1976-05-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That this House expresses its strong condemnation of the government's decision announced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and contemptuously of parliament in that it was made outside the House, of the recognition by Canada of the Palestine Liberation Organization, which cannot but be harmful to the State of Israel and to world peace, it having been made clear by the Prime Minister of Israel last Thursday that Israel will not negotiate with the Palestine Liberation Organization, as he said: 'its prime aim is to strangle the Jewish state. They want the destruction of the State of Israel. It is the essence of their philosophy and policy.'
And further, that the practice, followed by three prime ministers who held office before the present Prime Minister, of making provision on government days for debate of international affairs in each session be restored, in place of the practice of the past eight years of having foreign affairs virtually undiscussed in the House, as if action on the major subject of survival of mankind and peace itself was a monopoly privilege of the Prime Minister, the minister and cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under Standing Order 43. A short while ago the parking fee at the National Arts Centre for evening performances was $1. This was raised to $1.25, but because making change slowed down the egress of cars, the charge has been raised to $2 an increase of 100 per cent over what it was a short time ago.
Believing that the Anti-Inflation Board is concerned about price increases and not just wage increases, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: That this House calls on the Anti-Inflation Board to review and roll back the 100 per cent increase in the amount charged by the National Arts Centre for underground parking during evening performances.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion can only be presented to the House with its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONGRATULATIONS TO MONTREAL CANADIENS FOR WINNING STANLEY CUP-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with a matter of national and international significance.
In view of the outstanding victory of the Canadiens who once again last night won the Stanley Cup, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner):
That congratulations be sent to the management, coach and the players of the Canadiens for their well-deserved success and the brilliant way in which they have contributed to the international reputation of Canada in a field where their renown has become proverbial.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Since the House agrees unanimously, I shall put the motion. Seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie) moves:
That congratulations be sent to the management, coach and players of the Canadiens for their well-deserved success and the brilliant way in which they have contributed to the international reputation of Canada in a field where their renown has become proverbial.
Does it please the House to adopt the motion?

May 17, 1976
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In light of the high rate of unemployment and recent statistical data to the effect that unemployment is highest in Quebec, affecting mostly young people from 18 to 30 years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That this House urge the government to revise immediately full range of employment programs, particularly those affecting people of 18 to 30 years of age.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Such a motion moved pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Could he confirm to the House that at least one of Canada's major banks has withdrawn its participation from the financing of the LRPA contract and that others now are, to put it mildly, soft on the deal and also that the current scheme on which the minister's own personal position and reputation in this House is very much at stake-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -is in fact collapsing around him?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I can-


An hon. Member:: Yes or no.


James Armstrong Richardson: -confirm to the House that the decision the government of Canada made last November to

purchase 18 long-range patrol aircraft from the Lockheed Company has not been changed. I expect to make a full announcement and statement in the House tomorrow.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is curious that the minister is drawn to make statements on matters that have not changed. I wonder if he can tell the House whether one of the major chartered banks has in fact withdrawn from any participation-has let the government know it will not participate in any financing of the LRPA contract. Will he also tell the House whether the government's legal advisers in the Department of Justice have convinced the minister or his colleagues that the contract the government is proposing to sign with Lockheed does not meet the legal and administrative requirements of the government? If so, will he tell the House now or tomorrow what changes he is proposing in the contract to bring it within the legal requirements of the government?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the contract is still in escrow. I will reply to that question, in fact, to all other questions, when I make the statement tomorrow.


Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that we now have a commitment from the minister that his statement tomorrow will include information as to the position of banks in the country relative to this matter, and will include also an indication of the information given to the minister by the legal officers of the Crown relative to the original administrative proposal which was made. I would now ask the minister if he can tell us whether he and his colleagues are actively considering now some other practical alternatives, to ensure that Canada's armed forces obtain the new long-range patrol aircraft which we so urgently require, in case the Lockheed matter does not proceed?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the support of the Leader of the Opposition for the Canadian Armed Forces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: I think the House will be well pleased by the statement, when it is made tomorrow.


Mr. Paproski:: Are you going to resign, Chretien?


ALLEGED PLAN TO CO-OPERATE WITH AUSTRALIA IN BUYING MILITARY EQUIPMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister considering an alternative which will enable him to repair one of his broken promises, as stated in Flight International of September 27, 1973. According to that publication:
The Canadian Minister for National Defence, Mr. James Richardson, has formally announced that Canada and Australia have agreed to co-operate in buying long-range patrol aircraft and other military equipment. It could save both countries millions of dollars said the minister ...
Would the minister now consider saving these millions of dollars by re-opening that alternative?


May 17, 1976


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with that statement. We did at one time have discussions with the Australians concerning the possibility of joining together for a purchase, but those discussions between the two countries have long since been abandoned.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-REQUEST FOR DEBATE OF ANY GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE OF LOAN
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister may I direct my supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board? Would the President of the Treasury Board assure the House that any guarantee to the Canadian banks or to Lockheed concerning the LRPA loan or loans, which are on the face of it on behalf of the Government of Canada, will be subject to debate and approval by the House of Commons, in compliance with the Financial Administration Act?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, when the announcement to be made tomorrow by the Minister of National Defence is known, I hope that the hon. member will have a satisfying answer.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-SUGGESTION UNITED STATES BANKS HAVE FIRST CLAIM ON COMPANY'S ASSETS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence as well. It concerns the Lockheed deal but is not related to an announcement confirming a deal of some sort, which I take it the minister made some minutes ago and will elaborate on tomorrow. My question is this: Would the minister or his officials confirm that if the Lockheed Corporation goes belly-up in the U.S., the first claimants on the more than $600 million it owes will be the 24 U.S. banks in the United States it now owes money to?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, we have, as we have indicated on a number of occasions, assurances from the United States government which will be tabled tomorrow with my statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was a belly-up answer.


John Edward Broadbent: The answer, indeed, was belly-up. Is the minister saying that part of the package which he will announce tomorrow will contain assurances by the U.S. government about the economic viability of Lockheed Corporation?


James Armstrong Richardson: That is what I said, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-ADVICE OF JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ON WHETHER GOVERNMENT OWED ANYTHING PRIOR TO SIGNING OF $16 MILLION CONTRACT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a finjd supplementary question to the Minister of Justice? Can the Minister of Justice now answer a question put to him previously? As I recall, he said he would look into it. Just before the Government of Canada signed the contract last month committing ourselves to giving some $16 million to the Lockheed Corporation, no matter what happened, can he tell us if he had his officials look into any commitments, which may have existed prior to the signing of that commitment last month? Would we have owed Lockheed any money at all if we had not signed that commitment a month ago?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Supply and Services have throughout been supplied with legal advice as to their possible positions in this matter.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the prospect of a nationwide strike, will the minister use his influence and good office to impress upon the Minister of Transport the necessity of broadening the terms of reference of the public inquiry in order to provide maximum latitude in assessing safety implications for all procedures with respect to bilingual air-to-ground communications, specifically IFR and VFR?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the government is anxious to avoid a strike by air traffic controllers and, therefore, we will do our best to avoid it. I think that the inquiry proposed by the Minister of Transport was a solution which was quite acceptable; it would have enabled the public to know both sides of the medal. However, I think we have nothing to win by making this debate more controversial and as far as the terms of reference are concerned if there is something to change, we would be prepared to do so. On the other hand, we must not ignore the purpose of the inquiry which is to find a reasonable solution and not to launch a useless debate.


THREATENED STRIKE OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS- REASON TREASURY BOARD IGNORED CONCILIATION BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS ON LANGUAGE AND WAGES
Donald Frank Mazankowski: While the minister and his government may be anxious to avert a nationwide strike, as are we on this side of the House, will he advise why Treasury Board chose to ignore the principal contents

May 17, 1976
Oral Questions
of the conciliation recommendations, namely those aspects dealing with the language question and the wage offer?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we negotiate the questions of the salary levels. I think that the government measures on bilingualism are based on the legislation passed by an act of Parliament and that this legislation is not negotiable at the negotiation table.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary to the President of the Treasury Board.
I would first like to tell him that I do not agree with the advisability of this inquiry, and I would like to know whether the government will require Air Canada Vice President Kent Davis to give some explanations concerning unpleasant remarks he made towards French-speaking civil servants of the Crown corporation.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, civil servants have bosses within their agencies and if any disciplinary measures are to be taken, they must be taken by directors in every department or agency. I am not aware of any unpleasant remarks, but I will convey this question of the hon. member to the Minister of Transport.


EDUCATION
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State. It refers to one I put to the minister on Friday asking him to justify the $111 million mistake in federal estimates of postsecondary education costs. He replied that it was not a mistake and I accept that. It is much worse. Can he now justify the deliberate tabling of misleading estimates designed to show restraint in the federal government's spending program when he knows that final payments under this program for 1976-77 will be much higher and that what he is trying to pass off as restraint is in fact a deferred payment of an expenditure mandated by law?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to do so, I shall answer this question because estimates fall under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Board. I must say that the action taken by the Treasury Board, on presenting the estimates, is quite legitimate. We had, under the law, the privilege of postponing payment of certain debentures to show to all levels of

government that we are serious about our restraint program and indirectly encourage them to do likewise. Those expenditures will be settled when the government deems it opportune.


Miss MacDonald:: Is the President of the Treasury Board prepared to say the amount of the preliminary estimates submitted to him by the Secretary of State? Was this preliminary request for funds based on the provincial estimates of operating expenditures for 1976-77, as required under the Fiscal Arrangements Act?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said in my previous answer that the legislation allowed a certain flexibility as far as payments are concerned and we took advantage of that.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: A final supplementary-I should like to address it to the Prime Minister but he is absent. I will direct it to the President of the Treasury Board. Does the minister consider that this obvious example of lack of integrity in dealing with federal-provincial fiscal arrangements provides the proper climate for co-operative approach to the renegotiation of post-secondary financing at the first ministers conference in June?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think this would be quite appropriate and will give the provinces a chance to realize that the government is very much concerned by the level of public expenditures and trying to bring them under control, as the official opposition is pressing us every day to do.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that Noranda Mines, a Canadian company, is about to start operations in Chile, has the Canadian government made any arrangement, commitment or contract with this company to facilitate its establishment in that country?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question, and perhaps it will be possible to answer it later during the day.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question also directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, of which the Parliamentary Secretary could take notice. I will ask it in English.

Has Noranda Mines received or been promised any financial assistance from the Canadian Export Develop-
May 17, 1976

ment Corporation or is it under any contract or negotiating any contract with the Canadian International Development Agency?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I am taking notice of the question.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. It is my understanding that the ongoing investigation into the SIU has assumed two forms, one into possible criminal aspects and another into non-criminal aspects. Can the minister state whether he has received a report with respect to the non-criminal aspects of the investigation?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: I believe the minister responsible for the RCMP is the minister to whom any questions dealing with these investigations should be directed.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I must say that in view of the interest the Minister of Labour has in this matter I thought he would be informed. However, may I address the question to the Solicitor General?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: I have checked with the RCMP on a periodic basis with respect to this investigation. They tell me it is very wide and comprehensive, that it is still under way and that it will take some time. No final report, or, indeed, interim report, has been issued.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In the last few days the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency has asked, with the support of the Minister of Agriculture, for authority to be a direct importer of eggs and for sole receivership rights in respect of eggs imported into Canada. CEMA has asked that the situation be clarified immediately. Can the minister tell us when the situation will be clarified, and can he assure the House that any change in policy will be in the interest of Canadian consumers as well as of the egg producers?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Anything we decide on will be in the interest of both the consumers and the producers; that is the intent of national marketing-both have to be in a healthy position. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is attending a meeting today in Dallas, Texas. As soon as he returns we shall be
Oral Questions
discussing this problem. We want it settled. We want a decision made as soon as possible, also.


William Heward Grafftey: On many occasions the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has stated that in no circumstances would he support a policy which gave CEMA sole receivership rights in respect of imported eggs, and that is government policy at the present time. How does the Minister of Agriculture justify his position of advocating the exact opposite from one end of the country to the other?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if I recall correctly what the minister said in the House previously, he is against a monopoly. CEMA does not have a monopoly on egg production in Canada at the present time. There are many producers with 1,000 or 500 laying hens that are not under the control of the provincial marketing board; they can market their eggs at any price. As the hon. member I am sure is aware, there are other groups in Canada that have control over imports. The Canadian Wheat Board has control over the importation of wheat, oats and barley; the Canadian Dairy Commission has control over the importation of butter. I am sure that the hon. member would not suggest that this authority should be taken away from them.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, can I address my question to the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in the absence of the minister, or to the Acting Prime Minister. Is the minister aware that Bell Aerospace, a subsidiary of Textron, a United States corporation which produces air cushion vehicles which are of great importance for various purposes in Canada, such as ice breaking, flood control and transportation on rough terrain, has reduced its staff of employees at the Canadian plant at Grand Bend from 78 to 19 and proposes to close down its Canadian operations?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I was personally aware of this story that appeared in the newspapers. I would be glad to pass the question on to the minister for an answer when he returns the day after tomorrow.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, would the Acting Prime Minister also refer the following supplementary question to the minister. Would the minister inquire into this situation and discuss with the company how this valuable industry, which has been financed by the federal PAIT program to the extent of $4 million, can be carried on, especially in light of the fact that the U.S.S.R. has expressed interest in Canada's leading technology in this field and that the U.S. army is also testing the machines?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that the discussions he suggests are already underway.

May 17, 1976
Oral Questions


HOUSING
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Further to the question I asked him on May 13 on the way the Quebec Housing Corporation is spending the funds allocated by the federal government for the purpose of building low cost housing for senior citizens, has the minister checked the facts put forward on May 13 and can he inform the House on the use or availability of such funds, as the promoters of such projects are still refused money from the government from Quebec on the grounds that the federal government has not done anything yet?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say I have checked into this. Funds have been allocated under our public housing, non-profit housing and limited dividend housing programs, I think in the area of $56 million. Arrangements are still to be made by the province of Quebec for delivery of these programs, but the funds are available, plus other programs in regard to which the province of Quebec has not made appropriate arrangements.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs responsible for housing. Has the minister had discussions with the executive or the president of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, and was the sharing of tax points with the municipalities under the Income Tax Act discussed with the municipalities?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the tri-level task force on public finance has made its report to the three levels of government. There has been a meeting between the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities and the provincial minister representing the other provincial ministers. This matter has not been discussed recently. We have received the report and we hope to be able to discuss it jointly in the not too distant future. There are difficulties in arranging those discussions, but certainly there is agreement between the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities and the federal government that such discussions would be productive, and we would be happy to enter into such discussions.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do the minister and his colleagues in the federal government intend to pursue this matter with the provinces before the meeting of the CFMM, which is to take place in Vancouver in June?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether that would happen. The Hon. Brian Peckford of Newfoundland, who is representing the provincial ministers in this regard, is in contact with his provincial counterparts but he is unlikely to get agreement from all provinces to have such discussions before that meeting. As a matter of fact, it is increasingly difficult to get agreement to have such discussions at all.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR FILING REPORTS ON PROFESSIONAL FEES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and relates to the Anti-Inflation Board. As the board requires that compliance reports on professional fees and income be submitted within 90 days of the year end, and as the report forms and other related material have only recently been sent out by the board to those affected, will the minister extend the due date for these reports to August 15, to give the required 90 days?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the point as expressed by the hon. gentleman seems to be reasonable and I will discuss it with the board.


William C. Scott: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As there are approximately 40,000 people affected, how soon can the minister make the decision known in order that those people will have a chance to negotiate with their accountants in different fields?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will discuss that concern with the board as well.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the recommendation implied by the Auditor General in his report for the year ended March 31, 1975, and later enunciated by him before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, would the minister give very careful consideration to the establishment of the position of chief financial officer within the framework of the Public Service of Canada, the position to have express responsibility for overseeing matters relating to the adequacy of financial accounting and control measures over the some $40 billion of annual revenues and expenditures involved in the current operations of the government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, we studied thoroughly the Auditor General's recommendations which we all accepted, except two. As concerns the position mentioned



May 17, 1976

by the hon. member, I am prepared to consider it favourably. There is a problem of organization within the government. We strongly intend to establish the required mechanisms to the satisfaction of the Auditor General, and I think that with respect to this particular matter, the Treasury Board and the Auditor General will finally find a common ground. However, it is a problem of governmental organization and we may not be able to meet all the requests of the Auditor General, but if we can meet them in a proportion of 98 per cent, as we did until now, I think it is a good average.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the hon. gentleman. He and I have exchanged a few words before on the issue of bringing in legislation to implement proposals made by the independent review board on the office of the Auditor General. I think the minister has already promised seven times to introduce legislation before the end of the session. Would he make the promise for the eighth time and make us happy?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will make the promise at a time other than today; I hope to give this matter a very prominent place in the Speech from the Throne that will be presented in the fall.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Despite the withdrawal of labour from ongoing committees comprised of labour, government and management, can the minister advise whether, in his recent talks with officials of the CLC, he had been given notice that a manifesto of labour demands would be issued by the CLC; and has the minister discussed the items contained within the manifesto in any of the bilateral discussions with the CLC which he has been advising the House have been taking place? Or does it come as a complete surprise?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I was not given notice of the precise form of the manifesto that will be presented. I must advise the hon. member, however, that the CLC was approached in respect of entering into discussions with the government pertinent to a post-control period, and what policies it would like developed in this regard. We wanted to have the CLC's views and that type of approach was made, to which the CLC was receptive. Certainly I was aware, as I think the
Oral Questions
government was, that there was thinking going on within the CLC relative to the post-control period.
* (1440)


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, reports of the manifesto indicate the following:
Logic draws us to the conclusion that the government is moving into a new era in which the institutions of this country are going to change.
I would ask the minister whether he agrees with that CLC statement, and whether, in any of the recent talks with the CLC, the minister has given the CLC reason to justify that statement?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, that all depends on how you want to interpret "institutions". Certainly the CLC has been, and I think will be in the future, co-operating with the government and with the business representatives on the Canadian Labour Relations Council-the tripartite council with which the hon. member I am sure is familiar-in reforming and changing some of the institutions that we have found not to be working too satisfactorily, not only from a labour point of view but from the point of view of the country generally. I am referring to the free collective bargaining system and the work that labour has done in that area in terms of the concept of broader base bargaining and other innovations that will, indeed, improve and necessarily change the institutions.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, it would appear the minister has had some discussions in some depth with the CLC, and my question is, when the CLC says that "logic drives us to the conclusion that the government is moving into a new era in which the institutions of this country are going to change", is it the minister's understanding from his discussions with the CLC that this refers only to matters of labour-management relations, or is this something which goes much further than that?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think our institutions are always in a state of change. I think that primarily the CLC is concerned, and the manifesto to a degree reveals this, with what will happen in respect of collective bargaining and their rights under collective bargaining. The CLC is very concerned about that. We have indicated to the CLC that through the tripartite relationship we hope to improve the system, not to deny rights, but rather to reduce the adversary element within the system to the benefit of the CLC and everybody else concerned. That is the major concern of the CLC, and I believe that is what is referred to in the particular paragraph of the manifesto quoted by the hon. member.


MANPOWER
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and is related to reports that indicate that up to 3 per cent of the recently announced unemployment

May 17, 1976
Oral Questions
statistics can be attributed to strikes, not only in private industry but also in essential public services. Would the minister advise the House to what extent his department has the capacity to evaluate these statistics to see whether these reports are justified, and will he indicate what his department intends to do about this?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, that type of analysis is more appropriately focused within the Department of Labour. We pool such specialized information in that area with the Department of Labour.


IMMIGRATION
Robert Knight Andras: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might respond to a question addressed to me the other day on an important matter regarding the alleged requirement for United States visitors to Canada to have passports or birth certificates. I want to clearly indicate that such is not the case. This was a result of somewhat erroneous information and has been clarified with all our immigration posts. The fact is that we will not be requiring United States visitors to Canada to have passports or birth certificates, but simply the ordinary identification they have been presenting.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Since it is quite obvious that many recipients of unemployment insurance are either directly or indirectly involved in strikes, some in essential public services, has he had any discussions with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration as to the advisability and the benefits that could be derived from the development of a multi-union bargaining system in our country so that one firm is not bargaining with eight unions, in which case if one goes on strike the rest receive unemployment insurance?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, just to make things perfectly clear, and I do not know whether the hon. member does not understand this proposition-


Frank Oberle: I understand it very well.


John Carr Munro: The fact is you cannot get unemployment insurance while you are on strike, to which I believe my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, will attest. However, in answer to the hon. member's general question, yes, this is one of the essential

concepts that labour, management and government, the tripartite council, have been endeavouring to develop the concept of broader base bargaining. Following the adoption of this concept, then, if one union exercises its right to strike in a case where an employer has eight or nine bargaining agents to deal with in coming to settlements, the whole place will not be shut down, denying the opportunity of employment to those employees belonging to other unions. It is hoped we can change this type of thing through the concept of broader based bargaining, and there has been some progress along these lines.



INCOME TAX


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue and is in respect of a question raised a week ago concerning a dangerous precedent which had been established by officials regarding the possible change in the tax exemption status of charitable organizations. I wonder whether the minister has yet had an opportunity to consider the situation with regard to the more than 30,000 charitable organizations presently enjoying this tax benefit status in Canada, and whether he has yet come to any conclusion concerning the appropriateness of such a decision by people in his department prohibiting certain activities of these organizations?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Interestingly enough, but maybe not surprising, "charitable purpose" is not defined in the act so we had to turn to the courts for an interpretation. They have indicated that "for charitable purposes" includes relief of poverty, advancement of religion, advancement of education and an obscure clause, of general benefit to the community. So, first and foremost, when we are defining what charitable activity is we must look to those engaged in other activities. "Political activity" again has no definition in the act. It has been indicated in the courts that "engaged in political activity", is an adjunct to political activity and does in fact void the charitable aspect. We in the department have no wish to be unduly restrictive. In point of fact, the department has taken the position that presenting a viewpoint does not in fact void the charitable status. This is an area where I do back up my officials. They had to depend on the only precedent they had in this particular instance, that is the jurisprudence of the land, and because of that, and the difficulties this might make for many organizations, I am asking my officials to look at it in more depth.

May 17, 1976



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the $1,500 ceiling on casual earnings allowed veterans on war veterans allowances, or their spouses, has remained fixed for the past three years, whereas average earnings have risen some 40 per cent, and federal minimum wages have risen by 50 per cent, a situation causing hardship to veterans and their families, will the Minister of Veterans Affairs undertake to increase the $1,500 ceiling on exempt casual earnings to bring this into line with higher levels of average earnings, as was done in the past, in order that these casual earnings will be worth as much today as they were three years ago?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: In answer to the hon. gentleman's question, Mr. Speaker, we are presently doing this in the department. Negotiations are being carried out and we hope to be successful in this endeavour.



SUGGESTED PROVISION OF PRO-RATED PENSION FOR WIDOWS OF PENSIONERS WHOSE DISABILITY WAS LESS THAN 48 PER CENT

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I too, have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and I am glad he is in an affirmative mood. Now that Bill C-92, which provides compensation for Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war, is in effect, will the minister and his department study the possibility of bringing in legislation to implement one of the recommendations of the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs which was not included in Bill C-92, namely, the provision of pro-rated pensions for widows of veterans where the veteran's disability pension was less than 48 per cent?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker we are constantly reviewing this and many other aspects and necessities in our department. This will be also under study but how soon it can be brought forward I cannot tell the hon. member at this time.



POSSIBLE INCLUSION OF WORLD WAR I PRISONERS OF WAR IN PROVISIONS OF BILL C-92

Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister, at the same time, review the possibility of including veterans of World War I who were prisoners of war under the provisions of Bill C-92?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this will be given due consideration, but I must remind members of the House that when the POW legislation was prepared and presented to the House of Commons the people who worked on it considered that prisoners of war in the first world war were treated quite differently from prisoners in the second world war.
Oral Questions



MANPOWER


Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, to whom I gave advance notice of it.
Considering that local initiatives projects are coming to an end within a few weeks and following the question I asked him on January 29, 1976, which can be found at page 10428 of Hansard, can the minister tell the House whether he is now ready to make a statement in that regard and if not, when he will be able to inform the House of the implementation of similar projects to replace the local initiatives projects in constituencies with a high rate of unemployment?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to say that I appreciate the notice which the hon. member sent me. The Local Initiatives Program funding for the fiscal period 1975-1976 is, as the hon. member has noted, due to end within a few weeks and $150 million in funds were allocated for that purpose for that period. No decision has been taken to extend that program beyond the termination date of the projects presently underway although, as I have indicated in the House, $100 million has been allocated and will be sought in supplementary estimates for 1976-1977 for this fall and winter. The details of that program will be made available to hon. members as soon as we have finalized some of the changed criteria.



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR ACCOUNTING OF HOW MONEY WAS SPENT IN CONSTITUENCIES

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question? Will he be providing to the House an accounting of how the money was spent in every constituency in the final analysis.


Robert Knight Andras: It has been standard practice to table the allocation of funds broken down by constituency since we introduced that degree of distribution. I am not sure what the hon. member wishes to know with regard to the details of how every dollar was spent in the constituencies. We will certainly show the funding allocation.



CUSTOMS


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. My colleague from Regina asked him last week about the abandonment of customs and clearance services at the airports in Saskatoon and Regina. I hope he will be in a position to answer that question today.

Oral Questions
And while he is on his feet would he also advise us, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, of the state of negotiations with regard to customs preclearance in Calgary and Edmonton, a matter which has been outstanding now for some 18 months to two years?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: With regard to the first part of the question I have the same difficulty as the hon. member. I want to discuss the matter with my colleague, the Minister of Transport. Normally, we provide the personnel after consultation with the Department of Transport on whether the traffic load warrants it. The facilities are not provided there because the traffic pattern apparently is not sufficient to warrant the services of customs officials. However, I want to be certain before I give an unequivocal answer to the hon. member.
With respect to the other matter, negotiations are proceeding. I cannot give the hon. member a positive answer.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With regard to the preclearance in Calgary and Edmonton and the apparent desire of the Minister of Transport to make sure that the airlines pay for the service, would he also look at the equity of those people who use those airports paying a user tax and yet not getting facilities to which they are entitled at other airports?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In light of the fact that the representation comes from such an august member of the House, I will give it my careful consideration.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs and it arises out of questions I asked some months ago about the negotiations between the provincial government of Nova Scotia and his department concerning the future of the proposed new structure on Camp Hill hospital site in Halifax. Are these negotiations reaching a final conclusion and, if so, can the minister indicate briefly just what it is?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with the minister of health in Nova Scotia. My officials have been down to Nova Scotia and discussions are being carried on with regard to this transfer. With regard to giving the hon. member the final conclusion, I would like to tell him that from past experience I find it is not a good idea to state conclusions before something is clearly established. Therefore, I would prefer not to do it at this time.



PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL STORAGE SPACE ON PACIFIC COAST-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It has to do with the Canadian Wheat Board incentive program to encourage the construction of an additional 14 million bushels of storage space at the Pacific seaboard. I wonder whether the minister intends to support this program by constructing additional storage at the government elevator at Prince Rupert.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think the policy is good and we are hopeful it can be used at Prince Rupert.



CUSTOMS


Mr.   Sean@: My question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue who has been questioned earlier today about customs agents. In view of the fact that the minister himself has been known during his service in parliament for good manners, and with the influx of tourists to Canada, especially in view of the Olympics this year, would the minister go out of his way to make sure that officials of his department, Department of National Revenue employees at the borders, who are not known for the best manners in the world, might be given a crash course in politeness to welcome visitors into our country?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I categorically deny that presumption by the hon. member. We deal with some 75 million visitors to Canada. Considering the limited number of complaints we get, I think they are doing a crack-a-jack job. It does not mean that it cannot be better, but most assuredly I dissociate myself from the hon. member's comment.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As Canada Pension Plan benefits will exceed employer-employee contributions in about three years and from then on it will be all downhill unless the government subsidizes the plan or abruptly raises the contributions of those still paying, would the minister indicate if his department has done a fresh appraisal of the magnitude of this coming gap and, if so, would he indicate what it is likely to be?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The
department has under scrutiny the question of the expected crossover of the Canada Pension Plan payments, that is to have them moved to a position where the contributions
May 17, 1976

will no longer exceed the payments out. This was in contemplation right from the start in the Canada Pension Plan, and for this particular purpose we have been having some discussions with the provincial governments. Indeed, at the last finance ministers meeting the province of Ontario responded with a lengthy brief on the question, as did other provincial finance ministers in oral terms. In short, this is a question which has been under examination. I would not like to make a statement at this time as to the possible future course, but in view of the important role the Canada Pension Plan has had in terms of financing provincial governments as well as protecting individual Canadians, clearly this is a matter which will be extensively discussed in a year or so.



USE OF RESOURCES BY COMPANIES NOT PERMITTED TO EXPORT

Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the report last week, I should like to ask the minister whether the Canadian government will force companies which are not permitted to export to use the same resources to supply the domestic market. Is that going to apply only to findings in the Northwest Territories and the northern part of Canada or will it also be applied to the provinces?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should have liked to be able to give the hon. member a full and complete answer at this time, but I have indicated to him and other hon. members that we will be making a full statement with respect to the new oil and gas land regulations, and I think it has now been agreed that the time for that will be on Wednesday of this week.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State. Can the minister inform me whether pursuant to section 22 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act he has received a representation order from the representation commissioners of the province of Ontario?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check into that.
Presence in Gallery AGRICULTURE



NUMBER OF CATTLE AND SHEEP DESTROYED UNDER BLUE TONGUE CONTROL PROGRAM

Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister inform the House how many cattle have been destroyed under the new blue tongue eradication program, how many sheep have been destroyed and how he plans to control the disease in wild game?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that detailed information ought to be sought in another way.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to the attention of the House the presence in your gallery of a representative of Israel with whom we maintain close and friendly relationships, His Excellency Haim Zadok, the Minister of Justice of Israel, and his charming wife, Mrs. Zadok.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While I have no objection to going through the exercise of standing to be recognized-and I recognize the fact that there are many other hon. members who must be recognized-I should like to point out one fact which disturbed me last Friday and today. Conveniently or otherwise, ministers who could have been questioned have had occasion to leave the House during the question period. I noticed that after the question put by the hon. member for Central Nova to the Minister of Labour there was consultation between the Minister of Labour and the Solicitor General. I do not say that consultation was pertinent, but I noticed that immediately afterwards the Solicitor General left the House. I also noticed that the minister's parliamentary secretary enjoyed his peregrinations behind the curtain for the entire balance of the question period. I find it indeed frustrating, as must other hon. members, to be recognized when ministers and their parliamentary secretaries do not sit regularly in the House.
It should be noted that some ministers and some parliamentary secretaries are very faithful to the question period and recognize the urgency of the need for hon. members to determine what the facts are, but there are some who very seriously abuse the purpose of the question period. As a backbencher, I simply want to voice my serious objection to this abuse of the question period by both ministers and parliamentary secretaries. Quite frankly, I am fed up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 17, 1976
Order Paper Questions QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
(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: 4,925, 4,973 to 4,978 inclusive, 4,981, 4,982, 4,993, 5,001, 5,096, 5,154, 5,177, 5,178, 5,181, 5,195 and 5,206.


ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH-CONSTITUENCY OF TEMISCAMINGUE
Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): Since 1970, did the Department of the Environment carry out ecological research in the Constituency of Temiscamingue and, if so, in each case, what was the (a) amount (b) year of approval (c) name of the municipality or the company concerned (d) salary of the field employees (e) result of such research?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Yes. Forest Insect and Disease Survey: (a) 0.4 man years per annum since 1952; (b) 1952; (c) not applicable; (d) no field employees engaged; (e) detection, evaluation and prediction of damage due to insects and disease. Preliminary evaluation of effects of air pollution (Rouyn-Noran-da). White Spruce Mortality: (a) 0.2 man years; (b) 1975; (c) CIP, E.B. Eddy; (d) no field employees engaged; (e) evaluation of current white spruce mortality due to Bud-worm defoliation-further mortality predicted. Information to be applied to planning of salvage cutting. Deterioration of Dead Trees by Wood-Boring Insects: (a) 1 man year since 1970; (b) 1967-1970; (c) Laniel, CIP; (d) no field employees engaged; (e) planning of salvage schedules required after mortality of trees due to flooding and other causes. Hydrometric Stations: (a) $9,000; (b) 1975-76; (c) Lac des quinze, Riviere Maganasipi, Riviere du Moine, Lac Decelles; (d) operated by Quebec Department of Natural Resources; (e) acquisition of data on flows and levels in upper Ottawa basin as a basis for joint Environment Canada-Quebec Department of Natural Resources floodforecasting and flood-damage reduction programs. Water Pollution Control: (a) 0.2 man years; (b) 1973; (c) Tembec Inc. (d) no field employees engaged; (e) improved effluent treatment at Tembec forest products mill, compliance by company with effluent requirements specified in pulp and paper effluent regulations. Analysis for Heavy Metals in Fauna Donated by Members of Rod and Gun Clubs: (a)
0.25 man years, $1,200; (b) 1973; (c) not applicable; (d) no field employees engaged; (e) detection of presence of methyl mercury, recommendation concerning the ban of commercial fishing by the Quebec Department of Tourism, Hunting and Fishing.


RCMP-ALBERTA
Mr. Matte: 1.	How many members of the RCMP were stationed in the Province of Alberta in (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (f) 1975 (g) 1976?
2.	How many were responsible for (a) general management (b) training (c) law enforcement?

3.	How many were (a) French speaking (b) English speaking (c) bilingual?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Note: Parts 1 and 2 refer to authorized establishment whereas Part 3 refers to actual strength. The reason for the discrepancy between the authorized strength and the actual strength is that the statistics were taken from March figures. The new year increases which came into effect April 1 accommodate the overages. 1. (a) 1,094; (b) 1,140; (c) 1,209; (d) 1,307; (e) 1,402; (f) 1,510; (g) 1,628.
2.	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975	1976(a)	21	21	27	33	28	31	41(b)	0	0	2	3	4	6	5(c)	1073	1119	1180	1271	1370	1473	1582
3. Statistics available for 1976 only, (a) 2; (b) 1,590; (c) 36.


RCMP-NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Matte: 1.	How many members of the RCMP were stationed in the Province of Newfoundland in (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (f) 1975 (g)1976?
2.	How many were responsible for (a) general management (b) training (c) law enforcement?
3.	How many were (a) French speaking (b) English speaking (c) bilingual?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Note: Parts 1 and 2 refer to authorized establishment whereas Part 3 refers to actual strength. The reason for the discrepancy between the authorized strength and the actual strength is that the statistics were taken from March figures. The new year increases which came into effect April 1 accommodate the overages. 1. (a) 395; (b) 400; (c) 413; (d) 443; (e) 501; (f) 531; (g) 554.
2.	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975	1976(a)	13	12	14	15	15	18	19(b)	0	0	1	1	1	2	2(c)	382	388	398	427	485	511	533
3. Statistics available for 1976 only, (a) Nil; (b) 549; (c) 13.


RCMP-NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Matte: 1.	How many members of the RCMP were stationed in the Province of Nova Scotia in (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (f) 1975 (g) 1976?
2.	How many were responsible for (a) general management (b) training (c) law enforcement?
3.	How many were (a) French speaking (b) English speaking (c) bilingual?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Note: Parts 1 and 2 refer to authorized establishment whereas Part 3 refers to actual strength. The reason for the discrepancy between the authorized strength and
May 17, 1976

the actual strength is that the statistics were taken from March figures. The new year increases which came into effect April 1 accommodate the overages. 1. (a) 421; (b) 478; (c) 488; (d) 516; (e) 529; (f) 570; (g) 605.
2.	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975	1976(a)	11	11	13	14	14	19	20(b)	0	0	1	2	2	2	2(c)	410	467	474	500	513	549	583
3. Statistics available for 1976 only, (a) 8; (b) 601; (c) 17.


RCMP-NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Matte: 1.	How many members of the RCMP were stationed in the Province of New Brunswick in (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (f) 1975 (g) 1976?
2.	How many were responsible for (a) general management (b) training (c) law enforcement?
3.	How many were (a) French speaking (b) English speaking (c) bilingual?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Note: Parts 1 and 2 refer to authorized establishment whereas Part 3 refers to actual strength. The reason for the discrepancy between the authorized strength and the actual strength is that the statistics were taken from March figures. The new year increases which came into effect April 1 accommodate the overages. 1. (a) 369; (b) 373;
(c) 396; (d) 398; (e) 437;			(f) 472; (g) 492.				
2.	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975	1976(a)	16	16	19	18	18	22	25(b)	0	0	2	2	2	2	2(c)	353	357	375	378	417	448	4653.	Statistics	available	for	1976 only.	(a) 34;	(b) 332;	(c)
144.


RCMP-BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Matte: 1.	How many members of the RCMP were stationed in the Province of British Columbia in (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (f) 1975 (g) 1976?
2.	How many were responsible for (a) general management (b) training (c) law enforcement?
3.	How many were (a) French speaking (b) English speaking (c) bilingual?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Note: Parts 1 and 2 refer to authorized establishment whereas Part 3 refers to actual strength. The reason for the discrepancy between the authorized strength and the actual strength is that the statistics were taken from March figures. The new year increases which came into effect April 1 accommodate the overages. 1. (a) 2055; (b) 2267; (c) 2477; (d) 2663; (e) 2879; (f) 3046; (g) 3325.
Order Paper Questions
2.	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975	1976(a)	29	29	36	37	42	50	65(b)	0	0	4	4	5	5	6(c)	2026	2238	2437	2622	2832	2991	32543.	Statistics	available for 1976 only.	(a) 9;	(b) 3295;	(c) 41.


RCMP-PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. Matte: 1.	How many members of the RCMP were stationed in the Province of Prince Edward Island in (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (f) 1975 (g) 1976?
2.	How many were responsible for (a) general management (b) training (c) law enforcement?
3.	How many were (a) French speaking (b) English speaking (c) bilingual?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Note: Parts 1 and 2 refer to authorized establishment whereas Part 3 refers to actual strength. The reason for the discrepancy between the authorized strength and the actual strength is that the statistics were taken from March figures. The new year increases which came into effect April 1 accommodate the overages. 1. (a) 72; (b) 81;
(c) !	91; (d) 95;	(e) 102;	(f) 111;	(g) 121.	2.	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975	1976(a)	6	6	6	6	6	5	7(b)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0(c)	66	75	85	89	96	106	1143.	Statistics	available for 1976 only.	(a) Nil;	(b) 129;	(c)6.


RCMP-NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Matte: 1.	How many members of the RCMP were stationed in the Northwest Territories in (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (f) 1975 (g) 1976?
2.	How many were responsible for (a) general management (b) training (c) law enforcement?
3.	How many were (a) French speaking (b) English speaking (c) bilingual?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Note: Parts 1 and 2 refer to authorized establishment whereas Part 3 refers to actual strength. The reason for the discrepancy between the authorized strength and the actual strength is that the statistics were taken from March figures. The new year increases which came into effect April 1 accommodate the overages. 1. (a) 134; (b) 131; (c) 133; (d) 140; (e) 163; (f) 180; (g) 198.
2.	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975	1976(a)	4	4	4	5	5	10	11(b)	0	0	0	0	1	1	1(c)	130	127	129	135	157	169	1863.	Statistics	available for 1976 only.	(a) Nil;	(b) 195;	(c) 3.
May 17, 1976
Order Paper Questions RCMP-YUKON


Mr. Matte: 1.	How many members of the RCMP were stationed in the Yukon Territory in (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (f) 1975 (g) 1976?
2.	How many were responsible for (a) general management (b) training (c) law enforcement?
3.	How many were (a) French speaking (b) English speaking (c) bilingual?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Note: Parts 1 and 2 refer to authorized establishment whereas Part 3 refers to actual strength. The reason for the discrepancy between the authorized strength and the actual strength is that the statistics were taken from March figures. The new year increases which came into effect April 1 accommodate the overages. 1. (a) 62; (b) 68; (c) 71; (d) 75; (e) 80; (f) 82; (g) 88.
Insert table 4982
2.	1970	1971 1972	1973	1974	1975 1976	(a)	4	4	4	4	5	5	7(b)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0(c)	58	64	67	71	75	77	813.	Statistics	; available	for	1976 only.	(a)	Nil; (b) 92;	(c)
Nil.
2.	While statistics are not available on cheese distribution by firms, it is estimated that about 25 per cent of domestically produced cheese is marketed by Canadian-controlled firms and about 75 per cent by foreign-con-trolled companies.
3.	(a) The 50 million pound cheese import quota for 1976-77 is a global quota. The quota is allocated to importers based on their 1975 quota entitlements and importers are free to source their cheese imports from any country except Rhodesia, (b) Quotas are not allocated by country and, therefore, there is no quota allocated to European Common Market countries.
4.	The European Economic Community's target support price for industrial milk, effective March 15, 1976, is estimated to be $9.16 per hundred pounds.


PUBLIC WORKS-RENTAL OF OFFICE SPACE FROM FOURNELLE-DESJARDINS-LAFLEUR COMPAGNIE LIMITEE
Mr. MacKay: 1.	Do any departments presently rent office space from Fournelle-Desjardins-Lafleur Companie Limitee, and, if so, which departments and, in each case (a) what is the address of the location (b) what is the annual rent?
2.	Did any department rent office space from the Company in (a) 1971 (b) 1972 (c) 1973 (d) 1974 (e) 1975 and, if so, in each case (i) which department (ii) what was the annual rent?


CANADIAN DOMESTIC CHEESE PRODUCTION
Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is Canadian domestic cheese production adequate in quantity to meet domestic demand?
2.	What proportion of the wholesale distribution of domestically produced cheese is marketed by (a) Canadian-controlled (b) foreign-controlled enterprises?
3.	Of the 50 million pound cheese import quota for 1976-77, what is the (a) distribution by country (b) total allowable quota from the European Common Market countries?
4.	What is the estimated level of price support for industrial milk in the European Economic Community?


Marcel-Claude Roy: 1. The Canadian domestic cheese industry has the manufacturing capacity to supply domestic demand for the major cheeses consumed in Canada such as cheddar, colby, brick and mozzarella. In the case of variety cheeses, Canada only manufactures about 60 varieties while we import 210 varieties. There is no Canadian production capability to manufacture all the varieties of cheese required to satisfy consumer demands.
1.	Gross National Debt including contingent liabilities (1)
2.	(a) Per capita Gross National Debt including contingent liabilities (1)
(b)	Gross National Debt including contingent liabilities as percentage of calendar year GNP (1)
3.	(a) Interest bearing unmatured funded debt
Annual interest payable Percentage
(b) Interest bearing other liabilities Annual interest payable Percentage


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1 and 2.
The Department of Public Works has not rented office space from this Company for this department or any other government department or agency.


NATIONAL DEBT OF CANADA
Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1975 (c) 1976, what was the Gross National Debt of Canada including contingent liabilities?
2.	On each date, what (a) did this figure represent on a per capita basis (b) percentage of GNP did it represent?
3.	On each date, what was the (a) interest bearing unmatured funded debt together with the annual interest payable on these amounts expressed in dollar and percentage terms (b) interest bearing other liabilities together with the annual interest payable on these amounts expressed in dollar and percentage terms (c) non-interest bearing other liabilities (d) contingent liabilities?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: March 31, 1968 $42,424.1 million

March 31, 1975 $78,326.7 million

March 31, 1976 (estimated)
n.a. (2) n.a. (2) n.a. (2)
$20,579.9 million $ 1,041.3 million 5.06
$7,233.7 million $ 295.2 million 4.08
$33,086.2 million $ 2,395.4 million 7.24
$14,429.7 million $	949.2 million
6.58
$37,744.3 million $2,965.7 million 7.86
$16,224.7 million $1,170.9 million 7.22
May 17, 1976

Order Paper Questions
March 31, 1976
March 31, 1968	March 31, 1975	(estimated)(c)	Non-interest bearing other	liabilities	$ 5,110.6 million	$15,180.1 million	n.a.	(2)(d)	Contingent liabilities (1)	$ 9,499.9 million	$15,630.7 million	n.a.	(2)
Notes: (1) Not including certain contingent liabilities, the amounts of which are indeterminate. These indeterminate amounts are in respect of loans maintained by approved lending institutions under National Housing Acts prior to 1954 and guarantees to owners of returns from moderate rental housing projects.
Notes: (2) These figures are not available since the books are not yet closed.


POSITIONS DESIGNATED AS BILINGUAL IN THE WELLAND-PORT COLBORNE AREA
Mr. Coates: 1.	(a) What positions have been designated as bilingual in the Wel-land-Port Colborne area as of January 1, 1976 (b) what positions are projected as becoming bilingual and on what date?
2.	What will be the actual or projected annual increases in costs as a result of the bilingual premiums paid to employees?
3.	How many public servants have received bilingual training as of March 31, 1976?
4.	How many additional employees will receive such training during the fiscal year 1976-77?
5.	(a) How will the work load presently carried by employees be carried out during the period they are receiving language training (b) will additional staff be required and, if so, what will be the number and the estimated cost during the fiscal year 1976-77?
6.	(a) How many of the present employees will be totally removed from their present employment during the period of language training (b) how many will receive such training during their regular working week (c) will such training be provided by outside sources and (i) if so, what will be the cost for the fiscal year 1976-77 (ii) if not, how will it be provided?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. (a) Positions designated as bilingual as of January 1, 1976
Department	Position No.	Level	Designation DateRevenue Canada	53E 00015	CR-4	06-08-74(Customs and Excise) Public Works	411 0614A	GS-BUS-1	30-09-75Manpower and Immigration	07103	CR-2	01-08-7407106	CR-3	31-03-7515099	CR-3	27-08-75Post Office	58 00026	PO-4	31-12-7358 00014	PO-4	30-09-75135 00010	PO-4	31-03-75(b) Positions projected as becoming bilingual	Department	Position No.	Level	Designation DateManpower and Immi-	gration	07108	PM-2	30-09-76Post Office	135 00013	PO-4	30-09-762.	The amount of premiums to be paid to employees for using more than one language in the performance of their duties is presently under study by the National Joint Council (a special task force examining recognition of language complexity). Consultations are currently in progress and no results are available as yet.3.	As of March 31, 1976, one public servant has received language training in the other official language.4.	Current estimates indicate that two employees in the area will receive language training during the fiscal year 1976-1977 provided, of course, they agree to such training.5.	To the extent to which the employees concerned agreeto undertake language training:	(a) the departments
intend to spread out the workload of employees on language training among their colleagues; (b) no additional staff is expected to be hired.
6.	To the extent to which the employees concerned agree to undertake language training: (a) two employees will be totally removed from their present employment during the period of language training; (b) no employees will be receiving language training during their regular working week; (c) language training will not be provided by outside sources: (i) does not apply; (ii) training to be provided by the Language Bureau.


MR. GLEN SHORTLIFFE
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Mr. Glen Shortliffe recently appointed as a Special Communications Assistant to the Minister of External Affairs and, if so, what (a) are his duties (b) will be his relationship to the news media (c) is his annual salary?
2.	Will Mr. Shortliffe have any personal staff and, if so (a) how many (b) what are their names, job designations and salaries?
3.	(a) What duties will Mr. Shortliffe perform that could not be done by existing members of the Minister's staff and by Departmental employees, including the Department's press office and Public Affairs Branch (b) in what way is this new position justified in view of the government's restraint programme?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Mr. Glen Shortliffe has been appointed as Special Assistant (Communications) as part of the departmental staff serving the Secretary of State for External Affairs: (a) To act as spokesman, as appropriate, for the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the department; to provide guidance to the departmental Press Office on behalf of the Minister; to facilitate the provision of information to the public through the media; (b) see (a) above; (c) Mr. Shortliffe is an F.S. 3. The salary range for this category, established by collective bargaining, is $29,892-$40,206.
2.	No. Mr. Shortliffe is assisted by departmental support personnel; (a) not applicable; (b) not applicable.
3.	(a) Mr. Shortliffe, as a career Foreign Service Officer, is a departmental employee who has been assigned to the departmental staff of the Secretary of State for External Affairs; (b) see (a) above.

May 17, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: Was the approval of Mr. Ivan Head, Foreign Affairs advisor to the Prime Minister, obtained by the Minister of External Affairs before he appointed Mr. Glen Shortliffe as his Special Communications Assistant and (a) if so, what date was such approval obtained (b) if not, does the appointment represent a move to decrease the influence of Mr. Head on the foreign policy of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The question does not arise.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Minister of External Affairs aware that a picture of himself riding a camel during his Middle East visit was widely published in the press?
2.	Will one of the duties of the Minister's newly appointed Communications Assistant, Mr. Glen Shortliffe, be to assist the news media in obtaining similar news items on future trips?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes.
2. See replies to Question No. 5,177.


CASE PROGRAMME-FREDERICTON
M. Howie: Smce July 1, 1974, how many firms have been assisted by the Counselling Assistance Small Enterprise Programme through the Fredericton, New Brunswick office (a) what area is served by the office (b) how many (i) part-time (ii) full-time staff are employed (c) how much money has been expended on the Programme at the Fredericton office?


Marcel-Claude Roy: In so far as the Federal Business Development Bank is concerned: Sixty-eight firms have been assisted since July 1, 1974. (a) The counties of Carleton, Charlotte, Kings, Madawaska, Queens, St. John, Sunbury, Victoria and York; (b) (i) 63, (ii) 2. (c) $25,885 has been expended since November 1,
1975,	the date the Federal Business Development Bank assumed responsibility for the CASE Programme.


AMATEUR SPORTS GRANTS-CONSTITUENCY OF CHAMPLAIN
Mr. Matte: 1.	Since its establishment, has the Department of National Health and Welfare made grants to support amateur sports in the Constituency of Champlain and, if so, in what amount?
2.	In each case, what was (a) its purpose (b) the name of the municipality involved (c) the amount granted (d) the year in which the grant was made?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The Fitness and Amateur Sport program does not normally cover capital projects and other forms of expenditures that are amenable to a designation by constituency. The nature of the funding program is outlined in the 1974-75 Annual Report of the Fitness and Amateur Sport Branch tabled in the House of Commons on April 27,
1976.	(Sessional Paper No. 301-1/150A).
2 (a) to (d). The only financial assistance provided directly to individuals is a grant-in-aid program for the better Canadian student-athletes who wish to continue both their education and competitive careers. From an exhaustive search of departmental records, it has been

possible to ascertain the attached list of recipients of grants-in-aid residing in the constituency of Champlain.
Educational
Name	Address	Institution	Sport	AmountFilion, Anne	Trois Rivieres	C.G.E.P.	Track and Field	$1,200Montmigny,	Cap-De-La	University of	Track and	$1,800Claude	Madeleine	Trois-Rivieres	Field	Renaud,	Shawinigan	University of	Golf	$1,800Celyne	South	Trois-Rivieres	Thibeault,	Trois-Rivieres	McGill	Football	$1,800Yvon	1975-76	Benoit, P.	Cap-De-La	University of	Hockey	$500Madeleine	Trois-Rivieres	Thibeault, Yvon	Trois-Rivieres	McGill	Football	$1,800


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 3,597 could be made an order for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand from the parliamentary secretary that two questions are sought to be made orders for returns today? I wonder if I could ask him to repeat the numbers.


Mr. Blais:: There is one question, question No. 3,597, which is sought to be made an order for return.


HABITUAL CRIMINALS
Mr. Reynolds: Will the Solicitor General advise on what date the following inmates listed as habitual criminals on the Canadian Penitentiary Services Temporary Absence report were sentenced as habitual criminals (a) Ferndale Institution (i) inmate No. 1211, number of passes-26 (ii) inmate No. 1008, number of passes-8 (iii) inmate No. 8325, number of passes-18 (iv) inmate No. 2334, number of passes-17 (v) inmate No. 7649, number of passes-90 (b) Agassiz Correctional (i) inmate No. 4971, number of passes-23 (ii) inmate 6020, number of passes-9 (c) Mountain Prison Institution (i) inmate No. 7059, number of passes-153 (ii) inmate No. 5837, number of passes-3 (iii) inmate No. 1387, number of passes-42 (iv) inmate No. 2698, number of passes-14 (v) inmate No. 2623, number of passes-14 (vi) inmate No. 3302, number of passes-21 (vii) inmate No. 1255, number of passes-4 (viii) inmate No. 3302, number of passes-8 (ix) inmate No. 3455, number of passes-5 (x) inmate No. 4554, number of passes-19 (xi) inmate No. 3455, number of passes-2 (xii) inmate No. 2763, number of passes-41 (xiii) inmate No. 2020, number of passes-12 (xiv) inmate No. 2174, number of passes-13 (d) Matsqui Medium (i) inmate No. 7522, number of passes-10 (ii) inmate No. 3712, number of passes-4 (iii) inmate No. 7640, number of passes-2 (e) William Head Institution (i) inmate No. 7950, number of passes-3 (ii) inmate No. 2141, number of passes-6 (iii) inmate No. 4209, number of passes-23 (f) Bowden Institution, inmate No. 1972, number of passes-52 (g) Drumheller Institution, inmate No. 2511, number of passes-3 (h) Saskatchewan Penitentiary (i) inmate No. 2170, number of passes-3 (ii) inmate No. 1998, number of passes-9 (i) Pittsburgh Institution, inmate No. 9764, number of passes-11 (j) Col-
May 17, 1976

lins Bay (i) inmate No. 7075, number of passes-7 (ii) inmate No. 9506, number of passes-3 (k) Ontario Psychiatric Centre, inmate No. 1509, number of passes-10 (1) Cowansville Institution (i) inmate No. 5277, number of passes-3 (ii) inmate No. 7275, number of passes-5 (m) Archambault Institution (i) inmate No. 0372, number of passes-1 (ii) inmate No. 5926, number of passes-1 (n) Leclerc Institution, inmate No. 0060, number of passes-2 (o) Laval Institution, inmate No. 8310, number of passes-3 (p) Westmorland Institution, inmate No. 2466, number of passes-9 (q) Dorchester Penitentiary (i) inmate No. 1630, number of passes-6 (ii) inmate No. 1847, number of passes-12?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, for those who might have paid attention to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West a short time ago relating to the presence or absence of ministers, all ministers who are not in the House are busy on official business elsewhere, and I think the comments of the hon. gentleman are absolutely unfounded.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge) moved:: That this House condemns the government for its lack of an industrial strategy which (a) has resulted in falling production, job losses and uncertainty, as in the cases of Westinghouse, Microsystems, Dunlop Tire and others, and (b) is a major cause of today's unemployment rate of 7.4 per cent, which means that 761,000 Canadians are without jobs, a situation that calls for immediate action.
He said: Mr. Speaker, our purpose in bringing this motion to the attention of the House is to indicate what we think is probably the most important cause of unemployment in Canada, that is, the lack of an industrial strategy on the part of the government, to try to make some specific references and to draw some lessons from those references as to why we have failed to create jobs in this country. It takes some kind of perverse genius for a government to create a disaster in a land as fortunate as Canada, with all its resources both human and material.
The people on the other side of the House must have to try very hard to give us probably the highest level of unemployment in the western world, a rate of 7.4 per cent: they really have to work at it. It is not that the problem of an industrial strategy and its effect on unemployment has not been studied in this country. If we are good at anything at all, it is studying things. While we may not have much of a military strategy, we certainly have a "navel" policy in the sense that we keep looking at our own all the
Industrial Strategy
time. However, nothing seems to do much good. We have had all these studies going back to the royal commission of Walter Gordon. It seems hardly a year goes by that something is not studied. Occasionally work is found for the other place, and its members throw in a study. We have set national objectives. It is not as if we do not know what sort of policies we want to have.
We started off with the objectives of the Economic Council of Canada for an industrial and economic approach. We went on to the approach of the Science Council. Then a number of years ago the government brought out a foreign policy review paper which was supposed to set down the kinds of objectives this country wanted to achieve in terms of social and economic policy. If we go back even further than that, we find that a man who was not very prone to do any planning at all had his own kind of review policy. Following the Second World War, Mackenzie King in fact had a study commissioned to see what we could come up with in terms of a strategy.
We do not need to do any more studying. There are studies all around us. What we need is a government which is determined to do something from what has been studied until now. I can appreciate that planning is not an easy thing to do, that there are difficulties in a country like Canada, and that there are differences between provinces and differences between various groups in our society which have to be reconciled.
Of course, it is very easy for a government to simply ignore the problem and take the attitude that if they do nothing about it, perhaps it will go away. For years and years they were able to live off the resources of this country, not doing anything, and the problem tended, if not to go away at least to go underground. We are reaching a new stage in our development, however, where that is not going to be so easy. We are no longer as rich as we were. We can no longer count on the bounty of nature, the oil under the ground or the minerals that were easy to obtain, in order to be assured of our future. We will have to start thinking about where we are going and about conserving our resources. While the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) talks about a new society, there is no evidence that his government has dealt with the old society, let alone know what they are going to do with the new one.
To demonstrate some of the points I wish to make, perhaps we should look at what might be called a Tale of two Cities. One is the city of Hamilton, and the other the city of Whitby. One has to do with appliances, and the other with tires. Their experiences demonstrate why we have not been able to create enough jobs in Canada, and the shortsightedness of our government in developing strategy. Recently, the leader of my party received a letter from Mr. William Love, president of local 494 of the United Rubber Workers Union, in which he expressed concern about what has been happening in the Whitby plant that was bought from Dunlop by Firestone.
Briefly, the history of the plant shows that it was formerly owned by Dunlop Canada Limited and was sold to Firestone Tire Company in August, 1974, when it was given the name Whitby Tire Limited. Since October, 1975, the name has been changed to Dayton Tire Canada Lim-

May 17, 1976
Industrial Strategy
ited. That company has laid off approximately 120 employees indefinitely and has lost another 70 employees due to those who quit or retired and have not been replaced. There had been 530 members of the bargaining unit under Dunlop, and when Firestone bought the plant they promised to increased employment by 200 or 300 people. Production at the plant has dropped from an average of 6,000 passenger and truck tires per day to the present level of 3,000 tires per day. There does not seem to be any plan to increase production above 3,000 tires a day for the balance of the year, and the union is worried that there will be further lay-offs.
I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) if he would look into conditions at this company. Firestone can no longer use the "Dunlop" name because there was a three-year agreement that they would manufacture tires under the Dunlop licence and then start to manufacture an unbranded line. Dunlop was going to continue production of tires, but in the United States where they could take advantage of the "Dunlop" trade name. They would then sell the tires to Canada. We received information that Dunlop were setting up warehouses, or encouraging distributorships by assuring them that there would be tires of every size and line shipped to them from the United States.
When we approach the government and point out that jobs are being lost in this country, they generally reply that it is because of a soft market in the United States. They always give that reason, instead of the reason being their own soft heads. In this case, however, we are talking about the Canadian market. What happened was very convenient for Dunlop. There was a great fuss three years ago when Dunlop closed down operations in Canada, but it was pointed out that Firestone was taking over and production in this country would continue. But it seems, now, that Firestone used that time to organize the transfer of production from Canada to the United States.
The rubber industry is an example of one of the things that is wrong with this country's industrial organization. Because of a foreign ownership pattern of setting up branch plants in Canada, we have a miniature replica of the American market, and to some extent the British market. Every major brand name is represented in Canada. If one is missed, the government goes out and encourages a French manufacturer to come in.
It does not take much knowledge or business to see that if we cannot handle the number of brands and options we already have in a market one-eleventh the size of the United States market, that it is impossible for us to get the long runs necessary for the efficient production we need to allow us to compete. That, coupled with the fact that some of these companies set up plants, then go back to the United States and export to Canada, cuts our market into pieces. The government talks about plans to step up exports and invade other markets; but, Mr. Speaker, before we can take other markets we must be able to look after our own. In many instances we have failed to satisfy our own market, and therefore we have a weak industry.
A radio interviewer spoke to me this afternoon before I came into the chamber. He wanted to know whether I intended to talk about productivity. I told him that was not the main theme of my discourse and I would speak about it

only indirectly. He asked if worker productivity is the problem. I replied that when people talk about productivity they assume it is directly related to the worker. Mr. Speaker, a worker can only be as productive as is permitted by the industrial structure in which he works; he depends on the tools and machinery that are supplied. He cannot produce tires just by sweating; he needs technical organization, marketing expertise and, in general, a rational industry-which this industry is not.
Studies show that this country employs more capital per worker than any other, including the United States, yet our workers are not as productive. That is not because they do not work as hard; it is because industry is organized in such a way as to make it virtually impossible to get high productivity in this country while providing the number of jobs needed. When workers in this country ask for parity of wages with their counterparts in the United States because they claim they work as hard, the companies tell them that they are only interested in cheap labour in Canada and do not wish to give them parity because it will price them out of foreign markets. When the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) speaks he will give some examples of this from his own riding.
I remember when there was a strike at Massey-Ferguson, in the Brantford area, and a consultant was hired by the company to explain to the workers why they could not receive parity with American workers. The argument he put forward was that the company had concentrated its labour-intensive production in Canada, and if they had to pay the same wages here as in the United States they might as well move to the United States. That was not a foreign company, Mr. Speaker, but a Canadian company.
What had happened to the free trade that was supposed to be the panacea to all Canada's industrial problems was that a great Canadian company transferred all its high technology to the United States. Its capital-intensive production was concentrated there, and it left little more than assembly-line plants in Canada. In effect, it was telling workers in Canada that if they wanted even this kind of employment, they would have to accept a lower standard of living than their counterparts in the United States. That kind of argument could hardly be accepted by the workers.
I have spoken about Dunlop and what happened there. The work was transferred to Firestone, because Dunlop has the name, can export to Canada, does not need a plant in this country, has built up consumer confidence in its name and has used the deductibility of advertising, which should have been a capital consideration rather than a deductible one, to enhance its position. Now the employment will take place in another country, but the market will be in Canada.
In Hamilton, the same situation faces us. In that city an industry producing white goods, Westinghouse, is up for sale. A Canadian manufacturer, GSW, wants to buy this industry. They thought a sale would take place and that the name "Westinghouse" would go with the sale. To their surprise, the parent of Westinghouse said, "No, you have no right to the name and cannot use it in the white goods industry." The Canadian company said that if they could not use the name or make some arrangement to use the
May 17, 1976

Westinghouse name, the American company could simply move in with exports from the United States which would compete with the product of the Canadian company, products manufactured by the assets the Canadian company had acquired.
What has happened? FIRA has turned down the American application to buy out Westinghouse. Presumably, it has not said anything about the Canadian application, because the Canadian application is not before FIRA and FIRA does not have to rule on a take-over by a Canadian company. There seems to be a fair amount of sympathy on the part of FIRA for the Canadian company to take over Westinghouse. The recommendation has gone to cabinet.
It seems, from all we hear that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is sympathetic to the recommendation of FIRA. But this has been going on since last August and there has been no decision from cabinet on the matter. We have heard complaints from the Canadian company, GSW, which is a reputable company. It says it thought it understood what the Canadian government wanted; it thought it understood Canadian industrial strategy, which was aimed at rationalizing the white goods industry. At one time there were as many manufacturers of refrigerators in Canada as in the United States-an impossible situation. The company thought that the government intended to rationalize industry. Although this government has never had an industrial strategy, it has brought in sectoral policies which deal with one industry or another.
At any rate, GSW was under the impression that the Canadian government had such a policy and would welcome a Canadian company taking over a foreign company in Canada for the purpose of rationalizing. Their position seemed strong. It was reinforced by the union which wrote to the Canadian government and said, "We prefer the GSW take-over rather than the White Industries' take-over." They recognized that White Industries have not been a positive influence. White Industries were in London; they closed the plant down as soon as they bought another. Their attitude to labour-management relations leaves much to be desired. So you have the unions supporting the GSW company. On top of that, the Committee for an Independent Canada also supported the GSW take-over. Therefore, FIRA was against the American take-over; there has been positive support for the Canadian company, but the matter has been in abeyance before cabinet since last August. Why?
I will tell you one reason, Mr. Speaker. The government is afraid of the United States, afraid to make this kind of decision and afraid of being accused of favouring a Canadian company. I wonder why that is the government's attitude in matters of industrial strategy, matters which involve the jobs of people and the future livelihood of this country. Why is the government so afraid? Evidently there was no such fear in the case of Time magazine-although there was at one "time". Excuse the pun. But the government changed its attitude. It is hard to know why the government has not made a decision on this amalgamation or take-over, whichever way you want to look at it.
It seems to me that it is vital to establish a strong Canadian industry, whether publicly or privately-owned. In our view, we need a strong Canadian industry. It seems
Industrial Strategy
to me that the cabinet should have made its decision a long time ago. Failing that, it should at least make its decision now. That decision should be in favour of GSW, the Canadian company, rather than in favour of an American company.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: It has the support of FIRA, the support of Canadian unions and the support of the Committee for an Independent Canada.


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Will the hon. member for Cambridge-Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) accept a question?


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to receive a question later. I should like to continue my argument at this time. May I ask which hon. member wishes to ask a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik).


Norman Augustine Cafik: I should like to correct what the hon. member just said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: He wishes to correct a statement the hon. member just made.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) does not mind, before I sit down I will be happy to accept his question. The question of trademarks is involved in this matter. I must underline the importance of trademarks as they are a factor which make it virtually impossible for Canadians to compete. There are many weaknesses among Canadian capitalists. On the other hand, the Canadian capitalist who must compete with the American giant and the advantages of American capitalists faces many difficulties.
In the case of Dunlop, how does one compete? Firestone sets up a plant which will produce unbranded lines. Dunlop has the name, has set up its distributorship system and can take advantage of overflow advertising. This has been going on over the years. Tires are a bit of a mystery to most people. The government has not adopted any adequate way whereby the public can be told, "This is a good tire. That is a bad tire." There is no comparative testing, and tires need not conform to any standards except the manufacturing standards. Therefore, the consumer is placed in the position of not knowing and must depend on the brand name. When you have a brand name, you have a stranglehold on a particular market. The point is that all the brand names in this country are American brand names, and as long as American firms can use those brand names in Canada they have a stranglehold on the Canadian market unless we break it.
I have had discussions over the years with members of the government who have said that perhaps we should act unilaterally in the case of Westinghouse and do something about the brand name. What they do not see is that it would be wrong to do this with one specific company. By
13572

May 17, 1976
Industrial Strategy
doing this you would be arbitrary and discriminatory and the government might have a tough time if it were taken to court. No government, particularly a Canadian government, has the right to behave in that way. If it wants to bring in a policy, it must apply it to everybody. It must have a general policy on brand names. Brand names are becoming a problem-a problem concerning FIRA in cases of the Canadian take-over of American industries. This is probably the most serious impediment to rationalizing the Canadian industry and the ability of Canadians to take over American industries, and the government must do something about it. They say, "No other country has disallowed brand names or the use of brand names."


Stanley Howard Knowles: No other country has the same degree of foreign ownership of its industries.


Max Saltsman: No other country has the same degree of foreign ownership of its industries. It is no good behaving like Boy Scouts. Boy Scouts are well and good, but not when you are involved in these kinds of enterprises. We are living next to the United States and they have a stranglehold on our economy. I do not blame the Americans for anything; I have never blamed the Americans. The only person you should blame for being stupid is yourself. This government and governments before it have been stupid in permitting the degree of foreign ownership which has grown up in this country. They must do something about that now. I know that there are cabinet committees trying to deal with this business of trademarks. They will have to find a way whereby if a Canadian industry or company takes over a foreign industry or company, the use of certain foreign trademarks used by the company in this country will be a matter of national interest. We are the only country in the world with this problem.
I know that there are international conventions on trademarks and that suggestions in this field are not to be made lightly. Some of these matters are settled in international agreements, and I am generally in favour of international agreements. But when something this big is involved, when we are concerned about what has happened in the country because of historical developments, I think the rest of the world will understand if we act. We are not trying to take anything away; we are not trying to take any right away; we merely wish to say that certain trademarks will not be allowed to be used in this country.
I have said that the use of manufacturers' brand advertising and trade marks is, in many cases, one of the reasons we cannot reduce costs and achieve more effective production units. Even if we in Canada wanted to limit selling costs-and it has been proposed that we should limit them as a deductible item-there is too much huckstering going on; it would not do much good. This is pointed out by Canadian advertisers. All you would do is ensure an even larger share of the Canadian market to the Americans because their overflow advertising dominates this country. Every attempt at national policy would be frustrated in this area because we have permitted them to take advantage of a name that has been built up in another country. There was a time when trade marks and brand names provided important reassurance to the consumer about

quality. That was a time when butchers had heavy fingers, scales were not weighted, crackers came in big barrels and were not packaged-but that day has passed.


John Edward Broadbent: Look at Ford.


Max Saltsman: Yes, even the trade mark is no longer a guarantee of quality. The public, of course, needs some kind of reassurance. They need something better, in the way of reassurance, than brand names. Why should not gasoline be sold by octane rating or some other definable quality, in the same way meat is sold by definable quality, rather than by brand? There would be much better assurance to the consumer. It would certainly be much less costly in terms of advertising.
We see now that there is a growth of unbranded lines in Canada. People are in fact moving to reliable dealers and substituting confidence in the retailer for confidence in the brand name. That sort of thing should be helped along. There is some question that FIRA has the power to deal with brand names. That is not at all certain. If FIRA does not have power, it should be given it. I have watched the activities of FIRA. I know there has been a lot of criticism of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Some think they are doing too much, and others not enough. I have come to the conclusion that they are trying very hard to do a job.
In some cases, FIRA is usurping the authority that properly belongs to the politician. In the committee hearing the other day I asked the vice-president of FIRA whether he found the absence of an industrial strategy was creating difficulties for himself in terms of trying to make decisions about what was of advantage to Canada. With a little laugh he said, "Well, we make it up as we go along", or words to that effect. He was not going to comment on whether it was an industrial strategy. Because there is not political decision of industrial strategy, and because there has been no intelligent sitting down and determining what should be our strategy in Canada, agencies like FIRA are making decisions. I am not going to condemn FIRA for making that decision, because somebody has to do something, but surely it is wrong for policy to come in by this back door way.
I hear members of the government criticize the bureaucracy, the civil service, for usurping power unto themselves. When that happens in the civil services it is because the political leaders have failed to make the decisions even though they clearly have that power. Decisions are going to be made. If they are not made by the elected representatives of the people, they will be made by the captains of industry or the bureaucrats. Somebody will come to some conclusion. The proper people to do it are the representatives of the people, and the logical place for decisions to be made is here in the House of Commons. Members of parliament can be judged. If people approve of the decisions we make, we return: if not, they elect those who will make decisions of which they do approve.
My time is drawing to a close. There are a great many things to be said in this area. I have only touched very briefly on the problem. There is a question I would like to receive. This is a serious matter in terms of an industrial strategy. The government can now start, at least in a small way, to worry about employment in this country by seeing
May 17, 1976

that the GSW take-over is approved and by strengthening the hand of FIRA to deal with industrial property, as well as planning with regard to the state of economy and how to create more employment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Ontario may now ask the hon. member for Waterloo-Cam-bridge a question.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman). I may not have fully understood what he said. However, I believe he indicated the cabinet had not made a decision in connection with the FIRA application respecting White Consolidated. If that is what he said, I wish to draw to his attention that the cabinet did make a decision on this question some weeks ago. I thought the hon. member would have known that, before spending so much of his time criticizing the government for not making a decision it had already made.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the hon. member for Ontario to this extent: a cabinet decision to do nothing is still a cabinet decision. I suppose a cabinet decision is anything that shows up as a minute of cabinet. That is the kind of decision they have made. They have not made a decision regarding trademarks. The take-over has not been completed. There is no "go ahead"; it is away up in the air. What they have done is temporize, and a decision to temporize is not a decision worthy of government.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I wish to start by apologizing on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson), for whom I am pinch-hitting. He had to honour a long-standing and significant commitment he had made in the west. I want to convey to the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) the minister's personal regret at not being present for the debate, and assure him that the comments made will be passed on to him in detail.
The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge covered a number of specifics and also generalized in the whole area of industrial strategy. While I will not be able to deal with many of the specifics in terms of local issues or particular cases, I want to spend a little time trying to get into focus the kind of industrialized performance of this country to which we are addressing ourselves when we talk about the need for an industrial strategy of some comprehensive nature. Before I do that, I want to point out that in the case of the White and GSW issue, this matter has not been neglected nor cavalierly treated. As the hon. member well knows, it involves some very complex issues, particularly the issue of trademarks.
There has been a great deal of consideration about it. I think the hon. member implied in his comments-in a quiet way, anyway-his recognition that there is a potential breach of a long-standing arrangement and the honouring of trademarking internationally. He also suggested that he recognized this could not be treated lightly when making a decision. Of course, that is at the very root of the GSW-White-Westinghouse dilemma.
Getting back to the more generalized approach, before we try and get at what an industrial strategy should or
Industrial Strategy
should not be we should get our sights clear on where we stand now with regard to performance in Canada. During the early 1970s the industrialized world experienced a boom of unprecedented proportions which led to a number of structural maladjustments and distortions-rapid and large changes in energy prices, food shortages, and other supply-demand imbalances. With this situation, economic adjustment and consolidation became inevitable.
The recession of 1974-75-and this is something I believe we often lose sight of-has been a worldwide phenomenon not peculiar to Canada, and although we may score points by emphasizing our own problems here, policy responses cannot be made in isolation. Unemployment rates and unused productive capacity in the major industrialized nations rose during the first half of 1975 to levels unprecedented since the end of the Second World War. For OECD countries combined, the real growth in the national product declined at a rate of about 5 per cent during the first half of the year. After that, economic conditions began to pick up.
The figures show that in comparison to other major industrialized countries, and with the OECD group in particular, Canada did not perform too badly. It experienced, during that period, a positive growth. The actual figure is .2 per cent, which is not one we would ordinarily boast about, but the fact is that every other country, with the exception of Japan, did worse. In the United States, it declined by 3 per cent; in France, it declined by 2 per cent; in Germany, by 3.5 per cent; and in Italy, by 4.5 per cent. As I say, Japan was the only other country within OECD to show positive growth, with an increase of 1.5 per cent. So we did not do so badly there.
In other words, the slackening of economic activity in Canada was much less severe than in most other nations. This is particularly true in comparison with the United States. We use such a comparison very often because, after all, the U.S. is our major market; it is close to us and there is a general similarity in our approaches to industry. Our real growth in 1975 was 3 per cent higher than in 1973, as against a decline of 4 per cent in the United States during the same period. The volume of industrial production in Canada declined by about 2 per cent between 1973 and 1975 but, again, one must compare this experience with a drop of over 9 per cent in the United States. The average unemployment rate in Canada for the three-year period was 5.9 per cent of the labour force, compared with 6.3 per cent in the United States.
More encouraging still, Mr. Speaker, economic activity in Canada has been advancing on a broadening front since the second quarter of last year. For example, output by industries which are producing goods was 3.2 per cent higher, on a seasonally adjusted basis, in January, 1976, than for the first quarter of 1975. Canadian employment in April, 1976, at 9.3 million, was 3 per cent above the total for the same month a year earlier. Exports for the first quarter of 1976 were 13 per cent higher than for the comparable period in 1975. Changes in export markets had been, in fact, the single most important factor in the slowdown of the Canadian economy.
95568-25%

May 17, 1976
Industrial Strategy
The principal cause for the decline in the volume of goods exported in 1975 was the recession in the United States, our principal market, particularly in housing and automobiles, coupled with the modest level of recovery achieved in that country by the year-end. Another factor which contributed to the reduction in the volume of Canadian exports was the decline in the other OECD economies during the first half of the year and their sluggish recovery thereafter. These were circumstances which no strategy within Canada on a short-term basis could seriously affect.
Other factors include lower oil exports-made necessary for reasons which no doubt hon. members opposite understand-and based, really, on a shifting of policy rather than on market considerations. Our exports of pulp, paper and asbestos also suffered. One offsetting element came in the form of increased exports to OPEC countries. With the improvement in world economic activity now gaining strength, particularly in the United States, it is now our expectation that Canadian exports will expand and lead to a further strengthening of domestic economic activity.
Even though recorded unemployment for April, at 769,000, accounted for 7.4 per cent of the labour force, the Canadian experience in recent months has been better than in the United States. Moreover, it should be noted that the significance of any particular rate of unemployment is no longer the same in terms of economic hardship associated with a temporary loss of work, as was the case even five or ten years ago. Part of the reason for this is the substantial upgrading in the scale and extent of unemployment benefits.
Then, again, a much larger proportion of the unemployment total represents people who are in a position to change jobs, enter into or withdraw from the labour force at frequent intervals. Also of significance is the fact that despite an international recession, nearly 1V4 million more people were employed in Canada in 1975 than was the case at the start of this decade in 1970. This does represent a considerable achievement, given the fact that Canada has experienced the most rapid labour force growth among the industrialized countries of the world.
A great deal of attention is now being paid to Canada's productivity performance. The dominant factor in this area in 1974 and 1975 was the economic recession and, more recently, the beginning economic recovery. Statistics which purport to show that Canada's productivity performance in manufacturing has deteriorated are really only revealing the obvious, which is that favourable productivity depends in large measure on the stage of the business cycle. It is certainly true that during a business recession productivity is normally inferior because, in the face of a slackening in demand for durable goods which is reflected in industrial production, it is difficult to obtain good productivity performance in a situation where men and machines are underemployed and producing in well below optimum conditions. This is the stage at which Canada, along with nearly all the industrialized nations, found itself throughout most of 1974 and 1975.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, if we look at the facts we find that Canada's productivity in the manufacturing field has been relatively favourable. During the decade 1964-1974, output per man-hour increased by close to 4 per cent per year,

compared with an increase in the United States for the same period of only 3 per cent. We know that in 1975 our output per man-hour was virtually flat. On the other hand, in the United States it registered a decline of nearly 1 per cent.
In the initial stages of an economic slump, employers are loth immediately to lay off workers as demand declines, and this is reflected in relatively poor productivity. On the other hand, when the economy is coming out of a slump, then at least in the early stages of an uptrend large increases in output are registered, with very little increase in the work force. It is sad that in a way the growth of employment lags behind economic growth, but there is a gain in terms of productivity. I think it is important not to win debating points; rather, we should try to develop a proper policy response and should put these matters, in this case productivity, in their proper perspective. Productivity in both Canadian and United States' manufacturing should show a very marked improvement this year as the economic recovery gets well under way.
For several reasons, care should be taken in interpreting recent cyclical productivity changes and trends. First, statistical estimation has been unusually difficult because of rapid changes in the inflation rate. Unquestionably, these will be subject to later revision under the statistical base that we are using. Second, unusual changes have been taking place in the structure and use of the labour force, and these may have reduced the aggregate productivity trend in recent years. These changes include factors such as the increased use of part-time workers; particularly in this country, the sharp rise in the number of young people coming on to the labour market; and we are also attracting women into the market and seeing an increase in their participation rate. Finally, and regrettably, there was the relatively high level of strike activity in 1974 and 1975.
That gives the House the background to the situation, Mr. Speaker. Since we in this country tend to uncover, exploit, elaborate and dwell upon doom and gloom, I think it is also useful to look at some of the strengths of our economy, to put them all together in an attempt to reach some better policy response. We should not concentrate on overstressing gloom, or indulge in too much optimism about the good things; we should try to achieve a balance.
The government recognizes that continuing improvement in the levels of Canadian productivity is necessary and vital to enable the expectations of all our people to be fulfilled, as well as to ensure that Canadian industry remains relatively and competitively strong. Government policy has fairly consistently placed high priority on measures to sustain business investment in Canada, with particular emphasis on the manufacturing industry. Measures that were taken to achieve this aim have not always found favour with the opposition. I refer in particular to the budget measure of June, 1975, in regard to which the minister said this:
It is well known that our policies have sought to encourage a strong manufacturing sector. We have provided long-term tax incentives to assist our manufacturers and processors to compete in domestic and foreign markets.
May 17, 1976

So let hon. members not tell us that there has not been a strategy or a tactical approach. They might disagree and would put it another way, but that is a matter of program implementation, not necessarily policy disagreement. As I recall it, the then minister of finance went on to say that if our economy is to remain productive and competitive and capable of providing jobs, we must ensure that we have modern capital facilities with which to work and we must guard against any slowdown in investment. The budget of June, 1975, introduced an investment tax credit as a temporary extra incentive for investment in a wide range of new productive facilities. Hon. members will be familiar with the details.
Another element in the government's policy is to work, we hope increasingly closely and in more detail, with industry, provincial governments and labour. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has established a much more comprehensive consultative mechanism with industry to provide a systematic and structured framework for consultation. To date, seven industry sector consultative committees have been established, each of which is made up of a dozen or so executive officers of the industry who have been chosen as being able to make a positive and personal contribution to a better understanding by ourselves and industry of the performance of the particular sector concerned. These industry sector consultative committees are designed to act as a forum to review developments in industry, to ensure that the government is fully informed about matters affecting the health and viability of the particular industry, to identify emerging opportunities as well as clearly to establish constraints. This will enable us to have realistic policy and program development.
They are also designed to serve as a first-line sounding board for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and other federal departments against which tests may be made on industrial policy initiatives with either selective or across the board impact. They also have the objective of assisting in the identification of the need to develop specific sector policies and, as appropriate, to assist in the establishment of specific sector committees as well as to assist the government in communicating government policies to industry.
Committees are also in place for the chemicals, machinery, iron and steel, furniture and forestry products industries. In addition, five special sector committees have been established which will, on an ad hoc basis, provide advice and input on sector opportunities and constraints and options available to deal with them. More specifically, the special sector committees will assist the department in developing an in-depth analysis of the sector structure and performance in the domestic and international environment; in evaluating the current and future prospects for the sector, taking account of regional, national and international advantages and constraints. They will also identify the contribution that the industry can make to the national economy in terms of industrial development goals and outline the constraints that might inhibit achievement of these goals. They will propose policy initiatives which the government can take to assist industry in increasing its contribution to national objectives.
Industrial Strategy
These and other initiatives are in keeping with developments and are in addition to the ongoing consultation and discussion that takes place with industry and between federal and provincial governments at various levels. I think the record shows a consistent emphasis on measures to promote the development of an internationally competitive manufacturing and processing industry in Canada, with emphasis on improving our industrial efficiency.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I regret my colleague had to be away. He would very much have preferred to change his arrangements, but that was impossible. We will take note of all the points that are made by various speakers. The minister's parliamentary secretary is here as well, and between the two of us we will convey to the minister the constructive points that are made, and try to debate and answer those that might not, in our opinion, be so constructive.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate which has been introduced by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman). I should just like to make reference to what I think is the key word in his motion. The motion commences:
That this House condemns the government for its lack of an industrial strategy-
I think we should focus on the word "strategy"; certainly that particular word was missing in the response of the minister. In responding to the opening speech in this debate, the minister said that part of the difficulty we are in today is caused by world wide inflation. He excused the government on the ground that energy costs so much in Canada today. He went on to say that we only had a .2 per cent increase in the gross national product, and took some pride in the fact that Canada at least had some increase while many other nations showed a decrease. What we are missing in this whole position is recognition, by the tone of what the minister said, of the fact that there is no strategy within Canada relating to incentives to industry and industrial development in this country.
The minister went on to point out some projects the government is attempting to implement, such as the incentive investment tax credit. What this really means, when we think of the semantics of the word "strategy", is that we do not have an over-all approach but, rather, something that is growing like Topsy. We have the handling of one problem when it arises or surfaces in a crisis situation. Then the government opts to handle the next most important crisis as it comes along. I think this is unacceptable for a country such as Canada, with one of the greatest natural resource bases of any country in the world, a country with one of the greatest human resources and a country with very substantial energy resources. This country has energy resources far beyond its fossil fuels, oil and natural gas. We have energy resources in this country in the form of vast basins of hydrocarbons-and I mean our coal deposits. We also have a tremendous undeveloped source of energy in this country, and I think of water tidal power and wind power.
The suggestion that we are in the situation we are in at the present time because of the increase in the number of

May 17, 1976
Industrial Strategy
women entering the work force is really an admission by the government that it is not prepared to cope with the situation. That kind of excuse is unacceptable from the government. What it really means is that this government has not paid full attention to the fact that it is not only considered a right, but a normal situation of life in the 1970s that there should be adequate jobs for females entering the labour market. It is an admission by the government that it is not prepared to gear up to the kind of society which allows full participation of both females and males in the work force of this nation.
The government talks about the sluggish market in the European Economic Community and the decrease in our exports of oil and other products. All I can suggest is that if we take that kind of approach for not being at the industrial level we ought to be at in this country, all we are really saying is that we are puppets of the international economy, being manipulated by forces outsides our own control. This, then, is a full admission that Canada as a nation does not have an industrial strategy. That is exactly what this motion is all about.
In listening to the response by the minister-which was a listing, cataloguing or a detailing of excuses the government has for the situation in which we find ourselves-it all added up to one simple conclusion, that is, that the motion is certainly accurate. Indeed, there is certainly no industrial strategy when one considers the meaning and the perspective of that word.
If we are talking about military strategy in time of war, we are talking about the whole effort in terms of strategy; how all the forces knit together in terms of attempting to reach an ultimate conclusion. The ultimate conclusion for Canada, in terms of industrial strategy, is the development of full employment. We did not hear, in the response by the minister, anything about what is to be included in the forthcoming budget, or anything about what is going to happen in 1976 and 1977 in the way of some new thrust or policy toward a strategy that in this country would lead to a position of full employment. This simply underscores the whole need for a motion such as the one put forward today. The motion simply points out, in fact, that in this nation there is no industrial strategy, and a full admission of that fact by the government today.
I should like to take some time to detail how serious is this lack of industrial strategy in our country today. The unemployment situation in April, 1976, was nothing less than atrocious. It has reached a level higher than any other since 1961; it went from 6.6 per cent in January of this year to 7.4 per cent in April. This means that since January until April of this year there were 80,000 more Canadians unemployed.
It is difficult to get a proper perspective of this unemployment situation and what it means to have 80,000 people unemployed. What it really means is that double the number on the voters' list in my constituency are now unemployed. I think this begins to point out the degree to which we have not addressed ourselves to providing full employment in this country, and how serious this fact is. Last year, between January and April, we had an increase in the number of unemployed of 65,000.
Another way of looking at the seriousness of unemployment and the damage it causes society is through a com-

parison of expenditures under the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Last year these expenditures increased by 90 per cent. When we consider this 90 per cent increase in expenditure through unemployment insurance, we must realize that this was in the first couple of months of the year when this nation had almost stable employment.
What has been the government's record in that period of time? We have had a 15 per cent increase from that period when the employment rate was stable. We now come to the month of April and note a tremendous upsurge in the unemployment rate. When we realize the tremendous increase in cost when the employment rate was nearly stable, we can see that this obviously means we are going to experience something astronomical in terms of increased cost. Let us look at the figures in actual terms of cost. Total pay-outs under unemployment insurance a year ago amounted to $3,175 million. What this really boils down to is an admission to Canadians that not only do we have to suffer the pangs of not being able to find adequate jobs in this country, but very often of not being able to find jobs of any kind. In addition, the people who are working are having to carry a tremendous burden, mainly because this government has not developed any kind of industrial strategy that allows a full degree of employment. As the amount of unemployment increases throughout the country, one thing becomes obvious, and that is that the individual who is working must carry a greater burden and pay for this additional cost. It is out of his pay cheque that these increased payments are made. As a result, these increases in unemployment and the resulting increases in unemployment insurance benefits are devastating.
What is more important than the statistical increase in the number of unemployed is the fact that for the first time in recent years we find that the people who are unemployed are those in the 25-year age group and older. Historically, the increase in unemployment has occurred when students graduating from high schools and universities have come into the labour force. That is not now the case. We are finding that those who have had jobs over the years are now becoming unemployed because of the decreasing number of jobs. People in this bracket normally were not vulnerable to unemployment. These were the people who were starting their families and for whom there was never a scarcity of employment. Traditionally, unemployment has increased when these young people have not been able to find their first job. But that is no longer the case. It is those people who have had jobs who are now becoming unemployed as a result of this general unemployment situation.
However black the picture might be painted, the fact is that we have just started to see the tip of the iceberg in the horrible situation of unemployment in this country. The fact is that we have coming into the labour market, in a month and a half, a tremendous influx of students who will not be able to find jobs. If we take the historical record of the last couple of years, we find there will be about one million students entering the labour force this year, most of whom will not find suitable employment. If we put that into percentage figures, it would give us this year between a 13 per cent and 15 per cent unemployment rate by the end of May or the start of June. That puts Canada into one of the most embarrassing and inexcusable
May 17, 1976

situations for a country with our kind of resources both natural and human. It means that an additional 130,000 people will be unemployed. If we look at a fact pointed out by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), namely, that this year, when one million students will be coming on to the labour market, only 12,000 are likely to find jobs, we find that we have underestimated the seriousness of the situation and how much it means to Canadians. This government must begin a program of incentives to encourage the private sector in our society to regain its faith and trust in the traditional enterprise systems and to get the economic show on the road again. We find that the cost of unemployment insurance is skyrocketing.
I would like to diverge for a moment because I think that as this debate carries on today we will hear many statistics relating to the number of unemployed people in percentages and on the basis of historical records. I want to place on the record an argument that is not often put forward regarding how devasting unemployment can be in the social sense. I want to point out how disheartening it can be to people with families, and how we all as Canadians end up one way or another paying for these costs associated with unemployment in additional social costs incurred by people who experience stress as a result of unemployment. A person's job is the person. We are the image of what we do. If we do nothing, our identity is shaken. Because of that we must recognize how serious it is for a person to lose his job. The ramifications of high unemployment are vastly underestimated. I should like to quote from a study which was carried out regarding the effects of unemployment and its effect on human mentality. I refer to a study carried out by Braginsky and Braginsky, who state:
Jobless men feel small, and talk the language of insignificance. Even if a new job patches up self-esteem, they still hurt from a gut-level cynicism about society.
This points out the fact that when people are unemployed in a society such as ours, they lose their self-esteem and self-respect and they also tend to blame society. We are in the midst of a debate on capital punishment, and recently we have debated law and order and violence. One thing we ought to recognize is the close correlation between the increase in violence in our society and the high unemployment rate. The study to which I referred also states the following:
Regardless of how a person becomes surplus, he or she is socially transformed. Lifestyle, expectations, goals, roles and appearance all change, and the higher one's status to begin with, the greater the impact of the social transformation. The trauma leaves a permanent scar, our research shows, long after the victim moves out of surplus status and back into the social mainstream.
This simply states that the higher one's status, the more the scar is felt at being unemployed. What is the situation in Canada today? The majority of unemployed people at present come from among those who have had jobs, not those entering the labour market for the first time. Let us look at an important factor in terms of real social harm as related to what is happening due to lack of jobs. Researcher Berkeley Rice has noted that there is a direct relationship between unemployment and suicide rates. Further,
Industrial Strategy
the number of calls received at suicide prevention centres greatly increases during periods of high unemployment. Let us look at what I think is a fairly important statement to which we should address ourselves more directly. It reads:
Not surprisingly, economic fear builds a boom in mental illness, alcoholism and suicide. The news is that government planners don't worry enough about the psychic and medical costs of recession ...
In the economic crunch, millions of American citizens worry about jobs, bills, taxes and the cost of meat. Congressmen, columnists and economists worry publicly about economic trend indicators on unemployment and inflation. But no one seems to worry much about the effect of all the worrying ...
Among the early findings of psychiatric epidemiologists was a definite inverse relationship between socio-economic status and mental illness: the lower the economic level in a given population, the greater the incidence of mental illness.
Later on, Berkeley Rice continues:
To test the relationship between economic conditions and mental illness, Brenner compared employment figures in the U.S. from 1922 to 1968 with first admissions in state mental hospitals during the same period. The results show a clear inverse relationship that holds up even for minor declines in all regions of the country: as employment drops mental hospital admissions rise. The relationships holds true whether we use employment or per capita income as the economic indicator.
This points out very clearly that it is not just a case of analysing whether we have a 6.8 or 7.4 unemployment rate, but that we should think of it in terms of the percentage of people in Canadian society who have lost jobs. We have to recognize there is a spillover. While I try to document one or two areas of the spillover, I think the cost to society is far greater than just high unemployment insurance figures, far greater even in terms of those who are under stress because they feel insignificant and have lost selfesteem because of the fact that the job is the person. When you lose your job, you lose much of your personal identity. The government, not just for economic reasons but because of its social conscience, has the obligation to society to work continually to retain a system which permits the highest rate of employment possible.
I look at Canada and ask myself what is so different between Canada and West Germany. Why is it that with our resources and human ingenuity, the kind of energy resources we have, we cannot attain full employment as do some European countries which have a much denser population than we do and whose resources are certainly no greater than ours? We have a real obligation, not just in terms of taking a look at these figures and noting that the rate of unemployment is rising or falling, but in terms of recognizing that the government has a moral obligation to society because of the stress that is placed on people when they are without jobs.
I should like to state, in conclusion, that we should address ourselves to trying to change the situation. First, we should stabilize some of the fluctuations that have occurred recently in the taxation of small business and industries. One of the feelings which I sense amongst my constituents is continual frustration-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. Is there consent to allow him to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 17, 1976
Industrial Strategy


Arnold John Malone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will conclude my remarks. It is too bad that so many problems will be left to be dealt with at the end of my remarks. I believe this country should address itself to establishing a taxation system which would not entail a whole succession of rapid changes. Business people find it most frustrating because each year there are a tremendous number of changes in the taxation system. I also think that small businesses which are subject to the anti-inflation program are frustrated because of the amount of paperwork they have to do, which is reflected in their hesitation to hire people.
Another thing we must do is reassess our Unemployment Insurance Commission and its approach to paying out unemployment insurance. Surely there should be some kind of incentives program so that people are at least encouraged to work and so that welfare and unemployment insurance do not become a way of life. As long as we have a system where there is an option to work, surely we are doing nothing except being as naive as people in government who allow a system to go bn in which people can remain unemployed simply by adapting to a new lifestyle.
Not wanting to extend my time beyond the normal privilege, I will close simply by saying that the question of unemployment and lack of an industrial strategy is not just a question of charts and graphs but a question of social conscience. What is happening in Canada is that there are many people who are suffering stress, anxiety and all the ramifications which come about because jobs are so closely associated with a person's self-esteem. Living in Canada, we should have the right to high self-esteem.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cam-bridge (Mr. Saltsman). At the conclusion of his remarks I addressed a question to him seeking to find out whether he realized that the cabinet in fact had made a decision with respect to the White-Westinghouse application before FIRA. In his remarks, as I understood them, he indicated that he was not aware of that and was criticizing the government for not having taken a stand, but in response to the question I raised I thought he dodged it a little by agreeing that, yes indeed, they did make a decision-which was made public on March 25, 1976-but that in fact that decision did not really transfer the ownership over to General Steel Wares.
That is quite right, but the government was not considering whether GSW should or should not buy the Westing-house firm. The application really dealt with whether in fact White Consolidated should have been allowed to take over Westinghouse, and in fact that was the second time an application had been made for that purpose. The first application before FIRA was rejected on August 6, 1975, and the second rejection was on March 25, 1976.
Subsequent to that decision by the cabinet to refuse the White take-over of Westinghouse, it had been expected by many people, including myself, that this would have resulted in a rather precipitous take-over by General Steel Wares of Westinghouse. To date, that has not taken place, and as a matter of fact I have been in almost constant daily
[The Acting Speaker.]
communication with the officials of General Steel Wares to find out what the problems are in this regard. I should like to speak about that for just a moment.
It seems that the basic problem which existed at the beginning, and which prevails even to this time, is the problem about the trademark. A trademark is a register-able item under the registrar of trademarks in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. There is also another aspect; it could be viewed as a trade name as distinct from a trademark. As I understand it, a trade name is a common law right of Westinghouse Canada flowing from its use of the name "Westinghouse" in Canada and not relating to the trademark per se, which is a registerable item. It so happens that in the sale of the appliance division of Westinghouse in the United States to White, the trademark was sold. That trademark was sold in the United States on a worldwide basis. In Canada, when the application to take over was made before FIRA, it was felt that that application dealt with bricks, mortar and goodwill as spelled out in the act, and not specifically with the trademark.
I have contended all the way through in this argument that that really is not true and that the law does not really read that way, and I should like to explore this for a moment to find out whether an application before FIRA covers the whole operation which is being considered for a take-over or only part of that operation. Section 3(3) (a) of the Foreign Investment Review Act deals with all, or substantially all, of the property used in carrying on business in Canada, etc. The term "property" is dealt with in the definition section of the act, and under that definition "property" used in carrying on a business includes goodwill in connection therewith. It seems self-evident to me that the goodwill of a corporation is intrinsically tied up with the use of the name of that corporation. It seems to me that to deny that is to deny any goodwill at all to a major corporation, because the goodwill flows from the relationship which it has established over many years in dealing with consumers and the goodwill which is associated with the name draws people to buy that particular kind of product.
I think I would be right in a court of law in maintaining that goodwill in this particular case means the trade name. If there is a distinction-and I contend that there is- between the trade name and the trademark, then Westinghouse has the right to sell that trade name because the trade name has been rejected by FIRA along with all the other assets Westinghouse has in Canada. I think that is abundantly clear. The confusion in this case is that White Consolidated and Westinghouse-originally Westinghouse, U.S.A.-made a joint application before the registrar of trademarks for the registration of the name White-West-inghouse. That had not been dealt with at the time of the FIRA rejection and now a new application has gone forward on behalf of White-Westinghouse, but in this case the Westinghouse is Westinghouse Canada as distinct and different from the Westinghouse which co-operated in that earlier application.
It is alleged by some that the fact that Westinghouse Canada participated in the application before the registrar of trademarks might in some way erode the legal value which is attached or was attached to the use of the trade
May 17, 1976

name itself. This particular problem has given rise to the delay in any take-over by GSW of Westinghouse in Canada.
GSW, when making its representations to myself-and I have dealt with this question rather extensively in the past number of months-maintained that it did not want the government of Canada to indulge in any legal shenanigans or adjustments in the law which would transfer the rights to the name or the trademark to GSW. GSW simply wanted the government to do two things: first, to reject the FIRA application-and that has been done-and, second, it expressed the desire to have the government make a public statement that the government did not believe the acceptance of the application before the registrar of the trademark "Westinghouse" in the name of White was in the broad public interest and that in fact that would lead to confusion in the marketplace, which is one of the normal criteria used by the registrar in arriving at such a decision. Up to this date the government has chosen not to make that statement. I am inclined to believe that the registrar, in light of all the facts and representations which are proposed to be made to him by the employees of Westinghouse, GSW and others, will reject that application anyway.
The government is in a very difficult position, however, particularly in light of the discussion that took place over the so-called judges' affair. I gather it is really the will of parliament that the government does not express its views respecting a judicial body lest it seem to try to influence what it might or might not do. The registrar of trademarks finds himself in at least a quasi-judicial role, so I would conclude that some, if not all, members of the opposition would object if the government were to pursue the objective proposed in a convoluted way by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge.
I have no such concerns, Mr. Speaker. I think that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Mack-asey) or the Attorney General (Mr. Basford) should indicate that if the white application is rejected through FIRA, then it is inappropriate to have two users, one with the trade name Westinghouse Canada and the other, a foreign company in the United States, with the trademark Westinghouse. I would not hesitate to recommend that we make representations to the registrar of trademarks that he reject that application. In that way the whole problem of the Westinghouse deal would be solved.
I had not intended to spend too much time on this matter, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is important. The position taken by the government illustrates that the sector approach for our economic strategy to try and achieve greater Canadian ownership of our own industries is consistent, otherwise the rejection of FIRA would not have taken place because we felt it was not of significant benefit to Canada.
I should now like to deal with some other aspects of this problem. Part of our industrial strategy is our anti-inflation program. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) dealt with this at some length. There is no question that our anti-inflation program is designed to make our industries very competitive in order to save jobs
Industrial Strategy
in Canada. Although some people may argue the program is not effective, I believe we are now beginning to see results. But I think we have to reduce our own expectations and demands on the economy as well, and there is some evidence of success in this respect.
Although there seems to be a feeling that labour is being treated badly by the program, I would point out that they fare not too badly when compared with the business community. Increases in wages of from 8 per cent to 12 per cent are allowed, and historical relationships or special considerations are taken into account. In the business community there is no such generous guideline. Only increases in cost that can be justified can be passed on to the customer, and only 95 per cent of the previous five-year pretax profits are allowed. The program is a lot tougher on business than it is on labour. That effect is not well known, however, because it takes longer to become visible. We are just now beginning to see its effects.
I have been a member of a trade union for many years, Mr. Speaker, and I have a great deal of respect for unions; but I hope they begin to appreciate that we need the kind of restraint and responsibility that has been shown in England. Labour unions there got together and reduced their demands to 6 per cent, which is below the rate of inflation. This means that very realistically they are prepared to settle for less. In Canada we are not being asked to tighten our belts in that way; we are simply being asked for a reasonable, responsible approach. The most significant thing that could happen to assist our industry and to create jobs would be for labour, management and government to co-operate.
Our economic strategy has placed increased emphasis on exports and trade links. The government has taken initiatives in connection with the Pacific rim countries, Russia, China, the Common Market and Latin America, in an effort to establish appropriate trade links. Considerable progress has been made toward increasing our exports of fully and semi-manufactured goods. In 1970 we exported $11'/i billion of semi and fully manufactured goods; in 1975, we exported close to $20 billion-so the trend is in the right direction. These figures would be more impressive if we went back prior to 1970 and the institution of the auto pact, because it shifted considerable emphasis toward finished goods. If we went back even further, the increase would be much greater than the figures I have just given. I think it is important to realize we are moving in the right direction in this area of activity.
In the area of non-renewable resources, it was announced recently that more emphasis would be placed in this area of activity to promote exports of processed extracted materials as opposed to raw materials. This will take time to show benefit, but it is indication that we are following the correct policy.
The government's determination to become self-supporting through oil production is an important part of an industrial strategy. Unless we do this, in time we will become the victim of the high prices set by the countries from whom we have to buy. This, of course, places our industries and our workers in a poor position. We need to take out some insurance to guarantee the future development of oil, the new pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal, a delivery system and a capacity to produce our own fuel,
9S568-26

May 17, 1976
Industrial Strategy
which is a key element in any reasonable industrial strategy.
We should also consider the question of Canadian ownership of our resources and industries. In this connection may I allude to the activities of the Foreign Investment Review Agency which has been of some help. When one considers the establishment of Petro-Canada, Canada Development Corporation and similar corporations, one will see that the government is acting on all fronts to making certain we become more self-reliant and exercise ever more control over our own economic destiny. It is important to note this.
May I say a word about the Canada Development Corporation, which is a public corporation in which Canadians will be allowed to purchase shares and so participate in the development of the nation. At this point the company's capital stock is $565 million. There are 100 million class A shares, 322 million common shares, 142 million class B voting shares; retained earnings at this moment total $42 million, and the surplus of the Canada Development Corporation stands at $51 million. It is a healthy corporation which has invested in Polysar and Connaught Laboratory holdings, both of which it owns to the extent of 100 per cent. It has bought into Petrosar to the tune of 20 per cent, and Texas Gulf to the tune of 30 per cent, and owns 100 per cent of CDC oil and gas.


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 to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members. I will not be long and will deal with but two or three other highlights. As we are talking of industrial strategy, it would be inappropriate not to draw to the attention of Parliament our new competition policy, phase one of which is already being implemented. It goes a long way to ensuring genuine competition in society. Further steps must be taken, but what has been done is particularly important to businessmen. Many people look on competition policy as important to the consumer, which it is; but it is also important to small and medium-sized businessmen: it will make sure they are not put out of business by the large, multinational corporations. The government's policy in this regard is a giant step forward in the right direction in terms of economic strategy. Other steps will be taken when phase two of the competition policy is introduced. These, too, will be found helpful in the area of activity with which we are concerned.
May I mention briefly the new Canadian corporations' legislation which has done much to protect the investors of this country and will encourage our investors to invest in Canadian corporations. The legislation provides the minimum protection needed and will ensure that Canadians may invest with confidence in Canadian enterprises. The legislation has cut out much red tape in the incorporating of federally-incorporated businesses. That will help the businessmen of this country. Perhaps we should go fur-

ther, to remove some of the impediments or some of the negative aspects, let us say, concerning Canadian businessmen. I refer, for example, to the multiplicity of forms to do with UIC, social insurance, and so on, which take up the time of businessmen. I feel that the departments of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Industry, Trade and Commerce and others should get together and see what can be done to minimize the numbers of forms, etc., which businessmen are required to complete, so that instead of providing this free service to the government our businessmen can spend more time increasing productivity.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is involved with many programs of research and development which will enhance productivity. I spoke about these at some length a couple of days ago in the House of Commons. Also, we must do what we can to help the businesses of this country compete with international businesses or corporations based in other countries.
Lastly, may I draw the attention of the House to programs of manpower retraining, on-the-job training, and so on, which the federal government instituted in an attempt to match the capabilities of our work force with the requirements of the business community. Such programs are most important. One cannot consider unemployment and industrial strategy without taking into account the necessity of upgrading the skills of our work force and matching those skills with the needs of society.
I thank the House for its indulgence, Mr. Speaker. I wished to say more but will not as I do not wish to abuse the privilege granted to me. I conclude by saying that an industrial strategy we need, and an industrial strategy we have. If we implement that strategy broadly-and I have dealt with some of the possibilities-we shall do something worth while for industry and the workers of this country and solve some of our immediate difficulties.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), a member of the NDP, for bringing forward the motion we are considering on this allotted day. The subject is timely and appropriate. It is timely to talk about Canada's industrial strategy. Certainly, the subject is not new, but old. If my recollection is correct, the issue of industrial strategy arose late in the 1960s. We heard about industrial strategy from a previous Liberal government. Responding to criticisms being levelled at it in connection with tight money and the difficulties besetting certain sectors of the economy, the government of that day said conditions would improve because it was working on an industrial strategy. It was to bring forward an industrial strategy which would solve this nation's problems. After the phrase caught the ears of the media and the people of the country, the government became squeamish. In the throne speech debate of January, 1973, the then minister of industry, trade and commerce, now the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), did his best to dissociate himself from that phrase. As reported on page 151 of Hansard for May 10, 1973, he said in part:
I am simply being a little more realistic when I talk about the government's so-called industrial strategy as being directed more toward the development and elaboration of a coherent set of industrial policies for Canada rather than the almost impossible task of producing a master plan.
May 17, 1976

Evidently the government of that day had abandoned the goal of drafting a master plan for Canadian industrial strategy. Instead, it wanted to develop what the minister called a coherent set of industrial policies. He outlined the government's program during that debate and later elaborated on the development of this so-called coherent set of industrial policies. The minister emphasized three areas which he, then as minister of industry, trade and commerce, would treat as being of top priority. They were trade, aid to small business, and foreign investment.
Let us consider what has happened. What progress did the minister make in pursuing his three priority goals? Consider the question of foreign investment. As the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge said earlier, and other speakers agreed with him, Canada is in the unenviable position of being the nation in the world with the largest proportion of its industries foreign-owned. That is a sad situation which concerns the majority of Canadians. But it need never have come about. The government said it would take firm action in this area. What did it do? It created the Foreign Investment Review Agency, that is all. Thus far, as I see it, the main accomplishment of this agency has been the creation of a new industry. It has created work for lawyers, a new specialty in law. For a law firm to call itself established or competent it must have within its ranks an expert on the Foreign Investment Review Agency, in the same way that it must have experts on tax, estates, and so on. A whole new area of work has been created for lawyers and accounts, but little else.
Any dispassionate examination of the percentage of Canadian industry which is foreign-owned shows nothing has changed. If anything, it has become worse. It is not surprising that anything should happen. Our high degree of foreign ownership is a direct consequence of previous Liberal administration industrial strategies. There was the strategy of C. D. Howe when he was minister of trade and commerce-and I guess minister of everything which was to encourage foreign investment. The policy of the government was to encourage foreign investment. That was the way to create jobs in this country. That was the way the government foresaw that we could import the foreign technology which we needed. It must be obvious to even the most simple mind that if you are going to alter the consequence of this policy which has been in effect for many years, you must do more than just put up obstacles to increased foreign investment; you must take positive steps to encourage replacement with Canadian investment.
C. D. Howe's policy was designed to create jobs. That job creation is even more necessary today when we have record levels of unemployment. The Canadian people have stated emphatically that they do not want to gain this increased employment solely through the importation of foreign branch plants because in the long run the costs are too large. Has this government done anything in a positive way to bring about the Canadian investment necessary to create these jobs? If so, they have disguised it very well because it is certainly not evident.
This government has brought in things which have had the opposite effect. One example is the capital gains tax. What incentive is there to invest in Canada? There is another side of the argument to capital gains tax. That is equity of taxation. There is no question about it. I hope
Industrial Strategy
that someone on the opposite side is at least looking at the possibility of indexing that taxation for inflation. The combination of inflation and capital gains means that investment in the stocks of Canadian companies is simply not worth while. It is the foolish investor indeed who puts his money in that investment vehicle.
The second big item of priority that the minister talked about is aid to small businesses. He said this was going to be given priority consideration by his ministry which spends some $240 million a year. He talked about six new initiatives: increased financial help to small businesses through the Industrial Development Bank, other granting programs, counselling for small businesses, stronger regional offices in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, aids to facilitate technology transferred to small business, and special emphasis on tourism.
One could go into a great deal of discussion about each of those six initiatives. However, I would be willing to bet any amount that for every small businessman in Canada who has been helped by these government programs, it is possible to find ten small businesses that have been hurt, and hurt badly, by this government through its programs. Every member of parliament has a file full of letters from small businessmen in their constituencies complaining about the detrimental effects upon them as a result of one or another of the government's programs.
The third area, and this was given first priority by the minister in terms of the initiatives this government would take in the years following the 1973 throne speech, related to trade. This area was going to be given top consideration. The government was really going to get after the question of trade. In 1973 they had a surplus, or favourable trade balance of $1,327 million. After the enhancing activity by this ministry and government, and after priority consideration being given to it, our trade balance went from plus to minus-$2,440 million overall.
If you look at the high technology, manufactured goods which fall within the purview of this minister, in other words eliminating agriculture and raw materials which are Energy, Mines and Resources, the performance is far worse. In 1973, for example, we had a high technology trade deficit of over $5 billion. In 1975 this had gone to over $8 billion. That was the disastrous performance after three years of this government saying they were going to give it very high priority.
Those sectors of the economy that have not been given high priority should be thankful. They should be grateful that this government has not given them high priority as they, too, may have suffered as badly as our high technology industries. Performance has deteriorated tremendously since the minister announced this coherent set of industrial policies. Our unemployment rates are at a record high, trade represents a record deficit, foreign ownership has become worse, regional disparities are worse, and there are record losses due to strikes. No industrialized country has lost more time due to strikes than Canada. The gross national product is up. However, Canada used to have the highest GNP per population, the so called standard of living. We are now sixth in the world. Under this government we moved from first to sixth. That is performance!
It is comparatively easy to articulate all the problems and mistakes of this government. They are obvious and many. Canada is well blessed with several independent
95 5 68-2614

May 17, 1976
Industrial Strategy
bodies outside of government which examine Canada's economy. There are groups such as the Economic Council, the Conference Board, the C. D. Howe Research Institute, the Chambers of Commerce, the Canadian Association of Independent Banks, and so on. Virtually every one of these bodies, looking at Canadian industry, has reached the conclusion, in contrast to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who is standing in this afternoon for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson), that all is not well. Things are not as rosy within Canadian industry as that minister has described them. Government policies are not exclusively at fault in this regard, but they certainly are not helping to cure the problems. In many instances they are directly causing them.
For example, one of the common themes in analyses of Canada's economy by groups outside government is a call for more innovation, more productivity from Canadian industry. Increasing productivity, as the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge has pointed out, is not a question of getting labour to work harder; it comes from better ways of doing things, better organization, improved technique, better technology. What has the government done in terms of increasing productivity? Well, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has indicated several times during the question period that he has some kind of brains trust locked away in this office looking into the question. Apart from that, I know of nothing else which has been done to improve Canada's record in this field.
Increased productivity, as we all know, results from better management and improved technology. As the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) has pointed out, management in Canadian business is beset with government bureaucracy, with forms and with demands upon its time. Five or six years back, one of the leading Canadian business magazines carried out a survey and reached the conclusion that 35 per cent of executive time is spent dealing with government, filling out forms, answering questionnaires, accommodating demands made upon them by the civil service. Since then the situation has undoubtedly become worse. I need only call attention to the demands of the Anti-Inflation Board, the Unemployment Insurance Commission and Statistics Canada, which is day by day requiring more and more information so as to employ the
4,000	or 5,000 people who are to occupy that building across the river.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Let us do away with it, then, as we did with Information Canada.


Harvie Andre: There are some positive notes to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais). In general, far from being aided by government programs, Canadian business management is being severely hampered. As for improved technology, only last Thursday there was a full-scale debate in this House during which speakers from all opposition parties were in agreement that the government had done nothing worth while to improve the productivity of Canadian industry in the field of technology. Yet in the long run that is the only answer.

Let us see how other government policies have worked out. Supposedly, as part of a coherent industrial strategy, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was set up to broaden the base of industrial development across the country. Compare the policies of this department, in the course of whose development vast sums of money were spent, with the policy followed by the Department of Transport and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to say nothing of the Department of Supply and Services. One gets the impression, Mr. Speaker, that they are adversaries working in completely opposite directions.
In conclusion, may I say that no country in the world has the combination of resources which we in Canada enjoy. We have the natural resources, we have a well-educated people, we have a truly democratic system of government, and we have a free enterprise system. It would be a tragedy for Canada and for the world if we failed to meet our potential. There is no need to fail. A coherent set of industrial policies, an industrial strategy which while interfering less would provide incentives for Canadians, permitting them to pursue the goals they chose, would in itself be almost sufficient to ensure success. It is tragic to see a government, apparently with good motives, being so wrong-headed, so persistent in pursuing, on an ad hoc basis, the measures it has adopted, thereby denying Canadians the type of country they all desire and which they are capable of achieving.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to take part in the debate today. In the past few weeks we have been discussing issues of conscience, such as capital punishment, which in the long run really involve some six or seven persons a year under the definition of first degree murder. Today I am indebted to the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) for introducing what I consider to be a motion reflecting one of the most important issues confronting our society, one which affects not just a few people but many millions. I refer to lack of a national industrial and employment program.
Since this country was founded, and even before it officially became a nation, the predominant economic theory, indeed, the predominant practice, was that of laissez-faire. Perhaps in those far off days it worked, though I am still not sure that it did. But I believe we must put the motion before us into some sort of historical perspective. I should like to go back to the post-civil war era in the United States, the era of reconstruction in which the Americans sought to rebuild their country and indeed did so most successfully, but based upon a different kind of economic system. It was capitalist, no doubt about that, but when they went to the money markets in Europe and Great Britain and asked for capital for their canals, their railroads, their telegraph lines, their manufacturing industries, they included a proviso: it had to be bond capital-in other words, non-voting capital. They succeeded. They got the money from Europe, but since it was in the form of bond capital they were able to control the way in which the money was used.
What happened in Canada from the time of John A. Macdonald, with his tariff policies and transportation policies, with the development of manufacturing in the east and primarily farm production in the west, was that we did
May 17, 1976

not get bond capital so as to maintain control over our future development in economic terms. They were willing to take anything, and successive governments accepted equity capital, which meant control over our economy passing to outside interests. So at the outset of these remarks I should like to put the historical situation into perspective. I wish to state at the outset, also, that the economy here developed differently from that of the United States in another sense. It developed as a combination of public and private enterprise. I suppose we really have not had a national policy on industrial growth and development since John A. Macdonald in the late 1800s. Unwittingly-and I am not blaming our first rate prime ministers-this tariff wall created a branch plant economy in this country. Instead of trying to knock down this wall, they jumped over it and built industries in this country that served the people and investors of the United States to a far greater degree than the people of this country. All during the 1880s, 1890s and up to the First World War, and indeed after the First World War when we finally became a country in substance as well as in name, this kind of equity capital domination continued through successive Conservative and Liberal governments, and I think it is a problem from which we are still suffering today.
[DOT] <1710)
The second thing I should like to put into perspective is the hue and cry that has gone out across the country about the negative effects of unemployment insurance. I have very mixed feelings about the UIC. In fact, I would not mind a bit if private insurance companies got together and ran the whole thing themselves. Of course, hon. members know what would happen then; premiums would triple or quadruple and benefits would be halved, because they would have to make a profit. Are the unemployed, especially the 80 per cent of our unemployment who have no job through no fault of their own but, rather, because the government over there does not have a full employment policy, to be blamed for unemployment? That is the first question.
The other matter that bothers me about unemployment resulting from not having an employment and industrial development policy is that the stop-gap social assistance programs are, in effect, institutionalizing poverty. This institutionalization of poverty, with all its handouts, is making capitalism respectable and acceptable. On the one hand, corporations grab every cent they can from the government. But who is to be blamed for the failure of our social assistance programs? It is not the con artists in the boardrooms of this country, but the little con artists who are trying to rip off our social assistance programs. To me this is reprehensible and unacceptable.
We must take a more appropriate approach to those who work in our industrial complex in this country. Who really makes the major decisions affecting our economy and industries? Is it those who have been laid off temporarily, or is it those who work for eight weeks and then try to rip off the Unemployment Insurance Commission? How many of the 761,000 people who are unemployed today in this country are unemployed because they want to be unemployed? People come to my constituency office Saturday after Saturday and ask me to find them a job, Mr. Speaker. They have gone to Manpower but have been unsuccessful.
Industrial Strategy
Employers go to Manpower and are also unsuccessful. I suggest to the members of this House that those responsible for unemployment in this country include, to begin with, the Department of Finance, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks and corporate boardrooms of this nation. These are the people with the economic and political power to act.
What has been the record of this government over the past several years? It has been pretty dismal. It is true we are producing jobs, but as we produce them more and more fall outside the labour market. Probably half of the 761,000 people out of work now will never find gainful employment again. I heard a member a moment ago say that the answer to this problem is the rationalization of industry and employment, that with increasing technological change we should modernize equipment. That may be true, but in the long run, what does it do? It puts more people out of work. Let me give the House an example that occurred a few weeks ago in southwestern Ontario. The CNR ran its turbotrain at a speed somewhere in the neighbourhood of 140 miles an hour.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: That was in eastern Ontario.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Yes, I believe between Toronto and Montreal. I realize energy is not touched on in the motion, but when they ran this train at 140 miles an hour, the CNR employed their own workers to stand at underpasses or overpasses along the route to warn cars as the train went whistling through. Yet at the same time the government claims we cannot afford to build overpasses, underpasses, subways or whatever you want to call them. This was a perfect example of how we could put unskilled people to work and pay them a decent wage rather than putting them on unemployment insurance. These people are waiting for a job that is probably not there for them.
This motion relates, at the moment indirectly, but I feel within the next few weeks or months will relate most directly, to a major industry in the city of Brantford which I have the honour to represent. The situation I am about to relate is not an isolated one but is similar to other cases which my hon. friend and colleague from Waterloo-Cam-bridge mentioned in his speech earlier this afternoon. In the city of Brantford there is a farm implements manufacturing company known as White's Farm Equipment. It is a subsidiary of the White Motor Corporation of the United States. For the last couple of years it has been further and further under. Indeed, in its last quarterly report for 1975 it was $60 million belly up. A man named Ed Reddick is chairman of the board of White Consolidated Industries, which has nothing to do with White Motors; it just happens to have the same name. Reddick has a history of buying out corporations that are about to go broke or which at least are in very serious financial straits. As reported in the American Press, his reputation includes that of stripping subsidiaries, closing down sales offices, firing sales personnel and at least minimizing, if not totally eliminating, scientific research. He boasts about this.

May 17, 1976
Industrial Strategy
On May 3, White Consolidated Industries was to have a directors' meeting. Everything was laid out in the press that he was about to buy out White Motors, of which the White Farm Equipment Company of Brantford, the Euclid Earth Moving Equipment Company, and I do not know the exact name of it, of St. Catharines, and White Trucks, I believe of British Columbia, are subsidiaries. He boasts about the fact that he can, in his terms, rationalize industries. As far as I am concerned, this means buying them out, dismantling them for what he can get out of it and then moving on to some other corporation nearly bankrupt.
Fortunately for the White Farm Equipment Company of Brantford, Mr. Reddick took ill the night before, on May 2, and as far as I know he is still in the hospital. At the shareholders' meeting of WCI his argument to buy out White Motors, so I am told, lost by a bare two votes. Somebody might say in opposition that this is hypothetical because it has not happened. The point is that it is all there in black and white. This was his intention. White Farm Equipment in Brantford employs 600 to 700 employees. In 1969 or 1970 Reddick pulled the same trick. It was not the Canadian government that made him renege and go back and not buy out White Motors Industries in the United States. It was the United States government that said he could not do it even after the deal had gone through. It was not our tough guys over there-no way. It was the United States government that said he could not go ahead with it.
Unfortunately, while he had control of the White Motor Company and its subsidiaries in Canada, people were laid off. Workers at what was then called White Cockshutt in Brantford were laid off, and some of them had seniority back to 1947. I might add that Cockshutt, White-Cockshutt and now White Farm Equipment in Brantford, has had excellent relations with their employees. They have not had a strike, to my knowledge, since just after the Second World War.
At the time Mr. Reddick was trying to implement the buying out of this corporation, the buying out of the subsidiaries and stripping them for what he could get out of them. He would cut out the science and technology end, or the creative and technological end, and to hell with the Canadian workers. The fact that a small town in southwestern Ontario with a population of 65,000 was losing 700 jobs did not make any difference to a man like Reddick. He runs his empire from the United States, or it could be from Japan, Great Britain, France or West Germany. What I am really saying, and I hope I am distilling it to the one incident, because I think this one incident encompasses what the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge said in his opening remarks today, is that without a national industrial strategy over which Canadians have control, this is the kind of thing that can happen.
Without this kind of industrial strategy for government, private enterprise and public enterprise, this kind of White Consolidated Industries attempted take-over will continue-and we cannot afford that in this country. We do not have to be rabid nationalists, saying we do not like Americans and we do not like American capital or capital from any other part of the world. What we need is some control over the destiny of our future economy. If we do not have this-and we do not at the present time-there is some-

thing wrong not only with the government but with every member of this House.
I do not think you have to be a Liberal, a Conservative, a New Democrat or a Creditiste to stand on your feet and say that the global village is getting smaller and we have to co-operate. Interdependence among nations is becoming a most important aspect of life itself. But at the same time we have the right to speak for ourselves in economic and industrial matters. This is the important thing. Otherwise we will be looked upon and laughed at as the second or third cousins of the most powerful nation in the world. That is not an anti-American statement. It is our own governments over the years which have allowed this to happen.
I only heard part of the speech of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) and I am subject to correction in respect of what he said. He mentioned that one of our problems in respect of unemployment today resulted from the number of women in the employment market. If we had a economy in this country and a national industrial strategy that provided enough jobs so we had full employment, and so those who work, whether in factories or offices, received a decent income on which they could live comfortably, not luxuriously, I daresay half those women would not have to be part of the unemployed work force today or, indeed, the 2 per cent I believe the minister said who are working. We would not need that, and we would probably have a better social climate in this country in which mothers would stay home and raise their families. It is precisely because of our lack of a national industrial policy that these women and mothers have to go out to work. I do not see how the minister's argument is valid.
I see that my time has pretty well run out. I would simply like to reiterate what I said a few minutes ago. Unless FIR A begins to act, and unless part II of the bill becomes operative in an effective way, particularly in the energy field, we are not going to have a kind of economy in this country in which we can exercise an independent posture and an enlightened posture in the world force.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie)-Energy-Study of Fundy tidal power-Date of commencement; the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski)-Agriculture-Cow-calf stabilization program-Government position on Alberta proposal-Possible date of implementation.
May 17, 1976



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Saltsman:
That this House condemns the government for its lack of an industrial strategy, which (a) has resulted in failing production, job losses and uncertainty, as in the cases of Westinghouse, Microsystems, Dunlop Tire and others, and (b) is a major cause of today's unemployment rate of 7.4%, which means that 761,000 Canadians are without jobs, a situation that calls for immediate action.
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat ironic and amusing that the last speaker, a member of the NDP, in his closing remarks should have used the expression "what we need are controls." The opposition argument on the motion which we are debating today, dealing with industrial strategy, has dealt extensively with recession statistics and trends in an attempt to paint a gloomy picture. Inflation and unemployment at current levels are cause for concern. Nevertheless, arguments should be kept in perspective.
Is it imagined that Canada, one-tenth the size or the power of the United States, could have come through unscathed when the world economy is going through its worst upheaval since the Second World War? The year 1975 was, without doubt, the most difficult year for the government and the country since the end of the war. In a country dependent on imports for one third of its needs, and needing to export a similar proportion of its goods and services to maintain its standard of living, it is surely remarkable that we in Canada have been able to avoid the acute hardships that the recession has caused in other countries.
This dependency on other countries for exports and imports makes it impossible for us to immunize ourselves from world influences. Our situation has been aggravated more recently on the domestic front by the reluctance of corporations, union leadership, and various levels of government to accept the effects of recession. The demands, not just to maintain the status quo but to obtain improvements over their positions in previous years, have exerted tremendous pressures on those not able to join together to form a pressure group. Federal government action, however reluctant, to control inflation, became inevitable when a voluntary consensus was so bluntly refused. Surely 1975 was not the year to demand the highest increases in prices and salaries.
The key to beating inflation was and still is productivity. The mover of the motion complains that it is not the fault of the worker that productivity falls. Does he seriously suggest that those same companies that he accuses of profit motivation would not be happy to see increased productivity as a balancing factor to decreasing demand and falling prices?
Industrial Strategy
One of the easier ways to alleviate the effects of recession is for everyone to minimize lost time by strikes and to improve efficiency by two or three percentage points.
However, it is important to maintain a reasonable perspective. Economic conditions in Canada are certainly a cause for concern and deserve the full individual attention of the government. Nevertheless, having illustrated the world influence on the Canadian economy, it is appropriate to make comparisons with conditions elsewhere.
Unemployment rates and unused productive capacity in the major industrialized countries rose during the first half of 1975 to levels unprecedented in the post war period. For OECD countries combined real GNP declined at an annual rate of about 5 per cent during the first half of 1975, the third consecutive half year of decline, with the low point reached about mid-year.
For example, while the percentage change in real GNP for 1975 as compared with 1974 increased in Canada by 0.2 per cent, there was a decrease in France of 2 per cent, in Germany of 4 per cent, in the United Kingdom of 2 per cent, and in the United States of 3 per cent.

If we take in consideration the effects of inflation, it seems that the Canadian economy reached a peak during the first months of 1973 beginning a slight recession since 1974 up to the end of 1975. Of course, Canadian productivity has been clearly below normal between 1973-75, but we should compare our conditions with those of the United States. That country is by far our most important trading partner and the cyclical behaviour of the Canadian economy normally closely follows the American economy.
The comparisons are based on production, employment, unemployment, costs and prices, foreign sector, capital expenditures and development of the GNP per inhabitant. It follows that the United States experienced a much more serious recession than Canada between 1973-75, as shown by the comparative movements of real production, employment, unemployment and investments. At the same time, the Canadian experience was less propitious in two important sectors: first the unit costs of labour in manufacturing and, second, the foreign sector.
If the productivity of American manufacturers was still less propitious than that of their Canadian counterparts since 1973, this disadvantage has been substantially offset by smaller salary increases. There clearly results a temporary degradation at least of the competitive status of the Canadian manufacturing industry as to the unit costs of manpower compared with those in the United States. Canada has experienced since 1973 a quick degradation of its merchandizing and current accounts while the contrary was true in the United States which is mostly due to a greatly reduced demand from abroad.

The period since 1973 has seen a closer convergence in per capita GNP in Canada and the United States. Between 1973 and 1975 Canada's GNP output in current dollars climbed by about 29 per cent, or nearly twice as fast as in the United States. In 1975 per capita GNP in Canada has climbed to within about 3 percentage points of that in the United States, compared with a gap of about 11 per cent in 1973. In real terms, Canada's GNP output advanced by

May 17, 1976
Industrial Strategy
about 3 per cent. This is well below the normal growth rate of at least 9 per cent in an average two year period. However, in the U.S. real GNP was actually 4 per cent lower in 1975 than in 1973.
The GNP price deflator, the broadest measure of over-all price change in the economy, advanced by 25 per cent over a two year period in Canada, or somewhat faster than the 19 per cent increase in the United States during the same period of time. The volume of industrial production declined by somewhat more than 2 per cent in Canada between 1973 and 1975, compared with a decline of 9.4 per cent in the U.S.
Retail sales in Canada climbed by 32 per cent in the two years ending in 1975, compared with an increase of half this rate in the United States. Housing starts declined by 14 per cent in Canada during the last two years, compared with a 43 per cent drop in the United States. The Canadian labour force climbed by about 8 per cent in the past two years, a rate nearly twice as fast as the 4.4 per cent advance in the United States. Total employment growth in Canada advanced by 6.4 per cent despite the economic slowdown in the past two years. In the U. S. it climbed by less than half of one per cent.
As far as the manufacturing sector is concerned, the decline in the volume of Canadian manufacturing of about 2.5 per cent was only one third as steep as the decline in the United States. There was also a sharper drop off in the average weekly hours in U.S. manufacturing. Output per man hour in Canadian manufacturing advanced by 3.3 per cent between 1973 and 1975, or nearly three times the rate experienced in the United States. However, average hourly earnings in Canadian manufacturing climbed by more than 31 per cent in the most recent two year period, compared with only 18 per cent in the United States. The result was that unit labour costs in Canadian manufacturing advanced by 27 per cent compared with 16.5 per cent in the United States as the comparative advantage in Canadian productivity was more than matched by a steeper climb in wages.
As I pointed out earlier in my remarks, a more responsible attitude in relating wage and salary demands to productivity rather than to anticipated increases in the inflation rate could have moderated, to a considerable extent, the high inflation which necessitated the antiinflation legislation.
I shall conclude my remarks with a reference to one of the improving sectors of our economy, the growth of Canada's consulting and technical service industries in international markets. Consulting and technical service industries contribute more than $1 billion annually to the Canadian economy; over $150 million in fees alone was earned from foreign contracts in 1974.
Capital equipment exports follow where our Canadian consultants have contracts. Canadian technology is in great demand abroad, and frequently our expertise parallels the needs of developing countries. This consulting expertise is in a multitude of fields, including communications, transportation, forestry, resource development, and power development. The industry is largely Canadian owned; it is aggressive and entrepreneurial. The Canadian

consultant is taking the lead in the pursuit of capital project business abroad.
In closing, whilst one cannot be surprised that during a slowdown period in the Canadian economy the purveyors of doom come out in force, a more balanced assessment of the true picture would indicate that we in Canada have performed relatively well in comparison with the rest of the world. Certainly we always have a need to improve, but a more positive attitude and a little more pride in our accomplishments will help us to attain our common objectives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we are grateful for the opportunity provided by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) today with respect to the subject matter of unemployment which, if anything, has been a consistent concern of hon. members of this House on all sides.
There has been a continued recurrence of high unemployment throughout the country. However, those of us who come from the Atlantic provinces, when faced with either statistical figures or with the latest reports on unemployment, realize that this is not something new but something we have long experienced in our part of the country. Indeed it has been recognized for quite a number of years, certainly since the early 1960's, that the federal government has a basic responsibility with respect to the continuing high levels of unemployment which have existed in certain areas of the country, those areas which have, to use the popular phrase, suffered from regional economic and social disparity.
While the motion before us today refers specifically to the general unemployment situation which exists, a rate of 7.4 per cent-or in terms of actual Canadians without jobs, some 761,000-I think it is incumbent upon us in this debate to realize that the problem has been particularly acute in two areas which I want to mention quite specifically. One area comprises the four Atlantic provinces which have traditionally experienced unemployment in rates at sometimes double and, in a number of instances, triple that of the national average. It is a situation which no member or minister should want to accept happily for one moment, but I think we have to be frank and recognize that the general experience to date in attempting to deal with this problem has not been overly satisfactory.
I did not hear the minister when he made his comments with respect to the problems of unemployment as he saw them from his perspective as Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), but from what I have learned about his speech it strikes me that it was a speech which generally tried to make excuses for what presently is the situation rather than to give some suggestion or indication as to what steps the government will be taking to alleviate this problem.
Surely it is not something which was sprung on the government as brand new information with the last report from Statistics Canada. It seems to me that for as long as this minister has been in office, and certainly since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been in office, it has been an almost constant complaint that the problem of
May 17, 1976

unemployment in Canada has not been dealt with satisfactorily.
However, the two specific groups which concern me today and which have suffered unduly due to the lack of an industrial strategy are undoubtedly the people who live in areas of economic and social disparity such as those in the Atlantic provinces, part of the province of Quebec, certain parts of northern Ontario, and northwestern Canada.
I also think particularly of a group which is equally important but not quite so easily identifiable, the young people in our society, in terms of the long term damage which we have done with respect to the most important resource which exists for Canada, and that is their future positive attitude and ability to participate in the ongoing life of this country.
If there is a major and compelling criticism above all else which can be made about this government in the employment field, it is, quite frankly, the betrayal of an opportunity for employment which should be, but has not been, available for many thousands-indeed, hundreds of thousands-of young people in our society. I know this only too well because during my times here as a member I have had the opportunity to consider in detail some of the specific responses the government has made with respect to youth unemployment.
Many years ago on the occasion of one particular bad set of published statistics, or a report from Statistics Canada with respect to the high percentage of unemployed young people, those under the age of 24, the Prime Minister indicated to me in an answer that he too was concerned about the problem, and for that reason the government at that time established a high powered interdepartmental committee which was to take seriously the problem of the long term high incidence of youth unemployment.
What have been the results of that self-professed interest in this serious social problem? The results have been nil. Of course there have been experiments with respect to the Opportunities for Youth program, but that program has gone the way of all flesh. The government announced it as an interim measure to deal with what it perceived to be a very serious situation. One is not sure that it was attempting to deal with the reality of that situation or merely the seeming politics of it, but Opportunities for Youth is no longer in existence.
A program which was introduced by the Prime Minister's predecessor as a Canadian response to the then popular American Peace Corps was the Company of Young Canadians. The Company of Young Canadians had its difficulties, and no one would disagree that it was instituted at a time of very serious social unrest. However, I think hon. members on either side who have looked at the work which was done, particularly in latter years, by the Company of Young Canadians, have to be impressed both by the dedication of the young people who were involved and by the extent to which they were actually able to assist in the development of self-help programs in a number of disadvantaged communities across the country, and for a very small price, I might add, because as hon. members know the budgetary item for the Company of Young Canadians was quite small in comparison with many activities funded by the government. What was the
Industrial Strategy
response to this particular innovation? It was given the axe. One opportunity for channeling some of the energy and idealism and even the anxiety of young people was destroyed. They could have been a positive force in the real social and economic development of the country.
As I said in another place on another occasion, the government is somewhat like its present energy program- it has run out of gas. I suppose the obvious thing to say is that the sooner it can be replaced, the better. An enormous number of young people have become very cynical and frustrated by what they perceive to be the government's lack of interest in their problems of employment and effective participation in our society.
I see one hon. member shake his head. I am not sure whether he is opposed to dealing with the chronic, high unemployment that faces our young people or whether he is sharing in the collective fatigue that exists in this administration. Either is an extreme condition and should not be tolerated any longer.
I am amazed at the government's lack of sensitivity, its lack of an industrial strategy or indeed any strategy to deal with the employment of such a resource as the young people of this country. This aspect of the matter deserves much more time, Mr. Speaker, but I want to deal with another aspect of unemployment which I consider equally grave, and that is the situation in the Atlantic provinces.
It is perhaps a fact of our experience as representatives that, because we have been faced with high unemployment figures so consistently in the last few years, we have ceased to be alarmed by the extent of unemployment in our own communities. Recently I saw the latest published unemployment figures for the Atlantic provinces. It was interesting to compare the reports from the Manpower offices to see how closely they checked with the figures published by Statistics Canada.
The national unemployment rate is 7.6 per cent. In Newfoundland, it is 16.3 per cent; in Prince Edward Island, 13.4 per cent; Nova Scotia, 10.3 per cent, and New Brunswick, 13.2 per cent. This means that in the Atlantic provinces unemployment is running at double the national average.
On a year to year basis a comparison of the number of people registered with the Manpower Centres in the Atlantic provinces is quite shocking. In March last year 4,196 people were registered with the Manpower Centre in Charlottetown; this year the figure jumped to 5,600. In Summer-side 4,200 people were registered in March of last year as actively looking for employment; this year the figure climbed to 6,007, a growth of 43 per cent. These are not figures that one can accept in a sanguine manner when one realizes the hardship and heartbreak experienced by heads of households who must report to their families week after week that there is still no job available. It is difficult for us to identify with a figure in the hundreds of thousands of unemployed. But when I meet people in my constituency who are denied productive employment, Mr. Speaker, then I know the tragedy of the lack of an industrial policy on the part of the government.
It is incredible that in the Atlantic provinces the government should masquerade behind a program of regional expansion. In 1969, when various programs and policies

May 17, 1976
Industrial Strategy
were put together to create a department that was going to deal directly with the under-employed and unemployed in specific regions, we were optimistic. In 1976, however, the department only administers patchwork programs that basically do nothing about the unemployment problem in the Atlantic provinces. In Charlottetown last week the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) said-and I hope I quote him closely enough not to misrepresent him-that during a time of restraint we must not expect that anything can be done effectively to offset that with respect to regional economic programs and policies. He has said similar things in the House in reply to questions about rate increases of 100 per cent on the main ferry link to the mainland and the repeated requests from the Canadian National Railways for an increase in basic freight rates, which of course would effect the cost of moving basic goods out of our region.
It is incredible that the government would establish a department to alleviate regional disparities and then have its own energy and transportation policies, tariff policies, and restraint policies go totally against it and undermine any achievement it might have gained. What kind of credibility can this establish with respect to an industrial policy for the country or for areas where the government has an important and special responsibility?
I may need to say a few additional words at eight o'clock because I think this is a very important subject. At this time, however, I would respectfully call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being six o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that before we adjourned for supper I was trying to deal with what I perceived to be two of the most consistent and offensive areas of high unemployment which have existed in this country for a number of years, almost totally during the time the present government has been in office. One has to do with the shockingly high numbers of young people unemployed, more than 14 per cent at last count; and the other has to do with consistent and chronically high unemployment in areas like the Atlantic provinces where, on a regional average, unemployment is at well over 14 per cent.
I will not repeat, for which hon. members on all sides will be grateful, what I said before supper, but I want to emphasize that, as the motion suggests, there is indeed no industrial strategy to counteract the very serious and high unemployment which exists today. In fact if there is any one criticism I have of this motion, it is that it does not go far enough.
I believe that if we are to deal with the problem of regional unemployment the time has long since passed when we should realize that it is not sufficient to have a

series of particular programs or, indeed, one department trying to carry and develop matters of responsibility in this particular area. I mentioned before the supper adjournment the failure to introduce consistent and supportive policies in areas of tremendous importance to the Atlantic regions, areas such as energy and transportation. I will not go into detail, but it seems to me that there has been a tremendous deterioration in that there has been a lack of support from the department in dealing with both energy and transportation. Indeed much if not all that is being attempted under regional disparity programs sponsored by DREE is undermined by the lack of consistent and co-ordinated programs in the totality of federal government intervention in the Atlantic provinces.
At present it seems to me that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is indeed a prisoner of the government, unable to make its weight felt fully in the activities of other departments when dealing with the problems of unemployment and under-employment in the Atlantic provinces.
On the question of young people it seems that our approach has not been comprehensive. It is a well known fact that the provinces have a vital stake in the whole question of youth opportunity, and employment, but there has been literally no effective consultation with the provinces on this question. The relationship existing between education, manpower training, and job opportunities for young people has been totally ignored by the government.
As I said, if I have any criticism of the motion presented today by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge it is that it only deals with industrial strategy affecting employment. It seems to me that we need, in real terms, a totally new economic and social policy, one whose basic commitment is to full employment. I remember a few years ago when the late president of Queen's University, a man of tremendous stature, Dr. John Deutsch, told a parliamentary committee that we would need to look closely at developing new national economic and social policies, ones which would provide young Canadians, and Canadians in regionally disadvantaged areas, with the knowledge that they would be given the opportunity for full and meaningful employment. Unfortunately that situation has not come to pass under this government and that opportunity, even that concern, does not exist today.
I thank the hon. member who introduced this motion for giving us this brief opportunity to remind the government again that it has basic, fundamental responsibilities, one of which must be the establishment of policies and programs leading to full employment both for the young and for those in regionally disadvantaged areas.


André-Gilles Fortin: motion says in a general way that we blame this government for its lack of an industrial strategy making for a planned economy that would give short and particularly long-term results and enable Canadians to enter the labour market and ensure their future.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has no industrial strategy as such. We run the economy, this country on a day-to-day basis, haphazardly, according to the mood of the moment, nothing more. The problems are faced on an ad hoc basis, but there are no long-term plan aimed at maintaining the employment level, at fighting inflation or preventing those two goals from working against each other. On that score, Mr. Speaker, it is sad to realize it and endure it but it is an actual fact in this country: we have no employment strategy in Canada.
A few years ago, this government announced specific job-creating programs, among others the local initiative programs and opportunities for Youth. In another case, for instance, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was created. Today, in 1976, those local initiative programs have been abolished. For what reason? Monetary restrictions. The same is true of opportunities for Youth.
Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned with that kind of administration not because it comes from the Liberal party but because of that philosophy we have. I am deeply concerned by that. One day, a minister stands up and says to the House: The government has developed a very specific job creation policy; we intend with this strategy to generate a number of job opportunities and for that purpose we invest a few millions. Some time later, the government announces the implementation of another program which is not necessarily related to the previous one, and there we go, as the wind blows.
And finally, because one day the government decided to fight inflation, which it refused to advocate during the election, suddently we have to tighten our belts and forget about creating jobs in Canada or maintaining the rate of employment, since all of a sudden, one fine morning, the government decided that it was important to fight inflation.
Mr. Speaker, the result is, as the motion says, that according to the latest official data of Statistics Canada, the average seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is 7.4 per cent. In Quebec, we hold the record once again, that is 8.3 per cent. Mr. Speaker, as I said previously, I am deeply concerned by this, because with this government we do not know what to expect during the next month, the next three or six months, or the next year. The first point of the motion emphasizes the lack of long-term and short-term planning; it relates this lack of planning, and I agree with this, to the fall in production.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker. First of all, industries themselves, small- and medium-sized businesses in particular, because they do not know what short or long range policies the government will put forward, restrain their investments and their growth, and this is how their employment rate has leveled off so to speak, because of this lack of concern. Second, and it has already been said in this House, our labour legislation, as regards jobs covered by both the federal and provincial codes, our laws and bargaining process are quite outdated, which means once more that small- and medium-sized businesses are the victims of
Industrial Strategy
slow negotiations, inefficient employer-employee dialogue and finally, this is another major reason for the reduction of our per capita gross national product.
I refer once more to the official statistics of the Department of Labour of Canada, which indicate the number of strikes and lock outs in Canada and show again that our bargaining process is not only slow, inefficient, obsolete and outdated but moreover, that it creates in a way endless and very costly disputes between labour and management. Statistics in this regard speak for themselves, Mr. Speaker, and it is not necessary to quote them here.
In this relatively dark picture-and I think this is the actual situation and I am not pessimistic in saying so- there are some elements of hope or spark plugs that come to light at a given time everywhere in Canada. Let us mention in particular the experience of a company named Tricofil, which was completely on the decline, as a result of textile imports, just as it happened in the footwear industry in Canada and in the province of Quebec in particular, where this industry was prevailing. All this happened as a result of government inaction, because of a government strategy which encouraged more imports than any policy designed to support the endeavours of our own industries. We are waking up, Mr. Speaker, with a footwear industry that has disappeared, together with these jobs. In the case of textile, exactly the same type of crisis exists.
Recently, I asked a question of the minister on this subject. He replied that a Canadian textile commission had been established, that many studies are being done on this subject and that we are starting to understand the problem pretty well. No solution has yet been found. We are content to judge dumping cases, but we do not ensure employment protection in our country, and especially in the Eastern Townships, Mr. Speaker, where the problem has taken tremendous proportions.
As an example, I would mention Victoriaville, my own city, where there is an industry called Robin Company and another one called UTEX Company. These plants now operate at only 40 per cent of their production capacity. Why? Because we are unable to face the foreign competition that this government, and I repeat, this government, is importing because of its lack of legislation to protect the Canadian industry and its lack of Canadianism spirit which would make us give first and foremost to Canadians the opportunity to produce themselves the products that we can manufacture locally before importing them.
For political or financial reasons of which I am not aware, the government prefers to encourage imports from countries where the manpower rates are, of course, much lower than ours. This is why the Robin Company, Mr. Speaker, is laying off 200, 300, and 400 people, heads of households, who have been working for 10, 15, 20, 22 or 25 years, who are Canadians like you and me and who can suddenly find themselves in the lower echelons or simply laid off. This is how our whole system of social security in general, especially unemployment insurance, which is a negative program, a disincentive for the worker and because of which we can now say that unemployment competes against work, and this is how you have people with no urge to work or who are discouraged. It is a real drama to lose one's job after 20 years in a factory just because imports are not controlled.

May 17, 1976
Industrial Strategy
When the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) asks for an overall industrial strategy to keep the employment level up, and especially the production level, it means, first, that we are going to impose very strict controls on our importation of products. The same situation prevails in the dairy industry; we import from foreign countries the butter and the cheese that we are able to produce here in Canada. Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that it is because of this particular factor, and many others, that we have overproduction and the government has no other choice but to penalize our own producers. This is some kind of collective discouragement. However, the government is primarily supposed to encourage and support the initiatives of individuals and of businesses.
Mr. Speaker, the consequence is a serious and important loss of jobs which, at the regional or local level, may mean the end to the development of a city or a region or the beginning of that development. This is the case of Victoria-ville with Robin and Utex.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make another remark on this matter. Why did the government abandon the Local Initiatives and Opportunities for Youth Programs? Why? We are told that it is because of monetary cutbacks. So, which reason does the government put forward and how will these programs be replaced? What are we going to do with the students this coming summer? I know that the government will answer that they are going to create 10,000, 15,000 or 20,000 jobs throughout the country. But which industrial strategy does this fit in? Not a political strategy. In which industrial strategy? I fully agree that these programs be abandoned if they do fit into a particular industrial strategy. But this is not the case.
Mr. Speaker, the private sector must be helped rather than hindered. When we meet heads of small and medium industries, they complain of too much administration work to be done to meet government requirements. They tell us this has become extremely complex, and I know this for a fact, because I have gone through that experience personally. Sometimes two, three, or even four full-time professional accountants would be needed, simply to meet the requirements of all government departments such as DREE, Industry, Trade and Commerce, Revenue, and so forth.
What is needed for small and medium businesses is experts, specialists, advisors to help us improve and modernize. Also needed is new labour legislation ensuring efficient negotiations, rather than the kind of legislation that puts us in a confrontation situation from the start.
Work must be encouraged in Canada, rather than unemployment. More stringent and more efficient control of monopolies is needed in the food industry, in the basic materials industry, in the insurance industry or any other field, so that small and medium businesses can breathe and meet genuine competition.
In a number of industries, we face the kind of competition supposedly existing in those supposedly capitalist systems, since there is no genuine competition any more in a number of industries in Canada, because of those pervading monopolies either in the investment property field or

in the money business through chartered banks that create money and are responsible for higher interest rates, or again in the extraction or manufacturing of essential materials.
This is why the cost of living is going up, employment going down, and small and medium firms can no longer compete. We have no anti-monopoly legislation, or if we do have it is collecting dust, as so many other things.
Mr. Speaker, it is one of two things: either we open our ears and work together in support of an employment strategy in Canada, especially for those aged 18 to 35 that are coming into the labour force, who have the necessary skills, who went into debt to complete their studies, and who face nothing else in the immediate future than a service and prolonged period of unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, I think those factors are important. An effort will have to be made above all, once this problem of industrial strategy is recognized, and I think that in that respect the motion of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) is right on, in that the government will have to recognize that the premise of the motion is absolutely true. If it is false the government only has to stand up and say what strategy it intends to draw its inspiration from for the months to come to really restore the confidence of Canadians in their economy.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I will refer to a brochure published not by my political party but by the government of Canada and entitled "Canada 1974", English version, published by Statistics Canada. It was prepared in the Yearbook Division, Statistics Canada. At page 203 of that wonderful brochure one learns extraordinary things. That brochure which is supposed to be given is sold to Canadians so they will know about the policies and how the government of this country works. Those are not general notions that are being transmitted to citizens and particularly immigrants.
So here are the pearls one finds at pages 202, 203 and following concerning the industrial strategy, the creation of employment and the fight against inflation. It will be understood there, Mr. Speaker, that the government of Canada made a choice the day it introduced that anti-inflation legislation. It decided by that legislation to break the process of collective bargaining. Indeed, there is no point in bargaining-you ask for 10 per cent, you get it; you ask for more, it is cut down to 10 per cent, or 12 per cent in certain exceptional cases.
Of course, that does not stop insurance companies from tripling their premiums in one year; nor does it stop the provincial government of Quebec or Ontario from increasing school and municipal taxes at exaggerated and abusive rates but it gives them a mouthful. There is a fight going on against inflation and workers are told: You will limit yourselves to 10 per cent. The whole process of collective bargaining is thus broken. An arbitrary judgment is finally arrived at. So much for that. That is the kind of industrial strategy being offered by the government.
Secondly, the government put an end to programs that were creating temporary employment, such as the Local Initiatives Program and Opportunities for Youth, but at least this meant occasional jobs, it was better than nothing at all. This is abolished. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this same
May 17, 1976

government increases bureaucracy that governs small enterprises and does not do anything against monopolies that stifle small and medium enterprises. I did not invent this, Mr. Speaker, I am referring to this brochure which reads:
The present state of economic knowledge suggests that there would be absolutely no trouble curing unemployment if it were not for the related problem of inflation.
There is the point. I continue to quote:
Unhappily many of the policies designed to increase spending and employment will also tend to exert an upward pressure on prices.
This is the third article on the unemployment inflation pattern.
There is no easy solution to this quandary. There is an inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment. Years of significant price increase are years of relatively low unemployment.
I invite my colleagues to read that; it is delightful, Mr. Speaker. The government starts out with the idea it cannot check both unemployment and inflation. There is but one strictly political alternative: fight inflation or fight unemployment. As the elections are far away, as they were won over the Progressive Conservative issue of a price freeze, the government says, to have a pleasant taste in its mouth: we will wrestle inflation to the ground. And it does so on the back of Canadian inflation, producers, employees and workers.
Here if what is said on pages 204 and the following, and I quote:
Economists are beginning to suspect-
-they are not sure, they are government economists-
. .. are beginning to suspect that sustained periods of rising prices may create expectations of further price increases which get built into business and wage contracts. The result is that...
. . . because, they, the Liberal economists, suspect...
. .. The result is that it will require ever-increasing amounts of unemployment...
... I did not say that, Mr. Speaker,...
... it will require ever-increasing amounts of unemployment to hold the rate of inflation to a given level.
And the economists who suspect something want to be so specific that they add the following in brackets, and I quote:
(In economic parlance this is referred to as an outward shift in the Phillips curve, which is just another name for the curve or function that shows the trade-off relationship between unemployment and inflation.)
That shows us, Mr. Speaker, how deep we are in obscureness. We live from day to day, which proves once and for all that this government has really no industrial strategy and that it governs from day to day depending on the number of votes it can get. Mr. Speaker, I hope this government will benefit from this debate and consider its position to help Canadian workers to actually build our country.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Would the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) allow a question?


André-Gilles Fortin: Yes.
Industrial Strategy


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the hon. member for Lotbiniere said that our collective bargaining system within labour relations was obsolete and at the end of his speech he deplored that the AntiInflation Act counteracted this system he finds obsolete. I listened to his speech with interest and to this part dealing in particular with those labour relations he finds obsolete. I would like to know what his party or himself considers as non obsolete or as appropriate, given the circumstances, to change the collective bargaining system.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I shall be as brief as possible, considering that my time is over, but the question of the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard) is very interesting; it is also very complex. For a long time, on this side, we have stated and maintained that an arbitration policy with a labour court where the employees, the employers and a person totally independent could really lead to a decision on this kind of conflict. And we have always upheld the view that it was about time to have in Canada a permanent collective bargaining system and not one whereby bargaining can take place only when the former agreement, has run out, which means it may take one year for the new contract to be signed.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, granted that one cannot draw many conclusions from one brief answer but what we advocate is a labour court with both parties equally represented and a permanent collective bargaining system. This court could take care of the grievances and problems would be settled as they arise rather than at the end. This is in a way what is now taking place in Quebec. In this manner, Mr. Speaker, solutions would be arrived at or at least the situation would be improved upon.
Right now, it is enough to look at the Quebec public sector where there is no permanent collective bargaining system and where there is not that kind of labour court or compulsory arbitration. You see immediately the kind of mess that province is in. Sick people are not allowed to stay in hospitals, children are kept away from school, teachers cannot teach and all that is proving very expensive.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the solutions I advocate are not ideal. In answering to the question put by the hon. member for Drummond, I will say that these are only elements of solutions, and that if we can devise a lot of technical things today in our society, certainly we can, as intelligent people, find out positive means allowing people to work.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take too much of the time of the House on the motion that is before us today. That does not mean, of course, that what I say succintly will not be right. The motion criticizes the government really in two areas; first of all for its failure to develop an industrial strategy, and then it goes on to point out that this lack of an industrial strategy has resulted in severe problems of location for Canadian workers and industry.
In developing any kind of industrial strategy it is fundamental that you have some control over your economy.

May 17, 1976
Industrial Strategy
This control has to be in two areas in particular, and I want to deal with each separately. First of all, you must have some control over foreign ownership; secondly, and just as important, you must have some control over competing forces within the economy, and this includes both labour and business. Some form of control or consensus or social contract must be arrived at so you can develop an acceptable strategy for the future.
It is getting a little boring to go through a whole litany of figures showing the extent to which Canada is foreign owned, but I still think they bear repeating. For example, 99.9 per cent of the petroleum industry is foreign owned. The figure is 97.7 per cent in the automobile industry, 62 per cent in mining, 83 per cent in the rubber industry, 77 per cent in the electrical apparatus industry, 90 per cent in the computer industry, and 92 per cent in the aircraft and aircraft parts industry. You cannot develop an industrial strategy, or control your own economy, or reduce inequity in society until you get a handle on this major problem of foreign ownership.
If your economy is foreign owned and the country of the parent companies suffer a recession, then workers of subsidiary companies are the first fired and the last hired. The Canadian subsidiary of an American company like Bordens Milk and subsidiaries of any number of other foreign companies are bound to suffer when the parent company decides that it is in the company's best interest to phase out its Canadian operation and thereafter takes the easy route of manufacturing the product at the location of the parent company and shipping it into Canada.
This has happened many times, but one of the examples specified in the motion is Dunlop Tire. The right to manufacture Dunlop tires in Canada is going to be withdrawn by that company. These tires will now be shipped in from the United States, meaning a loss of Canadian jobs and Canadian business. We will have to buy something called the Dayton tire which will compete with the Dunlop tire. Whoever heard of the Dayton tire, and who will find that it can be a successful competitor with a tire that is known and has been patented throughout the world? It is the trademark that has the value as well as the advertising of the name. Because we lack an industrial strategy and a meaningful foreign ownership policy in this country, thousands of Canadian workers are going to be put out of work.
The case of Microsystems is also referred to in the motion. The government allowed a subsidiary of Northern Electric to be closed down after you, Mr. Speaker, I, and the taxpayers of Canada had pumped $40 million into it. This company had developed a very unique and excellent process for building complex microprocessors. There was really no indication that the government knew what that company was doing. As a result, a new Canadian technology that could have been quite successful in world terms went down the tubes.
We will see what are the government's intentions when we examine the Pratt & Whitney situation at Longueuil. Here again the Canadian subsidiary of Pratt & Whitney has a chance to enter into a contract with Rolls Royce to undertake the research, development, and manufacture of a new small jet engine which will be the engine of the 1980's in terms of civil and military jet aviation. It seems that the U.S. justice department found this offensive.

When Pratt & Whitney, a large U.S. aircraft company, locks itself into a contract with Rolls Royce, from an American point of view it looks like a violation of their anti-trust laws. Because of the action of the U.S. justice department, a Canadian subsidiary stands to lose about
1,000	jobs, a large contract for the future and, perhaps just as important, the expertise and talent that go with the aircraft industry.
Canada used to be a world leader in the field of aviation. We pioneered bush piloting and transportation over great areas of this country. We had a lot to show the world. But what has the Liberal government done over the years, Mr. Speaker? It has allowed our aircraft industry to go completely down the tubes. It has allowed all that technology and expertise to go south of the border, leaving us even more as drawers of water and hewers of wood, shipping out our raw materials and our jobs.


An hon. Member:: And even the shipping is done in foreign ships.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: That is right. That is what has happened to our aircraft industry. We have not had the courage or the guts as a country to stand up and be independent and take pride in the developments and the technology we have. We used to lead the world, but where are we now? We are going down to the United States to pick up $18 billion worth of Lockheed Orions developed entirely in the United States. All we are going to do is manufacture a few components. It does not take that much in terms of research, expertise or engineering.
We are continuing to ship our best people south of the border, which is a discredit to this country. We will suffer in the long run. We will suffer as we lose the talent and brains this country is capable of developing. What Canadians need is pride in themselves, and they will not get that pride if the government continues to take a hangdog attitude about what we are and are not capable of doing. I say that Canadians can produce the finest aircraft in the world and they should be given the chance to do it.


An hon. Member:: It is not very often I agree with you, but you are right.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I am happy to hear that hon. members are going to support this excellent motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: But they haven't read it yet.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Dealing with another aspect of what we term the lack of an industrial strategy, one of the classic pieces of legislation brought in was the Foreign Investment Review Act. That was an attempt to redress the massive problem of foreign ownership. This is something that Walter Gordon in a sense lead for many years. He lead the fight in terms of trying to repatriate the Canadian economy.


An hon. Member:: And look what happened to dear old Walter.
May 17, 1976


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Yes, look what happened to dear old Walter. He could not stand his companions in the cabinet and he had to leave. To his credit he left, and he left a gap on that side of the House because they have not been able to get anybody to come back and take that position in the cabinet, that is, somebody with some sensitivity for this question of foreign ownership.


An hon. Member:: What about the empty seats on your side?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: There are a few empty heads over there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Peters:: Some of the seats that are sat in over there are still empty.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) has the floor and I suggest we should listen to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. To get back to the Foreign Investment Review Act for a minute, it really is not legislation, it is a welcome-wagon arrangement for foreign capital to come in and take over segments of the Canadian economy it should not be allowed to take over. Another example is the Foxborough Cheese Company down in Belleville, Ontario. Foreign investment was allowed to come in because the company was going to create all kinds of new employment down there. The ex-mayor of Belleville, who is a well respected member of this House, is very conscious of this particular problem in Belleville. Under this wonderful foreign investment review legislation the Cow & Gate Company was allowed to come in and buy out Foxborough Cheese, with the promise of all kinds of jobs. It then shut the company right down. What did FIRA do in that respect? Where was the monitoring in that regard? Where are the charges that should have been laid because of the failure to meet certain commitments? Last, but not least, what were the commitments?
I have about 145 questions on the Order Paper asking for some simple information that the people of Canada are entitled to have. What are these commitments that foreign corporations are making in order to get into the Canadian economy? I am told that this is secretive and sensitive information. Almost everything you ask of the government is secret. Apparently we should not be allowed to know what is going on. Obviously the Canadian people are not mature enough to be able to accept the kind of sensitive information these companies are handing out.
The only time we get information about commitments is when it is about something like the Lockheed deal. The government told us in this case about the wonderful jobs this would create and the good things it would do for Canada. Why does the government not tell us about the other things which are approved? Not once was information given in respect of a question on the Order Paper in terms of commitments that these companies make when they are allowed to take over, or in terms of the monitorindustrial Strategy
ing. There are no experts on the monitoring staff of the Foreign Investments Review Agency. There is no strategy development to monitor the companies after the takeover. The government relies on the information provided by the takeover companies regarding what is being done, and monitoring is a complete farce under Foreign Investments Review.
The legislation is meaningless because not a single charge has been laid against a company that came into Canada and did not meet its commitments, which in the first place were the reason the company was given permission. Surely the minister will wake up to the fact that his legislation is a farce. The Canadian people know it is a farce, and if the minister does not do something about it soon he will himself be considered a farce.


An hon. Member:: You don't think that kind of talk will get you anywhere?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Holt:: You are still using the same old speech.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I use the same old speech because it is the same old problem, and no one does anything about it.


Simma Holt: The same old partnership.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: For the benefit of my friend, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt)-


An hon. Member:: Oh, you are friends?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Always. She being from British Columbia, I should like to give a couple of examples in that province about which she will be aware and sensitive. First let me remind her of the Fraser Valley Cannery. The Fraser Valley used to have one of the finest cannery industries in Canada. We all know what happened to it. It was bought out by the American Can Company and then immediately shut down. They found it was a lot cheaper to process the food across the border and ship it into Canada in cans.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: We used to have an excellent company in British Columbia that developed a special skill saw. This group of Canadian entrepreneurs had an excellent skill saw. It received a takeover bid from the Skil Saw Company of the United States. They were told the company just wanted to run this organization a little more efficiently. Skil Saw was going to send its experts in, but what happened? They shut the company down and shipped skill saws into Canada from the United States. There went our Canadian jobs, and there went the B.C. economy.
That is what happens when you have a country that is owned, dominated, and controlled by large foreign corporations. We must reduce our dependence on these companies.


Simma Holt: They priced them out of their jobs.


An hon. Member:: Did you people discuss this on your trip east?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: That is absolutely untrue. The hon. member who spoke is, without exception, entertaining if

May 17, 1976
Industrial Strategy
not enlightening. In that particular case the Canadian saw was marketed at a price lower than the United States saw. That is why the United States company came in and took it over. It was such good competition the U.S. company could not afford to have the Canadian saw on the market. Therefore it took the company over, shut it down, and shipped its own saws in. This was a marvellous setup. Unless we have some industrial strategy this country is going down the tubes in terms of controlling its own destiny.
Let me go to the second heading on the question of an industrial strategy. We have to develop a social contract or an internal consensus within the country in order to have any kind of meaningful industrial planning. As a fundamental to that we must take a look at western Europe and its move into an industrial democracy in which the people working in industry have some participation in the decision-making process. The workers have some representation on the boards of directors and there is a whole theme involving the workers in the productivity of their jobs. We are ignoring this in Canada because we are still fighting the 19th century class war in terms of industrial strategy.
I am not one of those who think collective bargaining is something that is cast in tablets of stone. I do not happen to agree with Joe Morris that collective bargaining is something we can never change.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I thought there might be some response if someone says he does not agree with Joe Morris. I do not think collective bargaining is cast in stone. I cannot stand in this House as a socialist and suggest we should have totally free enterprise in planning the economy. If labour leaders want to make that kind of a speech, that is fine. As a matter of fact they are making it in their own interests. That is a different segment of society. We want those members in this House who represent business rather than labour to be just as objective in advocating the prerogatives of business.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I wanted a little objectivity, and all of a sudden everybody is upset about the fact that they are looking after one segment of the society and not the other.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member has only a couple of minutes left, so I suggest he continue his speech.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In any event, Mr. Speaker, in terms of an industrial strategy I have one last point to make. By the way, British Columbia now has just about the highest unemployment in the country, in terms of the increase. We are up to 9.7 per cent.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They are all former members of the NDP.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: And they are about to lay-off 400 workers on the B.C. ferry system, which will not help the unemployment rate and will not help the economy of B.C. one bit.

That is the kind of industrial strategy that I am urging upon this government: do not lay-off people because you see the bottom line. It is important that we keep all segments of our society working. If you do not have them working, then they will refuse to go along with any social consensus, and they have a perfect right to do that. You talk about redistribution of wealth in Canada. Since 1951 we have not seen anything changed. The bottom 20 per cent still get 4 per cent of the income in this country, and the top get 20 per cent.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: You are out of order. You are not speaking from your place.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: To wind up this thing, whatever it is-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest to the hon. member he has 30 seconds in which to wind it up.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The point I was making is that since 1951 we have been talking in this House about redistributing income, about making society fairer for all. The statistics are overwhelming. There has been no change-the richer have become richer, and the poorer have become poorer. If at least the government showed some sense of social justice, if at least it were willing to see some meaningful-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I have to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the House for its kindness and I will make sure I speak from my place in accordance with the time honoured rules of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: Your whole speech is invalid.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker,-


Stanley Howard Knowles: At least he did not speak with blue tongue.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: -I did want to say that no industrial strategy-no matter which party puts it forward-will work in this country unless you develop a social contract. Have a look at what has happened in western Europe. There they have told the workers that if they limit their wage increases, they will redistribute wealth, they will see that at the bottom end of the tax structure inflation will not take away the well earned gains of the workers.
I do not see any proposal like that from our government. I do not see any proposal which attempts to accept, for example, the magnanimous gesture of the Canadian Labour Congress today asking to participate on an equal basis with the government and business in terms of planning the economy. Do not keep kicking the outstretched hand of labour in this country. Do not do it because, if you continue to do it, we will have social chaos. Nobody wants that kind of emergency to develop. Give some consider-
May 17, 1976

ation to the people who work with their hands and who have low incomes in Canada. Give some consideration to developing a real social contract so that we can get together as a nation and fight inflation, redistribute wealth, and end what could happen in this country, namely, a flying apart of the various competing groups in a state which we cannot control.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, when I read the motion before us today which says that the government has no industrial strategy, I have the impression that those who introduced it are surely unaware that we now have an industrial strategy.
It is perhaps imperfect or inadequate, according to some members, but I think that those who suggest there is no industrial strategy are insinuating that Canadian history begins with themselves, with the hon. member who introduced this motion. However, I must congratulate the hon. member on this motion which allows us to explain once more all the characteristics of the industrial strategy. During the oral question period or on the adjournment motion some questions were raised which appear again in the motion concerning Westinghouse and Dunlop. I think that the minister answered the questions which were asked but in this debate, it enables us to dwell more at length on the industrial strategy.
Let us first establish the areas of industrial activity and to that end, let me divide it into three sectors. We must first know what we are talking about in order to lay the foundations of an industrial strategy. So, there is the primary sector, which is the resources sector which includes renewable resources. In the primary sector, I would mention renewable resources, and I would also say that in the Western world, among industrial nations, Canada has a unique position in that it is self-sufficient as regards energy and raw materials. The secondary sector is composed of the two following groups of industries: the processing and the manufacturing industries. The tertiary sector is our industries and services sector. Over 50 per cent of jobs in Canada are in that sector, and half of it produces expendable items while the other half includes in about equal proportions personal and public or governmental services. Let us now state the objectives to be sought in planning the future development of our industries.
Then, we must fix the six key goals for the future development of our primary, secondary and tertiary industries. First, we must develop manufacturing and secondary processing industries which would be efficient and competitive at the international level to face the competition in Canada and even outside. Second, we must achieve a situation of full employment in Canadian industry to meet the present and future increase in manpower. Third, we must increase the national revenue and at the same time promote a regional economic expansion which would lessen the disparities between the various regions. Fourth, we must expand the processing of our natural resources in Canada to get the maximum profit out of them. Fifth, we have to establish better control over the Canadian economy and take action so that our future industrial development may be done by Canadians and for Canadians, and I believe that the hon. member who spoke before me men-
Industrial Strategy
tioned the policy on foreign investment, which is one of the priorities. We must contribute to improving the quality of life in Canada, as certain hon. members said today, by reducing the unfavourable effects of industrial activities on our natural environment and social contacts.
Now, without going into the details of those objectives, I would like to mention a few programs which will support these objectives, these key point that I mentioned earlier. We can recognize at least 10 or so major programs which form the heart of the industrial strategy, that is our tax policy, our tarif and trade policy, our industrial support policy, our regional development policy, our labour policy, our competition policy, our foreign investment policy, our mining and energy resource policy, our transportation and communication policy and our environment policy.
I would like to mention a few concrete examples to show to what point it is not a question of developing today an industrial policy and to show to what point we have for several years had a true industrial strategy with specific objective, such as those that I mentioned. If you allow me to do so, I would like to mention certain instruments used to help the industry promote certain products, to expand on the domestic or export markets. I would like to mention also the equipment industry productivity program. We have a new program which allows the Canadian industry to benefit from all types of subsidies, the Industrial Design Assistance Program, which gives financial support aimed at reinforcing the competitives status of Canadian industry.
I will mention the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, the SPACE Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology. The department is usually sharing 50 per cent of the costs of new and improved products and commercial processes development projects.
I will also mention the regional development grants. This is presently a very useful program, so necessary as an economic incentive for the areas where the industry would not establish itself. I could also mention the Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology, whose objective is to help industry-improve its technology, its innovation process, by subsidizing specific products and processes development and improvement projects. And contributions in this case may rise up to 50 per cent of the costs.
I will also mention the Industrial Research Assistance Program, which I have already alluded to. Then there is the Program for Export Market Development. This program has had a large popularity, considering that in 1975, the Export Development Corporation's contribution, through loans, insurance and guarantee, rose up to $2 billion, compared with $1.7 billion for the previous year, that is a 20 per cent increase.
I would like to mention that in respect of foreign investment guarantees, we have recorded a considerable increase. I would like thus to point out that this Export Development Corporation has been quite successful if we consider that in 1975, 40 agreements on loans were signed with foreign borrowers in order to support some Canadian exports. These agreements, including participation by banks, amounted to $1,135 billion which is a record since

May 17, 1976
Industrial Strategy
the creation of the corporation 30 years ago, and an increase of 72 per cent over last year's record of $659 million.
It is, therefore, another tool which can be used to assist industrial expansion. I could mention also another program, CASE, whose purpose is to help the management of small enterprises which often, because of rather rudimentary administrative structures and lack of resources, cannot secure expert services. So there is an assistance program to help small businesses. Some were already mentioned this afternoon. I want to refer to the performance of small businesses last year, in the light of the loans made by the Federal Business Development Bank. But before doing that I would like to say that last year since the CASE program was set up we helped scores of businesses, and over 325 last year.
In the area of assistance loans to small businesses, to which the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) was referring, I will say that if one considers the distribution of loans by provinces, there again the department also has an industrial strategy policy to help small businesses. I note, for example, the votes in effect on September 30, 1975. And in considering the number of businesses that benefitted from loans made by the Federal Business Development Bank-previously the Industrial Development Bank-one notes that in Quebec 4,899 businesses benefitted from loans; in Ontario, 7,255 businesses benefitted from loans; so the relative amounts are $680 million and $861 million which are the votes authorized for the period going from November 1, 1944 to September 30, 1975. There again is a policy, an element of our industrial strategy to help small businesses and make them more efficient.
Reference was made earlier to aeronautics, and I think in that respect I would refer hon. members to the statement by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) about the purchase of Canadair Ltd. from General Dynamics Corporation, of St. Louis, at the cost of $38 million. The minister stated at that time, and I quote:
... that this way there will be excellent possibilities of restructuring the aircraft industry in Canada and getting a stable industry more controlled by Canadians, of developing excellent capabilities in the area of specialized commercial aircraft...
I will also mention the creation of about 3,000 new jobs by 1983. There again, you see that the department is actively looking after the aircraft industry.
I would also like to mention the famous Turnkey Projects. Policies are set up for Turnkey Projects Centres to improve Canadian participation in annual markets estimated at between $20 million and $50 million.
We now have a very good experience in the field of transports, forestry and airports. Here again, we can recognize that last year the Canadian companies have tendered for many Turnkey projects, whose foreign markets are presently estimated at more that $100 million. Before, Canadian bids on such projects were rather rare.
I would also like to mention one of our very interesting experiences in the manufacturing of trains; as far as the contract with the LRC is concerned, these trains are now built at the Bombardier factory in Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatiere.


I should like to mention the gowth and importance of Canada's consulting and technical service industries in international markets. During the past 10 years the consulting and technical service industries have played an increasingly important role in Canada's international trade activities. It is estimated that this sector of the service industries which contribute more than one billion dollars annually to the Canadian economy consist of some
8,000	firms and export approximately 150 million dollars annually. During the period from 1970 to 1975 their exports have increased approximately 300 per cent. Their impact on Canada's international trade is not only reflected in the services they export but the role they play which leads to the export of manufactured products.
For example, in virtually every case it is the consulting engineer or management consultant which takes the lead in promoting the sale of large capital projects abroad. In 1972 actual Canadian equipment orders for projects on which Canadian consultants were involved totalled $90.3 million. Potential equipment orders were estimated at $343 million.

Mr. Speaker, I think that all these policies have contributed to underline the importance of this aspect and to give the most encouraging results, if we take into account that from 1965 to 1970 we created more than 1,200,000 new jobs, a fact which the minister for Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) mentioned during the debate this afternoon, and if we take into account the number of new jobs created in Canada, about 1,500,000 jobs for the last five years. I think that these figures indicate that Canada has an industrial strategy policy. If we go on implementing this policys, we will contribute to the development of the Canadian economy.
I am very grateful to the hon. member, and I do congratulate him, for proposing this motion which gave us the opportunity to study the present situation, which will help putting new pressures for the development of new measures.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Halton-Went-worth (Mr. Kempling).


An hon. Member:: Now we will get the truth.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Now we will get the truth, yes.
At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) for putting this motion on the Order Paper today. It is certainly a subject that should be talked about although we have already covered it many times already in the question period and in committee. The unemployment figures of today, the disastrous balance sheet, and the global prospects that we foresee, make it imperative that this type of debate should take place.
The key words in the motion are "lack of an industrial strategy", "job losses", "falling production", "uncertainty" and "761,000 Canadians are without jobs". I could not help
May 17, 1976

but feel when listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Roy) that he must have used the Canada Year Book to put his remarks together. If we were to take what he said as gospel we would not have so many unemployed people, we would not have the disastrous trade balance; instead we would have a buoyant economy.
I might say at this point, Mr. Speaker, that although the minister is not here tonight he had the courtesy to call and explain that he had a prior engagement, in Vancouver, I believe, and apologized for not being here. I wish to thank him for that courtesy.


Jean-Jacques Blais: No curve?


William James Kempling: What we are really concerned about is the lack of an industrial strategy. We have heard the minister who occupied the portfolio of industry, trade and commerce in the twenty-ninth parliament and the present minister claim that it is impossible to put forth an industrial strategy for Canada. I am sure the present minister has said that at least 15 or 20 times in committee before he changed his tune and said we are developing a sectoral strategy and may have 15 or 20 different strategies for Canada.
We have had eight years of government led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and in that time we have had talking, waffling, programs, studies, seminars, and meetings, but the net result is that we are in the worst trade position we have ever been in; we have the highest interest rates in the western world and the highest mortgage rates in the western world. All we get from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce are alphabet programs and slogans, while the trade deficit grows and the minister forecasts another deficit for next year. We see no strategy, only a retrenchment and a discouraging picture for people involved in industry.
I used to have a great deal of respect for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the people who work there. For years I have defended them and said I thought they were some of the most expert people in government in the western world in regard to trade. When we look at what has happened, however, they must shoulder their share of the blame. They are charged with the responsibility of putting these programs together, although I will admit they have not had very good direction. The former minister of industry, trade and commerce had made a total disaster of the portfolio of science and technology as well; now he is in the energy portfolio and it is in a mess. It seems that they move him in everywhere there is a disaster. As his present department states in its television advertising, if I may paraphrase it, the problem is that he is not part of the solution, he is the problem.
I sometimes wonder what we should do with people in the department who bring forth these programs which fall apart. Perhaps we should hire them on a five-year contract. If they are to be charged with the responsibility of directing industry and the so-called industrial strategy then perhaps you should put them on the same basis as industry. In industry if you do not produce you are out. Maybe that is what we should do here; have these people on a five-year contract and say, "Produce or get out". They
Industrial Strategy
should be charged with the responsibility of bringing forth these programs, but should they have all this security?


Mr. Railton:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) on a point of order.


Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, it seems peculiar to me that since it was the New Democratic Party that called for an opposition day today, they should only have one member in the House to support their motion.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members seem to be concerned as to who is in the House. I do not think that helps the debate; and when hon. members count the members present, that does not help the image of this House. Perhaps hon. members will remember this.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the sake of the record-I know the hon. member would not want the record to be incorrect-I point out that three of our members are present. One of them is consulting with one of his colleagues on an important matter. Because he is on the side opposite to me and the hon. member can only see the back of his head, I suggest that the hon. member should see his eye doctor.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I also note that three or four committees are meeting this evening and some hon. members who would normally be in the House are attending those committee meetings.
I was talking about the staff of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and saying that perhaps we should put them on the same footing as we put industry. In other words, let us make contracts with them. Then, if they do not produce good programs and implement them properly, we can replace them. In other words, they should either produce or get out. That is the way it is in the business world; perhaps we should explain that to them.
Jobs are created when someone has an idea for a product or service. A person identifies a market. Then he needs money, people, plant, and equipment, to bring the product to the market. He needs the motive of a profit, and confidence that the economy will not fall apart. But he also needs to know that the government is in touch with reality, and is concerned about inflation and foreign trade. And what has happened today?
At present we have 761,000 Canadians unemployed. And what do we hear the government say? We hear the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) making his PR-type announcements to the effect that Canadians do not know their own identity, and so on. Let me tell him that those
761,000	unemployed Canadians know who they are. They are not concerned about the type of identity about which the minister is concerned. They want jobs today; they want pride, something to hold on to; they want to hold their heads up in society and be part of the economic scene.
The young people I have talked to want a job, a home, a car, a cottage in the north-


James McPhail Gillies: And a change of government.

May 17, 1976
Industrial Strategy


William James Kempling: They want a change of government. That is right. You know, the final arbiter of this debate will not be the House of Commons; it will be the people of Canada. The 761,000 unemployed are part of the population of Canada and will cast their votes accordingly.
I am about to talk about the government's budgets and the spending estimates, but as the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Drury) has entered the chamber, let me say a few words about a subject which concerns him. We had an interesting debate the other day on science and technology. His department is part of the problem. We heard the parliamentary secretary talking about the development of Canadian industry. He ought to talk to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) about the effects of section 12 of the AIB regulations on research and development. Will the minister do something about that particular section? I hope he will, and I hope he will talk to his colleagues about it because at present it is a disaster.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: If we are concerned about what is happening to our industry we should be concerned about cutbacks in research and development at the university level. Just look at the programs the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has cut back. It has cut back several industrial and research development programs.
The parliamentary secretary spoke at length about the loans the federal business development bank is giving businessmen. Let's not kid ourselves. Those loans are granted at up to 3 per cent above the going rate the banks will charge, if they lend the money. The federal institution is not giving our businessmen any gifts. Look at the Small Business Loans Act and think of the anguish people go through trying to get a loan under the Small Business Loans Act. Then look at the MOSST report on venture capital in Canada. I suggest hon. members should read what it says.
In a few days the government plans to bring down a budget which will look ahead about ten months. You know, other western countries bring down budgets which look two, three, even five years ahead but we are content to look between ten and 12 months ahead.
Profit is the greatest incentive to investment; inflation and uncertainty are the greatest disincentives to investment. We should reflect on that, because when you go out into the real world and talk to people with money to invest you will find that many have put their money in the short-term money market or savings accounts. Why do they not invest it? They have no confidence in the future. There are too many uncertainties, too many year-end philosophizing statements by the Prime Minister on where the "new" economy will go. We must straighten these things out if we are to develop an industrial strategy in this country.
I am particularly annoyed about the attitude of some people who are given responsibility for some industrial programs. Sometimes after a committee meeting I have walked out of the committee room behind some of the departmental people who have attended the meeting, and heard comments made about "snivelling businessmen," those being "snivelling businessmen" who appeared before the committee. I say that attitude is absolutely disgraceful.

The big battle, which will come sooner than later in this country, will be between people who produce taxes and people who consume taxes. Sooner or later those who are operating businesses, working, and paying taxes, and those who are consuming those taxes will meet head on and, let me tell you, it will be one awful battle.
When I consider the government's so-called industrial strategy one of the things that strikes me is what appears to be the complete absence of co-ordination between the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, DREE, and the Department of Finance. Let me put some examples on record.
The Department of Transport has set up a consortium which is to work with the shipping people in Canada to build a series of vessels. The motor vessel Arctic is now under construction at Port Weller. A certain Canadian company submitted a bid on some deck cranes with which the vessel was to be equipped. What happened? They submitted their bid; there were no specifications. After they had put their bid in they told the shipping people that the cranes were of 85 per cent Canadian content. The people who make the decisions in Canada Steamship Lines said to them, "Don't mention Canadian content; that will be a mark against you." The crane people said, "Our cranes are of 85 per cent Canadian content." The shipping people said, "Don't mention that."
And what happened? The government people ended up giving the order to a company in Norway. Ten of these vessels are to be built, and all sorts of merchant vessels are being built in the United States which will use this equipment. The Canadian company developed a market for its product. Although this was an opportunity to introduce a new product which had never before been manufactured in Canada to the Canadian scene, despite the fact that there was a chance to get in on the ground floor, the order was given to a company in Norway.
When the people I talked to looked into this matter, they were flabbergasted, astounded. They were told that the company in Norway will supply a crane using low pressure hydraulics, because that is necessary. That, I submit, was a bunch of garbage. My own company just finished a series of tests on some cranes mounted on crawler tractors which are to be used in the high Arctic. The particular crane in question was chosen because it uses a high pressure hydraulics system, which, in our cold weather tests and in our cold weather environment, is much more efficient than a low pressure system.
That is the only reason they gave. Price was not a factor. It was not a case of low bid or anything else. The prices were relatively close. There was no specification whatsoever.
There is a case of a small manufacturer in my area. He makes, of all things, clay pigeons. Some hon. members may have read about this recently in the paper. There are 35 million clay pigeons consumed in Canada yearly. Searle Industries manufactures 25 million of these. The balance is made in British Columbia, and by another small company in Hamilton. The industry is actually in a position today of oversupply. This person has approximately 10 million clay pigeons in stock.
May 17, 1976

What do you think has happened? The Department of Regional Economic Expansion gave a $65,000 grant to a company from France which is going to put up a clay pigeon manufacturing plant in Quebec. Here we have a company in Hamilton whose employees are on half time, or unemployed and drawing unemployment insurance, and we will now have a new plant that is going to supply a market that is already in an oversupply situation. What sort of nonsense is that?
When we talked to the regional people at DREE, they said that seven new gun clubs are starting up and that will look after this industry. That is a lot of nonsense. With the automated plant now in operation, they can turn out these clay pigeons.
For the Olympics they will not be using clay pigeons made in Canada. They will be imported from France, even though this man has ten million in inventory. How ridiculous can we get!
There is no coordination between DREE, Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the Department of Finance. We have had on-again off-again capital cost allowances. Where does that leave us? I wonder whether some of the people in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce have ever had anything to do with business or whether they simply came out of the academic world into government and decided to tell how everything is to be done.
When you are planning and developing a business, time is a very important factor. It takes time to develop a market, time to develop sources of capital, and time to train people. What our business people really need is a development policy that will give them time. They need a span of years in order to put together the various ingredients that make up a business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, listening to interventions by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) and the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) it seemed as though they were looking so closely at the trees they lost their capacity to see the forest. One wonders where they have been for the past 30 years. When preparing their speeches they did not look at what has happened in the past 30 years.
In the past 30 years there has been a rapid increase in our industrial growth. We have developed a strong steel industry, as well as pulp and paper, chemical, oil and gas, plastics, synthetic fibre, plate glass, aluminum, electronics, to mention just a few. We are now manufacturing different types of heavy industrial equipment as well as a very wide range of consumer and durable goods which we export.
Today manufactured goods account for 40 per cent of our total exports as compared to about 10 per cent 20 years ago. As for minerals, we are now processing and refining more of these here in Canada before exporting them. For instance, in the past we used to export raw iron ore; now we process this into iron ore pellets. The same applies to copper and nickel, as well as forest products.
Canada participated in the Kennedy Round of negotiations to remove tariff barriers to world trade in progressive
Industrial Strategy
stages. Canada depends on exports and it is to our advantage to have world markets open to us.
We signed the auto pact with the United States to ensure that more of the manufacturing of the cars we buy is done in Canada. This pact has resulted in the growth of our auto parts industry. The pact accounts for a significant portion of our finished exports.
We modernized our ports and went in for container shipping to maximize the advantages of our St. Lawrence Seaway. We are now manufacturing 2,000 new rail cars to transport our wheat and other bulk export products. We established Panarctic to own outright the major share of any future development of our northern resources. We established the CRTC which has resulted in the growth of a Canadian radio and television program industry. We now rank third in the world in the production of musical records. Our government has considerably increased the amounts of money available as loans to small companies, as well as the grants for research.
We formulated a foreign policy clearly aimed at expanding the scope of our export markets. We signed trade agreements with the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China which led to huge sales of grain. Because of our bilingual character we not only have an affiliation with the British Commonwealth countries but we have an affiliation with the French-speaking nations of the world. During the past few years our trade with the Francophone nations almost doubled, and in the future we can look . forward to a steady growth in these markets.
We established the Export Development Corporation in 1969. This was very well described by the parliamentary secretary. This was done to put an emphasis on exports. It is essential because Canada depends on exports to maintain our high standard of living and our jobs.
We established the Canada Development Corporation, described earlier by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), to finance new Canadian industries and buy shares in existing Canadian companies that are expanding. As recently as last week there was a report that the United States government was about to place an order with Bombardier for highly industrialized products in the amount of $36 million. This is possible because of the technology and know-how developed in Canada over the years.
There are two other areas, perhaps of lesser importance, but significant for cultural and aesthetic reasons. We have done extremely well in the field of developing Canadian fashions and the sale of Canadian books, particularly in Europe.
There are areas in which we have to improve our performance, making sure that we keep up with changing technology and the very keen and competitive production in other nations. However, it seems to me we have laid a sound base for our present and future growth.
We do have to deal with the difficulties which are characteristic of the seventies, of course. First, we have to keep in mind that automation is replacing manpower at a faster rate than in past decades; we must therefore intensify our efforts to retrain workers as some industries become obsolete and others offer new opportunities. Then again we

May 17, 1976
Industrial Strategy
have to take into account the existence of stiffer competition for export markets. We must also give thoughtful consideration to the rapid depletion of our environmental resources.
I notice that the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) is to speak next. I know that in his usual way he will make a learned and well-documented speech based upon the facts and upon solid information. If he does this, I am sure he will be bound to reach the conclusion that the Government of Canada has done well for the nation.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for indicating I might do some of those things, but I am afraid I shall have to disappoint him.
I am surprised that so little has been said in this debate by other government spokesmen or the official opposition about their attitude toward an industrial strategy for Canada. One of the things for which the New Democratic Party took some credit in the last parliament was the development of a review board to assess foreign takeovers. We, in that minority parliament, were proud of our contribution to this policy; we thought that an industrial strategy would develop as a consequence-a strategy of making sure that if any further foreign industry were allowed into Canada the industry concerned would be serving a purpose of value to the Canadian people. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the government, as has been the case so often in the past, took a very good idea and failed to follow through. The intention was to enable the Canadian public to have the benefit, whenever possible, of the gains which could be expected by allowing certain American companies to enter this country.
We might have used this system to make sure that U.S. companies coming to Canada did something for Canadians for a change, rather than for themselves. We might have made it possible for Canadian citizens to participate in the ownership of those companies. But what has happened? There have been no reports forthcoming as to the concessions Canada has made when allowing U.S. take-overs. My hon. friends have documented cases involving Dunlop, Firestone, White Industries, and a number of other companies to show that once again we have sold out the Canadian public for the sake of the introduction of U.S. capital into this country and the experience which may flow from it. But, Mr. Speaker, such industry is always used for the benefit of Americans; it seldom does much more than provide menial jobs at the lower end of the activity in Canada.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I heard a number of hon. members deploring the worsening in our relationship between industry and labour and consequent loss of production through work stoppages. Some of them referred to the number of days which had been lost as a result of strikes. They referred sadly to the fact that we may have lost 10 million man-hours in strikes last year.


An hon. Member:: Eleven million man-hours.


William Arnold Peters: I stand corrected. And because of this, certain members of the House would scrap the whole of our procedures in the field of labour relations, the whole of the grievance procedure, everything we have built up in this

area over the years. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that those who complained so bitterly about the loss of those manhours were weeping crocodile tears. Nobody who has any brains in this House really believes that those 11 million lost hours matter a damn.
Let me draw attention to the fact that at the present time 7 per cent of our population is unemployed. In numerical terms this amounts to some 750,000, and some of them have been unemployed for years. Two thousand hours make up an industrial man year. If we multiply 2,000 man-hours by 750,000 we come up with a figure of 1,500 billion. That is the number of man-hours we have lost over a year because of unemployment. Those who weep crocodile tears over the 11 million man-hours lost through strikes forget about the other 1,489,000,000 which have been lost because of unemployment.
It is a sad thing for this country to find itself controlled by a government which has for years suffered from a C. D. Howe philosophy. His philosophy was to engineer a deal, engineer any deal which would cause a flow one way or the other-it didn't matter as long as there was a flow. But the flow has almost invariably been in the wrong direction. It is true we have expanded our steel industry, it is true we have increased the scale of our manufacturing. Which country in the world has not? Italy, which is almost bankrupt, has done so. And so has England. We sure as hell do not want to get into that group just because we want to put our achievements in a good light. Just think how much better off we could be, how much richer we could be, if we could use those 1,500 billion man-hours lost through unemployment, if we could find gainful occupations for these people.
We have heard talk about the fight that will take place between those who are paying taxes and those who are receiving the benefits of those taxes. I hear statements also that unemployment insurance is being abused. It is being abused. It is being abused by the government mainly. It is being abused by a large section of industry which is operated at 60 per cent capacity; it is also being abused by a very few people who are recipients of it. But I know that most of the people who are receiving unemployment benefits and who come to my office are anxious to get a job; if a job were available they would prefer to take it. But no job is made available.
Anyone who considers the regional transportation arrangements made in this country must wonder what has happened to national industrial strategy. We have continued to bring people to the cities rather than take jobs to the people.
Members on the other side have referred to trade missions. I have talked to many people who have travelled across the world representing Canada on trade missions and they are not proud of our trade representatives ove-reas. Our trade people do not know whom they should talk to in the various business fields. Our ambassadors are eunuchs when it comes to developing trade and assisting our representatives travelling abroad. Let us start using the good people that we have.
Tomorrow we are going to make one of the most stupid expenditures we have ever made, Mr. Speaker. We are
May 17, 1976

probably going to tell Lockheed in the United States that we will back the U.S. government if the U.S. government will back Lockheed in building us 18 Orion aircraft. Why do we want these aircraft? It is for military prestige. They are prestige aircraft. These aircraft are not worth a damn when it comes to saving sailors lost at sea or for supervising our 200 mile coastal limit. And let us not forget that we have the longest coastline in the world. What is more, Mr. Speaker, I am sure we do not have enough fuel to fly these aircraft at 500 or 600 miles an hour at 40,000 or 50,000 feet along our coastline. This operation can be done by satellite and it will not require the expenditure of any money.
We once had the potential in this country to build one of the best aircraft ever made. I have had some experience of the aircraft industry over a number of years, both in the air force and in aircraft factories, including those in Montreal and Toronto. It is my opinion that when we built the Arrow the mistake was not in the building of it; the mistake was made by the government of the day in that it did not blackmail all the other NATO countries, as they do us, into placing orders for the aircraft. We could not get any orders for the aircraft and so we could not make up our mind whether it should be a light bomber, a fighter aircraft, or what. As a result we built a kind of utility plane that required so much equipment to fly it that we could not fly it very far.
That plane was way ahead of its time and, in my opinion, the Arrow could still out-compete most of the aircraft in the world today. The trouble was that we did not have the ability to sell it. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we had no industrial strategy.
The government never made one sale of that aircraft. It built the damned plane but did not know what to do with it, so the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker), because he did not like the president of the company, cut it up with a torch. I do not think there is one left in Canada today to give an indication of our former potential and in the aeronautical field.
Certainly we do not need the Orion. With 18 Orion aircraft we are not going to save Europe. Neither are we going to supervise our 200 mile coastal limit. However, with the technology we have in Canada we can still build aircraft. We could build an aircraft along the lines of the Otter and the Lear jet that we are going to build for Mr. Lear. This would be a plane that would meet our requirements and leave us with some money to build ships and equipment to save sailors lost off our coasts, fishermen who are in dire need of protection and have not been getting it.
I am surprised that government members should only speak of what they have accomplished. In these days of austerity, which is more apparent outside than inside the House, I am sure the government is planning things it would like to accomplish if it had the wherewithal. I am equally sure the government is considering developing further our industrial potential. However, we cannot compete with a highly industrialized country like the United States. How in the hell do we think we will ever get into that market?


Samuel Victor Railton: Really, what language.
Industrial Strategy


William Arnold Peters: I think there are some people in the Nipis-sing area who might understand that kind of language rather than the pussyfooting we have heard about in the House today from some government members.
Surely the government has some kind of program for developing a national industrial strategy. It should be able to tell us why it has not been able to make the Foreign Investment Review Act work. Some of the regulations under the act have not yet been passed, and I doubt whether some parts have even been proclaimed.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Of course it has been proclaimed.


William Arnold Peters: There are other acts that the government has not yet got around to proclaiming. Whether I refer to this act or to other acts, they are not working. I should like to see them all in operation and being effective.
It seems that we are rich enough for the government to regard 7 per cent unemployment as normal. I suggest we should tell municipalities which say a lot of people on unemployment insurance should be made to work that if these people were not getting unemployment insurance this country would be bankrupt. I say that unemployment insurance is a Godsend and is a stabilizing factor for many municipalities in this country. At a time when we see ourselves going back to long skirts and playing music like the Charleston of the 1920's, I am sure Liberal and Conservative members must think it is difficult to develop a national industrial strategy that will transform us, from being hewers of wood and drawers of water, into an industrial nation.


Robert Knight Andras: The word is "hewers".


William Arnold Peters: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I have left out a line I am sure the Hansard reporter will put it in.
It seems that over the next two or three years things are not going to get any better. Unemployment will continue to be a major problem, and it looks as though the government is sitting back and waiting for the next war. The Liberals and Conservatives know that this would end unemployment, as it did before. It will start up the factories, as it did before. But we of the New Democratic Party say we must have a better industrial strategy than one that is geared for war. Rather it should be geared to peace. We should be working hard to provide jobs for all Canadians and we should quit pussyfooting around with United States industry, which we have allowed to control a large portion of our industry and energy resources. I say a national industrial strategy can be developed that would provide jobs for all Canadians, one that will bring along Canadians toward further progress in the twentieth century, as I am sure they want to be brought along.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to section (11) of Standing Order 58 proceedings on the motion have expired.

Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, on November 28, 1974, the then minister of energy, mines and resources, our present Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), issued a joint statement with the premiers of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia announcing that a study program would be undertaken to review, update, and extend the Atlantic tidal power programming board's report released in October, 1969, entitled "Feasibility of Tidal Power Development in the Bay of Fundy".
Despite repeated requests from my colleagues and myself it was not until March of this year, 16 months later, that the initiation of this study was announced. On June 2 of last year the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Foster) told me, as recorded at page 6370 of Hansard, that federal and provincial officials would meet within a week to "allocate specific study work projects and arrange for their execution". Yet it was not until nine months later that the study was announced. The federal government has been dragging its heels on the matter of Fundy tidal power.
When the announcement was made in the press release, the first phase of studies was announced and they were very accurately identified. On page 4 of the news release, in the first paragraph we find the following:
Other aspects of the first phase studies include consideration of socio-economic and environmental aspects which will be carried out concurrently with the foregoing major task studies. These aspects are now in the process of being defined and it is anticipated study contracts will be arranged shortly.
That was two months ago today.
As a result of this shortsightedness by the government, we in the Atlantic region find ourselves facing staggering energy costs. It is not my intention to repeat earlier speeches I have made pointing out the advantages Fundy power would have energywise and industrially, not just for the Atlantic region but for the entire country.
It is also my hope that the gravity of the situation is well understood by the government following the recent debate on energy in the Atlantic provinces. The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) summed up my feelings so ably that day by stating that Canada does not prosper unless all of Canada prospers.
Maritimers cannot help but note the contrast between the alacrity with which the federal government has leaped into an investment of $300 million, or more, in the Syncrude project in Alberta and the indifference it displays to tidal power development possibilities of the Bay of Fundy. The two situations have much in common. In a world increasingly conscious of an impending energy shortage,

both represent the possible development of very large quantities of energy now lying dormant. The difference is that the Alberta tar sands, vast though their extent may be, contain a fossil fuel as their active ingredient. Like conventional oil wells or coal deposits, they are subject to depletion and eventual exhaustion. The Fundy tides, on the contrary, represent a permanent source of energy which, barring a global catastrophe, are as likely to be as productive a million years from now as they could be today.
There are other differences, of course. Fundy is located in a region of Canada to which Ottawa's traditional attitude is one of indifference. We are not opposed to getting all the oil we can from the tar sands of Alberta. We have seen some ominous forecasts of serious energy shortages rushing upon the world. Canada is blessed with abundant energy sources of a number of kinds. We would be in default if we neglected to utilize any of them, whether tar of tides. We should get busy on both.
Had Fundy proceeded in the late 1960's it would be well under way by now. Costs rise every day as money loses purchasing power every day. The price of Fundy in 1969, far from being expensive, was cheap relative to the price of Fundy in 1976.
Ineptitude, wedded to confusion and knee-deep in indecision and procrastination, mark this program like so many others that are essential to the region and national purpose. There are people in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and DREE who are capable, willing, and who desire to get on with the assigned task. Surely it is time that the people who can and will do the job were allowed to get on with it.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie).
The joint federal-provincial feasibility study on the development of tidal power in the Bay of Fundy commenced during this past year. The study is being carried out under the direction of a federal-provincial management committee in accordance with an agreement between the Government of Canada and the governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
The management committee awarded contracts involving nine major engineering consulting firms in specific task areas relating to the design of tidal power plants, optimization of tidal power schemes, and the marketing and transmission of tidal power in accessible marketing areas.
In addition, arrangements have been made with the ocean and aquatic sciences branch of the federal Department of the Environment to acquire special data relative to the tidal phenomenon in the Bay of Fundy and to develop a mathematical model to analyse the effects that one or more major tidal power developments in the Bay of Fundy would have on the tidal regime.
Contractual arrangements are also being developed to carry out preliminary studies on socio-economic and environmental aspects of developing tidal power in the Bay of Fundy area.
May 17, 1976

It is expected that the phase I element of the current study will be completed in the early months of 1977.
I understand that the first stage will be completed early this summer and the second stage will then be carried out during the later half of 1976.
Since tidal power is primarily an energy-oriented matter it is appropriate that the federal responsibility for the current joint study program remain with the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In regard to physical presence in the area, it is pointed out that both the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are represented in all aspects of the study as well as the over-all review board by senior personnel from the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission and the Nova Scotia Power Corporation. Hence there is every opportunity for input of local knowledge and provincial considerations in respect to both electrical energy supply and industrial development considerations on this most important project.


AGRICULTURE-COW-CALF STABILIZATION PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON ALBERTA PROPOSAL-POSSIBLE DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the question with which I wish to deal arises out of one of the series of questions which I have posed to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) over the last six to eight months. This one was specifically put on January 30. The questions were put in an attempt to badger the minister into doing something for the very hard pressed cow-calf sector of the beef industry, to do something, I might add, which the minister had promised not only on his political haymaking excursions into western Canada but indeed here in the House of Commons and to the press.
The question I posed on January 30, as recorded at 10480 of Hansard, was as follows:
Can the minister advise the House whether a federal-provincial cow-calf stabilization program is being developed and whether any progress has been made in efforts to shore-up this badly shaken industry?
The minister replied that he was still having discussions. He stated:
A program will start on January 1, 1976 and terminate at the end of December, 1976, covering the calendar year for beef in Canada.
It is now the end of May, going into June. We have no beef stabilization program and it appears obvious that the cow-calf producers can expect absolutely nothing-zilch. Quite frankly, the period in which any aid or assistance could be given to them is pretty well passed inasmuch as the serious impact on the cow-calf industry was in the fall and in early winter.
The minister has viewed every conceivable ploy imaginable to blame for his failure to come through and fulfill his commitment. He has blamed the Canadian cattlemen, the stock growers, and the provinces, but he himself has not accepted any blame or responsibility. We know that the intervention by the federal government in bringing forth a beef policy which varied around 29 or 30 times over a period of 18 months had a lot to do and contributed immeasurably to the plight of beef producers, but particularly the cow-calf producer.
Adjournment Debate
All we had in terms of support for the cow-calf industry were empty promises. The actions of the minister in this regard constitute a litany of broken promises.
We started with the Agricultural Stabilization Act, which we debated in this House about a year ago. It was given Royal Assent on July 31. It was heralded as a major advance in national farm policy. What did this do for the cow-calf industry? It did absolutely nothing, but there was much hot air from the minister's mouth. On September 19 an article by Armin Hecht in the Edmonton Journal read in part as follows:
A federal cow-calf stabilization program will be announced in two weeks at the earliest, federal Agriculture Minister Eugene Whelan's office said Thursday.
The plan will be similar to the federal government's stabilization plan for fat cattle.
Officials in Mr Whelan's department are working feverishly at the program, a spokesman in the minister's office said. Things are complicated because it will be the first time two separate plans will cover the same commodity.
This kind of fever only produced convulsions from the minister, as far as I am concerned. The article went on to
say:
Officials in Mr. Whelan's office said if there is anyone who can make a cow-calf subsidy program workable, it will be Mr. Whelan.
The minister is fully aware of the depressed state of the industry and is concerned that the plan is not yet in operation, his office said.
His concern can only be categorized as much less than genuine.
On December 20, 1975, again quoting from the Edmonton
Journal-.
Alberta Agriculture Minister Marvin Moore is optimistic that long bogged-down talks to create a cow-calf income stabilization program may soon result in success.
After meeting with federal Agriculture Minister Eugene Whelan and his provincial counterparts, Mr. Moore said he expects an early decision by Ottawa on a proposal to salvage the badly shaken industry.
It went on to say:
A cow-calf assistance program would be available very quickly-if it were up to federal Agriculture Minister Eugene Whelan.
He is very happy with the Alberta proposal, provincial Agriculture Minister Marvin Moore said Friday.
It has been the same old litany of broken promises.
Then on January 29 a headline in the Edmonton Journal read, "Aid for cow-calf operators 'slim' ", The article stated in part:
Chances that Ottawa will still come up with a cow-calf support program are pretty slim, a source in federal Agriculture Minister Eugene Whelan's office has indicated.
So there we have it. We can only gather from those statements in the press that if the minister ever had any clout in the cabinet he has lost it. It is obvious he cannot convince his cabinet colleagues to come forth and assist in shoring up a badly shaken industry, and I do not know why the minister has not come clean and told the producers of this country that he cannot do anything for them, rather than beating around the bush with this political garble. The minister is, and has been guilty of misleading the cow-calf producers of this country into believing that something was going to be done while he knew all along
9SS68-27

Adjournment Debate
that nothing could be done. He searched for excuses. His answers in the House have been evasive and flippant, almost to the point of being devious at some times.
In the end the minister has betrayed the cow-calf producers, and he should be and shall be reminded of this at every opportunity. He has not acted in good faith with the producers. He has failed to accept his rightful responsibility and obligation to the cow-calf producers, and from here on we will have suspicions about the minister's motives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Translations)


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, during the three years and a half I have been sitting in this House, I have seldom heard such nonsense.


Irénée Pelletier: The Agricultural Stabilization Act names cattle as one of the named commodities. Cattle, of course, was a named commodity in the original stablization act, and this was not changed in the amendments last year. As the House knows, the minimum mandatory support for named commodities under the amended act is 90 per cent of the average price of the last five years adjusted for changes in production costs in the current year as compared with the average production costs of the last five years. Ever since the original 1958 legislation "cattle" has been interpreted to mean slaughter cattle. We continue to consider that the named commodity, cattle, is represented by slaughter cattle. The same principle is applied to hogs and to sheep with the named commodity being market hogs and market lambs.
There has, of course, been considerable discussion about the desirability of having a stabilization program for the cow-calf sector of the beef industry. Some of the provinces
have implemented such programs. As I have indicated on earlier occasions, we have also considered providing support for this sector as a designated commodity under the act. This is a complex issue because of the nature of the industry, the conflicting views of cow-calf producers as to the desirability of having a program, and due to the fact that some provinces now have individual programs.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a few words to the official answer of the department and respond to some of the hon. member's allegations which I think are absolutely inconceivable. The Progressive Conservative members are the first to say that if we want to carry out a national program, we must consult. When we do so and they do not agree, we must reach a consensus; it takes time and if we acted unilaterally, they would be the first ones to complain about it. The hon. member referred to a few articles in the Edmonton Journal in which the minister is quoted as saying he is ready to develop a cow-calf program. Of course, the minister is ready. Now, are the provinces ready as well? Alberta wants one thing. Quebec, British Columbia want something else, Ontario wants yet another thing. They must come to an agreement. If we are to develop a national program, all provinces must be in agreement.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the answer is very simple. This program, after some discussion, is still at the experimental stage, there are some problems with a few provinces at present but as soon as they are solved, the government will carry out a national program that will satisfy all provinces.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 2 o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.19 p.m.

Tuesday, May 18, 1976