1977-03-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing importance under Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That on this important day, March 17, we pay tribute to one of the greatest races of people in the world, the people who have contributed so much to the development of this country, who have not done it without suffering and so on, and that we long remember the contribution that they made and are still making to this country.
The people I refer to are the Irish.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. As a result of irresponsible action by the multinational ITT corporation, 107 men, many with long years of service have been made jobless with the closing of Ontario Malleable Iron in Oshawa. This action was taken without respect or concern for the employees or the community. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That the government introduce legislation requiring multinational corporations to give a minimum three months' notice in advance of a plant closure and be made responsible for protecting full pension benefits of employees with 20 years or more service.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion pursuant to the standing order requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Statistics Canada has just reported that farm cash receipts have dropped by some 31 per cent this January over January of last year, and since this is only the first blow of what is shaping up as a devastating income year for the farmers of this country, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie:
That this House direct the government to announce programs to halt the continuing slide in farm income.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), I move:
That this House, noting the view expressed yesterday by the Prime Minister that one of the reasons we have more than a million unemployed persons is that Canadians are living beyond their means, invites the ime Minister to join the ranks of the unemployed or to live on the amount available to them as unemployment insurance for six months and then report to the House as to whether he still holds the view he expressed yesterday.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed!


Some hon. Members:: No!


REQUEST FOR JOB CREATION PROGRAMS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, under Standing Order 43, a motion on a matter of

March 17, 1977
Oral Questions
urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that almost half of the Canadians without jobs are between the ages of 15 and 24, and that in another two months several hundred thousand students will also face a hopeless search for summer employment, and in view of the fact that the unemployment rate for the 15 to 24 age group is now 14.4 percent on a seasonally adjusted basis-more than 2.5 times the unemployment rate for those 25 years of age, and in view of the fact that the severity and chronic nature of the youth unemployment problem in Canada, as well as its long-term effects, make it economically, and socially explosive, I would like to move seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:
That this House urges the government to initiate substantial job creation programs oriented towards the youth in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 can be presented only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As interlocked with rising unemployment we have current account trade balance deficits among the highest in the world, including travel deficits which rose sharply over last year amounting to $1.1 billion in the last year for which we have figures, would the minister tell us whether he has received any confirmation from Washington of an exemption or other alteration with respect to the Washington order affecting convention expenses as they pertain to Canadian institutions?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as I stated in the House last week, I discussed this question with Secretary Blumenthal during my visit to Washington. It was pointed out, of course, that Canada as well, in its tax law, applies restrictive provisions with regard to conventions and it was suggested by me that we might seek some reciprocal provisions so as, on one hand, to protect taxpayers generally, while on the other to make certain that the long standing practice of exchanging conventions across the border will continue. That is a subject which will be actively considered in the treaty negotiations which are now reaching the completion stage.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary, again to the Minister of Finance. Included in the current account deficit figures not only do we find this tourist imbalance but also an interest and

dividend imbalance of $2.5 billion, would the minister indicate whether in the current year he anticipates this deficit will grow even higher?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I indicated to the hon. member in the standing committee, it is difficult to know exactly what provincial and municipal governments and private borrowers will do with respect to their financing in the current year. There is reason to believe that provincial demands on the money market may be somewhat lower this year than they were last year, but this will depend very much on the difference between United States and Canadian longer-term interest rates. At the moment it is difficult to predict exactly whether there will be a substantial difference in this current year.


TREND OF DEFICIT ON SERVICE TRANSACTIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Finance; not only do we have deficits in the two items that I have referred to but we also have a $2 billion deficit on other service transactions up 11 per cent over the previous year, would the minister also indicate if he anticipates that this deficit will continue to rise in this most unsatisfactory year as far as our economic condition is concerned?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this trend is the least likely to change in the sense that it represents payments for shipping services overseas, insurance and other invisibles of that kind. In that sense I do not anticipate there is any prospect of a very dramatic reduction there.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman, in relationship to the current economic situation, the high levels of unemployment, rising inflation, balance of payments deficit and more particularly to the fact that over the past few years there has been a fair degree of discrepancy between the forecast and the realities of economic performance, whether or not the Prime Minister is satisfied with the way in which we are organized in this country for the development of economic policy? I have in mind specifically whether or not he would consider the possibilities of changing the budget procedures so there might be debate on major economic trends before the budget comes down, and a new role for the Economic Council of Canada, the possibility of a council of economic advisers or some new arrangement whereby we might feel that we are getting perhaps a broader and better interpretation of economic forces and economic outlook that is ahead of us?
March 17, 1977


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there is an indication in the question of very legitimate concern by the hon. member and some suggestions for improving our institutions. I will consider them. The hon. member himself might want to consider elaborating on them in a speech in the budget debate and certainly the Minister of Finance, myself and other members would be interested in improving in any way our procedures.


SUGGESTED COMMITTEE STUDY OF INSTITUTIONS CONCERNED WITH ECONOMIC POLICY
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the right hon. Prime Minister would give serious consideration to the appointment of a select committee of this House to examine the institutional framework for economic policymaking in this country with the terms of reference requiring a report by the end of this year so that some of the recommendations might be taken into account, if accepted by the House, in the preparation of the budget for the next fiscal year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this calls for the same type of answer. I will consider the various suggestions. However, if the hon. member could find some moment to elaborate on them, either inside or outside the House, I would be very interested.


FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Given the need for government initiative to create jobs for the more than one million Canadians who need them, will the minister confirm the figures I have that the deficit in automotive parts trade with the United States increased a further $200 million in 1976 for a total of $2.7 billion in deficit for that year and if so, could he tell us what he said about this when he went to Washington recently, because such an imbalance obviously means a profound loss of jobs to Canadians and completely goes against the spirit of the auto pact?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the hon. gentleman's question requires a statistical answer and I would be prepared to seek that. I do not have it to hand at this time.
On the second and broader aspect of the question, indeed the question of the auto pact was referred to. As the hon. gentleman knows, there have been parallel considerations within both Canada and the United States with respect to the trade in automobiles and auto parts, a parallel preparation of positions of the two countries in this regard. We would anticipate that in this area we would have opportunity of comparing those respective positions of the two countries as a step toward a further examination of the auto pact.
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, a year ago last month the minister informed me in the House in reply to a question that the government was then preparing its position on the auto pact and considering that the deficit now is of the magnitude that I just told him, I am astounded that he did not have these figures at his fingertips when he went to Washington last week. Does the minister know that we have not got our share of investment in the auto pact in each of the years for the past half dozen years, and if he knows this, could he tell the House why he did not bring this major job creating pact supposedly for Canada to the attention of the Americans when he was there last week?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it will be evident from the nature of the question that it is obviously a matter of a difference of opinion, for example, as to what is the appropriate share, and indeed the preparation of viewpoints on that matter has been underway. I have to remind the hon. member that there was little prospect of achieving progress in negotiations with the United States during the period of time in which that country was in the process of selecting its administration for the current term.


POSSIBILITY GENERAL MOTORS WILL CEASE PRODUCTION OF VEGA AT STE. THERESE-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROTECT JOBS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, one view of the share would be that we get investment in the industry at least in proportion to the amount we consume in the industry on this side of the border. We have been getting about half that amount for the past half dozen years.
My final question to the minister concerns the announced intention of General Motors to shut down production this coming fall of the Vega automobile which is currently produced at Ste. Therese, Quebec. Has the minister investigated this report, and if so, has he obtained assurances from General Motors that that company will not shut down production of the Vega, or if it does that, the jobs involved-and there are hundreds of them-will be fully protected through the production of another model of that company's line at that plant on this side of the border?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, detailed dealings with the automotive industry in Canada are the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


John Edward Broadbent: He is not here.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: He is not here, but I am quite prepared to bring to his attention for his consideration the question asked by the hon. member.

March 17, 1977
Oral Questions


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Is the minister aware that 80 per cent of Quebec fire insurance companies have jointed into a combine to control the insurance rates which have gone up by 100 per cent in the last two years, and to determine themselves the appraisal of insurable properties on the basis of replacement value, which means a total increase of 200 per cent in three years ? Is his department responsible for these companies and what is the minister doing against this monopoly which is going to be prejudicial to 75 per cent of small fire insurance policyholders?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the companies mentioned and their practices could come under the examination of my department. Subsequent to the raising of a Standing Order 43 motion I asked the director of the combines branch to report to me on this question, and I will advise the hon. member as soon as possible.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the minister?
I thank the minister for his answer. Now I want to ask him whether it would be possible to proceed immediately with regard to this combine which has started its activities because, as I said before, this would make it impossible for 75 per cent of the people to get fire insurance.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his representation, and I will look into the matter.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Miss Coline Campbell (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In the past there have been rumours that CFB Cornwallis is to be closed down. Can the minister tell me and the people of South Western Nova the status of CFB Cornwallis at this time?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, CFB Cornwallis is certainly an active Anglophone recruiting centre. Not only is it continuing, but its size is being increased by about 100 new recruits per month. Base operations are going on. There are refittings for a new mess hall and an expansion of existing facilities, so the hon. member can be

assured that Cornwallis is strong, alive and producing mighty fine troops for our armed forces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MANPOWER
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and is related to the exceptionally high unemployment rate in the Indian, Inuit and Metis communities which averages between 45 per cent and 60 per cent and at times is as high as 95 per cent. In view of the fact that the policy announced by the former minister on May 17, 1976 has failed to attain the objectives of increased participation in the labour force and to decrease the unemployment rate, can the minister say what new programs he will be introducing to correct this serious problem.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the premise of the hon. member's question. I recognize of course that the unemployment level of that particular group is in fact high, and that is why we set the figure at 75 per cent and brought the status Indians under the Canada Works program so that on a constituency to constituency basis some effort was made in that direction. In other projects that we have operating across the country in conjunction with both DREE and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development we are endeavouring to do what we can to assist at the government level.


John Robert Holmes: The minister referred to the Canada Works program. If the unemployed status Indians were included in the unemployment statistics for February, the number of Canadians out of work would be substantially more than one million. What steps is he taking to obtain accurate, up-to-date ongoing unemployment statistics for status Indians, and indeed for Metis and non-status Indians, so that the government can immediately introduce programs to correct the serious unemployment problem and, in addition, to permit the government to develop a long-term employment strategy in anticipation of the exceptionally large number of status Indians who will be entering the labour force by 1980?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: As the statistics for non-status Indians are not included in the labour force survey, the hon. member's question might better be directed to my colleague, the Minister of Industy, Trade and Commerce. We did recognize the fact, and the statistics are available for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. For that reason we used those particular figures in establishing criteria under the Canada Works program. With regard to the other groups to which the hon. member referred, they are included in the labour force survey. However, they tend to be swallowed up in the over-all unemployment figure. On that basis I met in

particular with the Metis and the non-status Indians to see what could be done to accommodate them under the provisions of the next phase of the Canada Works program.


MINISTER'S VIEW OF FAILURE TO INCLUDE NON-STATUS INDIANS IN LABOUR STATISTICS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. Does he consider it in accordance with human rights that the non-status Indians are not considered within the over-all labour statistics?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: As I said, I am not sure that this has direct relevance to my department. So far as I am concerned, I will see what we can do about cutting down the numbers of unemployed. The figures are available, they are incorporated into the criteria used by my department, so there is no discrimination. We err on the side of going higher rather than lower in the figures we consider.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that it has been established that a further $800,000 would be added to the cost of improving Union Station in Toronto, should this project be postponed by two years as a result of the refusal by the government to abide by its 1974 campaign promise to aid the urban transit system in that area, can the minister, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, reassess the government's position in this regard and make funds available, as promised, for the very important purpose of improving the over-all urban transit system in that area, particularly in view of the increased cost if it is postponed for several years?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, our exact position in reviewing this question was stated in the House in the last day or two, and I would refer the hon. member to the answer on that day.


REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COMMITMENT TO SUPPLY FUNDS FOR URBAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT
Otto John Jelinek: In view of the minister's answer, I should like to direct my supplementary to the Prime Minister. Last year the same government made grants available amounting to millions of dollars for such purposes as, "to study the role of the harmonica in a social culture of each region of Canada"-
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps, if the hon. member has a supplementary question to ask, he will ask it.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, my question is this: In view of these grants, I wonder if the Prime Minister could ask the cabinet to reconsider its priorities in respect of this matter, and the grants in order at least to fulfil its election promises, particularly when they pertain to an area as important and serious as urban transportation, which affects perhaps millions of Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question to the Minister of Transport was a repetition of an earlier question, which I allowed. But the hon. member has now repeated it.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have in my hand a purported copy of a letter written by the Minister's parliamentary secretary, on the departmental stationery of the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: It says, "Dear Sir, as you know-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: -the federal government favours the participation directly by citizens and businessmen in the financing of the Liberal party. It says-

Be assured that your contribution will be greatly appreciated. Liberally yours, Fernand Leblanc, member for Laurier.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


William Heward Grafftey: My question is this: Does the minister approve of the practice of fund-raising letters being sent on behalf of the Liberal Party on departmental stationery; is he aware of this practice? If he is, does he approve it, and will he take up this matter with the parliamentary secretary?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will make the usual and thorough inquiries into the matter and respond later.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the Secretary of State for External Affairs aware that fundraising letters for the Liberal Party were going out on departmental stationery? If so, does he approve of this?
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: He answered that.

March 17, 1977


William Heward Grafftey: With respect, he said that he would investigate.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I assured the hon. member I would look into it thoroughly. It may not be the letterhead of the departmental secretary. I should point out that there are letterheads prepared for members of the House of Commons, on which their parliamentary status, as parliamentary secretary or of various other offices in this House, is included.


Mr. Paproski:: Why are you blushing?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am not saying that that practice is suitable or unsuitable. I am merely saying that I have not seen the letter in question. If the hon. member will give me a copy of it I will find out whether it is written under the Department of External Affairs letterhead, or one from the House. If it is from the House, the House itself can decide whether or not that is an improper use of stationery.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You are no diplomat.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and pertains to Manitoba. In view of continuing stories in Manitoba that the Manitoba premier has been offered the position of Minister of Finance in the cabinet of this government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -may I ask the Prime Minister if the Premier of Manitoba has been offered the position of chairman of the National Energy Board and, if so, when will that appointment take effect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to contemplate such an appointment before the next budget. I will consider the matter after that.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are on trial, Don.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Disregarding the fact that the budget is to come down on March 31, can the Prime Minister say if the premier was offered that appointment to the National Energy Board? I ask this question, because Manitobans would like to know if they will be asked to vote for a Liberal-Socialist government or an NDP-Socialist government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to consider that as a suggestion. We are always looking for people to join the federal cause and if the premier is interested, we will get him.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Why don't you get Jim Richardson?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.   Jean-R. Roy@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
As it has been reported that two ministers from the province of Quebec who are members of a Canadian delegation attending two international conferences have said that they speak directly on behalf of Quebec and not Canada, does the government intend to prevent that type of shabbiness in the future, or does it plan to allow all the provinces to act on their own behalf at all international conferences in which Canada takes part?

Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I suspect the hon. member's question was based on the news reports which I also saw. I can tell him and the House that the news reports were quite a way from being factual in this particular case. As for the second part of the question, all provinces, when they have a special provincial interest in an international conference are invited by the federal government to come as members of the Canadian delegation. That is the case with the conference in question, and will continue to be the case.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. When the minister or his officials met with Maritime premiers or their officials, was it proposed to subsidize bus service and abandon or abolish certain rail passenger services in the Maritime provinces? Did the premiers agree to those proposals and what were those plans and proposals?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there were detailed discussions on the general advantage of saving money on certain services which cost a great deal and do not provide adequate service to the people of an area. That involves possibly the exchange of rail service for an improved bus service. The matter was complex and a long statement was issued in relation to it, but the actual details will be pursued

following the hearings to be held by the Canadian Transport Commission in relation to rail services.


MANPOWER
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the severity and chronic nature of the youth unemployment problem in Canada today, the youth unemployment rate being more than two and a half times higher than the adult unemployment rate, is the minister's department considering introducing a series of employment generating projects and policies oriented to reducing the chronically severe nature of youth unemployment in Canada today?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have our ongoing student summer employment and activities program. In 1977 we will be allocating $60 million for this program-$20 million for ongoing departmental programs, and $40 million for job creation activities. In addition, under the new legislation we have offered to the provinces the co-operative education program. We have a summer and winter component proposed for the job experience and training program. We have increased the number of Canada manpower centres in universities and increased the number of Canada manpower centres for students. So, to that extent we are fulfilling our role, Mr. Speaker.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr Speaker. Since funds allocated for programs such as the Young Canada works program are sufficient for only one, two or three projects per constituency, whereas there may be 50 applications; the programs are not meeting needs; and since the Canadian Council of Social Development indicated that if this problem is left unattended the situation will become explosive, will the minister not say if he will consider bringing in measures similar to those introduced a few days ago in the United States by President Carter, who will be spending $600 million on a national conservation corps, to combat youth unemployment?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we have actually received a commendation from no less an authority than Senator Hubert Humphrey for the lead Canada has taken in this field. The speech I made to that group on youth unemployment has been incorporated into the Congressional record, indicating Canada's lead in this field.
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH YOUTH CORPS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the current high level of youth unemployment and the fact that in the Speech from the Throne of last fall there is a statement to the effect that the government is considering the establishment of a youth corps, can the minister tell the House whether the youth corps, which might help to alleviate the high levels of youth unemployment, will be in place soon so that youth can participate in that youth corps, say in the months of June and July this year? Second, will the youth corps all be under one ministry or under more than one ministry? If so, which one?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to answer all of those questions at this time. As I indicated to the hon. member earlier, I hope to make an announcement and answer all of those questions by the end of the month.


MANPOWER
Paul Wyatt Dick: I guess the Minister of National Defence is not aware of what they are doing in that youth corps. I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that applications for the Young Canada Works program are running in dollar amounts ten to one over the amount of funds available, will there be supplementary funds going into that program for this summer?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, both my department and the government are very pleased with the reaction to and the reception of both programs, Canada Works and Young Canada Works. I thank the hon. member for his support for more funds.


GOVERNMENT'S PLANS FOR ELEVATOR FACILITIES AT PRINCE RUPERT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It is in connection with the grain handling facilities at the port of Prince Rupert which are owned by the government and the wheat board. Is it the intention of the government to upgrade or fix up this facility so that an orderly movement of grain can be

March 17, 1977
Oral Questions
programmed through it or does the government have other intentions, such as selling the facility to private owners?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as grain elevators come under the Canadian Grain Commission and I report to the House for the Canadian Grains Commission, I will reply to the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if I might ask those hon. members who are bent upon some conversation with other hon. members if they might conduct their conversation outside the chamber so that the questions and answers can proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: We are considering, I believe, four submissions from different people who want to operate the Prince Rupert facilities. I met with the Canadian Grains Commission about ten days ago with regard to the submissions that have been received. We are also considering expenditures on the grain elevator at Prince Rupert ourselves. No decision has yet been made, but we hope to make one in the near future.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD SUGGESTED INSTRUCTIONS TO HOSTESS FOODS ON REFUNDING EXCESS PROFITS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance while he is still the Minister of Finance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benno Friesen: Recently the Anti-Inflation Board ruled that Hostess Foods had made considerable excess profits on the marketing of their potato chips, all in eastern Canada, and to refund this excess profit to the consumer, the company plans to issue 20 cent coupons, price reductions and free goods in certain sizes of packages, but all in British Columbia where they have never been in the market. Will the minister give an undertaking that he will instruct Hostess Foods or the AntiInflation Board officials to instruct Hostess Foods to restrict the distribution of this cut rate product to the market where they made the excess profit?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have to point out to the hon. member that in a law passed by this parliament the Anti-Inflation Board has been given the responsibility of making this kind of judgment and, indeed, making appropriate arrangements with the particular firm found in an excess revenue position as to how this is to be returned to the public. In that sense, his suggestion that I might direct the board to do this is counselling an illegality. I will be glad to bring to the attention of the board the hon. member's opinion on this question.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice, notice of which was given him on Monday last. It arises out of a reply to my question from the Minister of State for Urban Affairs in which he admitted that the guaranteed loan financing for the Quai d'Orsay Hotel was made under Section 6(1) of the National Housing Act. Since there are no provisions under the National Housing Act, Section 6(1) or elsewhere, for funding hotels and since the advertising for Quai d'Orsay clearly indicates beyond any doubt that this is a hotel, what steps does the minister propose to take as Attorney General of Canada since there appears to be an act of some illegality?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member giving me notice. I would advise him that the matter is in the hands of the legal officers of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation who are not officers of the Department of Justice. Those officers advise the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and his answers are given accordingly.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of State for Urban Affairs whether he has contacted or consulted with the law advisers of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and has he satisfied himself that this was a proper loan guarantee made in accordance with the provisions of the National Housing Act, Section 6(1)?
[Translation}


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, originally the loan was granted on the strength of the information given to the corporation. It is true, as the hon. member said, that somewhere along the way the building was put to another use than had originally been planned. Still, the legal advisers of the department told me that nothing, in the terms of the mortgage insurance policy issued for that project, stipulated that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should cancel the insurance if the building was put to some use other than the one planned initially. That is why nothing else has been done. We have asked the legal advisers of the corporation to look into the matter further with a view to establishing whether it might not be wise to change our rules to prevent such occurrences in the future.
March 17, 1977


POSSIBLE MEASURES TO AID NEW BRUNSWICK CONSUMERS OF ELECTRICITY
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the chairman of the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission last week labelled the Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island home insulation programs and grants as blatant political discrimination, can the minister tell this House if he is going to get in touch with the New Brunswick government to correct their cockeyed perception of ongoing generous federal assistance for electrical energy production in that province? Can the minister also inform us if he is considering further direct or indirect help to New Brunswick consumers at this time, above and beyond, for example, price stabilization of fuel oil, gasoline and so on?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to an early opportunity to meet the premier. I expect to be doing so in a matter of two weeks, along with other energy ministers to discuss the whole question of the next price rise for oil and natural gas in Canada. At that time I will take the opportunity of reminding him that the federal government provided very generous assistance in the form of 50 per cent of the financing of the nuclear reactor at Point Lepreau and a further $14 million within the past ten days with respect to the financing of an electrical interconnection with Nova Scotia.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Being aware of his responsibilities in the unemployment situation which prevails throughout Canada and given the fact that federal measures were inefficient in lowering the unemployment level, as everyone would wish, and considering also that the Minister of Finance will soon bring down his budget, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether in the circumstances he would be prepared to do his utmost, namely to call a meeting before the presentation of the budget with members from the Economic Council of Canada, union representatives as well as provincial and federal officials. This would enable the minister to receive judicious advice and to provide for efficient and short term credits.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it would certainly not be possible to hold such a conference before the presentation of the budget but as far as the budget
Oral Questions
itself is concerned, we are always prepared to listen to the proposals of hon. members of the opposition, and I would add that if the hon. member for Joliette has some brilliant ideas before the budget he could perhaps convey them to us and we shall try to consider them.
* * [DOT]


AIRPORTS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Now that the report of the ad hoc committee studying the need for regional expansion in terms of airports in the Hamilton district has been filed with the minister, can the hon. gentleman tell the House and the city of Hamilton what steps will be taken to see that the recommendations of that committee are implemented?


Otto Emil Lang: We will take a look at the committee's report. I will then expect an analysis and a recommendation from my officials, after which decisions and announcements will be made.


STATUS OF ALLEGED COMMITMENT OF FUNDS FOR EXPANSION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The recommendations came from citizen participation. This was the format. They have made a decision. The most important question is with respect to the flip-flop for which the government has been responsible in the past with regard to its commitments. Can the minister assure me now that there will be no flip-flop with respect to the $25 million commitment made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs a few years back? Have we still that commitment with respect to the funds which were earmarked for the expansion of Mount Hope airport which is where the extension was supposed to be taking place?


Otto Emil Lang: I am informed by my neighbours here that it is the hon. member himself who has been doing the flip-flopping. I am glad, however, that he recognizes the importance of the procedure we have adopted in involving the full participation of citizens in developing plans and analyzing future airport expansion proposals. We have now received that input and obviously the next step is serious consideration by the government, consideration of the timing, and a determination as to when various forms of action can be taken. I cannot at this point, before examining the recommendations and an analysis of those recommendations, make a decision. I presume the hon. member would say he can, but I am not sure he would do that, either.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There has been no flip-flop on my part. I have always indicated that I was in favour of the expansion of the Mount Hope airport. It is the minister's colleagues who

March 17, 1977
Ora! Questions
have been flip-flopping. Will the minister answer my question: is that commitment still there or is it not?


Otto Emil Lang: Surely, the hon. member knows that we are very anxious to provide good, desirable airport facilities for communities across the country and that we are doing this, often without very much support from the hon. member or his hon. friends.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: So we do not have it any more.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that we may soon see another federal election-


An hon. Member:: On June 6th.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: -on June 6, I am told-and that voters' lists as presently prepared discriminate against women by listing them as Miss, Mrs., Spinster, Widow or Housewife, will the Prime Minister consider changing the rules as forwarded to enumerators so that women are given the opportunity to use their own names if they so desire and the right as well to be listed by their occupations, such as teacher, secretary, business manager, receptionist or nurse if they are trained, for example, in those vocations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can see that that list could certainly be improved by adding to the number of professions that of professional photographer-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But I will certainly look into this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I would like to flip-flop to a member of another profession, the Minister of Agriculture, if I could ask the friendly leprechaun to go back to his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Before he flies off for Saint John, can he tell me, in the light of the fact farm income as reported by Statistics Canada has dropped by 31 per cent, and since the

Prime Minister told us yesterday that Canadians are now living beyond their means, how much further must farm income drop before farmers will be living within their means?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member realizes, I am sure, the argumentative nature of the question. Does he have a supplementary question?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Perhaps I can rephrase the question and ask the minister this: in the light of the fact that national farm income has dropped by 31 per cent and prairie income by 38 per cent, can he tell the House what new programs he intends to announce shortly in the areas of dairy, cow-calf and grain income to halt this slide which is devastating in its effect on Canadian farmers?


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member has recognized that part of the problem arises from world conditions. I take this from what he said, because the lower world price of grain has been responsible for a big reduction in farm income. Then, there is the fact that we are dealing in beef products on the basis of the world price. I have made certain suggestions; I made them in the hon. member's own province yesterday. I might also tell him I referred to his comment about my trip to pay tribute to the Irish tonight in Saint John, New Brunswick: the people resented very much his suggestion that I should not go there, just as they would any suggestion I should not go to a Polish, Ukrainian, Hungarian or Italian-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I just want to say, Mr. Speaker: May the little people be kind to him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the minister would not know what the grass roots looked like if they were staring him in the face.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I should like to ask him this: does he agree with the statement made in this House yesterday that farmers are living beyond their means, and, if he does not, what programs does he intend to announce in the near future to bring about an improvement in their income situation?


Eugene Whelan: I am not aware of any statement about farmers living beyond their means. But I do know this: more people are going on vacations; more students on winter break went to California and Hawaii than ever before in our history. More people have money in banks and credit unions than ever before.


An hon. Member:: Now you are in trouble!
March 17, 1977


ALLEGED FRAUDS IN SALE OF BUTTER-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, following the massive butter frauds in the province of Ontario which have now come to light in Burlington, Hamilton, St. Catharines, Welland, Toronto, and, now, in the Ottawa Valley, can the Minister of Agriculture inform the House whether he has received a report of the investigation from his departmental officials or from the law enforcement agencies and, if so, what does he intend to do about it?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker,
I have received a report. I have not had time to study it thoroughly but I can tell the House that according to the information we have no dairy is involved, no organization for which we in the Department of Agriculture are responsible. We are, of course, concerned about the activities of any group which is putting a fraudulent product on the market, as is the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Our people are working on this investigation also, and if we can find whoever is responsible, charges will be laid.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: In view of public reports that there is no question that an adulterated form of butter is being passed off on the citizens of this province as butter-surely there is an offence there-I am asking the minister whether charges are being laid. This is an interprovincial matter and one which falls under the minister's authority. Certainly, we should have more specific word than that "buttering up" by the minister on the subject.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to smooth over the subject in any manner or form. I just wanted to say to the hon. member that we have laid charges to prosecute people in the past. I believe it was in the area of Barrie, Ontario that they found this situation existed. Unscrupulous people do crop up from time to time. It is difficult to make sure that it does not happen again, but if it does there will be prosecutions.


An hon. Member:: They won't!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Raymond Dupont (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
Following the minister's meeting yesterday with the Maritime Employers Association concerning labour relations in the port of Montreal, could the minister tell the House the result of that meeting?
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did have a meeting with the MEA with reference to the whole situation of the port of Montreal and I had representations from the longshoremen involved. As a result of discussions yesterday, I have appointed Guy De Merlis, director of mediation and conciliation to get the parties together as soon as possible. I believe the most convenient time is this Monday in Montreal.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs following the question asked by the aggressive member for Brome-Missisquoi. He handed me a document which is in French, signed by Fernand E. Leblanc, Depute de Laurier. I am translating it in my own way so the minister will understand-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: "As you know the federal government favours a participation more direct of the citizens and the men of affairs-that is businessmen-in the financing of the Liberal Party.
The new electoral law permits you to obtain credits-" and he goes on to set out what the credits will be when the contribution is made.
"Your contributions-" and I am translating still.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: And I translate with the same ease that I read English.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: "Your contributions will be recognized by an official receipt sent out by the central organization and will be accepted by the Minister of National Revenue. Be assured that your contribution will be greatly appreciated. Liberally yours, Fernand E. Leblanc"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: There are three "Ls", Leblanc, Liberal, Laurier.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. MacFarlane:: Fantastic; good translation.


John George Diefenbaker: They apparently recognize he is in the House. He is sitting three seats behind the minister. Can the

March 17, 1977
Oral Questions
minister just get in touch with him because I do not believe in asking questions of parliamentary secretaries.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: It is below your dignity, is it?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman may be an authority on athletics, but parliament is a little out of his way.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: You did not answer my question.


John George Diefenbaker: In order to satisfy the curiosity of the House, I would like to find out whether he sent this and whether he had any basis for saying the federal government favours the participation more directly of citizens and businessmen in the financing of the Liberal Party.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must, of course congratulate the right hon. member on his remarkable translating capability.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: A number of years ago had he understood French as well as he knows it now the whole course of history might have been changed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, while I congratulate him on his new skill in French, I am surprised that such a renowned Tory member could get out three such distinguished Liberal words as the ones he mentioned without choking over all three of them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: On the basis of his question I undertake, as I always do with the right hon. gentleman, to make a detailed inquiry and I will let him know at the first opportunity.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate very much the observations of the hon. gentleman. I read French and translate just as I always did, and there has been no recent study such as he is endeavouring to speak about-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Laurier.
[ Translation]


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Laurier on a question of privilege.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) is making a storm in a teacup. What he forgets to say is that during the leadership convention, while he was a candidate for the Progressive Conservatives, he sent requests for financial support on House of Commons stationery.
However, I must free the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) of all responsibility in that matter, for he was not even aware of my subscription campaign in the constituency and I did not see fit to discuss it with him because it is with the leader in Quebec, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), that I discuss those things.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, nothing in what I did violates the election legislation passed by this House nor runs counter to the normal use of our stationery. If I am not mistaken, yourself, Mr. Speaker, three weeks or a month ago, when the question was put to you and we discussed it, said that someone had asked you if that practice was acceptable, and if I remember well you told me that a minister may use his stationery in those circumstances, just like his parliamentary secretary, and anybody else may use the House of Commons stationery, if being a member is their only title.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, on this point of order; I think it is very important, sir, in view of the remarks of the parliamentary secretary, to point out that notwithstanding the answer of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, this indeed is not House of Commons letterhead. This is letterhead which relates directly to the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now, sir, when letterhead of this sort is used with respect to the solicitation of funds and statements are made in the course of the letter that the government will expect persons to make contributions for the betterment of the Liberal Party, you can understand the apprehension that might be caused in the minds of certain citizens within the constituency within which it was sent. Seriously, therefore, the question of privilege is that this is an exceptional matter with respect to which I should move, seconded by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Both questions with respect to this matter were, quite properly, directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs whose letterhead was involved either directly or indirectly. I have not examined the letter. Those questions were directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs to determine whether that action met with his approval, he being the minister whose letterhead was being used in this way. The minister undertook to answer that question as soon as possible. That answer may precipitate actions which the House may want to take. It seems to me that it would be
March 17, 1977

orderly to wait for the response of the minister who takes responsibility for the conduct of his portfolio and for the use of his letterhead before entertaining any motion such as the one just put. I am not ruling out of order any such motions, but I think it would be more orderly now to await the developments which have been initiated today to see whether they will lead us to further procedures.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It being Thursday, I wonder if I can direct to the government House leader the usual question with respect to the business anticipated today and during the course of next week.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the business for today is a motion in the name of the leader of the opposition. Tomorrow the first item of business will be amendments to the Pension Act, followed by the report stage and third reading of the bill regarding advance payments for crops. Hopefully, on Monday we will deal with the immigration bill, and if it receives second reading we may wish to agree to defer the vote until a more convenient time in the week. On Wednesday I intend to call, if in the meantime the committee has reported, the amendments to the fiscal relations bill. I am not sure whether the committee will report by that time, but if it does I would consider calling that item. Tomorrow I will indicate what days will be designated as allotted days for next week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which arises out of the fact that there seems to have been some change since we discussed this matter this morning. I should like to ask the minister when the debate on the motion regarding the report of the statutory instruments committee will be called. I should also like to ask what we will deal with on Monday if we finish second reading of the immigration bill before the day ends.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I realize that there has been a shift in plans, as the hon. member mentioned. That is because it is not possible to have all those who wish to participate tomorrow on the motion in the name of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants. However, it is still open to call that motion for a certain period on Monday following the immigration bill, and if we do call it for this certain period it would have to be agreed to by all those who wish to participate and, particularly, additional time may have to be provided for that discussion if the motion to concur is called very late in the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the minister also mentioned an understanding about a vote on Bill C-24, if one is called. So that we may know what we are doing, I wonder if the minister would ask for agreement now, that if a
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
vote is requested on Bill C-24 on Monday it be deferred until a time on which we might agree.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I suggest that it be deferred until Wednesday, and because there is considerable notice I suggest we agree to a 15-minute bell.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it an agreement is being sought that in the event of the calling of the immigration bill on Monday, and in the event that a vote is required during that time, that vote will be deferred until Wednesday upon calling of orders of the day and that the bells be of 15 minutes' duration. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In reply to the question of privilege of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, what he said in terms of my franking fund-raising letters was not true. I have double-checked with my office, and at no time during my fund-raising campaign for the leadership of my party did I use a frank or parliamentary stationery. I used blank notepaper and paid for my mailing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Yesterday a question of privilege was raised by the hon. member for Peace River and reference was made to an agreement entered into, or purportedly entered into, between the Minister of Justice and the attorney general of the United States. I indicated that it might be propitious to hear further argument today with specific reference to the agreement. I see that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, and perhaps the Minister of Justice, are prepared to extend further argument.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I merely rise to apologize on behalf of the hon. member for Peace River who is required to be out of town at this time. I wonder if it would be possible to forestall deliberation on this interesting point until such time as my colleague is back in the House and when the Minister of Justice is also here. If that meets with the approval of the minister and your approval, Your Honour, I make that suggestion.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, naturally, I am in your hands. As I understood Your Honour's remarks yesterday, the arguments had been made but neither I nor your Honour had the agreement in front of us and we were unable to refer to it as to specifics. I am ready to proceed today. As I understood Your Honour's remarks yesterday, you wanted to hear specific reference to the agreement and then your Honour would

March 17, 1977
Order Paper Questions
reserve on the matter. I am ready to go today, but if it is the wish of the Chair to have the hon. member for Peace River in the House, I would be prepared to wait until tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to confess that upon study of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peace River my first impression is that if there is merit in the essential point he faces a secondary difficulty in that it may be hypothetical; that is to say, basically I think there is recognition of the fact that the point raised by the hon. member for Peace River was that entering into the agreement potentially raised a situation regarding which the House might be deprived of information.
It is not even certain whether the House would be deprived of information, but in any case it is absolutely certain that if the difficulty does exist, it exists potentially rather than in reality. That being the case I would be very much inclined to consider, that the proper time to raise the point would be when it is a reality instead of a hypothetical case as it is now. However, in view of the unavoidable absence today of the hon. member for Peace River, and because the matter is not immediate in itself, it does not seem to me that any harm would be done to defer the matter indefinitely until such time as parties may wish to deliver a brief argument. But that does not alter my basic disposition in any way.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to present the second report of the special committee appointed to supervise the implementation of radio and television broadcasting of proceedings of the House and its committees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VETERANS AFFAIRS-FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a report following your presentation. Let me also say that, it being St. Patrick's day, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs did a tremendous job this morning.


MANAGEMENT AND MEMBERS' SERVICES
[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services-Mr. MacGuigan.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings].

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the following ques-

tions will be answered today: 1,244, 1,535, 1,559, 1,617, 1,694, 1,700, 1,738, 1,807, 1,883 and 1,903.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Firth: What are the number of vasectomies performed on (a) Inuits (b) Indians (c) others in each community in the Northwest Territories for each year since 1970?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): (a) None recorded; (b) None recorded;
(c)
Vasectomies-Northwest Territories By Community and Year 1970-1975
Number of
Community	Year	Vasectomies	Rate/IOOMFrobisher Bay	1970	2	2901971	2	2801972	6	8401973	7	9401974	7	8201975	3	340Inuvik	1970	-	1971	3	1501972	12	7501973	14	8101974	7	3401975	8	380Hay River	1970	3	701971	2	501972	5	201973	8	1201974	2	301975	3	60Yellowknife	1970	-	-1971	1	11501972	-	-1973	2	301974	1	1701975	5	660Pine Point	1970	2	1201971	6	3801972	3	1801973	2	1201974	2	1101975	5	280Fort Providence	1972	1	6301973	1	630Fort Simpson	1974	1	130Fort Smith	1972	1	80
March 17, 1977

Note: For most communities in the North, data on vasectomy procedures is not available. Since the vast majority of vasectomies are performed as out-patient procedures in doctors offices, data exists only in individual patient records maintained in those offices. Moreover, the computer maintained by the Northwest Territories Medicare officials has not been programmed to record and retrieve this vasectomy data. For the reasons outlined above, these statistics relate only to procedures performed on in-patients in some hospitals and probably understate the over all situation in terms of the number of vasectomies performed. Due to the small number of vasectomies performed and the small populations in these northern communities, the rate per hundred thousand, although strictly accurate, can be misleading.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Department of Manpower and Immigration 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?
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 Department in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: As on January 25, 1977: 1. (a) and (b) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x), Nil. (a) (v), Nil. (b) (v) 15.
2.	No Private employment agencies are paid from the departmental operating budget.
3.	Based on fiscal year basis to January 25, 1977: British Columbia, (a) (i) and (ii), Nil; Alberta, (a)(i) and (ii), Nil; Saskatchewan, (a) (i) and (ii), Nil; Manitoba, (a) (i) and (ii), Nil; Ontario, (a) (i) $5.36; (a) (ii) $5.80; Quebec, (a)(i) and (ii) Nil; New Brunswick, (a) (i) and (ii) Nil; Nova Scotia, (a)(i) and (ii), Nil; Prince Edward Island, (a)(i) and (ii), Nil; Newfoundland, (a)(i) and (ii), Nil. (b) (i) and (ii) Employees are not paid by the department. Payment is made directly to private employment agencies. The hourly rate paid to employees is the subject of negotiation between employees and agencies, (c) (i) $286,081.67; (c) (ii) $250,983.53.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Were all universities in Canada made aware of the Fitness and Amateur Sports Programme and, if so, (a) in what manner (b) were applications received and were they approved?
2.	Was Memorial University in St. John's or Corner Brook, Newfoundland, advised of the Programme and, if so, on what date and by what means?
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: 1. (a) A total of 52 degree granting institutions, contained in a list supplied by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, received a letter from the Minister of National Health and Welfare outlining the terms and conditions of the Physical Resources Development Programme. The provincial ministers responsible for sport and recreation were similarly informed, (b) Applications were received from 21 institutions. On December 4, 1976, the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, the Hon. Iona Campagnolo, announced contributions to eight Canadian universities.
2. Memorial University in St. John's was advised of the Physical Resources Development Programme by letter from the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the President of Memorial University (St. John's Campus) on March 20, 1975. Memorial University (Corner Brook Campus) was not specifically advised of the programme since it was not, at that time, accredited and not included in the list supplied by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada prior to March 21, 1975.


Mr. Marshall: Is Newfoundland represented on the National Library Board and, if so, by whom?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the National Library as follows: Members of the National Library Advisory Board are appointed by the government and all provinces are not represented on the board at any one time. However, one of the most active members of the National Library Advisory Board has been Miss Margaret Williams, Assistant Librarian of Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland whose term of office was recently renewed and who is currently Chairman of the Board's Committee on Bibliographic Services for Canada.


Mr. Howie: 1.	In how many cases to date has the Anti-Inflation Board rolled back (a) wage settlements (b) prices?
2.	(a) In how many cases were fines levied (b) what was the total amount in each case (c) against whom was it assessed?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Anti-Inflation Board and the Department of National Revenue as follows: 1. The Anti-Inflation Board from October 14, 1975 to February 1, 1977 has received 27,402 compensation agreements. In 3,553 cases, the terms of the agreements were rolled back. As of January 31, 1977, the Anti-Inflation Board has received 1,343 price prenotification reports. Companies were required to give prior notice of increases in those Canadian selling prices which would increase a company's projected

March 17, 1977
Order Paper Questions
annual domestic sales revenue for any product line by more than 2 per cent (l'/2 per cent effective February 8, 1977). As of the end of January, the Anti-Inflation Board has intervened in 25 cases, either disallowing the requested price increase or requiring that the increase be deferred. The remaining increases, which were allowed, were in accordance with the guidelines. While the figure 25 represents the number of times that the board has intervened directly in the raising of an individual price, the board is also instrumental in controlling prices through the restraint it imposes on the amount of profit that individual companies may earn. To date 294 companies have been in excess revenue. This excess revenue is disposed by the companies through the reduction of individual prices, the paying of rebates or the delay of intended price increases.
2. (a) One; (b) $25,000; (c) Irving Pulp and Paper Limited, Saint John, N.B.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont);: 1.	Does the 1975-76 Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development state "it is Parks Canada policy to consult with the public on National Parks proposals" and, if so, what public groups were consulted prior to the original imposition of the National Park entrance fees in Prince Edward Island and on what date?
2.	Is there a public advisory type committee for the Prince Edward Island National Park?


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Yes. The matter of National Park Motor Vehicle Fees for Prince Edward Island National Park was discussed in mid-February, 1975, by the Hon. Judd Buchanan and the Hon. Gilbert Clements. On February 21, 1975, Parks Canada officials met with officials of the PEI Department of Tourism to brief them on the entrance fee policy and regulations and to invite provincial comments. The provincial department of tourism subsequently discussed the matter with the PEI tourist association. The announcement of Parks Canada Five Year Programme made by the minister on March 14, 1975, contained the information that the motor vehicle licence fee would be imposed in all developed national parks. Following Mr. Buchanan's announcement, a protest telegram was sent by the newspaper, the Guardian, to the Prime Minister. The various communications led to a decision to delay the implementation of the motor vehicle licence fee for one year in PEI National Park to allow Parks Canada time to carry out construction of kiosks and extensive road entrance changes. Parks Canada officials discussed the fees situation with residents adjacent to the park who could only get access to their property by travelling through the park. They also met with tourist operators, moss harvesters, fishermen and Community Improvement Committee members. On December 5, 1975, a committee of concerned citizens placed a two-page advertisement in the Guardian in protest of the entrance fees. The radio station conducted an open-line program and television interviews on the topic were held also. Citizens in the other Atlantic provinces were concerned also and made their views known to
Parks Canada. As a result of these concerns, a revised schedule of motor vehicle licence fees was announced by Mr. Buchanan at a press conference held in Halifax on February 27, 1976. The following day Mr. Buchanan met with Mr. Clements and the PEI tourist association in Charlottetown. Later a newsletter was mailed to all residents of PEI explaining the revised schedule and inviting residents to get in touch with the superintendent of the national park for further information.
2. There is no public advisory type committee for Prince Edward Island National Park. However, the public participation process described below fills the same role as a public advisory committee: Parks Canada is co-operating with the government of Prince Edward Island in a planning project for the north shore central zone of the province. The services of a planner and a financial contribution of $50,000 has been given to the project. Through open consultation between local communities and government it is the objective of the planning process to: (a) prepare a concept plan for the north shore central region; (b) express mutually agreed (community and government) resource management and development objectives; (c) document policies and proposals which are not agreed upon by both government and community, as a basis for on-going consultation. Five series of meetings and one round of open houses have been held in six communities in the area. The sixth series began February 7. Policy, planning and operational questions raised at the first series of meetings were responsed to in written form by Parks Canada officials and discussed by them with community participants at the second series. At the seventh series of meetings the goals, objectives and planning options will be discussed in relation to the project, and at the subsequent open houses.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total amount of public money used for all aspects of travel, including living expenses etc., on the part of Canada Customs personnel for each of the past four years and what is the estimate for the current fiscal year?
2.	What was the overall total for the same periods?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
F/Y 1972-73, $3,021,526; 1973-74, $3,437,570; 1974-75, $4,336,772;	1975-76,	$4,615,204;	1976-77,	$4,867,000
(Estimate).
2. $20,278,072
NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE PUBLICATION-"SEX EDUCATION: A TEACHER'S GUIDE"


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many copies of the Department of National Health and Welfare publication Sex Education: A Teacher's Guide were printed?
2.	(a) What was the cost of the printing (b) how many were distributed (c) is the government reprinting the publication?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Number printed: English, 6,000 units of six

March 17, 1977

booklets; French, 3,000 units of six booklets; Total, 9,000 units of six booklets.
2. (a) $23,500; (b) 9,000 units of six booklets; (c) The Family Planning Division of the Department of National Health and Welfare is reprinting the publication.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the current minimum wage rates in the Northwest Territories?
2.	What were the rates in each of the past two years?
3.	Have any changes conformed to the guidelines of the Anti-Inflation Board?


John Carr Munro: 1. Effective May 7, 1976, the minimum wage rates are: $3 an hour for workers over 17 years of age. $2.55 an hour for workers under 17 years of age.
2.	From May 7, 1974 to May 7, 1976, the minimum wage rates were: $2.50 an hour for workers over 17 years of age. $2.25 an hour for workers under 17 years of age. $2 an hour for workers 15 to 16 years of age. $1.75 for workers under 15 years of age.
3.	There is no relation to the Anti-Inflation Board Guidelines, since the guidelines do not apply to wage rates under $3.75 per hour.
Economic Policy


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table, in both official languages, two reports, the first "Oil and Natural Resources of Canada, 1976", and the second "Oil Sands and Heavy Oils, the Prospects".
* *
*



CANADIAN AND BRITISH INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT


Donald Stovel Macdonald: first reading of Bill S-3 (from the Senate), to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act and the Foreign Insurance Companies Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
15, 1977
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): 1.	How many persons were brought to Ottawa at public expense in conjunction with the official proclamation of the Citizenship Act on February 15, 1977 and (a) how many were (i) judges and officials of local citizenship courts (ii) candidates for citizenship (iii) members of the general public (b) how much time was spent by judges and officials in receiving instruction on the interpretation and procedures under the new Act (c) what was the cost of (i) transportation (ii) food and lodging (iii) other allowances with respect to such persons?
2.	How many regional courses of instruction in the interpretation of and procedures under the new Citizenship Act have been held, involving how many persons and at what estimated public expense?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1. (a) 30. (i) 30;
(ii) none; (iii) none, (b) Four days. (c)(i) Travel, $3,832. (ii) Food & lodging $4,972. Total $8,804. (iii) Nil.
2. Regional courses of instruction in the Citizenship Act.
Number of Number of Persons Estimated
Location	Courses	Trained	ExpensesToronto	3	54	$ 3,944Montreal	2	27	2,974Winnipeg	2	26	9,535Vancouver	2	26	5,942*Ottawa	2	41	14,279Total	11	174	$36,674
*For Ontario other than Toronto, and Atlantic.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition) moved:: That this House condemns the government's failure to set or fulfil reasonable economic goals, and urges the Minister of Finance to be forthright with the people of Canada by revealing in the budget the specific goals he will be seeking to reach with regard to employment, inflation, Canada's trade balance, and the rate of economic growth.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing today with a motion that should not have had to come at this time to the House of Commons but is brought before the House because of two events which occurred this week: one was the revelation by Statistics Canada of the worst record of unemployment in the history of this country, and the second, almost as serious, was the repeated refusal of the government to give any indication, under questioning in the House, that it would give a commitment to the House of Commons and to the more than one million Canadians who are now out of work that there would be, as the central purpose of the new budget, the creation of new jobs, a stimulus to the economy which is needed to create new jobs, and a serious coming to terms with this problem which is critical for all of us, but critical for none more than the one million Canadians who are out of work in Canada.
4074

March 17, 1977
Economic Policy
We are dealing today with a government which has been responsible for running the affairs and the business of Canada for the last nine years. At different times, when faced with their failures, they have blamed the weather, the opposition, international factors, and even Radio-Canada. But now the fact is clear that they have much to answer for after nine years in office as the government of Canada.
One clear area of failure of this government has been in their responsibility to unite this nation. They came to office in the afterglow of the centennial and the Expo celebrations; they came to office with the good will of a great majority of the people of all the provinces and the territories of Canada. However, after nine years, as a direct result of the inflexible centralizing spirit in which this government has governed, we are a much less united nation now, with a government formed in Quebec by a party dedicated to the partition of Canada, with distress deepened in western Canada, and with cynicism and alarm throughout the land. We need only look at the record of this government to see what has soured the spirit of co-operation in Canada. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) attacks the Premier of Quebec-and he is quite non-partisan about it; he attacked Mr. Bourassa with the same fervour he attacks Mr. Levesque.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) attacks the Prime Minister of Ontario. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) attacks the Premier of Saskatchewan. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), in his capacity as minister of energy, mines and resources, attacked the premier of Alberta. That has been the government's constant program and tactic, to attack their partners.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Confrontation.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Charles Joseph Clark: We know the results-we see them all around us-of that antagonistic, confrontationist approach in a country which can only be held together by a national government that is prepared to act in a spirit of partnership and co-operation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: But it does have to be said that on the question of unity the government at least had an approach; at least it knew what it wanted to do. There has been a clear pattern of centralizing authority and of using almost exclusively one agent, namely, a language policy to seek to make Frenchspeaking Canadians feel more at home in the whole of Canada. The language policy, as is well known in this House and across the country, is accepted by all members and all parties in the House. The centralizing policy remains in place and it remains a cause of disunity in Canada wherever it is applied. But at least on the question of national unity there was a policy, there was a pattern. In the field of economics there has been no pattern at all to what the government has done over the last decade. My colleague adds that there has

been no pattern except failure, and perhaps they plan that too, although I think that had they been planning the failure, given their track record, it would not have been as thorough as what we have seen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: balance of payments deficit stood at nearly $1.4 billion, a record deficit. For the whole of last year Canadian portfolio indebtedness increased by $8 billion, twice the figure of the previous year. In the last two years Canada has added $12 billion to new foreign indebtedness. The flight of direct investment capital from Canada last year was of frightening proportions. The outflow of capital last year was almost $1 billion.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Charles Joseph Clark: Those are all records-record unemployment, record indebtedness, record outflows of capital. In the Olympics of economic failure this government is a winner, hands down. The unemployment figures, as usual, hide more than they reveal. Behind the national figures lie striking regional variations. Those of the provinces of Canada which are above the national average include two of our three most populous provinces. Once, sir, if you remember, Canada had a strong economy, with a few weak spots and some depressed regions. Today Canada is well along the road to becoming a whole country of depressed regions. Those of you who find time to go home and watch television will know the hamburger advertisement. The problem we face in this country is that the whole of Canada today is suffering from a "Big Mac attack."


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Sir, we deserve a break from the Minister of Finance, a break from "Big Mac." We had a break from his predecessor who was as ineffective in bringing direction to the Canadian economy as is the present incumbent of that office. We need, fundamentally, a change in the commitment by the government of Canada to the need for economic development in this country.

Mr. Speaker, unemployment is an economic phenomenon with serious political implications. It forces people to turn to radical political solutions, as was the case in Quebec recently. In recent months, the level of unemployment in that province has remained at almost 10 per cent. It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the evolution of the separatist feeling was most pronounced outside Montreal, where the rate of unemployment is usually higher than in the metropolisis. That is the result of bad economic administration, both on the part of the province and the government of Canada. Bad Liberal administration in both cases.

Sir, one of the most important features of the Canadian labour force in recent years has been the increased participation in the labour force of women, from under 30 per cent 15 years ago to over 40 per cent today. But the unemployment rate continues to mount in this category. According to the latest figures, that rate is now 7 per cent for women over 25 and double that for women under 25. This cannot be passed off easily since so many-fully 43 per cent of working women, according to the figures of the minister responsible for the status of women-work out of economic necessity as the only household wage earner. This is a serious crisis, not only for the
Economic Policy
women affected but also for the families which so many of them are obliged to support in this country.
Another of the hidden aspects of the gross unemployment statistics-"gross" in several ways-has to do with the way the government deals with young Canadians. The unemployment rate among the young is now nearly twice the national average. In the Atlantic provinces it is now over 20 per cent of the national average, and in Quebec it is nearly that figure. Our young citizens who make up one-fifth of the Canadian population form two-fifths of the army of the unemployed in Canada. They are starting on what should be their work careers, without jobs to go to, without training which can be found, and with no incentive except to be unemployed. Sir, this large group of our population upon whom the future of Canada rests is being scarred by the tragedy of unemployment in a way that threatens to alienate them permanently from Canadian society. Beyond those actually unemployed, Mr. Speaker, there are tens of thousands who, as the Canadian Council on Social Development recently showed, are working part-time or at jobs which lead in no direction because there are no full-time or meaningful jobs available for them.
In brief, what is happening under this government as a result of the economic policies they have followed as a government for the past nine years-and I cannot believe they did not see the young coming-is that the largest generation in Canadian history is growing up with only a marginal attachment to the labour force. Sir, I am not one of those who believes that the youth of Canada have lost the work ethic but there must be work for youth to have the ethic about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: So the price of today's high level of youth unemployment is being paid now in terms of lost growth, lost production and lost hope in the promise of Canada. But it will also be paid tomorrow in terms of social unrest and dissatisfaction with a society which promises more than it can deliver. Sir, the first time bomb for tomorrow is in those statistics.
Turning to the balance of payments, we find another record, a record last quarter deficit of $1.4 billion, indicating an annual rate of $5 billion. Our relatively small surplus on merchandise account, the smallest surplus which has been recorded since 1969, was more than wiped out by our $2.5 billion deficit on interest and dividends paid abroad, a year on year increase of 30 per cent over 1975. That is a figure which we can expect to increase as a consequence of the government's complacency both in the past year and in the years in which it has had responsibility for managing the economic future of this country.
Deficits today can only be financed by borrowing against tomorrow. Canada cannot live for long on borrowed dollars and borrowed time. This government is borrowing today against our children's future in order to buy time for its own political survival today.
80010-5 l'/2

March 17, 1977
Economic Policy
As I have indicated, our national level of foreign indebtedness has increased by more than $12 billion in the last two years, two-thirds of that in the last year alone. Over that period, the bond interest rate has averaged around 10 per cent, creating debt servicing requirements that could have the most serious consequences for our long-term balance of payments situation. This is the second time bomb for tomorrow.
[ Translation]
If the government keeps on borrowing from abroad at the present rate, the burden of financing the national debt may reach monstrous proportions. If debt financing increases by a mere 2 per cent of the gross national product, the burden will lead to a serious and continuous increase in our deficit. Indeed, the country will have to continue borrowing, just to pay back the interest on its debt. To my mind, that way of managing things is irrational, and would impose on future generations an unacceptable burden.

Investors recognize the state to which Canada's economy has fallen. More than one investment analyst has concluded that investment-spending in Canada is, to quote one of them, "flat on its back". That is an interesting quote because "flat on its back" is a condition that sometimes occurs in the sport known as wrestling, a sport to which reference has been made by the Prime Minister and his colleagues from time to time. It is clear that what this government has succeeded in doing is wrestling investment to the ground.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Both Canadian and foreign investors are voting with their feet when it comes to investing in Canada. In 1974, Canada invested $50 million more abroad than foreigners invested in Canada. In 1975 that figure was $30 million. Last year the gap widened dramatically as foreigners reduced their direct investment in this country. The gap is now almost $1 billion. That is an outflow that causes lost jobs and lost production today and tomorrow. Today's investment, as we all know, creates, or can create tomorrow's jobs. The fact that Canada is no longer an attractive place in which to invest, either for Canadians or foreigners, is the third time bomb for tomorrow which has been set off by this government. That investment situation is inevitably associated with the control program and the government's lack of planning and lack of candour about the removal of that program. When they introduced the controls program-and it was the only justifiable reason for introducing it-they had the opportunity to act during the period of controls to bring about other adjustments in a national economy. It was only on that basis that controls could be justified in a country like Canada.
The government has done nothing at all with the time that it purchased with the imposition of controls. We have had 18 months wherein the role of the Minister of Finance has been that of little more than a spokesman for the Anti-Inflation Board. Instead of using the time that controls provided to

bring together their partners in the Canadian economy, to work out changes, to bring direction to its economy, this government simply dragged its feet. Now we suspect it is looking for an opportunity to drag its feet a little longer.
It is clear that the controls program has brought serious distortions to the Canadian economy, including distortions in investment patterns. It is clear, also-certainly on this side of the House-that a young country like Canada, which depends so much upon imagination, investment and entrepreneurial spirit cannot have a regime of permanent controls. If we continue to maintain a controls regime over a long period of time because we think it is difficult to wind it down now, we will be creating a climate for permanent controls, a climate which will deeply endanger our capacity to grow as a country.
One of the things the budget must do on March 31 is make it abundantly clear what the government of Canada intends to do about this controls program, when it intends to wind it down, and what steps it intends to introduce to ensure that the winding down will not cause more problems than the regime of controls as practised by this government caused on its own.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I can only presume that the Minister of Finance intends to do that in his budget. It became evident in his answers to questions earlier in this House before the budget date was set that he and his colleagues were thinking of a later date when the question was first raised as to when the budget would come forward. They then changed that, bringing it up to March 31. It is clear to all who can see that the reason the government brought forward to March 31 the date of the budget was that the Progressive Conservative Party had introduced and had carried in this House an amendment that would have forced a debate upon controls the day after the date chosen by the minister for his budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The crisis that we face as a country today comes at a time when the government should be seeking all the economic advice it can get from this House, from the private sector and from its own economists. However, like all governments that are running out of steam; it closes off the avenues of advice at a time when every breath of fresh air in economic policy making is necessary. This government hints about winding down an agency such as the Economic Council of Canada.
The economic problems that we face are severe. There are many of them; some painfully apparent, others just below the surface ticking like time bombs. They are complex problems. There are no simple solutions. No one in this House pretends that there are. However, we believe those problems will never be resolved until the government is prepared to look them squarely in the eye. The government must realize that it has a responsibility to go beyond its particular view as to how to unite a nation. It goes beyond fighting with the provinces. It leads also to giving economic leadership to the people of Canada and creating a climate in which the other partners in
March 17, 1977

the Canadian economy can make their creative contributions.
It will take time, but the process has to start.
I want to suggest a couple of areas where the government can start a process of reconstruction. First, the government has a major obligation to stop contributing to inflation. The governor of the Bank of Canada made a step in this direction by gradually scaling down the growth in the money supply. That has to be followed. The federal government has a very clear obligation to continue a reduction in the growth of its own expenditures. It has to be a real reduction, not one that is accomplished by some sleight of hand.
I want to talk for a moment about sleight of hand because behind the sleight of hand of the statement of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) that expenditures will grow only 7 per cent in fiscal year 1978 is the fact that operating and capital expenditures will increase by 14.5 per cent. The federal government can, and must, do more to restrain the growth of its expenditures. It is not enough to say that the growth of government expenditures will follow the growth of the gross national product. That constitutes acceptance of an unacceptable status quo. The federal government must commit itself to reducing substantially, over time, the share of the economy which it and other levels of government have taken for themselves.
Third, there has to be determination to stimulate growth in this country. Savings in expenditures have to be passed on to Canadians. In doing so the administration can create jobs and stimulate economic activity without acting in a way which will further increase inflation. The tax burden on individual Canadians can be reduced. Thus, confidence will be restored, or a step toward restoration taken. At the same time, the purchasing power in the hands of Canadians would be increased. To assist in the expansion of investment, businesses also have to be given a tax break.
There are further important measures needed. This party has proposed reductions in personal taxation. The argument of the present administration that it has already passed on a tax break through the indexation of tax brackets is nothing more than a sham, an accounting trick. All the indexation of tax brackets does is compensate for past inflation; it replaces the profit the government makes from generating inflation in Ottawa and allowing it to develop across the country. There is no merit at all in returning to individual Canadians what was theirs in the first place. The stopping of confiscatory taxation is not an act for which the government deserves applause. It was their duty in the first place and they must now address seriously the requirement to bring in real, not sleight of hand, tax cuts.
In our view, tax cuts should be aimed directly at producing benefits for Canadians earning less than $8,000 a year, with lesser benefit for those earning from $8,000 to $16,000 a year. The purpose of tax cuts of this kind is to stimulate consumption among those who have borne the greatest burden of inflation. Some benefits in increased saving would also result.
Economic Policy
Thus, more capital would be available for domestic investment. The government should also consider a reduction in the manufacturer's sales tax, not necessarily across the board- that might work out to be a quite small reduction-but it should consider a sales tax cut in particular areas. Perhaps the remaining sales tax on building materials could be removed. We would certainly welcome and expect government initiatives in this area.
Obviously, the greatest burden of our national unemployment is borne by the five eastern provinces, as I mentioned earlier. That is an area of the country containing about 34 per cent of the population but carrying 45 per cent of the unemployment. In 1976 almost 80 per cent of the increase in the number of unemployed in Canada took place in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec. I suggest to the government that tax policies must recognize these facts and take steps to solve the problem.
A tax rebate or credit scheme for investment in research and development projects could be effective. Having more research and development done in Canada is one step we could take to reduce our truly mammoth deficit in trade and manufactured products. If the maximum benefits of such a credit were made available to companies and, I would emphasize, to small businesses investing in research and development in the Atlantic region and Quebec, then a positive contribution would be made to assisting the growth of employment in these provinces, one which would provide the basis of an industrial structure as well as assisting in the long term improvement of our balance of trade in manufactured products.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The government should also examine the possibility of introducing long term fiscal or tax contracts for companies investing in Quebec or in Atlantic Canada. I reviewed this proposal for the House earlier and I think it is one which has worked well in New Hampshire and in southern Ireland. I think it deserves some kind of consideration here. There should also be specific tax assistance to encourage investment in small and medium-sized business, particularly owner-managed enterprises. The government has received a lot of excellent proposals for a program like this. My predecessor, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), called for-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue if he has unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Go on!


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There have been a number of proposals put forward. I will not reiterate them at length, but there was one proposed by my predecessor some years ago calling for a small business investment tax credit. The government of Ontario, in 1974, suggested venture investment programs. The Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen suggested its own approach to deal with this problem. Whatever method the government decides to adopt,

March 17, 1977
Economic Policy
it clearly has to act to create encouragement and incentive for this highly productive, highly important segment of the Canadian community, particularly because incentives to small business will have a direct impact upon some of the smaller communities in Canada where larger government and other programs might not be as effective.
Even if the government does act on the measures suggested, even if it does bring in programs designed to encourage job creation, it is going to take some time for the effects to be felt through the economy. There will be no immediate aid for the more than a million Canadians out of work today. That is the reason my colleagues and I have been urging in the House in the last few days that some emergency action be taken by the government, either in the field of direct job creation programs or, just as important, by changing some of the priorities in existing federal spending programs. The expenditure is already committed, but the question which has to be put is whether or not it is intelligent and in the national interest, given the necessity of restraint, to focus some of those expenditures in areas where they could be delayed at the cost of denying those expenditures to regions and people in Canada in desperate need of them now as their only means of obtaining jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: When I raised this very question with the Prime Minister yesterday, he answered with his usual seriousness- not answering at all. He suggested I should indicate where some of those savings might be made. I can suggest some areas which, cumulatively, might be able to stand the delay of expenditure for a year or two in the interests of the unemployed. We are spending $6 million building a new Canadian embassy in Yugoslavia. Might not that sum be better spent helping the unemployed in Newfoundland? We have spent $10.5 million in agents' fees for services in countries which deny having even heard of agents. Might it not have been better to have directed that money toward job creation in Quebec instead of investing in a phanton in Korea?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: According to answers to questions on the order paper the other day, this government, which is unprepared to find jobs for the unemployed, spent $200,000 on pencils for the census. They are spending now, on an annual basis, $100,000 a year to stick Mirabel back together again because a Liberal administration, with its capacity for planning, used the wrong adhesive to hold together the slabs on the tarmac. They did not take into account the fact that this is a country dominated by winter, so we are spending $100,000 a year for as long as we can see ahead to keep Mirabel together instead of helping Canadians to find jobs.
What else is the government doing? It is spending $175,000 to study washroom usage in Canada. It is spending $ 133,757.50 on briefcases. It is, of course, a question of priorities. We believe that expenditures of this kind, together with many others which are projected by the government, would be far

better made if they were directed to job creation for the more than one million who are out of work today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: To try to regenerate the confidence of Canadians in our economic future so that there will be more willingness to invest in job-creating, capital projects, the federal government could make a positive contribution by providing to all Canadians the benefit of its thinking on the future course of the economy.
As a start, sir, I think that the budget brought down by the minister on March 31 should provide forecasts not just to the end of the fiscal year 1978, as would be consistent with past practice, but at least to the end of fiscal year 1979. The forecasts could include real growth, expected real growth, inflation, job creation, federal revenues and expenditures. In addition to this longer range forecast the government should suggest its targets for economic performance for five years, in this case up to 1982, in much the same way as the Economic Council of Canada has done.
The use of longer range forecasts and targets will provide an indication of where the government wants to take the economy. It will stand as a guide to Canadians and as a measure of performance. Right now there is no guide to Canadians. We have a government that has operated without bringing in northern land use regulations for seven years. We have a government that changes the rules regarding controls in the middle of the night and then changes the administrative rules daily. In the operation of the Anti-Inflation Board there is no certainty at all, and the only standards by which we have to judge the effectiveness of government policy are the kind of statistics which were released this week which show that more than a million Canadians are out of work as a result of the policies of the government.

A second very important step to revive the confidence of all Canadians in the future of their economy would be to call a national conference on the economy to discuss its future course. This should be a multiparty conference where all sectors of economic activity would be represented, not only large industries and big unions. Non-organized labour, small businessmen, all levels of government, consumers, farmers and other interested groups would also be represented.
At this conference we could discuss not only the long-term planning of the economy by the government but also the matter of the share of the GNP held by the government. Such a conference would have the advantage of removing the debate from the restricted and closed circles where the powerful generally meet. The economic future of our country should be discussed openly and in public. The Economic Council of Canada has already sponsored two similar conferences. Most participants found that process useful but questioned its validity for nobody ever followed up on the recommendations which were then expressed. I do not suggest that the federal govern-
March 17, 1977

ment should give up its responsibilities for managing the national economy in favour of a consensus resulting from a conference. I suggest that the federal government should commit itself to follow up on the recommendations of the conference or, on the contrary, to reject them in a rational way. Only such a mechanism would ensure that Canadians have a say in their own economy, the only way they will be protected against sudden and dramatic turnabouts in economic policy.

Mr. Speaker, the essence of this philosophy is that the economy of Canada is too important to be left to the cabinet of Canada and a handful of its bureaucrats. There must be-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Especially to this cabinet.


Charles Joseph Clark: This or any other cabinet, but this cabinet is particularly dangerous because we can see what they do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We are speaking here of a process, and there clearly must be, in a democratic country where the private sector is so much more important to our growth than the government sector, a process that will allow everyone affected by major economic decisions to have some influence upon those decisions, and a process that will allow the government to escape from the prison of its own advice and its own advisers and consider the good advice and the good sense of people who want something more in this country than to get the economy going.
We face a serious crisis today. We face it for two reasons. The first is that we have a government that fundamentally does not care about economics. It was elected with a mandate to unify and it will be judged at other times on its capacity to unify this country, a capacity which, as I say, has become more clear in recent months in the province of Quebec and in recent years in western Canada and in other regions.
The other reason that we have a crisis today is that the government has consistently been freezing out other opinion- and that must change. The consequences, sir, are all around us. We have crisis today. We have, as I have indicated, time bombs built in for tomorrow. The budget is ahead. There is still, I would presume, some time to affect it. We have asked during the last two days that there will be a clear commitment to generating jobs as a major priority of this government. No commitment was given. The only instrument we have, as representatives of the people of Canada-representatives of the unemployed in Canada who obviously have no spokesmen on the government side-is to dramatize this crisis to a government which asks, in effect, "What's a million unemployed?", when bringing this matter forward in debate as we have done today.
The Minister of Finance will be replying. I hope he will give some indication of the general direction in which he intends to go. I hope he will give us some commitment that there will be in his budget a priority determination to create jobs for those
Economic Policy
Canadians who are out of work now, and I hope that he will give us some commitment that the budget will begin a process of much more open decision making. I express to him in advance my apology that I will have to read most of his remarks in Hansard-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Oh, come on.


Charles Joseph Clark: You had to sit through mine, and I do apologize for this. But I will read them with the avidity that I do all his remarks, and I hope the minister will in his remarks today and in the budget that he brings in reverse a record that he and his colleagues have set-a record of contempt for the unemployed in Canada, of blindness to the need for economic confidence and growth in Canada, and failure to exercise its fundamental responsibility for national leadership. Clearly, if that is not done, this motion must express a majority view of the House of Commons as to the failure of this government to carry out its responsibilities to bring economic leadership to the country.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are in serious trouble. Outside this House we have the most serious unmeployment rate of any period since the depression, and inside the House-as has been demonstrated day after day since last September-we have a government which neither cares nor knows what to do about the problem. Just as in the depression, instead of advancing creative or innovative thoughts, the government has produced a new rigidity respecting conservative economics. So, too, today do we have a government which watches month after month as unemployment figures increase and responds to that with the most absurd banalities one could imagine.
Just yesterday in the House of Commons the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that the cause-not the only cause, but one of the principal causes-of our situation is that Canadians are living beyond their means. I thought I was listening to R. B. Bennett all over again. The statement made by the Prime Minister was both incredible and sad. It was incredible because the Prime Minister ought to know better, and I think he does know better. It was sad because the statement he made betrayed an insensitivity-which is almost beyond belief- about the more than one million Canadians who are out of work. Certain people are living beyond their means, and I suggest that the Prime Minister is pre-eminently among them. Canada's poor and unemployed are certainly not living beyond their means.
This government displays lack of thought, lack of action and no caring at all. Instead, we hear commonplace utterances of the most conservative economic banalities one could dig up, and I say that with all seriousness. Instead of the present crisis leading to the imaginative application of new ideas, and instead of the implementation of progressive ideas which are not necessarily new, we have inaction by this government. In my view, this government's response to the unemployment crisis can only be described as traumatically regressive. It is

March 17, 1977
Economic Policy
indifferent to the human and economic consequences of one million people being unemployed.
The figures are alarming and disturbing. They ought to concern the some 90 per cent of Canadians who have jobs. The official rate is now 9.1 per cent, with 932,000 unemployed. We know that the real rate is much higher and that the real number is much greater. If we add to the official figures produced by the government all those Canadians who would willingly take a job in this country, instead of 932,000 Canadians unemployed in 1977-not 1937-the figure would be 1.479 million. There would be a real rate of unemployment in February, 1977, of 13.7 per cent instead of the official figure of 9.1 per cent.
In a civilized industrial country some 40 years after the great depression that is a scandalous situation. Eight of the ten provinces have double digit inflation as well as double digit unemployment. If we look at the real figures-not the official government data-eight of our ten provinces have double digit unemployment. In Newfoundland the figure is 31.8 per cent. These are February figures, and I have added to the official data those people who in the view of my party ought to be included in the monthly data, namely, those who would be in the labour market if jobs were available.
Based on that, we get the following figures for Canada in 1977: Newfoundland, 31.8 per cent; Prince Edward Island, 25.9 per cent; Nova Scotia, 20.1 per cent; New Brunswick, 25.7 per cent, Quebec 16.6 per cent; Ontario, 11.4 per cent, Manitoba, 11.3 per cent; British Columbia, 13.4 per cent. Even in the two provinces where unemployment is not in the double digit category, what do we have? In Saskatchewan the figure is 9.2 per cent, and in the best of the lot, in Alberta, the figure is 7.3 per cent. It was not many years ago that even Liberals talked about 3 per cent unemployment being a serious objective for an industrial society and a target we should aim for in terms of job creation.
Fortunately, the economy of the province of Alberta has been stimulated because of the international oil situation, but it still has an unemployment rate of 7.3 per cent. I repeat that this is a scandalous situation in both human and economic terms. It should cause the government to express concern and to come forward and say, "We are trying to do (a), (b), (c) and (d), and perhaps over four years we will reduce the level significantly." I do not expect that to happen tomorrow, but the government should come forward with a program which will do something over a period of three or four years. But do we get those expressions of concern? Not at all. We get the flippancy of the Prime Minister who says we are living beyond our means. Like fun! Today the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) made reference to farmers spending their time in Florida, or California; I do not remember which.


An hon. Member:: Hawaii.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister should tell that to farmers whose incomes are going down at the rate of 30 per cent per year. He should tell that to the one million Canadians who are unemployed. That is the kind of attitude this government

has-and this is the government which has control of our fate. God protect us! If the general picture is bad from region to region and from province to province, it is particularly bad for the young people of Canada. Almost half of those unemployed are between the ages of 15 and 24. In another two months there will be several hundred thousand young people leaving our schools and universities to go on to the job market. It will be the worst job market since the depression. Many of these young people want to stay in the job market. They are willing to work and contribute to the well-being of their families and communities. But jobs are not available, they will not be available and, reluctantly, many young people will go back to school. They will be doing so reluctantly, because returning to school is not their wish. At this stage they do not want to further their education, but because there are no jobs from coast to coast they will return to school.
The situation is serious and it is particularly serious in the province of Quebec. To use a phrase of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), we indeed have a real time-bomb. Unemployment is at catastrophic levels among the young people of that province. It is no coincidence that young French Canadians in Quebec voted overwhelmingly for the Parti Quebecois. The survey of the attitude in the province of Quebec which came out a few days ago shows that there has been a doubling of support for separatism since the election of the Trudeau government. I suggest that the young people of the province of Quebec are contributing to the increase in the commitment to have an independent province of Quebec. Surely that, if not humanitarian considerations, should bother this government.
We have had a number of debates on the subject of unemployment in the House since last September when my party first said that this should be recognized by the government as the leading political and economic question in this country. That has been carefully and benignly ignored by the government. At various times, on behalf of my colleagues, I have suggested what ought to be done both in the short run and in the long run. Today I will wait until near the end of my speech to repeat some of those suggestions, if time permits.
However, what I would really like to do this afternoon is report to the House and to the people of Canada on a three day visit my colleagues and I had in the province of British Columbia this past weekend. Four of us went to the province of British Columbia, for two reasons. We wanted to learn directly from people who are unemployed what it means to be unemployed in Canada in 1977, and how it affects their lives and the lives of their families. Second, we wanted to learn from the people who were experiencing this unemployment if they had some suggestions to make, because it is my serious view that the bureaucrats, the ministers and, indeed, the leaders of political parties on this side of the House all too often assume that we know the right generalizations, we know the broad framework of economic analysis and therefore we do not have to learn on the spot from ordinary people their proposals about what to do with their particular circumstances. It has been one of the things I have learned as a
March 17, 1977

politician that ordinary people do in fact have a remarkable grasp of the significance of their own situation and a remarkable capacity for making proposals for improving that situation based on common sense and a lot of economic sense in a general way.
I would like now to report on our trip to three communities in British Columbia, to report to the House the thoughts and feelings of the ordinary people of B.C. on the question of unemployment, and report to the House some of their suggestions about what could be done and what should be done in their communities to deal with this national and regional problem. First, we spent last Saturday in the very attractive seaport town of Nanaimo and we heard a dozen or so briefs on Saturday afternoon in that community which has an unemployment rate of about 14 per cent at present.
I will just give the House illustrations from some of those briefs which document the experience and contain some suggestions for improvement. First, I will refer to the briefs submitted by Chief Modeste of the Cowichan Band Council. I would like the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), as well as the minister responsible for our native people, to read that brief because in it they will find a very moving description of the extent of unemployment on this reserve and its impact on the lives of the Indian people in that reserve, on their families, what it does to motivation and what it does in terms of expectations for their life in this land of ours.
It is not a charming piece of material to read. It would not move one to great feelings of optimism and high expectations about the future of Canada as seen from the perspective of a member of the Cowichan band in that part of our land. It is, indeed, a sad document, and I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that what is true in that band holds true universally for our native people in Canada, almost all of whom are excluded, I might add, from the official unemployment figures that come out month after month. At the conclusion of this very moving brief the last sentence reads:
An old Indian teaching is that no man can suppress another for very long for he will pay for his action in the end.
That was not said in a polemical or threatening way; it was said seriously and movingly by a man who was acting as the spokesman for his people. A brief was presented by the Alberni District Labour Council. It describes, again in plain language and therefore movingly, the particular situation of our young people and how unemployment begins to destroy their incentive, begins to sap their energy and take away their commitment to this country. I quote from it as a recommendation to the government of the day. At one point it reads:
Along with the right of education, health and housing, there has to be a right to a work place.
My party accepts that. It accepts the view that what we should have on the law books of Canada is a full employment act which says that in principle every Canadian from St. John's in the east to Victoria in the west has the right to a job. It is not utopian that a government of the day would be
Economic Policy
expected to lay down a four or five year program to achieve over that period full employment and then make annual reports to the House about its target and its success or failure in achieving that target. But we have no such legislation, no such commitment to full employment from this Liberal government, nor have we had it from any of its predecessors.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How about a right to work law?


John Edward Broadbent: It depends entirely on what you mean by that concept. If you mean that Canadians should have the right to a job instead of welfare, you have the 100 per cent support of my party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The third brief to which I should like to refer came from the Gabriola Island fishermen. Again, it was one that contained not only a moving description of the circumstances in which fishermen on the west coast find themselves but had some pertinent recommendations to make. It was concerned about the revival of the salmon fishery in that part of British Columbia. They objected to a proposed change in the division of our coastal waters in B.C. which would be harmful for small boats and trawl fishermen. I will not go into details at this time. Their point was that they did not want the announced change that had been outlined to them to take place because it would be harmful for the fishermen there. But what did they call for? They called for an independent commission whose purpose it would be to recommend practical means of reviving the salmon fishery in their area so that, as they put it, "fishermen can make their own living independent of subsidies, welfare or unemployment insurance". What they wanted was not some form of hand out, some form of charity; they wanted a sensible fishery policy which would enable them to live with dignity doing some work.


Benno Friesen: What did Barrett do?


John Edward Broadbent: Let me tell the Tory backbencher that since the Tory-Liberal-Socred alliance has come in in British Columbia, unemployment has gone up and inflation has gone up, not down. The fourth brief we heard in Nanaimo-


Mr. Wenman:: Tell us about the high income tax in Manitoba.


John Edward Broadbent: It is obvious the Tories have had nothing constructive to say the whole time Canadians have suffered such a high rate of unemployment, and now they are sensitive about the issue. The fourth brief to which I should like to refer is the one which was submitted by the Nanaimo Association for Intervention and Development. They provided a very disturbing set of statistics.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon gentleman, but I must inform the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), that we must respect the decorum of the House and refrain from wearing a hat on this day.
4082

March 17, 1977
Economic Policy


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to point out that there is a Standing Order under which all hon. members have the right to wear a hat in the House. Our only obligation is to take it off when we address the Chair. I will be glad to look up the appropriate citation, Mr. Speaker. As the descendant of a Healy and a McDermett and others on the Scottish side, I have to defend the hon. member's right to wear that particular hat.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for York-Simcoe will not have to rise on a point of order. The Chair withdraws its remarks. It has been the practice of the House, and if hon. members are prepared to allow it with unanimous consent I will allow the hon. member for York-Simcoe to wear his Irish hat.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for your intervention, and I am particularly pleased that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has, in this instance at least, co-operated in my endeavour to pay tribute to my fine native land, Ireland. If I may, I should like to wear my hat in the House on the understanding that if I address you, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly remove it.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, this recent exchange boggles the mind. Here we are, in the midst of a debate on a motion moved by the Official Opposition expressing concern about unemployment, and the financial spokesman for the Tory party comes into the House and frivolously puts on a ridiculous hat. I say to you as seriously as I can that all Canadians of Irish ancestry who are unemployed hold the hon. member in nothing but contempt for this frivolous indulgence at such a serious time. I mean that. I note that some hon. members are smiling. Perhaps hon. members will be moved by the following statistics. One of the briefs suggested that of the people who attempted suicide in Vancouver between October, 1975, and September, 1976, 45.8 per cent were unemployed. Unemployment to them was not a joke. They did not have time to fool around celebrating St. Patrick's day. For them unemployment was a serious issue. I say through you, Mr. Speaker, to all hon. members that it may be fine for us to smile, to smirk, to kid. We are living well. We are fully employed. We have good incomes. But for the more than one million-in fact, there are almost 1.5 million unemployed-without jobs the situation is serious. Many of them have no income, and unemployment is not something for them to joke about.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Who's joking?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, from Nanaimo we proceeded up the coast to that beautiful community in British Columbia known as Powell River.


Mr. Pearsall:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member opposite who claps represents that community. If he
really represents it he must know that 25 per cent of the community of Powell River is unemployed.


Albert John (Jack) Pearsall: You are wrong.


John Edward Broadbent: The hon. member suggests I am wrong. I welcome correction. If the hon. member rises and says the rate is 24.6 per cent, I will accept his correction. I tell him that the unemployment level is 25 per cent. We heard people of that community describing their attempts to find jobs. We were told, for example, of the provincial government's decision to do some budget cutting and of the federal government's attempt, allegedly, to co-operate with that budget cutting effort.
The provincial government asked the federal government to change the designation of Georgia Strait to that of an inland water system. I understand a decision has not been reached on that request of the British Columbia provincial government. But what would it mean? What would it do? That proposal, made by the Socred government of British Columbia, would mean, if accepted, cutting back the crews on ferries from 31 to 14 members. It would mean a net loss of employment in the area of 450 jobs. Not only would jobs be affected but, as I was told by seamen at Powell River, Vancouver and Nanaimo, the safety of the passengers on ships would be significantly affected by crew cutbacks since those waters sometimes become rough. That would be the result if the size of ships' crews was cut in half. The Socred government made that proposal to the federal Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). Knowing our minister's previous attitude on transport, I fear the worst.
We also heard a moving story from a worker who had been laid off from the Texada mines in Powell River. He was dismayed, not at being laid off- for the mine was run down and the iron ore pretty well depleted-but at the way the unemployment insurance people treated him. He had lived in the community for some time and raised his children, and over a period of 20 or 30 years had accumulated his severance pay. When he was laid off he collected his severance pay, and when he applied for unemployment insurance was told he was not eligible. He was told to use up his severance pay to which he had contributed all his life.
Mr. Speaker, why should a man be put in that position? Since he was available for employment, why should he not be entitled to collect unemployment insurance? Under the regulations, if you are unemployed you are eligible for unemployment insurance if you are available for work. He was available for work. Therefore, I do not see why his severance pay should run out before he or any other Canadian should be entitled to collect unemployment insurance. The sole criterion ought to be, is he ready and willing to work? If he is available for work, he should be entitled to collect unemployment insurance.


Benno Friesen: Right.


John Edward Broadbent: From Powell River we moved on Monday of this week to Vancouver. In Vancouver we heard extensive testimony on the problems of living, with the high unemploy-
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
March 17, 1977

ment levels of the province and particularly of the city. The British Columbia Federation of Labour submitted a brief which contained many proposals, to some of which I will refer. It noted particularly the large gap between job forecasting at the federal level and the meeting of those forecasts through the manpower retraining programs. The federation told us of men and women who had been trained for jobs for which there was no demand and which were often non-existent. Interestingly enough, they also told us that some skills were needed but there was no manpower retraining program for meeting those needs. The department did not provide the requisite courses. What the federation told us in British Columbia was exactly similar to what we had been told in St. John's, Newfoundland, two months ago. We were told that manpower retraining centres in St. John's were turning out hundreds of hairdressers. They turned out more hairdressers in St. John's than there were women in Newfoundland to use their services. That was a perfectly absurd situation.
The B.C. federation said that manpower retraining programs should bear some relationship to demand for workers in the market place. No reasonable person can question that suggestion. The federation appropriately stressed the cruelty of changing at this time the eligibility criteria for unemployment insurance-that is, upping the ante, so to speak-from 8 weeks to 12 weeks before people could be eligible to collect unemployment insurance. Surely that is a profoundly cruel action when more than one million Canadians are unemployed. It simply adds insult to injury.
Another question of concern raised in the brief was that many now being employed on LIP projects are simply doing work which would have been done in other ways by skilled workers. The federation told us of community projects on which, normally, plumbers or carpenters would be employed. Since the work was done under a LIP grant, either volunteer workers or workers who worked for substantially lower wage rates were hired to do the job. That ought to concern all of us. We support the LIP program. I do not want that misunderstood. But it is important not to be deceived about some of the consequences of these projects. We are simply giving one group of people jobs which otherwise would be performed by men and women earning a much higher salary. We ought to be concerned, since we are merely shifting the locus of unemployment.
Another submission I found moving was that of the representative of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. This was a very moving documentation and a generalization that at a time of high unemployment, women are the last to be hired and the first to be fired. The case that was generally made was at this time with this level of unemployment, women in Canada suffer disproportionately more than men. Again they provided the data to document the case. It was a sad one.
It should concern us that the female sex in Canada, which has historically been unfairly treated, and those of us in the
Economic Policy
opposite sex in the past few years are gradually becoming conscious of that fact-


Coline M. Campbell: It is long overdue.


John Edward Broadbent: I agree with the hon. member that it is long overdue. I will add that it is long overdue on my part. All I say is that we should be increasingly aware of this inequality. We should be aware of the discrimination that exists toward the female sex which is particularly felt at times of unemployment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. Nevertheless he may continue if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: I thank hon. members for their indulgence. A further brief was submitted by the minister of the First United Church in Vancouver. It might interest hon. members to know that that church is located in the east end of Vancouver, not one of the more posh parts of town where doctors, lawyers and well paid university professors reside. It is a poorer part of Vancouver with a disproportionate number of drifters, unemployed, and those who are down and out.
I was told by people on the scene that the minister worked very hard preparing the brief. 1 commend him for bringing this to our attention. It indicates that the controls in operation, allegedly from province to province, controlling rents have no effect at all for most of the people for whom he was speaking.
The people for whom this minister was concerned in his brief live in small hotels. There is no control on the rates for the rooms in small hotels. In many cases the people pay a weekly or daily rate for a room. They do not rent an apartment nor do they own a condominium. They simply have a small and in many cases barren and cold room. He found that the rent went up, not by 10 or 15 per cent, but in some cases by 80 per cent for those rooms in the east end of Vancouver.
I do not know whether this survey was conducted in his parish. It was certainly an area of Vancouver that he knows well. He found that these people spent between 75 and 80 per cent of their income on rent. On the average, they had $1 a day to spend on food, clothing and anything else they may need.
Amongst these people, and I suspect the majority of them, were the unemployed. Are they the people who the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) refers to when he says we are living beyond our means? I have my doubts. If we are concerned about rent control and applying it effectively, surely that is an area that we should move into quickly to ensure that the small hotels do not exploit in a very unfair and cruel way the poor people who live in that part of Vancouver.
Another brief I was given had been prepared by the Vancouver and District Labour Council. They stressed the important issue of hidden unemployment. They were concerned that the unemployment figures in Canada were really much higher than official statistics suggest. In particular, they stressed that
80010-52*72

March 17, 1977
Economic Policy
hidden unemployment was very real, direct and meaningfully felt by young Canadians in their part of Canada, stating that it was they who had given up.
Some cases were cited, not as part of the formal brief but in informal conversation, of young people in the Vancouver area who had been out of school for two years, had been searching incessantly for jobs and had found none.
One has to draw the conclusion that as people get depressed, they lose their incentive as well as their respect for government and authority. It is a perfectly understandable normal reaction by people who grow up in a society which treats them indifferently. They are inclined to react in an indifferent manner. We will get exactly what we deserve from such young people, no better and no less.
A sensible proposal that the labour council made to create jobs was to completely modernize the port of Vancouver. Surely it makes sense to carry further the containerization process on the west coast. If needed capital were put in there, it would provide jobs now, as well as provide an expanded harbour operation for the future. That makes good sense. It is a practical proposal that should be taken up by the national government, and if not, by the government of British Columbia.
Finally with regard to the briefs I will refer to in Vancouver was the one presented by the British Columbia Employers' Council. That is not exactly a hotbed of socialists. In fact, if you look very hard at their membership, it would be hard to find one socialist. I do not say that in any critical sense. They happen to be a group of people who, as a rule, differ in their perspective from that held by my party. They presented a serious brief. In fact, it was presented by the former postmaster general of Canada, Mr. William Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton, on behalf of the Employers' Council of British Columbia, urged an early end to the controls program, something we have been advocating since the controls program was brought in. He made the point that we made at that time, that this controls program has a harmful effect on job creation, that we should put an end to it quickly and introduce measures that will produce more jobs for Canadians.
I want to conclude the report on my three day visit to British Columbia by citing what I think is the most moving testimony of all. It was presented by a 59 year-old mother of two teenage children. She was looking of a job. This woman told the story of a job opening in Abbotsford, a small community. It appears that for a very short time there was an ad in one of the papers by MacDonald's, the hamburger chain. It stated that they were going to open at a new location in Abbotsford and that they wanted to hire a handful of young people, I think in the neighbourhood of 20. Within 24 hours a line up three blocks long appeared. These were young people looking for jobs. They came with haversacks and sleeping bags and stayed overnight in that community looking for that handful of jobs. What does that story tell us? It tells me that among the unemployed in Canada, and I think particularly of unemployed young Canadians, there is not a shiftless attitude. There is not an attitude that they would prefer welfare, the easy life, or hand

outs. Quite the contrary. The attitude among the young people of Canada is that they want to work. They want to be able to make their contribution, to look after themselves, probably to marry before long and to raise families. They want to have the same opportunities in their lives as immigrants to this country for the last 100 years, and as the parents of those who have grown up in the past couple of decades always assumed, that this would indeed be a land of promise. That is what the three block line up in Abbotsford meant. But because it was three blocks long and because people came from the surrounding areas so quickly to get the jobs, we see that unemployment is indeed a very serious problem and that there are now thousands out of work. It indicates not only the healthy attitude of Canada's young but the alarming and cruel failure of the government.
There is no more serious issue today than unemployment. It affects every community in the country. It is running at 30 per cent in Newfoundland, 28 per cent in Cape Breton, 25 per cent in the Gaspe region, 25 per cent in the Powell River area, and 14 per cent in Nanaimo. In Montreal the figure is 20 per cent. It is a national crisis and it is time the government, so long frozen into indifference and inertia, began to act.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, first I must congratulate the mover of that motion who gives us an opportunity to deal with issues which deeply concern us; I congratulate the spokesman for the Progressive Conservative Party but at the same time I am rather surprised when reading his motion to note that while condemning the government he has probably forgotten to make suggestions which his party would have in mind to solve our problems.
Indeed, we read in the motion that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) is condemned and urged to be forthright with the people of Canada by revealing in the budget the specific goals he will be seeking to reach with regard to employment, inflation, Canada's trade balance and the rate of economic growth.
As to the representative of the New Democratic Party, he gave us an interesting report of his three day tour in British Columbia. I congratulate him for that, but frankly if I talked about all the cases that go through my office on weekends alone, Mr. Speaker, I think I would have enough for a week. That is why I will spare you that narration. I will just simply talk about a few items in today's motion.
I just read a very interesting book dealing with the funding of Confederation, a book that impressed me because it is a resume of all the meetings that were held since 1867, including all provincial government and federal government relations. What transpires from those discussions? It was a prime minister at the very outset of Confederation who said: Never forget that Confederation is based on a compromise, and one realizes at the end of every meeting they had that everything was solved on the basis of that compromise. I mention this simply to say that if we really want to come to grips with the problem facing Canada today, that compromise will have to be dis-
March 17, 1977

cussed because 1 feel that employment, unemployment, and inflation concern the provinces as much as the federal government. This government is being blamed-one could include all previous governments-only because it took over from its predecessor, and so on.
The problem facing us today is not necessarily a problem of one government, it is a national problem, a problem of generation, and it must looked at from that standpoint. Speaking of employment, of course, everybody realizes today, one does not have to be a prophet or a soothsayer to know that our labour force is for the major part unemployed. When dealing with the issue of employment in the present situation we only look for short term seeming remedies to the unemployment afflicting us today. I say "afflicting us" because the plague of unemployment is a natural consequence of our economic evolution. We must indeed realize that it is simply a natural consequence because you do not try to solve unemployment with full employment. Temporarily, yes. And all means are being used, and previous and present ministers are trying with all means available to bring down unemployment but they will always be temporary means.
We must stop thinking for the immediate future. We should at last initiate a discussion to find long term solutions, although we have had all kinds of new projects in recent years.
1 still remember winter works, as everybody else does. Those were about the first big projects to be initiated to try and reduce unemployment, like for instance the ARDA projects, regional economic expansion projects and manpower training courses whose purpose was to retrain workers who had been laid off in some sectors. Those workers must be retrained to go back to the labour market, but after such projects we realize that even those workers, whose retraining was supported publicly, do not find jobs either because they simply increase the number of workers in already overcrowed sectors.
Today they say: At least we will train educated unemployed. But that will not give them a job. How many of them are coming to my office nowadays, young people who have completed their up-grading course or vocational training and who say: Now we could work but we have no job. The requirement is two or three years of experience. While these poor young people have just completed their studies, three years of experience are required. I believe it is merely another way for the employer to say: We have no job to give you.
We have also developed programs such as LIP, Opportunities for Youth, and now we have Canada Works and Young Canada Works. All these programs are aimed at temporarily lowering the current unemployment rate. We should first of all seriously wonder what is the best long term solution, not to eliminate unemployment, which is impossible, not to create permanent employment, because we will never achieve permanent full employment now, unless we decide once and for all to reject out of hand all modern techniques, unless we chose to move 50 years backwards.
Economic Policy
If we moved 50 years backwards and returned to the era of the small shovel and the pick, unemployment would probably disappear but this is impossible. We cannot take regressive steps and we cannot deny our present economic evolution simply because society could not follow a parallel development. Economics is not at fault. As far as economics is concerned, we are advanced and are not lagging in any way behind any other industrialized nations. I suggest we have completely forgotten to adjust the social sector to the economic sector. Therefore, if a machine or a given discovery, as we see them everyday, is going to remove 200, 300 or 1,000 workers from their jobs, if that machine produces less than those 1,000 workers, let us get rid of it.
But such a technique produces ten times as much as any group of workers, and yields ten times as much revenue for the state. The proof it yields much more revenue is that each year we see the gross national product increase. Therefore, it means that our economic development does not work against the nation, but for the nation. But because of our economic development, are we going to allow those people to starve to whom this technique is prejudicial? No. I think there are some measures to be adopted. If our country's production is ten times greater because of our economic development, we should be able to find some measures to allow those people to get retrained, but in the right sense, without considering that to let them live we still have to keep the old principles, the obligation to work.
We used to say, 50 or 60 years ago: "You do not work? You have no right to live!" That is not so today. Somehow we must find a way for the unemployed, now representing some 20, 24 per cent of the manpower, to live in our rich country. In other words, we have to change principles. We made scientific and economic progress, so Canadians must now share in that progress, because they were responsible for the whole process.
They must not be cast out because they produced too much, rather, they must have a share in this country's production. Such is the proposal we have been putting forward all along. As long as this government does not consider that proposal of a guaranteed minimum income for every Canadian from 18 to 65, or better still 18 to 60 when full pension is provided to Canadians 60 and above, this problem will be with us. We shall go on putting band-aids as we are now doing. I do not blame the government for what they are doing today, it is the most they can do now.
It is always possible however to consider something else. Pending a major operation, the patient is given temporary medication to strengthen and prepare him. All those small projects we now have can be no more than temporary medication to prepare our society for real action, for the long term cure that will ensure a parallel course between economic and social progress, so Canadians can share in this country's fantastic production.
It is therefore imperative in my view that we enter soon into the a very serious discussion that is vitally needed, since things are getting worse all the time. We heard it said that the

March 17, 1977
Economic Policy
government is to be blamed for the rising rate of unemployment. It is not so.
The unemployment level rises because we refuse to evolve socially. We do have the required billions, but only about 20 or 30 billionaires benefit from them. We must absolutely get out of this system and if we reject Social Credit, then let us create a new system of our own so that the population can take advantage of this considerable production in Canada.
I am told that my theory may encourage laziness. Elave no fear because unemployment insurance and social assistance can also breed parasites in society, and so can the guaranteed annual income. The difference is that unemployment insurance, social welfare and the guaranteed income supplement require armies of inspectors and it is costing us more for inspections than if we simply handed the money to the needy. The guaranteed annual income would eliminate those thousands of inspectors and all the maintenance offices, and it would be like a family allowance.
The annual guaranteed income does away with all discrimination and God knows how much there is of it. We have to cope with it every day. We are being told that someone was denied unemployment insurance benefits because a lowly official who knows nothing has been giving him a hard time for two or three months. I even know someone who waited a year and half for his insurance benefits. He will be paid soon, they say, but for more than a year his family has suffered because of a lowly twenty four year old official who does not know anything about it. Such a sad thing! However I do not hold it against him because, basically, it is not his fault, it is the system which discriminates. That is why I have been saying and repeating that 80 per cent of our social legislation is discriminatory because of it. We have been discussing unemployment all afternoon. I too would have liked to say a word about inflation since I had prepared some notes on the subject.
I hope the minister caught the solutions I am suggesting to him to cope with unemployment.
We often wonder where inflation comes from. I will tell you in a few words. I recall that about ten years ago, when I was sitting on the House committee on finance and we were discussing the famous question of interest charges, that is the control of interest charges, the department decided to remove any ceiling on bank interest charges, therefore extending interest charges everywhere. I then warned the committee that it was the beginning of inflation, the end of which would never be seen. All that started at that time. That is why governments-no more this government than others-are said to be responsible for inflation. When somebody sets a house on fire, he is the one responsible if it burns.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope the hon. member will take no more than perhaps five, six or seven minutes because there are a large number of hon. members who want to speak. I know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) would like to speak. The House would appreciate it if the hon. member would go along with this suggestion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I am sure the hon. member will co-operate.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member who just spoke and I can assure him that I will take no more than four minutes of the House's time. I only want to add a few words on the inflation issue. I was saying that interest charges, as you will agree with me, are responsible for inflation. That is the cause of inflation. In 1969 we were paying $9 million a day in interest charges on the national debt, as opposed to $15 million today. At the rate we are going, we will soon be paying $30 million a day to service the national debt.
We are going to be more and more in debt. Recently the minister said that we had goods for those 84 or 90 billion dollars. However we are not paying for goods but for interest. What are we doing today? We are borrowing an amount equal to the national income this year to give temporary credit on year to year production. As long as we are going to borrow every year's production to put that production on the market, we will have what we have today. Recently 1 was asked what we should do to prevent the national debt from increasing. If we want to do that let us stop producing. As long as you produce within a screwy system, what you have produced becomes a debt the day after because you are required to borrow money to pay for your production. As long as we let the commercial banks administer this country and fail to give the Bank of Canada responsibility for the public sector and chartered banks responsibility for the private sector, if we fail to do that we are going to be in debt, and debts hurt. I hope you realize we are asking Canadians to pay $15 million in interest every day.
We must do something. I do not know what the government thinks about it but the other day they mentioned the seaway debt. They quickly wrote that one off. I was surprised recently when we asked the Minister of Finance to tell us to whom we owed that money, the $15 million a day. He told us he could not answer right now. So we pay $15 million a day in interest and they do not know to whom we have to pay that money. We must draw the line somewhere.
Once again, I hope the minister will think about it and that we will stop looking for the cause of inflation. It is the interest that Canada would not have to pay if it could control its monetary system. We are told that they control the monetary system, they control the money, but we do not control a cent of those credits which today amount to 92 per cent of all the money supply. The whole problem is there. We will have to control the 92 per cent as strictly as the 8 per cent in paper money. I apologize. I do not want to go on because I told my
March 17, 1977

friend that I would not take more than four minutes. So I thank hon. members and I hope the minister will take notice once of all of my suggestions.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)-Transport-Disparity between subsidies for ferries on east and west coasts; the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith)-Manpower-Canada Works Program-Differentiation between status Indians on and off reservations.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark:
That this House condemns the government's failure to set or fulfil reasonable economic goals, and urges the Minister of Finance to be forthright with the people of Canada by revealing in the budget the specific goals he will be seeking to reach with regard to employment, inflation, Canada's trade balance, and the rate of economic growth.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members who have read the motion put down by the leader of the opposition have found it to be rather obscure in several ways, not the least of which is the suggestion that there should be a forthright statement in the budget as to the anticipated or expected levels of growth, job creation, unemployment, inflation, and so on. Budget statements have always included such estimates.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Not always. Turner left them out one time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The rather interesting thing hon. members will have noticed is the use of the word "goals" by the leader of the opposition. I suppose one could have said that if this had been a motion proposed by the leader of the New Democratic Party the concept of "goals"-which to me at least implies a more precise setting of patterns like the Soviet Gosplan-is something one might expect from a social-
Economic Policy
ist party, but it is strange to me that the leader of the Tory party should use that word. Total control of determinants does not now exist in our economy and has never existed. As the leader of the opposition should know our economy operates on the basis of many thousands of private decisions on the impact of the international economy of our interdependent world and on a range of variables beyond the control of man or any group; for example, determinants in the agricultural area, such as climate.


Benno Friesen: In other words, don't even try.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We may make estimates of assumed levels of performance, but any sensible person would recognize that they are only guesstimates, and they are subject to many uncontrollable variables. To me, that is the basic and simple answer to the motion.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I am glad you support it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do not support the motion; it is totally irrational. The leader of the opposition dealt very little with the motion. I would like for a moment to deal with some of the remarks of the leader of the opposition. This is an economic debate and I normally would not have gone into this particular point, but the leader of the opposition had quite a bit to say about national unity and about the contribution of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to national unity. By raising that question, the leader of the opposition brought himself in as a figure to promote, or otherwise, national unity. The leader of the opposition is not here now, and indeed the pattern of his leadership has been that he has been out of the House and out around the country.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That's not true.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Indeed, the leader of the opposition himself said that he was not going to be here. He has been out and around the country making himself better known and communicating so that people can see the kind of man he is the kind of leader he is and the kinds of principles he espouses.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He has been promoting national unity.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member says he has been promoting national unity. Caesar once said, "I came, I saw, I conquered". The leader of the opposition has gone out, he has been seen, and he has been seen through by the people he has met.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I repeat, to adopt the comment that Caesar once made, "I came, I saw, I conquered", the leader of the opposition has gone out there, he has been seen, and he has been seen through by the people he has met.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 17, 1977
Economic Policy


Steve Eugene Paproski: I hope you will repeat the same thing in a couple of months.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The leader of the opposition is concerned about a survey, but it is not the labour force survey of Statistics Canada that has had him on his feet shouting; it is the Gallup poll which has made it clear that Canadians certainly do not see the leader of the opposition as the man for our time to deal with the crisis of national unity.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What goes up must come down.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We will try harder.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has the floor. I suggest we allow him to speak.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Say something.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is a standard pattern. Members on this side of the House have listened to the leader of the opposition without interruption and have given him a careful hearing. Hon. members opposite are now trying to shout me down. That is what we expect from them. I can indicate that perhaps we can judge how well the full thrust of the measure has gone home by the number of decibels being produced on the other side. The leader of the opposition put some emphasis, as well, on the centralizing policy of this government.


An hon. Member:: What about Mirabel?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There go the decibels again. The big mouth over there is flapping again. The leader of the opposition has spoken about centralizing policies and has presumably espoused the process of decentralization. But at the same time he spoke about the government setting down as a goal a five-year plan for the attainment of an economic performance in this economy. May I point out that that is one of the obvious contradictions that ran throughout his statement. The interesting thing was that he would read the contradictions in his speech without even recognizing them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The leader of the opposition said that Canada cannot live for long on borrowed dollars. The fact of the matter is that in our economy over the period of the last 110 years Canada has been a substantial importer of capital, and our anticipation is that we will continue to borrow capital. One wonders whether the leader of the opposition is proposing, for example, a $5 billion reduction in federal government expenditures. He was saying that if he had responsibility for the economy, he would do just that by moving out of deficit financing. One would have to ask which of the programs he would propose to cut-the transfer programs to individuals, the expenditures on capital works? Which of those programs would he reduce in order to take $5 billion out of present government expenditures?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My leader did not say that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: What is interesting is that at one point the leader of the opposition said that the portion of the present government's expenditures which is related to operating services and the capital budget was too high and had to be cut down. Then what do we find? Several minutes later he said the federal government should be engaging in job-creating capital projects. This came from the same man who said several minutes before that the federal government should cut down that part of its budget. That is a part of the melange of confused suggestions. Probably he has a series of speech-writers, everyone contributing a page, and by process of accident he happened to get them all together in one document.
The leader of the opposition says the government should not borrow on foreign markets. The fact is that the government has not borrowed on foreign markets for many years, and the leader of the opposition should not mislead the House by making such a comment. It is the provinces and municipalities which have borrowed on foreign markets, and so have corporations. But there we get back to the centralizing question. Is the leader of the opposition suggesting that the government should restrict the access of other levels of government to foreign markets? It is an interesting suggestion which, I am sure, would fall in a very interesting way on the ears of the ten provincial treasurers who traditionally have sought foreign as well as Canadian sources for their financing.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: They were pushed out by you.


Steve Eugene Paproski: When do we take over?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The leader of the opposition was perhaps less than candid with the House when he said that direct investment in Canada dropped in the year 1976. He knows, and Statistics Canada figures are available, that that particular figure was reduced in 1976 because of substantial repatriations by Canadians of foreign holdings in Canada, for example, the acquisition by Petro-Canada of the foreign holding in the Arco properties which has brought back for Canadians significant parts of our natural resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The leader of the opposition can oppose that repatriation if he wishes, but he should make his position clear to the House and to Canadians.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The minister hasn't a suggestion of his own. All he does is refer to the leader of the opposition.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The leader of the opposition spoke about lack of planning in relation to decontrols. One has to wonder where he has been in this country. Indeed, he has asked me questions about the process of consultation and planning with regard to decontrol in which we have been engaged for the past two or three months, about meetings we have had with provincial governments, with the Canadian Labour Congress and with other labour movements, about meetings with leaders of business and with other organizations
March 17, 1977

in Canada on the question of decontrols. One can only ask if it is not evident to him that we have commenced the process of decontrol by careful consultation with other governments and with other economic decision-makers in the country. If we cannot do it by consent, then he should not rise in the House to complain about this government being arbitrary. He is suggesting the most arbitrary course of all if he is suggesting we should take off the controls by a single federal decision.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How will you get yourselves out of trouble now, tell us?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The Leader of the Opposition spoke about distortions in investment due to the Anti-Inflation Board. That is not what the Conference Board said. The majority of the 200 corporations which have been canvassed by the Conference Board found that the anti-inflation program has not affected adversely their investment decisions. The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) said we should have an advance discussion in this House of the trends in the economy. One might have expected an informed, accurate, relevant discussion by the Leader of the Opposition of his perception of the economy, but I have quoted some examples of the kind of garbage, if I may say so, that he laid out on the record-and then got up and ran away.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: He wrote you a letter telling you why we had to leave.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are the spokesman of a dying government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Minister of Finance has the floor. I ask hon. members to allow him to speak.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1 will say to the whip of the Conservative party that the Leader of the Opposition chose today to move his motion. If he had wanted to hear the debate on the matter, he could have stayed here.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He wanted to hear from you. Make your comments.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It would be neither realistic nor responsible to pretend that the factors which influenced economic events in Canada are subject to control by the government in a way which lends very great precision to the setting or achievement of the kinds of detailed goals referred to for growth and employment. These are facts of life which do not just apply to Canada; they are common to all the industrial democracies. They reflect the growth of interdependence in the international economy. This is of particular significance to Canada as a major trading nation which is dependent for its livelihood on success in foreign markets and a capability to meet import competition.
The growth of interdependence which has occurred in the international economy has a positive side to it as well. It has
Economic Policy
been accompanied by a great degree of co-operation and harmonization in the development of economic policy by the nation states. Canada has participated in that process both in the economic summits and through its role in the International Monetary Fund. There are now continuing efforts to develop an effective response to the major problems of inflation and unemployment. The economic summit to be held in London in May will provide a further opportunity for countries to assess the progress made to date on both fronts and to consider the prospects ahead. But the record shows that there are, and will be, elements of uncertainty and unpredicted developments which have to be acknowledged in economic management.
We have had in recent years the enormous economic shock from the quadrupling of oil prices by the OPEC countries. This has meant that the dependent countries have suffered a substantial loss in their real income and purchasing power, affecting consumer prices and industrial costs in a dramatic way. That single external event has had and continues to have major repercussions on growth and employment and the balance of payments.
We have seen the dramatic impact of climatic conditions on food production and supply, leading to large swings in food prices and agricultural incomes. We have at present to consider the possible impact of drought conditions on the western agricultural economy which introduces a further element of uncertainty this year.
Because of our important trading relationships we are much influenced by the policy actions taken by other governments, particularly the United States, Japan and West Germany. The record of growth among the OECD countries in 1976 was less than anticipated, and this has had an effect on our own growth performance. I should make clear that the growth of output in the OECD countries has been less than was forecast by the OECD in the July economic outlook.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Tell us what your forecast is.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: These are some of the realities which limit the precision of economic forecasting. They are part of the parameters of economic policy making, beyond the direct control of any particular government. They are a recognition also of the highly decentralized system of decision-making which is fundamental to the industrial democracies with their emphasis on the role of the marketplace.
While our economic policy is designed to give greater stability to the path of economic growth and expansion, it does so in concert with the major role of the private sector in Canada. We reject the kind of dirigiste, ever present government control which is implied by detailed planning of the economy and in the five-year plan idea set out by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How can the Americans do it, but we cannot?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As between rigidity and flexibility to meet changing circumstances, it seems to us that the

March 17, 1977
Economic Policy
course of common sense is to remain flexible for dealing with changes in economic circumstances as they occur, rather than locking ourselves into the matrix of a five-year plan.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You say that because you do not know where you are going.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Throughout 1976, fiscal policy and monetary policy have operated together with the antiinflation program to reduce inflation and maintain growth of output and employment.
I would recognize that this is a difficult task which requires continuing surveillance and adjustments to be made in light of developments. It is also a task which cannot be accomplished quickly. The government has a responsibility for the future growth and stability cf the economy. I believe the basic policy of a carefully staged recovery which is being followed by Canada, along with the other countries of the industrial world, is in our long run interests.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What carefully staged recovery?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is designed to achieve continuing growth without a return to double digit inflation. We cannot adequately protect jobs or ensure the creation of new jobs for our growing labour force if our prices and costs are out of line. The control of inflation is essential to create more certain conditions for business planning and investment in the private sector where the majority of the new jobs must be created.
I believe 1976 has been an important year of consolidation, laying the foundation for non-inflationary expansion to reduce the level of unemployment. We have over the last three years outperformed our trading partners in terms of real output growth.
In 1974 real output grew in Canada 3.2 per cent. In the United States it fell 1.8 per cent. In 1975 real output grew 0.6 per cent in Canada. In the United States it fell 1.6 per cent. In 1976 real output in Canada was 8.6 per cent above the 1973 level, while in the United States it was 2.5 per cent higher. That is not a record of indifference to growth and employment. It is a record of a balanced effort to fight inflation and maintain growth. The government has recognized that the reduction of inflation and unemployment poses great difficulty because of a variety of structural factors which are more and more evident in modern industrial economies.
We have to look to improvement in the structure and operation of the labour market in Canada. Our unemployment problem reflects particular factors in the composition and skills of the labour force; it reflects the deep-seated structural problems of the less advantaged regions; it reflects the impact of income maintenance programs on the operation of the labour market; it reflects the expectations of Canadians for particular kinds of jobs and for rising real incomes; it reflects the problem of frictional unemployment and the continuing requirement for retraining and redeployment of labour.
In each of these areas the government, through the programs of the Departments of Manpower and Immigration and Regional Economic Expansion, continues to improve the prospects for job creation. Our commitment to these programs is beyond doubt. They are as advanced as anywhere in the world. The fact remains however that we have to earn our way in the world. If we want steady growth of employment in all parts of Canada we have to get our costs and prices right. In that sense there are no miracle cures. Let me say that I am confident we are on the right track. A substantial amount of important cost cutting has taken place, both in the public and the private sectors.
The growth of federal expenditure has, for example, been cut back and will be below the growth of GNP this fiscal year. In 1977-78 federal expenditure growth is anticipated to be around 7 per cent. Growth in federal manpower will be less than 1 per cent. In the private sector there has been a significant moderation of wage cost increases. This moderation was reflected in a lower increase in unit wage costs which was around 10 per cent in 1976 compared to about 14.5 per cent in 1975. I continue to be encouraged by the moderation in consumer prices. The rate of increase in non-food prices declined further in February to 8.2 per cent.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How about over-all prices? What happened to them?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There has been important stimulus to consumer spending already injected through automatic indexing of personal taxation and direct transfers. I recognize that some further adjustments may be required to maintain the level of real growth in the 4 per cent to 5 per cent range and I will be addressing this question in the budget.
The motion refers to the balance of trade. As is the case with inflation and unemployment, this question cannot be treated in isolation. Our trade balance reflects a variety of factors, not the least of which is our competitive position as it interacts with the exchange rate of the Canadian dollar.
We have seen a very substantial turn around in our external trade position, and the trade account moved back into surplus during 1976. It is essential for the Canadian economy that a favourable trade balance be maintained to service our substantial external debt.
Canada as a growing economy continues to need substantial long term inflows of capital to support investment. While 1976 was a somewhat unusual year in terms of the heavy provincial, municipal, and corporate borrowing abroad, the fact remains that foreign lenders continue to express confidence in the Canadian economy and its ability to service that debt. I would note that the cost of servicing our debt in relation to GNP is at about the average level for the post war period.
The combination of reduced borrowing requirements and lower interest rates in Canada will ease the volume of external borrowing, and we are seeing the exchange rate adjustment take place which is consistent with that. The decline in the value of the dollar will in that sense provide further stimulus to

March 17, 1977

growth by giving us a competitive edge that we will have to guard very carefully.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I suppose the minister thinks that that will lower inflation, as well.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In conclusion, 1 would like to reiterate that I do not believe it would be responsible or realistic to presume a greater degree of certainty about the future of the economy than is consistent with our decentralized economy or our position in the international market place.
The government's economic strategy is in place; we are on the right track, given our objectives to achieve steady growth in output without rekindling inflation. I am confident we shall make further progress in 1977 with the co-operation and support of all Canadians.
To the extent that adjustments in policy are required, I will be making a further report to the House on budget night.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the minister will require Canadian taxpayers to pay for that speech, but I must hasten to say whatever the fee was, I hope he asks to get his money back.
During the course of that speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) said that they were in the midst of a carefully staged recovery. Just before he concluded, he said that the government's economic strategy is in place. I hope he tells each of the one million who are out of work today that there is a carefully staged recovery under way in Canada.
The Minister of Finance indicates there is a carefully staged recovery under way. Surely he has not forgotten that in the fourth quarter of 1976 there was a negative real growth in this country. Does he call that a carefully staged recovery?
We have had a great deal of playing with statistics by the Minister of Finance. However, he cannot avoid the ugly truth that nearly one million people tramp the streets of Canada today without jobs where they can be gainfully employed. It is this government that must accept the prime responsibility for that tragedy.
When we talk in this House and elsewhere about the unrest in Canada today, this government should look first and foremost at itself. Unemployment is up to 10 per cent in Quebec and up to 15 per cent in Newfoundland. Who could expect other than unrest in Canada today? It is due to the faulty economic architecture that has been laid by the Minister of Finance and his predecessor.
A little earlier in this debate the leader of the New Democratic Party returned briefly to the House to make a speech. At that time he deplored the present state of unemployment, as we all do. However, how short his memory is. Surely he does not forget that while he was a member of the New Democratic Party in this country, granted under a different leader, that that party consistently kept the Grits in power between October 1972 and July 1974. During the period of that little love-in, inflation in this country on an annual basis
Economic Policy
rose from 5.2 per cent annualized in October, 1972, to 11.2 per cent in July, 1974. That is the NDP-Grit alliance in action. Those are the economic results that they produced for Canadians.
The present leader of the NDP cannot deny the facts. When he is talking to the unemployed that he rightfully feels pity for today, let him also explain to them that it was the inflationary trends that he and his party and the Grits set loose that resulted in the unemployment that we have today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: "Baby Face" Turner and "Big Mac" Macdonald.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Were you opposed to the pension increase?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: What are your proposals?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A backbench member on the Liberal side, who is so far back that he is just this side of the curtains, says "what are your proposals?" I recommend that that member read my leader's speech of today where he set out very clearly some proposals that I hope the Minister of Finance will take into account when he is drafting his speech for March 31.
The Minister of Finance says that it is difficult to forecast, as we have indicated in our motion, exactly what they see for the next two, three or five years. He said they cannot do that forecasting. That is not true. The fact is they can put the forecast before us. They have it in their internal records. However, they decline to allow the Canadian public to see those forecasts because they realize that in some ways they are so negative the Canadian public would become alarmed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Why do they say they cannot give the Canadian public annua! forecasts up to five years? The Americans are doing it. The United States Congress now requires that such forecasting be done. For example, I could show the Minister of Finance, in government publications coming out of Washington, where they predict that by 1982 the level of unemployment in that country will be down to 4.1 per cent. I ask the Minister of Finance what do the internal records show as the level of unemployment in Canada as far as their forecast is concerned for 1982?


Steve Eugene Paproski: He does not know.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: One of my colleagues says the minister does not know. That may be true. However, I say they can obtain the forecast or projections. They have been made and are available. They have got to be available or the minister could not bring in the March 31 budget that he is contemplating. I simply say, as the motion of my leader states, that that information should be shared with this House and the Canadi-

March 17, 1977
Economic Policy
an public in order to give a better indication of what way the government sees our economy heading in the coming years.
We have forecasts from private sources such as the Applied Economic Research and Information Centre of the University of Toronto. These forecasts are pretty grim. The latest publication of that body says that the pace of economic activity in Canada in 1977 will experience a substantial slowdown. The deterioration in the outlook for 1977 is the result of the impact of increased uncertainties of business capital spending in the domestic economy. They anticipate that economic growth will be a modest 3 per cent in 1977 and that, on average, unemployment will be 7.9 per cent this year. As we all know, in this month we have already attained a 7.9 per cent unemployment level.
That University of Toronto Centre also states that unemployment by the fourth quarter of this year will be 8.3 per cent. Is that the carefully staged recovery which the Minister of Finance says is in place? Is that the government's economic strategy in place, a contemplated 8.3 per cent unemployment by the fourth quarter of this year? If it is, I believe this House should say that it no longer has confidence in the government to run the economic affairs of the nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let me put it this way: they can put in any players over there they like, but there is not one of them who understands what the needs of this country are as far as the economy is concerned.
Look at the record over the past two years. Why would any Canadian want to vote for a government which, for the six years ending last October, produced 55 per cent inflation? Let the government not continue to deceive the public as to where that inflation came from. Sure, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) likes to pretend it is because of greedy labour, greedy business, greedy farmers-anybody but the greedy government. He says the main problem is that Canadian people are living beyond their means. But in his heart he knows it is his own government which has created inflation at its current level and that in turn we must suffer an unemployment rate rising to 18.3 per cent. There is no doubt the inflation we are now experiencing was manufactured in Ottawa by the Trudeau government. I have said they gave us 55.3 per cent inflation. Their own spending went up by 127 per cent in that six-year period.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: With a 127 per cent increase in the spending of this greedy, reckless government, and a monetary increase of 100 per cent, a figure which even the minister had to confirm was correct in committee the other night, how can the government expect the confidence of the electorate? To put it in another way, it took us 103 years since Confederation to reach the level of money supply which this government doubled in six years. With those figures, and a real growth of 31.7
per cent, is it any wonder inflation in this country amounted to 55.3 per cent? The minister may laugh. But will he go out and laugh in the face of the unemployed?


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Oh, go on!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We are now feeling the effects of the reckless spending spree embarked on by the government, resulting in the doubling of the money supply in six years.
Somebody asked earlier: What happened in the Diefenbaker years? I should like to put on record what happened in those years.


An hon. Member:: The highest unemployment ever.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let us not be too hasty. In the six years between 1958 and 1964, unemployment was less on an average than in the six years to which I have referred. Inflation amounted to 7.6 per cent compared to 55 per cent. Monetary growth was one fifth of the monetary growth under this government, and real growth was exactly the same. In short, those six years to which I have referred experienced a real growth as great as that which occurred in the six years to which the minister has referred today, but inflation was only 7.6 per cent as compared with 55 per cent under this government.
Of course the government likes to pretend that inflation was caused by something other than itself. Sometimes ministers say it is the weather. Sometimes they say it is international conditions. At other times they blame the provincial and municipal governments. How strange, Mr. Speaker! In what way could international conditions cause them to double the money supply in this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The oil price increase.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister says it was the oil price increase. He ignores the fact that when the increase occurred in 1973 we were a net exporter of oil, and this helped us financially.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We were importing nearly half our needs-500,000 barrels a day.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister does not even know the facts about one of the years we are reviewing. As an industrialized nation, we have resources on a per capita basis second to none. This being so we should not be expecting in the current year only half the growth the Bank of America expects the industrialized nations it reviews to obtain. That is totally unacceptable. That estimate of real growth on the part of the minister does not take into consideration the resources this country possesses. With our potential and the skill of our people we should be leading the real growth averages, not trailing.
I wish the Minister of Finance had spent more of his time- I understand that he referred to the speech made by my leader more than 40 times-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I was correcting the falsehood.

March 17, 1977


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps the number of those references shows he already sees the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) as the leader of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would have preferred it if instead of being obsessed with the speech made by our leader, the hon. gentleman could have assured us that he was charting the course which Canada should take, and is planning a degree of real growth which will ensure that our per capita income will not continue to be No. 8, where the government has driven it, but will be No. 1, the leader in the world. May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in just summarizing my position and the position of our party, 1 would like to call the members' attention once again to the motion that is before us. We are asking that the government set or fulfill reasonable economic goals, and we urge the Minister of Finance to state specific goals with respect to employment, inflation, Canada's trade balance, and the rate of economic growth that he anticipates in coming years.
My leader indicated in his speech, when he proposed this motion, that five year forecasting would be in order. Mr. Speaker, the reason that we are suggesting this is that we feel it would help give confidence to the Canadian public, to the business community, to those who are being expected to produce the real wealth that is possible in Canada, give them what the game plan is so far as the government is concerned, and hopefully those targets will be reached. The Minister of Finance said it cannot be done. The fact is that it is being done.
Officials in the United States are now required by law to provide five year economic projections with each spending bill introduced to Congress. Under the Congressional Act of 1974 each public expenditure act must be accompanied by a forecast of anticipated future expenditure for the proposed program, as well as the projection of the impact of the program on future budgets.
The five year projections from all spending bills are combined each year at the presentation of the national budget to provide an over view of federal capital needs and expenditure requirements for the next few years. A special feature of the American approach to budgeting is the economic scenarios that are set out or constructed in order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. 1 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?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Economic Policy


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their courtesy, and I will be very brief.
As I was saying, a special feature of the American approach to budgeting is the economic scenarios that are set out or constructed in order to give some indication of the impact of federal spending on the economy as a whole. Thus the typical five year projection will include reasonable estimates of the real gross national product growth, the rate of implicit and consumer price increases, anticipated employment levels, expected tax revenue, and other vital indicators covering the period. At least 12 U.S. states have followed the lead of the federal government and have adopted similar budget approaches.
With that type of a guide I believe it would be possible not only to renew the confidence of business and the public generally, but it would be possible to have built into that five year forecasting a mechanism to get the government component of the gross national product down to a more realistic level in Canada.
At the present time government is taking approximately 43 per cent of the total gross national product of those who are producing the wealth in Canada. In the United States the present figure is about 35 per cent. That 8 per cent gap is the dead load of bureaucracy in government which is being borne by the people of Canada, and it contributes to the lack of competitiveness of our Canadian industry, to our higher taxation, and to our higher prices as a result of those two factors. Certainly it is desirable to have efficient governmental services for the people of Canada to the extent that they are required, but is is not desirable to have excessive services which become a burden on those who are producing the wealth in this country. That is another reason why the goals 1 have indicated would be desirable.
Let us identify what would be a suitable level of the governmental share of our gross national product. When that is identified, then let us ask governments to start working down their take of the public purse to a lower level in order to ensure that we have less of the oppressive government which has become so alarming in Canada.
Let us not forget that 20 years ago government took somewhere around 30 per cent of our gross national product. When this government took power, the figure was about 33 per cent at all levels as far as the governmental share of the GNP was concerned. The fact that we are now at 43 per cent is truly astounding. It is impeding the progress of this nation, it is contributing to the unemployment we all deplore and, strangely enough, the NDP-the leader of which spoke here today- contributes to that atmosphere of having more and more government in our society than perhaps any other group in Canada at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That party believes in the misguided concept that government and only government can help the people. I

March 17, 1977
Economic Policy
suggest that that concept is out of date. It has been demonstrated to be totally unworkable in any country which has tried it. For example, in Great Britain-


Stanley Howard Knowles: If you were in power we might have to change our minds.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is the most hopeful thing I have heard yet. According to the deputy leader of the NDP, if they were in power they might change their minds.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said if you were in power we might have to change our minds.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I could hardly believe my ears, because I have felt for a long time that surely in the hearts of members of the New Democratic Party they do not believe in some of the stuff they were trying to con the Canadian public with, with regard to governmental intervention schemes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? In the hon. member's remarks this afternoon he was blaming us for what we did during the coalition period in bringing on things which he says caused inflation. Since the hon. member is doing it again tonight, I would like to ask him if he and his party are opposed to the pension increases and other gains of that kind which we won during the minority government period?


Mr. Woolliams:: That is nonsense.


Benno Friesen: You can do better than that.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If I could simply take the hon. member back to my remarks this afternoon-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was here.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -I said that during that happy little wedlock which existed between the NDP and the Grit government, spending in this nation soared. However, the most regrettable thing was that inflation doubled. In fact, it more than doubled during the wedlock, and unfortunately as a result of that inflationary pressure which built up during that alliance we now have the aftermath or hangover, so to speak, namely, unemployment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So you were against the pension increases.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't be foolish.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We all decry the unemployment we are experiencing today. The hon. member asked me about my attitude with regard to pensions. He knows I was not referring to that when I was talking about increased government spending. I was talking about the growth of the bureaucracy and about the growth of expenditures which were aided and abetted during the alliance between the NDP and Grit forces in this House.

In conclusion, I ask hon. members to support the motion with their words as the debate continues tonight. In short, the government should start levelling with the Canadian public. It should give us an indication of its goals for the future, which we are asking for, and then let the Canadian public judge whether those goals are suitable for Canada and whether this is the government which can help us attain those goals.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of self-righteousness displayed in this House in the last two or three days, particularly since the latest unemployment figures became known. However, there has not been very much enlightenment. As the Globe and Mail said this morning, there has been a good deal of glib sloganeering and some rather facile answers. One month tax cuts have been suggested, although that suggestion did not come from the House. One side says we should not put all our eggs into government spending, and the other side says we should spend a good deal more. We have heard about the self-fulfilling prophecy that if you point in a given direction you will get there just by saying so. A conference has been suggested, and tax cuts in the business sector and tax cuts for individuals have also been suggested. These answers are all too simple. They might have sufficed in the sixties when the pressures were not as great, when problems were not so interrelated, and when one could adopt a monetary policy or a fiscal policy, or a combination of both, which would solve the problem. The economic problems we have today are very complex, and they will not be solved easily.
In the first part of my speech I would like to take a macro view of this matter to put into perspective some of the problems which have been mentioned by hon. members opposite. I do not condemn them for what they have said because we can identify the problems. The difficulty is identifying solutions. In the second part of my speech I would like to deal with unemployment and to look at it a little more intently.


Benno Friesen: I wish you would deal with it.


Paul Edmund McRae: At the international level there are limitations on what the government of Canada can do. There are some things it can do in concert with other governments, but there are definite limitations.
The United States senate finance committee carried out a study in 1973 regarding global corporations. I am told that global corporations have about twice the liquidity of all the national governments under which they function. There is a limit to what any government can do also because the liquidity of global corporations is much more fluid. These corporations are better able to move assets faster than national governments, even though there are such organizations as the IMF.
There is a degree of Canadian dependence that is also of great concern, and I feel this concern. The size of our foreign debt, the $5 billion a year required to service it, the manufacturing deficit which is partially made up by the sale of raw

March 17, 1977

materials, the problem we have in terms of being competitive internationally-these are some of the difficulties we have to face.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You had nine years.


Paul Edmund McRae: I am giving an over-view of the situation. There is a series of international problems.
Then we go into national problems which I think are endemic in this country, such as the relationship of the provinces to the federal government, the ability of the federal government to decentralize its operations without losing control of the economy, and the problems relating to regional differentiations.
There is another massive problem which I am very much concerned about, and that is the forthcoming energy shortage.
I think we really have not learned that energy is no longer a cheap commodity and that we will have great shortages which will create a number of difficulties. One of them is both an international and a national problem, that is, there will be a shortage of available capital. We are told that if we are to do all the things required to maintain an energy growth rate of 3.5 per cent to 4 per cent, we will have to spend $181 billion in the next 15 years. This amounts to about $30,000 per family unit in today's dollars, almost the amount that a family would expect to pay for a home.
All kinds of distortions can be expected, and these distortions can already be seen in our economy. For instance, in Quebec we see this in the fact that the James Bay project is using up a very high proportion of the capital dollars available. Therefore these capital dollars are not moving into some of the areas where they should be moving. I believe the pulp and paper industry in that province is grossly under-capitalized, while a massive amount of capital is going in one direction. The figure I have is that the James Bay project is likely to use up 40 to 50 cents in every dollar in that province. I see these as forthcoming problems.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) has mentioned the growth of public spending. There is certainly no doubt that government spending presents a major problem, but it is easy to say, "Cut it back". If we see 30 per cent of our spending as being the amount required to operate the government of Canada, to run the post office, the defence establishment and all the other departments, and the other 70 per cent as transfer payments in various forms, then it becomes evident that it is not so easy to cut back, as the hon. member suggests. A good portion of these transfer payments, to my mind, are not net losses, as the hon. member has indicated, but they may well be the kinds of things that create demand in the sense that they take money from one pocket and put it into another pocket, and the money in that other pocket may create more effective demand than the money in the first pocket. I do not see these as a net loss. Certainly there are many subsidies to all segments of our economy that are pretty important, and these all come in these transfer payments.
Then we have the whole area of inflation. Again I feel we are dealing with it simplistically. The kind of inflation we have
Economic Policy
had since the early 1970's is rather unique. In the first place it is world-wide. It has been massive in the sense that it has affected most countries of the world, and it has been of long duration. It has not been the 1 per cent or 2 per cent that we could expect over a period of the last 100 years. It has been much more serious than that. As a nation we have a great deal of difficulty with this because we are so dependent on foreign trade, foreign pricing and so on. This is a very difficult problem. I agree that inflation has changed over the years, but there are many reasons why it is a problem.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is a problem with your government.


Paul Edmund McRae: The inflation rate in this country-


An hon. Member:: Quit the deception.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is the Trudeau government that has caused the inflation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary (Mr. McRae) has the floor. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) has had time to speak.


Paul Edmund McRae: If the hon. member is correct and if this government is to blame for inflation, why are we doing the fourth best of all OECD countries in terms of inflation? There are 12 or 15 countries that are doing a poorer job of fighting inflation. To assume that this is a self-induced problem is a gross over-simplication.
In the few minutes I have left 1 should like to deal in much greater detail with unemployment because I think we have to look at it in a more careful and a more structured way, to look at structural unemployment to see where the real problems are. There is no doubt that the situation is serious, and anyone who would say otherwise is grossly underestimating the attitude of Canadians to this. We now have an unadjusted rate of unemployment of 9.1 per cent, regardless of the argument which we get back and forth as to whether or not-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: This is an international problem too.


Paul Edmund McRae: I spoke about the international aspect; now I am dealing with the national problem. The rate of 9.1 per cent means that taking just the figure that was given of 932,000, close to 10 per cent of the population of this country is unemployed at this time, perhaps more or less depending on how we use the figures. It is an extremely serious problem. But there are some reasons for this problem, and we have to look at some of these reasons.
Since the 1960's at least Canada has created more jobs in both the private and the public sectors than any of the OECD countries. For every four jobs in Canada in 1972, by 1975 there were five jobs, or a 20 per cent increase. The only other country from among the OECD countries that can show anything close to this is the United States, and their figure is 8.5 per cent. So we have done a commendable job in this area,

March 17, 1977
Economic Policy
and it should be considered as having been done by both the government and the private sector working in concert.
Where has unemployment come from? Back in the mid-1950's we were dealing with about 60,000 young people a year leaving school and coming on the labour market. In the last couple of years this figure has grown to about 200,000. This is a factor of slightly over three. During the same period of time, the population of Canada has only grown by about 35 per cent. Therefore we have a massive influx of young people coming on the labour market. That is the first factor. Of course this has been very expensive because we had to built a large number of new schools, which were quickly filled, but now we are finding some of those schools are occupied below capacity. We have had to build a large number of new houses, which eventually will no longer be necessary.
We have massive labour problems in this country. It might be helpful to examine some demographic figures. For example, at present those between the ages of 18 and 24 comprise about 13 per cent of the population, as compared with 12 per cent five years ago. In ten years that group will comprise slightly over 12 per cent of the population, and at the turn of the century less than 10 per cent. These figures suggest that in future there will be labour shortages. As the present population grows older, fewer young people in the labour market will be asked to support much larger numbers of retired people.
It is important to point out that women have increasingly entered the labour market for jobs, and increased the labour force.


Mr. Peters:: Women work because they are forced to help with the support of their families.


Paul Edmund McRae: In 1953 women made up 20 per cent of the total labour force. By 1975 that figure had risen to 33 per cent. Let me break these figures down into age groups. It is significant that in 1953, 23 per cent of women between the ages of 25 and 44 were in the labour force. By 1974, according to figures I have seen, 47 per cent of that age group were in the labour force. What are the figures for the older age group? Seventeen per cent of women between 45 and 65 were in the labour force in 1963, as opposed to 37 per cent, according to the latest figures.
We use an index known as the participation rate, and understanding that index may help us to understand our dilemma. The participation rate is the figure arrived at through dividing the number of people in the labour force actually working by the number of people in th population over the age of 15. That gives us an idea of the percentage of Canadians who are in the labour force actually working. That figure has grown dramatically. In 1963 the participation rate was about 53.8 per cent, which means that 53.8 per cent of people 15 years and older were actually employed in the labour force. The figure for today is 59.7 per cent, unadjusted and, adjusted, as of February it was 61.3 per cent. Actually the participation rate went up in the last month by 0.3 per cent.

We must bear these figures in mind when considering unemployment.
Clearly there has been a massive movement of young people into the labour force. The rate for that group has tripled in the last 15 years. There has been a sizeable increase-a doubling in the number of women entering the labour force, and we now have a high participation rate. When you consider all this, and consider that per capita the influx of people into the labour force has been greater in this country than probably in any country in the western world, it becomes clear that we, as Canadians, have done well. I am not saying that we should not do more, but we have done well. All the same, it is clear that the answer to our problems is not simple to find.
Compare what has happened in this country with what has happened in the United States in recent years. I am referring to OECD figures which have been compiled in such a way as to give uniform results, since various countries approach these matters somewhat differently. According to OECD figures, in
1975	unemployment in the United States stood at an average of 8.4 per cent, whereas it stood at 7.0 per cent in Canada. In
1976	the United States unemployment rate came down to about 7.6 per cent, as opposed to our rate of 7 per cent. Today the figures of both countries are roughly similar; I have not seen the latest figures, but I understand that our rates are comparable. Therefore we cannot say that our government's programs have been a complete "bust." True, there has been a massive problem; we have gone some way toward solving it, and there is still much to do.
Let us break down some of the unemployment statistics to see where the significant unemployment exists. If we consider the breakdown by sex and age we shall find-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members. I will not take long.
It is apparent that there are two major groups of unemployed. First, there is a major unemployment in the group 15 to 24 years of age. As well, there is very high unemployment in some of our regions. But there is not unemployment in all regions. For instance the unemployment rate in Alberta today is 4.6 per cent, but in Newfoundland it is 17.4 per cent. Clearly we have two structural, major problems. We know that many between certain ages are unemployed, and we know that people in some of our regions are unemployed. I suggest that the problem of the regions is by far the more difficult to solve.
1 wish I had time to deal with this question. We have tried our best to deal with this question by introducing standard solutions, at some of which we ought to look. I do not think I will have time to develop my ideas fully.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.
March 17, 1977


Paul Edmund McRae: It is clear that we cannot solve the problem of unemployment simply by pouring more money into the economy, lowering income taxes, and so on. I say this because the unemployment rate for males over 24 in Alberta is less than 3 per cent, adjusted, which is about as low as you can get. Compare that with those under 25 in Newfoundland-28 per cent. Therefore, as I say, we face a massive structural problem, the problem we must keep in mind if we are to solve some of the difficulties of the regions. I suggest that it may be necessary to institute some kinds of regional monetary policies if we are to solve some of these difficulties.
I was going to suggest many things we could do; unfortunately, time does not allow me to do so. I hope that we will not leave this debate with the idea in mind that we can take some simple steps to solve this problem, with the idea that we can do what we have traditionally done in the past. If we are to solve unemployment we shall need to look analytically at the problem both in a micro and a macro way. If we are to act positively, we shall need to understand also not only the large workings of our own economy, but the workings of the world economy. Only then will be able to act in a positive manner.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to make a few comments on the motion which I consider very timely in view of the current situation. Statistics Canada advised us of the situation which to my mind, and not only mine, is alarming if not catastrophic. The number of unemployed in greater Montreal is becoming alarming, as a newspaper reported yesterday.
This motion, which I find pertinent, gives us the opportunity of urging the government to take new initiatives. It also gives us a chance to find out what steps the government has already taken, though its efforts have clearly been inadequate for almost ten years. Not so long ago, I deplored the increase in unemployment which, in 1968, when the government came to power with its present Prime Minister, reached 168,000; we are approaching the million mark.
The former speaker said that was not necessarily a failure. I don't know what he considers a failure, and whether he feels that he can say unashamedly in the House that going from 168,000 to a million unemployed if not a failure. But I feel, Mr. Speaker, that it is a complete failure, and one that is costing a high price, and inflicting considerable hardship upon Canadians.
I should like to make a few remarks, Mr. Speaker. All the Quebecers who sit in this House know that the population has increased in the province of Quebec. Of course it is concerned about the future of Quebec, about the situation in Canada. And why, Mr. Speaker? Many reasons will be found to explain away our failures. But the fact remains that we have had and will have again discussion on unemployment. There will surely be many opportunities to discuss all the topics of concern to the Canadian people and especially those of Quebec.
I come from that province. I know what difficulties it has with regard to unemployment. There is considerable unem-
Economic Policy
ployment elsewhere as well. People wonder why the situation is what it is in Quebec.
We wonder why Quebecers appear reluctant to trust the government and to have unlimited confidence in them at the present time. Once again, Mr. Speaker, we will find countless reasons for this but not the real ones. Some will even go as far as blaming the CBC for our economic failure. However I do not think that the CBC contributed to the unemployment situation in particular. But here again we will find scapegoats to justify the position of the present government.
Mr. Speaker, there are also unemployment problems in Quebec, and I could begin by depicting the situation in my riding where the unemployment level is close to 10 per cent. In other areas it is as high as 20 to 22 per cent. Recently I had the opportunity to visit the constituency of Temiscamingue which seems very concerned about the absence of policy in an area called northern Quebec which, as any other area in Quebec, deserves economic input which would enable the people there to enjoy a decent living.
Once again in my region we have learned through the local paper that a textile plant might close its doors, perhaps the last one in my riding. It did employ 700 family heads a few years ago. There are about 125 left now. A year ago the owners of that plant saw fit to sell it to a good Quebecer-from Joliette to boot-who spent not only his energy but his capital as well in the operation of that plant. Our local paper reports today that this plant is likely to close in the near future because the government did not take in time the necessary action in the textile sector. So chances are another hundred family heads will be laid off in a few days and I think that kind of situation is spreading out through the province.
Mr. Speaker, government members will tell me that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) has taken a rather drastic decision lately by bringing back the 1975 quotas on imports.
And to think, Mr. Speaker, that for ten years, so important an industry for Canada, and particularly for Quebec, considering the large number of workers in that sector, has been allowed to deteriorate.
I received this afternoon a press release to the effect that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce had the firm intention of reviewing the import levels in the footwear industry. Eventually, we will get a report, in a few months probably, telling us that the import levels interferes with the Canadian industry. That is what we will probably be told in a month. For the last five or six years, the opposition has been calling for drastic and equitable measures on behalf of the Canadian industry. At the same time, government members will also claim that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has injected fantastic amounts of money to create new jobs.
As I said before, the serious mistake made by this government was to neglect this Canadian industry which deserved, I think, the protection of this government in the interests of the

March 17, 1977
Economic Policy
Canadian people in order to protect jobs, while at the same time creating new jobs. And that was not done, but I was shocked this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, when I heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) who had the gall to say: I think we are heading in the right direction. In spite of all our problems we have to face, we do seem to be on the right track. And the Minister of Finance in the last few years had all the time required to review carefully the measures he could have introduced, and he had the gall to claim he was on the right track, with nearly one million unemployed.
Hon. members will agree that today offers a good opportunity to deal with that problem and that we cannot help urging the government to find a new approach. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I asked a question of the Prime Minister, a very objective question in which I stated that the government leadership has been woefully inadequate. Besides that considering the rising unemployment rate, the most dramatic plague that we have in Canada, I was referring to the announcement made by the Minister of Finance who is to introduce his budget and I wondered if it would not be appropriate to call a meeting of all sectors of the economy to help the government. I feel it was a realistic suggestion.
Of course members on both sides of the House want to find some solutions and I believe that the government has demonstrated in recent years that it had none. We should gather around the same table all sectors of the economy which might help the government. That is all we are asking, Mr. Speaker, that all those who could be invited, starting with the Economic Council of Canada-I think there are a number of important qualified economists-that the unions, the provinces be invited to a round table, but before the budget is tabled, to help the Minister of Finance define options for the future and allow him to see to it that his funds are spent efficiently in the short and the long run. I think that a meeting is needed on an urgent basis when we consider that the government has nothing else to answer but that there are countries which are worse off than ours.
We cannot be satisfied with answers like that from the government, and I deeply regret that the Prime Minister turned down that immediate, urgent meeting of those parties interested in improving the situation who would, I am sure, cooperate with the government in the interest of those living in Canada, and we would applaud such a conference if that made it possible to correct the current situation.
Mr. Speaker, while deploring the fact that the Prime Minister refused to call such a conference, I would also like to say here that while the government may try to justify its position, nevertheless it was warned, and I think that it is important that the members of this House and Canadians be made well aware. This afternoon the leader of our party gave serious figures, pointed to the alarming situation and called for urgent action from the government. I think that Canadians are behind him in that respect, there is something to be done, something must be done.
What is inconceivable and unforgivable is that this government was warned. Indeed I would like to pay tribute to the
[Mr. La Salle.)
hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), the former leader of this party, who for the past five or six years warned the government repeatedly about the situation that would exist if this government continued to administer the country as it was doing and as it is still doing. No, no, they preferred, of course, to politicize the arguments or the suggestions put forward by the hon. member for Halifax.
They certainly succeeded in ridiculing him during the 1974 campaign about one of his proposals that the government did not hesitate to use. They succeeded in making most Canadians believe that the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) was wrong, but today all Canadians recognize that his predictions were right. Unfortunately they did not listen to the hon. member for Halifax and we are now in an almost catastrophic situation. However, when we condemn this government, we are accused of lacking objectivity.
I think that Canadians are only waiting for the opportunity to treat the government as it deserves and to remind it that it failed to meet its basic objectives, its commitments and its appeals to the people. We recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the most important economic levers to deal with that situation are in the hands of the federal government, and the provinces admit it too.
Last week the premier of Quebec admitted in the provincial legislature that according to recent statistics, the economic levers were in the hands of the federal government and that the laissez-faire of this government was an important factor in the present situation. But on the other side of this House they like to ridicule-I deplore it and we all do-the statements from the provinces. I think we should understand and recognize the importance of provincial participation before such serious difficulties and problems.
It is also very obvious that the present government did not find and does not seem to be able to offer solutions to deal with that situation. I think the provinces are interested in participating in national decisions of that scope on a problem as crucial as the present situation.
In the last ten years this government, as was stated this afternoon and it will never be repeated enough, has shown an attitude of confrontation towards the provinces and an attitude of unilateral decisions. Today we ask ourselves why so many Canadians-and I am not saying so many Quebecers-wonder seriously about the future of federalism, not about the formula of a normal federalism, but about the federalism formula applied by this gouvernement. It is not federalism as such which is at fault, it is in its present implementation that federalism is basically at fault.
Mr. Speaker, we can talk about national unity, but it will never be possible to have a united country in unfavourable economic circumstances. Therefore, the economic factor is of vital importance. But in view of the problems that we are now facing, the economic situation is not very encouraging. Yet, some would like to make Candians throughout the country believe that national unity depends on the decisions of a single man, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada. For my part, I have serious reservations when one man suggests that he owns
March 17, 1977

Canada virtually by himself. I believe that there are members of this House who make up Parliament and they are entitled to discussions and must also call on all of those who can help find solutions. Coming back particularly to the province of Quebec, I believe that there is a tendency to criticize present decisions, aspirations or recommandations of the province of Quebec.
It is no secret, Mr. Speaker. Of course, we like to show a little partisan spirit once in a while. My party has never even considered negotiating the separation of Quebec. It would be false to imply that. We believe that there would be greater acceptance by the provinces within a constitutional framework much more flexible then the one structured by this government, a framework in which it would be possible to meet the aspirations of the provinces.
This is my party's rationale. I believe there is ample room between the two extremes facing us-on the one hand Premier Levesque's option and on the other the status quo or rigidness of the government-to present a flexible program enabling the provinces to find the true dialogue they have requested for so long and a true participation at the negotiation level, a framework in which we would feel free to take decisions of national importance after having consulted the provinces. This is the type of federalism I believe we want and which would go with a new Canada. This is the main problem for the the time being and I believe that the government should try immediately to prove . . .


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roch La Salle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe it is our responsibility to cooperate as fully as possible with the province in which we live and I think that the 60 members of the House, first of all the government members, then my colleagues and the members of the Social Credit Party agree with me that it is urgent that we prove to Quebecers that it is possible to achieve or bring back a certain progress which would be profitable for Quebec within the present framework, provided we give it added flexibility.
It would be dangerous indeed, Mr. Speaker, to simply disregard the Quebec administration or try to embarrass it, just for the fun of it. What we must do, and I repeat it for my colleages of the House, is to show Quebecers before the referendum that it is possible to improve the economic situation of their province, to prove to all these Quebecers that we did not achieve this progress outside Confederation but within it, and so show them it is not necessary to divide our country to guarantee Quebecers even a minimum of their rightful aspirations, whether cultural or economic.
Economic Policy
And I think that no Canadian would or will be reluctant to endorse any measure allowing Quebecers to meet their expectations the same way we from Quebec wish all people from all provinces to achieve that minimum of most legitimate expectations, for different reasons maybe, because of a different mentality.
I should also like, Mr. Speaker, to get this government to consider in the budget those funds that will be allocated to agriculture. We know that the province of Ontario also went through difficult times last year as a result of dairy policies. I know milk producers are waiting anxiously for the announcement of the dairy policy for 1977.
We know that in Quebec particularly from 5,000 to 6,000 milk producers are now out of business. Those who are still in business have probably been lucky or privileged, but they are quite concerned about the future of their operation. I hope that the Minister of Finance, in his budget speech, will provide some very special subsidies and will urge his government to absorb a good part of the powdered milk exports and ease by the same token the hardships suffered by the milk producers, which are the two main problems in that industry.
Mr. Speaker, I would not want to take undue advantage of my allotted time. We all realize, I am sure, the importance of this debate, and we all appreciate the situation in which Canada now finds itself because of the fantastic number of unemployed. We urge the government to show leadership. It can be sure of getting the co-operation of this party so long as it will bring forward positive or corrective measures that will contribute to the betterment of the community. Certainly we cannot congratulate the government, so long as it has no policy.
As parliament members, we must criticize the government from time to time and require it to show more leadership than it has until now to alleviate the situation. A continuing lack of policy to remedy the situation will show not only to Parliament members but to the majority of Canadians that the government has actually lost the confidence of the people and that we need an alternative. We hope to be able to do our duty as opposition members, to be very demanding and to support any positive measures so long as they meet the aspirations and interests of all Canadians.


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I know that hon. members would rather hear the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) responsible for unemployment policy and the creation of jobs. He is not here this evening because he is appearing before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration precisely to give detailed explanations about the various policies in his department.
With your permission, in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary, I should like however to inform you about what is being done by the government and the Department of Manpower and Immigration. My hon. colleagues are aware no

March 17, 1977
Economic Policy
doubt of the fact that the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 7.9 per cent announced yesterday by Statistics Canada for February is one of the highest monthly rates in many years. High unemployment surely is a source of concern, but must not give rise to a general panic. I am convinced that hon. members opposite do not plan on using those figures for such a purpose. It is essential that we all understand the reasons for such high unemployment and the steps which the government is taking to reduce it and to prevent it from rising again.
I wish to point out in the first place that the rise in the seasonally adjusted unemployment for the January-February period can be ascribed to a single factor; the considerable increase of people looking for employment. There is a fact which has remained unnoticed all through the discussions about the problem, that is the substantial increase last month in the number of Canadians who are effectively working; that number has increased by 25,000 or 0.3 per cent, seasonally adjusted, between January and February.
Without trying to make any forecasts, I want to emphasize that if employment keeps growing at the same rate during the next 12 months, the number of jobs by the end of next February will have increased by 300,000. In spite of the severe winter we just had which proved disastrous for a number of industries, particularly those employing mostly males and in spite of the increasing unemployment rate in the United States, we have seen very substantial improvements in the employment picture in February. The seasonally adjusted figures show that employment remained at the same level or went up in six out of the ten Canadian provinces. These improvements showed up mostly in the socio-cultural, commercial and personnel services and in the business sector.
We would, of course, welcome a stronger trend in employment growth, but, clearly, the unprecedented unemployment in February is far from being as catastrophic as prophets of doom would have us believe. The increase in the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is due to a sharp increase in the number of new arrivals in the labour force which went up by 74,000 between January and February. This is an extremely sharp increase from one month to another. It would not be an exaggeration to say that no economy in the world could absorb such a sharp increase in its labour force.
I should also make it clear that we had a similar increase in the labour force in January. As a result, the net increase in the number of job seekers amounted to 161,000 between December and January. On the basis of those figures, it can thus be said that the seasonally adjusted increase in the new labour farce participants will reach 966,000 after one year, which is a tremendous increase. New participants can certainly not keep on entering the labour force at such a rapid rate. One must not be fooled by the unemployment rate recorded in February and I would be less than honest towards the House if I said that I or the government are totally satisfied, with the employment trends of the past year.

We are all aware of the fact that Canada, like the United States and our European trading partners has experienced a somewhat slow industrial growth. The strengthening of the Canadian economy has been real, but not sufficient to absorb the very substantial and constant increase in the labour force. Even though the growth outlook in the private sector for the forthcoming fiscal year continues to be promising, however, it will be very difficult to bring the rate of our economic growth above that of our growing labour force.
It is with this in mind, as well as the problems with which we might be confronted in the forthcoming year, that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) last October announced the implementation of the first stage of our employment strategy, to alleviate unemployment over the next few years. Under this strategy, some $350 million will be spent, in addition to the enormous amounts allocated to the training, employment and mobility programs by the Department of Manpower and Immigration. It will be a lot more than a band-aid approach as some hon. members have termed this strategy.
I wish to mention for instance the increasingly needed job incentive programs, such as the Canada Works Program, with $200 million, the Young Canada Works Program, with $30 million, the Summer Job Corps Program, with $10 million, and other direct employment programs for students during the Summer. The strategy also provides for a number of other longer term measures which will greatly help Canadians to find jobs not only this year, but also in the forthcoming years.
One of the most important of those measures is the additional $19 million which has been provided for the Occupational Training Program, for which $10 to about $70 million have been earmarked for the next fiscal year. The strategy also includes our new Job Experience Training Program, through which business will be able to hire (during winter and summer) young people who cannot find a job on the labour market and to provide them with relevant practical training and experience. This innovative program, which will be implemented jointly with Chambers of Commerce across the country, might very well turn out to be one of the most effective means available to us to fill the gap between school and the labour market. I expect that this year, some 7,000 young people will take advantage of the Occupational Training and Experience Program.
However, our immediate job will be to provide meaningful and productive employment for the great number of people entering the labour market. This is why, in addition to an employment strategy for 1977-78 with a $350 million funding, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration announced last fall supplementary estimates in the amount of $100 million for LIP projects this winter, which would bring the program's funding to $200 million and provide, as I said, for the creation of jobs lasting until June for tens of thousands of Canadians. LIP projects are a definite contribution to community infrastructures, they create thousands of extra jobs and help the people involved to acquire and maintain good work habits. Although the major part of the program's impact on employ-
March 17, 1977

ment is still to come LIP is one of the key factors in the significant job increase experienced in February.
Mr. Speaker, under the measures already announced, we will provide in 1977-78: 126,000 man-months of work under the LIP program for this winter; 288,000 man-months of work under the Canada Works program with a $200 million funding; 60,000 man-months of work under the Young Canada Works and the Company of Summer Workers; 19,000 man-months of work under the Local Employment Assistance Program (LEAP).
Overall, the employment strategy will help 135,000 participants, in addition to those who were already working on LIP projects this winter. I would like to stress that those initiatives are over and above our major manpower programs, such as: the manpower training program under which some 300,000 full-time participants will be trained at a cost of some $600,000; the manpower mobility program which will enable 15,000 unemployed workers and their families to move to a community where they will be able to find full-time employment, at a cost of some $14 million.
The programs under our five-year strategy are not rigid. Quite the opposite, they are very flexible and the minister is ready to bring in due time any changes and amendments that will prove necessary to meet the immediate and long-term needs of our labour force.
However, I do want to stress above all that the bill before us offers a new solution to the challenge which, day after day, work and unemployment constitute in a modern industrial industry society. Through certain amendments, we will replace welfare benefits with productive and satisfying employment which Canadians so dearly want.
The bill enables us to dispense training instead of distributing unemployment benefits. Indeed, it gives the unemployed the possibility of taking courses while receiving unemployment insurance, and using that money as the chief source of income during their training period.
This new system will enable us to make funds available and to admit as well a larger number of unemployed to much needed vocational training. This means that instead of searching, sometimes in vain, for a job difficult to find, thousands of Canadians will be able to use their time and skills to improve their "employability" and their long-term income, but it also means that we will be able to use present expenditures to give people the opportunity to get a more attractive and promising position on the labour market.
At the same time, the bill will enable us to develop pilot projects to determine whether it is possible to establish worthwhile links between unemployment insurance support payments and job creation projects. I do not expect this initiative to be one of the main factors which will contribute to reduce unemployment this year, but it could become very important next year if experiments prove to be successful.
Under this legislation, we will also be able to experiment the works sharing plan, which is already widely applied in Europe to reduce unemployment and maintain contact with the work-
Economic Policy
ing environment. This system, whereby the plant can maintain all its employees at work during 75 per cent of the time rather than laying off 25 per cent of them, does offer certain benefits. For instance, it enables businesses to keep their workers and therefore avoid having to train new ones when production starts again. Employees are not losing their skills nor their working habits and they stay on the job. The net cost for unemployment insurance amounts to almost nothing. This system can therefore benefit all parties. The minister hopes to be able to initiate a number of worksharing pilot projects next fall and if they prove as successful as 1 expect, to expand them substantially in the future in the best interest of all Canadians. All these new ways of using unemployment insurance will help curb or reduce unemployment.
They will give workers opportunities which they do not have now and no one will have to participate. Their philosophy is largely based on recommendations made by the OECD in its recent review on a general employment policy. It seems to me that the programs which the government has implemented and is still implementing to fight short and long-term unemployment, have been dictated by our economic and by our international situation. These statistics must be considered in the aggregate and not just for any given month. The present government has probably found more positive ways to fight unemployment than most of our economic partners.
We have developed an employment strategy which has already produced positive results. In the coming months, our situation will improve further. We intend to combine the unemployment insurance support payments with our manpower programs. If things work well, these programs will allow us to expand our training and job creation programs and to develop a work sharing system.
The finance minister declared that he was going to bring down a budget providing for the best possible management of our economy and the necessary action to reduce unemployment without creating a new inflationary trend. If the unemployment rate for February should not create panic in the public, as some have claimed it will, I must admit that it is far from being satisfactory. We cannot ignore the human problems which are being created by our present unemployment rate and we cannot be indifferent to it. We are taking the very strong action which the present situation calls for so that as many Canadians as possible may find the productive and satisfactory job they seek. This question remains one of the major concerns for our government.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I want to set straight on the record tonight, and among them are the subjects of LIP, DREE, Canada Works, Young Canada Works, and FBDB.
It is very strange to me that in this fiscal year 1976-77 under LIP the minister is trying to create at least temporary jobs. LIP is the program that employs a few people for a few months so that they can then go on unemployment insurance

March 17, 1977
Economic Policy
and subsequently go on welfare, and subsequently apply for the next round of LIP, and I think that is the best and kindest description of that program I can give.
I must say there have been examples, certainly there are some in my riding, where this program has been of benefit, so I must give the department credit on that score. It is significant that when funding was announced for the fiscal year 1976-77 the allotment for the Kootenay West area was for $279,000 and we had an increased level of unemployment. I find it strange in view of the fact that in the previous year the funding was for $608,000. Then overnight, catching manpower officials with their collective estimates down, the minister made a crash decision to throw more dollars into the breach. He injected into Kootenay West overnight another $329,000, and he expected the applications to be processed in two, three or four days. I wonder who put the pressure on the minister to make an assinine judgment like that? Even the job opportunities were greater at that time. I question whether all that LIP money was really needed. I wonder how many frivolous applications were subsequently sent in and funded as a result of that additional over night injection of funds. I would like to know what went on in the department that brought about that over night decision which left manpower officials in British Columbia astounded. They could not understand this kind of decision made by the minister.
After mentioning this reaction I would like to make a few comments in another area with reference to a couple of farces that have been worked on this House today, farces which give an example of the farcical nature of this government. The first one is the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) who said that today, after making his speech in the House, the opposition leader left the House. The minister devoted ten minutes of his speech to the absence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), in spite of the fact that the latter had given the minister prior notice of his absence in the form of an apology explaining that he had a prior and longstanding engagement. In spite of his high stature, the minister demonstrated his mental smallness and his churlish nature. He certainly abused the courtesy extended to him by the Leader of the Opposition who provided the minister with a letter of explanation. If the minister had been a gentleman, he would never have wasted the time of the House on the scurrilous comments he made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Where is the minister now?


Steve Eugene Paproski: He has not been here all evening.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I would remind the minister in his absence- perhaps he will read it in Hansard tomorrow-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) has the floor.


Robert Hylton Brisco: -that the circumstances of unemployment overcame the events of today. There has been in the past, and doubtless there will be in the future, occasions when the Leader of the Opposition has spoken and will speak in the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). This arrogance, which is so endemic in this government, was clearly demonstrated the other day when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) read a major policy speech for the minister responsible for Langair, hot air, and Canadair.
The other farce that was worked upon this House today was the disclosure by the Conservative member for Brome-Missis-quoi (Mr. Grafftey) that the Liberal member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) used his office and his official stationery to solicit funds for the Liberal party. What was the Liberal reaction to this shocking disclosure?


Mr. Clermont:: Shocking, my-


Robert Hylton Brisco: My what? I would like to hear from the hon. member on the Liberal side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Will the hon. member please address the Chair?


Arthur Portelance: On a point of order, I am surprised to hear the hon. member refer to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) who is not present in the House. The hon. member gave an example of a certain minister speaking about his leader not being here. He should practise what he preaches.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. That was not a point of order. I suggest we are getting into a debate.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not dwell on this point much longer, but I would like to see it stated on the record that the reaction of the government to this shocking disclosure was not silence, was not shame, was not embarrassment. It was none of these, Mr. Speaker. They laughed, they hooted uproariously, they treated it as a funny joke. That laughter will haunt them in the future, like Mackenzie King's ghost, and so it should.
I should like to turn now to the band-aid patchwork solutions of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) and his Canada Works program and the Young Canada Works program. Even the names of the programs are a farce. They are building false hopes by advertising a Canada Works program and a Young Canada Works program across Canada. I should like to know how much the government has spent promoting those two programs. I warrant it has spent more on advertising than on funding in Kootenay West.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: With Liberal ad agencies.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I was enthusiastic. I thought the government would provide jobs for people in my riding, for unemployed fellow-Canadians.


Benno Friesen: Don't hold your breath.
March 17, 1977


Robert Hylton Brisco: The non. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) tells me not to hold my breath. How right he is. How deluded I was by this government and its economic policy!
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration sought the co-operation of members of parliament. He received mine. I spoke to groups in my riding and encouraged organizations to apply for funds. I told people about the program. Unfortunately I wasted my time, which could have been spent better in this House or elsewhere. I sought the co-operation of the people. They were enthusiastic. Even manpower officials were enthusiastic, as were students. After all, in my riding there is Selkirk College, a post-secondary institution with a large student enrolment, and Notre Dame University, also with a substantial student enrolment. Why should the students not have been pleased?
There were 38 applications for $1,609,983, but the allocation under the Canada Works program for Kootenay West was $153,000. There were 39 applications under the Young Canada Works program; the amount applied for was $483,529. But the allocation for Kootenay West was the lowest in British Columbia, at $66,000. Mr. Speaker, if that is not a classic example of Liberal pork barrelling, I do not know what it is.


Benno Friesen: Yes. Basford got half a million.


Robert Hylton Brisco: You bet he did. And so did all the other Liberals.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Would the hon. member please refer to the minister by his title?


Robert Hylton Brisco: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was referring to that hon. gentleman from Vancouver. Can you imagine what a crushing disappointment this meagre funding was, what an insult it was? I appealed personally to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and told him his own officials in Kootenay West disputed his figures and disagreed with him. I approached him twice, personally, on this issue. What was the minister's response? What did he say? He said no. He shook his head. He did not care and does not care now. Mr. Speaker, he said no to the 2,000 unemployed in the Trail area, which has a population of 12,000; he said no to the 2,000 unemployed in the Nelson area, which has a population of 12,000. He gave us some $66,000. If I could, I would hand the money back to the minister. He probably needs it more than we do.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: But you have it.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, this government has weasled on the unemployed, on the young people in Kootenay West and across Canada.
Unemployment among those between the ages of 14 and 24 has been rising steadily since December, 1973. This process did not begin last year, or the year before. It began in December, 1973. The government has had ample notice. How much more notice do you want than four years? Can you not
Economic Policy
read your own figures? Are you blind? Are you deaf? Or do you not care?


Steve Eugene Paproski: They do not care. They are heartless.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Today young people between 14 and 24 make up 47 per cent of our unemployed.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They will never vote Liberal again.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Those young people are proud to be Canadians, are proud of their country; they want to work in their country and for their country. And what is the government doing for them? It has given my riding $66,000. That is supposed to show the 2,000-plus students of my riding how willing the government is to help. Mr. Speaker, I would rather the government took a rest for four or five years. Let us stop these programs. Let us stop funding projects of this kind until we can introduce some permanent solutions. I would rather they stopped the LIP programs, the Canada Works and Young Canada Works programs, if only they could come up with long-term, permanent solutions.
Let me make some suggestions. I make them because, God knows, we often hear the government say that we criticize but we do not suggest alternatives. I see no reason why we cannot, even without provincial co-operation, undertake programs of training in trade schools and vocational schools, and upgrade some of the trade skills required by the labour market. That is my first point.
Second, I suggest that, as a nation, we should follow the example of Quebec. Let us provide funding for existing industry and new industry; let us provide a kind of accelerated DREE program which could be instrumental in taking the unemployed off the unemployed lists. Although in the past I have been unhappy at the amount of DREE funding going to Quebec, I must concede that the program in that province has succeeded well. The people of Quebec knew how to make it work, and they generated significant numbers of jobs. That option is open to the government, among countless others. I know that you will hear the NDP complain about money being given to private enterprise, to those capitalist rip-off artists. But they forget how much money is returned in taxes from the end product, in taxes from the employee and taxes from the employer. Those grants are returned a thousand-fold, but that never crosses the minds of those on my left.
Earlier today the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) waxed eloquent about unemployment in Canada, and singled out that bastion of free enterprise, British Columbia, that province which has finally shaken off the mantle of socialism. He said unemployment in British Columbia is just terrible. Obviously he did not bother to look at the Statistics Canada Figures, for they show that as of February 19, 1977, unemployment in British Columbia is down, by some 7,000 jobs, and that the province has the highest employment rate in Canada. I wonder what the NDP's answer to that is.

March 17, 1977
Economic Policy
I recall a little mill in Jenpeg, Manitoba, which made Jenpeg logs. God knows, the people of the north need those Jenpeg logs to build their log houses. Then we saw government become involved with private enterprise. It was decided that the government of the province would operate the Jenpeg mill, and operate it better than private enterprise had done. So, the government of the province put one of its political appointees in charge. He hired 14 more people to do the work of five, and the whole operation was a disaster. It has gone down the drain. Taxation levels in Manitoba are the highest in Canada. Mr. Speaker, provincial taxes in Manitoba are higher than anywhere else in Canada.
That is why, for example, Saskatchewan is having some difficulties. They do not even audit their own books. The various departments were supposed to be audited. The premier of Saskatchewan stood up before the recent by-elections and said that the books had been audited. They were not audited at all. All of a sudden the premier of Saskatchewan comes up with egg all over his face, a not unusual circumstance for NDP'ers. He discovered that he had not audited his own books.
Let us go to the job opportunities created in British Columbia.


Mr. Symes:: Tell us about Ocean Falls.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I will get to that in a minute. Ocean Falls is an old pulp and paper mill on the west coast of British Columbia. The private enterpriser who owned that mill was not making a dime. In fact he was losing money. It would have cost a lot of money to make it work properly. The Barrett government took over and made it work. More power to them! I am quite prepared to hand out accolades where they are deserved. However, what is the comparison between one little pulp and paper mill on the west coast of British Columbia and the disaster wreaked upon British Columbia in the mining community? Thousands were thrown out of work as a result of the stupid policies of the NDP minister of mining, Leo Nimsick. He shut down the entire mining industry in British Columbia.
My constituency of Kootenay West is rich in mineral potential. Where is the development? It is gone. Where did the development in the east Kootenay's go? Where did the miners go? They went to Cape Breton, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, all over the maritimes. That is where the mining companies went looking for ore. They went to the Territories and the Yukon. They knew darn well there was no point trying to find ore in British Columbia under the regressive taxation policies of the NDP government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. The hon. member may continue with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I distinctly heard a no. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes).


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, in this debate on the state of the economy I would like, in the few minutes remaining, to focus on the problem of unemployment. As most Canadians know, under the present Liberal government we now have the worst unemployment since the great depression of the thirties, with over one million Canadians unemployed and only about 37,800 job vacancies. We know that about 13 per cent of the labour force is without jobs. These figures do not include the ones that go unreported by Statistics Canada.
What are the characteristics of unemployment today? I would like to zero in on that. Unemployment among women is higher than among men. We find today that women account for about 40 per cent of the total labour force in Canada, or about four million jobs. Women make up about 40 per cent of the unemployed today.
We find also that unemployment is disproportionately concentrated among young people, with 46 per cent of the unemployed in Canada under 25 years of age.
Unemployment is much higher in certain regions in Canada, especially in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, northern Ontario, and areas in northern British Columbia.
On past occasions I dealt with the problem of unemployment, its causes and solutions. Today I would like to zero in on the problem of unemployment among women and young people. It is sad to relate that women are the lowest paid and usually the first laid off in times of economic difficulty. They face discrimination in job availability. They often get less pay for the same job than a man would get.
Job opportunities are limited for women, especially in my area of the country, northern Ontario, where they find work mostly in the service industries in jobs such as waitresses, clerks, secretaries or nurses.
Many women today do not want to have a role solely as a homemaker. They want to branch out toward a fulfilling career. Times have changes as have attitudes and, of course, the educational qualifications of women.
We find as well that women with their skills are carrying out jobs that help keep the economy functioning, jobs which provide important services to people.
I would like to put to rest the myth which is perpetuated by some, including the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), that women in the work force are a luxury rather than a necessity, that somehow high unemployment among women can be tolerated because they are not really the breadwinner of the family and that the family can get along quite nicely without their income.
The fact is that about 43 per cent of women who work do not do so primarily because they want to pursue careers. They
March 17, 1977

work because it is an economic necessity. The female spouses have to go to work today to make ends meet. With the high cost of living, they have to work to help pay for the cost of food, shelter, clothing and fuel. Young women must work to help pay for their education, job training, or to support themselves as they come to the age of majority.
There is another myth that women are taking jobs away from men. The fact is that most women are still limited to service industry jobs such as maids or waitresses, or jobs with particular skills that men do not have, such as nurses, secretaries, or those who work in the garment industry. Very few women are in the executive, professional or industrial work force.
The rate of unemployment among women over 25 years of age is about 60 per cent higher than for men over 25 years of age. According to figures published by Statistics Canada, most of the unemployed working women who are spouses come from low income families. In 1973, the last year for which we have statistics, 21 per cent of unemployed wives came from families with incomes between $4,000 and $7,000 a year. In other words their income was crucial for the total family income.
This government, because of its economic policies, particularly its anti-inflation program which has taken over $300 million in wages out of the hands of workers through wage rollbacks, and has reduced consumer demand and caused business to lay off workers, is still not doing anything meaningful in terms of getting people back to work, especially unemployed women and unemployed young people. The figures of high unemployment among women indicate that the government in its job creation program has not addressed itself to the acute problem of jobless females. The same could be said about its lack of attention to the plight of the unemployed young.
The young Canadian who wants to work is becoming increasingly desperate and cynical about society and its failure to provide jobs. It has become a demoralizing process for those with education or job training to go out into the world of work only to find there is no employment available. Consider, for example, the experience of a young welder who had completed his course at the top of his class. He told me, when he came to see me in my office, that the first question prospective employers asked him was whether he had any previous job experience. When he replied that he had no previous experience, the door was closed in his face. In addition, employers told him there was a waiting list of 20 welders at the local Manpower office who could not find work.
Many of these young workers are classified as underemployed. In 1975, for example, 54,000 young people held part time jobs, not because they wanted such jobs but because they were the only ones they could find. Today large numbers of university and community college graduates are working at jobs far below their qualifications. The example of a Ph.D. driving a taxi is no longer a joke.
Economic Policy
Summer job prospects for high school and university students were dismal last year-2,519 young people were seeking jobs in my constituency through the local Manpower centre. However, by the end of the summer the centre had only managed to find jobs for 982 of these students. This coming summer things will be far worse. The government has put forward a Young Canada Works program, offering this as a solution. But we all know the program is not adequate. The allotment in the Sault is $120,000, based on an unemployment formula and the limited funds available. To date applications submitted to me total $270,000. There is just not enough money to fund all the worth-while projects which are being submitted.
Just as there are myths about women in the work force, so there are myths attached to the unemployment of young people. It is assumed by many that the young today are over-educated. The fact is that of those in the 15-19 year bracket who are out of school and in the labour market, 60 per cent have no more than grade ten education, and that in the 20-24 year old group 40 per cent have no more than grade ten education. Their job prospects are dismal. We also hear that unemployment among youth is of short duration. The record shows that in 1975, 27 per cent of all those out of work had been unemployed for 14 weeks or more. The corresponding figure for young people was only slightly lower at 23 per cent.
There is also a myth that unemployment among the young really amounts to paid leisure thanks to unemployment insurance benefits. The reality is that most of these young people are first time job seekers who have not worked for long enough to qualify for extended unemployment insurance benefits. Many do not qualify at all because they cannot fulfil the minimum eight week work requirement. The government is now introducing legislation which will increase the qualifying period from eight weeks to 12 weeks, a measure which will come down hard on young people trying to find summer jobs or short term jobs, and which will disqualify completely another 330,000 Canadians from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, throwing them on to the municipal welfare rolls.
There is a further myth that the youth unemployment problem will disappear as the population ages. In reality the result will be that their poor job experience early in life will be transmitted to the future, helping to create a generation of working poor.
The New Democratic Party has proposed a full employment plan, and my hon. friends and I have elaborated on this subject on other occasions. Surely, though, part of any national employment strategy must be directed to increasing employment opportunities among women and young people. I have some suggestions to put forward at this time specifically to meet the needs of these two groups. For example, I suggest that the government introduce effective laws prohibiting discrimination because of sex or marital status in recruitment, classification, promotion and advertising of jobs. There should also be a mandatory program of affirmative action to achieve sexual equality in all public service departments and agencies.
80010-S 3

March 17, 1977
Adjournment Debate
We need tough laws, strictly enforced, to provide equal pay for work of equal value, and incentives to achieve this goal. We need expanded opportunities for maternity leave with pay and the right of women to return to their positions without penalty as to salary or seniority. We need changes in the labour laws to provide collective bargaining rights and fringe benefits for domestic and part-time workers.
For youth, I believe we need closer integration between the world of education and the world of work. There should be an increased number of work study programs during the school year, and more vocational counselling services both in schools and in a family context. We need special government funded projects, for example, environmental clean-up, emergency capital works projects for municipalities which involve the hiring of students and young people, and the subsidization of farm salaries, thereby enabling Canadian farmers to hire more employees. These are emergency measures.
What we need in the long run is planning and goals designed to promote economic growth and bring down present unemployment levels which are costing the economy billions of dollars in lost production and lost consumer spending, not to speak of hundreds of millions of dollars in lost tax revenues and extra contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I submit that expenditures now will reap huge returns in the long run through full employment. The human and economic misery faced by one million unemployed Canadians, especially by women and young people, demands action now, and the government should be doing some meaningful work to get these people employed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. It being 10 p.m. it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, on November 3 last the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) announced his handy-dandy made-in-Ottawa transport policy for northern coastal communities of British Columbia, which he called "improved shipping service". He said, and I quote in part from the announcement:
The three B.C. coastal M.P.s, the Honourable Iona Campagnolo, Jack Pearsall and Hugh Anderson had assisted in producing the new plan and also will be watching developments and keeping in close touch with constituents to iron out any early problems which may arise.
He went on to say:
Rivtow, whose service will be non-subsidized, has agreed to hold the tariff rate while experience is gained in the operation and does not foresee any major increases.
On November 29 the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) was quoted in one of his own papers, the Campbell-River Upper Islander, as saying:
The rationale behind the abandoning of the Northland subsidy was that it was distorting, not helping, Northern Navigational services. Competition could be improved if the federal government were not assisting only one company.
I would like to hear what the coastal communities have to say about that.
On November 30 it was discovered that the cost of some of the services within that one month's period had risen by as much as 150 per cent.
On December 3 the New Westminster Columbian reported statements of Mr. Bill New, president of Coast Ferries Ltd., and I quote:
He said he feels that the friendship among RivTow President Cecil Cosulich, Roger Marsham, a federal ministry of transport administrator, and Goen Chestnut, an adviser to B.C. Transport Minister Jack Davis, acted as a detriment to his company's interests.
"They, Chestnut and Marsham are acting in the interests of themselves ... not necessarily to the benefit of the people who are being serviced by the companies that have received these funds subsidies," he said.
"Currently, you could say it is to the benefit of RivTow Straits."
The article goes on to say:
RivTow picked up much of the cargo business abandoned by Northland when Northland's subsidy ran out Oct. 31.
On December 6 the Minister of Transport finally got to Prince Rupert to listen to what the people had to say. He conceded he had waited far too long and that perhaps he had made a mistake in making the decisions he had. That was also when he said that he had to make the changes because the government was "hostage to Northland".
Also on December 6 the Vancouver Province ran another article in which it said that the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) Mrs. Campagnolo had said to a staff reporter:
... that unless she gets some quick action from Transport Minister Otto Lang that will soothe the unrest among her constituents, she'll quit the cabinet post.
"I want some action," she said. "If there's no action, I have other recourses."
On December 8, according to the Globe and Mail, "Mrs. Campagnolo said Mr. Lang promised last weekend"-that would have been the first week of December-"to improve service within six weeks."
On December 21 the Premier of British Columbia sent a telegram to the Prime Minister saying:
On a per capita basis and using your east coast subsidies as a basis for establishing subsidies, the west coast should be getting more than $100 million a year. Instead, your Ministry of Transport is in the process of cutting us off entirely.
Two days ago I visited with a resident of Ocean Falls and she told me she had to wait two days to get a plane to get out of Ocean Falls because they were always socked in. Since

March 17, 1977

Christmas the Lumba Lumba, the boat that was supposed to provide such great service to Ocean Falls, has been there four times, twice in the middle of the night when the residents of Ocean Falls did not even know that it had come there.
On March 4, just two weeks ago, I put a question to the Minister of Transport. I asked him, regarding his recent visit to Victoria, whether the government would now present a 50 per cent subsidy to help the ferry system in British Columbia. The minister again gave a very inadequate answer, so I put a supplementary question to him:
Since the new improved shipping arrangement for the west coast is now four months old, and it is a makeshift proposition, are we to assume that this will now be a permanent arrangement, or will there be an announcement concerning a new arrangement?
I take up the Vancouver Province, and today I understand there is another statement which I would like to read into the record:
Transport Minister Otto Lang promised an inquiry in December, and earlier this week four regional districts sent a telegram to Lang saying the inquiry was long overdue and should be called immediately. Although she didn't have any special knowledge, Campagnolo said: "As far I am concerned it will still be heard but if there is a transfer of jurisdiction from federal to provincial then it's hard to say what will happen."
The latest word which I have just heard from the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) is that RivTow is to have a subsidy. This is the system which was not to require any subsidy. All that the communities along the coast of British Columbia have received from the Minister of Transport is promises and delays. According to the announcement in the Vancouver Province what we have is another delay.
There is supposed to be an inquiry. We know that that is the surest way of getting another stall. It is a gimmick. I feel sorry for the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. Pearsall) because he has been working hard for those communities, and the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) have given him the shaft. It is time that the coastal communities got an answer-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am always impressed by the presentations made by the hon. member during the late show, and I am also impressed by the representations made by the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo) on this matter.
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) alleges that there are disparities between subsidies paid to ferry services on the east and west coasts. This view appears to be based on a straight comparison of numerical totals and does not take into consideration the basic purpose of a subsidy program, which is to iron out unfair disparities and not to establish some sort of mathematical balance. Subsidies of the type administered by the Department of Transport are not handed out on a percentage basis but are calculated on the basis of evaluated need. In such circumstances it is possible
Adjournment Debate
that 100 per cent of all subsidies could be paid in one area and there would still be no question of disparity.
In drawing comparisons between the east and west coasts, the extent to which transportation assistance in any form may be required is clearly a function of geography and climate. In the east the main ferry services provide linkage between the Atlantic provinces. This should be contrasted with the situation in British Columbia where the coastal shipping services, including the ferries, are an integral part of the provincial communications network, and to a considerable extent play the role of intra-provincial highways.
The scale of subsidization on the east coast is, of course, primarily dependent on the constitutional commitments which were made by Canada at the time of entry of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland into Confederation. Although the current levels of expenditure may be much higher than were originally envisaged, the constitutional obligations cannot be avoided. The nature of the geographical area and the dispersed population inevitably lead to heavy expenditures which, even without a constitutional amendment, could not easily be supported by what is relatively one of the poorer areas of Canada.
The situation in British Columbia is very different. This prosperous province enjoys the benefits of a mature transportation system in which subsidization has in fact been a disruptive element rather than a support. Indeed transportation services in British Columbia waters can to a large extent be effectively provided through normal market processes.
There is no constitutional commitment to British Columbia contained in the terms of Confederation since the province did not see marine transportation services as being as high on its scale of priorities as did the island provinces in the east.
With due allowance made for Canada's constitutional obligations, the government has been striving to establish a water transportation assistance policy-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the parliamentary secretary that his allotted time has expired.


MANPOWER-CANADA WORKS PROGRAM-DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN STATUS INDIANS ON AND OFF RESERVATIONS
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my rising tonight in the adjournment debate stems from a question I asked of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) which is reported at page 2777 of Hansard, and also from a question the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) asked which is reported at page 3521 of Hansard. My question also follows upon a speech I made with regard to employment and immigration which is found at page 3505 of Hansard.
I want to zero in tonight on the Canada Works program and explain exactly what took place over a very short period of time. The first letter I received informing me of the Canada Works program was dated December 20. I received no more communications in this regard until I received a letter on
80010-5 314

March 17, 1977
Adjournment Debate
January 20. That letter said that the Churchill constituency was in a category of 20 per cent unemployment? I will accept the figure of 20 per cent as representing the unemployment in the area. However, the next communication that I received from the minister's office stated that allocations had been made for each particular constituency, and that in the Churchill constituency the allocations were made in the following way: Indians, $843,000; regulars, $100,000. What this indicated to me was that the Indian population, who are the responsibility of the federal government-that was referred to by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration-were allocated a certain amount of money, but the figure on their unemployment was inaccurate. Unemployment among the Indians runs closer to 75 per cent.
The minister has asked each member of parliament to appoint a ministerial advisory board to look at the projects that have been submitted from the communities. Those boards are made up of people from the constituency and they are the ones who advise on which projects should be funded. I sometimes think that the person who designed the Canada Works program has never been out of Ottawa because he could not have known what he was doing in allocating separate funds to Indian people living on the reserve, and separate funds to regulars, which means anyone not living on the reserve, eliminated about 2,700 status Indians living in the constituency. What this did was to drive a wedge down the middle of the communities in the north.
Many of our communities are composed of status Indians, non-status Indians, and Metis people. There is a line dividing the reserve people from the others. These communities have been working in harmony over the years. They are trying their best to work together as one community. What this program is doing is to drive the wedge much deeper. I hope that when the next allocations are made on August 26 we will not run into the same problem.
The people who have been named to the ministerial advisory board are responsible constituents in the Churchill riding. One is the vice-president of the Manitoba Indian Association and another is the vice-president of the Metis Federation. They know how money should be allocated in that area, unlike the official here who decides how to allocate this money before it gets to the ministerial advisory board. I refuse to accept his criteria.
The other criticism I have of this program is that it gives little chance to people to participate in it. Perhaps that was the design of the program in the hope that application forms would not reach some of the remote areas. I have here a note from a community which reads:
Dear Sir:
Please excuse the lateness of this application. Mail is slow in this isolated community and the forms were received only three days ago.
This was dated on the day of the deadline. We fought hard to get the deadline on February 4 extended so that communities which were really in need of work would have the opportunity to get in their applications. I have received other letters
indicating that some communities have never received application forms. We do not receive daily newspapers in our area, nor do we have radio and television to carry the news of the existence of projects such as this one.
In the speech I made the other day I made reference to the other programs in existence at present. First we had LIP with $2,400,000. Next we had FLIP with $1,088,000. Then we had LEAP. We also have the Canada Works program, and the Canada Manitoba Northlands program. These were dumped, so to speak, on those communities within a period of about six months. The leaders of those communities were not even given the opportunity to sit down, assess those programs, and take the best advantage of them. The result was that many applications were made hurriedly in the hope they would be approved. I suggest that there will be ramifications and problems, because the communities were pressured into making those applications.


Arthur Portelance: Mr. Speaker, we paid a special allocation to Indians living on reservations and on Crown lands for two reasons. First, it should be made clear that they are not included in the labour force survey carried out by Statistics Canada, and they are unlikely to be receiving unemployment insurance benefits. So we make them a separate group to be sure that they are included in the basic allocation. Second, the federal government must naturally give special attention to status Indians. On the other hand, we do not give a special allocation to Metis and status Indians living off reservations because they are included in the labour force survey on the same basis as all Canadians, with the exception of Indians living on reservations.
However, departmental advisory committees are urged when they decide the amount to be paid to non-status Indians to continue to examine carefully the projects submitted by Metis and status Indians living off reservations. In addition, should an insufficient number of acceptable applications be received from Indians living on reservations and Crown lands the unused funds would then be added to the regular fund and Metis just like Indians would be the first to be able to benefit from it.
To be more specific, Mr. Speaker, as far as the riding of Churchill is concerned, the rate of surplus manpower in this case is 6.17 per cent, excluding status Indians living on reservations or Crown lands, which would normally entitle them to an allocation of $100,000. But because of the size of the population and the high rate of unemployment registered among status Indians living on reservations or Crown lands in that riding the special allocation in their case was $843,000.
Those arrangements, Mr. Speaker, allow me to suggest that status Indians living in remote areas receive a fair share of the funds allotted under the Canada Works Program.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.21 p.m.

Friday March, 18, 1977