1977-11-29

STATEMENT CONCERNING ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MEMBER FOR BON A VISTA-TRINITY-CONCEPTION

Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before calling motions pursuant to Standing Order 43, I am sure hon. members would be concerned about allegations published since the House rose last evening of improper practices by the hon. member for Bonavis-ta-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Rooney), and since these allegations relate to administrative procedures which fall under my area of responsibility I am sure hon. members would want to be informed of any actions which I propose to take.
On the general question of the supervision of the staff of members of the House of Commons, both here in Ottawa and in the constituency office, I think hon. members are aware that over the last some two years, almost since the inception of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services, I have been greatly aided by that committee and in turn by consultation with the commissioners of internal economy in attempting to supervise in an orderly way the utilization by members of the House of Commons of the various allowances that are available to them in order to enable them to carry out their responsibility to the electorate.
[DOT]	(1412)
In some cases we have found that we have been able to improve some of the practices, or at least alter them, we hope, in an approved way, and in other cases where suggestions have been made for relaxation of practices we have resisted them and maintained a vigilance which we feel is our obligation in attempting to strike the very delicate balance that is so elusive to us between, on the one hand, the vigilance that we owe to the public since we are spending taxpayers' money, and, on the other hand, the freedom that has to be exercised in view of the extraordinary duties placed on all members of parliament which require a regime here which asks of members of the House of Commons that they report on a monthly basis that they are conforming to the requirements both in respect of their own actions and in respect of personnel, and, of course, the long established practice that when that word is given by any elected member of the House of Commons it is accepted by the administration.
So I say that in attempting to find that proper balance between our vigilance with regard to the taxpayer and the extraordinary requirements in respect of the 264 members of the House, we feel we have been able to achieve something
very close to the ideal, but of course we will continue the review. My point is that the review has been ongoing, in the hope that we have both come close to the ideal and established a regime which will enable us to maintain our vigilance.
In respect of the individual case in these particular circumstances, it is not for me nor, I am sure, for any other member of the House or of the public, to make a judgment in advance, and I do not do so. On the other hand, I feel sure that all hon. members would consider it my obligation in the circumstances, faced with the allegations contained in the article in the Globe and Mail this morning and made over the airwaves since the House rose last evening-I would consider it to be my minimum obligation-to ensure that a proper investigation is carried out. Therefore, after informing representatives of all parties this morning and the hon. member for Bonavista-Trini-ty-Conception (Mr. Rooney) of my intention to do so, I have authorized an immediate investigation by the RCMP into the allegations which were contained and published in various journals and over the radio and television in the last 24 hours. In my advice to the hon. member, of course, I have indicated that both before and after the announcement-I was attempting to reach his office but was unable to do so because of busy telephone lines over an extended period, so I have sent a note to him-if the hon. member wanted to discuss the matter with me, I would be available for him to do so.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have knowledge of a fact of urgent and pressing necessity which drives me to make a motion under Standing Order 43. Given the fact that it is almost two years since this House unanimously approved freedom of information legislation: and that since then, there has been an epidemic of concealment and deception indicating this has been a way of life of the government, much of it based on false claims of security, I move:
That this House requests the government to abandon any attempt to appeal the decision of Associate Chief Justice Hugessen in connection with the Keable inquiry and instead to immediately introduce into parliament, legislation providing for access to government information including a proper definition of "security', and "ministerial responsibility" in order to restore public confidence.

November 29, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AWARDS AND DECORATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Income Tax
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion can be presented for debate at this time only with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TOURISM
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. Because of the great importance of tourism to the economy of this country, and the urgent need to take constructive steps to overcome our large tourist trade deficit, which is increasing rapidly each year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Darling):
That the government create a separate department of tourism, with the powers which are necessary to restore the tourist industry to a healthy, profitable condition.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. As the Minister of Finance appears to be embarrassed by the fact that Bill C-11 has not been passed by the House while at the same time in an interview reported in the Financial Times he stated that reference to the bill not passing is a very unreal statement because "when the Minister of Finance proposes a tax change, it is law, effective the night of the budget", I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That the government House leader be asked to make a statement on motions as to why Bill C-l l's father, Bill C-56, was not advanced for debate after its first reading on June 15 in the last session of this parliament and as a result seven months of debating time were lost since the March 31 budget which has resulted in the present Minister of Finance continually having to suck and blow as an apologist for the government's tardiness.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to propose a motion under Standing Order 43 and I urge all members opposite to listen before shouting "no". Its urgency is due to the ailing health of the individual who is some 83 years old and who is the subject of this motion. My motion concerns a most singular and outstanding Canadian, Sir William Stephenson, who has been honoured by almost every western nation in the world save his own country, Canada.
Because he sought anonymity, held no military rank and wore no uniform after 1918-he never publicly displayed the decorations and medals awarded to him-and because he holds the British Military Cross, the 1914-1915 Star, the General Service Medal, the World War I Victory Medal, the French Commander of the Legion of Honour-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The standing order gives an opportunity to hon. members to explain the urgency of the matter. I think the hon. member might get to his motion.


Erik Nielsen: -the Belgium Croix de Guerre with Palms, the U.S. Presidential Medal for Merit-Sir William was the first non-American to receive this decoration-and the British Badge of Knighthood, I move:
That this House urges the government to consider the award to William Stephenson of an appropriately high Canadian honour, perhaps a Companion of the Order of Canada or an honorary membership, in belated recognition of the singular and significant contribution made by this outstanding Canadian to the cause of the western world during the Second World War.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43,1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Because by far the
November 29, 1977

largest threat to our nation's security is subversive activities within our country by foreign interests and not the activities of the RCMP, and because it is believed by many, including members of that force as well as Igor Gouzenko, former Soviet cipher clerk, that espionage activities dangerous to our national security continue to run rampant, particularly out of the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa where nearly 700 special travel permits in one year alone were granted by this government to so-called soviet diplomats and military attaches, a number of whom have since been expelled by the government for "activities which were incompatible with their status", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt):
That this House instruct the Solicitor General to have the terms of reference of the McDonald Commission extended to include such subversive elements as the contents of the Featherbed file as well as related information which has been compiled over the years by the security forces dealing with any or all espionage activities in Canada by foreign interests which may be damaging to the security of our nation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion can be presented for debate at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Figures released by the Department of Fisheries and the Environment supporting increases on seal quotas for Canadians should lay to rest claims by the nattering nabobs of negativism who predict the extinction of the seal herd. Since a non-partisan amendment to the sealing regulations presented by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) and myself will now insure the seal fishery will be free from harassment by those who try to prevent the seal hunt, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That this House commends management practices of all those connected with the seal fishery who have demonstrated sound knowledge of conservation and harvesting practices.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions


THE LATE TOMMY PRINCE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, regarding one of this country's greatest war heroes, whose death on November 26 in obscurity and apparent poverty, epitomizes the lack of appreciation given to military people in time of peace. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That Tommy Prince, who achieved ten major military medals fighting for his country, be honoured by the creation of a suitable memorial, details or arrangements to be the responsibility of the Minister of National Defence after consultation with all those concerned, to commemorate the memory of this great soldier whose contribution ought to have the same national significance in Canada as that of his American counterpart, Ira Hayes, who will always be remembered by Americans for his part in raising the American flag over Mount Surabachi when the American marines captured Iwo Jima in World War II.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have indicated in the past that motions of a congratulatory nature give the House a great deal of difficulty, not because they do not contain merit in themselves but because they are an open invitation for the use of motions under Standing Order 43 on matters of this kind which are hard for the House to deal with in a short period of time. I wonder about the wisdom of using that practice. I have let one go today and I do not think I should allow a second.
I think in view of the circumstances in which I had to delay the beginning of the question period by five minutes in order to make an announcement which affected some motions pursuant to Standing Order 43 and obviously some questions, that I ought to conclude the question period at five minutes past three. Oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who was in his seat. Perhaps we could just give him a minute to come back. Here he comes.


An hon. Member:: Just like inflation; he is back again.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My question to the minister is very short. As inflation in Canada in the past three months has been running at an annualized rate of more than 8 per cent, more than twice the level in the United States, would the minister indicate why our inflation levels continue to be so high compared to those experienced by our main trading partner?

November 29, 1977
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed that question on several occasions in committee as well as in the House. Of course our inflation rate is unsatisfactory and should be lower than it is at present. On the other hand, one of the factors of that inflation phenomenon is perhaps the value of the Canadian dollar which has reduced so quickly that the inflation rate has become somewhat unexpected. I would like to point out to the hon. member that the economic indicators published yesterday show a very real increase for the third quarter. I am surprised that the hon. member has not mentioned that fact.
quarter, the annual rate has increased by 5.2 per cent which is very satisfactory. At present, since Canadians are receiving earnings which are closer to those received by Americans and since the Canadian dollar is at a more realistic level, we have reached, in my opinion, a more competitive position. This is why we have for 1977, contrarily to 1975 and 1976, a large surplus in our trade balance in relation with other countries.


TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS AT GENEVA-REQUEST FOR BRIEFING OF MEMBERS ON PROGRESS AND POSITION OF NEGOTIATORS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In furtherance of his answer, will the minister confirm or otherwise the statement in the Financial Times of this week for which he apparently was interviewed in the comfort of his office. He stated that he anticipated we will not achieve an inflation level of four per cent until 1980. If that in truth is his department's view, why has there been a postponement of two to three years for reaching that target in that this current year was when we were supposed to get down to the four per cent inflation level.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I made a prediction that I hoped the inflation rate next year would be six per cent. It would be desirable to have an inflation rate of four per cent, but I never put a specific date on that. I know it will not happen next year unless we are luckier than we expect.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In the same article to which I have referred, the Minister of Finance is quoted as saying:
And in ten years time, the people will say: "Oh, gee, 1977-it was great."
Would the minister care to expand upon that statement? What does he think they will find great, the inflation rate of 8.8 per cent, unemployment of 8.3 per cent, the fiscal deficit of $8.2 billion, the trade deficit of $5 billion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will agree that question has some argumentive elements in it.


DROP IN LEVEL OF EMPLOYMENT IN MANUFACTURING-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Finance. Manufacturing employment in Canada is roughly six per cent lower now than it was three years ago. Can the minister tell the House whether in his view that decline is attributable to the loss of our competitive position, a loss that will likely be $11 billion this year in our trade and manufactured products. Can he tell the House how he proposes to stop this trend which seems to indicate we are going to be de-industrialized if it continues?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will point out to the hon. member that during the third


John Carnell Crosbie: My supplementary question is to the President of the Privy Council, the Acting Prime Minister, who is also the head of a cabinet committee to whom Mr. Jake Warren and our trade negotiators report at Geneva. There is a great deal of fear among our industrial sector that our negotiators at Geneva have free trade in their opinions and views and will not listen to the problems of industry. Will the President of Privy Council tell us whether the government negotiators are going to be instructed to hang tough in their bargaining to protect manufacturing and jobs at Geneva. Will he tell us whether opposition critics will be given a full briefing on our posture at Geneva, what our objectives are and how the negotiations go as the year proceeds in 1978?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that it will be the intention of the Canadian negotiators to be tough at Geneva and to secure the best possible advantages for Canada. As the hon. member knows, there is under consideration at the present time, especially in the field of industrial products, an overall tariff plan which anticipates reductions in the levels of tariffs. It will be our intention obviously where such changes take place to ensure that they do take place with reciprocal advantage to Canada. Of course, the long term objective of the trade negotiations is to provide growth in general employment and in incomes, not only in Canada but among the trading countries. I believe the final point made by the hon. member is a good one. It would be useful to have the opposition critics briefed on the developing situation in Geneva and I will attempt to arrange to bring that about at a suitable time.


TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS AT GENEVA-SUGGESTION INDUSTRY BE INFORMED ON PROGRESS
John Carnell Crosbie: Is the President of Privy Council aware that those engaged in the manufacturing industry in Canada have a common complaint-they feel there is not sufficient feedback from the government about what is to happen in Geneva; there is no mechanism set up for this process during the negotiations. Would the hon. gentleman look into that aspect and arrange a mechanism so that these people can get some feedback from the government negotiators as the discussions go on?
November 29, 1977


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is a concern of mine and of other members of the government. As the hon. member knows, an opportunity has been given to the representatives of industry to advise with regard to what changes beneficial to their operations ought to take place and a very large number of briefs has been submitted to the Canadian Tariff Committee which is the contact point. We are now at the stage of providing the type of feedback industry has been requesting. Consultations are under way, and will continue, to ensure that there is the type of feedback the hon. member has in mind.


NORTHERN GAS PIPELINE-MEASURES TO ENSURE CANADIANS GET SHARE OF MATERIAL AND LABOUR INVOLVED IN CONSTRUCTION
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as chief Canadian negotiator of the Alcan pipeline agreement. On September 9 the minister stated the agreement would result in direct expenditures in Canada of $4 billion and the creation of nearly 100,000 man-years of employment. That assumption is based on Canada getting 98 per cent of the pipe construction contracts and furnishing 88 per cent of the goods associated with the pipeline such as valves and compressors. In view of statements by some of the minister's colleagues with respect to open, competitive bidding, how does the government propose to ensure that Canada will get the share of the processing of the steel pipe and of the goods associated with the pipeline which was anticipated by him?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The
hon. member is correct in saying that the pipeline agreement provides for general, competitive contracts with respect to the provision of goods. But there is also provision in the agreement which states that the construction and operation of the pipeline should be carried out in such a way as to optimize the industrial benefits to each country. I can assure the hon. member that there is no disagreement with respect to that objective, one which is underscored in the agreement itself. I would underline an important point. The National Energy Board laid down as one of the conditions of its approval of the application of the Foothills Pipeline Company the optimization of Canadian production. The Board has an opportunity to monitor the ongoing procurement plans of the company and this, it seems to me, is an additional assurance to Canadians that the benefits which I indicated will be realized; it is an additional assurance quite apart from the pipeline agreement itself in which the principle has been enshrined.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Last Friday the Vancouver Sun claimed to have in its possession a document prepared by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which allegedly submitted a brief to the negotiating team prior to the negotiation of the agreement pointing out
Oral Questions
that unless adequate controls were exercised there was every likelihood that instead of getting 98 per cent of the pipe manufactured in Canada it would only be around 67 per cent. This would involve a loss of some $600 million. In light of that, can the minister be more specific about what are the preferential terms which will give Canadians the major share, or almost all, of the pipe to be processed in this country if at the same time we are to follow the suggestions which have been made by his colleagues that competitive bidding by other countries will be allowed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations with the United States were conducted on the clear belief, which I still believe is well founded, that Canadian industry is fully competitive and able to take advantage of the opportunities provided by this pipeline. That is a fundamental fact. The phrase in the agreement "generally competitive" was meant to provide for occasions when what one might call unfair competitive practices might be brought into play by other suppliers. There is a provision in the pipeline agreement by which one country or the other may have the tenders looked at or examined. There is no doubt about that.
However, it seems to me that the most important additional assurance is the monitoring of the procurement policies of the pipeline by the National Energy Board itself, and this will be continued. It may be that the introduction of the legislation itself will overtake the provisions of the National Energy Board and that it will be possible to consider putting in that legislation a system of monitoring the procurement plans of the pipeline company.
With respect to the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The subject of the question is a very important one but questions and answers have now consumed almost 10 minutes. I wonder whether I might permit the hon. member a brief supplementary and then a brief reply.


NORTHERN GAS PIPELINE-DATE OF DECISION ON SIZE OF PIPE
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Just a brief supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has a decision yet been reached as to the specifications for the pipe? As is known, Canadian authorities have been asking for a 54 inch pipeline with thinner pipe; the Americans have been pressing for a 48 inch pipe. Has a decision yet been reached as to what will be the specifications for the pipe which is going to be used in the Alcan pipeline?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to be brief and to tell the hon. member that the first meeting of the technical group took place on November 16, and to my knowledge no decision has yet been reached.

November 29, 1977
Oral Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
QUtBfiCOIS BUILDING-POSSIBILITY OTHER INFORMATION SUPPLIED
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and relates to the break-in at the premises where the Parti Quebecois held their membership lists. Was the Solicitor General first informed of this break-in by individuals other than senior officials of his department or the security service?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I made a complete statement on the subject in the House of Commons and I believe I dealt with the matter at that time.


William Herbert Jarvis: That is exactly why we are asking the question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Solicitor General confirm that the individuals who first advised him of this break-in were former or serving officers of lower rank in the security service; and such being the case, will the Solicitor General explain why this information did not come up to him through the normal chain of command, particularly in view of the fact that he had made a specific request for reports on any incidents where the security service was operating outside their mandate?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I would have to go over the statement that I made in the House. My own recollection at this stage is that it was brought to my attention by senior members of the force.


William Herbert Jarvis: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Solicitor General will remember this. Will he tell the House whether the individuals who informed him of the PQ break-in also informed him of any other incidents, such as the "Operation Cathedral" or "Source 300"? If they informed him of any other incidents, would he explain why, having told the House about the PQ break-in, he did not tell the House about any other incidents of which he was informed by those same individuals?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as I told the House earlier, the PQ incident was to the best of my recollection brought to my attention by senior members of the force. I did indicate to the House a number of times that, following the statement I made in the House on June 17 last, evidence of possible illegal actions had been brought to my attention. These matters were investigated by the force and the conclusion was come to that these matters warranted further investigation. That was the basis upon which the government decided to initiate a federal royal commission of inquiry into the procedures and practices of the RCMP.


FINANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Considering that our economy is still staggering, that the Canadian dollar keeps falling down and that inflation is still rampant, would the minister recommend that the interest rate be brought down to 6 per cent as it was in the 40's in order to allow and support at the same time a policy of expansion in low cost housing so as to satisfy the needs of numerous low income workers?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the suggestion of the hon. member would be a very practical way of stimulating the housing sector for the time being because interest rates are not dictated only by the domestic situation in Canada.


ALLEGED STATEMENT BY CONSUMER MINISTER REFLECTING ON COMMITTEE SYSTEM
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of Privy Council in his capacity as Deputy Prime Minister. In light of the fact that yesterday the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said he had misgivings about giving evidence at the committee level and that "Commons committees are politically inspired bodies ... less interested in rights and wrongs than in making political points", will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether the minister, who yesterday showed that he lacked the courage to fulfil his responsibilities as Acting Solicitor General, spoke for the government when he degraded the committee system of this institution?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs made any statements that would be repugnant to any hon. member who is an active politician. We all know that committees of the House are political institutions and that politics occurs there. I am sure that is not new to the hon. member for Calgary North.


ALLEGATION CONSUMER MINISTER HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, it may not be new to the hon. member for Calgary North but I am certain it is not new to the Deputy Prime Minister. May I put this supplementary question to him. In light of the fact that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has refused consent to come before the committee to give any evidence, has the minister told the Deputy Prime Minister as acting head of the government, or does the Deputy Prime

November 29, 1977

Minister know, that the minister in question has something to hide and cover up?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No,
Mr. Speaker, that minister has indicated his willingness to appear before the McDonald commission and the Keable inquiry. He is quite prepared to give evidence before these bodies which are attempting to get at the truth. With respect to the statement by the hon. member, it is my understanding that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs did not express a refusal to attend the committee; he expressed some doubt or misgiving. In fact, the press reports as to what was said are rather contradictory.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Deputy Prime Minister now tell the House, in light of his last answer, why it was that the government, with all its sources and resources, tried to stop the commission from finding out the true facts, so that a cover-up is still existing with reference to the same?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General has already made very clear the reasons behind the government's intervention with respect to the Keable inquiry.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Montreal-Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Through the various private news media, whether it be on TV, on radio or in the papers, Montreal residents have been exposed for some time to an advertising campaign which his department is sponsoring to inform the public of its eagerness to help Montreal which is the economic core of the province and, through it, the province as a whole. My question is this: I find it strange that this advertising campaign is carried only over the private networks of the news media. I wonder why his department is not having its message aired over our state-owned network which is the CBC.


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that we are carrying out this campaign to promote the assistance program which we have especially designed for the Montreal area. We have offered the CBC to participate in this advertising campaign, but for reasons which we find hard to accept, the CBC has
Oral Questions
unfortunately decided to turn down our offer; this is why the great advertising tool the CBC is is not broadcasting our message over its radio or TV networks. It is fortunate, however, that privately-owned news media have deemed this program useful and decided to publicize it not only over their radio and TV networks, but also in the press.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of Labour. Over the weekend there was at least one radio broadcast which indicated the government was considering the establishment of a commission or an inquiry into management-labour matters generally in the country. Can the minister confirm or deny that report, or amplify it if need be?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker. Because of the notice the hon. member gave my office, I have some idea of the radio broadcast to which he is referring. There was reference to the possibility of an industrial commission under the labour code to look into certain questions regarding lay-offs in federal jurisdictions. It was based on a statement made by someone in the Department of Labour. Actually, that is the case. Many of the railway unions have been anxious for some investigation into the question of layoffs. We have decided to look into that, more pertinent to the information which may be available from corporations in that regard. It is in the process of active consideration now.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Minister for his answer. Could he tell the House if it is now possible for him to advise us as to when this inquiry will take place? Is this something which is to be delayed for some months, or is this a matter of almost immediate attention so far as his department is concerned?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker. It is a subject of immediate attention.


NORTHERN GAS PIPELINE-ALLEGED LACK OF GUARANTEE TO PROTECT CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN CONSTRUCTION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the President of Privy Council regarding the pipeline. When I listened to the minister, I heard him use the following words: "We believe we are protected", "optimized" and "There will be a bill brought in eventually for monitoring purposes". I have looked at the agreement and there are no guarantees in the agreement signed by the President of Privy Council on behalf of the government and his

November 29, 1977
Oral Questions
United States counterpart which would protect Canadian interests. That is one word which was left out. Are there no guarantees in that agreement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, one of the terms of the agreement deals with the common objective of both countries to optimize industrial benefits. As the hon. member is aware, that is an assurance which can be carried forward through the operation of the agreement itself, and through the monitoring of the National Energy Board. Possibly it will be provided for in legislation which will come before the House, if necessary.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, it appears the minister has answered my question unknowingly. My conclusion is that there are no guarantees within that agreement which would protect Canadian interests. We have heard that possibly we will be assured some content, and this and that will be optimized. During the time of negotiations, did the minister bring up the question of guarantees and/or preferential treatment with his American counterparts? I have information which indicates that the minister brought this up. If so, what were the answers given?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the hon. member seems to be advocating that we ought to have entered into an agreement with the United States guaranteeing markets, regardless of the price put forward by Canadian industry, when we were assured Canadian industry was fully competitive and all that was required was a provision which would preclude unfair competitive practices. I know perfectly well that the steel industry is rather satisfied, as is industry generally, with the results of the pipeline negotiations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not need a lecture from the minister. I am asking him a very simple question. I am trying to find out whether he acted responsibly when he entered into the negotiations to bring about this agreement. Did the thought cross his mind that he should put before his American counterparts the concern we have in this country in terms of guarantees or preferential treatment? I am not saying they will both work. All I want to know is: did the minister have enough common sense to ask those questions, and what were the answers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that in the negotiations between the officials of the two governments, Secretary Shlesinger and myself, the question of optimizing and maximizing Canadian industrial benefits were discussed. The concerns raised by the hon. member were considered. They were enshrined in the agreement which has been signed by both governments. I want to relieve the anxiety of the hon. member by telling him that he can be assured Canadian industry will participate fully in this rather immense energy project.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am more anxious than that.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. It concerns the lockout of some 10,000 B. C. Tel workers in British Columbia during the past week. In that particular dispute, which is within the minister's jurisdiction, the report of the sole arbitrator, Dr. Noel Hall, was accepted completely by the union. The only matter which remains unresolved is the question of contracting out the companies attempting to remove a clause in the old contract. The result has been a fairly bitter dispute between the B. C. Tel workers and the company. Can the minister advise the House as to what he has done in order to resolve that dispute? Can he also advise why he has not as yet appointed an industrial inquiry commissioner under the Canada Labour Act?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the latter part of the hon. member's question first, it is not appropriate to appoint an industrial inquiry commissioner when there is a strike. That is not part of the dispute settlement process. It will not assist in getting an early settlement.
The hon. member is quite right. Dr. Noel Hall recommended a formula for settlement which was rejected by the company and accepted by the union. The union has used its right legally to indulge in a strike. My officers in Vancouver have indicated that they are available to both sides to mediate, which is the role required now, in an effort to effect a settlement. Both parties are aware that our officers are there and are experienced. Those officers can assist if the parties concerned want that assistance. If the officers are not wanted, they will not be of much assistance. I hope that assistance will be sought as soon as possible.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that in this case the union has offered to settle the one matter in dispute, which is the contracting out provision by setting out over an 18 month period a study of that particular clause to determine what is in dispute; and given the fact that up to now the company has continued to reject even the idea of a study of the clause contained in the old contract, can the minister advise whether he has interceded with the company in terms of its local management or in terms of the owners of the company who happen to reside in New York under General Tel & Tel?
Has he interceded at either level to find out why this dispute is continuing over such a minor section of the old contract?


John Carr Munro: The company is well aware of my reaction and that of my department to Dr. Noel Hall. We studied the report and we thought it was fair. We urged the company to accept it. They did not accept it. They advanced their reasons for not doing so, but that did not change our opinion with respect to what we perceived to be a fair and
November 29, 1977

reasonable report on the part of Dr. Hall. That being the case, the free collective bargaining system-a system that both parties support-has resulted in a strike. I still hope we will find an early resolution to this dispute. I have no other recourse but to entertain that hope.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Because of the great damage that is being done to Canadian-European relations by the suspension of uranium shipments, can he assure us that these questions, which have been under discussion when Mr. Brunner was here from the European Economic Community, are now settled and that we are on the path to a solution?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that we are on the path to a solution. That means that the matter is not wholly settled. During the talks with Mr. Brunner I was able to eliminate a number of the issues that have been preventing a resumption of shipments, but there are a number, some of which are of a technical nature but one or two which are substantive, on which Mr. Brunner could not give answers without consulting with his colleagues. He is now in the process of doing that. I will be meeting him in Brussels next week and I am hopeful that at that time some mutually satisfactory conclusion can be arrived at that will permit us to resume shipments.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. For some time now farmers have been charged up to 12 cents a gallon more for gas that they get in bulk tanks to use in tractors and combines than other customers who get their gas in bulk tanks and by that I do not necessarily mean service station operators. I want to ask the minister if he has made representations on behalf of the farmers in this regard and what answer he received or, if he has not made representations, why he has not.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, some representations have been made to me over a period of time by farmers who have pointed out, as did the hon. member, that they can buy gas cheaper from a service station than by having it delivered in a bulk tank on their farm. It is an unfair marketing system that gas companies have. We have
Oral Questions
made representations to them. There does not seem to be anything we can do to make them change their minds.


An hon. Member:: Yes there is.


An hon. Member:: Nationalize them?


Robert Elgin McKinley: In view of the fact that last year and this year agricultural income will be down probably by nearly 50 per cent, I think the minister should try a little harder to look after the people whom he has been appointed to look after.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, in the absence of the Prime Minister, and it is put to him also in his capacity as President of Privy Council. I would like to ask him, if members opposite would give me a moment to speak, a question which arises from the fact that the Taschereau papers on national security were not made public as scheduled within the last few months and instead were taken to the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's Office from the Public Archives. Is the government now prepared to follow the democratic process by allowing these papers in their entirety to be made available to the public and news media for scrutiny and, if so, when and, if not, what are the reasons for not doing so?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I can
assure the hon. member that the government follows democratic processes in all its activities.


An hon. Member:: When?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not up to date on the papers to which the hon. member refers. I will take the question as notice and answer it as soon as possible.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the interest in Atlantic Canada, both among inshore and offshore fishermen, in fishing quotas for 1978, would the minister indicate whether he has yet finalized the Atlantic coast groundfish fisheries management plan and whether our quotas for next year will be decreased, will remain the same, or will be increased, and when we may expect the groundfish Fisheries plan to be made available in the House.


Hon.   Rora@: Mr. Speaker, firm recommendations have not yet been made to me. However, the plan should be available in a

November 29, 1977
Oral Questions
matter of days. I might tell the hon. member that in some cases a decrease will take place for conservation reasons and in other cases there will be an increase.
May I say in relation to the comment from the hon. member for St. John's East, that we have traded away nothing.


Mr. McGrath:: You have given it away.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I have one brief supplementary question for the minister. In view of the fact that in the near future representatives of the fishing industry will be meeting in Ottawa with the minister and with a panel of cabinet ministers to discuss a food strategy for Canada, at which time there will most likely be a discussion on the underutilized species and stocks presently being caught by foreign fleets within our 200 mile zone, will the minister indicate whether he has any plan for the Canadian industry to harvest these stocks, thereby providing employment opportunities for Canadians at sea and in processing plants offshore?


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have plans. Not only do we have plans but we have realized them. This year we supported industry ventures into this area. In fact, we were associated with the most successful, the one that has discovered shrimp stocks in northern Newfoundland waters, and we are assessing the size of this stock. We also went into a joint arrangement with Canadian and foreign companies' vessels to take and to market some of the squid products off our shore. But I might remind the hon. member that if we want to have access to some of the markets to which we presently do not have access, surely we should not completely close the zone to foreign fishing fleets.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs in relation to the answer he gave a few moments ago. I am sure the minister is aware that he worries some members of the House when he talks about some provisions of Canada's safeguards being eliminated in respect of these discussions with ECC which have not yet been finalized.
I am not asking him now about the proposals still under negotiation. I am asking him to indicate to the House as briefly as he can which items have been eliminated in respect of Canada's safeguards.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Perhaps I used the word "eliminated" inadvertently. What I meant was that they had been resolved satisfactorily between the two parties. We had come to an agreement with regard to such questions as technological transfers and some others of an immensely complex technical nature which I would not be able to articulate meaningfully-I do not know
[Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent).l
about the hon. member-without the paper in front of me. Those were the matters which, when I used the word "eliminated" I meant we narrowed down to areas of continuing discussions while others have been agreed upon. I can tell the hon. member that the fundamental question which still remains to be resolved regards the conditions under which we would resume shipments for an interim period while INFCEP studies are going into full fuel cycle evaluation.
This is the issue. As I think the hon. member knows, the Europeans are asking for an interim arrangement of limited duration, and we are seeking to find a means through which we might be able to do that without closing the door to the outcome of the INFCEP negotiations or indeed backing off from the fundamental principles of our nuclear export policy.


ISRAEL-POSSIBLE CHANGE OF POSITION ON RIGHT TO OCCUPIED TERRITORY
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the honourable and lucid Secretary of State for External Affairs. Noting that at the United Nations General Assembly last week Canada voted with Israel, the United States, El Salvador and no one else against a motion condemning continued Israeli occupation of the territory of other sovereign states and considering that we voted with the vast majority on October 28 opposing Israeli settlements in occupied lands, can the minister advise if this latest vote represents a change in Canadian policy and, if so, why such a change occurred and if it is now the view of the Canadian government that we should legitimize the right of military conquest?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no change of policy. In so far as the vote against the resolution was concerned it was done basically on two premises, the first being that the resolution called for withdrawal from all occupied territories. We have always taken the position that the English text referring to occupied territory was the appropriate one in this case. Second, of course, it called for recognition in a certain context of the Palestine Liberation Organization which, once again, we have not as Canadian policy designated or acknowledged as being the so-called rightful spokesman for the Palestinians. There has been no change of policy, but there has been a growing irritation, quite frankly, on my part at what I regard as these rather senseless United Nations resolutions at this time which are doing nothing to advance the goal and the main objective which is, of course, to get the parties to Geneva.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 29, 1977


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour with respect to the pipeline. Some questions about this have been asked already. Can the minister put to rest the assertion which was made by the leader of the Teamsters in Alaska who said he had been assured by the international president who in turn had said he had been assured by U.S. politicians that 2,500 jobs on the Canadian section of the pipeline would be going to United States Teamsters, thus depriving Canadians of those jobs? What guarantees are in place to assure Canadian labour content, and how are those guarantees going to be controlled so that Canadian labour will be assured of the work?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am aware of the stories the hon. member has heard. I checked them out through our officers in Vancouver who contacted the appropriate people to find out how valid the stories were. They said there was no validity at all to the suggestions to which the hon. member is referring in terms of protestations that Alaska Teamsters are going to take the jobs.


NORTHERN GAS PIPELINE-DATE OF ESTABLISHMENT OF SINGLE CONTROL AGENCY
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour did not reply to the question about how this is going to be controlled but I will direct my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister and ask him about the labour provisions in the pipeline agreement and the other provisions. He has mentioned already that there were meetings held last November 16, 1 think he said, with respect to specifications of the pipe. When is the single regulatory control agency, which is part of the government's plans, going to be set up? It seems to me that that control agency should be participating in that kind of discussion.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a valid point. We are presently working on the legislation, and we hope to introduce it into the House of Commons as soon as possible. It was my hope that it would be introduced prior to the Christmas adjournment, but I am not sure we can make that deadline. However, we will have legislation brought forward just as soon as possible.
Point of Order PRIVILEGE


MR. WALTER BAKER-ALLEGATIONS RESPECTING MR. ROONEY
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I filed with you a notice with respect to a question of privilege concerning the matters to which you alluded earlier involving the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Con-ception. Subsequent to that we had a House leaders' meeting, to which Your Honour referred and at which you announced your decision, on which there was agreement to call in authorities for an investigation. In view of that matter having been dealt with at this time in the way in which Your Honour described earlier, I wonder if my question of privilege might be held in abeyance for a time.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the action by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton to protect his right to rise at a future time on a question of privilege. The matter will stand in abeyance pending the investigation.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With deepest respect, I do not question a ruling of the Chair but I seek clarification on a certain point. A while ago I asked a question of the Deputy Prime Minister and he agreed to look into the matter, and in due course, I presume, make a report- in view of the fact that he was apparently not aware of the circumstances or the full details. I did have a supplementary question concerning a very important fact which I thought should go along with it, and I felt the Deputy Prime Minister should also be prepared to look into it, namely, that Gouzenko-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I was one of two members who was denied a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Leeds will recognize that several of his colleagues were not recognized for questions today, and that some did have supplementaries which they wished to pursue. The Chair is in the difficult position of attempting, on the one hand, to distribute the sharing of the question period as widely as possible and, on the other hand, to permit hon. members the opportunity to pursue subjects with some diligence. In some cases, particularly cases where the answer is that the minister has not been briefed on a matter but will provide information at a later date, certainly that seems to be one case in which it would be inopportune to proceed with supplementaries.
There were other questions. I think particularly of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham who sought to pursue a matter by way of a supplementary question. I could think of others if I thought about it for a minute. The fact of the matter is that several members were permitted only one question today. That is a decision I have to make. If we were to permit members second and third supplementaries at all times as a matter of course, we would find that only eight or nine

November 29, 1977
Point of Order
members could participate in the question period. That seems to be more undesirable than the difficulty we now face.


Mr. Oberle:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order similar to that raised by the hon. member for Leeds. For two days I have been attempting, under Standing Order 43-which is a Standing Order providing for the discussion of matters of urgent and pressing necessity-to get Your Honour's eye. I also attempted throughout the question period to ask a question.
I understand the difficulty which Your Honour faces in recognizing all hon. members who wish to question the ministry on matters which are all important. However, it appears to me that when a member seeks the floor to raise a question of urgent and pressing necessity, and Your Honour does not recognize him for that purpose, it would be acceptable to recognize the hon. member during the question period because some of us do want to refer matters of urgent and pressing necessity to ministers, to this House and to the public. In this particular case it is a matter which urgently requires the attention of the ministry because it affects the lives and safety of Canadians throughout this country with regard to air traffic.


Mr. Speaker:: I can help the hon. member to resolve that problem if he can help me to resolve the corollary problem, which is that when members put Standing Order 43 motions, and when they are not recognized later in the question period, many hon. members have felt they have been discriminated against in the past. It is a very difficult decision to make.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-406, respecting confidential communications between elected representatives and their constituents.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, this measure would simply reinstate a bill from the last session which would ensure that constituents would be protected in confidences made to their elected representatives.


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

Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-407, respecting the disclosure of financial interests by senators, members of the House of Commons and certain other persons.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 322, 370 and 468.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Text]


Mr. McKenzie: Ontario Quebec
(c) (i) 1975-76	$139,895	Nil(ii) 1976-77	$112,882	$458


Mr. Epp: 1.	(a) What is the annual salary of Mr. Phil Fontaine, the newly appointed Regional Director-General for the Yukon (b) what is the length of his tenure in office?
2.	(a) As Regional Director-General, how many programmes will he be in charge of administrating (b) what amount of government funds are being administered by each programme?
3.	What programmes will Mr. Fontaine be in charge of administrating for the Atline Band in Northern British Columbia and what amount of government funds are to be administered in each programme?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.	(a)	$27,900-$34,900.	(b)
Indeterminate.
2.	(a) Five, (b) Local Government, $2,055,000; Economic Development, $779,700; Social Development, $2,184,400; Education, $1,500,000; Finance and Administration, $372,100.
3.	Local Government, $89,800; Economic Development, $20,000; Social Development, $17,000; Education, $5,000.


Mr. Jones: Are four destroyers being towed to Quebec for refitting and are they to be taken back to the Maritimes to be put into service and, if so (a) for what reason
(b)	could the destroyers be refitted in one of the four major ports in the Maritimes and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: (a)
and (b) No Canadian Forces destroyers are being towed to Quebec for refitting. However, a contract for refitting four destroyers was awarded to Canadian Vickers Ltd., Montreal over the period December, 1976 through April, 1978 after competitive tendering to the following shipyards: Halifax Shipyard, Halifax, N.S; Saint John Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. Ltd., Saint John, N.B.; Davie Shipbuilding Ltd., Lauzon, Que.; Marine Industries Ltd., Sorel, Que.; Canadian Vickers Ltd., Montreal, Que.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Canadian Economy



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps this is an opportune time to advise the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 40, three questions will be raised at six o'clock this afternoon as follows: the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-National Harbours Board; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Labour Conditions; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Transport.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Eudore Allard: That this House deplores (a) that the government has shown a lack of foresight and leadership in respect of the flooding of the Canadian market with foreign goods, particularly in the areas of footwear, textiles, clothing and furniture, which has contributed a great deal in weakening Canadian industries and resulted in a number of layoffs;
(b)	that the votes allocated by the government to the Canada Works programs are not sufficient to create enough jobs to overcome the massive and persistent unemployment which is especially severe among the 18 to 30 age group seeking permanent employment, regardless of the fact that a relatively large number of projects have been approved;
(c)	that no serious action has been taken to reduce interest rates which are the major cause of unjustified price increases and to fight effectively against inflation; and
(d)	that in spite of the fact that the present administration has very candidly acknowledged that the economic methods now in use are no longer suitable, the government, because of its weakness in the face of economic and financial dictatorship, persists in applying the same obsolete economic methods which leave the Canadian population to contend with the same economic problems.
He said; Mr. Speaker, I thank you for having read this very elaborate motion. I believe this automatically saves me the trouble of reading it myself.
Mr. Speaker, for the last five years I have had the great honour of representing one of the most beautiful constituencies of the country, that of Rimouski-


Mr. Pelletier:: Sherbrooke!


Mr. Corbin:: Madawaska-Victoria!


Eudore Allard: -It is much better than either of those! Also, for five years, I have heard this government use all sorts of diversions to mislead the population of Canada into forgetting its inability to keep its promises of a fair and appropriate well being for all citizens. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the December 24, 1970 issue of the Globe and Mail quoted the right hon. Prime
1360

November 29, 1977
Canadian Economy
Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as telling Canadians that inflation no longer existed in Canada. This was in 1970. In the fall of 1975, former finance minister John Turner said the following: Canada must meet two great economic challenges: to fight against the persistent and well rooted inflation while maintaining a satisfactory level of production and employment. On October 20 of this year, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) said this in his economic and fiscal statement:
We must realize that these are difficult times for Canada both economically and politically. But these are also challenging times because Canadians must rededicate themselves to the building of a stronger, more prosperous and more united country.
In the December 9, 1974 issue of the magazine Les Affaires, Bank of Canada Governor Gerald Bouey suggested that inflation is caused by a rapid growth of external and internal demand and that our country was beginning to reach the limit of its production capacity.
Mr. Speaker, this statement is quite ridiculous and to claim that demand is higher than production is a real nonsense since for many years, in almost every area, we have known production surpluses which we cannot distribute because consumers do not have a sufficient purchasing power to be able to buy Canadian manufactured products.
The March 3, 1975 issue of Business Week-and as you all know, it is a very esteemed magazine-reported that the real problem arose rather from the fact that inventories of unsold products were reaching unprecedented sizes. As a result, they mentioned that this mini crisis, or rather the terrible crisis we are still facing at present would get worse. When one considers statistics, one readily realizes that those statements were quite justified, which brings us to the evidence, Mr. Speaker, that the problem was not as the governor of the Bank of Canada described it on December 9, 1974 when he said the demand was too strong for our lagging production.
As I said, he was completely off the track because the real problem is not to produce but to consume. As a matter of evidence, with a percentage of 10 to 15 per cent of unemployed all year long, our warehouses are full of all kinds of products. Faced with such a production, the consumer can only buy these products with his eyes because his desire to consume depends essentially upon his ability to pay.
It is undeniable that faced with this situation which commands that action be taken as soon as possible by the government, the only attitude to be taken by members of this famous House is to make frank joint efforts without any spite or any partisanship with a view to finding a solution as soon as possible. Besides, those problems we are facing are very important and they would be easily solved if the government and Parliament members would take their responsibilities.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the measures put forward by the government to fight inflation and unemployment and to stimulate the economy are not good enough considering the present state of our economy.
[Mr. Allard.)
As a matter of fact, Canada has never found itself in such a dramatic situation since the great depression of the thirties. Statistics show that since 1933 the consumer price index has only dropped twice, in 1939 and in 1953. Consumer prices have steadily increased for more than 20 years.
As for our dollar, it is only worth half the value it had barely 20 years ago. What about consumer prices? A little example, Mr. Speaker: last September, the consumer price index increased by more than 0.6 per cent and reached a record level of 163.4 per cent compared to the 1971 level, or an increase of 8.4 per cent since last year. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is useless to say that in the past six years the cost of living has increased inordinately.
For the information of hon. members I will say that I have here a few percentage figures which I will spare you because everyone is pretty well aware of them. However, I would like to mention a couple: the overall index to December 6 for the last six years registered increases of 1 per cent, 2 per cent and even 3 per cent a year. So it can readily be seen that the necessities of life have reached unbelievable prices compared with what they were a few years ago and, in addition, how small wage earners are being crushed by inflation. Since price increases are mainly-I stress mainly-being felt in vital products it is impossible to escape that devastation. Unfortunately, low income people are of course once again the ones most affected because they must spend nearly all their income on consumer products, food for one thing.
The people of Canada, Mr. Speaker, are wondering whether the government of Canada will one day be able to bring inflation down with the economic methods it is now using. Personally, I doubt it. People are really wondering now whether it seems to want to go that way. Prices are going up at a staggering pace and salaries generally remain at the same levels. Small wage earners are most affected and they are anxiously wondering when that terrible situation will end.
Mr. Speaker, you will agree that patience has its limits. Frankly I doubt that workers can tolerate such a situation much longer. I feel it is high time the government really got down to doing something if it wants to avoid the major problem which could disrupt the whole economic structure of this country. Indeed, old people, the disabled and unemployed are concerned to see the cost of living go up steadily without being able to get a similar increase in their pensions and incomes.
On behalf of the old people of my riding and the Gaspe area I ask the government to take immediate steps to ensure the security and freedom of workers, farmers and all families, and more stable jobs for our outstanding youth who wants nothing more than being able to partake in the development of this beautiful and great country of ours.
Mr. Speaker, given the measures announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) on October 20, I find that the government has missed a good opportunity to take a well defined position in relation to the unemployed aged from 18 to 30 and those from 45 to 65 who find themselves between two ages-too old to find a job and too young to get old age
November 29, 1977

security pension. What about farmers' sons who want to take their turn after having seen the difficulties and troubles caused to their fathers by the government's adverse policy? What about the public debt now? For the 1977-78 fiscal year alone we will have to pay $2 billion in interests only. Can someone really tell me what the federal government is doing to stop that heavy drain on taxpayer money?
When will the collapse happen? When can we expect aid policies for municipalities at grips with impossible issues because they have no money to build sewer and water systems? When will we have pensions at 60 for workers willing to retire? When will we have the guaranteed minimum income promised during the 1974 election campaign? Judging from the mini budget of last October 20, this government has no solution except a flood of words which get lost in a bottomless ocean. We are always told the same story, that there is no magic solution or magic wand.
Mr. Speaker, I can recall quite vividly the 30s when people throughout the world, except in Germany perhaps, had to tighten their belts. At that time, I worked for five cents an hour, 10 hours a day, that is fifty cents a day. I can recall that a full day's work would hardly buy a gallon and a half of gasoline.
Many people ate only soup, fish and potato peels. Suddenly war broke out. Overnight the federal government found its magic wand and produced billions of dollars to defend the so-called liberties against people elsewhere in the world who were made to believe they were fighting for the same liberties. Suddenly, after a few years, the major battles came to an end and we had only sporadic skirmishes. Gradually our leaders put away their tricks and magic wands and they tightened a few holes in the Canadian taxpayer's belt. Because they are always tightening the same belt, very soon there will be nothing left on which to tighten that belt. That is where we are, Mr. Speaker, and yet for many years the Social Credit Party has been proposing solutions to slacken the belt instead of tightening it.
Mr. Speaker, the present government pretends not to hear and hypnotized by high finance, it prefers to tighten our belts instead of loosening them, and soon its stubborn refusal to use the magic wand of 1939 will lead it and the people of Canada to an impending bankruptcy, unless events similar to those of 1939 restore its magic touch, its motivation to provide the economic lifeblood essential to the normal growth and development of a people that is anxiously waiting for the magician and his magic wand.
Mr. Speaker, on several occasions, and pursuant to Standing Order 43,1 made several representations on behalf of industry, namely the Quebec furniture industry, which has simply been taken over by foreign interests. Indeed, last year, furniture imports in Quebec increased by 26.3 per cent which resulted in the lay off of 3,000 Canadian furniture workers.
As regards colour television sets, on January 29, 1976, I moved a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43
Canadian Economy
asking for stricter controls on such imports. Indeed, at that time, almost half of all colour TV sets sold in Canada, or 46 per cent, were imported, mostly from Japan and the United States. Then, I remember very well, the Fleetwood Company, the only colour TV manufacturer in Quebec, had just announced the layoff of 150 workers. Then, Mr. Speaker, why is the government waiting until the last minute to act? As regards the footwear industry, last May 19, I moved in the House of Commons a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 asking the government to restrict shoe imports. In fact, statistics show that in the last 12 months, 21 shoe factories have closed down in Canada, resulting in the loss of 2,500 jobs, when we have the highest unemployment rate in 37 years. As a result of the lack of foresight and leadership of the present government, imports have monopolized 56 per cent of the market, with only 44 per cent being left to the Canadian industry.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to make a quotation. We are often told here that it would require a magic wand to change our natural resources into the money required for the development of our country. I have here, Mr. Speaker, an excerpt from an article entitled "The Issues as I see them" published in the Maclean's issue of September 15, 1935, by the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, and I quote:
Let me protest once again, as I did in Parliament, against handing over to a private institution the control over the nation's currency and credit. Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and democracy is idle and futile. To give back to the nation what it has lost will be the goal relentlessly pursued by the Liberals.
Mr. Speaker, this was more than 40 years ago. Apparently, the Liberals have lost, have forgotten what their famous predecessor had told them so well. And as he said, 40 years later, we are on road to ruin. And yet, we, Social Crediters, have never been in power.
In a speech made before the Union commerciale mauri-cienne on November 1959, the former minister of finance Donald Fleming said this:
I want to emphasize that the Canadian government has no control whatsoever over the money supply. It may not increase nor reduce it.
Mr. Speaker, why does the federal government, with its power to create money, surrender its powers to a private monopoly and then go and borrow what Parliament can create itself while paying interests so high as to cause the country to go bankrupt? As a matter of fact, between the end of the Second World War and 1975, or in the last thirty years, the federal government has had a deficit for seventeen years in a row. This year, the deficit is estimated at around $8 billion. At the same time, those who have the privilege to create credit, the private organizations, will have net assets of $25 billion. Therefore, if I know how to count, a $25 billion deficit plus $8 billion makes a $33 billion deficit, that is we are short $33 billion.
80027 -17'/2

November 29, 1977
Canadian Economy
Mr. Speaker, Canada's debt in 1964 was $25,750 million and in 1967 it had reached $30,034,801,000. By the end of 1976, the direct public debt had risen to $96 billion, that is $60 billion for the federal government, $25 billion for the provincial governments and $11 billion for the municipalities. And these figures do not include the $24 billion guaranteed by the various levels of government for the funding of public corporations. Besides, last November 16, an item in Le Devoir read, and I quote:
Wood Gundy statistics showed that the financing of the public debt had reached in August 1977 the level of $1,450 million, or $875 million for the federal government, $333 million for the provincial governments, $4 million for Ontario municipalities and $80 for Quebec municipalities.
And it goes on to say:
In the first eight months of this year, the Canadian public debt has increased by nearly $13 billion.
Meanwhile, our 11 chartered banks expect to increase their assets by more than $25 billion by the end of December. From all that, one may readily infer that the direct public debt charges have increased. As a matter of fact, in the last five years, they have increased by 120 per cent, that is 135 per cent at the federal level and 100 per cent at the provincial and municipal levels. The share borne by every Canadian worker has gone from $444.44 for the 1971-72 fiscal year to $822.92 for the current fiscal year. Besides, for last year alone, those charges reached $7.9 billion.
Mr. Speaker, we, of the Social Credit Party of Canada, have claimed for years that the creation of new liquidities does not necessarily create inflation. We say that if Parliament wishes to change the way our banking system works, it is surely empowered to do so. Besides, did the speech from the throne not say the following, and I quote:
High rates of unemployment and inflation are clear signals of the inadequacy of economic strategies appropriate to simpler times.
Those are the very words found in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the session. While implying that problems cannot be solved by present procedures, the federal government seems to be delighted in staying on the beaten path. It is blind and deaf, I imagine, for it is indifferent to appeals from everywhere, for satisfying needs and desires of the Canadian people, in an enormously rich country. Nevertheless, the Canadian government runs into debt because of its weakness in the face of financial and economic dictatorship- it reminds me of a big hooked fish which cannot fight back, it is drowning, it will eventually be drowned-in using these same economic procedures, which of course have been obsolete for several years.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that the financial system is no longer adequate. It has to be changed, even though those who are opposed to any change in the present system call "inflation money" any new money issued by the Bank of Canada, which is a property of the state. As is undoubtedly known, the value of money is related to its quantity and its circulation velocity, compared to the needs felt by the population. During the war there was no problem in
(Mr. Allard ]
raising the financial resources to protect the integrity of the nation. I sincerely think that if the country is teeming with workers and well stocked in materials-and Canada is-we should not experience the current difficulties-workers and materials should be put to use.
For us Socreds, anything that is physically possible and desirable can be made available financially. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the motion we have brought forward is right on the dot, because apparently our governments are getting increasingly caught in the current economic quagmire and can find no way out. I would like to quote a few figures on the present unemployment situation. From 1953 to 1970, employment remained relatively stable except in the 1958-61 period, where unemployment soared. Since 1975 however, unemployment has been of astronomical proportions. From 8.4 per cent in 1975 it went up to a record 8.7 per cent. In August 1977, there were 838,000 people looking for work, and we have not yet gone through the worst months of the year.
Turning to inflation, we have recently seen unexplainable increases in food costs. Fortunately, price increases had levelled off during 1975 and 1976, so we were given some kind of a break, but they have been increasing again, sharply, since the beginning of 1977. To my knowledge, food accounts for the biggest price increase in 1977. As I said, this is partly due to higher costs of such items as vegetables, fresh fruit, coffee, some dairy products like milk and butter, pork and so on.
Mr. Speaker, although the rate of unemployment among workers below 25 decreased slightly from 14.8 per cent in August to 14.5 per cent in September, the proportion of employed in that age group-young people out from university and students aged 18 to 26-is really disappointing. As I said, the rate of unemployment is much higher this year than at any time since world war II. For workers over 25, there was a deseasonalized rate of 5 per cent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eudore Allard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful also to my hon. colleagues. I shall try to conclude as soon as possible so that other hon. members may also make a contribution.
As I was saying, unemployment is especially hard on our young people who are between 18 and 25 years of age. This is an unfortunate situation, for these young people are ready to contribute a lot of services to the public. They have the necessary training to do their part in developing our country, and they are those who in the future will look after the training of our young people. As for unemployed women in the labour force, the rate edged up from 7.3 per cent in August to 7.5 per cent in September.
Mr. Speaker, the statistics show this to be an all time high for September 1977. In fact, the rate for September of this

year was 7.5 per cent compared with 6.5 per cent in September 1976.
Statistics Canada estimates for the week ending on October 15, 1977, indicate an unadjusted level of employment of 9,844,000, for an increase of 19,000 over September. The increase was 24,000 for men 25 years of age and over, but there was a 5,000 drop for those between fifteen and twenty-four. It remains practically unchanged for women in these two age groups.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you once more for your attention, and I hope that the representations that have been or will be made from this side of the House will be welcomed by members on the government side who have a majority, and that action will be taken.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to give an official answer to the opposition motion by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) who has delivered a long speech about the Canadian economic situation and the solutions that his party has been proposing for a long time to solve the economic problems that all modern economies are facing.
Obviously, it is very useful to have such debates. We had a very long one, which lasted eight consecutive days, in October when the House resumed its proceedings and, as we know, Mr. Chairman, all that debate turned around purely economic matters. I, as Minister of Finance, being the main spokesman for the Canadian government on economic matters, insisted on speaking early in the fall on the economic situation and giving my own assessment as new Minister of Finance of the state of the Canadian economy in my budget speech, with due consideration for the new circumstances now prevailing, as the economy was not performing according to the predictions of my predecessor, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald). Obviously, we have problems of long standing and an unemployment rate which is unfortunately too high. We also have an inflation rate which is disappointingly high but can be accounted for. At the time when I spoke on the budget, on October 21st of this year, we were in a very difficult situation. The second quarter of the year, as far as economic growth is concerned, had been negative. And that is why at that time, Mr. Speaker, I presented that budget.
Economic problems are complex. When the hon. member for Rosedale presented his budget early this year, he predicted some decrease in the unemployment rate as, in his view,
250.000	new jobs should have put a curb on the unemployment rate. Now, looking over the present situation, we find that the Canadian economy for the year 1977, according to the latest figures, has generated not 250,000 new jobs, but 292,000 which is a tremendous performance, some 20 per cent over what the hon. member for Rosedale had predicted.
Although the Canadian economy has created more than
292.000	new jobs since the beginning of this year the unemployment rate is a little higher than we expected. This is due to a situation which is not within our control. In fact it is quite normal in a modern society, that the participation of Canadians in the labour force should increase at a much faster rate.
Canadian Economy
Nowadays it is common occurrence in our Canadian economy that two or even three salaries accrue to the same family, while generally speaking women traditionally used to stay home. Now, as soon as the children go off to school, most of them try to join the labour force.
This is why we are finding ourselves in this situation of having created 292,000 new jobs since the beginning of the year, and still having a higher rate of unemployment.
What is interesting for example in the October statistics in comparison with those of September is the fact that although the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 8.3 per cent, for the heads of family's category, that is the breadwinners, the unemployment rate went down from 5.1 to 4.8, a significant drop which changes the general notion we have about the unemployed being the man in the family. For this specific category of unemployed there is a slight decrease. Of course 4.8 per cent is already too much, but this means that 4.8 per cent of heads of families are jobless. While the usual interpretation generally given to the unemployed refers to that section of the unemployed labour force, very often today the unemployed is the second or third person in a family to earn a salary. We must admit that, with the provisions which have been adopted in the last ten years, the economic impact of unemployment in Canadian families has been somewhat reduced by a raise in unemployment insurance benefits for example and other social benefits which have been sometimes highly criticized by certain sectors of the economy on the basis that it is too expensive for the country. But on the other hand this insures a certain level of income in families, even if one of its members has unemployment problems.
Obviously, in the province of Quebec, which is represented by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) and myself, the situation gives us serious concern. Last October there was a substantial drop in the unemployment level in Ontario and while traditionally the gap between the two provinces has always remained fairly stable, last October, it widened in an alarming way, a fact which is not altogether foreign to the unstable political situation which prevails in Quebec at this time. I would like to say again to the House that in such circumstances, we had better hold a referendum as early as possible in the province of Quebec so that in any case this matter is settled in the near future.
The thing which surprised me greatly and I would like to mention it, Mr. Speaker, is that when CBC reported on the first anniversary of the P.Q. election they produced all sorts of statistics. But in that same poll, the people of Quebec had the question put to them-unfortunately CBC did not see it fit to mention it in its broadcast. It seems that they have made that information public but not in that program. Quebecers were asked the following question: would you like the referendum to be held within six months, a year, two years or later? 67 per cent of respondents would rather have it within six months or before the end of this year. I think that survey was taken in October this year. This proves that if we really wanted to carry out the wishes of the Quebec people who were told during the election campaign a year ago that there would be a referen-

November 29, 1977
Canadian Economy
dum within two years after the election of the Parti Quebecois, we should hold the referendum as soon as possible in order to settle this matter.
Personally I have nothing against asking the question. I hope it will be put to the people as soon as possible. I am happy to see that when I mentioned the problem earlier Socred members supported me, and I see that the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) has decided to help me make the French-speaking representation here unanimous in its desire to have a referendum held as early as possible in order to solve this problem. I thank the hon. members who supported me in this regard. Personally I think this would make quite a difference. Why? Because in such circumstances, it is quite difficult for the people who plan to invest to make a decision when they do not know exactly how big or small the market will be. I have said it over and over again, there is nothing more nervous than a million dollars. It has no colour and is speechless. Investors want to know where they can make profits, and should they fear a loss, they will go elsewhere where the prospects, in their opinion, are better. Now we would make great strides if we could solve that problem.
Very often a matter comes up-and the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) will soon participate in this discussion and will probably raise it-the question of the federal contribution to the Quebec economy. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to refer to the response of the Canadian government during the last year. Faced with the election of a party devoted to the separation of Quebec, on November 15 of last year, we decided and we took the position that we would continue to operate as a Canadian government and do everything within our power to improve the economic situation in Quebec, notwithstanding this rather negative new factor.
In the last months, we have often heard of soft sectors in Quebec. I would like to take a few minutes of the time of the House to talk about it and deal first of all with the footwear industry. The hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin), I see him now in the House, made representations to me a number of times in this respect. Other members from both sides of the House also made representations to me, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier), the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) and the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard). All these hon. members are concerned with those problems and I wish I had been in a position to make a statement on this matter this afternoon. However, since this is a very complicated problem which also involves communications with foreign governments whose exports enter Canada, I do not think I will be able to make that statement before Thursday. However, a decision has been made and the policy will be known no later than this coming Thursday.
By the way, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Loiselle) who has spent long hours working on this problem. As for the textile industry, much has been said about
[Mr. Chr6tien.l
the situation in Quebec. Unfortunately, the Quebec government has consistently tried to give the impression that any development in that area resulted from their coming to power. I would like to keep the record straight. I was appointed Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in September of last year, and I announced a new textile policy around November 20, I think, which was two or three days after the Quebec election. Anybody who knows something about governmental administration is aware that this kind of decision cannot be taken within three days. I have worked a lot on that. I did it in a new way, following the creation of a committee with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce made up of members of labour unions, and industries and representatives of the three provinces involved; Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba. Last November we decided to restrict textile imports to their 1975 level.
I have been blamed on several occasions by members of the opposition in this House, because some importing firms were not happy, but we have done this in keeping with such measures we were allowed to take pursuant to international legislation and we have extended these quotas to the end of June 1978. Moreover, a few weeks ago, the new Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), and myself, made a joint announcement to the effect that we had taken the necessary steps to extend the protection given to the Quebec textile and clothing industry for a three-year period.
And all that in accordance with the international laws regulating international trade. We did it at the request of the industry, in co-operation with the labor unions and governments involved, and we had taken the initiative long before the Parti Quebecois came to power. Indeed, in that respect may I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to mention the excellent work of several members who never stopped pressing me about that, particularly the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier), the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier), the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard), the hon. member for Gamelin (Mr. Portelance), and many more, who constantly came back charging in defence of the textile industry. And now for the first time in the history of the textile and clothing industry in Canada their industry will benefit for a period of four and half years, from a policy of stabilisation.
Of course, those industries will have to modernize-they have already started to do so-to be able also to increase their competitiveness. But what really pleased me-I see the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Bussieres) who also made many representations to me; I apologize for forgetting him-what pleased me is the fact that they told me every time that they were prepared to accept the competition from European countries and the United States but they were unable to compete with countries like Taiwan, Hong Hong, Singapore, the Philippines, where wage levels are absolutely non-competitive. I am not saying that we should not let in imports from those countries but what we have tried to do is to strike a balance between imports and exports because imports are necessary to maintain pressure on prices and keep inflation down, and imports are often a good discipline factor in that area.
November 29, 1977

On the other hand, if you destroy entirely the local industry one day you become entirely dependent on imports and then our efforts are hamstrung. We must maintain a balance between the two, and we hope to do pretty well the same thing for the shoe industry but in a different way because the problem is different.
And I would like to remind hon. members of other actions we took concerning the economy in the province of Quebec because in spite of the many efforts of the federal government there was a deterioration of the situation and the provincial government in Quebec is not generally well disposed towards the federal government these days.
Let us consider the shipyards: it is one of the most difficult industries to maintain in any modern economy nowadays. That is easy to understand. Since there has not been any significant growth in the international economy in the last four or five years, the need to build new ships is not so great, and the Japanese shipyards succeeded last year in capturing about 85 per cent of the market. I quote from memory and may be a little off, but not by much.
Faced with that situation and aware that shipyards were in trouble, we managed last spring to increase shipbuilding grants from 12 to 20 per cent, which made it possible to maintain a certain level of employment in shipyards across Canada and also in Quebec. Furthermore, there is in Sorel a provincially owned corporation. We were able to negotiate with the Polish government the building of several ships, which ensures employment for two years. Such construction is completely financed by the Canadian government. All that was done to maintain a provincial Crown corporation, and, Mr. Speaker, those are all the thanks we got for that. When the Canadian ambassador to Poland, who had negotiated the contract, accompanied the Polish Minister of External Trade and Navy to Quebec City, he was told that he was not welcome. This was a very nice way to thank a faithful servant of the state who had worked in the interest of Quebec workers. However, I was very happy, since the hon. member for Joliette and myself come from the same general area, that at least, in spite of the lack of courtesy of the provincial government, because of the circumstances, the union leader was kind enough to apologize to the Canadian ambassador to Poland.
I would also like to talk about Canadair, another activity of the Canadian government which is extremely profitable to Quebec, but we do not hear about it very often unfortunately. As soon as I was appointed to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I was given a file about which no decision had been made and which was on the whole rather ticklish and dangerous since it was designed to give Canadair a credit margin which would allow it to start building a plane called The Challenger, formerly known as the LearStar, which is a long distance executive jet. This was a dangerous proposal, and to make a decision, I admit in all humility that it took some daring, but we did make it. Because of that decision, Canadair has now increased its employment level from 1,600 to 3,200. These jobs are highly technological. Canadair got at
Canadian Economy
least 125 orders, which guarantees an order book of $600 million.
In the world of aviation, this is considered an almost incredible success, since we have sold 125 units even before the prototype is completed, which proves that our decision concerning Canadair has greatly benefited the Montreal area and, most important, that with the help of the federal government, Canadians can show some initiative, and they are now in the forefront of a market which is becoming increasingly interesting. We have outdistanced all our competitors in this field. I was as at the Paris Air Show and I noted some bitterness among our competitors about our achievement. In fact, I believe that we sold 19 of those planes to one customer at the Air Show. This airplane costs about $5.5 million, which is a rather large amount.
Mr. Speaker, those were the points that I wanted to raise, but I would like to go on and deal with the general economic situation in Canada. Yesterday, Statistics Canada announced that in spite of a weak second quarter, a regression compared to the first quarter of the year, there was quite an interesting recovery during the third quarter, with a 1.3 per cent increase in the gross national product for that period, which represents a 5.3 percent increase in the gross national revenue at the same annual rate. This is encouraging. Our problems are not over but this is very encouraging at this time. While in my comments on the economic situation I expected a 2 per cent growth for the present year, with that unexpected recovery in the third quarter, Statistics Canada predicted a possible 3 per cent increase, which means that I had been somewhat conservative in my predictions last month.
Now I wish to refer to the measures we have taken to stimulate the economy. We now have before the House Bill C-ll providing investment incentives in the private sector that was introduced in the House early in January and has not yet been passed. I find it absolutely incredible, all the more as the opposition, especially the Progressive Conservative Party, has been extending the debate on that bill for the last four weeks and will vote for it, while hundreds of decisions by businessmen throughout the country are still pending because the opposition refuses to pass the bill.
I think it is unacceptable that hon. members opposite should vote for a measure at second reading and then drag their feet. I am told that this week my office has received at least 50 phone calls from businessmen inquiring about when Bill C-ll will be passed. I would like to tell them today that it has not passed because the official opposition has been dragging its feet. We have been debating this bill for four weeks and we have managed to pass only three clauses in a bill with a total of 116 clauses. Is that the way the people of Canada want the business of this nation to be transacted? Not at all. It is because of the opposition that we are not moving ahead.
In Bill C-ll we propose other exemptions. Yesterday, the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) was not completely

November 29, 1977
Canadian Economy
satisfied because we are increasing the allowable expenses of employees from $150 to $250. However, that is another incentive for employees. We will be increasing exemptions for every taxpayer by 7.2 per cent on January 1. That is included in Bill C-l 1. In January and February, seven million taxpayers in this land will be allowed a tax cut of $100-and the opposition is dragging its feet.
Mir. Crosbie: You are giving Doyle $3.5 million.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) is dragging in the old political problems he had in his province. He could not stand the heat of being minister of finance there, so he quit. I do not want to be distracted by the hon. member's nonsense, so I will carry on. I would like to speak about the performance of our economy. The post-controls period will be extremely difficult; the results of controls will not be perfect-but we can see that the Canadian position is improving substantially.


John Carnell Crosbie: You double-crossed the Canadian public.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Two years ago our trade balance was nil. Last year we had a favourable trade balance of $1 billion. This year we have a favourable $2.4 billon trade balance.


John Carnell Crosbie: We have no problems at all?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We have problems.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are one of them.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: There are some people like the hon. member for St. John's West who had to quit their jobs. The hon. member knew he could not stand the heat as minister of finance in his province. The hon. member tried to replace the leader of the Liberal party in Newfoundland. He could not do that, so he tried to replace the leader of the provincial Tory party. He could not do that either, so he gave up.
We have some problems, but I think it is important that we stop the "gloom and doom" mentality. I think we have to speak about the positive elements. I am not running away from our problems. I have said that there are too many unemployed in the land, and we are trying to do whatever we can. The hon. member from St. John's thinks he has all the solutions, but he had no solutions when he was minister of finance in his province.
I think we have to be realistic about the economic situation. There are some positive elements. The controls have reduced the pressure of the compensation factor. Canadian people now realize the folly of trying to take too much out of the economy. The result of taking too much is that price increases are too high. The present voluntary settlements are very much in line with settlements in the United States. That is extremely positive, because in 1974, 1975 and 1976 settlements were too high and we were losing our competitive position. The fact that the Canadian dollar is at a more realistic level at this time is another positive element.
[Mr. Chi&ien.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue, however, with unanimous consent. Does the minister have unanimouss consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of agreeing to allow the hon. gentleman to carry on, because the last five times I have spoken in this House hon. gentlemen opposite have not done me that courtesy. I have no intention whatsoever of allowing the minister to carry on.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


An hon. Member:: You are not a gentleman.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) is leaving now. He does not want to hear the hard truth. When I watch the Minister of Finance, I ask myself how many ministers of finance can dance on the head of a pin. The present minister is the seventh minister of finance since 1963. We have averaged one every two years since 1963-and the seventh minister is a shambles, just as the other six were. The economy of Canada is in a shamble as a result of their policies. They are a group of shamblers. The best description for the Minister of Finance-who has come back into the chamber-is that he is the sanguine Minister of Finance: nothing bothers him. An 8.3 per cent rate of unemployment does not bother him. An unemployment rate in Newfoundland of over 17 per cent does not bother our friend from Shawinigan: he is sanguine. He is like the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau): he is unperturbed; he is positively not disturbed by the unemployment and economic conditions in Canada and the shambles his government has created. People in Shawiningan may be satisfied, but they are not satisfied anywhere else in Canada.
As we have learned from the remarks of the Minister of Finance, he is unaware and unworried about the country. He is positively uxorious with respect to members of the opposition and people in Canada who dare to be critical of his fumbling way with the economy and of where this government has led us. As an illustration of the government's policy, I should like to refer to a speech made by the Minister of Finance in Calgary on September 13, an excerpt from which was quoted by George Bain in Ottawa Today on October 20 as follows:
They (foreigners) know that Canada is riding through the current world economic difficulties in comparatively high fashion.
The people of Canada will be glad to know we are riding along in high fashion. The 29,000 unemployed in Newfoundland, and the hundreds of thousands of other unemployed in Canada, will be glad to know they are going along in high style, according to the minister. The quote continues:
But Canadians do not have the same buoyant feeling ... Instead we bitch.

November 29, 1977

That is, any Canadian who dares to feel disgruntled about the state of the economy, about unemployment or rising prices and the state of our industries, is a bitcher. Anyone who dares to criticize this sacrosanct government, this sanguine and satisfied minister from Shawinigan, is a bitcher. There is a lot to bitch about, Mr. Speaker. The minister devoted 20 or 25 minutes of his 30-minute speech to Quebec. I thought this was a debate on our national economy, not just Quebec. It was a pump-priming speech, a backwoods speech that dealt with Quebec, for the most part, and not with the rest of the country. The minister is not concerned enough to answer this resolution which deals with Canada as a whole, not just the province of Quebec.
The minister said that when he succeeded the Secretary of State for External Affairs as Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, he came across a file that had not been dealt with.
I though it was going to be the Featherbed file, but it was the Canadair file. A decision had not been made, and the minister criticized his predecessor, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) for not making a decision on Canadair when they held that portfolio. They did not have the intelligence, the nerve, the guts nor the gumption of the minister, he implies. When he saw the file, he dealt with it. If he dealt with it then, his predecessors left him a shambles to deal with-but it is very unfair of him to criticize his colleagues in that manner.
Let me now deal with the income tax amendments which are before the House. A budget was brought down in March, but the government did not introduce income tax amendments until three or four weeks ago. The House has not spent three or four weeks debating those income tax amendments. They do not relate only to the budget of March, 1977, but also to the mini-budget that the minister was afraid to bring in properly. Instead, he introduced it in the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne in the middle of October. The minister is stretching the truth. He is a flexible Minister of Finance- flexible with the truth. There have not been four weeks of discussion on the income tax measures, but they will get a lot of discussion. In any event the income tax legislation is not the solution to the problems of Canada. That is recognized by the Canadian people.
In concluding his speech, the minister made a final, telling comment. He said he was delighted, positively overjoyed, frantic in his feverish delight because the Candian people are now recognizing the folly of getting too much out of the economy. Again it is the fault of the Canadian people, not the fault of the federal government. He did not say that the government has now recognized the folly of trying to get too much out of the economy. Apparently it is not the government with its huge, swollen deficits-not the government that is asking us to approve their borrowing of $9 billion; rather, it is the poor Canadian people who are trying to get too much out of the economy. That epitomizes the policy of this government. We are in this trouble because the government has attempted to get too much out of the economy and has not left enough for
Canadian Economy
the private sector to give it some incentive. I can leave the remnants of the minister's speech, Mr. Speaker, and pass to a few remarks of my own dealing with the resolution before the House.
Before getting into more general matters, I should like to deal with the question of imports. I discussed this last night with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). The government of France has passed a law or regulation to prevent the importation of seal pelts into France. Apparently, Brigitte Bardot is such a powerful figure in France that in the twinkling of an eye-and I will not say what else she might have twinkled-they are going to bar seal pelts from France. If this government has any guts or gumption, Mr. Speaker, they will bar the importation of French champagne, because they brutalize the grapes by pounding them with their feet when they make it. It does not matter what the reason is, we should not allow the French to stop the importation of our seal pelts without taking action. I am referring to the French in France. I do not want anyone to think I am referring to the French Canadians of Quebec. If the French in France stop the importation of our seal pelts, let us stop importing their champagne. I am sure we can make our own in the Niagara peninsula that is just as good. In any event, I never liked that bubbly stuff.
We know that Canadian industry is entering an extremely difficult period. Canadian manufacturers and Canadian industry are nervous about what is going to happen in Geneva because they have no confidence in this government. I do not know if they will maintain this opinion through 1978 because the Prime Minister and his ministers will be chucking them under the chin, giving them a pat on the back and rubbing them behind the ears for the next few months to get them past the election, hoping they will forget how they were treated in the last few years. Canadian industry is worried about what is happening at Geneva because they know the negotiations are in the hands of professional free traders. Although they have put in briefs to the Canadian Trade and Tariffs Committee, they know they have been treated casually. The people doing the negotiations believe in free trade and are not worried about what will happen to the Canadian manufacturing sector. They know the negotiators are civil servants who say that we must have adjustments and must rationalize.
I laughed when I saw hon. members opposite pound the tables when they heard of the announcement on footwear and leatherwear that is to be made on Thursday. They had better be vigilant, because the people representing us at Geneva are free traders. The manufacturing sector in this country is not getting any feedback from the government. We have a nervous Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) at Geneva. This is no time to have a nervous minister. A report in the Globe and Mail of November 25 begins as follows:
It was a nervous Jack Horner who opened a two-day seminar-
We do not want a "nervous Nellie" riding up to the EEC with a lot of apologies. Further on, the article reports:
On footwear, Mr. Davignon volunteered to try to think of ways in which Canada could attack excessive imports from the Far East without attacking traditional European imports-
1368

November 29, 1977
Canadian Economy
Do we need someone from the EEC to tell us how to protect our imports? The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was delighted that a member of the EEC volunteered information on how to do it. Then he made two invidious comments which show how much he thinks of the manufacturing sector of this country. The article reports him as follows:
I think if Canadians could get over the market distribution systems, they would find themselves competitive and able to do business in this market.
That is a piece of wampum, Mr. Speaker; it means nothing. To say, "If Canadians could get over the market distribution system" is just as portentous as some of the statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and has just as much meaning. Later in the article, he is quoted as saying:
The Canadian businessman perhaps isn't as aware of the changing world market patterns as, say, the Europeans.
He patronizes our industry. Even with the pitiful record of his ministry in regard to doing anything to develop the industrial sector or an industrial strategy for Canada, he patronizes our businessmen. The article goes on to say:
Nor is he much worried about dislocations in Canadian industry that might be caused by freer trade.
Hon. members opposite who were pounding the tables today had better keep their eyes on the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He is not worried about dislocation in Canadian industry that "might be caused by freer trade." If the minister is not worried, a lot of people in Canada are. One of the people now getting worried is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He said in Charlottetown that he was going to call a federal-provincial conference on the economy. Well, he has to call something. He realizes that it is not just the national unity issue; the economic crisis is now the major issue. For the next couple of months we can all talk about the fact that there will be a conference on the economy. For the next couple of months after that we can talk about the fact that there was a conference. By that time he hopes we will have forgotten the problem and we will be in the middle of an election.
What is the conference going to discuss? The Prime Minister said:
-not one industrial strategy for all of Canada, but a series of strategies.
This government has laboured for ten years to come forward with an industrial strategy for Canada. It has not done so yet. Now the Prime Minister is going to pluck a series of strategies out of his head. How pitiful! Who is going to swallow that bunkum? I again quote:
He said structural changes in the economy will be needed because "there can be no immediate turnaround of our fortunes." ... In the maritimes for example, fundamental changes are needed in fisheries administration.
He is an instant expert on that because of his infrequent visits to the maritimes.
Campbell said in an interview later that the top priority at the conference should be an attempt to get a consensus on whether Canada should be a free trader or a protectionist instead of having the current "hodgepodge."
If this conference is going to decide whether Canada should be free trade or protectionist, my God, it should have been

held months ago. The negotiations are under way now at Geneva, and 1978 is the year of decision. The Prime Minister patted Premier Campbell on the back and said what a fine fellow he was and what fine suggestions he had made. Now Premier Campbell says that the conference is going to get a consensus. Are we free trade, or are we protectionist, rather than the current hodgepodge? That means this conference is going to be useless. If that is what it decides, it will be too late. Our free traders and our academics are going to be in Geneva and reporting back to this free trade of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. They will be making decisions about which Canadian industry will not be advised. That is one of the main problems our industry is complaining about.
The Prime Minister is a year or two late with his conference. He is going to change the structure, now, of the Canadian economy. Why did he not do it when he had the wage and price controls? He did not do it during the last two years. However, with an election coming he wants us to believe he is going to cure it all and change the structural efficiencies he has done nothing to change over the last nine years. The Prime Minister made a statement over television at the beginning of 1976. He mused about whether Canada was going to have a state society and state socialism. He was critical of the business community. That fanciful musing of his cost Canada at least 1 per cent of our gross national product. By indicating what he believed, he scared off business investment in Canada. Economists estimate this cost a $4 billion increase in the gross national product in Canada in that year alone.
This is the gentleman who is going to be so friendly and so nice to business in the next few months. He is going to put the bureaucrats down while he tries to lull them, getting ready for the next election. There is no industrial strategy, and none is being developed. There are no plans. There is no mechanism for consultation with industry while these negotiations go on in 1978. They have been given a chance to put in their brief to the Canadian Trade and Tariffs Committee. They have been patted on the head and told not to worry that they are too protectionist, that there has to be some rationalization and there has to be this and there has to be that. It means a loss of industry and a loss of jobs, but they are told not to worry. There is nothing set up now to keep them in tune as 1978 proceeds. No wonder they are worried!
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) is chairman of a cabinet committee to deal with these negotiations. Mr. Jake Warren reports to him. God help Canada if he does the kind of job on these trade negotiations that he did on the pipeline. He left Canada naked and defenceless in the pipeline negotiations. There is nothing in that agreement which states that Canadian materials and Canadian pipe are to have the advantage. There is nothing like that. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Therefore, the President of the Privy Council will have to pull up his socks and do a lot better job or we will be left naked in the GATT negotiations at Geneva. Today he did promise that he is going to arrange for some briefings for the opposition.
November 29, 1977

A month ago I wrote to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce asking him a simple question. He is just as slothful as someone who has been a minister for 20 years, yet he has been a minister for just six months. He is as worn out and vacuous as if he had been there since 1963. He cannot even answer a letter from the official opposition critic of industry, trade and commerce saying whether briefings will be arranged or not. He cannot even reply and say I can have permission to see a brief which the Newfoundland government submitted. The hon. minister is too busy travelling. His boots were made for walking. Maybe his boots were made for crossing; I do not know what it was. He is not around enough to even do me the courtesy of answering a letter that was sent to him on October 25.


Irénée Pelletier: You get exactly what you deserve.


John Carnell Crosbie: Go ahead and caterwaul.


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Tell us about the crossing he has done.


John Carnell Crosbie: I have not the time to tell this group what I would like to tell them. There is another problem which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce should look at. I have here a letter from R. A. Beamish Stores, of Ottawa, dated November 21, and another letter dated November 3 from Woolworth's and the Retail Council. They ask the minister to make a decision on what the import situation is going to be in 1978 and the last half of 1978 with regard to textiles and clothing. The letter of November 3 points out that their buyers are already completing their buying for the fall of 1978 in textiles, hosiery and shirts. They are awaiting a decision by the minister's department that was promised them for the end of August. They are now told that the decision on these import quotas for next year will not be made at the end of 1977. The letter explains the problems it puts the whole retail clothing industry in because they do their buying nine months or a year ahead. Instead of giving them a decision on that, the minister is cavorting around Brussels, Geneva, or the fleshpots of Europe, wherever they might be.


Mrs. Campagnolo:: Fleshpots?


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not know if Geneva and Brussels are the fleshpots, but they are pots, anyway, in Europe. The November 21 letter from R. A. Beamish Stores states that commitments by retailers are made on many classifications of merchandises 9 to 12 months ahead of the required delivery, particularly with regard to offshore resources. They need to know what the rules are that are going to govern 1978.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired.


John Carnell Crosbie: Is there unanimous consent-


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Carnell Crosbie: Are you sure?
Canadian Economy


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Carnell Crosbie: Are you positive?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why don't you get up on your feet and talk yourself?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Don't you like a good show?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt the citizen participation group. However, I am very pleased to get the floor and to say a few words about the motion before us. It is very easy for members on this side, certainly those in my party, to support the opening paragraphs of this Creditiste motion, although the last paragraphs pose some difficulty. On the whole, it is an important motion for our consideration. One thing that strikes me about this particular motion is the extent to which it reflects a problem in Canada generally and in Quebec in particular. Over the years I have been impressed by hon. friends to my left. In many ways, they reflect a grassroots sentiment in the province of Quebec. I tend to listen very carefully to the kinds of grievances they raise in this House, for that reason.
It is an indication of how serious the situation is in Quebec, in terms of employment, and how important it is for us to deal with it within a national context. If we do not find some way of creating jobs in Quebec and dealing with this question of the labour-intensive industries, the clothing industry, the shoe industry, the furniture industry, then Quebec itself will find a way. It may not be language which is the chief grievance of the point on which confederation hinges. Rather, it may be the extent to which those who guide the national economy are able to create jobs, not only in the rest of Canada but in the province of Quebec, particularly at this time. If we fail to do that in this assembly, the Parti Quebecois will promise it in Quebec.
What the Parti Quebecois has to do is to make the case that unemployment in the province of Quebec arises because of the failure of the federal government. It may be noticed, that I am not as partisan as I usually try to be in terms of condemning the government for its failures, because the issue is more important than that. It is not the government which will be held responsible; it is the Parliament of Canada which will be blamed for failing to find ways of alleviating the unemployment being experienced in the province of Quebec.
A lot of that unemployment arises from the competition of imports. If we do not find some way of dealing with this matter here, we are, in effect, handing the Pequistes the kind of instrument they need when they go to the people of Quebec with their referendum. What they will say is, "The federal
80027-18^

November 29, 1977
Canadian Economy
government cannot help you. You have nothing to lose, so you might as well vote for us. If we had the powers the federal government possesses, we would solve your problems for you." The powers I am referring to are the powers to regulate the economy and decide on the level of imports, tariff protection and many other things such as money supply. That is what they want out of sovereignty, and that is the kind of case which will be made in favour of separation.
What this all means, then, is that to a very large extent our country will have to become more protectionist than it has been in the past, at least until we solve our unemployment problem. Most people do not care for the word "protectionist". When I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) during a committee meeting recently to give the committe an indication of the direction in which our negotiators in Geneva were going, whether toward freer trade or more protectionism, he replied that they were "going for fair trade"-whatever "fair trade" means.
In the party to which I belong, which I think has favoured free trade rather than protectionism, we have come to the conclusion that given the present unacceptable levels of unemployment in this country, our society must take a more protectionist stance. In fact, we must protect our industries. Some members to my right have talked about Canadians being hewers of wood and drawers of water, but even that option is not open to us. We have traditionally sold off our raw materials to the disadvantage of our manufacturing industry. But our raw materials are no longer finding ready sales on world markets.
At one time we used to pride ourselves that when nickel was required, buyers would have to come to Canada-there would always be a demand for nickel. But today people do not need as much nickel, and when they do need it, they are not obliged to come to Canada for it. At one time we could pride ourselves on unlimited oil supplies and gas supplies. That is no longer the case; we import more than we export. One could go through a whole range of materials which encouraged us to say: We have all these natural resources, and since that is the case we need not worry about creating jobs in the manufacturing industry. We can sell them off. There is an unlimited demand.
Well, Mr. Speaker, there is no longer an unlimited world demand for these resources, and the consequence of our policies in the past involving the export of our natural resources has been to deplete a great many of those resources. More over, the depletion of such resources has forced us to locate them in places which involve greater cost, making them less competitive with other areas of the world. Even that option, then, of being hewers of wood and drawers of water is not open to us.
It is fine to talk about free trade, and if there was genuine free trade in the world perhaps it would be an option. The problem is that in many ways we have been the most open society of all. I do not wish to say we have been the most foolish society, but in some ways we have been foolish. We have entered into trade agreements and to a large extent have
[Mr. Saltsman.l
honoured our commitment to free trade only to find that other countries have hidden behind what they have called non-tariff barriers. There are all kinds of institutional structures in virtually every country of the world which inhibit free trade. Yet many of these countries pretend that they favour free trade.
I listened with great interest to a presentation by the Electrical and Electronics Manufacturers Association. It was pointed out that virtually every country in the world protects its electrical manufacturers. The industry is seen as an instrument of national development and protection is accorded in many ways. Contracts or specifications are written in such a way that no offshore bidder can succeed. Often it is the government which is the buyer. Delays take place. Experience has shown that even when Canadian bids are competitive in quality and price, foreign markets are not open to them, while we, on the other hand, are not opening our market to them domestically. So we are playing the game by saying that everybody can bid, but other countries are not playing that game; they are saying that everybody can bid, but their own industry gets the contracts. Many countries protect their basic industries, and there is no free trade in those particular industries. There are still countries which say: We let your raw materials in. We do not put any tariff on them. That is because they need those raw materials. But when it comes to manufactured goods, they are not letting them in.
However, that is not the only problem facing our manufacturing industry. I am simply saying that we are living in some kind of fools' paradise if we think we can go to these conferences and negotiate areas of free trade, making concession in the belief we will get free trade. The history of our experiments in free trade in this country does not lead one to be very hopeful about the prospects. Let us consider a number of things which have happened. Years ago-I am sorry I do not have the exact date, but it was some 30 or 40 years ago now- under pressure from the agricultural community in Canada we went to free trade in agricultural implements. That was the pressure governments were under in those days. The idea was that, as Canada had a very efficient agricultural implement capacity, we would get a share of the North American market and there would be enormous benefits not only for the farmers but for the manufacturers.
If one considers a company like Massey-Ferguson, probably one of the largest in its field, we see there is a pattern under free trade. What they did was to leave their labour-intensive, non-technological production here in Canada. As new ideas were developed and greater sophistication was involved in the production of farm machinery, the necessary development took place in the United States. The argument was that production centres should be located closer to the agricultural market in the American mid-west. Why could it not have been one of our western cities if southern Ontario was not a good location from the viewpoint of transportation.
Surely, if there had been any kind of national planning at all or any idea how industry should be developed in this country, we could have established that machinery industry in the west.
November 29, 1977

The west was perfectly capable of undertaking that kind of work. In fact, it is doing some of that work at the present time. We would have had substantial manufacturing facilities in the west and it would have made sense in terms of the product and its ultimate use. We failed to do that. The consequence is that we are importing far more machinery than we export. To my knowledge, there is not a large tractor manufactured in Canada any longer, though at one time there used to be.
Consider the auto agreement, another agreement we made with the United States involving limited free trade. The point of this agreement was that we were to get our share of the North American market to the extent we purchase automobiles in Canada. That would roughly be the measure of our share. When I raised questions about this, as did others, in the early days of the agreement, successive ministers of industry, trade and commerce would pooh-pooh us. As a matter of fact, the very man who wrote the report outlining how serious our deficit has become was one of those who supported the minister, though I guess that is his job. It was pointed out at the time that the Canada-U.S. auto agreement was benefiting Canada; that in fact we were getting more than our share of new investment and production. As they said at the time, the facts were there to demonstrate that that was so.
I went on to argue that it was inevitable in the initial stages of an agreement that investment would be lumpy. In other words, you cannot erect half a factory, or half a rolling mill, or half an assembly line; there would be a big spurt in investment which would make it look as though we were getting more than our share. The real question to be asked was: What happens on the second round of investment when the market grows and expansion is required? Where will that expansion take place? Will it take place in Canada, or will it take place in the United States? In those days, the unemployment rate was pretty low, so another question which I raised was this: If both countries were to get into difficulty economically and had high unemployment, since the automotive corporations were almost entirely foreign-owned-essentially American-owned- where would they invest? Would they create employment in Canada, or would it be in the United States? Would the United States government sit by-though, why should they?- and allow their corporations to create employment opportunities outside of the United States rather than inside? Obviously, the American government could not do that; no popular, responsible government could.
That is exactly what has happened, Mr. Speaker. Over-all, our deficit has increased and the situation does not look as though it will get much better. It may have to be sweetened a little because the deficit is too much now, but in the long run we are not going to benefit. We had an alternative in those days, as we did for all these industries. The alternative was to create a Canadian automobile industry. This was one of the threats which we used to negotiate a Canada-U.S. auto agreement, that we might go it alone. But we decided to take the other option, and now we are paying the cost. We still have to create a Canadian automobile industry if we want to be sure
Canadian Economy
that we will get our fair share of automobile production in North America. There are problems within this. For example, we may not have the variety of choice which we have now. But do we really need a variety of choice? After all, how many models of a car must we choose from in order to satisfy the consumer?
The Canadian economy has had very little attention paid to it by government. I think no other government in the world has abdicated its responsibility to manage the economy and to plan for the future as much as the governments of this country. They simply said that the private Canadian owner should do this job. Or, as more often has been the case, that the foreign owner should do it. We have no complaints to make-at least, we should not have-about the Americans. They did not come rushing in here and force us to do things. It was the policy of the Canadian government to invite them in and to pin our hopes on foreign ownership doing something for our economy.
As a consequence of this, we have an industrial structure which is one of the most unproductive in the world. But it is not the output of people working in our plants which is down; it is the way our industry is structured that makes it so unproductive. This is the problem with which we must deal, and is why we need to go through a period of protection.
I hope that any period of protection will not become permanent, something we will have forever. Rather, we should use this period to restructure our industry, make it stronger and then discontinue protection. The unfortunate case of Canada has been that although protective measures have been brought in in the past from time to time, no one really worried about using that period of grace to restructure Canadian industry. Instead, everyone got nice and fat, lazy and complacent, and then we had to face another crisis. Therefore, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that those who have some responsibility to work out a national economic policy have very difficult choices to face. As the minister said to me in committee, we should not talk here about being fair. "Fair" is a very nice word and I like it as much as anybody else, but what does it mean? I think we must face the harsh reality that, as a result of the mismange-ment of the past, Canadian industries which provide many of our jobs will have to be protected for some time to come.
In a speech the other day, my leader said that when we go into the next election the main plank of this party will be to create one million jobs in the immediate future. I know it is very easy to say that, but it is not an easy thing to do. How do you create one million jobs? Well, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things you can do. You can encourage industry in certain ways. You will not create jobs in the mining industry. Neither will you create many jobs in the resource industries. You must create the bulk of these jobs in the labour-intensive industries. Or if you do not create jobs, Mr. Speaker, you will have to save jobs. If we had saved some of these jobs, we would not be in our present troubles. We must create jobs in industries like textiles, shoes, furniture manufacture and electronics. Trying to go through the drill of saying that our negotiators in Geneva will attempt to work out a package it seems to me is unrealistic.

November 29, 1977
Canadian Economy
[ Translation]


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, there is obviously some element of truth in the motion put forward by hon. members from the Social Credit Party of Canada. However, recognizing the situation is not in itself a proposal for economic recovery, let alone bringing it about. As could be expected, we heard hon. members opposite indicate they had doubts as to the results our negotiators in Geneva could obtain in terms of economic recovery or the industrial restructuring in Canada. We heard members opposite complaining or wondering whether we should be free traders or protectionists. We heard the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) use harsh words, but he gave no worth-while data to support his suggestions. He criticized the Prime Minister for stating last week in Nova Scotia he intended to propose a series of industrial strategies rather than a single strategy for industrial development in Canada. That in my view is the only avenue open to us, because at a time when it is increasingly clear that no industrialized country will make an unqualified commitment to free trade, each nation should favour a sectorial approach.
When the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) speaks of fair trade, I do not believe this is a meek, senseless phrase, quite the opposite. I believe we must first make an assessment of our individual industries, to identify the areas where our manpower is centered. And after an in-depth study in co -operation with labour and management, the government should decide whether there is a future for such or such an industry.
As I stated recently, to the amazement of some businessmen in Sherbrooke, we must ask ourselves such questions as whether in 1990 we should have 250,000 or 150,000 jobs in the Canadian textile industry. And if the conclusion was the textile industry could not be expanded in terms of manpower, we should honestly face the situation and tell ourselves: Well, what do we do now with the workers who would normally be directed toward this industry, and in the event where it would become necessary to reduce the number of employees already engaged in the industrial sector, what will we do with those who will be forced out of this sector? But, I was not saying that the textile industry must be done away with, on the contrary, and the government committed itself through measures announced more than a year ago to support this industry so that being protected by tariff measures, it will be able in three or four years to restructure itself in such a way as to become efficient, competitive and productive. We will announce on Thursday a policy concerning the footwear industry involving new tariff barriers and new protection for our local industry. However, both industry and unions must not conclude that they will be protected indefinitely and need not concern themselves about productivity within their own industrial sector.
In my view, the three parties, government, industry and labour will have to agree on the best way to make that

industry more efficient. Now, I have mentioned two industrial sectors, Mr. Speaker, as we must realize in putting those basic questions, we, as a responsible government, have adopted a sectorial approach. My minister talks about "fair trade", because later it will be possible for us to appoint and set the terms of reference of our negotiators in Geneva in keeping with that sectorial evaluation we are now dealing with.
In spite of that, we must not overlook the fact that there are shortcomings. We have talked about the textile and shoe industries, but I think we should also determine to what extent it is possible in Canada to further process our raw materials, as in the case of the autopact which the hon. member on the other side mentioned before, and I think that our only differences lie in the data on which his assertions are based. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) recently commented on Broadbent-type figures and I think that he was rather right, because I have been wondering myself about those figures and data put forward by the leader of the New Democratic Party, and nowhere, even not among people in the business, were his assertions confirmed. People will rather rely on figures used by the government. So I think we should at least start from the same data if we are to seek an appropriate solution.
Mr. Speaker, there is another industry which is now declining in Canada. I refer to tourism. At least we have good news, following negotiation and interventions of various ministers of our federal government. We are allowed to believe that the American government will amend their law which deters Americans from holding conventions in Canada. The tax exemption will apply throughout the whole North American continent, and there will be no more restrictions for us, in the sense that Americans will be allowed, like before, to hold conventions in our country, which will contribute to job creation in Canada.
In spite of that good news, we also have to wonder how we should assist our tourist industry. Some statistics show that in areas where "inputs" in the industrial sector are the least expensive, Canadian hourly salary is still 70 cents higher; and in the tourism industry the work "input", in areas of Canada where the "input" is the least costly, is still 70 cents an hour higher than in the cheapest areas of the United States. How could we be competitive? We have this question of minimum wages. I am the first to want and to wish that Canadian workers could get higher salaries but we have to accept the rules of the game. If our tourist industry is to follow the minimum wage rules, how can we justify the tips and money made on the side by the people involved in this very sector, which they do not declare although it is for them a source of income. I believe that in this area, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce which has jurisdiction over tourism announced the appointment of an advisory committee made up of representatives from various groups, of people involved in the tourist industry, and of people from all across Canada, which will be responsible for making an in-depth study aimed at strengthening this industry. Besides, we believe that transportation costs in Canada have had a negative effect on the

development of tourism in our country. This is why our department has recently made representations to the Canadian Transport Commission asking them to accept charters in Canada in order to open up all of our regions to Canadian tourists. It is unbelievable and unacceptable that it should be less expensive now to go to Europe, either London or Paris, than to go from Montreal to Vancouver. Now I feel it is absolutely necessary that we act in this direction and some measures have already been taken.
As concerns tourism infrastructure, it comes under provincial jurisdiction. But already, through our department and that of Regional Economic Expansion, the federal government, through special agreements, has made large sums of money available to the provinces for tourism development. I hope that the Quebec government will soon be able to sign such an agreement with the federal government so that the province will benefit from the moneys available.
This is very important because when we speak about tourism, we must keep in mind the sophistication of that industry. In Europe or in some areas of the United States, there are well organized routes. Unfortunately, here in Canada, because of the enormous distances, there are no such routes where a tourist can spend perhaps two or at least one week, while seeing attractions and enjoying various activities.
Mr. Speaker, if you consider the situation in the province of Quebec, I think that most criticism about the inaction of the federal government comes from the provincial government. I think this is quite untrue. I shall prove it by giving another example of federal intervention through its policy in the petrochemical field. This industry is highly concentrated in my area and were it not for the one-price policy in Canada, the petrochemical industry in Quebec would not only be in the doldrums but on the way out. Thanks to the one-price policy that enables us to benefit from the natural resources of Alberta, of the Northwest Territories and Saskatchewan, we can not only hope to maintain that industry but also to see it prosper. This is a good example.
Now let us consider our shipbuilding policies. Recently, the government stated in that respect that it would soon announce a series of measures in favour of our shipyards. This is again a labour intensive industry. I think that this is another example, where we have decided to consider a particular area and tried to put forth a series of measures which will be announced later in order to help already existing industries and perhaps also promote the creation of subsectors in this industry.
Mr. Speaker, I think that it may be all to easy to say that everything is going badly, but you only need to compare our unemployment figures with those of other countries to see that things may not be any brighter elsewhere and that in Canada we might after all have suffered less from what may be called the economic recession of the years 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976. We still hope that there will be a recovery starting this year and that it will go on into 1979.
Canadian Economy
What I am asking the hon. members of this House is precisely to support the government in its efforts. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) mentioned earlier that we are still debating Bill C-ll relating to income tax in Canada which contains a series of measures to give Canadian consumers a higher purchasing power and our industries an incentive to reinvest at home. Finally, as I think it must be said, if we want a real economic recovery to take place, when dealing with industrial structures, Mr. Speaker, I think all this can be achieved only in a good climate which we must entirely create ourselves. The first people who should have the responsibility to create this climate of trust are members of this House. When there are worthwhile proposals in bills presented by the government, and the proof of it is that this government has been in power for a long time, members of the opposition should consider it as their duty to support them and not let the debate drag on as they have done for several weeks in the case of Bill C-ll.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the notorious issue of interest rates which is often used as the bone of contention by our Socreds colleagues. I will not elaborate on this subject but I should like to say that it sounds a little oversimplified. I will just remind you of our right hon. Prime Minister's remarks that when the government lends money, it has to do just like everybody else, just as any Socred member who borrows from a bank: namely to pay an interest rate to the institution from which it borrows.
Whether under a Liberal, Conservative or Social Credit administration, I do not believe that donations will appear in Canada or that people will agree to grant free loans to governments either federal or provincial and I suggest that paragraph (c) of the motion put forward by the Social Credit party is not specific enough at least from an economic point of view.
After dealing with negative points, let us come now to the good ones. I share a bit more the views of Social Credit party members when they speak of the Canada Works programs. Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should reconsider them. It is true we spend a lot of money and we approve a great number of good projects and I wonder whether we could not obtain even more lasting results through these programs and in turn, give more support to municipalities even though these programs come under the provincial jurisdiction. Perhaps with the consent of the provinces we could help municipalities ease the tax burden on taxpayers, thus giving them a better purchasing power.
Having said that, I urge Social Crediters to carry on and it must be remembered that in my caucus I am among those who are working to that end. In conclusion Mr. Speaker, I believe that the government to which I belong has certainly done many other things to help most disadvantaged areas through the Regional Economic Expansion program. Under this program which has been implemented a few years ago and amended in order to better meet the sectorial approach we wish to take, recently the Montreal region has become a designated area in some specific areas in labour intensive sectors, which will ensure in the long run a strong and basic

November 29, 1977
Canadian Economy
structure to the Montreal region and to my own region, of course. I do not think one can discuss at length the work of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion but I believe it is always to our credit as a government to point out the very positive action this Department has taken.
Finally, if we are to help regions and create employment in industrially weak sectors, we should consider the ongoing decentralization program of the provincial government. The federal government will decentralize many jobs which we will move from Ottawa to areas such as Sherbrooke, Shawinigan, or Quebec City. I think that shows the federal government has a clear intention which means: Look, we are participating where there are needs, where there is a lack of jobs and steady jobs.
Of course, if jobs are created through sending civil servants to such areas, there is a multiplicating effect. If 150 jobs are moved to the Sherbrooke area, this number can easily be multiplied by four, because of the services created by these jobs. I think today's Social Credit motion related to important points. This motion illustrates, of course, that they are willing to participate and I encourage them in making efforts to make propositions, as they certainly have this capacity, and if they meet difficulties in doing it all by themselves, I invite them to consult us and we shall encourage them.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, as the other speakers who preceded me, I would also like to make some remarks on this motion which certainly lends itself to many observations. When we read at the very beginning of this motion, and I quote:
That this House deplores (a) that the government has shown a lack of foresight and leadership in respect of the flooding of the Canadian market with foreign goods, particularly in the areas of footwear, textiles, clothing and furniture, which has contributed a great deal in weakening Canadian industries and resulted in a number of layoffs;
I think, Mr. Speaker, that comments made by other members of this House all have some value.
I noticed also that the Minister of Finance, who was speaking on behalf of the federal government, attempted by a series of statistics to justify the present situation and, of course, he had to admit that there were still unsolved problems. Yet, he tried to tell the House that considering the rate of unemployment, the percentage in relation to heads of families was not all that bad after all.
I would have hoped, for example, that the Minister of Finance had talked about that rather impressive percentage of young people among the one million unemployed in this country, and I would have liked him to echo the same concerns that we and others express, that is the concern of the young people who get discouraged, the discouragement of that youth just out of university or school and still waiting for a Canada Works project. Indeed, the motion calls for increased votes. I deeply appreciate in the present context the moneys approved for those projects under which young and not so young people are
[Mr. Loiselle (Chambly).l
hired for a given period. But we are not going to build the future of this country with such projects.
The government has no industrial strategy after being in power for 13 years. They talk of implementing a series of industrial strategy measures area by area or province by province. But why did the government wait until it had been in power for 13 years before talking about this today? I read in the papers that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) might call an economic summit or conference next February. The Premier of Ontario pointed out that he has been calling for such a conference since last October, but it does seem that after the meetings with the provincial premiers, an economic summit will probably take place. But they had to wait until the difficulties facing the Canadian people day after day were such that they had to come up with new measures, and they tell us that we are not going to solve the problem by criticizing the federal government, but there is always a minimum of decency. I believe that we, in the opposition, must prove that this government has failed in many areas, and I think it is our duty to prove it with all the comments we can make and we will certainly not have a hard time proving such a fantastic failure.
The Minister of Finance also spoke rapidly about the prices and wages commission, or rather about anti-inflation measures. I would like to recall for a few minutes that anti-inflation measures certainly did not bring about the anticipated success. I would like to demonstrate how these measures upset many people because of the lack of good preparation right from the start. We remember very well how far the federal government deliberately misled the provinces, the unions, the employers and the Canadian people as a whole; we remember that the government-


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: This is not true!


Roch La Salle: I am told that this is not true. I think we were promised that no such measures would be implemented. The government was elected on a false representation in 1974. The measures were implemented a few months after the federal election but the 90-day preparatory freeze had been skipped. Such a proposal which was in our program was offhandedly rejected. With this the government would have obtained the cooperation of the unions, the provinces, the businessmen, the business world and of all the important sectors in our economy to establish together some criteria and consequently to apply restrictions which would have enabled the government, with the cooperation of these essential sectors, to meet its objective, namely to slow down inflation.
As a result of that failure, the board had to make discretionary decisions, and operate on a day by day basis. Mr. Speaker, the best way to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of those measures and the serious problems they caused to many workers is to mention Abex Industries Ltd. in my own riding's main urban centre, Joliette. In July 1976, the union had signed an agreement with the employer providing increases of 17 per cent for the first year and 11 per cent for the second year, and
November 29, 1977

the company was ready to take into account some adjustments in various departments of that industry.
In July 1977, the board made known its decision and reduced from 17 to 15 per cent and from 11 to 6 per cent the increments agreed to between the union and the company. As a result, with Christmas fast approaching, those workers have to pay back to the company about $800 on average, that is a 42 cents an hour reduction. I realize the board has many cases to review but in this one the decision comes a year later. Mr. Speaker, here we have workers who certainly need their money as much as everybody else on the eve of the holiday season, yet they are forced to repay anywhere between $600 and $1,000- an average of about $800. What will happen there?
Certainly the union is not ready to accept the board's ruling lying down and it is even considering work stoppage in that industry, in my own riding, and God knows we cannot afford to lose working hours in that area. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the board has failed to pave the way by seeking the acceptance and cooperation of various departments and only succeeded in upsetting everybody and falling far short of its objective which is to alleviate inflation.
And on top of that, we have such problems. This is only one example out of hundreds and maybe thousands across the country where the workers are not satisfied and where the company has a definite edge. It can say: We are not refusing the salary increase you asked for. The company agrees and the board must bear the odium of the refusal. Now I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the lack of preparation, of planning and of essential co-operation, where the government could not possibly have cared less about getting that essential cooperation, has created a problem-among thousands-that I single out today because it concerns people who came to see me to tell me their troubles. In that case, how can we, Mr. Speaker, accept that invitation to support the government's efforts that was again extended to us a moment ago. Of course, the government has made some efforts, but because of this lack of badly needed planning and those proposals or projections which proved utterly wrong, do not ask us to extend our support of this government or ask the people to trust it. In the present circumstances, we would not think of accepting this invitation.
This motion also deals with the government's lack of foresight and leadership. Of course, Mr. Speaker, it deals also with the government's intention to develop an industrial strategy, to initiate new measures, to try to remedy all the setbacks that we have met. But how can be explained the lack of effective measures to safeguard the industries mentioned here today. Also, I can give you some evidence of that in my own constituency. A couple of days ago, I received a letter from a shoe factory in L'Assomption stating that for the coming year, the situation was disastrous and the order book so thin, that they were operating at a 50 per cent capacity. Production would have to be stopped in the spring if things do not change.
This is another case of an industry which employs a certain number of people and which is facing enormous difficulties.
Canadian Economy
The minister tells us there will be a statement on Thursday, something like the one made a year ago about the textile industry, and that it will improve the situation in the footwear industry. But, Mr. Speaker, we have to ask one question of the government: Why has the government waited until these industries-be it the textile industry, the footwear industry, the furniture industry or the mining industry-are in trouble; why did the government not decide 10 or 12 years ago to implement the industrial strategies that it is talking about today? How is it that the government did not feel the need earlier to call on the provinces and all the economic sectors in the country to help it establish long-term policies for the protection of our Canadian industries?
Some will also say that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, with its great generosity, invests money every day. But these efforts aim only at correcting a failure caused by the lack of an industrial strategy. Social legislation has even been mentioned. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) has talked about employment insurance arrangements, but, Mr. Speaker, it is not with such arrangements that we shall be able to build a strong, united and well organized Canada. All this forces us to deplore in this House the lack of initiative, foresight and planning on the part of this government.
Of course, the Minister of Finance says that the referendum in Quebec should be held as soon as possible, but how can this have any relation with the lack of action and the present economic situation? I think, Mr. Speaker, that we should not hear any more, and I do not wish to have to repeat this again, that it is not only since November 15 of last year that the Canadian industry has been in difficulty, but that the situation has existed for many years. At least four or Five years ago, our former leader, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), travelled throughout Canada to warn Canadians about the danger facing us because of inflation and unemployment, and he was called a pessimist, Mr. Speaker.
Never did the government see any necessity or justification to seek the views of that hon. member who had proven his competency in economics. No, it would rather reject that solution for political reasons and now we are forced to have our Prime Minister travel about the country. I do not say he is wrong in doing so but this obligation brings him today to meet the ten provincial premiers and to consider an economic summit which should have been held several years ago. Had the government had the shrewdness that all governments should have, we would not be discussing today difficulties which are confronting Canadians and which generate also many sufferings for the population which has long since been waiting for corrective action.
They will say also that we need to discuss a renewed federalism. Saturday night I was listening to the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde). He was committing himself to something knew. Recently I also heard the Prime Minister rejecting such an approach and saying: beware lest you let yourself be carried away in a third way or option. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the Pepin-Robarts Commission

November 29, 1977
Canadian Economy
makes no bones about this third option which is becoming essential between the status quo, the centralizing approach we have on this side in Ottawa, and the proposal put forward by Quebec. It seems obvious that we must choose between those two extremes. So in the hearings it is holding throughout Canada, the Pepin-Robarts Commission feels the need to mention the decentralization of some powers or some jurisdictions to interest the provinces, have them participate in the setting up of a major policy for the future, a long term policy. Provinces of course have resented being left aside.
And some were wondering earlier why they are talking about a referendum in Quebec. We might wonder why Quebecers feel they should ask that question again. There are reasons to that; it could as well be because of the lack of measures. My hon. friends opposite will no doubt recognize that during the last provincial election in Quebec, the mismanagement, poor planning and lack of security in the dairy industry have cost the provincial Liberal party a countless number of rural ridings.
Yet that had nothing to do with the provincial government. It was a federal policy which was going to cost dearly to the Liberals. I recall hearing some provincial Liberals mention that that policy was going to cost them dearly, be it in the textile or the shoe industry. Layoffs did not start to decrease right after November 15, Mr. Speaker. In the mining industry, as was mentioned recently its's the same. So, Mr. Speaker, that situation irked the people in Quebec very much, so that they are asking themselves again: Can the federal government help us? Can it give us a good place in which to live in this country? I would like to answer: Why, sure! It is not too late yet, but with some changes and an entirely new flexibility within the federalist system.
I think that if the federal government really wants to do something in that direction, Mr. Speaker, they should stop saying in this House that the Quebec government is making fun of the federal government. They should be above that. Of course, the federal government has been and will always be at loggerheads with the provincial governments, but this is nothing new. One only has to go back to the Duplessis era, or recall the battles fought under the administration of Messrs. Johnson, Bertrand, Bourassa, Lesage. So this is nothing new.
Besides, the first ministers of other provinces have been very critical of the federal government's performance. This is a further reason, Mr. Speaker, to hope that the government will bring together not only the provinces but also the unions and the businessmen so that they may all seek answers to our economic problems. To be sure, the government alone cannot find those answers and cannot devise those measures. On that basis, I dare hope that our impartial representations will be considered, and I also hope that the government will seek the required talents in every economic sector to develop long-term policies and give back to the Canadian people the jobs which will restore their dignity. I hope so for our young people as well as for those who are not so young.
Mr. Speaker, I almost forgot to mention that sometimes we are told that we have no solutions to offer. I think that with
[Mr. La Salle.l
one million unemployed, it would be very interesting to consider the possibility of allowing people of 60 to get the old age security pension without making it compulsory. We would enable at the same time younger people to enter the labour market and those who need a well deserved rest to withdraw from the labour market and be replaced by the young people who are going to the bad through lack of job opportunities. I am not saying that the government has not made any efforts, but I repeat that such efforts have been entirely inadequate. Therefore we urge the government to respond in accordance with our requirements.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, 1 readily support the motion introduced today by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) on behalf of the Social Credit Party of Canada.
I support it with eagerness because, at the risk of repeating myself, the economic situation is disastrous. Why? I feel that both opposition and government members know the answer. I feel it in a very obvious way. It is worse than an economic tragedy, unemployment is a social disaster. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) can say as often as he likes that the economic situation is not desperate, he minimizes the facts of life. What kind of government have we at the present time? A government that uses the constitutional issue as its stock argument.
We see from time to time the minister pointing his finger at the wicked Quebecers. The hon. minister says that our situation is not desperate, that is what he said no later than last Saturday, during an oyster dinner arranged by the Liberal Association of the Hull district, not "dull" district. According to the Ottawa newspaper Le Droit on November 21 1977, the minister said, I quote:
Our situation is not yet desperate.
I truly hope it is not desperate but maybe it is time to start thinking about it. And the minister goes on saying that he had been to Israel and that, according to him, in the mind of the Israelians:
Canada was really the Promised Land.
I would like to remind the minister that Israel is still at war in spite of President Sadat's visit. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that here in Canada, in a totally different context, the situation is nearly as desperate as in that part of the world, maybe not in the same way, but for some people who have been unemployed for a year now the situation seems as hopless as in those countries. While some people are eating oysters, thousands of workers lose their jobs in the footwear textile, clothing and furniture industries. If the minister could at least send his oysters to the unemployed, this would enable them to eat their fill and care for themselves a little.
Unfortunately, the government is too busy with those who took power in Quebec, it is too busy with the official opposition which is after the RCMP. All this witch hunt is ridiculous and it does not solve in any way our economic problems. The
November 29, 1977

motion which has been put forward today by the Social Credit Party of Canada through my hon. colleague from Rimouski (Mr. Allard) and which is under study criticizes the present government, which has been here since 1968, for their lack of foresight and leadership. The economic situation has steadily deteriorated since 1968. According to the final report of the Prices and Incomes Commission published in 1972, the unemployment level in 1969 was at 4.6 per cent for the whole country.
In Quebec, it was 7.2 per cent in the Maritimes, Atlantic provinces, 7.8 per cent. In 1971, while Canada had a 6.4 per cent unemployment rate, this was 8.2 per cent in Quebec and 9 per cent in the Maritimes. In October 1977, there was 15 per cent unemployment in Newfoundland, almost 11 per cent in Quebec and more than 8 per cent in Canada as a whole.
These figures show unemployment has been on the increase for the last ten years. In other words, we have been plagued with the signs of a recession for the last ten years.
What has this government been doing? In 1969-70, it let Canadian banks raise their prime rate to a prohibitive level, increasing the cost of living, the cost of homes, automobiles, tractors, heavy equipment, inventories of every description. In 1971 that same government introduced the capital gains tax, which significantly hinders short term investment.
Its regional development investments did not bring about the anticipated results, nor did its Anti-Inflation Act. All this shows that the economic techniques used no longer work. The Keynesian intervention techniques used by the major capitalist countries are no longer working.
Before turning to possible solutions, let me recall the unhappy situation we are now in. First of all the situation in the footwear industry, because the minister stated in his speech he would make an announcement Thursday next in terms of improving the Canadian footwear industry. I commend him and thank him for that. In the constituency of Richmond, we were very much concerned about this, and I believe the Minister of Finance and the new minister from the Conservative party, my hon. friend from Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), can solve the problem.
Because governments could not foresee the massive imports of footwear, textiles and clothing earlier this year, the former industry, trade and commerce minister, the now Minister of Finance, reduced textile imports to the 1975 level. But in 1975, those imports had already increased more than 40 per cent relative to former years. Adding the quotas for this year to those of 1975, the minister only prevented further deteriorations from happening in future years, although we cannot even be sure of this.
This government has never tackled the problem at its origin, it only tried to deal with it superficially. Is the government afraid to assume its responsibilities? Is it afraid of big finance barons who control everything including the political system? Its behaviour might make us think so. We do not ask the government to perform miracles but only to assume its responsibilities in the system from which it feeds itself and not
Canadian Economy
continue to perturbate our economy. What should we say of the government in a situation where textile product manufactures must close down? Not only the footwear industry cannot compete on foreign markets but its Canadian market is invaded by foreign exporters whose products are nowhere near as good as Canadian products. In several cases shoes imported into Canada from low wage and developing countries are synthetic products and leather imitations.
According to a report presented to the Anti-Dumping Tribunal by the Shoe Manufacturers Association in July 1977, the production volume for the first quarter of 1977 has decreased by 19.1 per cent, which means that 19.1 per cent fewer jobs are needed in that industry. Orders for the coming months were decreasing by 40 per cent, and it is fortunate that the minister announced this afternoon that he would do something, because according to the Anti-Dumping Tribunal, if orders decrease by 40 per cent every six months we shall wonder who is going to work in that industry!
The government also mentioned that salaries paid make it hard to compete with foreign countries. I mean salaries paid in Canada make it hard to compete with foreign products. Salaries paid in Canada are certainly higher than in Taiwan, Korea or other developing countries.


Mr. Tessier:: Or even the United States!


Léonel Beaudoin: My colleague from Compton said even the United States and I thank him. It might be true in some cases.
I point out to the government that salaries paid in the footwear and textile industry are not higher than the Canadian average. We cannot expect Canadians to work for $1 an hour. Wages paid in Canada can have an influence on foreign markets but that does not prevent our industries from selling on the Canadian market. The American government does not hesitate to set important quotas on the exportation of their products to our country and even on products they import from developing countries and which they dump on Canadian markets. I think the government should look after that immediately.
The Canadian economy, particularly in Quebec and in the Maritimes, is facing other difficulties. A paper entitled "Le Quebec contemporain" published by the Union regionale des Caisses populates de Montreal indicates that the disparities between eastern Canada and the other provinces are getting ever more serious. From that paper we can conclude that the weakness of the economy is not due to the lack of production by workers or lack of interest by small businesses, but to a major structural deficiency in the economy of eastern Canada.
Other facts demonstrate the short-sightedness of this government, because the money spent by the government for programs such as Canada Works and Young Canada Works, as mentioned in our motion today, is not sufficient and in many cases will favour laziness and encourage people to depend year after year on unemployment insurance.
Many of those people are being raised on unemployment insurance handouts. We will get nowhere with such stupid

November 29, 1977
Canadian Economy
programs. I think that those amounts are inadequate and are only band-aids applied on a dying person. They cannot change the situation. We are giving money. The central government with money borrowed at 9'A and 10 per cent, 93/4, 83/s, the last loan of the federal government was at 83/s, the government is doubling its debt every IVi or eight years. That is nonsense, Mr. Speaker.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, there are solutions since some people find them. Why is the federal government unable to find any? The constitutional crisis and the consequent economic uncertainties are not conducive to the recovery. The election of the Parti Quebecois government has certainly put off many investors. All hon. members will have to take part some day in the development of a new legislation on national unity. If we could bring about more political stability, it would really help the economy but the reverse is truer still. Economic weakness automatically leads to political instability.
Let us consider for a moment how the Parti Quebecois took office on November 15, 1976. It seems very simple to me. Medium and small investors in the province of Quebec had already lost confidence in the Bourassa government and they expressed their lack of faith at the polls. When we see our governments accuse each other, we have reasons for feeling hopeless! I believe the PQ would like the situation to grow even worse in the province of Quebec, with more unemployment. The worse the situation gets in Quebec, the more likely the pre-referendum campaign is to succeed. This will mean more problems calling for more solutions. A change of attitude on the part of governments will therefore be necessary and cooperation will be a must.
In addition to political reasons, credits for emergency programs are not sufficient. What about interest rates which are among the main causes of inflation? Interest rates are too high and they deter manufacturers from investing more in their own plants to increase their production. The federal government does not lend enough money to our industries to enable them to be more competitive on the marketplace. They prefer to grant interest-free loans to other countries without any guarantee this money will benefit Canadian industries. Why not give the Canadian people substantial sums of money in the form of a guaranteed annual income in order to increase the consumer's purchasing power on the home market? We really are in a slump. We should avail ourselves of the opportunity provided by this motion introduced by the Social Credit Party of Canada to ask ourselves what should be done from now on to make as many Quebecers and Canadians as happy as possible.
Certains ministers of the Levesque cabinet expressed some interest in the restructuration of the economy. The federal government must take its responsibilities and co-operate with the other levels of government. The Canadian Constitution must be rewritten and dispel any uncertainty. The banking system must also be reconsidered and any useless confrontation between provincial and federal governments must cease. Let us put an end to those useless constitutional fights, let us stop wasting our time on scrutinizing the RCMP. The House

of Commons wasted three weeks to find out what has been happening with the RCMP since 1970. I am not trying to be malicious but I think the official opposition of the Progressive Conservative Party has a lot of responsibility in this area-


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):: It does not put any bread on the table.


Léonel Beaudoin: -and talking about the RCMP does not put any bread or butter on the table and it greatly helps the Parti Quebecois prove that the federal government is wrong and it greatly helps those who want to split Canada in two. I think we should take a candid look at ourselves, particularly my friends on my right, and stop that witch hunt that leads us nowhere, and only sets people against our system of justice.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, where were those people who criticize the RCMP when we had crackpots in Quebec putting bombs everywhere, when we were picking up victims at night or in the morning because those bombs had gone off? Where were those self righteous people who say that is because of the RCMP? The papers in Quebec are full of it. You only have to read La Tribune or some other papers. They think the RCMP is making all that noise. The culprits are forgotten and the responsibility is shifted on those who want to have that carnage stopped. I believe this foolishness has been going on for too long. All sorts of pilgrimages are being made to Quebec. Political parties go to Quebec City to prove how well they understand Quebeckers. You just have no idea how well they understand them. However, when it is time to vote or to hold an electoral campaign, they blame the present government for having implemented bilingualism across Canada through the public servants who are supposed to be bilingual to serve people in both official languages. They point the finger at the government, Mr. Speaker.
I went to Edmonton with the Committee on the Constitution. I met an old lady of 71 or 72 and wanted to talk to her in French as she had an earphone. The chairman of the committee told her: "Mr. Beaudoin is a Francophone and he will speak to you in French." She said simply: "He represents the French Canadian race and he is the greatest bandit that I have ever met." Can you imagine that? Then another witness said that Trudeau is a dangerous man. He had implemented bilingualism in Canada and this was dangerous. I believe that we should start talking to each other calmly. If we want to have a working federalism, we shall have to think about what we say and think carefully before asking any questions.
There are many left wingers at the present time. I do not have to prove this, we are starting to see it in the newspapers. I am not talking about members of the Parti Quebecois, I am talking about left wingers who are infiltrating the Parti Quebecois or the Quebec government and the federal government and who try to cause all sorts of problems. They cause one problem after another.
For our part, when we ask questions in the House about the RCMP without any proof, we are cooperating with those who are trying to divide Canada, and then, a large number of people, of which 60 per cent cannot speak one word of French,
November 29, 1977

make a little trip to Quebec and choose a president. I have nothing against choosing a president. Mr. Speaker, this is all related to the economy. The greater the concern about the future of this great country called Canada, the more investments will go down and unemployment will go up. As I said earlier, the government cannot work any miracles. So, a president was elected and his last words to the Quebeckers, to the province of Quebec, to Quebec Canadians were: As far as I am concerned, I don't speak French and I am not interested in learning it. For him, it is not an official language. Then, we come here and we should all behave like saints and the RCMP should never go astray. I think that the RCMP should be above the law in some cases relating to the country's security, but it should especially be above the representatives of the people in some cases, because if justice does not prevail over politics, we are going to the dogs, Mr. Speaker.
This comment applies also to our Quebec colleagues. As the federal government, the Levesque government has set up an inquiry commission into the RCMP activities and all the while, the real economic and politic problems are forgotten. Let us be serious. Let us sit down together, representatives of the provinces and of the federal government, and if our meeting must last three months, so be it, but let's do something positive.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say this: my wife and I have ten children, and it is in our interest, I think, that Canada should grow, just as it has done in recent years, and I think that as soon as we start showing a greater sense of responsibility in our statements, things will turn out better. Now the time has come to do away with frivolities, with opposition for the sake of opposition, with opposition for political gain. I think that the situation is too serious for that. Discontent has reached a critical point, especially between the two founding races of Canada, between French Canadians and English Canadians. I think that this thing has been carried far enough and that we must stop destroying each other, even here in this House. We must cooperate more with the provinces if we want good results.


Mr. Martin:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, the other day in the House of Commons I followed up a question I had originally addressed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) with regard to Bill C-6 which would transform a Crown agency, the National Harbours Board, into a ports authority. I had an answer, and then I had a debate with the parliamentary secretary, and I must tell the hon. gentleman that he outshone me. He did extraordinarily well and I did extraordinarily badly the last time we hooked up. Nevertheless, I shall try his mettle again. At any rate, the minister, his boss, said he was not pre-judging the will of parliament and that the department was merely carrying out pre-planning as far as possible and indicating to people in the employ of the National Harbours Board the opportunities which would be available to them under the proposed ports commission.
Following the exchange that evening I had calls from various people and visits from various other people, and I am now in a position to know that what I thought was happening is much more serious than I had imagined. It is serious, at least from the standpoint of those who are employed by the National Harbours Board and some of those who have been brought in from private industry to fill positions of extraordinary responsibility.
For example, I heard of one case where, under the screening process now being adopted, a man was found inadequate to occupy the position that he held formerly if he were to be transferred sideways to the new ports structure. On the other hand, he was asked to stay around for a while so that he could instruct his gifted successor on how to carry out his responsibilities. When things like that happen, Mr. Speaker, you have to wonder if the world is upside down, cockaloop or what.
In any event, I said I would return to this question and perhaps this is my last chance to speak on the subject, but I speak on it because we are dealing with a human issue. Once the decision was made to disband the National Harbours Board and appoint a ports commission and instead of having a Crown corporation, to have a body which was under the wing of the minister, I am still wondering why this could not have been done by some sideways transfer rather than putting all of these people, as I said the other day in my question to the minister, in the position of competing against themselves and others for their own jobs.
I do not think the minister wants to downgrade parliament or to denigrate the role of this place, but I think the procedure being used goes beyond the "pre-planning wherever possible" phrase which the minister used, and gets into a new operation, and in that sense I think the minister is outside the law. As a result I have no hesitation in bringing his gifted parliamentary secretary into the House this evening.
The other point is: Who set up the deciding group in what really becomes a competing faction within the Public Service

November 29, 1977
Adjournment Debate
of Canada? I did not say the "civil service" but Public Service in the sense that the National Harbours Board group is being pitted against the ports group within the Department of Transport. I do not know what assurance can be given that people can be guaranteed that they do not get shafted, to the favour of some other group.
Let me put it this way, Mr. Speaker, if I have one minute left. Years ago I wrote an exam on marine law, believe it or not, which is rather close to this particular topic. I walked out of Dalhousie Law School on that afternoon more bloodied than bowed, or perhaps I should say both bloodied and bowed, and decided I would never write an exam for a job again. So far I have stuck very religiously to this. I know people both in the National Harbours Board and in the marine division of the Department of Transport who would share exactly that philosophy. They went through this job writing business about 30 years ago and they just do not want to get themselves mixed up in it now. Unfortunately, I think they are being mixed up in it.
I think it would have been much simpler if we had had some act of parliament which would have transferred, melded or wedded these groups together, rather than putting them in the position of fighting with each other for positions, I gather fighting very bitterly and to the detriment of a great Crown agency which is still in existence.
[ Translation]


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is with renewed pleasure that I find myself again sizing myself up to the rhetorical talent of the hon. member opposite and I will concede that I will not dare compare my listener's ratings with his! Surely, with this new equipment monitoring us, Hollywood contracts will have to go to my colleague on the other side.
Coming back to serious matters such as this issue of hiring for the future Canadian Harbours Commission, I will endeavour, Mr. Speaker, to try and explain to the hon. member what exact procedure is being followed. The hon. member must certainly recall that last November 24, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) whom I am honored to represent, informed this House that he had asked the employees of the central administration of the National Harbours Board and the personnel of the Harbours and Piers Division of Transport Canada to apply for the new positions created in the Canadian Harbours Commission so that Transport Canada may confirm their new assignments when Bill C-6 is passed.
What the hon. member is now saying, Mr. Speaker, is that those people, some of whom are not legally part of the Public Service, except when it comes to restricted competitions, are asked to compete with each other for their own jobs. So if the hon. member thinks these employees apply for competitions to fill in their own positions, such is certainly not the case.
Most of the positions and services of the Canadian Harbours Commission are new, since most of their attributions and responsibilities will be transferred to 20 autonomous harbours
[Mr. McCleave.l
commissions once this bill is passed. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, the attributions and responsibilities of these new positions put them at different levels and classifications for which it is necessary to recruit candidates through competitions so that the employees of the central administration of the National Harbours Board may be eligible and also to abide by the principle of promotion based on merit within the civil service. [English]
Also, I should like to point out that the Public Service Commission has the exclusive right to appoint personnel to these new positions, a right it does not have for personnel currently employed by the National Harbours Board under the current legislation. Yet, the Public Service Commission and the Department of Transport have agreed to open the initial area of closed competition for these new Canadian ports commission positions to only those employees of the National Harbours Board, and ports and harbours personnel of the headquarters division and its regional components, in order to give them every possible advantage in qualifying for these new positions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR CONDITIONS-LAY-OFFS BY CANADIAN NATIONAL-UNION REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago I directed a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). I asked him whether he would give favourable consideration to the proposal by the Canadian Brotherhood of Transport and Railway Workers and appoint a commission to look into the effect of the Canadian National Railways laying off 6,000 of its employees in recent months. The minister replied by indicating that he had talked to representatives of the railway workers and decided not to appoint a commission to look into that question, but was considering a commission which would look into the lay-off of employees everywhere. Such an inquiry is necessary, but it will do little to help the large number of workers laid off by the CNR.
It is not an accident that the CNR has laid off people. It is part of a new policy, for which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is responsible to some extent. He believes in a policy of user pay and profit first, and service to the customer and the welfare of the railway employees last.
In the not too distant past, in the last year or so, workers represented by the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport Workers have lost 2,600 jobs, and other union workers employed by CNR have lost 3,400 jobs. Four out of five of the jobs lost have not been lost because of loss of business but rather because of the arbitrary decision of the CNR to show profits at each of its five profit centres, and to cut back on service wherever they cannot show a profit. Each of its profit centres must show profit, and the way that will be accomplished is to cut the service which has been traditionally
November 29, 1977

supplied by the express service, to cut back or to cut out telecommunications, and to let maintenance go to hell.
The railways are moving more merchandise than they ever have moved before; freight movements have increased every year, and yet the number of employees has been reduced each year from a high in the 1950's of 160,000 employees, down to less than 100,000, about 95,000 people now, 25 years later.
The cutback in express service means that the users, people who want to move merchandise in less than carload lots, will be forced to use the alternative of either trucks or air. I do not have to tell members of the House that both trucks and aircraft use much larger amounts of fuel, of oil and gasoline, to move merchandise than do the railways. So the CNR, in order to be penny wise is being pound foolish in terms of the country as a whole.
What this desire to show a profit means is that the CNR will concentrate on providing service in such high density areas as Ontario and western Canada, but in the Maritimes or in eastern Quebec the service will be poor, to say the least. There is evidence that because merchandise will not move until a freight car is completely filled, it will wait anywhere from 15 to 30 days.
Another feature of the CNR cutback in service, which has led to the reduction in staff, is the complete failure of the CNR and CPR to give thought to safety. Investigations made by the Canadian Transport Commission in 1970 and 1972 demonstrated that completely. There has been an alarming rise in accidents caused by poor track conditions. In 1972 the number of derailments was three times that in 1959 and nearly double that in 1969, according to studies done by the Canadian Transport Commission.
In comparison to modern railways systems, Canadian railways show an unusually high rate of accidents and casualties. In 1972 Canadian railways, that is, the CNR and CPR, experienced 12 times the number of derailments, three times the number of collisions, and six times the number of collisions and derailments that occurred on French railways per train-kilometer. The losses in life injuries were also heavy; 15 times higher than in France among railway personnel, and 70 per cent higher among passengers. The same trend prevailed in 1971 and 1973.
I believe it is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport to see that the railways operate efficiently, that they provide service to the people of Canada, and that they take time and effort and spend money to see that the kind of accident experience we have had in recent years stops. They have not done that, and I call on the Minister of Transport to exercise his responsibility and see that the CNR does the job it should be doing.


Mr. Jacques Olivier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) for his question.
Adjournment Debate
Initially, the question asked was about the advisability of appointing a commission of inquiry to look into the 6,000 lay-offs of Canadian National Railways employees.
The problem was submitted to us after discussions with the representatives of the Canadian National Railways union and it was decided that we had better deal with the general question of lay-offs in Canada.
I think the hon. member is concerned with one specific union or one specific industry. What we want is an over-all view of the present lay-off situation.
I will give a very specific example: Recently INCO decided on drastic and immediate lay-offs. Another example is that of Northern Telecom which has reduced its payroll recently.
I think the department had rather make a general study of lay-off procedure, and appoint an industrial commission of inquiry to provide ways and means to protect industry and labour unions from situations such as those which have developed lately.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you that as far as we are concerned the issue is not only our Canadian National Railways, it is a far more general one. What we want in the final analysis is to deal with the problem which the CN people and many other Canadians have been facing, and carefully examine all specific cases before adopting a general policy which will enable us, in the future, to cope with situations such as the one which confronts us now.


TRANSPORT-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN FEDERAL SHARE OF COST OF IMPROVING TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, after many approaches to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) on the drastic need for a highway strengthening program in Newfoundland I want to attempt again to elaborate on my question of November 22.
In his reply the minister again refused to consider the provision of a more generous cost-sharing arrangement than the original 50-50 offer. I wonder why he is so adamant in his decision when he is so aware of the basic facts of Newfoundland's needs and if he believes in the objective of providing for the development of Newfoundland through a basic transportation system to gain social and economic benefits. Developing our rich resources would benefit not just the province of Newfoundland but Canada as a whole.
What has happened in Newfoundland? The basic facts show that we are now at a critical stage of our domestic transportation system. We are at a point in time when a fundamental decision has to be made as to the basic requirements of the transportation infrastructure for the benefit of the province.
In Newfoundland we had a rail passenger service which was taken away. This was justified by serious losses. The federal government built a fourth-standard Trans-Canada Highway, with false political fanfare. There was then provided a bus passenger transportation service, which is now losing more

November 29, 1977
Adjournment Debate
money than the original train service. Our rail freight service is deteriorating to the point where even CN has forsaken its own rail service and is increasing its use of road transportation. At present 20 per cent of the trailer-truck service is supplied by CN or its charters because it is more profitable for CN to operate by truck over the Trans-Canada Highway since it is absolved of the maintenance burden. The CN is abandoning its own rail system. What we have now is an inefficient passenger service, an inefficient freight service, and a fast deteriorating rail system.
Let us look at the rationalization of DREE support under highways agreements. The department is supposed to help develop our have-not provinces, but it emphasizes un-coordinated policies. DREE is providing new secondary roads in my district and in others on a 90-10 basis, for which we are grateful. I admit that it is helping to provide infrastructure to support the development of our energy potential, our fishing industry, our national park and other industries which we hope will come on-stream. But we are neglecting, hypocritically, the important link between Port-aux-Basques and Corner Brook, Deer Lake and Stephenville triangle which is so basic in the over-all development of our province and which forms the most vital part of the trans-Newfoundland corridor.
The cost of bringing the Trans-Canada Highway to Newfoundland is $240 million, a cost which the minister knows Newfoundland cannot afford on a 50-50 basis. Under the general development agreements of DREE, a province and the federal government can enter a contract to do almost anything. I cannot therefore accept that this vital and critical need cannot be fulfilled under such an agreement on a 90-10 or 75-25 basis.
Our deteriorating transportation system, both by rail and road, is causing serious effects on the viability of our main industries, pulp and paper and others, which are being hurt because of our distance from off-shore markets.
I would not be so adamant about this if we had a decent rail service, Mr. Speaker. Rather than improving one or the other, however, we are abandoning both. Jobs are continually lost because CN is abandoning rail for rubber, with the result there is a creeping paralysis of both modes.
I can only ask the minister, through his parliamentary secretary, to look at the problem realistically. In order to achieve results from our rich resources in Newfoundland we must have a rationalized, common sense appreciation of what we need to develop, and in Newfoundland we can develop in the Canadian interest. I can only plead with the minister to reconsider his position and to provide the funding commensurate with Newfoundland's requirements and, for the purposes of this exercise, to agree to Newfoundland's request, either through his department or DREE, to finance a highway strengthening program for the province and the country on a more equitable basis.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, even though I am aware of the

serious problems affecting the Maritimes, especially in the transport area, and even though I agree with the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) that quite often in the Maritimes it is faster to hitchhike than to take the train, I do not entirely agree that everything is inadequate in that part of Canada.
I do not see how one can say that everything is inadequate and wrong in the transport area, which, by the way, is not very kind for the provincial ministers of transport, and say for example that the DREE agreements with the provinces, under which federal and provincial investments in transport are financed on a basis of 90 and 10 per cent, are fine. I do not see how one can say that this is good and everything else is bad and wrong.
I should like to remind the hon. member what the Minister of Transport stated in reply to his question on the operating and the maintenance of highways in the Maritime provinces. I should like to remind him that this, under the Canadian constitution, is clearly a provincial responsibility. The federal government has indicated its willingness to extend financial assistance if necessary to provincial governments directly or indirectly, in order to improve their highway systems, provided this assistance is in line with a number of national objectives.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, and the federal government recognizes this, that the standardization of minimum weights for trucks and the related regulations would represent a very significant benefit to the federal government and the provincial governments concerned. The hon. member is certainly aware that the government accepted in May of this year to spend up to $125 million over the next three years to improve transportation services in the Maritime provinces. Of course, a large share of these funds, some $100 million, will be spent on a main road upgrading program, under a 50-50 cost-sharing agreement between the federal and the provincial governments, something which is not to the hon. member's liking.
Upon receipt of a joint request from the responsible maritime provincial ministers this summer, the minister reviewed program proposals and could find no new factors to alter the original view that a 50 per cent federal share of the eligible costs is appropriate in reflecting the extent of "national" interests in the program.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, it is to the mutual benefit of all concerned that the provinces finally accept the government's offer, in this time of fiscal restraint, and that program proposals for improving major highways get under way immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At 6:29 p.m. the House took recess.
November 29, 1977


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Allard:
That this House deplores (a) that the government has shown a lack of foresight and leadership in respect of the flooding of the Canadian market with foreign goods, particularly in the areas of footwear, textiles, clothing and furniture, which has contributed a great deal in weakening Canadian industries and resulted in a number of layoffs;
(b)	that the votes allocated by the government to the Canada Works programs are not sufficient to create enough jobs to overcome the massive and persistant unemployment which is especially severe among the 18 to 30 age group seeking permanent employment, regardless of the fact that a relatively large number of projects have been approved;
(c)	that no serious action has been taken to reduce interest rates which are the major cause of unjustified price increases and to fight effectively against inflation; and
(d)	that in spite of the fact that the present administration has very candidly acknowledged that the economic methods now in use are no longer suitable, the government, because of its weakness in the face of economic and financial dictatorship, persists in applying the same obsolete economic methods which leave the Canadian population to contend with the same economic problems.
The Acting Speaker (Mir. Turner):: Order, please. At six o'clock the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had the floor.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, when I was approached just prior to the supper hour with the suggestion that I might join in this debate today on this opposition motion I thought to myself, not another debate on a subject relating to the economy! It seems to me that we in this parliament have been spending an inordinate amount of time, on opposition days and in the middle of a very prolonged debate on the income tax measures sponsored by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) which are currently before the House, in playing the game of navel gazing. One of the problems of being a parliamentarian is that, all too often, we get lost in the trees of our existence here in the House of Commons and do not stand back enough and take a good look at what is going on in the country, at the positive things which are happening.
The hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) is a member for whom I have a very high regard. I know he has been a very successful entrepreneur in years gone by and that he has always maintained a very positive outlook in terms of his business abilities. But having looked at the motion he has put forward, I thought it would be in order to review just where we
Canadian Economy
stand today and what the leaders of this country are saying about our economy. Therefore, over the supper hour, I took a little time to dig through some current files, the latest news reports and so on.
It must be rather disappointing for the opposition, particularly for the official opposition, to find that the news today is becoming increasingly brighter. Because if there is one thing, Mr. Speaker, that they do not want, it is for the news to be brighter. They flourish on bad news. Wherever they go they seem to dwell on bad news. If they are not climbing on to the backs of the RCMP, they are talking about the bad state of the economy. Because respected public figures such as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) continue to take this sort of approach, eventually people begin to believe that there are a great number of problems in existence. People start to look at these problems as though they were spelt in capital letters and the positive aspects were spelt in small letters.
I suppose to some extent the media also become involved in this game. Good news is never really news as such. What is of interest and what perhaps sells newspapers is the kind of news that is negative news. Bad news is more exciting than good news.
I should like to put on the record a few of the positive things that are happening in Canada today. I do not need to go very much further back than yesterday when none other than the Governor of the Bank of Canada, speaking to the Canadian Club in Toronto, said that in his view the pessimistic expressions we continue to hear from the media are simply out of date. This ties in with what people are thinking and saying.
I have talked to a number of ordinary workers and business people in the last few weeks in my riding and have found that the mood is very much one of optimism, that a positive outlook is being taken. It seems to me the fact that the Governor of the Bank of Canada, in an important speech, emphasized the positive aspects of our economy and the prospects for the coming year or so, is something we should not ignore. The opposition will ignore it, of course, because it is not in the opposition's interest to talk about good news. Politically speaking, I suppose the only two occasions in this century when they have managed to convince Canadians they should give them more seats in the House of Commons than the Liberal party, were, first, in the midst of the depression. I suppose the bad economic news of the time encouraged Canadians to look for an alternative to the government in power in 1930. It did not last very long-some five years. Unless we on this side talk about the good news it will not be talked about because it is not in the interest of the opposition parties to promote it.
The Governor of the Bank of Canada has indicated that, in his view, the Canadian economy is adjusting. He is saying, even from the conservative position he occupies, that inflation could move to a level below that which prevails in the United States, with the proviso, in his words, that Canadians must act sensibly. There is a message here which all segments of our

November 29, 1977
Canadian Economy
society should learn whether they are responsible for setting prices or wage rates. I have in mind particularly the period after April, 1978, when controls are dismantled.
The important thing is that the outlook is positive. In the opinion of the governor of the bank we have come back a long way from where we were. Inflation is down, increases in labour costs are more in line with those occurring in other countries, and governments generally are beginning to exercise firmer control over their expenditures. The governor has also indicated that the rate of monetary expansion is being reduced. He emphasized, too, the benefits which Canada has derived in terms of the export trade from the decline in the value of the dollar. Here is one important Canadian who has been prepared to state publicly that he sees a solid basis for a more satisfactory rate of growth and output in the coming year.
All Canadians realize that unemployment rates are high, and there is no indication that they will decline substantially in the next while. This is an area to which governments will need to address themselves constantly. There are no magic solutions. Increased productivity will have a bearing on this situation. We ought to be talking more about employment rather than unemployment, and recognize that more and more Canadians are entering the work force. In considering the INCO situation, for example, great emphasis has been placed upon the fact that the current jobless figure may move as high as 15 per cent of the work force in Sudbury. But very little has been said about the 85 per cent of INCO workers who will continue to be employed in that important industry.
Consumer confidence is essential. Hopefully, this is one area in which Canadians have bottomed out, in lack of confidence. The signs are that they are looking to the future with a greater degree of optimism. There are indications that auto sales will rise substantially in the next six months. The outlook for home buying and appliance sales is good. Fewer people intend to travel outside Canada, a trend which will have an important bearing on our tourist deficit. Canadians seem to be responding to the situation and making plans to travel more in this country.
The trade balance is now favourable. I was looking at some figures for the United States where there is a serious imbalance. The separatism issue in Quebec will present a problem for some time to come. It has already adversely affected investment in the province and has a bearing on the over-all investment picture in the country. We shall have to live with this situation and work our way through it; there are no overnight solutions.
This country has been given praise internationally for the way in which inflation has been controlled over the past few years. The impact of price and wage controls has been regarded by the majority of Canadians as an important foundation upon which we shall be able to move ahead in the years to come.
Recently some people have been concerned about an article which appeared in a very reputable financial paper, The Economist, predicting all kinds of bad things for Canada in the coming decade. As against this, there appeared an article
(Mr. Martin.]
in the equally reputable Financial Times, probably the leading financial paper in the U.K., expressing great optimism with regard to Canada's future and potential. In it the separatist threat is minimized. On the other hand The Economist magnifies that threat. The Financial Times is positive about our energy prospects, an area into which 44 per cent of future capital investment in this country will go.
This morning there appeared before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works representatives of Atomic Energy of Canada. Their replies to questions put to them by the revered member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) gave us some idea of the extensive plans which are being prepared for future nuclear generating stations in Ontario. We can say what we like about the use of nuclear power to meet our energy requirements, but each of these generating stations represents a tremendous capital investment leading to the employment of many thousands of Canadians. The same can be said of the northwestern natural gas pipeline, construction of which will begin in the eighties- the largest project ever undertaken by private capital on the North American continent.
These are positive aspects of our economy, and our young people in particular ought to know about them. Today all forms of the media are emphasizing the negative aspects far too strongly. Unfortunately, they are taking up the approach being made by the opposition parties in whose political interest it is to push this type of news in order to grasp headlines for themselves.
A week or so ago the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) was in my riding speaking to a group of about 80 people at one of our town hall meetings. Normally the people of Scarborough West do not give standing ovations to anyone, but they gave the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce a standing ovation that evening after his off-the-cuff delivery and his answering of questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alan Gray Martin: The main reason for that standing ovation was the positive news he was conveying about where this country was going and its potential for the future.
Opposition parties indicate that the government is doing nothing or very little in an attempt to bolster the economy where it is weak. The Export Development Corporation is an incredible organization, to use as an example, to defeat this argument. In one year alone it has assisted Canadian exporters to gain contracts in 29 countries. In the 15 year period from 1961 to 1976, it helped finance export contracts in 66 countries. All these individual contracts and sales involved jobs for many Canadians.
There has been a suggestion that INCO is exporting work to other countries. In the case of the project in Indonesia, that equipment was produced in this country and financed by the Export Development Corporation. It was responsible for 3,000 man-years of work in Canada. How can that be interpreted as
November 29, 1977

exporting jobs? It was exporting products manufactured here. In the case of Guatemala, the equivalent number of man-years was 1,037. Surely the opposition parties are not against that type of employment. That is not being said directly, but there has been an indication that it should not be done. There has been an indication that rather than manufacturing equipment and selling it in Indonesia and Guatemala, we should be producing and stockpiling nickel in Canada that cannot be sold.
At the present time there is a problem in Sudbury, but at the same time tremendous work is being generated as a result of the export of equipment to INCO projects internationally. The New Democratic Party almost condemned INCO the other day in this House. That company raised over $900 million in five years in private capital markets. This capital was raised in six countries, and involved dealing with 27 banks. Surely Canadians should be proud of this kind of thing, rather than looking upon it as something evil and generating bad news. The average young Canadian will have to look on business and the generation of profits as something which is healthy.
Business must do a better job of selling itself in the coming years. I believe that business is finally realizing that Canadians need to be told about the benefits of profits. When money is made in a company, people will continue to work and products will be sold. When money is lost and products cannot be sold, people are put out of work.
There are problems in the manufacturing sector. Various industrial strategies must be developed. The current move of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in travelling around the country in order to have private conferences with the individual provincial premiers makes a great deal of sense. The leaders of the two levels of government can sit down quietly and discuss basic issues. The Prime Minister has indicated that there may follow a major conference of first ministers to explore further the current problems relating to the economy.


An hon. Member:: It is a little late.


Alan Gray Martin: It is not a little late. The Export Development Corporation will assist in financing $2 billion worth of export contracts next year, as against $50 million only eight years ago. Is that a little late?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alan Gray Martin: There are no positive suggestions emanating from that side of the House. If hon. members opposite cannot run the RCMP out of the country, they will work on something else.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alan Gray Martin: They are desperate for an issue, and in their desperation they spend three hours every morning huddled like the members of a football team which has not yet won a game,
Canadian Economy
in order to figure out what to ask in question period in order to grab the next headline.


Some hon. Members:: Right on!


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


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem in agreeing with those parts of the motion before us which criticize the inadequacy of the government's program to overcome the massive and persistent unemployment which is especially severe among the 18 to 30 years age group. In the course of my remarks I am going to make some suggestions as to how the government can improve its performance in my constituency, my province, and particularly in Atlantic Canada.
Clearly our objective must be to recover and maintain the real economic growth potential of our Canadian economy while achieving full employment and stable prices. This is a most worthy objective. It is an extremely good goal, and even if it is not achieved, by moving in that direction we can greatly improve our economic performance.
For the past decade our economic performance has deteriorated. There may be more than one million Canadians out of work this winter, and inflation continues to sap our economic strength.
One of the most disturbing bits of news has been the drop in productivity and our competitive international trading position. Our $10 billion deficit on trade in manufactured products has been caused in part, although not totally, by Canada's failure to keep abreast of technological improvements.
A deterioration in our trade position is perhaps the most important shift which has taken place in our economy. We are consuming more than we are producing, and we are borrowing foreign money to make up the difference. I feel there must be a massive effort to assist Canadian business through tax incentives to attain technological breakthroughs in fields where we have an inherent advantage. Clearly, with the resources of people and money available to us, there is a need for selectivity in this program. There is a need to concentrate on areas where we have an inherent advantage. These fields include agriculture, our fresh water supply, the resources of our three seas, and those industries drawing upon our mineral, chemical, and forest wealth. Farm machinery and mining equipment are examples.
An imaginative taxation policy can do much to induce small and large businesses to improve their technology, and its application to industry, to increase our gross national product and, through planning, to enable Canadian products to reenter and expand in the trading markets of the world. It is essential Canada restores its technological advantage in the production of goods for export if we are to maintain our present standard of living and create good jobs for Canadians without serious social disruption.
The federal government programs of Canada Works, Young Canada Works, and Local Initiatives, have been important

November 29, 1977
Canadian Economy
weapons in the attack on unemployment. I want to give them full credit for the jobs created and the achievements made.
So far the federal goverment's programs in New Brunswick have helped to keep the situation from getting worse, but they have done very little to identify the real causes of unemployment and to remedy them. One of the basic causes of chronic unemployment in New Brunswick is the transportation system. Another is the failure to focus the attention of all departments of government on the same problem. For example, a retrenchment in air passenger travel and cargo capacity was announced by our national airline last spring, without prior consultation with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard). In fact the concept of using air transportation as a development tool in the Atlantic provinces was never discussed by our national airline with DREE. I pressed this matter with the president of Air Canada at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications in June and I invite the minister to read the minutes. Bus transportation is also cut back in New Brunswick.
The main feature of rail-passenger equipment is its age. In rural areas surrounding our cities there is a great need for a form of public transportation moving people to and from work and to buy goods and services. I would like to see a feasibility study done to determine the viability of a rural-urban bus service to perform this function and to identify possible routes in New Brunswick.
If I had to put my finger on one thing in which the government of Canada could invest to improve employment opportunities in New Brunswick and the other Maritime provinces, I would put my finger on transportation. 1 would recommend to the government that transportation be regarded as a development tool in all the Atlantic provinces. I suggest that in applying this principle it look at air transportation, rail transportation, bus transportation, water transportation, and all weather highways as a comprehensive modern transportation system that should be put in place in the Atlantic provinces by the Government of Canada as an investment in the economic development of that region. Vast improvements in the quality, scope, and performance of public transportation are essential in all parts of New Brunswick.
The programs of LIP, Canada Works and Young Canada Works have their functions as labour absorbents for a short term application. They do not and are not intended to go to the root of our economic problems. I suggest, however, that the Department of Employment might play a greater role in identifying-as I have attempted to do in my remarks-the root causes of unemployment and in recommending to appropriate branches of government at all levels the necessary strategy to deal with these problems. In my view the proper vehicle for mounting a meaningful attack on the disparities that exist in the Atlantic provinces is a federal-provincial conference convened by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) and the premiers of the respective provinces. If we are to carry out this strategy and focus the attention of all

departments of government on the problem, the ultimate answer will require the personal direction and dedication of the Prime Minister of Canada.
At the same time, I believe we can make some real progress in identifying areas within each department of government which can and should provide a service for other departments of government, and avoid costly duplication, the tremendous expense of hiring outside professional and other services, and consulting with experts outside departments of government.
The ability of all departments of government to focus on any one problem in our economy, like that of regional disparity, leaves much to be desired. For example, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has expended millions of dollars in Atlantic Canada with some degree of success in building the economy of that area. But as DREE takes one step forward in establishing new industries, the lack of a cohesive and progressive transportation policy erodes its effect.
We know that at this time there is much evidence that the government proceeds like a whole series of separate empires. These empires often compete with each other. Sometimes they even conflict with each other. For example, the user pay concept for transportation is in direct opposition to the use of transportation as a developmental tool envisaged by the Canadian premiers at their meeting this year in St. Andrews, New Brunswick.
The government seems to lack an over-all strategy in approaching the problems of Atlantic Canada. It has announced financing for studies of some renewable energy forms, which is quite commendable. But what about other energy forms and what about indigenous energy sources in Atlantic Canada? There is no over-all strategy. The government cannot or will not come to grips with the total problem and, in concert with the Atlantic provinces, develop a strategy designed to solve the problems. There are no easy answers, but there should be a commitment and a dedication on the part of the federal government to finding the answers.
I believe the government should co-operate with the governments of the Atlantic provinces in giving priority to the economic supply and distribution of electrical energy in the region. The areas of co-operation I contemplate would include the development of a full Maritime power pool with strong interconnections with adjacent areas of Canada and the United States, in order that all the benefits of power pool operations may be optimized. This, in my view, would be a major step in the direction of integrating other provinces and other power pools into an eventual national power grid.
Canada should encourage the study and development of unused hydro electric sites-especially the large remote sites in northern areas of Canada-which could supply renewable energy into a Canadian electrical energy distribution system. The untapped hydro resources of 20 rivers in Labrador, the most dramatic being the Gull Island and Muskrat Falls sites, are the most attractive untapped hydro electric sites in north America.
November 29, 1977

The government should encourage development of those tidal power generation sites in the Bay of Fundy which show a beneficial energy supply to Canadian energy requirements. Since 1969, lack of foresight and the complete absence of government policy have seen Fundy tidal power studies move forward at a snail's pace. Even considering this continent's energy needs in the 1990's and projecting the dwindling supplies and increasing prices of fossil fuels, Fundy looms as an attractive opportunity with tremendous socio-economic benefits for all of eastern Canada.
And what about Fundy? Can a huge source of renewable energy attract chemical and metal based industries to locate near the power source? Is there a good labour source, good transportation facilities, a sea port, and other infrastructures? In such heavy industries there is a considerable lead time from the inception of planning to the commencement of construction. The ommission of DREE from involvement in the Fundy studies is regrettable and is another example of the failure of government to focus the efforts of all departments on the problem of regional disparity. The involvement of DREE now to maximize the employment potential of a possible and, I hope, impending Fundy development is imperative.
Canada needs national economic development policies and regional development policies related to the national purpose.
In eastern Canada we have a tremendous potential, but we need national leadership to realize it. With Saint John and Halifax-two deepwater year round ports-we can sell a transportation facility to the whole Atlantic seaboard, which, for the most part, lacks deepwater ports. With relaxed tariff and quota regulations and active federal support, these ports can be gateways of commerce and, if connected to a modern transportation system in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, they can enable other communities to become staging areas for growth centre developments.
The federal government should not simply content itself with giving a department such as DREE a limited degree of authority. It should establish machinery which would produce co-ordinated results and which would, in terms of regional economic development, co-ordinate the policies of all departments, particularly transport, finance, and trade with the policies being followed by DREE.
I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of coordinating efforts within departments of the federal government. It is also necessary to co-ordinate the efforts of the federal and provincial governments, especially in the Atlantic region. The three Maritime provinces have improved their machinery for inter-provincial co-operation. But we are still a long way from a plan of development for the region in which each provincial government and the federal government would play a co-ordinated role.
DREE should get away from the idea that its only responsibility is to promote a series of ad hoc development agreements and provide industrial incentives to entrepreneurs who wish to move into the Atlantic area, or to local businessmen who want to expand their present operations. DREE should be doing far more than that. It should be looking hard at the big jobs
Canadian Economy
crying to be tackled. For example, what has DREE done about the Fundy tidal power project which is linked with the building of the Chignecto Canal? I would wager, nothing. It has been very convenient for the government, whenever Fundy was seriously mentioned, to be able to pass it off to a study, or a commission, or a committee which it knows full well can stall the project another year or another decade. Why is DREE not brought into these discussions? Why is DREE not handed the responsibility of correlating these studies? Why is DREE not given the job to do?
DREE was created to lead the attack on regional disparity. Like Uriah the Hittite, it was to be thrust into the forefront of battle, there to do or die. But DREE stayed in the background when the big conflicts raged. It handed out its grants and loans to justify its existence and failed miserably to take hold of the big projects which the Atlantic provinces have needed for generations. In short, it avoided the massive development undertakings without which the Atlantic provinces will always remain what they are today-the most neglected part of Canada.
Infrastructures are the only hope of getting Atlantic Canada into a position of parity with the rest of the country, a position from which it can stay caught up. Millions of dollars in piecemeal grants over the years have done nothing but keep us from sliding farther behind. The dole has failed. Now it is time to get back to the bold and imaginative policy of regionalism pioneered by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the principle of special aid to the Atlantic provinces on a massive scale. Where mere millions have been parcelled out to keep the wolf from the door, billions are needed, not in spending but investment in permanent and lasting projects which will bring the Atlantic provinces to equal partner status with the other six, and which will dispose of the need, once and for all, of the subsidies and handouts which have always been associated with us as a backward area.
DREE was launched with great fanfare as the answer to all our economic problems. It did not take very long, however, for the Atlantic provinces to realize exactly what DREE was: just another federal agency handing out grants, loans and doles, and shirking its responsibility for getting to the fundamental problems of the area and for spearheading the mighty projects which common sense tells us must be the cornerstones of Atlantic prosperity.
These projects are the Fundy Tidal project, development of the ports of Saint John and Halifax, and an Atlantic transportation policy which would include a corridor road with United States co-operation and a modern highway and rail system to transport agricultural products, parts for manufacturing industries, and other goods to world markets via the ports of Saint John and Halifax.
I believe that new policies should show a willingness to get to the basics of Atlantic economics and to put first things first. There has to be a new set of priorities, and the projects I have mentioned have to be in the top echelons of those priorities.

November 29, 1977
Canadian Economy
I am not asking for the moon. I am asking for fair treatment of an area whose problems no amount of subsidies and grants can solve if a solid base is not laid down.
Give us the Fundy tidal project, and the maritimes will become the powerhouse of the continent, with both Canadian and American-yes, and British, French and Japanese-interests clamouring to invest in us.
Give us the corridor road and, by means of a straight super highway linking Vanceboro in Maine with Sherbrooke in Quebec, shippers, travellers and tourists will be five hours and 150 miles closer to the markets and attractions of central Canada, and vice-versa.
Give us port development, and the great tankers and container ships of the world will come to us in armadas of profit.
In short, give us infrastructures, and let them form the foundation. Then the rest of Canada can forget the subsidies, grants and handouts which they have been forced to provide us, often against their will, for the simple reason that no one has ever had the common sense, foresight and resolution to face facts squarely and to give us the tools with which we can put our own house in order.
My immediate suggestion is that the government direct its attention to the infrastructures I have mentioned, and focus the attention of all government departments on the problems of regional disparity.


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulte the sponsor of the motion now before us. Of course, this motion opens the door to the discussion of the most serious problems now facing Canada, that is inflation and unemployment. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to a few aspects of the speech made this afternoon by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien).
First, Mr. Speaker, the minister agreed with us, the opposition, that we now have serious economic problems in our country in spite of all its wealth. But, Mr. Speaker, what have the former minister of finance and the present minister, since his appointment, succeeded in doing to try to solve the problems of unemployment and inflation? This afternoon, the Minister of Finance made fun once again of the people when he said that the government has stated, especially since November 15 of last year, that if we have economic problems throughout Canada and especially in Quebec-and I ask government members to mark my words, so that they will not suggest tomorrow that I am speaking in favour of the Parti Quebecois, because this is not true. On the contrary, I am not for the Parti Quebecois, and even though I sit in the House of Commons as a federalist, because that is what I am, I am not too blind to see that our country has economic problems.
The minister said that unemployment has increased because women have suddenly decided to join the labour force, which has resulted in more unemployment among young people between 18 and 30. The Minister of Finance agrees with us that to solve this problem, housewives should be paid to stay home and help their family as they would like to do. But
[Mr. Howie.l
because of the economic problems now facing the country, women have to help their husbands support the family.
We would also like to provide pensions at 60 for the people who decide to leave the labour market when they reach the age of 60. This would give an opportunity to young people between 18 and 30, to the same young people who are now waiting to enter the labour market.
As a member from Ottawa said last week about the death penalty, there should be a trial period so that we may see the results brought about by the abolition of the death penalty.
Today I invite the federal government to do the same thing, namely to stop the Trudeau-Levesque or the Levesque-Trudeau confrontation because this government has been elected precisely to replace a lousy administration represented by the Bourassa government. We saw then Premier Bourassa being compelled by the right hon. Canadian Prime Minister to eat hot dogs. What did he do: He knelt down and ate those hot dogs. Today, Quebec has a government that stands on its feet and attempts are being made to provoke a show-down with the federal government.
So I invite the present government to stop engaging in confrontation tactics with these people and try to give Canadian citizens a decent standard of living. For many years, we in the Social Credit Party of Canada, have listened to the economic proposals made by the federal government and some of them have turned out to be good but others left much to be desired. We shall keep on making recommendations so that the government may put them into practice. However the time has come also to analyze the political performance of this government, namely this Liberal government which has not succeeded in solving the serious problems plaguing the Canadian economy, namely inflation and a high rate of unemployment. Such is the attitude which the Social Credit Party of Canada has been advocating for several years.
I would like to debate the four interesting points raised in the motion in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard). Since 1974, the federal government has tried to solve both the problems of inflation and those of unemployment. We have witnessed the various tactics used by this government which actually have always been in the traditional style. First, there were the price and wage control system, the job creation programs, the rate reduction and selective grants in a given sector of the economy. If we scrutinize the budgets of the years 1974 to 1977, we can see the changes in the policies of the government. One of these budgets mentions regional development and another aims at controlling government spending. In all these budgets, traditional measures have been used, changes in tariff and rate structures increases and decreases or even both of these measures combined, job creation programs, adjustment of interest rates and dividends. Every year the federal government has been assuring us that it will solve all the problems of our economy. Despite the variations in the economic strategy of
November 29, 1977

this government, inflation is still rising and the rate of unemployment is growing very quickly every year.
Mr. Speaker, the economy is getting weaker and weaker and in spite of each new budget, the result is increasingly deplorable. The government should realize that the time has come to change our economic policy. It is not good enough to hope that the difficulties will disappear by themselves without any action on the part of the government. They will certainly not disappear if the control of the economy remains in the hands of banks and large corporations. The government should think about the individuals, the consumers, the small and medium businesses and the small investors. Those are the people who need jobs and who must work and benefit from lower prices. The government should assume its responsibilities by introducing a policy for lower income groups and for banks, and not for banks and large corporations.
The government welcomed foreign goods on the Canadian market, firstly by making them accessible to the Canadian buyer. This was done by reducing tariffs, seemingly to fight inflation. What has this brought to Canadians as a whole? First, it has made it impossible for Canadian producers to compete. It has resulted in a number of plants closing down across the country, thereby increasing unemployment. This afternoon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) commended the hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Loiselle) for his marvelous work. We shall see the result of this Thursday next, when the Minister will announce his policy proposals for the shoe industry or the textile industry.
Mr. Speaker, it will be my pleasure to commend the hon. member for Chambly, and also the Minister of Finance, if the latter decides once and for all to give an edge to Canadian industry and Canadian corporations rather than foreign producers, so that our manufacturers might some day make a come back and give jobs to our Canadian workers.
We have a very low productivity level compared to our neighbours to the South. But if the government increases tariffs, the Canadian profit margin will be significantly increased and our manufacturers will be able in the future to supply our Canadian markets. Of course Canadians must accept inflationary measures, but unemployment is a much more serious problem than prices and this would certainly solve serious problems. But if the inflow of foreign goods continues, we will lose our Canadian industries that used to have a potential for innovation and development.
Mr. Speaker, the Globe and Mail of 21 March, 1977 had this to say, and I quote:
Canada is now faced with the highest foreign debt in the Western world. Average wages and salaries in the industrial sector are now the highest in the world, and our exports are declining. We now hold a world record for the number of hours lost per thousand employees because of strikes and labour disputes: we are losing five times more man-hours per thousand employees than Britain. In Canada, average wages and salaries increased 14 per cent last year, almost double the rate in the United States. In Canada, the cost of labour per unit of production has increased more than 50 per cent since 1972, compared to 20 per cent only in the United States. This was reflected in our productivity. We had a $10 billion trade deficit in the manufacturing sector last year. Last month's increase in the money supply, a major cause of inflation, represented an annual growth of 22.8 per cent.
Canadian Economy
Mr. Speaker, you will agree that this administration makes us wonder seriously about the future.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, on March 29 last, the same daily published some very revealing figures in an editorial concerning Canada's public debt. Indeed, it said, and again I quote:
As at present, as far as getting the economy going again, one can say that our governments did not make things easy. The direct public debt servicing charges increased by 120 per cent in the last five years-135 per cent at the federal level and 100 per cent at the provincial and municipal levels. The annual load supported by every Canadian worker increased from $444.44 for the fiscal year 1971-72 to $822.92 for the fiscal year ending-
-for the month of March.
The total cost last year stood at $7.9 million; so much money for debt servicing alone.
-for the year 1976.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is high time the government, when it reads such things, adopted or at least tried to use the system the Social Credit Party of Canada has been advocating for several years. For several years we have been calling for a guaranteed minimum income for all Canadians. When the concept of a guaranteed mimimum income was proposed by the Social Credit Party of Canada, it was often thought that the government had the right to accept or reject the proposals made by the Social Credit Party of Canada but once again, and now more than ever, because the government is trying to accept those proposals, the guaranteed minimum income is fundametal. The payment to every member of our society of an adequate income to meet fundamental needs is not a government favour that can be given or taken away according to the decisions of a few individuals in power. In fact, the guaranteed minimum income is an individual right, and in any healthy, modern economy, that right is irrevocable.
We must admit that the philosophy behind the income distribution methods now in use is fundamentally barbaric compared with the attitude that existed in civilized societies. From 1974 to 1976, Mr. Speaker, we saw such job creation programs as the Local Initiatives Program, Young Canada Works and just recently Canada Works. At the same time, the rate of unemployment went from 5 per cent to nearly 8 per cent. The rate of unemployment among those between 18 and 24 was about 8.2 per cent in 1974. At the end of 1976, it was more than 14 per cent. Each year, more and more people enter the labour market at a time when this government can offer them either social welfare or temporary jobs.
It is the small businessmen and manufacturers in Canada who must increase their production to create jobs for our young people. However, Mr. Speaker, two things are necessary before Canadian industries can expand. First of all, the Canadian government must protect our market for our producers by raising, as I was saying a while ago, the customs tariff, thus protecting our producers against the entry of foreign goods. It must also lower the interest rate of the Bank of Canada which fluctuates now around 9 or 10 per cent. Now more than ever before, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to conclude with this remark tonight, I feel-

November 29, 1977
Canadian Economy


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.
[ Translation]


Mr. Ir6n6e Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, in the motion he introduced this afternoon, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) states in section (b), and I quote:
(b) that the votes allocated by the government to the Canada Works programs are not sufficient to create enough jobs to overcome the massive and persistent unemployment which is especially severe among the 18 to 30 age group . . .
Mr. Speaker, this is true. I entirely agree. The Canada Works programs have not been designed to solve the problems of the unemployed in the 18 to 30 age group. I think that part of the motion of the hon. member for Rimouski is true, but there is also an extremely important matter which the government should consider as soon possible.
Last Sunday a program on the CBC French network gave us an indication of the enormous problems met by young people seeking employment in several countries of the world. For example, we were shown that France as well as Italy, Germany, the United States and most industrialized countries have not succeeded in Finding sufficient jobs for the young people 18 to 30 age group graduating from colleges, universities, technical schools and so forth. And what can we say about those in some countries in the world who do not have the privilege to be educated or to further their education? Therefore it becomes very hard for that group of young people to find openings in the labour force.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is a catastrophic, disastrous and dramatic situation because I have the privilege and the honour to represent in the House a riding which has many young people. There are two universities, two junior colleges, ten-odd education establishments which produce bachelors, masters and doctors every year, as well as graduates from technical schools who have countless difficulties finding employment in this region. Too often they have to leave the Sherbrooke area to seek work on large markets such as Montreal, Quebec City or Toronto.
Mr. Speaker, it is ever more difficult to accept that situation for the simple reason that those who are born in a given region and who have roots there do not want to work elsewhere. So, we can hardly accept the fact that they must leave their region after having obtained a bachelor or a master degree for the simple reason that many of them, having taken up studies paid for by their parents or even the state, find themselves without work after some fifteen or twenty years.
Mr. Speaker, even against that background I would like to bring a glimmer of hope which has recently come to us from the government. As everyone knows, nearly five years ago the Canadian government decided to decentralize some federal departments and transfer them to other regions of the country where the economy was at a low ebb. One of these decentralizations was announced in October; following Moncton,
[Mr. Caoucttc (Villeneuve).l
Matane, Bathurst in New Brunswick and two or three places in western Canada, it has been decided to move the mapping section of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to Sherbrooke.
Needless to say, the people of Estrie and Sherbrooke in particular greeted with joy this government decision because it is a section that requires advanced skills and, accordingly, the fact that we have in this Quebec area, in Sherbrooke, two universities, one English and one French, two junior colleges and several institutions of learning, makes it a well designated place for this type of decentralization. It will enable many of our future graduates to look forward to finding in our region the type of jobs tailored to their skills.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that the government's decision provided that between 750 and 1,000 jobs would be decentralized. It means that nearly 1,000 public servants now in Ottawa, of which 75 per cent are English-speaking and 25 per cent French-speaking, would move into our region. But within a decade or a dozen years, the linguistic breakdown of that decentralization would nearly reflect the breakdown we now find in the region and which is the opposite of what it will be at the beginning, that is about 25 per cent English-speaking and about 75 per cent French-speaking.
Mr. Speaker, members opposite as well as government members and people in several corners of the country have often asked the government to decentralize several federal departments in order to bring them a little closer to people and not to centralize all the government operations in Ottawa.
We know that a number of countries with a federal structure have already undertaken this kind of decentralization. In the United States for example, they do not get all cartographic material from Washington but from Denver, Colorado, and a number of other federal departments and agencies are not necessarily centralized in the federal capital.
Mr. Speaker, due to these circumstances, the young people of our district who graduated from our two universities or our two junior colleges or from other private or public institutions had in the past to go into exile, to go to larger centres. I find encouraging to see that this decentralization program will give a bigger number of qualified young people the opportunity to stay in the Eastern Townships area.
There is also another point which has been raised by several hon. members today. I am referring to the fact that, apart from a few very fragmental and too often temporary programs, there are no specific programs for young people. Consequently, what happens too often is that they work for a few months and after that they have to pass from a Canada Works program to a Young Canada Works Program, a LIP program or an Opportunities for Youth Program, as has been the case during the last few years.
Of course, these initiatives are very commendable but I humbly suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the federal and provincial governments must concentrate more and more on the problem of unemployment among the 18 to 30 age group because unless they find some lasting and not temporary measures to
November 29, 1977

correct this situation, I believe it might bring about some disruption in our society, as in several European societies and in particular in developing countries.
Mr. Speaker, paragraph (a) of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) deals with the areas of footwear and textiles which have not been sufficiently protected in recent years. One must say that the federal government has intervened at least 22 times since 1970 in an attempt to correct or solve some problems which have arisen in the textile area. Of course, I for one feel there were too many interventions and if more specific and long range measures had been taken in some cases it seems to me they would not have had to intervene so many times. But I think one must render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and recognize that some government interventions were beneficial to textiles as well as to those areas which are often designated as soft sectors.
In the past year, for instance, there were proposals made by the Minister of Finance who was then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. They had some success. Even today I was talking to some textile labour leaders and they told me all their problems were not solved but that the arrangements and measures taken last year by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce had brought about some positive results. And the new minister announced less than three weeks ago that the measures which had been taken in the fall would be applied for some time so that the textile industry will be more protected.
However, Mr. Speaker, I had many occasions to rise in the House on this textile issue. At least five years ago, I had the privilege to deliver in the House my first speech which incidentally dealt with the textile industry and I feel some of the proposals I had advocated at that time are still worth considering.
I proposed, then, that the Canadian Textile and Clothing Commission become a permanent commission. All textile workers agree that the Canadian Textile and Clothing Commission, when asked to table reports concerning certain problems brought to its attention, has tabled very good reports indeed. Immediate action has been taken.
However, we must also admit that the Commission is not a permanent one and is too often asked to inquire into this or that particular problem. The Commission complies, prepares a report and hands it in to the government. This means that when we think there is a problem the Commission simply agrees. Therefore, it takes action much too late; it is a little bit like a coroner who only comes in to state someone is dead.
I submit very humbly that if the Canadian Textile and Clothing Commission were a permanent commission, it could very easily monitor the general orientation of the market and make proposals to the government which would make it possible to solve some of the problems in the textile industry without frequent government interventions.
At that time, I suggested that the Textile and Clothing Board should be permanent. In my humble opinion, it is a suggestion which should be seriously considered. The second
Canadian Economy
suggestion derives from the first one, it is that no textile import licence should be granted unless the Textile and Clothing Board can discuss that import licence, that is whether the licence is directly competing with some fabrics made in this country and that in granting the licence, the Canadian textile industry could be hurt badly. So I think that the Canadian Textile and Clothing Board would give great assistance to all Canadian textile industries if it could advise the federal government that the import licence requested by such or such company would likely hurt Canadian industry. That was the second suggestion I made.
The third suggestion-brought forward on many occasions by labour leaders, particularly by the CSD last year-is that we should guarantee a place on the Canadian market to Canadian producers. At the present time, there are so many statistics issued by the Canadian Textile and Clothing Board as well as by unions and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce that we wonder whether it is 40, 50 or 60 per cent of the Canadian market which belongs to Canadian manufacturers. In my humble opinion, we should be a little clearer with statistics, whether Canadian manufacturers could take 75 per cent, let us say 75 per cent or maybe 85 per cent, because I do not know any developed country which does not produce at least 85 per cent of all its textiles for domestic consumption. So it seems to me that 75 per cent of the Canadian market would allow Canadian manufacturers to stabilize the textile industry.


Roch La Salle: I agree with you.


Irénée Pelletier: I see the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) agrees with me. Those are three recommendations concerning the textile industry which could be discussed by the government because in my opinion the textile sector is very difficult. In the area that I am pleased to represent in this House, that sector has faced many difficulties in the past, but it has been there for about a century and it will not disappear overnight. To take this troubled sector out of its present problems, it should be guaranteed at least 75 per cent of the market.


Roch La Salle: Come on, give him support; he is the only one to defend himself!


Irénée Pelletier: For the information of the hon. member for Joliette, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am not the only one; there are other members who wanted to speak, in particular the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier), and deal with this problem today. There are at least ten members, a committee within our caucus, who made a serious study of this question and have often presented their recommendations.


Roch La Salle: At long last!


Irénée Pelletier: As I said earlier some twenty measures have been adopted following the representations made by members within our caucus. I am not saying that the opposition has not contributed to that study-but I have to conclude these few remarks: I believe that the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Rimouski will give some of the members the
1392

November 29, 1977
Canadian Economy
opportunity to realize some of the economic problems of our regions. To sum up, I must say that the decision of the government to decentralize some departments in our region has very important consequences, and is a matter of urgency, for the simple reason that we will need eventually to recruit young people, and as there is high unemployment among those aged from 18 to 30, this decentralization will allow us to absorb some of these qualified young people who will not have to go to other Canadian cities or other regions to work.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to seriously consider, especially in connection with the textile, footwear and clothing industries, the possible transformation of the Textile and Clothing Board into a permanent commission; also, before issuing an import permit for textile and clothing, the Textile and Clothing Board should advise the government of the possible consequences such permit might have, and finally, some formula should be devised to ensure our manufacturers at least a 75 per cent share of the Canadian market.


Roch La Salle: That would be fine!


Irénée Pelletier: I am not a financial expert, Mr. Speaker, but I humbly submit that only a very small number of businessmen will be interested in investing in this sector if the government must constantly step in to prevent this or that country from dumping its textiles on the Canadian market, because when businessmen are not quite sure where they stand from a financial point of view, and when they cannot be assured in advance of a market, they find it very difficult to decide whether to invest or not.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I thank you for giving me an opportunity to take a small part in this debate. I begin by saying, without any hesitation or equivocation whatsoever, that this country is in a mess. Page 20 of today's Citizen carries the headline: "Effigy of Trudeau Burned by Unemployed Workers". That is the message which the people of Canada are bringing home to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) for moving this motion which does make sense, notwithstanding what the parliamentary secretary from Scarborough West has said. Let me summarize what the four paragraphs of the motion have to say. First, it says "this House deplores that the government", etc. It continues "that the votes allocated by the government to the Canada Works programs are not sufficient"; thirdly, "that no serious action has been taken to reduce interest rates"; and lastly, "that the economic methods now in use are no longer suitable".
The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) must be looking for promotion because he says we are spending an inordinate amount of time on the economy. Mr. Speaker, this is what this nation is all about-a viable, healthy economy, which has been destroyed by the policies of the government.
[Mr. Pelletier.)
That is what we are talking about here. As long as the government proceeds in the direction it has been taking, we will be getting up every other day to strike home.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), who is sitting opposite, is part and parcel of the agreement whereby the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) almost sold the steel industry down the river. Let me put it this way, Mr. Speaker. It is not a question of spending an inordinate amount of time on anything; this is a very important subject affecting the lives of millions of people.
The parliamentary secretary said that the news was brighter. That is a typical reply from a parliamentary secretary who is looking for promotion. But he did go on to say that there was some little problem with the manufacturing industry. The manufacturing industry is about $10 billion going on $11 billion in the hole, and some 200,000 workers are adversely affected. I know the parliamentary secretary would not deliberately mislead the House, and I would not use any such language, but after saying that the manufacturing industry was in trouble, he forgot to point out, as the motion says, that the textile industry is in trouble, that the shoe industry is in trouble, that the clothing industry is in trouble, that the furniture industry is in trouble. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but the mining industry, the construction industry, the fishing industry, the forest industry, and the tourist industry are all in trouble.
Then the parliamentary secretary had the gall to talk about the Export Development Corporation, in connection with which questions are being raised concerning their pumping money into Venezuela and the United States of America in order to undermine our steel industry.


John Carr Munro: Nonsense!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The Minister of Labour says "nonsense", but my time is limited, Mr. Speaker. I hear that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is very concerned about what is happening in the nation. Like the great Messiah, he is on his way to look into the problems of the nation and to find solutions. Today's issue of the Journal has this headline: "Much Further Ahead; Economic Solution Is Closer-Trudeau". Having been away for two or three days talking to a few premiers, the last being Premier Regan-incidentally, the report blasts him too-all of a sudden the Prime Minister says that an economic solution is closer. The report goes on to say we are going to have a first ministers' conference some time in February.
On July 12 of this year, Mr. Speaker, I thought the need for a first ministers' conference was of such importance that I should bring it home to the Prime Minister. Let me read the first motion on the order paper of that day, to be found at page 7567 of Hansard. I said:
Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity related to the unacceptable, frightening and shocking figures on unemployment released this date. Given the fact that, including the hidden jobless, this country now faces an actual unemployment rate of 11.5 per cent, or in other words over 1.3 million Canadians are out of work which in effect costs this country $17 million a day in lost GNP and $6
November 29, 1977

million a day in unemployment insurance, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That the Prime Minister immediately take steps to convene a first ministers' conference to deal with the critical problems of high unemployment and unsatisfactory real growth, hopefully to reverse the banana republic-like image this country presently enjoys.


Mr. Breau:: What happened to that motion?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: An hon. member opposite is asking me what happened to that motion. The Liberals voted it down. The Liberals said no. The Liberals indicated that they did not want a first ministers' conference. I should not get carried away with the remarks of a backbencher.
1 should like to refer to what the Prime Minister said. He said that the federal government is taking its responsibilities and so are the provinces. Also he indicated that at this stage the bringing together of the two would have no effect beyond that of satisfying me.
Back in July we on this side were telling the Prime Minister to get off his what-you-may-call-it.


John Carr Munro: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Now we are hearing from the Minister of Labour.


John Carr Munro: What about industrial peace?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Industrial peace is something this country requires, desires, and should have. The Minister of Labour should get on the ball and bring about some meaningful solutions for the problems besetting industry and labour. If that were done, perhaps the problem with the Japanese would be non existent. No matter what the minister says about the number of days lost because of strikes, the question remains that there is no confidence in this country. The Minister of Labour should get on a Lear jet, or any other form of transportation, and go to Japan to give them the same message he is giving Canadians about days lost because of strikes.
When I think of the problems Canada has faced in the past nine or ten years, I wonder why so many Canadian people want this government to continue in office. The government has destroyed the country and its initiative, and our image is at an all-time low. Farmers are alienated, senior citizens are alienated, and youth are alienated. Labour people are mad at the Minister of Labour because he was less than honest with them in terms of wage and price controls. Industry has been hamstrung by the introduction of wage and price controls without notice. This has destroyed initiative and does not allow industry to be more productive.
What is happenning to my country? Where are we going? What is in the future? Suddenly the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) realized that the March, 1977 budget was a disaster. Members on this side of the House kept telling the government that. It replied by asking us to wait until the new measures took effect. That was its usual answer, and the
Canadian Economy
government is still waiting for that to happen. In the meantime the present Minister of Finance, the supposed new messiah, bootlegged in a new budget. It was not called a budget, but it was a budget in any event. People are looking for something. They want to know what a budget really means. In my humble opinion, a budget should set a course of positive direction in terms of hope for the future. Is there any hope in this country as a result of his speech? I see a Liberal member laughing behind the curtains. He is aware that no one has any hope in terms of that speech.
When a budget is brought in, or when a speech that can be called a budget is brought in, people want to believe it will bring about a feeling of confidence in the economy. Is there any confidence in the economy as a result of that speech? No, there is none whatsoever.


Herb Breau: Five point two per cent.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Now that hon. Liberal member is talking about the 5.2 per cent. That is what is known as the manipulation of figures dishonestly.


Herb Breau: What do you call 292,000 jobs?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It was hoped the budget would create a climate for confidence in the government. What kind of confidence is evident when one picks up the Ottawa Citizen and sees in half inch print: "Effigy of Trudeau Burned by Unemployed Workers"? That is indicative of the confidence present in Canada.
One would expect this type of budgetary action to address itself to the needs of Canadians. Is Your Honour aware of what was in that speech? The former minister of finance made a mistake in terms of taking away the proceeds of insurance policies on the deaths of the owners. Is that what is called looking after the needs of Canadians? That provision attacked widows and the children of deceased until all hell broke loose. Suddenly the new minister, as is usually the case, realized a boo-boo had been made, and withdrew it.
This government attacks those who cannot help themselves. I remember when the senior citizens were told to get out of the work force. They were not allowed unemployment insurance benefits. They were sent out to pasture and told to do whatever they could, because the government was through with them. That is what the government does for people.


Herb Breau: Not me.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear the Liberal member saying, "Not me". I will give him credit. He had guts enough to vote against the bill. The government brought in a monstrous policy known as spouse's allowance. I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is interested in what I am saying. The government gave some poor spouse some money, as long as the husband or the wife was 65 years of age. The moment the husband or wife died, that money was taken back. Is that looking after the needs of Canadians?
1394

November 29, 1977
Canadian Economy
I referred to these few illustrations in order to have the record show that there is something wrong with the thinking of Canadians when they still believe the Prime Minister is the saviour of this country. That is the biggest mistake that has ever been made. Trudeau Liberals have destroyed the country, and now the Prime Minister is walking around looking for solutions to problems created by his party and no one else. These problems were created during the past eight or nine years this inept government has been in power.
What did we get out of the minister's speech? There was a clear admission that the last March budget was a complete disaster. Up until October 20 we were told to wait until the budgetary pronouncements came into effect, but that never came about. Now we have a new mini-budget. The former minister of finance, who has now gone to pasture-


An hon. Member:: They shed them every two years.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, ministers of finance are shed every two years. We heard the constructive criticisms of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) during the past few days.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you get your own TV show?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't get carried away. The present Minister of Finance has indicated that the former minister of finance was wrong in computing the rate of inflation, the effects of wage and price controls, the rate of unemployment, the revenues to be taken in, and the staggering deficit. What did his speech really indicate? In my humble opinion it indicated a few things. It indicated that the government is bankrupt of ideas. Here is a government that is reluctant to accept the advice of economic experts such as the Economic Council of Canada, the Conference Board in Canada, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, all respected bodies which have been giving the government advice for years, advice which has been thrown out the window and disregarded by the government.
What else does that speech indicate? It gave us further evidence that the government has outlived its usefulness. I do not say that lightly, Mr. Speaker; I am very serious because I know what this business is all about. I have been around here for eight or nine years and I think it is time that we got rid of those rascals. They are nothing but rascals who have been misleading the people. I cannot forget the time when they went into the 1974 election and the Minister of Labour, who is my buddy, my friend-but I must say that-was less than honest. They went into that election and said that wage and price controls did not work in the United States and did not work in Great Britain, that the Tories were going to freeze people's wages and that they would have none of that. That is what they did to me in Hamilton. That is what they did to all of us around the country.
You know what happened, Mr. Speaker? I was elected because the people did not fall for it completely. They will not

forget that election. The thing is that you can only fool the people once, not twice, although I might be mistaken. Those rascals are still over there, but time moves on. All we can say is that through inequities and mismanagement of the economy the government has brought this country to its knees. As I said earlier, those who can least afford to fight back are the hardest hit, and I am talking in particular about the unemployed.


Mr. Parent:: What will you do with the 292,000 jobs?


M. Alexander:: I do not know what the hon. member means when he refers to the 292,000 jobs, but the fact is that those very people who have met the Prime Minister have told him they do not want welfare, they want jobs. The government is not creating enough jobs. Here we have a report on the effigy of the Prime Minister being burned by the unemployed workers. That is the message. Never mind what the Liberal backbencher is saying. What the government has said in effect to the unemployed, is "I'm O.K., Jack; look after yourself'.


An hon. Member:: Not so.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There he goes again. The Minister of Labour is interjecting again. I do not know why he does that; perhaps he is jealous of my success. He is trying to destroy a good speech. He does not like it because I pointed my finger at him and said he was less than honest with the Canadian people in the 1974 election. All I know is that we have had ample evidence of callous disregard for the plight of the unemployed. Do not take only my word for it, Mr. Speaker.
I want to put on the record some of the musings of our beloved Prime Minister, and I will head it "Trudeau on Unemployment". I have to do it that way because that is how it is written. I know my time is running out, Mr. Speaker, but I will read it so quickly it will make you blanch. On March 25, 1977, he said:
If it's just a job you want, my heart does not bleed for you.
Also on the same date he said:
If they don't like it here, let them find another country where they could use university graduates.
On March 11, 1972, he said:
We can be obsessed with unemployment.


Iona Campagnolo: They are all one-liners.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: They are all facts. They are one-liners but they are devastating. The Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo) is talking about one-liners. That is all that is needed to destroy you people-one-liners. Let me give you the last one-liner. The Prime Minister said on October 8, 1977;
Unemployment is not as bad as some people out there want to pretend it is.
Thank you for you patience, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time allowed the hon. member has expired.
November 29, 1977


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, this has been a very good debate and I think we owe a vote of thanks to the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) for bringing this motion forward. We have been listening for some time to the jibes of the previous speaker in reference to statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about unemployment not being bad. A member across the way referred to 285,000 jobs. Yes, there are that many jobs for 1,300,000 people.


Mr. Lefebvre:: You have it all wrong.


William Arnold Peters: It is very hard to sort it out, but if there are that many new jobs, there are still 1,300,000 people looking for work. It is true that the population grows. In very few places is there zero growth in population. The member brought this out.
This has been a very interesting debate because for the first time many members have admitted that there are problems in the country. It was the first time I have heard members on the other side say they have problems. I was interested to hear some members say they have problems with the footwear industry and the textile industry, and that there were problems in Quebec. It was also interesting to hear the Conservatives say that these problems will not be solved by another handout to the corporations, to big business, in the form either of tax concessions or outright grants. This seems odd, because tomorrow in the debate which takes place here in the House we will be hearing the government saying that there is nothing wrong with the economy and that there is no unemployment, these problems do not exist.
The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin), as I understood it, said that it was an excellent thing that we should give money away through the Export Development Corporation so as to create jobs in Canada.


Alan Gray Martin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member referred to a comment I made. I did not make any reference whatsoever to the fact that the Export Development Corporation was giving money away which, of course, is a ridiculous comment.


William Arnold Peters: Then they lend it instead of giving it away. What the hon. member said was that this has created 3,000 manufacturing jobs for the money we have expended in Indonesia, and 1,100 jobs for the money that we lent Guatemala. Then he said that this was considerably more advantageous than the situation in Sudbury where 3,000 people were laid off because of what happened in Indonesia and Guatemala. It was interesting to hear the minister speak in the Standing Committee on Agriculture this morning. I will paraphrase him because he is fairly long winded, and what he says has to be boiled down somehow.


Iona Campagnolo: There are some others I know who are also long winded.


William Arnold Peters: Unquestionably there are some others. What he said this morning was that they could not regulate tariffs and they were having great difficulty in Geneva at the tariff conference because there were not only tariffs to deal with.
Canadian Economy
Although the tariffs were published in the United States, there were so many other kinds of assistance that it was not possible to keep up with those to the same extent you can with simple matters like tariffs. I gathered that that also was the real complaint about the textile industry.
If we play under certain rules with other countries which do not play under the same rules, we will be at a great disadvantage. We have been fairly stupid in our negotiations with other countries. We must have been fairly stupid in negotiating the pipeline agreement which was recently arrived at with the United States. The Prime Minister now says that we will be able to produce the pipe in Canada if we can compete. If we put that together with what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was implying this morning, we come to the conclusion that we are not going to be able to compete and that we will not have jobs in the steel industry, in the textile industry, or even in some segments of the agricultural industry.
It is time we really looked at what is happening. That is why I say we owe a vote of thanks to the hon. member for Rimouski for bringing this motion forward. This is the first time I have heard Liberal backbenchers say that there are problems which should be discussed. I was pleased to hear them say that there is a committee composed of Liberal members studying the problems of the textile industry in the province of Quebec. However, I am sure their votes on Bill C-ll will not indicate that they have any concern or that they see anything wrong in what is happening. I think that is part of the reason we have a major problem in the province of Quebec.
Hon. members to my left-in a philosophical sense I would say they are probably on my right-to a large extent represent rural segments of Quebec. To me they are the only honest representatives of the province of Quebec because they speak for the people of Quebec and their problems. The problems are very simple.
There are really only three or four segments of our population which produce wealth. They are not in the manufacturing industry. They are in the primary industries. They are in the mining industry, which is being hit very hard. It is not being helped by the financial institutions of this country. Financial stability is not being brought to their problems to allow them to raise capital for investment.
Numerous bankruptcies are taking place every month in the forest industry. It is very difficult to maintain a stable market for the primary producer. That is happening in our fisheries as well as in agriculture.
The rest of the people of Canada are parasites on the 500,000 workers in primary industries, and if we do not examine the problems of basic producers and study how to help them, we will have a great deal of difficulty developing our manufacturing industry and all the other industries which have to compete with the rest of the world. We do not appear to be doing very well at all.
The Minister of Labour is here tonight. I understand he received a brief the other day from communications workers

November 29, 1977
Canadian Economy


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: And he ignored it.


William Arnold Peters: He may have ignored it, but I am not really sure there is anything he could do about it. It will take all the minister's cabinet colleagues to do something for these 30,000 workers. These workers pointed out problems to the minister about which I have known for some time. When you allow a corporation to automate and when you give it more money than it can spend, it is going to automate, and that will mean fewer jobs. When a company automates, much of its production can be farmed out, so it goes into the business of contracting.
Bill C-l 1 would provide another $1.2 billion to help companies expand. Many of these companies already have profits which allow them to do any expansion necessary, and they now find themselves in a position where they can expand not only in this country but in other countries as well. We are providing them with other moneys from the Export Development Corporation to allow them to buy production from Canada, and that production is only production machinery to use in other operations. That will cut the throats of workers in this country. If there were not a potential for developing nickel in Guatemala or Indonesia, we would not be lending those countries the moneys we are lending them so that they can buy production machinery for properties which are owned and controlled by Canadian multinational corporations, and so that they can cut our throats and lay off workers in primary industries here.
There must be a dozen secondary workers for every primary worker in this country. Perhaps there are more, and when we lose 3,000 jobs in Sudbury we are not only losing those 3,000 jobs but we are also losing all the ancillary jobs which are connected with primary production.
The telecommunications workers told the minister the other day that the effect of the changes which have taken place is bad for them. Canadian employment in Northern Telecom will have declined by approximately 4,000 people in the three year period from the end of 1974 to the end of 1977. The telecommunications workers estimate the total reduction in Canadian employees in 1977 alone will be almost 1,200 people. There will be a cut-back in the installation forces of over 400 more people before the end of 1977.
Office staff of Northern Telecom in Quebec, represented by the COEU, fell from 2,600 in 1971 to 1,412 in 1977. They informed the minister that because of high Canadian productivity Northern Telecom increased its profits by 71 per cent from 1970 to 1976, compared with the national average of 20.8 per cent. These profits, they indicate, have been used to establish factories in other countries. In the United States those plants are usually in low wage, non-union areas, and they find the situation now where the company brings in telephone housings from Northern Telecom plants in Ireland and Tennessee, cross-bar frames from Turkey, and fuses from Malaysia.
During the same period Northern Telecom received substantial assistance from Canadian governments. In the last five years Northern Telecom has received approximately $11 mil-

lion in duty remissions and grants for such things as research and development. It also received over $200 million in loan assistance and guarantees from the Export Development Corporation. The tax cuts for corporations in the last federal budget will result in about another $4 million gift to this multinational in 1977.
Does the Minister of Labour not talk to his colleagues? It might be a good idea to have people doing menial work, but if we automate to the point where there are no people working, what will we do? Will we put them on welfare or some other dole, or will we provide them with other jobs in other industries? We can pick up any newspaper and read that Canadian National or Canadian Pacific have run out of tracks. We all know how much profit they make. They are huge multinational corporations. One is government-owned and one is privately owned, but they are huge corporations with many subsidiaries now operating not only in Canada but in other countries as well. They need rails from coast to coast, and if we were to re-establish railroads and put in rails we would have people working in steel factories, in mines, and in all the ancillary industries which are involved in the process of replacing rails. That is one example, but if we allow automation to create huge profits for development in other countries which can then be used against us, our difficulties will continue.
The members on the government side who spoke today dealt with the textile industry. Mr. Speaker, you can go into a store here and buy a shirt for $7 or $8 which could be made in Taiwan, Malaysia, Korea or Hong Kong. You can also go to some of the major stores and buy a labelled shirt, and if you look at it closely you will find it also was made in one of those countries but probably costs $25. It is the same shirt. It is much better for Simpson's, say, to buy their shirts in Korea than in Canada because they can make more profit on them. There is something wrong with a system that allows this to happen.


An hon. Member:: They don't pay their workers.


William Arnold Peters: Our Canadian workers are well paid, it is true, but it is a myth that they are not well paid in other countries. I was in Japan and found that a worker there gets 15 cents an hour, but was told that he has the use of a car, has a coloured television and all the things that workers have here. In some cases he has even more because his hospitalization is paid, so is his holiday, and children's education. It is a myth to say they are only paid 15 cents an hour. If that is so it must be equivalent to our $15 or $20 per day, because they have the same standard of living. Members should travel to those countries and then would be able to compare conditions.
Many of these countries have trading companies, and they trade in a totally different way from us. I think it is time the government looked at their methods. Jean-Luc Pepin, a former cabinet minister who has been seconded to several other menial tasks since he left here, when he was minister of industry, trade and commerce tried to persuade the govern-
November 29, 1977

ment to set up a trading bloc on behalf of Canadian industries and workers. Members who can hear and see and think should consider the small seeds in the chaff of the speeches of the Minister of Agriculture, and the one today in which he indicated there is no point in playing around in Geneva with GATT and tariff arrangements because the countries we deal with have much more sophisticated ways of subsidizing the products we import and do not run into the difficulties into which Canadian exporters run.
I think this has been a good debate, Mr. Speaker. It is one of the few occasions when Liberal members have had guts enough to speak for their constituents and point out some of our problems. I hope that in debate on Bill C-ll they will continue on the course they have embarked upon today, and that they will recommend to the government some of the changes proposed today which, I believe, would result in a lessening of the unemployment and misery it is causing to all segments of this country.
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary
of State): Mr. Speaker, it is with some pleasure that I rise to join in the debate this evening. It affords me the opportunity to deal with comments made by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) who got all fired up a few minutes ago. He presented a lot of information to the House that he wanted to pass off as the truth, while at the same time chastising members on this side for allegedly telling half-truths. I shall try to put the record straight or at least present the opposite side of the coin that the hon. member would not have exposed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: When he says something I will listen.


Mr. Daudlin:: My hon. friend interjects that when I say something he will listen. I did him the courtesy of trying to listen to what he was trying to tell the House, and found he had nothing to say. I must have heard five or ten times, and the record will show this tomorrow, that this government, in his view, destroyed the economy. My friend tried to save him from his own problem. He tried to indicate to him on a number of occasions that since January of this year the government had created 292,000 jobs. But he did not want to be confused by the facts. He said "Quiet. Leave me alone. I do not want to know that."
The hon. member said this government had destroyed the economy, forgetting that we had reduced the rate of unemployment in his own province. He did not want that kind of information on the record. The hon. member conveniently forgot what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) had to say in terms of heads of households and what happened to the rate of employment vis-a-vis that particular sector of our economy.
That hon. member is a prime example of what speakers on this side of the House, particularly the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin), had indicated, in that all he could speak about was what was going wrong with the economy, what terrible things were happening, creating the impres-
Canadian Economy
sion for the entire country that everything was wrong. If the hon. member ever acknowledges that something is right, I will be so surprised as to go over and congratulate him. However, I do not expect him ever to say anything is right. I suppose he in turn will never expect me to say anything is wrong.
I invite the hon. member to stay with me a few moments because I want to mention a few things that are not quite right, but they are not all bad. My friend and others this evening talked about the Export Development Corporation, saying it is a terrible thing. They do not seem to be able to comprehend that 3,000 man-years is a good thing and, if that had not been done, those 3,000 man-years would have been lost to the Canadian economy.
My friend is indicating that he is going to leave, still not wanting to know what is good in what is happening. Unfortunately for him, that will be his loss.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I will read it in Hansard tomorrow.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: The hon. member for Hamilton West stated that when he tried to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on July 12, 1977, the members on this side of the House said no and did not allow him to proceed with the motion. It is about time that those in the audience in our galleries and beyond the television cameras heard somebody tell what is happening with motions under Standing Order 43. They are an attempt by members opposite to put aside the debate of the day in order to bring up particular subjects or particular things that they believe, individually or as a party, should pre-empt everything going on in this House. They want to take charge of what is going on here.
It is time that people recognized we are acting responsibly when we say no, that we believe what is before the House is important and must be proceeded with. It is about time somebody stood up and said that, and here I am to do it.
My friend went on to say that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in June or July, said it would have no effect to have discussions with the premiers of the provinces save to satisfy the hon. member on the other side. He then said the Prime Minister is now advising us that in fact we are going to have these meetings. Of course we are going to have these meetings. The premiers have now indicated they are prepared to do something constructive. They have agreed that something substantial is ready to happen. I guess my friend has never heard of timing. He has never heard that there is a time to strike and a time to sit down, to stand away and wait for the proper time. Until he learns that, he will continue to be on the side of the House opposite from which I now stand.
The hon. member indicated as well that farmers are alienated and the aged are alienated. I do not know what farmers he talked with. He certainly did not talk to the farmers in southern Ontario, who argue that in fact the prices for corn and soybean are low, that they should indeed be higher. But they also say that things are not bad, that things are adequate, that they are paying their bills, that they are able to sell, that

November 29, 1977
Canadian Economy
they can find markets for what they are producing. They are saying that but for substantially increased yields this year there might have been difficulties. But they are not saying that it is because of the economic policies of the government that prices are so low. There are other reasons.
The hon. member is saying the aged are alienated. The aged in my riding are saying, "We are now putting money away." They say, "Some of us are embarrassed that we cannot spend all the money we get from our pensions and the supplementary amount given us." They are saying that for the first time in their lives they have savings accounts. They are also saying that some members of the opposition should realize that old age pensions are not there to give them the only payment from which they make their living. They are saying to me, "We intended to put money aside and we did put money aside, and what we are getting is supplemental to what we have put away for our old age." We are thankful that these things are happening. Let us not forget that it was this government that put this program in place, and not some other.
This hon. member went on to say that the budget of last spring was a disaster. He chose to ignore the fact that there had been a 5.2 per cent real growth in the economy notwithstanding the difficulty we had in prevailing upon the opposition to assist us in passing those budget measures-we had to push, cajole and prod them into bringing the matter to a vote. The hon. member preferred to forget all that and pretend it did not happen.
He talked of hope. He said it was lost. He said the Canadian people no longer had any. Is that why he could not contest the statement by one of my hon. friends that the auto industry is looking forward to a better year? Is that why he could not say my hon. friend was wrong when he told us that the housing industry and the appliance industry were also expecting an increase in sales next year? The fact that we are looking forward to increased activity in those areas demonstrates that there is hope. I know that in my part of the country there is substantial hope, substantial recognition of the fact that this country is moving ahead and that the picture of abject destruction which the hon. member drew is not the correct one.
I found it interesting that the hon. member who spoke just before me, and who referred to the "stupidity" of making available the kind of assistance which the Economic Development Corporation provides, should be a member of a party which in 1974, as I recall, adopted, as a sort of watchword, the phrase "people first". I wonder why he now believes that assistance to Third World countries, while at the same time helping ourselves through the provision of some 4,100 man-years of employment in just two years, is stupid. Why is it stupid that we should assist ourselves and at the same time help Third World countries and recognize a social obligation beyond our own boundaries? I do not believe that sharing some of the wealth of this country in those circumstances is
[Mr. Daudlin.l
stupid. On the contrary, I think it is responsible. He also spoke about what went on in the agricultural committee hearing this morning.
I come now to the point I mentioned to my hon. friends. I should like to relate to hon. members an experience which occurred in my area this year. Hon. members know that among other things which are produced in my riding are cantaloupes. Highway 401 also crosses my constituency and along it moves a lot of the produce of southern Ontario on its way to Toronto and Montreal markets. Along this highway also moves products imported from the United States. I have been asking the government to consider taking the same action vis-a-vis the agricultural industry as it took for textiles and other products. Because this summer, when prices on the wholesale market in Toronto for cantaloupe were $14.75 for a basket of 20 quarts, producers of the same product in my riding were prepared to sell it for $4.25 per basket. But the Toronto market was listing products from Arizona, Texas and California only.
Why was this so, Mr. Speaker? It was not because the product was not available in Canada; it was because wholesale buyers, wanting some kind of guarantee of a 12 month supply, were telling the Canadian industry that unless they can produce cantaloupe 12 months in the year they did not want it. Thus the consumers of Toronto and Montreal had to pay a high price while the $4.25 product lay rotting in the fields of southwestern Ontario.
I think it is time consumers' associations picked up things like that and agreed with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that agriculture needs some kind of protection, be it by way of increased tariff, as recommended by the Tariff Board, or, as I have suggested on occasion, by guaranteeing a percentage of the Canadian market to Canadian growers before any kind of import licence is granted. This does not mean that an unrealistic price should be set for the Canadian product so that suddenly Canadian producers make an exorbitant amount of money. But if the Canadian producers of that simple little muskmelon could have been guaranteed this summer access to even 10 per cent of the Canadian market, these producers would have had the opportunity of selling all of the product in their fields. Not only that, but consumers would have benefited by paying one third the price they were forced to pay for the out of country product, and extra work would have been provided for pickers in the fields of southern Ontario at a decent wage. In other words, all parties on all sides of the equation would have benefited.
Unlike my hon. friends on the other side of the House, I am not so sure that my pleas are going to go unheeded. I am satisfied there is going to be a response. I am also looking for the same kind of response to the pleas of the tomato paste industry which, if it were given the protection being offered by the recommendations of the Tariff Board, could produce as many as 1,000 jobs for southwestern Ontario.
November 29, 1977

One of the reasons hon. members on the opposite side get so exercised when members on this side appear to chastise the government is that hon. members opposite never get the opportunity to listen to members on this side talking to government ministers outside the Chamber. Hon. members opposite never get to see their suggestions come to fruition in the form of legislation They cry, call out, and cajole, negatively, except for one hon. member opposite who made a few positive recommendations tonight. Opposition members cry about our destroyed country and claim there is no hope, both of which are demonstrated to be without foundation. As long as the government is prepared to act responsibly, as it has done in the textile industry, I do not have to make false accusations.
The government has protected the producers of things like mushrooms, tomatoes as a raw product and canned tomatoes. It has acted responsibly in regard to the shoe industry, the bicycle industry and a host of others I could name. If the government continues to be prepared to respond in terms similar to the ones I raised tonight, I do not have to stand and make false accusations indicating the country's economy is destroyed. I can go to bed tonight assured that the producers are protected, a lot of new jobs will be created, and the problems will be dealt with. Come the next election we will find more hope in this country than hon. members opposite would like to think.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly have liked to have the floor for about twenty minutes. I thought it was understood right from the start that I would have about twenty minutes to close the debate. Unfortunately, I barely have six minutes left. However, the purpose of the motion which was put forward today was to call the attention of the general public and of the hon. members of the House to some specific aspects of our economy.
As the hon. member who spoke before me has just indicated, everything is for the best in the best of worlds, the government created 292,000 jobs, there is no problem but in his constituency, the agricultural production of last summer has not been bought because it was cheaper to buy from California. Furthermore, in spite of this day of debate, in spite of the speeches which have been made, I am forced to note that there are still some hon. members on the government side who, like the one who has just spoken before me, have not yet understood that our problems are a creation of the government. Today, we have to try to find solutions to those problems.
We hear about imports into our country, about massive imports, and the hon. member who spoke before me had that problem in his constituency, but has yet to realize that he and
Canadian Economy
his government threw our doors wide open to import without setting any effective control over them. And that is why the motion we have presented today was directed against that government approach which led them to say: It is not our fault, but we are seeking solutions. The only hon. member on the other side of the House who has spoken intelligently is the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) when he recognized that we really face problems in the field of textiles.
He even admitted that just like the hon. members of the opposition, some members of his party had to make studies and urge the government to curb imports. He even proposed that 75 per cent of the overall production should be made in Canada before allowing imports. His speech was a little bit more intelligent than some others, but even then, as I told him while he was speaking, unhappily the cabinet of this government has yet to understand that sometimes ministers have to listen to members of the opposition or to hon. members on the other side of the House who dare stand up and ask the government: Where are the problems?
As we have indicated in the four sections of our motion today on the issue of imports, it is the government leaders themselves who have allowed those imports to enter our country without restriction, and today the Minister of Finance stated that next Thursday he will make a speech to announce certain restrictions. What he forgot to say is that he himself has allowed those imports to flood our markets. The second paragraph refers to Canada Works, which is simply a band-aid program. Money is used to try to reduce unemployment. There are over one million unemployed. In my constituency, the rate of unemployment has reached 14.5 percent. On the other hand, according to statistics, 58 percent of the manpower is working. That means that 42 percent is not. Since 14 percent are on unemployment, this means that 28 percent are starving to death.
I have already talked about the milk problem. I asked a question of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and he told me: "We, the government members, have solved the problem." I suggest that they are also the ones who created the problem for farmers by setting quotas and allowing massive imports: 46 million pounds of cheese were imported in Canada last year. The same government, the same liberal members, like the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, allowed this to happen last year. Today, they say: "We are trying to solve the problems, we are looking for answers."
This is what we are trying to convince government members to do, to stop playing politics and saying they are solving problems when in fact they are creating them. It is about time that they accept the solutions proposed by the Social Credit, such as the one that we make in the third paragraph of the motion when we talk about interest-free loans to finance governments.
I received yesterday an answer to a question I asked concerning the interest rate paid by our country since January 1, 1976 because we are still one year behind on September 30, 1977, for nine months. The country paid $8,416,165 in inter-
1400

November 29, 1977
Canadian Economy
ests alone. Mr. Speaker, if we realized what is suggested by Social Crediters, the financing of governments by interest free loans, under the present taxation system all that money could be reinvested in the Canadian economy. Mr. Speaker, those were the few comments I could make in six minutes. However I should like to continue as I have more to say. Briefly I wish to say that it is time that ministers recognize, as some backbenchers did today, that there are problems and that they must be solved.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please! It being 10:30 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, November 30, 1977