1977-06-01

INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS

['I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Gilles Caouette, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Temiscamingue.']
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members I am sure will be aware that there are a number of successful candidates in recent by-elections who wish to be introduced and take their places in the House of Commons today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: It is obviously a matter of some priority. Therefore, 1 feel it appropriate that we move to that at once. 1 undertake to members that those who have motions pursuant to Standing Order 43 which cannot wait 24 hours will be recognized. I will, of course, protect the proper question period. If the ceremony takes an undue amount of time, there may be some discussion about compensating the party responsible for the motion today, if that is necessary, later in the day. Surely, that is a matter for discussion later on.

[ Translation]



Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Dennis Dawson, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Louis-Hebert.


NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED
[Stage Direction]
Dennis Dawson, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Louis-Hebert, introduced by the Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau and the Hon. Marc Lalonde.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of J.-Roland Comtois, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Terrebonne.


NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED
[Stage Direction]
J.-Roland Comtois, Esquire, member for the electoral riding of Terrebonne, introduced by the Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau and the Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer.
Some hon. Members:: More!


NEW MEMBER
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Gilles Lamontagne, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Langelier.


NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED
[Stage Direction]
Gilles Lamontagne, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Langelier, introduced by the Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau and the Hon. Andre Ouellet.
Some hon. Members:: More!


NEW MEMBER
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Raymond Savard, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Verdun.


NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED
[Stage Direction]
Raymond Savard, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Verdun introduced by the Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau and the Hon. Francis Fox.
Some hon. Members:: More!
6158

June 1, 1977
Bilingualism NEW MEMBER


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Don Wood, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Malpeque.



[Stage Direction]
Don Wood, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Malpeque, introduced by the Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau and Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald.
Some hon. Members:: More!

[ Translation]


NEW MEMBER
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Gilles Caouette, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Temiscamingue.


NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED
[Stage Direction]
Gilles Caouette, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Temiscamingue, introduced by Mr. Andre Fortin and Mr. Gerard Laprise.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the announcement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on Tuesday, May 31, setting up an interdepartmental committee to study the rights of French speaking minorities outside Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That (1) the terms of reference of the interdepartmental committee be tabled in the House; (2) the interdepartmental committee be bipartisan and reflect regional Canadian interests; (3) a similar bipartisan interdepartmental committee be established to study the rights of the English-speaking and other minorities in Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House for presentation for debate of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Goodale said no on behalf of the Liberals.
 * *


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to make a motion, and I want to draw the attention of all members of the House to the wording and the significance of this motion which, of course, cannot be turned down by those concerned with the well-being of the Canadian people.
Since the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion recently visited my constituency and promised on behalf of the government to open an office of his department in my area, and since most Liberal members from Quebec had the opportunity to visit my constituency and to ascertain its needs as far as both regional development and employment are concerned,
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) announce immediately in the House when work will begin on this office project, how many jobs will be created and when this office will be operational.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Being open-minded under the circumstances, I ask the House whether it will give its unanimous consent to the presentation of such a motion under Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the possible effects on our national security due to the existence at Finsterwalde, East Germany, of a training camp of 500 to 600 persons for terrorist and guerrilla warfare activities under the direction of Department 5 of the Russian KGB.
June 1, 1977

I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That the Prime Minister make a statement outlining all information in the possession of the government, specifically including the number of persons representing Quebec extremist elements in attendance, all action taken or that will be taken by the government on this matter, any information in the possession of the government concerning recruitment of trainees in Canada, and finally, the involvement at any time of a Cuban with the surname of Alonso, sometimes known as Camilo.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr.   Ren@: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion on a pressing and urgent matter.
Considering that the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Chapter E-2 of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1970, as amended, has proven to be inadequate; that, by its essence, it jeopardizes the minimum representation to which the people of Quebec are entitled within this Parliament; that because of the present situation Quebec must be considered as an entity not proportional but equal to the other Canadian entities; and, finally, that the number of representatives from Quebec has been constantly decreasing, again dropping from 28 to 26 per cent for the next federal general election, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That Parliament order that the said Act not be enforced until new legislation is introduced in this regard.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps hon. members will agree that it would be appropriate to continue the question period until ten minutes past four.


Some hon. Members:: Until ten minutes past three.


Mr. Speaker:: If the House insists, I will stop it at ten minutes past three. I had ten minutes past four in mind.
______________________________________6159
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Srathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. At the North-South Conference on International Economic Co-operation concluding now in Paris, Canada announced that it would forgive $254 million in debts owed Canada by developing countries. The net value of this concession is $35 million. Can the Prime Minister state whether this amount represents an addition to Canada's official development assistance represented in the $1.1 billion CIDA budget approved last night by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, or is the amount obtained by a bookkeeping transfer within CIDA so that, in effect, no fresh funds are to be expended by Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is in addition. I do not think the hon. member should belittle the gesture. It is true the discounted value to the present is in the amount the hon. member said; but to these countries it does amount to a very substantial remission of a debt which they owe to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AMOUNT PLEDGED TO COMMON FUND FOR COMMODITIES
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, we are not belittling the amount. We are trying to obtain the reality of Canada's relationship with the developing nations. The Canadian government statement at the conference said that the government "has pledged our proper share of the financial contributions" to a common fund for commodities, the common fund being the centerpiece of the present North-South negotiations at this time. Can the Prime Minister tell the House how much Canada has pledged to this fund and in what way this appropriation will be represented in parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, no specific amount was discussed at the London summit. As the communique says, each country agreed to the establishment of the fund as a matter of principle and the details of it are to be worked out between north-south countries themselves and particularly at the CIEC conference. It is conceivable that when the President of the Privy Council returns he will be able to answer the hon. member more precisely.


PROPOSED PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION ON ECONOMIC RELATIONS WITH DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Douglas Roche: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the absence of a specific commitment to the common fund was one reason why the Third World countries expressed disappointment with the
80016-49'/2

June 1, 1977
Oral Questions
industrialized countries' performance at the conference. This of course reflects the great complexity of the trade, monetary and aid issues in the interdependent world. I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister if he intends to act on the recommendation of the subcommittee on international development that the Canadian government should integrate and publish all the relevant information from the various departments in Canada on our economic relations with developing countries? This itself would be an important step in promoting a worldwide flow of integrated information on relations between the rich and poor countries.
Right Hon P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take this up with my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is of course the government's interest and desire to make all the facts known so that the Canadian public and members of parliament may know the extent to which we are assisting the less developed countries. If it is the desire of hon. members opposite to encourage the government to spend more in that regard, we will take this under very serious consideration.


DEBT OF THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES HELD IN PRIVATE HANDS- POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE IN CONDITIONS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. Of the $9 billion of debt from the Third World countries to Canada, 75 to 80 per cent is held in private hands. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if there was any discussion about lengthening the terms of maturity of private debt or of the possibility of cancellation of the interest on some of the private debt? Was there any discussion concerning the private debt situation, that is, the debt owed by Third World countries to private holders of debts in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there was no discussion of this at the summit conference but if my memory serves me well, there was discussion of this point at the UNCTAD Conference in Nairobi which preceded the summit conference by many months. Of course, this is a matter for very serious consideration by all countries, others more than ours. We took this decision to grant a remission of debt because our proportion was much more highly publicly held than other countries. Of course, other countries may not be able to imitate our gesture, but we hope it will serve as an example.


POSSIBILITY ASSETS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES GIVEN PROTECTION IN RETURN FOR CANCELLATION OF DEBTS
James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question. Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether in the course of these discussions there was any quid pro quo in relation to the cancellation of the Canadian government debt or the security of Canadian assets in foreign countries? In other words, was there any guarantee or any trade-off that by cancelling this proportion of the public debt in Canada we
(Mr. Roche.]
would have some certainty that our assets in perhaps some volatile countries would be given more protection than otherwise might be the case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, concern was expressed about this point and some consideration was given to it but my knowledge of the situation and the announcement of the minister in Paris is that there is no quid pro quo. It is a generous gesture by Canada and Canadians, if I can put it in that sense. We feel any goodwill which will follow from it is so much the better but it is not conditional.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development issued a press release announcing that the government has authorized offshore drilling in the Beaufort Sea for the next three years. First of all, I want to protest that this is a matter that should have been announced by the minister on motions at which time members would have had an opportunity to interrogate the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is an affront to parliament. The note of protest which the United States government sent to the Canadian government on March 15 last pointed out that last year the measures which the operators promised to put into effect to prevent oil spills were not fully implemented nor did they function properly. The United States government went on to criticize the Canadian government for not stopping repeated violations and for taking no steps whatsoever to stop the operation when deficiencies were found. In light of those acts, I want to ask the minister what assurance he can give the House that the measures which will be introduced this year to deal with the danger of oil spills will be any more effective or the regulations any more stringently enforced than they were last year?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: When I answered questions in the House yesterday I said that I would make an announcement on this matter as soon as some loose ends had been tied up. I was informed this morning that that was done, and to avoid further speculation I thought I would get out the government's statement on this as soon as possible. With respect to the note from the United States, first of all, we do not accept all the allegations that were made in that note last year, but in any case we have had discussions with the United States government, and with respect to compensation and equipment we have tried to meet some of their concerns by introducing much
June 1, 1977

more stringent conditions, technically, environmentally and in the socio-economic field.


DRILLING IN BEAUFORT SEA-REASON FOR ORDERING DRILLING TO CEASE TWO WEEKS BEFORE END OF SEASON
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, 1 understand that the minister's department, in a memorandum to cabinet, said that "in order to ensure some seasonal well relief capability the drilling must cease half way through the season which, in a normal year, might be 40 days or on September 1". In light of that, I want to ask the minister whether he will explain the statement in his announcement of today in which he said that exploratory drilling will cease two weeks before the forecast closure of the Beaufort Sea operations or on September 25, whichever is earlier. I want to ask the minister why he has chosen this earlier date in view of the fact that this will not leave sufficient time in the case of an oil spill to put in a relief well and the result might well be that oil will be seeping all winter into the Beaufort Sea.


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member's information is not correct. First of all, the department does not make recommendations to cabinet-the ministers make recommendations to cabinet. Second, the advice which the department had originally given us was not for a longer period but for a shorter period. It was the ministers who made the period longer.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: That figures.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PRESSING ENERGY NEEDS REFERRED TO BY MINISTER
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in his announcement today the minister said that "there are pressing national energy requirements to be weighed against environmental risks and concerns expressed by the Canadian native and environmental groups". I should like to ask the minister what are these pressing national energy requirements in view of the fact that this morning's paper carries a statement by Mr. Sydney Kahanoff, president of the Independent Petroleum Association, in which he says:
We are finding much more new gas than the domestic market can absorb.
What are these pressing energy requirements? They are certainly not for oil because no oil pipeline is envisaged at present and gas was found in southern Alberta in the past few years. The statement made by the president of the Independent Petroleum Association indicates at present the gas industry is talking about seeking permits to export gas, and therefore surely this is not as pressing as the minister would indicate and there is ample time to carry out the type of research that is necessary to ensure that we will not have oil spills in the Beaufort Sea.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the best minister to answer the question with respect to our energy requirements
Oral Questions
would be the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. This decision was participated in by several departments including the Department of the Environment, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and so on. As the hon. member knows, we have a need to know energy resource policy and the exploration in the Delta is not only for gas but also for oil. Also, it is for the long-term and not for the short-term. Consequently, although there may be new sources of gas that have been discovered recently or that are available, exploration is looking to the long-term, not to the short-term.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
[Stage Direction]
ALLEGED PROMISE OF ASSISTANCE TO SILICATE MINE IN TfiMISCAMINGUE-MINISTER'S POSITION
Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
During the last election campaign, the minister met with the officials of the silicate mine at Saint-Bruno-de-Guigues and showed interest in their project. Is he in a position today to announce the grant mentioned at the time to create about thirty jobs?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I must say to the hon. member that a grant was never mentioned at the time. As always, he is distorting the facts. However, I arranged a meeting between these gentlemen and my departmental officials in order that they may explain their program and their project. If it is possible to provide assistance under the act, our department will gladly do so as it has already helped other business concerns in the hon. member's area.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister know that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion said on television during the election campaign that grants would be forthcoming only if a Liberal candidate was elected? If so, does he agree with the stand taken by his minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to send me the alleged quotations.


Gilles Caouette: With pleasure.

June 1, 1977
Oral Questions


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who is so concerned about loose ends. The only loose end he did not tie up was to ensure that members of parliament in the Confederation Building received copies of his statement. It was only through the courtesy of his parliamentary secretary that those of us in that building saw it at 1.45 p.m. In view of the fact that the statement raises more questions than it answers, I share the concern of the spokesman for the NDP and deplore the fact that the minister refuses to make a statement on motions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: In view of the fact that the statement indicates that it is an authorization for three years subject to annual review, will the minister tell us whether it is a three year drilling permission or is it a one year drilling permission on the basis that the annual review would give to the government a unilateral right to revoke the drilling permit? In other words, if there is going to be a review each year, does the government have the right to unilaterally revoke the drilling permit for the subsequent year on the basis of the results of that annual review?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I must apologize to the hon. member if he did not receive the statement until the hour he indicated. I gave instructions earlier this morning that it be distributed.
With respect to his principal question, we have given a three year authorization, subject to an annual review which will be a complete review by a committee in touch with the communities, which will study the technical, environmental and socioeconomic conditions. If those are not lived up to completely, the government has the right to cancel the permit unilaterally. In addition to that, if we find, during the monitoring and surveillance program that we have introduced, that there is any discrepancy between the compliance and the conditions, we can order the immediate suspension of drilling at any time.


DRILLING IN BEAUFORT SEA-POSSIBILITY OF RECIPROCAL AGREEMENT WITH UNITED STATES ON COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE
William Herbert Jarvis: The last sentence of the press statement says that a further joint contingency plan has been agreed upon with the United States. Will the terms of that plan be tabled today, and does the plan include such matters as the $10 million liability bond, the proceeds of which can be used to compensate U.S. owners for environmental damage? Is the plan of a reciprocal nature so that if Canadians suffer environmental damage along the British Columbia

coast from spills resulting from U.S. tankers they will be compensated from a similar bond filed by U.S. tanker owners? In other words, we have been talking about a reciprocal agreement with the United States. Is this the one referred to in the statement, and is it a two way street so that Canadian owners can be compensated for environmental damage caused by U.S. tankers as well as U.S. tankers compensated for oil spills in the Beaufort Sea?


William Warren Allmand: The contingency plan does deal with compensation but it was negotiated by the Department of External Affairs. Perhaps my colleague could provide us with more information on that point. Off hand, I do not recall whether it is reciprocal.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the press release from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development indicates that a contingency plan with respect to the Beaufort has been agreed upon with the United States, will the details or will the agreement itself be tabled today, and if not, will the minister take this opportunity to indicate to the House the general nature of the agreement, particularly as it pertains to compensation to owners who have suffered environmental damage? Are Canadian owners to be compensated as well as American owners?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on such a matter rather than trying to answer orally and perhaps leaving the wrong impression, I should say to the hon. member that a note was delivered to the United States State Department today. To the best of my knowledge there is no reason why it should not be made public. If the hon. member will bear with me, I will make some inquiries and make it available to him tomorrow, if that is possible.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. As the index of real domestic product, which measures industrial activity in Canada, has remained stationary since the first of the year, clearly indicating the stagnation which exists in our economy, would the Prime Minister take the first opportunity on motions
June 1, 1977

to outline to the House what steps he and his government intend to take to correct this situation and to get the economy moving so that we can provide the jobs our people need?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may recall that the Minister of Finance in his budget speech and in the budget debate indicated that there were serious problems with the Canadian economy, and he indicated in the rest of his budget statement what the government was doing about it.


George Harris Hees: As the budget is one of the factors which is contributing seriously to the stagnation and stagflation which has been taking place in this country, is that the best answer the Prime Minister can think up to deal with a very important question affecting the future of this country?


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State (Small Business). In light of the dismal unemployment forecast and because the small business community probably has the largest economic potential and the most employment opportunities of any other sector in our economy, could the minister advise the House what steps, if any, he has taken to utilize this potential regarding the unemployed?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, I will be making further announcements in the paper which I will be presenting to the cabinet.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Do it in the House.


Len Marchand: I will probably do it in the House as well. In any event, hon. members will know what I present to the cabinet after it is presented. I should point out also that a number of measures relating to small business were taken in the recent budget, and by and large these are long-term measures. We know full well-and the Minister of Finance and others have said this on many occasions-that we want the jobs created in the business community and particularly in the small business community.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, since the appointment of this minister not one positive step has been taken.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: Earlier this week during my party's opposition day on small business we enunciated in detail a policy proposal consisting of the creation of a small business act which, based on a specific definition of small business, would commit the government to creating jobs for the economy. I would like to ask the minister whether he would advise this House, in view
Oral Questions
of the absence of a government small business policy, whether he would consider implementing some of the proposals as outlined by my party, and if not, would he tell us why not?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely that was a matter for debate when the motion was before the House.


MANPOWER
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the unemployment projections of the Department of Manpower and Immigration which were referred to in the House yesterday, which in the case of the province of Newfoundland are alarming, which show an annual unemployment rate for the last fiscal year of 14.4 per cent and which project a 17.4 per cent rate for fiscal 1978-79, by far the highest rate of any province, six percentage points over the next highest province, Prince Edward Island, I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to look upon this as an emergency situation in the case of this province and accordingly to initiate discussions immediately with the premier of Newfoundland to see what programs, additional to existing make-work programs under Canada Works, can be worked out to try to meet or offset these very serious and quite dangerous projections?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, with a casual wave of his hand the hon. member suggested that there should be something new or in addition to what we already have. I would like to point out that on institutional and industrial training for 1977-78 we are spending $15.4 million. This involves some 6,400 workers. Under LIP the allocation for 1976-77 was $17.8 million, which resulted in the creation of some 4,700 jobs; $11.4 million is being allocated in the first phase of the Canada Works Program, and $2.4 million is to be allocated to Young Canada Works. There will be a further allocation of Canada Works funds later in the year, so we are not unaware of the situation, and as far as my own department is concerned we are doing a yeoman's service in that region.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, given the present quite disastrous situation prevailing in Newfoundland, with an unemployment rate which is near 25 per cent in actual unadjusted terms, and notwithstanding the scope and, indeed, the commendable objectives of the present make-work programs and the relatively little impact they are having on the unemployment situation, my question to the minister is a plea: will he co-ordinate the activities of the government of Canada and enter into negotiations with the government of Newfoundland with a view to having the government of Newfoundland coordinate its activities to come up with some immediate crash

June 1, 1977
Oral Questions
program to offset this tragic loss of productivity and human loss in real terms which these figures mean.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member himself said his question was a plea rather than a question.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-jles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State.
In view of the fact that the CBC decision to purchase private station CJBR-TV of Rimouski should in no way hinder the expansion of its Matane station and its extension to the Gaspe peninsula, could the Secretary of State ask the CBC to provide more funds to its Matane station so that it may cover important events, such as the conference given by the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) at the Gaspe Board of Trade last week, with a better camera than a Polaroid?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of what arrangements are to be made in relation to Rimouski and Matane is still under consideration.


TRANSPORT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister's attention been brought to the situation in Montreal in which the ship, the Lowell Thomas Explorer, which is carrying cargo between Canadian ports on the seaway, which is registered under Philippine registry and which is operated by Philippine seamen, is tied up in that city by a court order because the company has failed to pay its crew members their wages for February and March, despite the fact that the company-and Canada-is a signatory to the ITF wage agreement? If the minister is aware of this, what does his department intend to do about it?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the matter was brought to my attention, and I asked that it be looked into to see if there is any action I should be taking.


David Orlikow: Would the minister look into the charge that the company is applying pressure on its employees to drop their claims and threatening to repatriate them and to bring in a new crew from the Philippines?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


APPLICATION OF RED CROSS TO SET UP BLOOD FRACTIONATION PLANT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister tell the House whether at the federal-provincial meeting of deputy ministers last week a decision was made with regard to the application of the Red Cross to set up a blood fractionation plant?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the federal-provincial conference of deputy ministers never makes decisions. It is only authorized to make recommendations to the ministers who will be called upon to make a decision at the end of June.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Last evening Admiral Falls informed the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence that the navy no longer has the capacity to produce the designs for the next generation of Canadian warships since naval architects were let go due to cutbacks in defence spending. Will the minister assure the House that the $75 million worth of design work for new ships will go to Canadian naval architects and, in view of the current manpower shortage in maritime command, will the minister increase the over-all strength of maritime command. If so, to what levels?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe two questions were asked with respect to design capacity. We believe it exists in the private sector. It was formerly "in house", but now exists almost totally in the private sector. That design capacity will be used wherever possible. The hon. member also asked a question about maritime command. We have an indicated need for additional manpower in that area, particularly in the high seas trades, and I am considering this question seriously at present.


MANPOWER
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration regarding his intended cover up policy which shows a complete disregard for the rights and interests of the prov-
June 1, 1977

inces. Talking about projections and trends compiled by his department, he said yesterday that he did not intend to make it a practice to publish these figures in future, either for Quebec or the other provinces. That statement is completely unacceptable. I ask, why should the provinces not have access to this information since, after all, taxpayer dollars were used to compile it. Will the minister say why his counterparts in the provinces, particularly the six provinces in which the survey indicates the existence of a problem, should not have that information?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the kind of information the provinces want in this area, information on projections and forecasts, is available from at least 12 other agencies operating in Canada; the provinces are in the same position as we are to choose, and to decide how much weight to give any particular piece of information. We have discovered from time to time that some projections are right, some are wrong; some are way off base, and some dead on. We have our own priorities in this regard. The provinces have their own departments. They exercise their own intelligence and draw their own conclusions.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister did not answer my question. I am not interested in those other 12 agencies. I am interested in the projections and trends the federal government compiled. Does the minister not know that when he covers up this information he hinders planning for social assistance? Will the minister not change his mind and share this information with his counterparts?
 * *


HISTORIC SITES
[Stage Direction]
DATE WHEN GOVERNMENT WILL IMPROVE POINTE-AU-PfiRE LIGHTHOUSE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Public Works.
Since the old Pointe-au-Pere lighthouse is a tourist attraction in eastern Quebec which has been classified as an historic site as of last week, and since the lighthouse's caretaker had been instructed last year not to admit any more visitors because of the dangerous conditions existing at the entrance, can the minister tell us whether his department intends to open the lighthouse to the public in the near future, and if so, when does he think that repairs will be carried out?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to look into the matter. I am not familiar with the situation at the lighthouse. If we have a responsibility, I will look into it and see what can be done.
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the representations made by the Quebec Farmers' Union, the Quebec Poultry Producers' Federation and other Canadian poultry producers, asking that a chicken marketing board be established, could the Minister of Agriculture inform us of his intentions or the government's regarding the possible establishment of such a marketing board?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add much to what I said yesterday. We have been discussing this question in cabinet very seriously.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration concerns the sharing of immigration powers between the federal government and the province of Quebec. The minister, in his reply of May 30 as reported on page 6043 of Hansard, indicated that agreement had been reached on the establishment of a joint working group to look at the options for future immigration and sharing of powers. Will that joint working group study an option providing for equal sharing of power, or what the minister prefers to call codetermination of immigration powers as between the federal and provincial governments in the selection of immigrants? If that option is accepted, would it not give veto power to any given province, in this case Quebec? I say this since section 95 of the BNA Act still gives the federal government a primary responsibility in immigration.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I preface my answer by saying we were operating under the aegis of section 95, from which the authority stems. Therefore there is no suggestion of a veto. There would be codetermination possibility with regard to a points system, or with regard possibly to a sponsorship program, or any other similar ideas which could be engendered in that particular meeting; they could emanate from ourselves or Mr. Couture's department. Recognizing the spirit of section 95, we are trying to do what is in the best interests of Canada and Quebec. We have a common interest with Quebec to increase Francophone immigration where we can.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister answered the right hon. member for Prince Albert, was he answering in the spirit of section 95, to which he referred just now. I point out that, although that spirit exists, the federal government still retains primary responsibil-
6166

June 1, 1977
Oral Questions
ity. I am concerned in case one province acquires rights or powers which other provinces do not share. This could lead to the Balkanization of Canada. I ask the minister to assure the House that, no matter what is agreed to, the same immigration rules will apply in all provinces of this country.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, precisely because we do not want to see this country Balkanized, we used the phrase "the common denominator." We are operating under section 95, which gives the primary role to the federal government. Too often in the past, in setting up a points system, we have operated as though we are a unitary state. We have done this in determining which immigrants should and should not be allowed to enter this country. Some of the provinces feel they should have more say, and that is what we are attempting to do. We have distinct and unique arrangements already with Quebec under the Bienvenue-Andras agreement, and it has not led to any Balkanization of Canada. Actually, it has been an asset to Quebec, because it has increased Francophone immigration to that province.


SMALL BUSINESS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of State responsible for small business. I was much interested in his observation a few moments ago and his declaration that private business, small business, is most important. I ask him, what were the circumstances under which he took his recent-I do not know what to call it-safari into communist countries, the U.S.S.R. and one or two other communist countries? Did he get any ideas over there from communist leaders as to what might be done in Canada to encourage the private business, which no longer exists in communist countries?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I regret having to answer that question asked by the right hon. gentleman, whom I respect greatly; indeed, I think all of us here respect him greatly. I am a little tired of hearing innuendos from the other side about my having gone to visit communist countries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Len Marchand: It is ridiculous. I went there on a trade mission. 1 think hon. members opposite know full well 1 went on a trade mission. It happened to be a very successful trade mission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, my skin might be red; that has nothing to do with my political philosophy.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in that reply. I asked a simple question. I did not think there was any innuendo.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Listen to those leftists.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there are more leftists over there than can be found anywhere else in Canada. I asked a simple question. Did he get any ideas from those "Commies" over there as to how he might be able to encourage the attainment of that objective he has in mind of the preservation of small business in Canada? Did he get any ideas? There was no innuendo there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Essentially that is a repetition of the previous question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sorry I did not give him notice, but the subject matter is one with which he will be very familiar. The Secretary General of the United Nations has referred to the Rhodesian raid 60 miles into Mozambique, a neighbouring country, as a blatant disregard for the principles of the United Nations charter. The foreign secretary of the United Kingdom has told the Secretary General of the United Nations that steps are to be taken by the United Kingdom to secure the end of these aggressive acts. Will the minister advise whether the Canadian government will consult with the Secretary General of the United Nations and the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary to see what steps Canada can fit into to discourage these actions which endanger the peace of the world?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is obviously yes. In addition, I may say that I share, as does the government, the views expressed by Mr. Waldheim and Dr. Owen in the United Kingdom. It is to be very much regretted that the Rhodesians have undertaken this sortie into Mozambique. We are now examining the most appropriate and effective ways in which the Canadian views can be made known. I have no doubt that our permanent mission in New York will be discussing this in the United Nations context. I will, of course, be in communication with Dr. Owen, the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, to discuss the same question as to the appropriate steps for Canada to take.
June 1, 1977


MEETING OF WHEAT COUNCIL IN EUROPE-CANADIAN PROPOSALS FOR INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is either for the Minister of Agriculture or the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. I am not sure who will be responsible for answering the question. It has to do with the upcoming wheat council talks in Europe at the end of June. Will Canada be in a position to make any substantive proposals regarding the international wheat agreement and the proposed agreement at this upcoming meeting at the end of June?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is our intention to put forward some positive proposals. The work that has been going on with the exporting countries has been primarily directed toward this end.


CONSULTATIONS WITH FARM ORGANIZATION ON PROPOSALS FOR INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the minister responsible for the wheat board is really a two-pronged question. First, will the House of Commons have an opportunity to debate or discuss the proposals the government intends to put forward? Second, has the minister met with various farm groups and farm organizations connected with the growing and selling of cereal grain in western Canada to get their complete assurance and consultation with regard to the moves he is now proposing?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there has been a broad series of discussions over time on the kinds of principles which must be involved, but not actually in connection with the drawing up of tentative proposals. I do not foresee a debate in the House in connection with the material being put forward at this time because it is very much exploratory in its nature. However, I would be happy to discuss the matter with members of the House, in the agriculture committee in particular, at a later date to look at the matter as it goes forward.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Weliington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Prime Minister were all here earlier but have left. I will pose my question to any member of the ministry who is still here. In view of the fact that the 1976 annual report of Electrohome Limited, which is Canada's major home entertainment, electronics equipment and furniture manufacturer, showed that the company sustained an $8 million loss in 1976 and in light of the fact that
Oral Questions
the number of production employees in the electronics division declined from 1,200 in 1974 to 150 at the present time, what action if any does the government propose to take to stem the decline in Canada's television industry? On May 18, as recorded at page 5819 of Hansard, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance made the statement, and I quote:
If they will make television sets for low prices in Asian countries, why cannot we have the benefit of those television sets, provided we can do something in return, provided Canadians can find jobs worth $6, $7 or $8 an hour;
Does that indicate that the government has given up on maintaining an electronics industry in Canada?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will see that the question is brought to the immediate attention of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact there are still pockets of drought in western Canada, will the minister have one of his own staff immediately look into the situation at Pincher Creek, Alberta, to try to stop the many flocks of breeding ewes from being disposed of due to the drought?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we received a representation about the conditions in that area. I understand that some of my officials, together with the provincial officials, are now investigating that.


INCOME TAX
Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: June 1, 1977
Oral Questions
signing any agreement of reciprocity between Canada and the United States. I can assure hon. members who have made strong representations with regard to tourist losses incurred as a result of current measures that I will make strong representation to my counterpart in the United States.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to take up the time of the House, but I do so because of the seriousness and the importance of the supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration which Your Honour ruled out of order. I used the word "plea" not inadvertently; I used it to underline the importance and the urgency of the question.
I am not in any way challenging Your Honour's ruling. However, I would, with respect, like to point out to the Chair that it is possible that Your Honour, in picking on the word "plea", missed the very important interrogatory part of my question. It had to do with a suggestion to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who I am sorry is not listening, asking if he was prepared to play a co-ordinating role in so far as federal government plans are concerned, with a view to maximizing the job-creating potential of these federal plans in the province of Newfoundland.
In other words, in addition to playing this co-ordinating role, whether he would enter into immediate discussions with the government of Newfoundland to ensure that there is co-ordination between the two levels of government; because I would point out to the House, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that we have arrived at a point in time at which this is a critical situation and one which calls for a critical and serious response. I know that the minister wanted to make a response, and 1 would ask Your Honour, with great respect, if you would permit him to reply to that question.


Mr. Speaker:: It is often difficult to distinguish between a representation and a question, particularly when there is a combination of both elements. I may have ruled precipitously in this case. Perhaps I was influenced by the fact that the hon. member himself described it as being more of a plea than a question. However, if I missed the question, perhaps the minister could make a brief comment, should that be agreeable to him.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: As the hon. member knows, I share his concern for the unemployed in Newfoundland and I did try to catalogue some of the things that were done. In the case of the linerboard factory there was a splendid joint effort. Unfortunately, it had to take place after the industry had closed down. But we are doing what we can in that area for the unemployed.
Similarly, community employment strategies have been devised. Under the new bill we will have a director-general specifically responsible for the province from which the hon. member comes, and I expect that our people will be co-operating very closely with officials and elected representatives in that province. As to co-ordination, I think this is already taking place. We are working hard to make sure there is no overlapping, and even in connection with Canada Works projects and Young Canada Works projects we are asking the
provinces to make their input so as to avoid duplication of effort.
If the bill which is presently before the committee, C-27, is passed, I expect it will be possible to free up some money there for the training program called for by the province of Newfoundland and that some of this money will also be available to the area of Cape Breton, in which case we might be able to provide a little more assistance. Anyway, we are, in fact, co-ordinating our efforts. Maybe improvements could be made and, if so, I shall be happy to consider the matter.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to indicate my displeasure at having been interrupted prematurely in the line of questioning I wanted to pursue with the Minister of National Health and Welfare dealing with a very important aspect of Canadian life, namely, the future of Canada's biologic industry. I was able to put only one question by way of a preliminary. The key questions were to follow, and unfortunately, because of some unacceptable happenings from my point of view, I was interrupted after the first question, one which in itself was perhaps meaningless.


Mr. Speaker:: I can only recall that at the end of the hon. member's first question I looked at his colleagues and saw that they were standing, while he was not. The only reason I would ever interrupt after the first question was that the hon. member was not on his feet, while his colleagues were.


Mr. Penner:: Mr. Speaker, I rise very briefly on a question of privilege. During the question period the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot mentioned to the House that he had not received his copy of an announcement by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as early as did other members of parliament. This is very regrettable and my question of privilege is related to this difficulty.
I am advised that there is in the House of Commons a central distribution system. Officials from the department brought copies for all members of the House to the central system which is in this building, and they were to be distributed from here to the other post offices which serve members of parliament. It is understandable that there might be some slight delay in getting those copies to the other buildings, but it does seem to me there is a question of privilege affecting all members if the difference in time is so great as to cause inconvenience.
All members should be treated as equally as possible and if, in the distribution of important information, some members find themselves at a disadvantage or are in some way inconvenienced, I believe their privileges have been violated. I would, therefore, ask whether it would be possible for Your Honour to inquire whether there might be a problem in this regard and, if so, whether steps could be taken to rectify it.


Mr. Speaker:: It goes without saying that since the administration of the House is ultimately my responsibility, I shall ascertain whether or not these copies were delivered without undue delay; and if delivery through our distribution system was in fact in any way unduly delayed, I shall certainly report back to the House on the matter.

June 1, 1977



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1543, 1746, 1812, 1890, 1979, 2022, 2025, 2163, 2189, 2204, 2207, 2218, 2302, 2321, 2355 and 2467.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, in English and in French, a number of international agreements affecting Canada which have entered into force during the last 12 months.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Auditor-General's Office obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-421 entitled: "An Act to readjust the representation of Quebec in the House of Commons and to readjust the electoral districts in Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I decided to introduce this bill readjusting the representation of Quebec in the House of Commons First and foremost because the draft representation order prepared under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act is based on the 1971 census conducted before the James Bay development added over 10,000 workers to north-west Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, my amendment is only meant to take into account this large increase in the population, so that northwest Quebec will be represented in keeping with today's reality.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
3. By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Office in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?
Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. The office of the Auditor General obtained part-time employees from private employment agencies during the fiscal year 1975-76. No full-time employees were obtained.
Details are as follows:		
	Province	Part-time Employees
(i)	British Columbia	1(ii)	Alberta	5(iii)	Saskatchewan	-(iv)	Manitoba	-(v)	Ontario	58(vi)	Quebec	3(vii)	New Brunswick	-(viii)	Nova Scotia Prince Edward	1(ix)	Island	-(x)	Newfoundland	-Total	68


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
2.	Private employment agencies were paid from funds provided in Main Estimates.
!
3.	Comparative average rates and amounts paid by! the Office of the Auditor General are as follows:
(a)Average hourly rate paid to employment agencies, fiscal year ended March 31
(b)Average hourly paid to employees fiscal year ended March 31
(c)Total amount paid by Office.
fiscal year ended March 31
Province	(i) 1975	(ii) 1976	(i) 1975 (ii) 1976	(i) 1975	(ii) 1976British Columbia	$4.69	$7.21	$ 1,178.08	$ 753.90Alberta	Nil	5.79	'Information	Nil	901.14Ontario	4.87	5.77	9,760.53	18.548.98Quebec	Nil	5.87	not	Nil	2,645.25Nova Scotia	Nil	5.00	Nil	112.50Other Provinces	Nil	Nil	available	Nil	NilTotal	$10,938.61	$22,961.77
'Information on average hourly rates paid to employees by agencies is not generally provided by the employment agencies.
[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions VILLENEUVE AIRPORT, ALBERTA
Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	Does the Department of Transport plan to complete its two runway development plan for the Villeneuve Airport in Alberta and, if so, on what date?
2.	Will the basic amenities for the Airport be completed at the same time as the two runway development plan?
3.	What is the schedule of user fees to be collected at the Airport?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. The second runway for Villeneuve is planned for the 1978/79 construction season.
2.	Basic amenities for this airport are expected to be installed by approximately October 1, 1977. This will include water, sewer and gas. The necessary power is available at this time. A telephone is located in the tower and the airport manager's office and the capability exists to provide telephone service to all areas as required.
3.	Villeneuve Airport Rental Rates: Effective immediately-All areas .01c. PSFPA (Per square foot per annum); Effective October 1, 1977-if no water and sewer, T-hangar lots- ,03c. PSFPA, Commercial Development lots-.02c. PSFPA, Flying Club and Maintenance Hangars-.03c. PSFPA; Effective October 1, 1977-if water and sewer installed, Commercial Development lots-,03c. PSFPA, Flying Clubs and Maintenance Hangars-,04c. PSFPA, T- Hangar lots remain at .03c. PSFPA as they are unaffected by water and sewer. Rental rates will be reviewed January 1, 1980.


Mr. Crosbie: 1.	Is there an obligation on the government under the terms of union entered into between Newfoundland and Canada providing for the entry of Newfoundland into Confederation in 1949 to provide transportation services by rail through Newfoundland and by sea between Newfoundland and North Sydney and, if so, what is the nature of the obligation?
2.	Did CNR apply to the Canadian Transport Commission in September 1967 for leave to discontinue passenger train service between St. John's and Port-aux-Basques and to substitute a bus service between the same points on the Trans-Canada Highway and, if so, was the application approved subject to certain conditions including that the bus service "be inaugurated and continued as long as the requirement for passenger service continues"?
3.	Does the government consider CNR obligated to provide the bus passenger service forever unless a rail passenger service was again substituted and, if not, what does the government or CNR consider its obligation to be?
4.	Does the government consider that bus passenger fares must not exceed rail fare levels in comparable circumstances?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Under the British North America Act 1949 and in the Act to approve the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada, the following obligations are contained with specific reference to transportation services and facilities. "31. At the date of Union, or as soon thereafter as practicable, Canada will take over the following services and will as from the date of Union relieve the Province of Newfoundland of the public costs incurred in respect of each service taken, namely, (a) the Newfoundland Railway, including steamship and other marine services. 32. (1) Canada will maintain in accordance with the traffic offering a freight and passenger steamship service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques, which, on completion of a motor highway between Corner Brook and Port aux Basques, will include suitable provision for the carriage of motor vehicles. (2) For the purpose of railway rate regulation the Island of Newfoundland will be included in the Maritime region of Canada, and through-traffic moving between North Sydney and Port aux Basques will be treated as all-rail traffic. 32. (3) All legislation of the Parliament of Canada providing for special rates on traffic moving within, into, or out of, the Maritime region will, as far as appropriate, be made applicable to the Island of Newfoundland. 33. The following public works and property of Newfoundland shall become the property of Canada when the service concerned is taken over by Canada, subject to any trusts existing in respect thereof, and to any interest other than that of Newfoundland in the same, namely, (a) the Newfoundland Railway, including rights-of-way, wharves, drydocks, and other real property, rolling stock, equipment, ships and other personal property".
2.	The application was approved subject to certain conditions (see answer to part 3).
3.	As part of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada, the Canadian Government was given the assets of the Newfoundland Railway and agreed to accept the public costs incurred in respect of each service taken over. Since that time, it has been the Government of Canada's position, as enunciated in Pamphlet 14, Canadian Transport Commission, judgments, orders, regulations and rulings, "that public passenger transport should be provided (by the Canadian Government) so long as there is a substantial demand for such service. Canadian National's obligation to provide service in Newfoundland is detailed in Order-in-Council P.C. 1454 passed in 1949. In part, this Order-in-Council reads "they (Canadian National) are hereby entrusted in respect of management and operation thereof to the Company on the terms in the Canadian National Railway's Act expressly specified, namely, that such management and operation shall continue during the pleasure of the Governor-in-Council". Presently, Canadian National is providing certain bus service in Newfoundland as a condition imposed upon them by the Canadian Transport Commission when Canadian National was given approval to abandon certain rail services in the Province. The requirement that the bus service "be inaugurated and continued as long as the requirement for passenger service continues"was contained

June 1, 1977

in the original Order No. R-2673. This Order was rescinded by Order No. R-5185 and this condition is not contained in this latter Order.
4.	The government does not have a specific policy on the relationship between bus and rail fares. Where Part III of the National Transportation Act applies, the operator of a motor vehicle undertaking must file a tariff with the Canadian Transport Commission. The Commission may disallow any tariff of tolls considered to be not compensatory and not justified by the public interest or considered to unduly take advantage of a monopoly.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What programmes exist for the training of persons in the Northwest Territories in construction industry trades?
2.	How many have (a) started courses (b) sucessfully completed courses in each of the past five years?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is concerned: 1. The Hire North Project is a special programme of the Government of the Northwest Territories which is funded by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and was established to provide training and employment opportunities on the Mackenzie Highway construction project for the indigenous people of the area. When first developed in 1972, Hire North's
Order Paper Questions
prime function was to undertake clearing work for the Mackenzie Highway. In the spring of 1973, the concept of Hire North was expanded to include a secondary function-an operational program aimed at training native northerners on heavy duty construction equipment for subsequent employment with contractors constructing the Mackenzie highway and other related employment.
2.	(a) Figures are not available on the number of people who started training, (b) 1973-74: Approximately 30 personnel were trained to various levels of competence on road construction equipment. 1974-75: Approximately 15 operators were trained. 1975-76: An additional 30 operators were trained. 1976-77: Approximately 55 personnel were trained as heavy equipment operators.
In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned: 1. Training of persons in the construction industry trades in the Northwest Territories is provided through the Canada Manpower Training Programme, which includes the Institutional Training and Industrial Training components. The Institutional component involves classroom training while the Industrial component concerns employer-based training including classroom and on-the-job training. From 1971 to June 1974 the Department has administered two industrial training programmes. The Training-on-the-Job Programme and the Training-in-Industry-Programme were combined in June 1974 to form the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Programms. The attached information covers each programme separately.
2.
Trainee Starts and Completions in Construction Industry Trades, Northwest Territories
	Canada Manpower Training Program				
(Institutional)	Training-	on-the-Job	Training-Started	Completed	Started	Completed	Started1971-72	92	55	60	N/A1	-1972-73	157	106	49	N/A1	201973-74	135	80	80	N/A1	181974-75	67	27	1975-76	115	63	1976-77	942	562	Canada Manpower Industrial Training	in-Industry	Program	TotalsCompleted	Started	Completed	Started	CompletedN/A1	152	Data incompleteN/A1	226	Data incompleteN/A1	215	Data incomplete24	18	91-	4538	26	153	899I2	342	1092	4721	Completions are not available by occupation or geographic area.2	Estimated-complete data not yet available for 1976-77; completions shown are to date as courses are still continuing.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): 1.	(a) What company is presently under contract to provide bus service from the parking lot of the Vancouver Airport to the Airport (b) who are the officers and directors of the company?
2.	(a) On what date was the contract negotiated (b) what were its terms, including (i) cost (ii) length of contract (iii) number of buses in use (iv) hours of service (v) frequency of service?
3.	Did the government call for tenders on the contract and, if so, what are the names of the other companies that tendered and, in each case, what were their terms?
4.	(a) How many directors and officers are employed by the government to oversee the operation of the service, or in any other capacity, related to its operation (b) what are their (i) positions (ii) salaries (iii) names?
5.	Does the government intend that the service be a permanent part of the operation at the Airport?
6.	Is the government presently studying alternative parking facilities for the Airport?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. (a) Perimeter Transportation Ltd., 4440 Cowley Crescent, Vancouver, B.C. V7B 1B8. (b) Mr. S. A. Miles, President; Mrs. Mary Miles, Secretary; Mr. Wayne Hansen, Director; Mr. Brian Kerr, Director.

June 1, 1977
Order Paper Questions
2.	(a) The contract was not negotiated but awarded following a public tender. The tender was called early in June 1975 and closed on July 4, 1975. Tenderers were required to bid on three separate items of payment: (i) Management and Overhead; (ii) Depreciation; (iii) Operating costs. Three companies submitted tenders; Perimeter Transportation Ltd.-$1,653,954; Vancouver Airlines Limousine (1963) Ltd. $2,702,530; Metro Parking Ltd. $1,048,628; Metro parking subsequently withdrew its bid citing miscalculation of the depreciation, (b) (i) Total Cost $1,653,954 based on; Management and Overhead, $9,957 per month; Depreciation charge per bus $600 per month; Operation charge each bus, $8.82 per hour. The first two payment items are firm for the life of the contract. The last payment item may be adjusted annually to reflect increased fuel and labour costs, (ii) Contract term three years with provision for two, one-year renewal periods, (iii) Four buses, (iv) 5:30 am to 1:00 am (v) 5 to 7 minutes service during normal hours and increasing to 3 to 5 minute service during peak hours.
3.	See Para. 2. (a).
4.	The bus service is provided under a management contract. It is inherent in the terms of the contract that the contractor provide all operating personnel, superintendence and management. Involvement of airport management staff is minimal and relates to occasional directives and audit reviews to ensure contractor is meeting all terms of the contract.
5 and 6. Consideration is presently being given to the construction of a car parking structure. Act such time that a parking structure is built the need for a shuttle bus service will be eliminated.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions of less than $25.00 per month?
2.	How many are in receipt of a pension of $25.00 per month?
3.	How many are in receipt of pensions of (a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month (b) $30.00 to $39.99 per month (c) $40.00 to $49.99 per month (d) $50.00 to $59.99 per month (e) $60.00 to $69.99 per month (0 $70.00 to $79.99 per month (g) $80.00 to $89.99 per month (h) $90.00 to $99.99 per month (/) $100.00 to $124.99 per month (j) $125.00 to $149.99 per month (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month (1) $200.00 to $299.99 per month (m) $300.00 to $399.99 per month (n) $400.00 per month and over?


Otto Emil Lang: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. One hundred seventy-six.
2.	Four hundred four.
3.	(a) 203; (b) 182; (c) 570; (d) 400; (e) 479; (0 1,140; (g) 520; (h) 459; (i) 1,025; (j) 1,224; (k) 2,847; (1) 6,208; (m) 4,475; (n) 7,322. In a number of cases, the amounts of pension paid by Canadian National Railways do not represent the total pensions payable to employees for railway service. Pension payable by CNR to international employees (service in both Canada and the United States) relate to their service in Canada only. Such employees also receive annuities respecting eligibility for which CN has made contributions payable under

the U.S. Railroad Retirement Act for the Social Security Act for service performed in the United States. For example, in the group receiving pensions under $25 a month, in 1976 there are 32 former international employees who receive U.S. Railroad Retirement or Social Security annuities in respect of CN service rendered in the United States. In addition, there are various pension agreements between CN and other companies, such as Canadian Pacific Limited, CP Telecommunications and the Ontario Northland Railway where each company issued separate cheques for its portion of the total pension. Only the pension payable by CN is in this statement. Also, since the passing of the Pension Benefits Standards Act by the Federal Government on October 1, 1967, there are 41 employees who have terminated service with CN and are receiving rather small compulsory deferred pensions for service performed only from October 1, 1967. The balance of those receiving small pensions are employees who elected Early Retirement (before age sixty-five) with reduced basic pensions ($25) and employees who had very short service and very small contributions.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many persons are receiving pensions from private pension plans, such pensions being based on employment in Canada and what is the average pension per month received by such persons?
2.	Of those indicated in the answer to Part (1), (a) how many are having their pensions escalated annually at a rate equal to the rise in the Consumer Price Index (b) how many are having their pensions escalated annually at a lesser rate (c) how many receive no annual escalation of their pensions?
3.	How many persons are contributing to or are enrolled in private pension plans based on their employment in Canada?
4.	Of those indicated in the answer to Part (3), (a) how many are in plans which provide, after retirement, for an annual escalation of their pensions at a rate equal to the rise in the Consumer Price Index (b) how many are in plans which provide, after retirement, for an annual escalation at a lesser rate (c) how many are in plans which provide for no escalation, after retirement, of their pensions?
5.	How many persons in Canada are receiving retirement benefits from annuities, insurance plans, retirement saving plans or other schemes apart from employment-related pension plans and what is the average amount per month received by such persons from such plans?
6.	Of those indicated in the answer to Part (5), (a) how many are having such benefits escalated annually at a rate equal to the rise in the Consumer Price Index (b) how many are having their benefits escalated annually at a lesser rate (c) how many receive no annual escalation of their benefits?
7.	How many persons in Canada are enrolled in retirement plans of all types other than employment-related pension plans?
8.	Of those indicated in the answer to Part (7), (a) how many are enrolled in plans which will provide, after the payment of benefits commences, for an annual escalation equal to the rise in the Consumer Price Index (b) how many are enrolled in plans which will provide, after the payment of benefits commences, for an annual escalation at a lesser rate (c) how many are enrolled in plans which will provide after the payment of benefits commences, for no escalation?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as the Department of
June 1, 1977

National Revenue is concerned: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8. There are no departmental programs to capture this information either by analysis of documentation filed for registration purposes or through filing of special information returns.
In so far as Statistics Canada is concerned: 3. There are 3,902,498 members enrolled in private pension plans in Canada.
4.	(a) The number of plans which provide, after retirement, for an annual escalation of pensions at a rate equal to the rise in the Consumer Price Index is 29. (b) The number of plans which provide, after retirement, for an annual escalation at a rate less than the Consumer Price Index is 142. (c) The number of plans which provide for no escalation after retirement is 15,454.
Note: This information is based on January 1, 1976 data.


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, what was the number of federal employees engaged to enforce public health laws?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as Agriculture Canada is concerned: (a) 970; (b) 1,381. Departmental personnel devote only a portion of their time to enforce public health laws.
In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: (a) 237; (b) 325.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	What is the full one way air fare from the British Columbia mainland to the Queen Charlotte Islands?
2.	What is the full return fare from the Queen Charlotte Islands to the mainland?
3.	What is the estimated number of passengers per month that will use the new subsidized air fare from the Queen Charlotte Islands to the mainland, one way and return?
4.	What department and/or ministry made the decision to employ the Manibou Princess to carry passengers between the mainland and the Charlottes?
5.	What was the cost to the taxpayer of the ferry service provided to the Queen Charlotte Islands from the mainland prior to the removal of the ferry service and substitution by the Manibou Princess'?
6.	What is the estimated number of Queen Charlotte residents who will be in a position to make application to the Minister of Transport for rebates for air fare from March 1 to March 11, 1977?
7.	What is the estimated cost of the Public Awareness and Information Programme to be carried out by the regional officials of the Department of Transport to acquaint Queen Charlotte Island residents with the air rebate system?
8.	Other than passengers, what cargo, if any, was carried by the Manibou Princess between the Queen Charlotte Islands and the mainland and return?
9.	What cargo, if any, was carried by the former ferry service to the Queen Charlotte Islands from the mainland and return?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. By Trans Provincial Airlines Ltd: From Prince Rupert to Masset, $29;
Order Paper Questions
to Sandspit, $36; to Queen Charlotte City, $36; By North Coast Air Services: From Prince Rupert to Masset, $30.
2.	Return fares are twice the above.
3.	It is estimated that over the period of a year, there may be an average of 1,000 passengers travelling in each direction each month.
4.	The Canadian Transport Commission in co-operation with officials of the Department of Transport.
5.	It is almost impossible to calculate exactly the cost of the subsidy for the shipping service from the British Columbia mainland to the Queen Charlotte Islands, as the subsidy paid to the operator was for the operation of three vessels, two of which made calls at Queen Charlotte Island ports. One of the two called weekly at Island ports directly from Vancouver before proceeding to Prince Rupert, and then returned to Vancouver via the Islands again. The second vessel called at Masset as one port in a series during weekly voyages between Vancouver and Stewart. The third ship serviced ports on the lower B.C. coast as far north as Klemtu. The operating subsidy paid in Fiscal Year 1975/76 amounted to $3,748,500 and in 1976, from April 1st until the subsidy was terminated at the end of October, the amount was $2,186,625.
6.	Departmental officials have no reliable information on which to base an estimate.
7.	Five thousand dollars.
8.	None.
9.	Records show the following freight tonnage (combined weight and measurement tons).
Calendar	Mainland to Queen Charlotte	Queen Charlotte IslandYear	Island (tons)	to Mainland (tons)1973	10,238	1,5981974	11,165.5	1,652.51975	10,133	1,625.51976	10,442	1,353
(to October 31)


Mr. Schumacher: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,199, for each year specified what were the reasons given for (a) withdrawal (b) removal from the second language training programmes in (i) 1973, 72 French; 8 English withdrawals: 20 French removals (ii) 1974, 216 French; 46 English withdrawals: 158 French; 4 English removals (iii) 1975, 281 French; 20 English withdrawals: 270 French; 3 English removals (iv) 1976, 279 French; 25 English withdrawals: 152 French; 2 English removals?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: The Public Service Commission does not keep a record of the reasons given by students for withdrawing from language training. As a rule, it is for personal reasons such as: (i) realization by the student that the required standard would not be met within the 52 weeks allotted to training, (ii) nervous tension, (iii) age. These

June 1, 1977
Order Paper Questions
are the main reasons given. To know each individual reasons would require input from every department. However, in general, students withdrawing from language training are those with a low aptitude to learn a second language. To answer this question in detail would necessitate the retrieval of computer print-outs of 1,566 names, the search of individual files to determine the reason of every withdrawal or removal, and finally the preparation of tables for each year.


Mr. Jones: !. For each year 1966 to 1976, how many French nationals were on the staff or faculty at the University of Moncton, New Brunswick?
2.	How many were paid and/or on expenses paid by the Government of France and were they considered to be doing such assignments in lieu of military service for France?
3.	For the same years, how many French nationals were on staff or working at L'Evangeline newspaper, Moncton, New Brunswick and was this in addition to the equipment and monetary assistance supplied by the Government of France?
4.	How many were paid by the Government of France and were they considered to be doing such assignments in lieu of military service for France?
5.	To the knowledge of the government, were such nationals considered as working in a colony of France and, for this purpose, was Canada considered a colony of France?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Manpower and Immigration and External Affairs as follows: 1. The matter of French nationals on the faculty of the University of New Brunswick is not a Federal responsibility. The Department of Manpower and Immigration is responsible for ensuring that if such persons are admitted to Canada that they meet normal immigration requirements.
2.	Not available.
3.	The matter of French nationals working at L'Evangeline newspaper is not a Federal responsibility. The Department of Manpower and Immigration is responsible for ensuring that if such persons are admitted to Canada that they meet normal immigration requirements.
4.	Not available.
5.	No.


Mr. Forrestall: Has money been allocated in the National Harbours Board 1977-78 Estimates for the Port of Montreal under the caption "Floating Derrick" and, if so (a) for what reason (b) is this for new equipment in addition to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority floating derrick and various National Harbours Board and privately owned shore based cranes?


Otto Emil Lang: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: Yes. (a) Purchase of a derrick to perform inner harbour dredging by N.H.B. employees, (b) Yes. Its purpose is to perform dredging, whereas the S.L.S.A. "Hercules" is a floating crane.


Mr. O'Sullivan: Has Air Canada completed its study of the possibilities of providing air service to link Canada and St. Lucia, West Indies and, if so (a) on what date (b) what were the findings and recommendations?


Otto Emil Lang: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: Yes. A preliminary study, (a) Late 1975; (b) The study recommended the consideration of service to St. Lucia no earlier than 1981. However, since then, operating economics and other constraints have forced Air Canada to cut back scheduled international operations and to defer the introduction of new routes. As a result, any present recommendations concerning service to St. Lucia are subject to revision.


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	What were the rates of interest on payments of income tax refunds and penalties for late payments in the years 1972 to date?
2.	What are the new rates of interest proposed in the new Budget?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of National Revenue and Finance as follows: 1. The rate of interest of income tax was three per cent prior to May 1, 1974, and six per cent since that date. The rate of interest on late payments has been six per cent since 1972.
2. In the Budget Speech, an increase was announced in the rate of interest on both underpayments and overpayments of tax. While a specific rate was not mentioned, there is a statement in the Budget Document to the effect that starting in 1978 the rate of interest will be set by reference to the prime rate charged by the chartered banks. It is the intention to establish the rate for a year sometime before the end of the preceding year. Thus the rate of interest for 1978, to be announced before the end of this year, will depend on the prime rate later in the year. The interest rate, once established will continue in effect throughout 1978 but would be expected to change for 1979 in line with any change in the prime rate.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What revenue accrued to the National Harbours Board from the Cast Group from tonnage shipped over the Port of Montreal during the 12 months ending March 31, 1977?
2.	What is the government's best estimate of such revenue for the same amount of tonnage for the 12 months commencing April 1, 1977?


Otto Emil Lang: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. $1,080,716.
June 1, 1977

Economic Conditions MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION
2. $1,162,735.
LIP AND/OR CANADA WORKS PROGRAMMES ALLOCATIONS IN NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Marshall: What is the breakdown, by constituency, of the financial allocation (a) $6,250,000 in 1971-72 (b) $11,204,934 in 1972-73 (c) $8,382,294 in 1973-74 (d) $7,409,000 in 1974-75 (e) $11,114,000 in 1975-76 (f) $14,069,945 in 1976-77 under the Local Initiatives Programme and/or Canada Works Programme for the Province of Newfoundland?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: (a) and (b) Under the 1971-72, 1972-73 Local Initiatives Programme, funds were not allocated by constituency, (c), (d), (e) and (f) The amounts quoted in the question do not represent the amounts allocated in the province of Newfoundland under LIP for those years. See Appendix A for the total allocations to constituencies in the province of Newfoundland by programme year. The Canada Works Programme was not administered in 1976-77.
Allocations by constituency in Newfoundland under the 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, and 1976-77 Local Initiatives Program Allocations
Constituency	LIP 1973-74 LIP 1974-75LIP 1975-76LIP 1976-77			
Bonavista-T rinity-Concep-				
tion	$ 720,000 $	1,125,200 $	1,429,000 $	2,780,000Burin-Burgeo	464,000	551,800	642,000	958,000Gander-Twillingate	594,000	1,173,200	1,640,000	3,209,000Grand Falls-Whitebay-Labrador	826,000	1,190,300	1,635,000	2,753,900Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe	912,000	1,650,600	3,060,000	4,991,000St. John's East	473,000	1,439,000	1,898,000	3,626,000St. John's West	518,000	1,316,000	1,735,000	2,794,000Total	$4,507,000	$8,446,100 $12,039,000 $21,111,900


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough to call notice of motion for the production of papers No. 86?


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 86-Mr. Rodriguez:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence or papers exchanged between any level of the Department of Manpower and Immigration and any level of the Department of Justice concerning the withholding of or elimination from unemployment insurance benefits from or of people who were over age 65 or who were in receipt of dependency benefits at the time of the implementation of Bill C-69, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, on January 1, 1976.
Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the correspondence and papers in question were legal opinions for the use of the Commission and are not returnable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On behalf of my hon. friend from Nickel Belt, I ask that this motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate. Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Andr6 Fortin (Lotbiniere) moved:: That this House regrets the lack of foresight and leadership of the Government in the management of State affairs, particularly in view of the fact that it deliberately permits the worsening of inflation and unemployment problems, which directly leads to a very marked deterioration of the social climate and national unity and prevents Canadians from using their vast human and economic resources to achieve their personal aspirations.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, as you can see, the opposition motion moved today by the hon. member for Lobtbiniere (Mr. Fortin) calls the attention of the entire country to the fact that the lack of government leadership is a serious problem with many aspects which must be looked into and analysed.
When we say in our motion that the government permits the worsening of inflation and unemployment problems, it is because the results are there to see. Even though we came through by-elections, we did not come up with a solution to these problems. We were told during those by-elections that if

June 1, 1977
Economic Conditions
Liberals were elected there would be no more problems! In my riding, people were a little more realistic. They realized that they did not need any Liberal members in the House but rather representatives who can stand up and point out to the government that it does not do what needs to be done to resolve the problems.
We had the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) in my riding going from one village to another and saying to people that they were the ones who would tell the government on the 24th whether it was going to invest money in their riding. We know quite well that there are problems of unemployment, of lack of industries in my riding. So this guy comes on TV-and he is not just anybody but a government administrator-to tell the population of Temiscamingue: You are going to tell us on the 24th whether or not we should look after problems in your area. And the same thing was repeated in other regions throughout the province of Quebec and the province of Prince Edward Island. We cannot stand still for that sort of thing. It is not through economic blackmail by a government minister that we are going to resolve problems but by bringing the proper solutions to the proper places.
People have been asking for grants to small businesses. Instead of doing what the government has done for a number of years, subsidizing big business, why not take those same amounts and give them to small businesses in remote areas, so that people can work in their localities and not be forced to go away, as many are in the province of Quebec now and in other provinces. Grants are needed, and rather than trying to reinforce the economy, the government has tried by all means to minimize and destroy our production.
Last year in June, farmers were here on Parliament Hill to complain about the reduction in dairy production quotas. They were told then: you farmers have to reduce your income by 20 or 30 per cent because you produce too much powdered milk. In fact, what do we need in Canada? Milk butterfat. If there is a surplus of powder milk, let us give it to underdeveloped countries. Let our farmers produce what they can produce, and then we will allow those people to live a decent life on their farms and their sons to continue the work they have done. With its legislation, the government has compressed the potential of farmers, reduced their productivity, often through negative incentives, and discouraged the sons from following in their fathers' footsteps. We had evidence of this again in June of last year. We saw the government authorize excessive imports, to the prejudice of Canadian producers. That's the government's position! And when there is a by-election, it sends ministers such as the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to tell the people that if they vote for the government, the government will solve all their problems. In fact, the quotas should be out by now, but the farmers have not yet received them.
We are aware that there are 1,400,000 unemployed, but instead of providing them with a guaranteed annual income, as we have often suggested, to help them seek employment and increase their income with something other than unemployment insurance benefits, the government introduces a new bill

to reduce further the income of the unemployed, a way of telling them to leave these benefits alone and get a job, when in fact there are no jobs. This is an example of the attitude of the present government, which is not interested in finding a solution to our problems, but instead, as is said in the motion, and I quote:
... which leads directly to a deterioration of the social climate and national unity ...
No, they prefer to resort to economic blackmail in the province of Quebec and in other provinces. They would rather have 1,400,000 unemployed and force them to live on unemployment insurance, so that they can lay all the blame on local governments or on the government of the province of Quebec and say to them: "This provincial administration is no good, there are more people on welfare in this province then in any other part of the country. " Actually it is the federal government which is the cause of the problem. It should find ways, if not to create jobs, at least to provide the unemployed with a guaranteed income, an allowance which would help them through.
They talk of inflation, they talk of unemployment. But what has been changed by the anti-inflation controls? Absolutely nothing. The price of sugar is up, the price of coffee is up and gas is going to increase once more and they come and tell us: "We have done a tremendous job there. The government has solved the problem there. And again during the last by-election campaign they have told people the same old story. Meanwhile they allowed the multinationals to increase their prices and their production and, at the same time, they reduced consumers' purchasing power through indirect tax increases, and through chronic unemployment across Canada, which means people do not have enough money to pay for the goods which are being produced. And this goes on hnd on. Now they say: There is nothing we can do, as they said to farmers in June of last year, there is nothing we can do, we cannot do more. It is strange that those same politicians, come elections time, did not hide behind a cordon of police to meet farmers and producers; but when farmers and producers come down here to meet their representatives in the House of Commons, then the minister and the whole gang remain behind a cordon of police to be sure they will not have to face them. We have a provocative government, and they try by all means, not to settle problems but to throw all the blame for their administrative inability at the provinces, the municipalities, and individuals rather than really govern and find and implement solutions to our problems.
When we look at the government's mode of financing, and when we have been saying for so many years-and I am not the first one to say so-to the government that it is inconsistent to pay for government sponsored services for the benefit of the whole population, at a high rate of interest when in return we have to tax people two, three, four or five time their value before we pay off the interest on that very same thing.
June 1, 1977

Let me give you one more example: the construction of the Champlain bridge in Montreal, which is a public utility, cost $54 million. The debt still amounts to $52 million, plus $24 million in accrued interests. After using it for 15 years, we still have to pay 25 cents toll and moreover, this bridge still costs $54 million. We, smarties, now owe $76 million on this bridge, because of this government's policies. This is the kind of administration which kills initiative and drive in this country. As for the Jacques-Cartier bridge, it has been going on for even longer. It is even funnier. It cost $24 million to build in 1930. After paying $20 million in interest since 1930, which is 47 years ago, we still owe $21 million on it.
And then we are told that inflation comes from overseas, that foreign countries export their inflation to Canada. We are creating it ourselves through the present policies of the government. They create inflation. And because of this, people do not have the purchasing power which is necessary to buy goods and services. We are forced to curtail the payroll or employment ceases because we cannot afford to go on, we then have the jobless. And because of these jobless people, we or the government put forward a new piece of legislation to fight unemployment and say that we have solved the problem, putting the blame, in a spirit of confrontation, on the provinces, and particularly on the province of Quebec, for their inability to create jobs. And this is what is happening, at the moment we have 1.4 million unemployed. And then we tell job hunters to make at least three contracts a week. That is no joke! How much does this amount to? Three millions; four by three make twelve. That makes 4,200,000 people a week in search of a job while industries keep on closing their doors.


An hon. Member:: That is a lot of gas!


Gilles Caouette: Right, and the price of gas is rising too. So they introduce unemployment insurance legislation forcing people back on the labour market to find some of those 4,200,000 jobs which do even exist; if they get no unemployment insurance benefits, it is obvious that they will have to go on welfare. Then the government will wash its hands of it, saying that it depends on the provinces, especially in Quebec which metes out social welfare, so it depends on them. We have no unemployed, just people on welfare. For the government, that is the solution to the problem.


An hon. Member:: The parade of the Holy Innocents!


Gilles Caouette: Exactly! We saw the parade of Holy Innocents in the riding of Temiscamingue. It was not the Holy Innocents but the seven innocents: seven ministers, six Liberal members from Quebec, with their secretaries-what a farce!-going from one village to the other trying to convince the people that all their problems had been solved. And, as the Minister for Regional Economic Expansion said: If you don't vote for us on the 24th, you can forget about your grants. Now that is how bright the government is; and a minister who claims to be competent, who claims he wants to solve the problems; and members such as the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Caron), a fellow who has never risen in the
Economic Conditions
House to say anything, except perhaps to chase the flies around and who, in the riding of Temiscamingue, tried to tell the people and the farmers that their problems would be solved if they voted Liberal, when in his own riding the farmers' quotas were reduced last year and that, when the Grits are in power. The same goes for the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier); and the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Corriveau); we saw them going up and down sidewalks one after the other, greeting everyone. Why did they, who were in power, not solve the problem for the people in their riding? No, they prefer to resort to economic blackmail and discriminatory language against a segment of the population. That is the attitude of this government. We suggest that such an attitude goes against national unity; people are getting fed up with those tactics, fed up seeing the government playing small politics. I call that backyard politics where people try to exert pressure and tell constituents: Well, if you help us, we'll help you. The money that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce distribute or set aside for any project across the country, not only in Temiscamingue but across Quebec, that is not Liberal money, it is money which the government first took out of people's pockets, and I do not accept that a minister or a government should blackmail a riding by saying: If you do not vote for us, you are not going to get grants. A funny thing in Temiscamingue, most people who pay taxes are Social Crediters because during the last election they still had a Social Credit member of parliament; people will continue to pay taxes after May 24th and most of them are still Social Crediters. That money is no more Social Credit money than it is Liberal money, it is Canadian money that we, the taxpayers, invest in a government, and we ask the government to meet our needs. Ridings like Temiscamingue, as most Quebec ridings, need investments in small business, not in multinationals, not in imports. For example, imports have destroyed Canada's footwear industry. And they say we have people unemployed. A whole gang of people used to work in the footwear industry; because of imports, those industries had to close down, and they say we have unemployed people. Those people no longer have jobs. They have destroyed or are about to kill the rest of the textile industry in the province of Quebec because they allow massive imports of foreign products. They say: Well, yes, but the international market-that's right, let us cater to the international market and never mind starving Canadians, that is the government position. What our party favours is to help small business, to help people. I did not resort to economic blackmail during the last election campaign. I asked some individuals: What can you do in your area, in your village, in your parish to help create employment? A lot of projects. During the last campaign we found 12 projects, a tannery, for instance. Earlier in a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) I mentioned a silica mine at Saint-Bruno-de-Guigues, a furniture factory, other industries related to hunting, fishing and tourism. Twelve such projects have been created where people are interested in employee participation in the business, not as slaves, but as

June 1, 1977
Economic Conditions
direct participants in the company. People are ready to get to work, but once again the government must invest money or consider the matter but as far as we are concerned we are ready to go with these people and meet the public servants, meet the ministers if necessary, and make them realize the merit of the requests presented by Canadians who want to build their country in spite of this government which is now trying to destroy small business. With these people, we shall succeed in developing and implementing these projects, and if sometimes we have to twist the arm of the ministers we shall do so. The government has invested $13 million in the DASH-7 plane. Our own Canadian companies, Air Canada and Canadian Pacific, are not even interested in purchasing this plane. Yet money has been invested in this venture. It would have been far better to invest these millions in small local businesses to enable people to make a living in their own community. It is less costly for them to live in their own communities than to have to travel across the country to find work in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories, or for those who live in Quebec, at James Bay. People want to work at projects in their communities. This is why we ask the government to reinvest the money taken in taxes, in the constituencies so that people can work in their own area. This is the course of action we want to see followed. This is why we criticize the government for its lack of leadership and its lack of interest concerning the promotion of Canadian projects. The government is more interested in playing the great game of politics with other countries. It then tells the Canadian people to stop producing.
Earlier I mentioned the farmers. They are asked, for farfetched reasons at that, to reduce their production by 20 or 30 per cent, that is to reduce their income by 20 or 30 per cent. That is what this government asked the farmers last year. It did not even ask them, it forced them to do so. The farmers came to Ottawa to complain and the government said that there was nothing to be done. It justified its action by saying: There is a milk powder surplus. When do we hear in Canada companies like CIP, Abitibi Paper and others say that they should cut their production because there are too many branches on a tree. It is a nonsense! When it is a big corporation it can do whatever it wants but in the case of individuals who fight to build their country it is a different matter; their potential, their revenue is reduced and they have to go on unemployment. Once they are unemployed, their allowances are cut and then they have to go on welfare.


Mr. Marceau:: You are late, you are one year behind. Talk about this year.


Gilles Caouette: The quotas for this year are not yet known. They are late again as they have always been since you are in power. You did not come up with any answer, you are still taxing and overtaxing people and investing in the financing sector instead of putting money in small business. Instead of using that money as an investment to

produce something, you pay exorbitant interest rates. This is what you have done.
I referred to Champlain. I referred to the Jacques-Cartier bridge. I could mention buildings which are presently under construction. It is the same type of mismanagement. You say things were like that a year ago but this year you continue the same type of mismanagement which sparks the inflationary spiral. What should be changed in the present government is that we should stop financing federal, provincial or municipal administrations through interest free loans. We do it indirectly for other countries so we could do it at home. This way, we shall solve our inflation problem.


Gilles Marceau: Oh!


Gilles Caouette: You will cope with unemployment when you start investing money in small business. There is unemployment in your area as there is in ours. You even have more of it. It is not because you are in power that there is less unemployment in your riding. Unemployment is higher in your area, in the Lapointe riding. Yet your constituents voted for a government member and they have unemployment and inflation as we do. But there is a difference. In Temiscamingue, people have awakened and they are not going to be fooled by two-bit politicians and their stories.
Generally speaking, this prevents Canadians from using their vast human and economical resources. That is precisely what the government is doing. It is simply destroying individual initiative. People are being forced out of the work force by various laws. At present, under the income tax and the unemployment insurance regulations, if someone wants to hire a carpenter to work at home, simply because one is not a contractor, it cannot be done. A restriction has been set. The chap must work for someone, so he can come and work at your place, but by so doing he forfeits his unemployment insurance stamps. In this way, they are making sure he is not going to work, and then the government can say: the unemployed are just lazy people who do not want to work. Well, in fact, the government is making sure that if they ever find work, they will be penalized.


Gilles Marceau: Who said the workers are lazy?


Gilles Caouette: The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau)!


Gilles Marceau: I never said that.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) on a point of order.


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) has just made a very serious accusation alleging that I said the workers were lazy. I demand that he withdraw his remarks because I have never made such a statement, for I know that those who are now out of work do their best to find a job. I have never made such a thing. I therefore ask him to take those words back because I have
June 1, 1977

never made such a statement, as I feel much sympathy for people out of work.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, it is not sympathy that is needed but jobs, when the hon. member will start working at it, he will create jobs, and then he will not have the problem he has in his own riding which also exists everywhere else in Canada.
Use the vast human resources-


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker-


Gilles Caouette: The hon. member will have an opportunity to speak later on. His time has not come yet. Let him listen. Some would be better to listen more often instead of burbling.
Let us use our vast human resources! As I said earlier, they try to destroy individual initiative, to penalize people by every available means; therefore, it is about time to move into a new direction. We can still hope since there will be a federal election within 10, 12, 15 or 18 months, that the government will finally decide, after announcing it day after day, month after month, to remove those anti-inflation measures which have been a real failure. It is to be hoped as well that before the next election, the government will finally inject some funds into small business. At that time we shall continue our work, namely to get the people to understand that they should not expect too much from this government, that Canadians themselves should prepare projects, work with a view to create jobs at home, and then, the government will have no choice but to follow suit. This is what we did during the election campaign and this is the kind of work we want to pursue, to get people to understand that we are living in a democracy and not in a red dictatorship, that we are working under a democratic system and that together, we, the citizens, are able to develop projects, to create employment in this country, and then, the government will have to follow suit.
Mr. Speaker, this is about all I had to say about this motion. There are two main points, however, one which shows the inefficiency of this government and the other one which proves there are solutions to our problems. It is a pity, that this government does not want to accept our solutions, that he chooses confrontation rather than trying to solve our problems. It is a pity, but nevertheless, we still continue to work with the people to try to convince this government which will, during the coming election campaign as I said, be able to show more recognition towards workers, those people who want to work in their country instead of being unemployed because of ill-advised and ill-oriented policies such as those this government has been developing up to now.


Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise and support this motion moved by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). As far as I am concerned, the government has already proved that the motion is 100 per cent correct. It reads as follows:
Economic Conditions
That this House regrets the lack of foresight and leadership of the government in the management of state affairs, particularly in view of the fact that it deliberately permits the worsening of inflation and unemployment problems-
That part of the motion has been proved by the answers given to questions put in this House in the last day or two. The government has admitted it has adopted a deliberate policy to permit inflation and unemployment to worsen. Its very lack of action proves this. The motion continues:
-Which directly leads to a very marked deterioration of the social climate and national unity and prevents Canadians from using their vast human and economic resources to achieve their personal aspirations.
The motion is 100 per cent correct, and that is why I am proud to support it. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I have to apologize to my confreres in the Social Credit party because I cannot address the House in French. I never lived in an area where French was used and therefore was not able to retain the ability to speak French after my high school education. Having lived in a place where the language is 99 per cent English, I am afraid I cannot converse in French in this House. Although I may not be able to speak French, however, I can understand the aspirations and motives that lie behind this motion. I believe I can understand what agitates many of the people who live in Quebec today, although I do not speak their language.
Questions were asked in the House yesterday by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), as reported at page 6102 of Hansard. The hon. member asked the Minister of Finance what steps he was going to take in view of the unemployment figures that had been revealed by the leader of the NDP on Monday and the projections by the Department of Manpower and Immigration. The hon. member asked the minister whether he was content to stand pat, or what action he was going to take; and the minister answered:
As I indicated in my budget, we did anticipate the difficulty of reducing the rate of unemployment in Canada over the next several years.
He went on to allege that they were going to give a little stimulus by spending more money and by putting more money into the programs of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. So it is quite evident that the minister knew, when he brought down his budget, that unemployment rates-as forecast-will keep increasing for the next several years, and he will do nothing about it.
Then the hon. member for Hamilton West asked the minister what specific measure he intended to introduce in the near future to alleviate this serious situation. The answer which came from the bolshy Minister of Finance, who was like a bolshy for two or three years up to this year because he had no regard whatsoever for the private sector and in his view it was only the great Liberal government that could pull Canada through the following:
We have taken the position that the best prospect for employment in Canada, both on the short-term basis and over a longer run, is through further stimulation in the private sector.

June 1, 1977
Economic Conditions
What a turnabout for the Minister of Finance in the last two years! He thought he and his party had all the answers. Now he says it is up to private business to give us the solutions. The government has thrown up its hands; it can do nothing; it will allow one million Canadians to stay unemployed for the next two years. It is an admission of moral and political bankruptcy by the government. I say: on to the barricades!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I say: On to the electoral barricades so we can give the people of Canada a chance to dump this government before they leave us in stagnation any longer.
This motion mentions national unity. Hon. gentlemen opposite think that the national unity issue will allow them to pull the wool over the eyes of the Canadian voters. No matter how many are unemployed, no matter how many suffer from inflation, no matter how the economy stagnates in Quebec and in the Atlantic provinces, they think they can pull through anything. Their policy is to out-redneck the rednecks in the nine provinces and say to the people of Quebec, "We are the only alternative to what you have in Quebec". They think they will take all the alleys home with them on the national unity issue.
I say it is a scurvy policy they have adopted, one that will not work. Over the next two or three months these issues have to be discussed in Canada. The Liberal government believes that the national unity issue is a security blanket for the Liberal party. Last year separatism was dead. This year, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is glad to have the ghost of separatism arisen in the province of Quebec with which to wrestle. Mr. Speaker, if Rene Levesque did not exist, Keith Davey would have invented him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: He would have had to invent him, because that is the only hope the hon. gentlemen have of succeeding in a general election. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to make one more reference to Hansard of Monday, May 30, when the leader of the NDP brought forward the unemployment figures, which were kept hidden by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), and the forecast for the next two years. He put the question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who is in the chamber today. There is one thing I will say about him, and that is that at least he is in the chamber a good deal of the time and has some regard for the House, although it may be because there have been a lot of debates regarding his department this year. But he does come to the House often. One of the sorriest things I have seen since I came to Ottawa last November is the general irrelevancy of the House. About that I will speak at another time.
The minister was asked what specific programs he will establish to do something about the alarming situation which his department forecast. The hon. gentleman's answer was that he is doing all he can, that the Minister of Finance has introduced a budget to try to increase export trade, and that there are other projects to deal with the situation in so far as

the government is able to cope with it. The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that the government is not able to cope with the situation. If the hon. gentleman is asked what he is doing, and he says they are doing all they can in so far as they can cope, then the answer is to get them out because they cannot cope.
There is raging unemployment in the country. The hon. gentleman's own figures-which he has kept hidden and secret from the provinces, from the opposition, from the members of his own caucus and which were probably hidden from the minister because his officials did not want to bother him with such onerous problems-show for the province of Newfoundland, my own province, an unemployment rate of 16.4 per cent for 1977-78, rising to 17.4 per cent next year. In P.E.I. the unemployment rate will be over 10 per cent in the next two years. In New Brunswick it will be over 11 per cent; in Nova Scotia, 10.4 per cent and 10.8 per cent, rising to 11.3 per cent; in Quebec it was 9 per cent last year, 9.4 per cent in the present year, and it will be 9.8 per cent next year. Soon Quebec will join the rest of us in the Atlantic provinces with an unemployment rate of over 10 per cent.
Hon. gentlemen opposite stay in government because they have given up trying to cope with the unemployment problem and the economic situation. All they want to cope with is the spurious issue of so-called national unity to which they say only they have the solution. The people of Canada want a government that will cope with more than so-called national unity. National unity has been weakened considerably by the lack of economic policies of this government, by the breakdown of the economy, by the government's failure to bring forward programs. It is true that Canada Works and Young Canada Works are doing some good, but these are makeshift programs.
It is interesting to note, when mismanagement became really bad with the Liberal government opposite, that that government has been in office since 1963. If we look at the document tabled by the Minister of Finance entitled "Economic Review, May, 1977", we see them condemned in their own pallid review. This document is as tastelessly written as possible so that no one will read it and see the awful facts of our economic situation. Their own document shows, at page 10, what has happened to prices and inflation since 1971.
In 1971 the CPI went up to 2.8 per cent, and in 1972 to 4.8 per cent. Then the hon. gentlemen opposite were returned as a minority government and they just gave up all attempts to control inflation. They wanted to stay in power. They had the well known Liberal disease of staying in power above anything else. In 1973 the inflation rate went up to 7.6 per cent, and in 1974 they gave up any attempt to do anything, but stay in power by spending, at which time it went up to 10.9 per cent. In 1975 it was 10.8 per cent. After the election in 1974 they introduced a program which they have campaigned against, the program of wage and price controls. They are doing anything just to stay in power. The Minister of Finance brought down a budget that does not have as much meat in it as one McDonald's hamburger. That one hamburger has more
June 1, 1977

meat and sustenance for the unemployed of this country than does Macdonald's budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: That is the hon. gentleman who answered some questions yesterday and said they had to leave it to private enterprise. The same minister, in his own document to which I just referred, at page 68 shows the following new capital expenditures, by region, for 1970 to 1975. In the Atlantic region, the new capital expenditures increased to 12.2 per cent in 1970 to 1975. Then this figure went down to 8.5 per cent, and then to 3.3 per cent in 1976. In Quebec it went from 21.8 per cent in the period 1970 to 1975, up to 24 per cent, and in 1976 it went down to 2.9 per cent. That was before the bogey-man was elected on November 15. The bogey-man was only in power in Quebec l'A months in 1976. Under the economic policies of this government the figure for new capital expenditure in Quebec went from 24 per cent in 1975 to 2.9 per cent in 1976.
There was also a decline in Ontario. On the prairies there was an increase, presumably because of the good governments they have on the prairies and because of their economic conditions. In B.C. the figure went up slightly. That is the record of this government which talks about national unity. That is what this government has done for Quebec.


Mrs. Holt:: What would you do?


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. lady opposite can speak in a few minutes, if she dares, and I do not doubt that she would dare because she has a lot to say.


Simma Holt: What I have to say is more valid than what you have to say.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is a question of judgment.


Simma Holt: You wouldn't know what judgment is.


John Carnell Crosbie: What is causing the so-called national crisis is the lack of success of the Liberal party and the Liberal government since 1963 and their policies and attitudes here in Ottawa as well as the failure of the Bourassa government in Quebec. Bourassa was installed by the federal Liberals to lead their party in Quebec, but he failed, they failed and their policies failed, and that is why we have a unity crisis.
The Liberal party has been in power in Canada since 1935, with the exception of five glorious years under the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). The Prime Minister has been in power for nine years. He came to power promising that he had the solutions to Canada's problems. He said that bilingualism was going to solve the unity problem and the Quebec problem. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion was going to overcome regional disparity- and that has been an abject failure. We are asked to keep the right hon. gentleman in office to continue this record of failure
Economic Conditions
for the next five years. I say, let us get through the barricades; let us put it to the test. The policy of bilingualism whereby a person should be able to speak French or English anywhere he goes in Canada has not been a success. It has not done away with the problem of separatism. What are the real causes of the discontent in Quebec, in Newfoundland and in Atlantic Canada generally? First, the arrogance of the government of Canada in its federal-provincial relations and the way it treats the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has the floor, and I suggest hon. members listen.


John Carnell Crosbie: People in Quebec feel that their culture and their racial survival is in danger. The rest of us believe we can survive no matter how arrogant the government in Ottawa is and no matter how much it centralizes or how it conducts federal-provincial relations. However, in Quebec the people feel that their cultural and racial identity is threatened because of this move of power to the centre. That is one cause of national disunity. The second main cause is the unparallelled mismanagement of the economy, the inflation we suffer from, the unemployment we have, and the swollen government structure which swallows up so much of our national wealth. No wonder there is disaffection in Quebec. It is everywhere in this country, but added to this disaffection in Quebec is a feeling of historic injustice which many feel they have suffered for the last 100 years. That is what is exasperating this situation.
What other causes are there for this national unity problem? The government which is now in power is so arrogant that it cares not what the public thinks of the actions it takes in its administration. We had proof of that the other day when a minister of the Crown took a jet to travel from Ottawa to St. John's, Newfoundland, to deliver a cheque to the Canada Summer Games committee. That committee was in this very capital two weeks before. That cheque could have been sent by registered mail for 20 cents. However, it cost the taxpayers of Canada $3,000 or $4,000 to have it delivered to St. John's so that that minister could have his picture in the newspaper in St. John's showing him handing over the cheque to the Canada Summer Games committee. Any city would be entitled to that money if it were staging the Canada Summer Games. Things like that cause discontent. That is an arrogant misuse of power.
Then the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) got into a jet at Torbay airport and flew to the Burin peninsula to fly about his district and to make visits. 1 wonder if the Liberal party paid for that. That same minister refuses to answer questions tabled in this House about his trip to Newfoundland in August and September of last year. That minister reminds me of the story of the emperor's new clothes. He is going to be left without a stitch before the government opposite is finished with him. The Prime Minister has taken all Francophone affairs away from him and given them to the

June 1, 1977
Economic Conditions
Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer). CIDA is the responsibility of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). In another six months the Secretary of State for External Affairs will have nothing left. Perhaps he will become the minister in charge of St. Pierre and Miquelon.
This government believes it has been rescued by an issue. It found that separatism was not dead, as stated by the Prime Minister, but that it is alive and apparently doing well in Quebec. The government feels this issue will pull it out of the hurdle and that people will overlook the other things which have affected them over the last five years of Liberal mismanagement. Let us put it to the test. I say, call an election tomorrow. Let us get the show on the road and find out whether the people of Canada are that gullible.
I would like to use Newfoundland as an example of our poor economic situation, because the figures for Newfoundland are worse than the figures for anywhere else in this country. They are bad enough, God knows, elsewhere. However, in May there were 17,789 construction workers unemployed. These figures were given to us by the minister's department. There were 11,442 labourers, 111 concrete finishers, 3,925 carpenters, 604 electricians, 91 boiler-makers and 37 plasterers unemployed. The construction industry is almost dormant in Newfoundland. The provincial government there cannot borrow any more. It is doing all it can, as confirmed by the Economic Council of Canada in its study "Living Together", a study of regional disparities. In that study the Economic Council says that the one province in Canada which should not try to increase aggregate demand when necessary by borrowing more is Newfoundland.
What is our great federal government doing to help in that traumatic situation? The unemployment rate in Newfoundland is 19.2 per cent actual unemployment, 16.8 per cent adjusted. Is there a special program under way, is there some special effort to help these unemployed Newfoundlanders, or are the Newfoundlanders to be considered as some kind of different breed or outer breed to be allowed to wallow in their unemployment for the next two years while mainlanders laugh up their sleeves about it and think it is comical to see those poor old Newfies unemployed? Is that the attitude?
The premier of Newfoundland wrote to the Prime Minister on October 18, 1976, describing the situation. The premier outlined what the Newfoundland government was doing and he described the problems. The Prime Minister was asked to introduce some special programs to help Newfoundland. There has not been one special program. That is the answer to the call for help which went out from the government of Newfoundland. There has been neglect. Now we see from the minister's figures that we are supposed to tolerate this for another two years without any improvement or any attempt to bring about an improvement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will try to conclude briefly. I know there are many others who wish to speak. I do not want to be too parochial, so I will refer to the situation in the Atlantic region as described in an APEC report on Saturday. The economy of the Atlantic region is unable to absorb a bigger work force or substantially raise production. It was unable to do that in 1976, and we are slipping through 1977 without the prospect of rapid economic development. The report shows that in the whole Atlantic region the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 13.3 per cent in March of this year and 10.5 per cent a year earlier. The unadjusted figure this year is 15.2 per cent, and it was 11.1 per cent last year. The labour force has grown to 842,000 from 818,000, with the number of unemployed being 113,000 in the Atlantic region. It is pointed out that there is a surplus of office space in the region, which shows that there is not going to be much new construction.
Housing starts are down. That condition will not change and provincial government spending will not increase because the province cannot spend more. We are to depend, hopefully, on export markets in the U.S. Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic region is in great trouble economically. No wonder I support the motion moved by the hon. member for Temiscamingue. The economic ills of Quebec are almost as bad as those of the Atlantic provinces.
We have the right to ask the government what it will do. We do not need to be told that the Minister of Finance's budget was the answer. It was not the answer. The government would have answered our condition if it had made a real attempt to improve conditions in eastern Canada. It could have done it with tax write-offs, at least more generous tax write-offs than those suggested, with a phasing out of the federal sales tax, with a reduction of corporate taxes even to zero in the underdeveloped regions of this country like the Atlantic provinces. This would have provided some incentive for business to move to the area. The government could have introduced even a 100 per cent tax credit to answer the needs of the area. A number of measures could have been taken if the government had been truly concerned about the problem. The government feels it can use the national unity issue to stay in power, and it will not move to meet the real economic needs of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. That is shabby, too shabby for words. We are in a Liberal economic bog. They are not prepared to put ground under our feet so that we can step out of the bog.
In conclusion, I say we need a new budget to stimulate the economy in eastern Canada. We want more assistance to overcome unemployment, more concrete measures to stimulate private investment, the removal of controls which are discouraging the private investment sector, better co-ordination to overcome regional disparities, and a change of government.


Mr. Paproski:: Hear, hear! They don't have the guts to pull the plug.

June 1, 1977


John Carnell Crosbie: That's what we and the Canadian people want. The Liberal government's policy is to coast on the gut issues of mismanagement of the economy, unemployment, inflation and controls, while stepping on the pedal of national unity concerning Canada. I say we need new actors on the federal scene, new people sitting on your right-hand side, Mr. Speaker. Led by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), we need a new group to take over the government of Canada. It would deal with the national unity issue on a proper foundation. We would see conciliation, not confrontation. We would see a real desire to solve our problems, not bluff. We would see not confrontation, which we see every week when one side slams the other, but serious discussions and a getting down to consideration of how we can keep Canada together and keep Canadians working so that they can live decent lives, feel they are wanted and needed, feel their lives are not useless, see they can do something and put their talents to it.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion. I am not surprised that not a single government supporter has risen so far to participate in the debate. After all, if people in increasing measure support the government because they think the government party is best able to deal with the issue of national unity-and if they are right or wrong is another question-why should the government involve itself in a debate on unemployment, which at present is of disastrous proportions, when that government does not intend to act?
According to the latest figures available for April, 914,000 people were unemployed across Canada. That is the largest number recorded as unemployed since Statistics Canada began keeping records. In April, 8.3 per cent of our work force, seasonally adjusted, was out of work. That percentage is a near record. According to a Department of Manpower and Immigration study the gist of which was released some days ago, unemployment will become worse, rather than better, in the next two years. According to estimates, instead of a national average of 7.3 per cent unemployment, seasonally adjusted, the figure will be 7.6 per cent.
I suggest these unemployment estimates are too low. I think many more people will be unemployed than the figures suggest. The extent of our unemployment was documented clearly by Mr. Wayne Cheveldayoff, writing in the Globe and Mail of Wednesday, May 11. He reports certain figures made available by Statistics Canada and other sources for the month of February. It is often said that unemployment is not as serious as some pretend because there are always unfilled job vacancies. He examined such claims.
Let me put on record some of his figures. For example, he shows that in Ontario, 316,000 were listed as officially unemployed. There were 15,000 job vacancies, which means that even if all jobs were filled, more than 300,000 people would remain unemployed. In Quebec, 303,000 were listed as officially unemployed. There were 9,000 job vacancies, which means that if all jobs were filled, 294,000 would still remain unemployed in that province. In British Columbia, 103,000 were listed as officially unemployed. There were 3,000 job
Economic Conditions
vacancies, which means that 100,000 would still be unemployed if all vacancies were filled. I mention these provinces as examples to show how serious is our unemployment situation.
Those official figures do not include the tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands across this country who have given up looking for work because none is to be found; women who have stopped looking because there are no jobs; men in their forties and fifties who have lost hope of finding work because employers like to hire younger people who can better participate in pension plans. Therefore, I suggest between 8 per cent and 10 per cent of our people are unemployed. We argued for years that you could reduce unemployment by educating our people, by training them better to acquire new skills. We said if people are educated and skilled they can find jobs, for the unemployed are mainly the unskilled. The Winnipeg Tribune of Wednesday, May 4, 1977, had this to say on that question:
A Statistics Canada report says there is a glut of university and community college educated students which will continue for the next 15 years-
In other words, the glut will continue until 1900. I continue quoting:
The report... says young people leaving post-secondary schools until about 1990 will face grim employment prospects even if enrolment in those schools is curtailed ...
The labour force is becoming increasingly better educated. In 1966, one-quarter of all Ontario students leaving school had attended a university or community college, but by 1986 this figure will rise to 50 per cent.
Our country's young people are better educated than ever before. What has been the result? I wish to quote a few sentences from an editorial which appeared in today's Globe and Mail. It deals with one group of young people in whom we have invested a great deal of opportunity and a very substantial amount of money in order to educate them. I quote:
According to Liberal leader Stuart Smith, as many as 5,000 teachers graduating in Ontario this year are not expected to find work as teachers ...
The cost of tuition for that final year is $5,000 per student (exactly double the cost of one year in an undergraduate arts program), of which the taxpayer contributes about $4,300.
They estimate what it costs the province of Ontario to educate these people for teacher training. The editorial continues:
The surplus of teachers or the drought in jobs-no matter on which side the emphasis is placed-is not going to improve of its own . ..
This year's class of unemployed teachers will be joined by next year's and by the following year's, on and on-all stacking up like airplanes above a steadily shrinking runway.
I did a small survey in my own city along the same lines. I called the president of the graduating class of the faculty of education of the University of Manitoba a few days ago. She told me that to the best of her knowledge two-thirds of this year's graduating class have not yet found a position. Now is the time when schools are hiring for next September. I called the president of the graduating class at the school of social work. I got the same story. To the best of her knowledge, two-thirds of the graduating class had not found jobs in the field of social work.

June 1, 1977
Economic Conditions
1 also called the president of the graduating class of engineering students. He told me that those graduating in electrical engineering were doing very well and those graduating in mechanical engineering were doing well in terms of getting jobs. However, students graduating in civil engineering, a substantial percentage, have not yet found jobs. I talked to the president of the Red college, a very large institution. A substantial percentage of the students are there because the Department of Manpower is paying for their training courses. The community colleges were developed because we realized that a university education in a field such as the arts did not really equip young people to get jobs. The community colleges were developed at tremendous cost. Hundreds of millions of dollars went into building community colleges and expending our universities. Last year the federal contribution to postsecondary education was over $500 million.
The citizens of this country, as well as the federal parliament and provincial legislatures, encouraged these young people not to go into the labour force after completing high school, but to stay in our educational system. They were told to attend universities or community colleges where they could take Manpower training courses. It became almost an eleventh commandment: Improve your education. However, for these young people the prospects are grim.
I spoke to the secretary of the building trade council in Winnipeg. It takes in all the unions whose members work in the construction industry in the city of Winnipeg. Last year Winnipeg did relatively better in terms of construction than larger cities such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is because you have a good mayor, Stephen Juba.


David Orlikow: Whatever the reason, this is not the time to talk about that. In any event, Winnipeg did relatively better than the larger cities. This year the situation is grim. There is very little work.


Mr. Faulkner:: Same mayor, same premier.


David Orlikow: Despite very favourable weather, construction has not really begun. A large percentage of the construction workers in the province of Manitoba are unemployed. There are plants in Winnipeg which have had massive lay-offs of people. Some people with over 20 years seniority have been laid off. These are plants which produce agricultural implements, steel fabricating plants and steel erection plants. The situation in Winnipeg is the same as in every city, although Winnipeg does have a relatively low rate of unemployment as does the rest of the province of Manitoba.
A few moments ago I talked about the plight of our young people, our best educated people. We now have a situation where people in their forties and fifties are being laid off. These are people who have never been out of work; they have had the same job for years; never have they made a claim for unemployment insurance benefits. These people have no idea when, if ever they will be called back to work.

The minister may say there has been a rapid increase in population in Canada. That is true. He may say that in recent years we have had the largest increase in the number of people joining the labour force of any country in the western world. That is true. However, this government, at least since October, 1976, has believed that the problem of inflation is more serious than the problem of unemployment. On October 14, 1976, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that our inflation was a result of international external forces, and the way to deal with it was to adopt a program of restraint. That meant, and means, that federal, provincial and municipal governments must cut back on doing things which are in their areas of jurisdiction.
It sounds good to people when the government says that this year it is not going to provide "X" million dollars on programs. What they do not say when they make that kind of announcement is that "Y" number of people will be unemployed. For every million dollars governments do not spend, a certain number of people do not get jobs. That is why we have this large number of unemployed. Inflation is dealt with on the backs of the unemployed of this country: they are the ones who suffer the most.
We in the New Democratic Party believe that not only is full employment possible, but it is an absolute necessity if this country is to survive and if our young people are not to become completely disillusioned and embittered. I have said this before, and I repeat it today. It does not surprise me that a substantial number of the younger people, particularly the French-speaking younger people of Quebec should have turned to separatism as a solution to their problems. If you have between 12 per cent and 15 per cent unemployed among the most recent graduates of French-speaking universities and CEGEPs in Quebec, and you have a federal government which says, "There is nothing we can do for you; you are just going to have to suffer", it does not surprise me they should turn in increasing numbers to a party and to a government which has as its first objective the establishment of a separate state in Canada.
We do not believe that such unemployment is necessary. We believe we could get full employment. How? There is no easy way. There is no magic solution. There is no single solution. The first step would be a new budget with a cut in income tax particularly for people in the lower and middle income ranges. These are the people who really do not earn enough money to save. These are the people who, if they got a cut in their income tax, would spend the money on purchase of the goods and services they need, thereby creating more employment. We need a vastly extended program of capital works projects funded by federal, provincial and municipal governments. Sewer and water systems are needed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. Unless there is consent for him to continue, I shall have to call upon the minister. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 1, 1977


David Orlikow: I thank hon. members for their courtesy. I note that the sewage treatment system in Montreal is not to be completed until 1984 because of financial difficulty. 1 find it strange that though they were able to find well over $1 billion to complete the Olympics, they cannot find the money from any source to complete their sewage treatment system. They are still dumping raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River. Public transit systems need to be built up if we are to cut down the use of the private automobile and save costly fuel imports. Hospitals, parks, recreational facilities are all needed. The whole public housing program ought to be greatly expanded. A program to this end would put a large number of people back to work. We need to deal in a meaningful way with the repair and renovation of older houses in the core areas of our cities. These have deteriorated rapidly in recent years. People have left them and, as a result, school and recreational facilities are being left unused.
Then, as a matter of urgency, we should be taking measures to conserve energy. The National Energy Board has predicted a tremendous shortage within 10 to 15 years. We should begin, now, to do on a national scale what the government has already begun to do in a tentative way in the Atlantic provinces by embarking upon a major home insulation program. This would not only provide employment but would lead to the saving of a tremendous amount of energy. All these things could be done, given the will and the desire necessary. I hope the government will realize how wrong it has been in recent years and will inaugurate programs such as 1 have suggested so as to reduce the very large number of persons presently unemployed.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the motion on behalf of the government. The opposition motion advances the proposition which is clearly contradicted by the record of economic performance in Canada, a record of recovery from the recession afflicting all the western economies in 1973 and 1974, which is widely regarded by international economic commentators as being close to the best of any major industrial nation in recent years.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) recently tabled in the House the Economic Review for 1977. This document provides a very useful point of departure when assessing the performance of the Canadian economy

not in isolation, as hon. members opposite have all done today-but in the context of the international economy. The year 1976 marked a continuation of worldwide recovery from the most serious economic problems faced in over 30 years. For most of the major countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the turning point from recession came early in 1975. The modest nature of the recovery reflects caution on the part of governments in stimulating demand in view of the underlying rates of inflation and a failure of investment spending to come forward at its traditional point in the expansion. Consumer prices in the OECD countries, after increasing 11.4 per cent on average in 1975, increased 8.6 per cent in 1976. At 7.5 per cent, Canada had the fourth lowest
Economic Conditions
rate of increase, behind Switzerland, Germany and the United States.
Significant headway was made in slowing down the increases in prices and costs. While a large part of the improvement resulted from flat or declining food prices, prices of goods other than food also rose less rapidly in 1976. The year over year increase in the consumer price index in October, 1976, was 6.2 per cent. Personal disposable income rose less strongly in 1976 than in 1975, but the improved price performance resulted in a real gain of 3.2 per cent per person employed, almost equal to that achieved in 1975 and well in excess of the increase in total productivity. The rate of wage increases slowed significantly during 1976. In new settlements, the average increase in base rates over the life of the contract and during the first year of the agreement eased to 8.4 per cent and 9.9 per cent respectively by the fourth quarter of 1976, from the all-time high of 18.8 per cent and 22.4 per cent in the second quarter of 1975.
Canada's index of economic performance in March of 1977, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, a highly respected research organization, was 67 per cent ahead of the situation at the start of the recession. Partly, this reflected the fact that Canada, as a result of deliberate policy initiatives taken by the government, had not plunged as far into recession as had our trading partners. It also reflected the considerable progress we have made in the past 24 months. Comparable figures for West Germany, France and the U.S. ranged between 2 per cent and 10 per cent. Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom have not, even yet, fully recovered the level of economic activity which they had experienced prior to the recession. This study, which was prepared in advance of the recent London summit, tries to summarize, in a single measure, the most important measures of aggregate economic activity such as income, output, employment, unemployment, sales, etc., and it shows that, relative to our trading partners, Canada has done very well. It is clear that Canada has made very significant progress in lowering our rate of inflation and the rate of wage settlements. The decline in our competitive position, particularly when compared to the U.S., has been significantly reduced and this is an essential precondition to sustained economic growth and improvement in the unemployment situation.
The Minister of Finance in his budget speech underlined the interrelated nature of inflation and unemployment. He emphasized the key importance of reducing inflation and controlling our costs. The anti-inflation program is achieving this result. The budget provided additional financial resources to the private sector which will encourage business enterprises to make the capital investments which are needed to create new jobs.
The unemployment figures will be reduced only by measures which deal with the real economic problems which face Canada and, indeed, all of our economic competitors. The federal government recognized this: this was the basis for the

Economic Conditions
anti-inflation program, for the stimulative measures provided in the budget, and for the direct employment measures, the Canada Works program and the Young Canada Works program outlined to the House by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen).
The measures proposed in the budget will create employment, encourage investment and foster regional growth. They will improve the equity market and improve the cash flow of business as sources of funds for expansion. They will particularly help small business. They will help sustain consumer spending and provide further tax relief to Canadians with modest incomes.
On the investment side, the 5 per cent investment tax credit, which was due to expire June 30, was extended for three more years. This measure has been very important for our manufacturing and processing industries. The scope of the investment tax credit was broadened to make eligible capital and operating expenditures on scientific research and development. To provide additional assistance to slow-growth regions the rate of the investment tax credit was raised to IVi per cent in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, northern Ontario and designated regions in Quebec. For the Gaspe and the Atlantic provinces the rate was raised to 10 per cent. A number of measures were introduced to improve the market for equity investments. These measures, the most important of which was a major increase in the dividend tax credit, are estimated to provide tax relief of $300 million and should greatly increase the flow of funds available for business expansion.
In the recent budget the federal government continued its efforts to improve the position of small and medium-sized business. In addition to the investment tax credit measures and the dividend tax credit measures already mentioned, the Minister of Finance introduced a number of technical amendments which will prove of great assistance to small business and are designed to allow key employees to participate in such business.
On the personal income tax side, in addition to the indexing of the personal tax system which occurs automatically at the start of each year measures were introduced in the budget to provide extra deductions against federal tax payable. These measures are valued at almost $400 million in 1977. These budget measures provide a strong boost to the economy and will certainly result in additional jobs.
On May 7 and May 8, Canada, together with the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan and Italy took part in the economic summit in London. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance emphasized the critical importance of dealing in a systematic and co-ordinated way with the economic problems facing the western world. This approach was welcomed by all the leaders present and provided the basis for the Downing Street declaration which was issued following the summit. I would like to quote a few sentences from that declaration because they summarize the approach being taken by Canada and our

western allies toward solving the economic challenges before
us:
The world economy has to be seen as a whole-
That is a point which, as I suggested earlier, seems to have eluded our colleagues opposite.
-it involves not only co-operation among national government but also strengthening appropriate international organizations. We were reinforced in our awareness of the interrelationship of all the issues before us, as well as our interdependence. We are determined to respond collectively to the challenges of the future.
Our most urgent task is to create more jobs while continuing to reduce inflation. Inflation does not reduce unemployment. On the contrary, it is one of its major causes. We are particularly concerned about the problem of unemployment among young people.
We commit our governments to stated economic growth targets or to stabilisation policies which, taken as whole, should provide a basis for sustained non-inflationary growth.
We will provide strong political leadership to expand opportunities for trade to strengthen the open international trading system, which will increase job opportunities. We reject protectionism: it would foster unemployment, increase inflation and undermine the welfare of our peoples.
The message of the Downing Street summit is thus one of confidence:
-in the continuing strength of our societies and proven democratic principles
that give them vitality;
-that we are undertaking the measures needed to overcome problems and
achieve a more prosperous future.
This is the way responsible governments face up to economic challenges, Mr. Speaker. This is the way responsible governments solve economic problems. I suggest it provides a more useful approach than the pious and, in many ways, erroneous motion put before the House today.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to congratulate the mover of this motion, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), and judging from the support from the other opposition parties, we could say he hit the target.
Mr. Speaker, talking about inflation, unemployment and poverty has been a constant practice for several years. One can see it everyday in the newspapers, as well as on television and radio. So, we are not saying anything new when bringing up those issues in this House on behalf of our constituents and all Canadians, regardless of their language, religion, nationality, age, sex, whether they are the minority or the majority, rich or poor. Everyone suffers from inflation, unemployment and poverty in a country with such a high economic potential and gross national products.
We know that Canada's gross national product is $190 billion, or an average of $8,300 per person, one of the highest averages in the world. Therefore, how is it that so many people suffer hardships, poverty, unemployment and lack the necessities of life? I ask the question, but I know the answer. Even if the production is great, the cause of all our ills is poor distribution of this production. From an economic standpoint, this poor distribution is caused by the government's lack of foresight, since it has all legislative powers concerning money,
June 1, 1977

currency, credit, banks, money supply, interest rates and unemployment insurance. All these legislative powers that are under the jurisdiction of the federal government are clearly specified in the British North America Act which has been considered as the Canadian constitution since 1867, that is for over 110 years.
Mr. Speaker, before changing this constitution, would it not be of the utmost importance to allow it to play its full role within the framework which we are used? The federal government has the responsibility for all things concerning trade and commerce, the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation, the borrowing of money on the public credit, currency and coinage, banking, the incorporation of banks, the issue of paper money, interest and unemployment insurance. Those are the legislative powers of the government of Canada with regard to economy. The government of Canada must therefore feel responsible for the unfair distribution of the wonderful production of Canadians, whatever their language, as I said a moment ago, their religion, nationality and political affiliation, regardless of whether they belong to the majority or the minority.
The "fine" average production of $8,300 per capita does not say much about the farmer, the family head with a low or middle income, the housewife who stays at home without any wage, the student and the child. Where is the surplus which the great majority of people lack to enjoy a pleasant and honest life? Do we have any idea? The Gazette of Canada tells us in its informative pages: Over the last five months, the 11 chartered banks of Canada have raised the value of their assets from $121 billion to $133 billion, an increase of $12 billion, and this, after having increased it by $16 billion the year before. If this rate remains the same over the next 12 months, our banks will increase the value of their assets by more than $25 billion, while our country will operate on a deficit which according to the estimates of our honourable friend, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), will reach some $7 billion.
In spite of this deficit our government feels prosperous enough to sacrifice $250 million in receivable accounts owed by the so-called poor countries, or Third World countries. Is that not going to increase our deficit for the current year? Is that good administration? Why should the debts run up by our municipalities, our school boards, the Olympics in Montreal and others not be paid this way too? That would surely lighten the taxpayer's burden.
So, Mr. Speaker, in view of the government's carelessness in providing for a sound economy or a fair distribution of the national production among all citizens, how could Canadians be happy with inflation, unemployment or poverty resulting from the carelessness, the negligence and the lack of foresight shown by this incompetent government? True, this sad situation is rather generalized, even worldwide. But is that a reason to neglect to apply the remedies we see within our reach?
All economic summits seek to encourage production and growth of the means of production through the institutions which derive profit from the work and the business done by the workers. While those institutions grow and prosper, workers,
Economic Conditions
Canadian citizens are poorer and the quality of life is everywhere on the decline. Must we get discouraged and let everything go adrift? Is the challenge above human ability? Must we call upon the heavens to help us? The answer is quite simple: Whatever our monetary system may be, what can be produced can also be distributed, and in a better way, for the benefit of every Canadian rather than a small group, of rich, knowledgeable and qualified citizens. Is it not a fact that the talents of the mighty must benefit everyone?
Mr. Speaker, the time has come for everyone of us at all levels of our major institutions, up to and including our government, to open our eyes to the obvious economic needs of our citizens, which is a basic ingredient to any administration of organized society, made up of all citizens in this country. This is a matter of administration, economics and political science, but all this boils down to a question of money, of figures, in other words accounting, sensible technical formulas leading to the goal, to the end pursued. Production's primary aim is to supply consumption. Profit can only come second. The Prime Minister must know that first for himself and then for each and every Canadian, for each and every Canadian family starting from the smallest, because the biggest are always in a better position to fend for themselves and manage.
We are living in an age of great affluence, and nobody must be restricted in his legitimate expectations so long as we are in an overproduction situation. It has been proved that Canadians are capable of producing when required. There is no shortage in our stores. Despite an unemployment rate bordering on 20 per cent in some areas, we, Canadians, have proved that with a reduced manpower we are capable of producing at will.
It is always more tempting to work and legislate by millions and billions rather than dollars and cents, especially when it comes to small people, the everyday life and trade of the Canadian individual and his family. All research conducted by scientists, experts, economists and scholars is generally at the level of private and public institutions, whether industrial, commercial, professional or labour, wherein the aim is to constantly promote the production of goods and services. No attention is paid to individual consumption, especially within families. Economic status and adequate treatment in terms of compensation, personal wages, only go to the working citizen. No consideration is given to the family per se.
Yet, the family is the first natural institution based on kinship, love and nature, whereas other societies are established by citizens, but for private interests which are secondary or artificial or for monetary, economic or political interests. Money comes before both man and the quality of life. The institution comes before both the person and the family. Companies thrive while families are jeopardized. Man forgets his dignity because of money. This is the point on which the experts and the scientists must agree in order to establish a new technical formula which would restore an economic balance among all citizens and check or at least reduce inflation, unemployment and poverty.

June 1, 1977
Economic Conditions
We often hear about the right to live. Isn't it the basic right of each citizen of a country? And if the right to live is the basic right, then it is the prime responsibility of the central government of a country. Even before having the right to a job and a salary, before having the right to capital and interest, each citizen must first be alive and healthy, because a corpse can have neither work nor capital. But this right to live means a guaranteed personal income for each citizen, whether this guaranteed personal income is derived from earnings, from interest on capital or from his personal vital right directly paid to him by the federal government, the only one responsible for distributing money at all levels of our social life, financial, economic and political, in all the provinces of the country.
Mr. Speaker, after having established that inflation, unemployment and poverty result from the national economic imbalance for which the legislative powers of the central government are solely responsible under our Canadian constitution, it remains to demonstrate that the situation is not hopeless, that we still can be optimistic and that it would be possible and indeed very easy, especially in Canada, and in 1977, to restore an economic balance among the various classes of society through better tax distribution, in order to ensure the security and the development of our institutions and the future of our citizens.
Let us sum up the situation in order to find some specific remedial measures that the present government must and can apply to our economy within the existing and regular framework of our monetary, economic and political systems, without changing or disrupting our structures.
Today, heads of families and single persons get equal pay for equal work. Today, mothers receive no salary for their maternal care and domestic work. Today, children and students cost of lot of money but have no regular personal income. Today, companies make enormous profits but pay less taxes than organized workers. Let us consider these four points and see how easy it would be to remedy this situation and strike a better economic balance. When citizens pay $5 in taxes, corporations pay only $1. The government collects the total of $6. All this should be changed so that individuals would pay $3 as well as corporations. With a 40 per cent tax cut on personal income, corporations would only pay their fair share of taxes. Assuming that the 10,000,000 workers in the Canadian labour force earn an adequate income, proportionate to their contribution to the production of goods and services, the fact is that dependants without work or capital, which number almost 13,000,000, must be taken into account as they have a right to live and must receive a guaranteed personal income based on their basic essential needs.
From then on, Mr. Speaker, housewives who stay at home, to raise their family, children and students would get their guaranteed personal income on honorable terms and at reasonable rates as a personal vital right and no more as charity, alimony, unemployment insurance, alms or social welfare. In Canada, we have no poor, we only have people who have been denied their rights to life, in terms of a legitimate participation

in national production, in Canadian and world natural resources and in all aspects of national and international trade.
All of you have greatly contributed to the study of our economic situation. I realize that I am putting forward new precisions and a new way to deal with inflation and unemployment, but I am also convinced that I have said nothing you have not heard before. I am not swaying away from the free enterprise principles which you are all familiar with and you would be surprised to hear that those precise techniques which I am advocating now, are a practical application of the great sharing law which was expounded by the great economist of world-wide reputation, Lord John Maynard Keynes, who addressed himself to the governments of various countries in the following terms: "Governments must make every effort to insure full employment through revenue redistribution, thereby giving consumers a purchasing power in keeping with the development of the production potential". That British economist and businessman who died in 1946, is still quoted in every western country, and taught many students in major English and American universities. The more we think over that balanced distribution law formulated by Keynes, between capital and consumption needs, the better we realize that the suggestions I am making here are perfectly consistent with that law of economic balance and harmony. It is the logic and common sense of the great economist Keynes that I tried to bring to you, to the best of my ability.


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, somebody once said that we do not know what tomorrow holds. If I knew the name of this man and if he were still alive, I would probably invite him to come and attend a few debates in the House of Commons and he would quickly change his saying for "we always know what tomorrow holds". The more I listen to my friends opposite, the more I find that the least we can say is that there is a lack of originality in their remarks.
If I try to remember what I have heard this afternoon and the remarks of hon. members I have listened to, I cannot find any constructive and innovative suggestion. First, I was very disappointed by the remarks of our new colleague, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) who, on his first day in this House, did nothing else than make general and easy charges against the government. I would have thought that, with so likeable a leader, he would have understood that it is not with general charges and overall judgment on this government that we are going to solve the unemployment problem.
It is agreed, and I readily concur, that those who are in power have a clear responsibility for the problems we are facing whether they have to do with inflation, unemployment, social climate or national unity. Far from me the idea of exonerating the government or suggesting that it is entirely blameless and not partly responsible for current problems. However, Mr. Speaker, I think that if we want to provide solutions and if we are serious when on one side of the House or the other we maintain that we are aware of the fact that those who now experience difficulties are not members of the
June 1, 1977

House but people in general, especially the underprivileged. If we are serious when making such statements, I think the first thing to do, with the co-operation of members of the House from any area, is to try to solve that serious situation. I am in a position to make such a statement since I know that my riding of Lapointe is home to an unacceptable number of unemployed. There are underprivileged people who must experience almost insuperable difficulties caused by inflation. That situation is most regrettable and it prevails throughout Quebec, Canada, in fact, the whole world. If we look at the situation in Canada as compared with other countries around the world, I think we must recognize that, all in all, it is not as bad as that of many other countries.
Mr. Speaker, we have unemployment in Canada, but there are several reasons for it. Since I am particularly interested in that problem, like many of my colleagues, I have had occasion to realize that there exists a considerable, serious and worrisome discrepancy between the courses that are given and the courses organized by the manpower centres. Let me explain myself. It often happens, Mr. Speaker, that Manpower Canada buys courses from the provincial government and limits itself to simply buying so many slots in the courses given by the provincial governments. It seems there is a lack of coordination between the two levels of government, and that the people who take the courses, once they have completed them and obtained their certificate, cannot get jobs corresponding to the training received.
Mr. Speaker, we can see in the papers that a lot of jobs are being offered and we cannot figure out how come there is a very high unemployment rate on the one hand and positions which cannot apparently be filled on the other. It is a situation we have often noticed, not in isolated areas such as ours of course where employment is rather restrictive, but in other regions. And I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if special attention should not be given by the two levels of government to coordinating their operations so that those who are taking training courses at any level of specialization and who are entering the labour market could find challenging opportunities to join the labour force and find a way to earn their living. Knowing the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), I can say he is conscious of those problems and I have no intention whatsoever of blaming him for this situation but I would invite him and his officials to look into that matter which seems serious and whose solution might help cut down the unemployment that we are unfortunately faced with.
Mr. Speaker, today's motion blames the government for doing nothing or not showing any leadership when it comes to unemployment and inflation. Of course, I want to protest against this statement which is, in my opinion, much too general. I can say the situation has improved since I first became the member for Lapointe. I remember 1968, Mr. Speaker, when the unemployment rate was high and when there were not any concrete programs to assist unemployed people living in outlying areas.
Of course, the general policy of investing in large cities like Montreal, Quebec or others has always been applied by gov-
Economic Conditions
ernments since they consider these important cities are the motors and that investment must be made there to keep the general economy of provinces growing. But it was realized in recent years that to ensure the development of important centres, it was also necessary to assist people living in the vicinity. For these people are entitled to live outside large centres and if they all decided to live in great cities, there would be serious environment problems and the quality of life would even be worse than it is today. Since then the government has established programs to help unemployed people in slow-growth areas. The Local Initiatives Program, Mr. Speaker, even if in fact it exists, must only be considered as an incomplete measure which nevertheless helps in some practical and concrete way to solve the unemployment problem.
I would like to express my unconditional support to the principle of those programmes, which provide for substantial investments into remote or rural areas in order to help ease the unemployment situation prevailing there.
Mr. Speaker, these programmes have developed in the right direction. I remember a few years ago, these programmes were package deals devised for those regions without regards to the specific problems affecting each constituency. The money, for example, for Opportunity for Youth, the then Local Initiatives Programme, was given to a region as a whole, and the MPS from these regions had a hard time allocating the funds. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we have to admit over the last few years, the new programmes have taken into consideration the needs of the constituencies and the fact that the federal representatives of a riding were able, as worthwhile representatives of their constituents, to ascertain the local needs that were to be met. That is why these monies were re-distributed within the constituencies.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this move towards decentralization, which is often referred to extremely vaguely, represents in the case of these programs a practical and useful solution which should be accelerated and intensified rather than replaced by large programs which, as I said earlier, have a tendency to benefit exclusively major centres, to the disadvantage of cities outside metropoles.
Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to say a few words about the contribution of the Progressive Conservative member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) who took it upon himself earlier to make a judgment on the situation in Quebec. I did not ask him, but I would be curious to know when he visited Quebec, whom he talked to and how long he stayed to be able to make such a rash judgment. I will not make any judgment about what is going on in Newfoundland because I do not feel qualified to do so. I would have liked it better if he had had the wisdom and the intelligence not to make such a definitive judgment as to say that if there are problems in Quebec at the present time, only the federal government is to blame. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this judgment is false and pernicious and gives a completely inaccurate picture of the situation.
6190

June 1, 1977
Economic Conditions
Mr. Speaker, the situation in Quebec is not easy to determine, and when someone wants to make a judgment, I believe he must have the wisdom and the intelligence to see that the fact of blaming one group is to show a lack of understanding. It would be just as absurd to say that it is the fault of the Progressive Conservatives, the New Democrats, the Social Crediters or the government. All these politically biased judgments are dangerous because they leave people with the impression that only the governments or the members of parliament are able to find solutions to problems as serious as those we are now facing in Quebec.
The social climate in Quebec is an issue which dates back several years ago, and if the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) who spoke earlier were to come to Quebec to meet the Quebecers and tell them he is ready to accept them as first class citizens with their own language and culture, I think it would be a more positive attitude because I do not hesitate to tell my English-speaking colleagues on both sides of this House that not only I respect them but that I am ready to accept their language and culture. I think this attitude is definitely a positive one. It tends to demonstrate that as a French-speaking Canadian, I am ready to make an effort to sit down with them at the same table in an attempt to deal with, in a spirit of brotherhood, friendship and mutual understanding, the problems we are now facing and which we all want to solve.
In Quebec, there are housing problems, and the federal government has offered a $90 million housing grant to the province of Quebec. Quebec has not yet accepted that grant because the money comes from the federal government. All kinds of reasons are invoked. In the meantime, people suffer from a lack of housing because it has not been possible to come to an agreement at the higher level. In spite of divergent opinions, it has not been possible to work out a compromise such as the agreement reached by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) and Mr. Couture from Quebec. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration is to be commended for coming to an arrangement and working out a solution with Mr. Couture. Solutions can be found, but it is not always easy. I urge the members of this House to start seeking a solution to our problems not only in Quebec but across Canada. I think it is possible and I am sure that we can do it together.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: could create an explosive and dangerous climate. There is no doubt about this and 1 believe that no member of this House would doubt it. There had been talk of eliminating regional disparities, that is of correcting them. We have not succeeded in doing so. Indeed, not only Quebec is not alone in making representations and showing its discontent. The problems that we are now facing make the provinces wonder if it is not precisely the present federalist system that is creating such blatant inequities in certain areas.
Once again, we ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) to take new steps to help for example the most disadvantaged areas, the most disadvantaged provinces, and we ask this government to make the extraordinary effort under the circumstances to increase its cooperation with the province of Quebec and with all other provinces.
The issue of immigration was raised not long ago. 1 think the federal government, in view of the fact that provincial aspirations are as different as they can be, had to review its agreements with the provinces, whether on immigration or on economic affairs since immigration has a direct impact on the social level, and I was myself very happy to note that the federal minister has accepted to negotiate changes that may hopefully satisfy a province which happens to be our own, without for that matter denying other provinces which might want them, those very same rights and privileges.
In my opinion, this is a positive attitude. I insist on this because I feel it would be unfair on our part to level only unwarranted criticism against the government. The government is certainly trying. I repeat that it has not done enough up to now in certain areas, but who can blame us for asking the government to do more to try and solve the problems we are faced with. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from a meeting with representatives of the Poultry Producers' Association, people from my constituency, representatives on the provincial level of the Agricultural Producers' Union, who are anxious to see the Government set up a chicken broiler and poultry meat marketing board. We know that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is in favour of this and we are glad.
On the other hand, these people have met with hon. members on the government side and the minister has been saying for the past three weeks that he will propose this legislation to the Cabinet, but we know that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) is not quite in favour of it, supposedly because he wants to protect Canadian consumers. However, Mr. Speaker, we all know that the agricultural industry is going bankrupt, that consumers are not really protected. We are convinced that in the long run procrastination on the part of the government is harmful to the farming industry. If for political reasons the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs wants consumers to think he is protecting them by letting our business move abroad and, by doing so, placing us in the hands of foreign producers, and at what cost, I think that is not honest.
I urge the Minister of Agriculture who is in favour of that marketing board if he knows why he did not bring it before
Economic Conditions
cabinet, I urge members on the government side to impress upon him the need to introduce this bill as soon as possible and I urge all members of the House to show the Minister of Consumers and Corporate Affairs that he is doing a disservice to consumers by letting a vital and important industry in our economy deteriorate. I think those things must be said. I said it I think without bitterness. I believe that is important, and I just heard from a valid source of information. Today the representatives of that association and the UPA met with government members, who are very receptive to their demands.
The Minister of Agriculture has been telling us for three weeks that he is going to sort things out, and even we on this side think-and if that is wrong I hope the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will tell us tomorrow because I think we will have an opportunity to question him-we think somebody is holding back. For once it is not the Minister of Agriculture but somebody is holding back and I think the government party must act quickly and in the interest of consumers because if that industry starts going down-as the textile industry did-as a result of a philosophy called the free trade policy, well again the consumer is going to pay for it, and that might very well add to the number of unemployed. It seems to me we have enough of those, and I would never believe that, in a situation such as the one we are experiencing, this government would deliberately leave idle a whole generation of youths aged 18 to 24.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think we must congratulate the sponsor of the motion because that allows us to remind members of the problems we are faced with. I do not want to criticize the remarks that were made-unfortunately, I had to leave during the first speeches because, as many others, I had certain responsibilities-but I wanted to participate in this debate, coming from a province where the rate of unemployment is hurting us, coming from a province where we have been looking forward to a real dialogue with the federal government for long time. If I may be permitted I expect from the federal government and its authorities nearly unlimited understanding in the present context to help bring about that national harmony because we are all concerned about what will happen tomorrow. I do think we all wish that those marked differences we are witnessing all across Canada will finally be recognized, understood, and I think then we can reach a certain harmony.
I am one of those who believe that with a new constitutional agreement and new mechanisms it would be possible to have more useful and more human negotiations than those we have held so far and, more important, negotiations which would not be of a partisan or political nature. I think we can look up to the future with much optimism but again, as the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) pointed out, we shall not do it with a partisan attitude but rather through objective statements. While we are seeking objectivity, I would like such an attitude to be evident throughout this House in the interest of Quebecers, of Canadians but again we cannot avoid the responsibility of insisting that the government implement
80016-51(4

June 1, 1977
Economic Conditions
improved measures when we are faced with a difficult situation.
Mr. Speaker, since the motion has been introduced by the Social Credit Party of Canada, I am glad I was given the opportunity to make a few remarks and of course would not want to deny to an hon. member of that party and to their leader, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), the chance to take part in the debate. Therefore, I will limit myself to these few remarks in which I have tried to be objective and I will thus let the hon. member for Lotbiniere close the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. With the permission of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), I would inform him that under Standing Order 37 he is allowed to reply at this time. According to Beauchesne's Citation 166 (4), when someone introduces a motion as the hon. member did, even though he yielded to the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), he is still considered as having had the floor. Therefore, if I recognize him now, I would allow to reply and if he cannot use the 18 or 20 minutes left to him, the debate would end anyhow.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) has the floor.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: I wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your courtesy. This will give me and my colleague from Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who has just pointed out the fact that we have to share the few remaining minutes, the opportunity to speak on this motion. The reason why I gave the floor to the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) was to give him his first opportunity to take part in the debates of this House.
Mr. Speaker, this motion will surely irritate some members who believe that the present government has taken an excellent approach to the economical problems facing Canadians today. As for me, 1 believe that this motion deals with the roots of our problems which is the social climate that prevails in Canada and particularly in Quebec and which has become a source of friction, an expression of misunderstanding and a clear symptom, in some cases, of a tendency to split the country. Our country, Mr. Speaker, is presently experiencing the highest unemployment rate and the most acute constitutional dispute in its history and these two things are happening at a time when the government is still fighting inflation.
In the few minutes that I have left, I would like to elaborate on these three points and express our deep conviction that this government lacks the sense of leadership and innovation that is really needed to face the future. Its fight against inflation has not prevented rising costs in housing, nor has this controversial law and its commission prevented a petrol price increase. Food prices kept rising as well, and so have interest rates in Canada.
Concerning the fight against inflation, through the same publicity which was used in the by-elections, the government is trying to make people believe that it was successful in controlling the profits of some companies. That, Mr. Speaker, does not impress me because lower and middle class taxpayers had

to face an ever increasing cost of living while a ceiling was imposed on their wages.
In my opinion, those anti-inflation measures have been a failure at that level. If we go back to the beginning, we can remember that in a speech by the Prime Minister the government had invited every Canadian to join the fight against international inflation. But, Mr. Speaker, Canadians did not. One has only to consider the tensions created by the government with labour in general to realize in all objectivity-as we were urged to do by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) and the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle)- that the fight against inflation generally has been done at the expense of poorer people. The fight against inflation which has become a very high priority for the government has been carried out by increasing our unemployment rate, because in its wisdom and its economic orthodoxy the government said, as some members of this House will recall, that it was impossible to fight both inflation and unemployment at the same time.
The basic policy choice at that time was to fight inflation while trying to lessen as much as possible the secondary effects on unemployment, and that is really what we were told here in the last two budget speeches. Mr. Speaker, the present rate of unemployment in Canada-and in this respect I agree with the hon. member of Lapointe when he talks about training courses-particularly affects our young people, for they make up the bulk of the unemployed. That is why unemployment is particularly serious. Mr. Speaker, the fight against inflation has led directly to unemployment. Why? Because in the long run it has curtailed investments. Secondly, by curtailing investments it has forced consumers to look for the best quality possible, at the best price available. And so, we see, on looking at the statistics, not of our party but of Statistics Canada, that since the start of the fight against inflation the rate of imports of staple commodities, such as clothing and footwear, has increased in Canada. And that, because the demand has gone up. Actually, consumers wanted the best prices possible, because, on the one hand, a ceiling was put on salary increases, and on the other, the necessities of life such as housing, food, clothing went without price controls, as they still do.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, after a while we are faced with an alarming, not to say discouraging, rate of unemployment. The hon. member for Lapointe, whom I congratulate for his honesty, has recognized that in his riding that rate is, to quote him, unacceptable. 1 think all hon. members will admit that the very same situation prevails. Because of what I have explained, unemployment is felt even more in the processing area such as the textile and furniture industries. So, Mr. Speaker, that explains our first proposal. The hon. member for Lapointe said a while ago that unfortunately, the Social Credit members are not making any new proposals. I have always thought that a proposal is not necessarily good only if it is something new.
Yet, it has often been repeated in this House that it is time, it is even urgent that our tariffs, our laws and regulations governing imports were comprehensively and exhaustively reviewed in every sector. I need only refer to the position taken
June 1, 1977

in Washington a few days ago concerning textiles. Our Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), for whom 1 have great respect but whose managerial skills deserve little praise, assuming of course that he is truly serving Canada's interests, suggested in a press release a few days ago that he is finally accepting the restrictions now coming from the United States. And so it is that at home, in my own town, industries like the Robin Brothers and the Utex Corporation with job capacities of 1,000 and over, will soon wake up with an unemployment rate where production will be 30 per cent below capacity, precisely because we have no economic leadership in this country. We have no industrial strategy, neither short nor medium-term, let alone a long-term one.
We already held an opposition day on this subject and we must come back to it, because what will cause Canada's breakup, if this ever happens, are economic rather than linguistic or constitutional issues. We are told that Creditistes have no new proposals. What kind of proposals does the government have to check unemployment? Forgetting the late Opportunities for Youth program that was quite similar to the Young Canada Works program, forgetting the Canada Works program which anyway succeeded the late LIP program, and in the final analysis there is not much difference between the two, basically the government is only putting forward rehashed temporary make-work measures in the services area, while unemployment is competing with employment, while all the medium business community is neither encouraged nor helped.
I am in agreement with the previous speaker that our major problems can only be solved if we, in this House, put forward objective and impartial views. Let us assume that the hon. member for Lapointe (M. Marceau), the hon. member for Joliette (M. LaSalle) and myself got together and invested our capital in a Canadian company. By the end of the year, we would be penalized by the capital gains tax, we would be penalized in our own tax returns, and finally, few Canadians are encouraged to invest in those conditions. It is the opposite. Consumer credit has increased more than ever and the collective debt of both individuals and municipalities or provinces has increased continuously. The public debt has doubled since the present government came into power eight years ago.
One day we shall have to pay back those loans and the accrued interests. In order to do so, we shall have to tax the people even more, those very people who are out of work and whose purchasing power is eroded because of the inflation which this government has failed to wrestle to the ground. This is why, Mr. Speaker, we say in this motion, but not in a partisan way, that this government has lacked and is still lacking in leadership. This is why we put this motion forward today. Before and during the recent by-elections, the government candidates said: Vote Liberal. We will give a new impetus to the economy. This is what our Prime Minister said, as reported in a newspaper: The May 24 by-elections are important for our future. It is time to ensure the development of our economy. We all agree on this point. It is time to promote Canadian unity. There again, we all agree on this point. The Prime Minister should understand it and stop
Economic Conditions
needling the Quebec government every night on the news. It is time, according to the Prime Minister, to work more than ever for the future of all Canadians. On May 24, let us vote Liberal.
This is what we hear from the government. There is no suggestion for solving the unemployment problem, Mr. Speaker. Before the recent elections, this government was in power and we had over one million and a few thousand unemployed in Canada. Now that the elections are over, we are just about at the same point where we were at the time of the general election of 1974; now that the same government is still in power, Mr. Speaker, we are again waiting for solutions to the unemployment problem in Canada.
When I listen to the premiers of British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Quebec or of the Atlantic provinces, I find a will to live together, a will to build a great country. I find a will to participate more actively in the development of this country, to sit down at the same table and to discuss the appropriate ways of building such a country. We must absolutely innovate in this area and stop saying that because a solution is advocated by the Progressive Conservatives, the Liberals, the New Democratic Party or the Social Credit, it is ridiculous.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, as I said this government has no short, medium or long term industrial strategy not only to give a new impetus to our economy but to allow as many Canadians as possible to take a real part in the process. And as long as this government has no such strategy, it will not be able to do so alone, for Canada does not belong to the Liberal party: it will have to do so in collaboration, as was said earlier by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau). The government should not ask us to be objective for the sole purpose of preventing us from criticizing, and then take decisions which ignore the proposals made by opposition parties.
Mr. Speaker, we have specific proposals to make. The economic recovery is an important one. Eventually, the Unemployment Insurance Act will have to be revised completely so that our unemployment people will no longer act like robots when looking for jobs that do not exist. As my colleague for Temiscamingue was saying, there are about 300,000 jobs available now in Canada, but there are one million unemployed people, roughly speaking, who are forced under the law to look for jobs three times a week, which makes three million people a week or 160 million a year looking for jobs, Mr. Speaker. We should not go crazy in this country and force people to look for jobs which do not exist. Unemployment is going to cost us this year more than $1 billion over and above the costs of an all pervasive bureaucracy. Once again, this leads to collective disgust for the government, and to the deep feeling that the Canadian people do not participate in the economy of their country. And I ask the hon. member for Lapointe, as well as the others, when they go back to their riding, to talk to the unemployed and to ask them what feeling of participation they have, if any. On the contrary, and I hope

June 1, 1977
Economic Conditions
you will forgive me the expression, Mr. Speaker, it seems that people are generally deeply indifferent or disgusted.
Just look at the number of votes any party or all the parties obtained in the last election and you will see that fewer and fewer Canadians feel involved in the making of this country's policy, less and less participation, more and more indifference, more and more apathy generally speaking, and that is bad, that is a preliminary sign that time has come not only for the government opposite but also for our party and other parties to get together, to show real leadership in this country by leaving aside political partisanship which makes us fight against each other instead of building our country.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Temiscamingue put his finger on the problem by proposing that motion. I think we should recognize that there is a lack of leadership in this country, a lack of industrial strategy and that it is time to
change course, Mr. Speaker, to set order again in the house, otherwise more or less shortly it will be the end of this country. Let us not forget that it is not for linguistic or constitutional reasons. We have been living for a hundred years with that constitution. For a hundred years we have been speaking English and French in this country but it is the first time that we have such a high unemployment rate and this is dangerous, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please! It being 6 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), pursuant to Standing Order 58(11). Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow pursuant to the special order agreed upon Monday, May 30, 1977.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 2, 1977