) in the question period today, that for obvious reasons the government is going to see there will be greater scrutiny of those coming into the country. Frankly, the reasons are not obvious to me. It is not obvious to me why there should be greater scrutiny of over 30 million people who come to this country year by year.


An hon. Member:: Thirty-eight.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thirty-eight million. It is certainly not obvious to me why there should be that type of discouragement of those who would ordinarily want to come to this country as tourists and who, if they did come, would perhaps lower the deficit to which I have referred. In this time of inconsistency, which I feel is very great, I am a little surprised that even hon. members on the administration side do not realize that it is time they put the nation a little ahead of political expediency and did not support this government any longer.
Let me touch on the question of the government's handling of our money supply. In the Economic Review, at page 91, there is an interesting chart which shows the money supply trend and growth since 1972. I recommend that hon. members take a look at it, because if they want to

see the clearest indication of why we went through, and are in, the inflationary period we are, they do not have to go past that chart. The inflation we had in Canada was substantially political inflation inspired by a federal government which could not control its own spending, and as a result allowed the money supply in this country to grow at too fast a rate.
Last evening the Minister of Finance agreed that the money supply growth in the period from 1970 to 1972 aggravated inflation in this country. I suggest the money supply growth, on a 15 per cent growth line since 1972, as this chart shows, heightened that inflationary pressure to which he referred. That is one reason hon. members of this House should support my motion today.
Speaking about inconsistencies, here we have a government which is deploring rising wage levels in Canada, in that the government says they are getting out of line with the United States. That may be so; but who is really responsible? What else does the administration expect, when it has chosen to give our senior bureaucrats $66,500 per year, compared with the highest paid government worker in Washington who earns $44,000. That is more than 50 per cent more for senior bureaucrats in Canada than for their counterparts in the United States. However, let us look at the other end of the scale.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. If he wishes to continue, he will need the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Two minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there consent, or not?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I thank hon. members for their indulgence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "And I will be brief"!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: And I will be brief. I just indicated that at the senior level of our bureaucracy, our bureaucrats are earning 50 per cent more than their counterparts in the United States.


An hon. Member:: And worth half as much.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: However, let us look at the other end of the scale. This administration has taken the lead in raising our minimum wage so that today it is 40 per cent higher than the average minimum wage in the United States. Our federal minimum wage is $2.90 for those over 18 years of age, compared with the minimum wage in, for example, New York State, which is $2.15. When we have a minimum wage 40 per cent higher than in the United States, and our highest-paid bureaucrats are paid 50 per cent more than their counterparts in the United States, does the administration not accept responsibility for what it now claims is a problem, namely, that our wage levels are getting out of line with our main trading partner, the United States? The truth is that it is the lead of this government which has

triggered this situation. How can hon. members have confidence in this government when its past record is full of this type of inconsistent action?
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, what could be more inconsistent than having an administration which fought an election on the single plank of being opposed to wage and price controls, then within a year they flip-flopped over and imposed on the entire nation, not a limited wage and price control program as far as time is concerned, but one that is to run for 39 months and could run even longer. Mr. Speaker, the country has lost confidence in this administration. It is time this House reflected that lack of confidence by voting for our motion today.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, it is almost impossible not to support this motion, in view of the inconsistent behaviour of the government in regard to its policies. I wish it were possible to oppose the motion, after listening to the hon. member who preceded me and the paeans of praise that he put forward for the United States as a model for us to emulate. I should hate to see us do that, as bad as our economic performance is, because I do not think the United States have done much better. If anything, they are starting to move in the direction of more public service employment because they have less room in the private sector to create jobs. There are a number of bills before Congress now calling for the government to provide jobs where the private sector does not provide them. Having got that out of the way, Mr. Speaker, you will understand that my support is for the motion in the broadest sense-for the government's inconsistent policies, rather than for some of the arguments put forward on behalf of the motion.
The government has pursued the kind of policies that would make a great television comedy. You will have seen some of those comedies in the past, where a man goes to turn on his hot-water tap in the bathroom and gets symphonic music, or he turns on a gas range and water spurts in his face. This is the sort of thing that has been happening. Let us look at the government's approach to employment, starting with the budget of June, 1975, when the then minister of finance, Mr. Turner, admitted that the world recession was turning out to be more prolonged than expected and that Canadian unemployment had reached 7.1 per cent. It is now 7.4 per cent. He introduced so-called "direct" employment measures. In December, $91 million was taken out in spending cuts designed to reduce unemployment. Just before coming into the House today I noticed, with some interest and some degree of approval, a column by Don McGillivray in today's Ottawa Citizen in which he referred to that budget. He wrote:
Take last year's budget, introduced at a time when the Canadian economy was in the trough of a recession. Instead of doing anything to stimulate growth and create jobs, it raised taxes, energy costs and unemployment insurance premiums.
In September the Bank of Canada began pushing interest rates up, another proven means of slowing economic growth and thus producing more unemployment. In March of this year the bank gave another push upward on interest rates.
In October, the government introduced its wage and price control package, One of the effects was to restrain incomes and so hold down demand at a time when the economy was running well below its capacity because of sluggish demand.
Economic Conditions
In April, 1976, the Economic Review reported:
-there is no doubt that the strength and timeliness of the income support given to Canadians... between November, 1974, and June, 1975, were among the most important factors (in the milder recession experienced in Canada vis-a-vis the U.S.)
I hope the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) listened to that. The only thing that saved us from a depression like that of the thirties was the fact that the economy had built-in stabilizers such as unemployment insurance and the old age pension. Payments were going out to the economy, and that prevented us from the depth of recession felt by the United States which did not have those built-in protectors.
Given that analysis to the Economic Review, the government then cut the indexing of the family allowance for 1976, a measure that would have helped increase family income and would have supported consumer spending. They did not understand the implications of their own support programs. If they had been serious about combating unemployment, obviously they should have maintained purchasing power in the economy, rather than cut these programs. But they went beyond that: they said to all provincial governments that it was time for them to follow federal government policies; that they should cut their support programs and their expenditures for people on the street and let them collect unemployment insurance. In effect, "Let the unemployment figures go up."
They did that with medicare, saying they could not get provincial co-operation and were going to set the ceilings on their own. The provinces started to get the message, and the province of Ontario, for instance, closed some hospitals and threw nurses and hospital personnel out on the street. Somebody will have to pay for that: it will have to come out of unemployment insurance. Meanwhile, the jobless figures go up. If there is a time to prune hospital expenditures-and nobody argues that some pruning does not have to be done from time to time-it should not be done in the midst of the period of highest unemployment since 1951. That certainly does not show any consistency on the part of the government toward its objective of reducing unemployment.
Until the introduction of the Anti-Inflation Board and the government's so-called wage and price controls, they had taken the position that inflation was essential-a demand-pull kind of situation. They fought an election on that position. When they were not saying that, they were saying inflation was caused by international events over which they had no control. There was some merit to their statements at that time; international oil prices had risen by about 400 per cent and food prices, because of world demand, had risen by 200 per cent and in some cases higher. It was quite obvious that the price of raw materials and many of the production factors that we had taken for granted were increasing enormously.
Suddenly there is a road to Damascus, however, and the government moves from Keynes to Galbraith. The analyses change. Inflation apparently is no longer caused by demand-pull; it is caused by cost-push. The justification for the whole AIB program is to deal with cost-push inflation. They were wrong and contradictory in both cases. Mr. Speaker.

May 12, 1976
Economic Conditions
This government seems to want to take extreme economic views. In the original analysis of inflation being caused entirely by international events, they overlooked many elements of inflation that arose in our country and which we could have dealt with. The same is true now when they say that inflation is essentially a cost-push situation. There are still international factors which make inflation an ongoing problem in this country. They cannot deal with it just through the anti-inflation measures they introduced. It is quite obvious they were looking at the consumer price index, and it is clear that the prices that are declining are those which stimulated the inflation of a year or two ago. The price of food has come down, and that is putting a good face on the consumer price index.
In the ten budgets that the government has presented since 1965, only three have come close to achieving its objective. The 1965 and 1966 budgets were supposed to be mildly restrictive in effect, but turned out to be restrictive. The 1967 and 1968 budgets turned out to be restrictive in effect, which was unfortunate. In those years when unemployment began to climb, we needed expansionary, rather than restrictive, budgets. Only once, when the government had been dead wrong in its original analysis, did the government predict accurately. According to Economic Council of Canada figures-and this is not my observation-only three out of ten budgets came anywhere close to achieving the objectives the government had set.
If we look at the government's present analysis, what does it say? The government position is that to deal with present-day inflation and the problems of Canada which are the result of cost-push factors, we need to implement an incomes policy in this country. It is difficult to support a government which begins by saying that it must do something but does not follow through. We can say, I think, that a policy of selective incomes controls can be useful. But an incomes policy, by its nature, is unfair. Without doubt, the government's present incomes policy is grossly unfair to this country's wage and salary earners, as they directly, more than any other segment of society, are asked to pay the cost. You can tolerate unfairness if the result is worth while. I am sure that workers of this country would agree to limit their incomes if it could be shown that by so doing the economy generally would benefit or the entire population would be treated more fairly.
The government can assure fairness only if it does two things, and judging from the way the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) replied to my question during the question period yesterday, he does not intend to do these things when he brings down the forthcoming budget. First, the government must ensure a fairer distribution of income in Canada. At present, income is distributed unfairly. In the last 20 or 30 years there has been virtually no change in the way our income is distributed. Actually, the people at the lower end of the incomes scale have been hit harder by so-called tax changes than those at the upper end. This must be corrected and the government must bring in measures which will lift some of the burden from the shoulders of the lower and middle income groups, to compensate for the injustices created by the anti-inflation program.

The government must do something else and has no excuse for not doing it. It must move immediately to stimulate the economy and to create full employment. I heard the hon. member for York-Simcoe talking about the lead-swingers who collect unemployment insurance. I do not say that all people receiving unemployment insurance are entitled to it, but I ask the hon. member for York-Simcoe to say how he can sort out the people who are entitled to unemployment insurance from those who are not, from those who do not want to work, when there are no jobs. How can he do it when there is a short-fall of almost 800,000 jobs and only between 40,000 and 60,000 job vacancies?
How do you know if a person wants to work or does not want to work? Also, by what right does anyone accuse labouring people of this country of lead-swinging, of not being willing to take a job, when there are no jobs for them? Jobs must be made available. True, abuses have crept into the unemployment insurance system. If there were no unemployment, it would soon be evident who was not willing to work. A man not willing to take a job should not be entitled to collect unemployment insurance. Nobody would defend him. But considering the enormous amount of unemployment in this country, it is unfair to accuse the working man of not wanting to work. When the hon. member accuses the government of inconsistency, I suggest he ought to look in the mirror.
In my view, and in the view of my colleagues, the government's top priority when bringing down the budget should be the implementation of policies to create full demand in the economy. A tax cut for the lower income levels and a demogrant for those who have no income to report is one of the most effective ways of creating demand and getting people back to work immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: Many hon. members agree, I think, that our economy must be stimulated. Hon. friends to my right think that you should not do it by cutting personal income taxes or giving demogrants to the poor, which will enhance purchasing power; they think you should do it by giving benefits to industry. We have travelled that road. No government has been more generous to industry than this one in the last two or three years. But their generosity has been wasted, since unemployment has not been higher for 15 years. Industry does not need to be stimulated to produce. Industry will produce if there are customers willing and able to buy what it produces. There is a great deal of unused industrial capacity in Canada, so there is an obvious case to be made for increasing demand.
At present we are using only 79 per cent of our industrial capacity. Obviously, we do not need more machinery, more industrial stimulation, more depreciation allowances, lower corporate taxes and so on; that is not the way to solve the difficulty. We need more purchasing power in this country, purchasing power we lack.
In the past, the government could argue this way, "We dare not stimulate the economy and create full employment because we have demand-pull inflation and by stimulating the economy we shall greatly increase the rate of inflation; therefore we must trade off a high level of unemployment against lower inflation in order to maintain

price stability." Of course, that policy did not work. We argued against it, and events proved us right. The government has no excuse these days. Inflation, according to the government's own definition, is created by a cost-push situation. The government introduced restrictive wage controls to prevent cost-push inflation taking place. The only justification for those controls, if there is any justification, is that they can now be used to stimulate the economy. The government cannot make the hoary excuse that we dare not create full employment because of the effect on prices. But that, apparently, is one of the great inconsistencies to which the government still clings.
My time has almost ended. I wish I had more time to go through the long catalogue of the government's failures. In the past, the government's analysis of the economy has all too often been wrong. Furthermore, analysis has not been translated into policy. All too often the government has predicted wrongly what would happen in the economy. No government can plan perfectly. One cannot expect any government to plan perfectly and implement the right policies all the time. But we insist on there being some logic in the way the government behaves. We say to the government that on the basis of its own analysis of the economy, logic dictates that the budget which is to be brought in later this month should be a full-employment budget, a budget which will enhance the purchasing power of those most in need, people in the lower income groups, in order to get the economy going again.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, this motion retains all its value in the present context of the Canadian economy. I congratulate the official opposition for introducing a motion which is quite relevant and which fits very well the existing conditions in Canada. I quote the motion:
That this House, believing that the continuing tendency of the administration to reckless and at times contradictory intervention in the economy has created an atmosphere of uncertainty and lack of confidence with the public, and seeing that this uncertainty has resulted in rising unemployment, falling productivity, and unacceptable levels of real growth and inflation, expresses its lack of confidence in the government.
Mr. Speaker, this motion tells the truth. On the whole, economists admit that the present economic conditions in Canada are really appalling and the Government does not know where to turn to find solutions.
In fact, according to the latest figures disclosed yesterday, the number of unemployed in Canada is increasing, whereas the governments are contemplating higher taxes and proposing budgets which will require costly loans to repay past debts or merely the interests accrued from those debts.
That is the situation we are witnessing, Mr. Speaker, for even though the goverment suggests it is fighting against inflation we do have rampant inflation, and the Canadian worker, the working classes, the low wage earners are faced with a quite inadmissible situation in a rich country like Canada.
Yesterday, in the paper Le Soleil, we could read this leading paragraph:
Economic Conditions
Ottawa to borrow more this year. Assessing at between $5 and $5.5 billion the federal government treasury needs for the 1976-77 financial year, Greenshields Inc. stated yesterday that this year Ottawa will have to borrow 37 to 54 per cent more than last year.
That is nice increase. And even if the gouvernment says that the inflation rate did not rise as much this year as last year, we will see in a few months to what extent inflation rates will have gone up at the expense of the people of Canada in general.
Mr. Speaker, only a few months ago we heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) say that we would live in a new society, that in that new society we would see things unknown to us, new things we never dreamed of.
We already have entered this new society where private entreprise, private property is threatened from all sides, where free enterprise is also threatened from all sides by government controls. The only place where employment is up today is the public service, the administration of the federal government. There the number of new jobs is frightening, while private companies or free entreprise must slow down production because, as the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) said a moment ago, consumers do not order goods because they do not have the money to do so. Prices increase continuously; we have just been informed of an increase in the price of gas, of oil for July 1; it is reported that gas may even cost $1.25 a gallon.
Mr. Speaker, the government is the first to ignore the legislation they produced or the Anti-Inflation Board they built from scratch a few months ago. Yesterday, we were advised of a terrible jump in the price of coffee because there was a drought in Brazil; it may even cost $5 a pound. If there is a drought in Brazil, there is perhaps no drought in Jamaica or in other coffee producing countries. The price of sugar also threatens to go up. Is there a lack of sugar canes? Of course not. There are also reports about higher prices for wood products. This morning, I ordered four by four cedar posts and they cost 67c. a linear foot which means that ten feet cost $6.70, and this is fairly small.
Mr. Speaker, the same thing happens everywhere. What does the Incomes and Prices Board or the Anti-Inflation Board have to do with that? It is all very well to appoint civil servants and hire people and new bureaucrats to look over or study the results obtained by the old bureaucrats, or other bureaucrats hired before them, but what results do we get? It is the same thing in every sphere.
When one sector is poorly managed, right away Ottawa is asked to help. For instance, the Olympic Games in Montreal. Ottawa was practically forced to set up a permanent national lottery to make up the deficit that should not exist at this point because, several years ago, I had the visit in my office of the Mayor of Montreal and His Excellency Mr. Rousseau who came to give me the plans for the Olympic Games and prove, figures in hand, that the Olympic Games would finance themselves through the Olympic lottery. We all accepted that but today we find that it is not so, far from it.
I said a year and a half or two years ago that the Olympic Games deficit would reach $1 billion. I was told I was crazy, that I could not count.
13452

May 12, 1976
Economic Conditions
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Quebec budget proved clearly that the deficit is now $1 billion, and the games have yet to be held. When they take place, we will reach the billion and a half, because they are a bottomless pit. That is inflation! The Olympic Games will cost at least four or five times the amount we were told they would. That is a problem. As for James Bay, we are embarrassed to talk about that one. I said that this development would reach $20 billion. But people said no way, Caouette can't add.
Mr. Speaker, by now we have reached $15 billion in expenditures at James Bay, while that project was to cost $6 billion at best. Outlays are expected to total $15 billion and the end is nowhere near. When the work is finished over there, we will have a debt of about $20 to $25 billion. Then, suppose for instance that the James Bay project will cost $20 or $25 billion, say with a 10 per cent interest rate over a 25-year period. Do they know that in 25 years we will have paid $50 billion in interest alone, and we will still owe $25 billion. This will mean a total of $75 billion. Will our great-grand-children have finished to pay by the end of their lives? No.
Billion of dollars are spent here and there without considering a terrible system forcing Quebec, municipalities, school boards and the federal government to borrow fabulous sums at astronomically high interest rates. The Montreal Olympic Games will probably cost $2 billion at 10 per cent interest over a 20-year period. We shall still be paying $4l/i or 5 billion in interests only. And we will still be owing all the money that was put into the Olympic venture.
Mr. Speaker, it is about time the federal government should find other alternatives. We have been suggesting a variety of them in this House for 40 years; some thirty years ago, in 1946, I suggested to the House those very same solutions. In those days, our opponents, the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives, 'were laughing at me. Given the present system, if we replace the Liberals with the Progressive Conservatives, what would be the result? Would the interest rate be reduced? No. Both are supported by the same financial "gimmick". The federal government will have to borrow, this year, 37 to 54 p. cent more funds than last year.
But why borrow when the federal government has the authority to take action? Parliament can decide, because of its supremacy, to call upon the Bank of Canada and cash in on the physical facilities we have in Canada to develop our natural resources and create a financial and economic system which would guarantee each human being a decent life. That would put an end to labor conflicts such as the ones we now have. Day in and day out, all we hear about is a strike here and a strike there, federal strikes, provincial strikes, strikes everywhere. Nobody is satisfied. And the federal government says: we are going to satisfy everybody; we are going to organize bingos, lotteries, provincial lotteries, federal and municipal lotteries; church bingos. Then, we become a nation of "racketeers" as they say in English. This is opium to the poor: You see a fellow without a penny in his pocket or he may have a dirty old five dollar bill left and his wife is off to a bingo where she expects to win $6.50. Then, as usual she does not win anything; she has no money left to buy bread or butter for

her children but she does find an old five dollar bill in her purse to go and play bingo.
Mr. Speaker, we are living in bingo territory. See what goes on in Montreal. Mr. Bourrassa himself will be allowed to play bingo in the province of Quebec. In Montreal, it is the same thing: Loto-Canada is not too readily accepted across Canada, by the other provinces. They say: "Wait a minute! You were supposed to finance this thing! Now, see to it! Then, we are going to ask the people in Vancouver-I understand that anyone is free to try his chance at the lottery, to buy a ticket or not, but we provoke people with our publicity on television, in newspapers: "the next mil-lionnaire". There are people who are too poor to have their three meals a day, but they find the money needed to buy a ticket that will turn them into millionnaires. Everybody is so happy the day of the draw because millions of people think they will be the new millionnaires. Six or seven million people will have paid in to make one, two or three millionnaires.
Mr. Speaker, when we have come to the point of adopting such a system, do you not think that it is rather frightening? What can happen? Anything. If we look at what is now happening in the world, in Beirut, in the Far-East, in the Middle East, in Italy, in Spain, in Portugal, we realize that things are getting out of hand. People are no longer responsible. They do not care to be. Are our union leaders responsible people? They ask for salary increases which bring about price increases. Our workers gained nothing. They went on strike. If they did not have their present jobs, the strikers would beg for them. Once they get them, they strike again.
This goes to show how bright they are! This is the labour situation in the province of Quebec. They want jobs, and as soon as they get them, they let themselves lured into striking action. It is said to be bright, but I call it criminal. In Canada, in Montreal, or anywhere else, the strikes now prevailing are the direct consequence of the economic system but those people are not even interested in changing the economic system.
When election time comes, they say: Liberals are better than Progressive-Conservatives, then they vote for the Liberals. After, they get mad and go on strike. At the next election, they may vote Progressive-Conservative.
The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Salts-man) said earlier that under the Progressive Conservative government, we had a million unemployed in 1961, and that this happened in spite of the fact that we had the strongest government Canada has known since Confederation. This is why the Diefenbaker government was defeated, because of the unemployment rate in 1961. And the very same people today are saying that they would do better than this government. Come on! The same causes have the same effects. We must change the causes and not the parties. What do we get when parties change? If we are all caught by the neck and choking to death, nothing is changed.
Mr. Speaker, we must change the economic system, and this is why we have been making the following suggestion to the government for such a long time. Instead of borrowing from the United States or other foreign countries, and asking their permission to benefit from the development of our own natural resources, why do we not use the services

of the Bank of Canada, which is authorized to create money legally and intelligently according to our needs? Then we could say that our natural resources belong to us and not to the Americans. These resources belong to Canadians!
Mr. Speaker, people do not understand this. They think that Social Credit is something odd and they refer to the strange kind of money that Social Creditors advocate. What kind of stupid money do we now have? We do not have any, and we are always begging from the Americans the right to develop our own natural resources. It is quite a farce to see Mr. Bourassa paying his weekly visit to New York to borrow money to finance the James Bay project! Do the Americans lend money to Mr. Bourassa because he is Mr. Bourassa? The provincial government, and the federal government, say: The province's credit is good. Canada's credit is good. Canada's credit is so good that we may well sink the country all the deeper in debt. Its credit is good.
When Mr. Bourassa calls on the Americans, they do not say to him: "Mr. Bourassa, your smile is so inviting, your hair is so nicely combed, you were so well made up before you went on television." No. The Americans ask: "What is your collateral for borrowing $150 million? What about the natural resources of James Bay?" The Americans are no fools. They look at those ressources and say: "This is good, this is profitable, this will become extremely good. Therefore, we shall lend $150 million, not on the basis-


An hon. Member:: A good collateral!


David Réal Caouette: Yes.
They do not lend money on their own property, they lend $150 million against a note signed by the provincial government which puts up all the natural resources of James Bay as collateral. Why should we go to the United States to do so, instead of going to the manager or the governor of the Bank of Canada and say: Listen, take the same resources, James Bay, the same thing; come up with a figure according to our needs to develop James Bay. Would that not be legal? Instead of paying an interest of 10, 11 or 12 per cent, we might have this credit from the Bank of Canada at cost, which would mean approximately 1 per cent, Vz of 1 per cent, % of 1 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, why does the government not act in this direction? When the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance are telling me that our credit is good, the Liberals clap their hands. They do not understand a thing about it but they still clap their hands. Let us keep on voting for the Liberals and continue selling-not selling, but giving away our natural resources to the Americans. And then we are amazed and shocked to see that the number of unemployed is increasing in this country.
That is another matter. Reference was made earlier to the unemployed. I look forward to the establishment in Canada of work insurance to develop our potential. We have roads, hospitals, public buildings to build. We have houses to build, homes rather than hostels for the aged, rehabilitation centres for our young delinquents, centres where they could be educated, taught a sense of duty and responsibility. When asked for government help, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde)
Economic Conditions
answers: There is no money. So things worsen, the young go to prison. This is costing enormous sums of money to the Canadian taxpayers. The government has no other solution but to encourage that kind of system, to maintain and finance it.
Mr. Speaker, it is time we stopped to think. Inflation comes from somewhere. It is not caused by too many products, but by not having the purchasing power to acquire them. Private enterprise is in jeopardy. The private sector, private business, free enterprise, everything is being sent down the drain. The young are not interested any more in using their abilities, because they are tired of working for the government's sake and paying taxes. Mr. Speaker, down with the tax system, down with the debt financing system created by Grit and Tory governments in Canada since Confederation. Let us have freedom, let the day come when credit and resources are controlled by us in Canada, not by the Americans.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, I would like at the outset to read the motion again to be sure that my eyes have not deceived me. I quote:
That this House, believing that the continuing tendency of this administration to reckless and at times contradictory intervention in the economy has created an atmosphere of uncertainty ...
-and I underline "uncertainty", with your permission-
... and lack of confidence with the public, and seeing that this uncertainty has resulted in rising unemployment, falling productivity, and unacceptable levels of real growth and inflation, expresses its lack of confidence in the government.
After careful consideration, Mr. Speaker, I take the liberty of reminding you that on March 24, the hon. member for York Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) moved a motion almost identical to this one. But at that time, he spoke of rashness and uncertainty.
I would also like to emphasize the fact that he has not invented anything, since, as late as last night, the same hon. member asked questions to the minister when the finance committee was considering the economic review of Canada and he then had the opportunity to question the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). He used about the same terms he has been using ever since he first came to this House. Therefore, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the uncertainty, the rashness and everything else he is talking about did not stem from the positive action of this government but rather from what the hon. member has attempted to spread in the world of business and labour and at the other levels of government.
I remember quite well that for many months the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), kept urging either the Prime Minister or the then Minister of Finance to act. Now that steps have been taken, they ask: Why did you do that? You have done the wrong thing, you have created a climate of uncertainty. Perhaps those people should decide exactly what they want.
Having faced the situation, I feel the government has taken clear positions. Members are certainly aware of the Anti-Inflation Act brought in this House and discussed at length. I think there has been concerns expressed by several members. Some were asking that certain points be clarified and the legislation has even been amended. It is not
13454

Economic Conditions
easy for a government to respond to a situation, particularly in the business field, and I readily admit it. But having examined the complexity of the Canadian economy, the government has realized that there were some sharings which were not fair.
I think it was the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) who said a moment ago that the distribution of wealth between the members of society was not fair. This was a valid point, I suggest, and it is precisely because the government took measures in various fields that there is now a more equitable distribution of wealth in Canadian society. Perfection is not of this world, but we can certainly aim at it and I try to improve that situation through the different projects put forward by the government.
As regards business, many labour organizations have said that business was not affected, that it did not know what was going on and that the manufacturing industry could do as they liked. Therefore, I think I must point out that the facts are quite to the contrary. When the AntiInflation Act was first implemented, it was perhaps true to say that the regulations affected some workers more than some industries.
It was necessary to require a report to test such a system. The reports having been submitted, we certainly noted the reaction of the business community which promised to go along, to submit reports, since the government had established guidelines not for salaries but also for the industries. The names of some industries not affected by the legislation were even suggested to the government. They now come under the act.
Members opposite were so kind as to fail to mention the improved economic conditions in Canada. In the report of the Economic Council-and I shall wait until later to quote from it-we see that compared to the situation in other countries, namely the United States and our main competitors: Japan and Germany, the economic climate in Canada is different and better than in most of our closest competitors. I must readily admit, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, that there is surely room for improvement. It is not easy. It must at least be recognized that in 1974-75 we faced a world-wide crisis which proved far more serious in the countries I have mentioned than it was in Canada. The government, having initiated those measures, must assume the responsibility for them, and I believe that every member should at least try to give the policies now under discussion and the legislation which was passed a chance to work out.
Last night, as I said earlier in the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, the opposition certainly did ask some questions but without breaking new ground, without suggesting anything new since the introduction of a motion by the same member last March. What they did was only to interpret some statistics, and I should like to stress at this point that it is not the statistics that are false, because they appear in the report, they are available, they were made public and everybody studied them, but it is their interpretation that is false.
The motion itself deals with productivity. I think that chart No. 9 in the Economic Review deals with productivi-

ty. There was certainly an improvement, as shown in the chart. Several conclusions can be drawn, but it should at least be admitted that there is a great deal of improvement, and members opposite should admit it. I referred to the world situation; it must be kept in mind that the Canadian economy, Mr. Speaker, is certainly affected by the world situation.
Our exports, 50 per cent of our manufactured goods, end up on the international market. If the situation I mentioned earlier resulted in 1974-1975 in a strong tightening in most of our trading partners, its impact was certainly felt in Canada.
Since then, the situation has changed. Now, they will not admit it, they talk about tragedies and what not. But let me very briefly point out a sudden turn which happened in the U.S. car industry. Particularly since 1965-66, Canada and the United States have entered into an auto pact which was worth while and needs to be readjusted-our officials are busy at it at present-but it should be said also that in the last few months, car sales in the United States have increased by more than 50 per cent.
The same thing happened in Canada. This has certainly resulted in a fairly large increase in car sales not only in the United States, but in Canada as well, since our industry supplies many parts to various factories and various companies which trade in Canada and in the States under this agreement.
Reference was made earlier to imports and I wish to deal with this subject as well. It is normal and healthy that people affected by imports should react. But if imports were to increase, Mr. Speaker, our domestic economy had to be such as to allow the import of some goods. In certain cases, they were not manufactured goods, but in others, the need was real.
A number of semi-manufactured goods which are not available in Canada have to be imported. For most countries I mentioned earlier, we had no choice and had to restrict our imports and in several cases cut them altogether. In so doing, we had to consider the well-being of their people has not reached the same standard as in Canada. Within our domestic economy, the inflationary trend I indicated continued, during the world crisis and is still being felt today.
Canada, and especially the government, is not satisfied with the results, though they are better than elsewhere; by all means, it wants further improvements. If we refer to the reports of the Economic Council of Canada, to those of Statistics Canada, in spite of the bitter criticism we heard from the other side of the House this afternoon, we see that the curve indicates a decrease in food prices despite the increase in wages. I will talk about that later if I have enough time.
I will deal briefly with employment because you know that the time allocated is rather limited. There are now more people working than never before in Canada. Statistics, which I could give you, although I believe that is not the purpose of the debate, show that millions of people changed jobs. Almost six million individuals changed jobs, in some cases volontarily, but others changed because industries have evolved and had to adapt to new products.

I think that by taking the necessary decisions, the government helped many of these people improve their situation. If you refer to the same report of the Economic Review, you will see that with the hourly increases, wages went up rather substantially-alarmingly in some cases. The increase was much higher. I do not say that they did not deserved it, but it was much higher than that of our closest competitor where go about 70 per cent of our exports. This is only one factor which prompted the government to clamp controls on wages and prices.
Productivity was also mentioned. I dealt with that a while ago. I even told you in which diagram you could find it. This productivity is obvious. Now, it may be considered that statistics are not always accurate. There were also- and I think this is one of the factors that must be mentioned-negotiations at that time. Either because of unions which were not asking everywhere for wages unrelated to productivity, or of employers or manufacturers who were charging prices that bore no relation whatsoever to the real market value of some items, the government had to step in. That is what it did, because all the economic factors were considered and then a decision was made. As soon as the decision was made, the Official Opposition started to clamour. This afternoon, I took the liberty of reading it out so that everybody will realize that the words used do not quite reflect the facts.
Having said that, I think that the decision made was a fair one. Companies realized-they were affected as well- conscientious employers did the same, followed by unions which, in most cases, I think, are adequately meeting their members' demands, that they had to face the actual situation, the economic position. They realized they had to negotiate not only an agreement from the viewpoint of the strongest economic element, but a real agreement designed to enchance the well-being of all Canadians, and in my opinion, the success and strength of Canada lie in three-party negotiations.
As regards inflation, I will only mention a few facts. If you look at statistics, you will find a real decrease in the inflation rate. Such facts are glossed over perhaps. Then, our friends opposite mentioned a few, but as the rate decreased, people outside the fields I referred to earlier, who do not take part in negotiations, namely retired people, low-wage earners who were among those most strongly urging the government to act, and that is one of the factors we considered when making our decision.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to read an excerpt from the Economic Review, on page 5 which deals with the fiscal and monetary policy. It is a paragraph that was overlooked by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) and which surely describes in a very clever and accurate manner the real facts, and I quote:
Fisbal and monetary policies were adjusted in 1975 to the changing cyclical and inflationary situation, The November 18, 1974 federal budget provided substantial fiscal stimulus to the economy, mainly to take effect in 1975.
Provincial budgets ...
This is a point which was missed earlier when we were talking about governments. I carry on with the quotation:
Economic Conditions
Provincial budgets in early 1975 added significantly to this expansionary thrust. Following the unsuccessful efforts in early 1975 to obtain a consensus of price and income restraints to cope with inflation, the June 23 federal budget began the process of government expenditure restraint intended by itself, and as an example, to offer Canadian spenders an opportunity to contribute to slowing down inflation. On a national accounts basis, expenditures on goods and services and capital formation by all levels of government increased 5.2 per cent in real terms in 1975, compared with 7.9 per cent in 1974: government expenditures increased at a slower annual rate of 3.1 per cent during the second half of 1975, compared with 5.8 per cent during the first half.
I could carry on as there are in this page many indications yet of the thrust given not only by the central government but by various levels of government with the results that are mentioned here. Now, I am concerned about some points in the remarks made by various members of the Opposition and I would like to come back to them. Mention was made earlier of the various government programmes and one in particular. Then it was quickly mentioned that the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) in particular in the figures he quoted, had omitted to say that the central government had made provision for a redemption, commitment and a redistribution to maintain the price of oil and then the price of heating oil at a much lower level than the world price. But that was not mentioned.
However, this favourable situation is appreciated by the consumer. But some of our colleagues do forget what has happened. The honorable member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) spoke about family allowances.
It is true that they were not escalated but he did not mention that in his expenditures the government had previously tripled the amount of family allowances. Rather than being selective, I think I must recognize this quality in the hon. member for York-Simcoe but I did not know the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge had it. Instead of being too narrow-minded, we should bring true facts to this House and discuss them further, and I would be the first to listen but in those areas, figures should be chosen carefully. We can quote figures all day long but without ever coming to the facts. This is what I wanted to emphasize, Mr. Speaker.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is nit picking.


Mr. Trudel:: I would say that the hon. member who just made that comment, the hon. member for York-Simcoe, has a really unique way of attacking; as he just did, by mentioning "nit picking", Mr. Speaker. When family allowances for the needy are tripled, and this is only one example, I will perhaps be told that I am being selective. I do not think that is "nitpicking" when relief is provided to people who really need it, a welfare benefit which was required and which the government has tried to restore.


An hon. Member:: That's it.


Jacques L. Trudel: If we referred to a certain speech delivered on that side of the House, we would see what the term "nitpicking" really means. I think that I cannot be accused of doing that. I will now return to some points which he stated and I will be more specific, if I am allowed to do so. When he spoke a while ago, he used the word "shameful." I find it in French also. But I think it is "shameful", if I may

May 12, 1976
Economic Conditions
say so, it is not quite a French expression but we have a word that says the same thing in French.


Mr. Goyer:: The word is "honteux".


Jacques L. Trudel: Yes, even if I think it is not the expression used in the motion, "shameful" expresses the point very well. If we go back to 1961, it is quite a long time ago, but at that time there was a Conservative administration-I did not say so, but the hon. member for Waterloo-Cam-bridge (Mr. Saltsman) did-and a million persons were unemployed.
I would invite the hon. member to see exactly what those people had at their disposal. When you are unemployed, most of the time it is not because you asked for it. This was mentioned earlier. People wake up one day without work and without revenue. I have often seen that either employers in some cases or unions in other cases are not quite willing to meet the demands of the unemployed.
But the unemployment insurance program was established by this government. It was said earlier it is abused. One needs only to add the figures. But that money was redirected into the economy, which forced large budgets upon the federal government. If there are abuses, as is often indicated, instead of sounding off loud statements, some effort should be attempted to find a way to direct the money within the budget to those who really need it because their plant was shut down, and maybe because their union would not negotiate because its emphasis is on some segments only in society, or because the employer himself wanted skilled labour. The federal government, through the manpower department or the unemployment insurance program, saw to it that employees or employers be confronted with reality. How are those moneys spent? This is what was to be determined when reference was made to huge sums of money. It is a fact. Maybe we should think it was for the well-being of society, and not because the government wanted to intervene in some area just for the fun of dealing with astronomical budgets.
It was indicated earlier that the Unemployment Insurance Act should be amended in depth. It should be remembered that there was an outcry by the majority of the people, especially in this House, when we discussed the legislation and amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. We heard other suggestions then. It may be allright to level criticism on a motion like this one, but when comes the time to vote on some legislation it is a different story altogether. Reality and speeches are two different things.
Reference was made earlier-and the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) also mentioned several funds-to pension funds. It is true that the government and governments, Mr. Speaker, use funds to finance certain projects both within the federal government and provincial governments, and that money is redistributed. The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), who has left, suggested using the Bank of Canada. That is a means of financing government projects, not only at the federal level but also at the provincial level. Only one province escapes that rule, the province of Quebec. The hon. member, I think, is smart enough to understand that if at some point your commitments exceed your revenues, a different program must be considered-an increase, differ-

ent deductions. One must also think that those pensions give people a safeguard that did not exist until the government decided to provide it. Some of our colleagues made speeches-you certainly heard them-and said they wanted 40 per cent of the salary earned. The government plan gives about 25 per cent. I ask the hon. member to tell me if it is too much to ensure an employee who, in most cases, has no other income, 25 per cent of his salary. If that is the point he wants to make in this House, I think that is a shameful response. It is certainly not the attitude of this government.
Reference was made to creating jobs through the private sector. I agree with that idea-it was mainly the hon. member for Simcoe who raised the subject-and he has no difficulty convincing me. On the other hand, let us go back a bit and see what the government has provided in a budget to encourage private enterprise to create the jobs it seems quite anxious to create.
I heard him and some of his colleagues cry out: That is impossible, you are making concessions to private enterprise. Make up your mind once and for all.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You did not hear me say it!


Jacques L. Trudel: I said, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat it, that he and members of his party said that, and I recognize that he did not say it. I accept and admit it, but he also ought to remember that there is not one law for the rich and another for the poor. Perhaps the interpretation-although I do not want to blame them-was not accurate the first time, but I do not think I changed my mind time after time. We were discussing last night in the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs the borrowings and the bonds issued by the government. If the hon. member does not agree with the financing of the borrowings and bonds of the government, he might show us, because he will have the opportunity to do so, and I am sure the Minister of Finance will deal with this, how it could be done.
The brokers, everybody said it was a success. In some cases, perhaps not with regard to the last loan, but in the past, we had to stop the sales we were making because no one wanted to make them, and rightly so, for the private enterprise. I think the hon. member has rather special ties in that field, because he proved it in his speech, and the other levels of government have to go to the money market. I took note that he said the government had done nothing with regard to loans abroad.
If we go back a year or two, we note that the government asked other administrations to think about it twice before borrowing money on foreign markets. Since then, some did go to them in spite of the recommendations made by the Minister of Finance in this House, and made when the various ministers of finance met. Those who did not follow those recommendations found themselves with much higher rates of interest and depreciations which affected the debt financing they had to face.
There is, Mr. Speaker, another point I should like to discuss. The hon. member seemed to make much of what may be called "guestimates". In the United-States, not only there but also in France, it is the same thing: budgetary estimates are brought down, you have two years for the short-term budget and five years for long-term economic

projections. I had the opportunity to attend with the same member, a meeting with economists in the United States. As a matter of fact, the budget and the American policy were being discussed. It is quite true that there is a longterm projection. It might be pointed out also the the longterm projection is not-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Does the parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent?
Som


a hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jacques L. Trudel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank my hon. colleagues and I shall not be very long because I am sure that other hon. members want to take part in this debate. I could go on for a long time but I have a few points to add. I would like to say that the government is aware of reality. We have meetings with the various countries. Before concluding my remarks, I take the liberty of going back to another point I dealt with concerning the estimates.
I saw the estimates of one of the countries, namely the United States. The estimate was obvious but a deficit ranging from $42 to $115 billion was mentioned. I think that having an estimate does not settle anything, even in the long term. What we should do perhaps is to keep within the budget which was indicated by the President of Treasury Board and which will certainly be indicated by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech, so as to stick to the data and live the Canadian reality, live it in the face of the facts.
As concerns expenditures, there have been reduced receipts in past budgets. There must be some discipline, but everyone knows the rules, and I believe that the uncertainty which is evident in today's motion is far removed from reality. There are two other points that I should like to make. The first concerns job shortages forecast for 1980. I believe that the facts are quite different and that in certain areas, there will be a shortage of manpower rather than hundreds of thousands of unemployed. Maybe we should consider the fact that manpower departments exist to recycle people who did not have the opportunity to go to school so as to be able to face the realities of the labour market.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to close by saying this: We are faced with a concrete situation, the Canadian economy is improving, government programs have shown this, as have figures quoted in the Economic Review, in the report of the Bank of Canada, members of the European Council and other visitors have come here to congratulate the government and the Canadian people for having shown some discipline, and everything that has been done is now having these results, and I am certain that with the cooperation of all members of the House, we shall continue to control inflation and ensure that Canadians will find employment in their chosen fields.
Economic Conditions


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the previous speaker, my hon. friend from Montreal-Bourassa (Mr. Trudel), who made a good speech on behalf of the Minister of Finance.
It was a difficult speech to make. The minister's absence clearly shows the lack of interest of the government in our economic problems, but I want to ensure the House that the problems mentioned in the resolution of my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), are quite serious. It is difficult to understand the attitude of the Liberal government. Now, Mr. Speaker, I prefer to continue in my mother tongue.

In the motion before us today attention is drawn to the words "reckless ... intervention in the economy." I suppose we could consider it another example of reckless lack of intervention when the minister ignores the debate which is going on here today.
There seems to be little disagreement that inflation is a serious problem in Canada. However, I am not sure that the government realizes it, that there is only one cause and that the federal government is the only body which can cause and create inflation. All inflation comes from expanding the money supply. Credit is not inflationary, because credit is created by someone producing wealth and being willing to defer the consumption of that wealth. For example, when an individual borrows money, he can borrow it because someone else has produced wealth and is willing to forgo the spending of it at that particular moment.
The same is true when business borrows, when civic governments borrow or when provincial governments borrow. In every case the borrowing is created by someone having produced wealth, saved that money and not spend it. Therefore, there can be no inflationary pressure. One is simply trading one type of spending for another type of spending. But when the federal government borrows, it simply creates more money by paper entries in the accounts, and that is where the inflation comes from. Inflation is a little bit like pregnancy, because although there are many facets to the problem of inflation, just as there are to the problem of pregnancy, in each case there is only one cause. On that there is not much disagreement in Canada.
I refer the House to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in Hamilton last December. This was before his famous speech. He said:
Yes, we could bring down inflation to proper levels In 18 months. But If we did It would mean tightening the screws so much and so fast, that we'd then be causing a slowdown in the economy and massive unemployment even more serious than we have now. So, it's possible to bring inflation down very quickly by tightening up very drastically the money supply, by having a very conservative fiscal policy and so on, joined to the guidelines.
In other words, the Prime Minister was saying that he knows what the cause is, but he was also saying at the same time that he was unwilling to accept the consequences of taking action to solve a problem of which he knows the cause. It might cause us to wonder why it took until now to recognize the cause of inflation. We have been operating under this administration for 13 years, eight of those under the present Prime Minister. The Prime Minis-

May 12, 1976
Economic Conditions
ter was supported in his views by Professor Lawrence B. Smith of the University of Toronto, who made a statement which the Globe and Mail considered important enough to carry in an editorial. Referring to inflation, Professor Smith said:
There is really only one explanation for our present inflation ... namely that there has been too fast an increase in the rate of growth of the money supply.
If we all agree on the causes of inflation, then we should be able to agree on the solutions. I should like to refer to some of the other results of our anti-inflation policy in this country. First of all, many demands are caused by inflation, although people usually state it the other way around. The wage earner is forced to seek higher wage settlements so that he can keep up with inflation; merchants are forced to seek higher prices in order to protect themselves. The Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants together urged the government to make tax changes which would involve more than just indexing of exemptions. That would be some help, of course, but they feel that further steps are necessary in order to make permanent solutions available to taxpayers.
One thing they suggest, for example, is expansion of the limit of contributions made to registered retirement savings plans. Limits for those contributions were set in 1971 and have not been changed. They suggest that we need relief from taxation of illusory gains on property. If those things were done, the revenues of the government would fall. But this government wants to spend more money, so it is not hard to understand why it is reluctant to do these things. In Canada, savers pay taxes on their investment income, which is at times less than the rate of inflation. A prime example is Canada savings bonds. The government borrows money from taxpayers, taxes the income which is usually interest at about the same rate as inflation, and they pay capital back later in deflated dollars.
I have referred to reckless, and at times contradictory interventions. I should like to give a few examples of interventions which are hurting the people of this country. There was an article in the Financial Post of May 1 concerning the annual meeting of Bell Canada. It says it is a pity that the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board was not at the meeting. If he had been, the article says-[DOT]
He would have heard that big audience-1,225 of them, all ordinary, mostly elderly folk-stirred to applause by only one statement.
The article says that Bell's chairman described the AntiInflation Board's refusal to approve Bell's eitht-cent quarterly dividend increase as a "mistake". This decision directly affected 210,000 shareholders, most of them, as I have said, small investors and pensioners who rely on the dividends. It is interesting to note that Bell Canada is 98 per cent Canadian-owned. Most of them, as I have said, are little people and about 140,000 own fewer than 100 shares, for an investment of approximately $4,500. The company wanted to increase the dividend by 9.3 per cent, which is less than the rate of inflation last year. They were denied the increase. The minister has said that the Anti-Inflation Board would allow increases in dividends when justified, and one of those times would be if a company needed to raise additional capital for expansion. That was the ground

on which Bell Canada made its application to raise additional capital, but even so it was refused.
Another article in the same issue of the Financial Post referred to the new rules of the CRTC concerning FM programming and the restriction of the number of commercial minutes to be sold by those stations. I do not want to get into a debate on that rule at this time becasue it does not apply here. It is interesting, however, that the CBC itself was exempt from the new rule, while independent operators lost advertising revenue at a time when costs of new programming were increasing. The anti-inflation guidelines prevent stations from raising their rates to compensate for loss of revenue.
Mr. Speaker, I have already referred to government intervention. The remarks of the Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, made last week to the Financial Executives' Institute in Ottawa, is a case in point. Dr. Ostry said:
Businessmen in Canada refuse to accept that competition policy is an ally of business ... its central role is to strengthen private enterprise.
Mrs. Ostry said that the pending revision of the Combines Investigation Act is not intended to be a detailed intervention in the economy but, rather, is to assist consumers and business in their respective activities in the marketplace and is "an alternative to more direct government intervention".
Mr. Speaker, the government holds that more intervention is an alternative, but they persist in taking the view that it is possible to help both sides at once. Anyone who has been involved in an adversary relationship knows that cannot be done. I think the Prime Minister indicated that he did not entirely disagree when he said in his famous December speech:
It's a massive intervention into the decision-making power of the economic groups and it's telling Canadians we haven't been able to make it work, the free market system.
That is the famous "free market" statement which I think gave him a lot of problems. I do not see how businessmen or individuals in Canada can think otherwise, given the government's intervention in the marketing of foodstuffs, for example. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) tells us that the purpose of marketing boards and controls is to avoid "highs" and "lows". We know that, because now all we have is "highs" and no low prices at all.
The millions of taxpayers' dollars that the government invests in unnecessary Crown corporations is a type of intervention. Take Canadian National Railways being in the hotel business, for example. That may have been necessary 40 years ago, but today we have plenty of good hoteliers who can make money and we do not need the government's intervention.
Radio is another example. These days there is no need for taxpayer^ to subsidize radio to the tune of $200 million a year. Many radio operators in Canada are prepared to build and provide the service. We have only to look at the telephone industry to realize that a simple licensing system would enable the government to ensure the service is provided without being in the business itself. There is also Petro-Canada which competes with the oil companies.
There are many examples. Another example is public works which come under a government department and
May 12, 1976

not a Crown corporation. The department claims to be able to provide office space to the government at low cost through facilities it has which are not available to the public sector. The work of the Auditor General made it quite evident, I think, that the success of the Department of Public Works is questionable, at best, and that there should be an alternative method of providing space. I believe that private enterprise could do it quite well without tying up millions of taxpayers' dollars. I do not know how Canadians can react any differently in face of the government's attitude to situations such as this.
That brings me to the second part of the motion, which refers to uncertainty and lack of confidence with the public, which has led to "rising unemployment, falling productivity and unacceptable levels of real growth and inflation ... " The uncertainty must apply particularly to young males under 25 years, among whom unemployment is far greater than among those in the over 25-year old category. Of course, there are reasons for that. But do we hear suggested that the government's follies are at the root of these reasons? For example, this government offers the most generous unemployment insurance benefits in the world. There is absolutely no encouragement to work more than eight weeks. People are encouraged not to work. Therefore, a whole generation is growing up with no incentive to work.
In Vancouver, where we have the Habitat forum-it is to be an adjunct of the Habitat conference-there is an able man by the name of A1 Clapp who has men nearing the age of 30 working for him, for low wages admittedly; but these are men who in most cases have never before had a job. I have a son at the University of British Columbia and hear all these stories about jobs university students cannot get. My son has a job. When he told his employer that he wanted to quit his job in August so that he could take a few weeks off before going back to university, the employer begged him to stay because he could not fill the job. We have heard of tens of thousands of jobs being available. I can only point my finger at this government and say it must change the circumstances which cause these jobs to remain unfilled.
The Economic Council of Canada has recommended that government jobs should be created and that benefits be cut off if they are not accepted. The Economic Council discovered that in 40 per cent of cases, unemployed people called on for a job interview did not show up. They were not interested. If one is offered a suitable job and does not accept it, one should not be entitled to benefits. In a case like that, benefits should be cut off. These kinds of abuses have been referred to previously. In 1975, unemployment rates, on average, were 15 per cent for males under 25 years and 10 per cent for females in the same age bracket. These young people represent one half of our unemployment statistics but only one quarter of the labour force.
It has been observed that in Canada the working poor make up a large percentage of all the poor. The poor work, and the young lie around and work only long enough to collect their benefits. That is the fault of the attitude this administration had instilled. I remember the postal strike of 1974, or was it 1975? I am not sure which year it was: we have a strike almost every year. I know that thousands of
Economic Conditions
unemployment insurance cheques were left unclaimed in Toronto because their intended recipients were not able to travel downtown to pick them up.
The Economic Council of Canada study entitled "People and Jobs" says on page 5;
-the minimum annual rate of unemployment rose from 3.6 per cent in the 1960s to over 5 per cent in the 1970s and, in periods of slack demand such as experienced recently, the unemployment rate exceeded 7 per cent-
But, during the early 1970s, job vacancies climbed significantly without much moderation in the unemployment rate.
On page 6, the study says:
Despite the recent slackening in output, Canada's rate of real growth averaged 5 per cent annually over the last ten years. However, most of this was due to employment growth rather than productivity increases.
If we cannot get people to work, there will not be any productivity increases. It continues:
Since 1963 Canada's growth in output per man-hour has been consistently lower than that of all other OECD countries, except the United States.
I now turn to page 21, which deals with attitudes. The study found that Canadians are strongly motivated to work and said:
The vast majority of Canadians would prefer suitable work to unemployment insurance, but about one out of three would accept unemployment insurance rather than work at the minimum wage-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, whose allotted time has expired. He may continue if he has unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the motion proposed by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-


Mr. Paproski:: Caccia said no.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) has the floor. If hon. members want to continue their crossfire, perhaps they should go behind the curtains.


Mr. Caccia:: The hon. member's motion is drafted in his usual bombastic style and it is difficult to take it seriously. The motion speaks of "an atmosphere of uncertainty and lack of confidence with the public." There is evidence to show that the hon. member's contention that there is "lack of confidence with the public" is not supported by the people of Canada. For instance, when the government floats Canada saving bonds, they are sold in a shorter time than expected, and sometimes oversold. I ask the hon. member for York-Simcoe if this is an indication of uncertainty and lack of confidence on the part of the public.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: He is not here.


An hon. Member:: He was here most of the afternoon.

May 12, 1976
Economic Conditions


Charles L. Caccia: There is evidence showing that foreign investors wish to invest in this country. FIRA, the foreign investment agency, has been screening applications for some time and their number has remained constant. This means that foreigners look at Canada as a place in which they want to invest. I ask the hon. member, who is not in his seat, if he interprets that as uncertainty and lack of confidence. Every year, hundreds of thousands of would-be immigrants from all over the world try to come to Canada. Is this evidence of lack of confidence and uncertainty on the part of people throughout the world who look upon Canada as the place to which they want to go? Obviously, the answer is no. These three examples show how superficial is the motion, and the hurry with which the hon. member for York-Simcoe probably drafted it. If there is any lack of confidence, I suggest it is between the two ears of the hon. member himself.
Let us consider another part of the hon. member's motion. The hon. member spent some time talking about unemployment figures. I ask if he has ever taken time to look at employment figures. For instance, has he considered the increase in employment in Canada? For instance, in the period 1971-72, 236,000 new jobs were created in this country; in 1972-73 we had 394,000 new jobs; in 1973-74, 393,000 new jobs; and in the time from 1974 to the third quarter of 1975, we saw well over half a million, precisely 552,000 new jobs created in this country. Was the hon. member looking at that kind of evidence when he drafted his motion?
For instance, did he look at comparable figures applying to OECD countries? We learn, that our great neighbour to the south, whose population is ten times greater than ours, in the period 1974-75 created only 214,000 new jobs, or less than half the number of new jobs created in Canada. In the eyes of the hon. member for York-Simcoe, is that performance poor? Did he, for instance, look at the number of new jobs created in Australia, where the number of people employed in 1974-75 actually went down? In Canada, the number went by over half a million. In France in the same year, zero new jobs were created because employment went down. The same applies to Germany and Switzerland. In the eyes of the OECD, a neutral agency that looks at things above and beyond the political scene, Canada's performance was excellent, as reported by these employment figures.
What did the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) look at in order to arrive at his motion that speaks of uncertainty and lack of confidence? He speaks of rising unemployment. Did he also look at the phenomenal figures for rising employment? The same applies to levels of real growth which have been described by the OECD as among the best in the western world. They have been better than that of the United States. Over the years it has been among the best in industrialized countries. Where did the hon. member for York-Simcoe get his notion, information, facts or statistics on which to base his motion? It is difficult to say.
The motion also speaks of reckless intervention. Does the hon. member for York-Simcoe think that the AntiInflation Board is a reckless intervention in the economy? If so, why? Perhaps that is the reason he and his party

opposed the amendments to the Anti-Inflation Board Act to provide an appeal procedure for labour; they were passed last week. If it was a reckless intervention, why did the hon. member for Lanark, on third reading, support the Liberals and vote with the government? He must have reached the conclusion that it was a measure worth supporting and not a reckless intervention on the part of the government.
What about tax reform? Does the hon. member for York-Simcoe consider that to be a form of reckless intervention? What about the solid system of unemployment insurance in this country which protects those in the poorer areas in Canada, areas where unemployment is not available on a year-round basis? Does he consider that a reckless intervention? Is that the platform of his party? Is that what he is going to tell the people of New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Ontario at the time of the next election?
Does the hon. member for York-Simcoe think that direct job creation on the part of the federal government is reckless itervention? Does he think that subsidies to the aircraft industry to maintain its Canadian nature and provide employment for 8,000 to 10,000 aircraft workers is a reckless intervention? If so, why does he not say it? Does the hon. member believe that legislation with regard to foreign publications, like that which removed tax concessions for Time magazine and others, was a reckless intervention? That measure benefited Canadian publications as well as radio and television stations.
Is the hon. member for York-Simcoe against this kind of intervention on the part of Ottawa? If so, what intervention does he think the federal government, on behalf of the Canadian community, should introduce to stimulate the economy, protect the weaker elements in society and maintain Canada's position in the world? If you travel throughout the world, you are told by people of other countries that Canada is one of the finest countries in the world because it has been able to retain a good standard of living and a fine economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles L. Caccia: This kind of motion tries to erode confidence in the government and create uncertainty. It is the kind of defeatism that members of the opposition would be the first to condem if it were allowed to happen. If that is the role that the hon. member for York-Simcoe thinks the opposition should perform, he is not doing a service to this nation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) for letting me have a few minutes before he exercises his right on behalf of the official opposition to close the debate. My colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), has already indicated that when the vote is called we shall be voting for the motion that has been placed before the House this afternoon. However, as my colleague also pointed out, it is the motion we are voting for rather than some of the ideas contained in the speech of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).


An hon. Member:: You can't have it both ways.
May 12, 1976


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is one of the most popular cliches, that you cannot have it both ways, but it happens many times. At any rate, when 5.45 comes it will be the motion for which we are voting, not the speech of the mover. The hon. member for York-Simcoe said something in his speech that I did not like. This is the reason I asked for about four or five minutes. He got on to the subject of pensions, and even though he was speaking to a motion that talks about uncertainty and lack of confidence, he said the sort of things that might increase those very conditions.
What I took exception to in particular was his complaint that the federal government is too free with pensions, that it escalates the pensions of public servants, RCMP and armed forces personnel, and so on. As the hon. member for York-Simcoe would have it, things are going to get out of whack. The fact is that the fund for the payment of escalation additions to pensions is still in the black. It could get a little below the line if it were not already part of the law that, starting January 1, 1977, the contributions to that fund will be 1 per cent rather than one-half of 1 per cent. Therefore, I see no danger of any trouble in that regard.
The hon. member was simply mouthing the kinds of complaints that we see in the Globe and Mail, a newspaper which frequently says nice things about me on its editorial page. However, in this area I beg to disagree. The complaint is that public servants, and others who come under federal jurisdiction get an escalation in their pensions due to the rise in the cost of living, which is something which others do not get and, therefore, is unfair.
By sheer coincidence, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) yesterday placed on Hansard an answer to a series of questions of mine bearing the number 5,026. These were questions having to do with private pension plans. Although I have known from previous research that the situation was pretty bad, I was really shocked to discover that so far as the government is able to capture-that is the government's word-the statistics, 82 per cent of the individuals in Canada today who are working and are in pension plans are in plans that provide for no escalation after retirement. The other 18 per cent are provided with a certain amount of escalation, in some cases equal to the rise in the cost of living, and in other cases less than that figure.
I should like to say to my hon. friends who write for the editorial pages of the Globe and Mail, to those who deal with pension matters in the financial publications of this country, and to those who represent big business when they attend the Canadian pension conference, that what is wrong with the pension situation is not the fact that public servants and a few others have their pensions escalated so as to keep up with the cost of living; what is wrong is that all of the rest do not get the same escalation.
I insist that the time has come when it should be the rule that a pension is not a pension unless after retirement arrangements are made for the pension to be indexed or escalated, so when people retire they can at least keep up with the rising cost of living. I think they should be able to do better; I think they should be able to keep up with the
Economic Conditions
rising standard of living. Indeed, I should also like to see the industrial composite applied to the escalation of pensions rather than just the rise in the cost of living.
I promised my friend for Prince George-Peace River that I would not trespass on his time, but there was this one point I wanted to make. Although I am going to vote with my colleagues for the motion of the hon. member for York-Simcoe, I did not like the attack that he made today on public pensions. I think they provide the lead to this country and that it is time pensions in the private field matched those in the government field. Or if that is not possible, it is time that consideration was given to enlarging the Canada Pension Plan so that eventually all our people will be covered under government pensions that are secure, rather than under private plans which in so many cases are insecure and which, to the extent of 82 per cent, according to the figures placed on Hansard yesterday at page 13395, do not have any escalation.
That is my point, Mr. Speaker. It is not a mistake that some get escalation; the mistake is that so many do not get it. I hope that we can soon correct this unfair situation.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Would the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend on this side will allow me the extra minute or two.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I should like to ask the hon. member this question. If he is sincere and convinced of what he has just told us, namely, that he does not agree with the suggestion made by the opposition today in regard to pensions-and if he is, I agree with him wholeheartedly-how can he vote in favour of the opposition motion and go home with his conscience clear?


Mr. Mazankowski:: Because he wants a new government, that's why. He wants to get rid of the Grits.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when we vote, we vote on the motion before us. My conscience would not be clear if I voted against the motion, because I think the terms of it are correct.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, before I address myself to the motion that is before the House, if Your Honour would allow me I should like to say this in response to what was said by my colleague from Winnipeg who spoke ahead of me. If we ever did realize his dream, which incidentally I share, and all Canadians in our society are assured of a comfortable life after making their contribution to this country and they retire from the active labour force, then we must ensure we also have a healthy business climate. In the context of modern-day pension guarantees, we must also ensure that this country has a healthy corporate business climate.
What my colleagues to my left often overlook is that all pension plans invest in corporations and business, including the pension plans that the great unions of this country

Economic Conditions
maintain on behalf of their membership. In order to guarantee a comfortable income through pensions we must continue to create the kind of climate in which corporations and business can flourish within a society such as ours.
It is incredible to witness a government that is so far removed from the reality of today, Mr. Speaker-a government that has not recognized just what is going on in the economic world outside. The government has completely overlooked the fact that our major trading partners, including those who share the North American continent with us, have brought their inflation under control. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) overlooks the fact that the international con game of inflation is over. The government fails to realize that we are only cheating ourselves at this time when we think our trading partners will continue to accept our watered-down dollars, because they are losing their value. They are being passed on to those on fixed incomes and who receive sustenance payments from the federal government, such as senior citizens' allowances, unemployment insurance, family allowance and that sort of thing. As I say, Mr. Speaker, the international con game is over. We no longer have access to the global community. The European Economic Community has the problem under control, and so has the United States. We are fooling no one but ourselves.
One of my concerns at the present time is the lumber and wood fibre industry in this country. In terms of the deficits with other countries that it has been chalking up in recent years, there was a deficit last year of $5 billion, and it will be even worse next year. Most of the trade in wood fibre products is with the United States, and they are gaining a $5 billion trade advantage every year with this country. The United States enjoys a positive trade balance, particularly with iron curtain countries, as a result of its trade in agricultural products. Our lumber and wood fibre industry will be facing very stiff competition in the United States in very short order because that country will have to correct its trade imbalance with Russia by exporting lumber and pulp products to that country.
It is no secret that our productivity has declined and that the price of our lumber products has increased to the point where it is very difficult today even to compete with producers in the United States, never mind those who import from across the ocean. It is hard to believe lumber grows on trees any more, in view of the price of it these days. This is why we are all so concerned, particularly when you consider that the lumber and wood fibre industry is second only to our great agricultural industry. I fear for my country when the time comes that we will have to face the inevitable and use our wood products within the country only because we have priced ourselves out of international markets.
The problem of inflation, in my humble opinion, is not the number one problem, even though it is the cause of even greater problems which we are facing today. I refer particularly to the industrial warfare being waged in our country. One must remember that this country, with its potential, its great natural resources and the great heritage we enjoy, has achieved the dubious distinction of having the worst record in industrial relations. This is due to this

government's incompetence and to the people who elected this government instead instead of a group of people who offered a solution to the problems of inflation and the situation in which we find ourselves today.
This government waited too long to bring in prices and incomes controls, and when it did bring them in it was the wrong program entirely. The government has lost the trust and confidence, not only of the individuals in our country but, more particularly, of those groups which have the power to exert undue pressure on our economic system. I am talking particularly about the unions which have opted out or dropped this government as a lost cause and are setting out on their own causes, protecting their own interests.
Industrial warfare is being waged in this country to an extent that frightens me. It frightens me because I think of the record of those major industries which are performing essential public services. I refer to the railway which operates throughout the province of British Columbia, the work force of which is represented by eight different unions, each one capable of shutting down the operations of the railway. I ponder the question of what happens to the other seven unions which are not on strike. The members are, of course, on unemployment insurance while the strike is on.
It is for this reason I suggest the system has reached the point where it is consuming itself. This is no longer spiralling inflation but a crumbling of the foundation of the system which built this country and at one time made it great. We are in a situation today over which we have no control. The only solution to the problems which are even greater than inflation now, namely, those problems associated with industrial warfare and strikes which are destroying the welfare of this state, is a change of government.
This government has lost the confidence of every Canadian. It has removed itself from the will of the people and from the realities of modern times, to the extent that it should no longer have the right to bring any programs before us which are not in tune with the needs of our times. This government has removed itself from the principles of international markets and has totally ignored the programs which initiated the turn-around the people in the United States are experiencing. You do not have to go very far to see this: just walk across the border and order a meal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being 5.45 o'clock, it is my duty to interrupt the debate and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the proceedings now before the House, in accordance with section (9)(a) of Standing Order 58.
The motion is as follows: moved by Mr. Stevens, seconded by Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carle ton)-


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Shall I dispense?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. Read it so we will know what we are voting for.
May 12, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It has been moved by Mr. Stevens, seconded by Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):
That this House, believing that the continuing tendency of this administration to reckless and at times contradictory intervention in the economy has created an atmosphere of uncertainty and lack of confidence with the public, and seeing that this uncertainty has resulted in rising unemployment, falling productivity, and unacceptable levels of real growth and inflation, expresses its lack of confidence in the government.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
The Acting Speakar (Mr. Turner): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) on a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to your attention that the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker) came in not only after Your Honour had risen but when the count had started. I am sure the hon. member would not want to have his vote counted in this division.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I heard calls for points of order during the taking of the vote, but I must confess I missed the incident. The hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker).


Mr. Blaker:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) is quite correct. I was not certain, when I entered the chamber, whether I was still within the time. With the agreement of the House, perhaps my vote might be stricken from the proceedings.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to your attention the fact that the hon.

May 12, 1976
Economic Conditions
member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) could have done the same thing, but did not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Dick:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a member of parliament from the province of Ontario, could I be advised whether the Electoral Boundaries Commission
filed the appropriate report today, the last day for the province of Ontario, as it is supposed to do according to law?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being after six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.15 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 13, 1976