1977-03-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. With respect to assertions at the United Nations this week that seven Canadian companies are collaborating with South Africa to exploit the resources of former Southwest Africa, and in view of Canada's continued rejection of South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia, as well as our opposition to the practice of apartheid, and with regard to a recent initiative of 11 major American corporations with operations in South Africa to apply a set of guidelines ending desegregation in eating, toilet and working facilities and establishing equal pay for equal work in South Africa, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather):
(1)	That Canada declare its strong opposition to the support of Canadian business enterprises for South African involvement in Namibia,
(2)	That an inquiry be made to ensure that no tax advantages are provided to Canadian companies operating in Namibia,
(3)	That Canadian firms operating in South Africa be encouraged to pursue initiatives similar to their American counterparts in establishing clear guidelines and working conditions with the South African government which will establish equality in treatment for workers regardless of race.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM PROPOSAL THAT PROGRAM END ON JUNE 30. 1977-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I, too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on an urgent and pressing matter relating to the termination of the controls program. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House support the recommendation to his caucus by the financial critic of the Official Opposition, the hon. member for York-Simcoe. that the government's controls program be eliminated by June 30. 1977.


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


Some hon. Members:: No!


CARCINOGENIC QUALITIES OF SACCHARIN-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on an important matter of urgent necessity. In view of reports that saccharin may have carcinogenic qualities and has been reported to be related to cancer in animals, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Neilsen) as well as the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That the minister state in this House at the earliest opportunity what action he intends to take in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate under Standing Order 43, even with two seconders, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


HARBOURS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the serious suggestion emanating from Montreal that the surplus funds account of the port of Montreal be used to write off debts incurred by the port in putting into effect an early retirement program for longshoremen some four or five years ago, and because such action would amount to the use of public funds for the purpose of subsidizing labour costs in that port, thereby creating an unfair advantage for one Canadian port over another, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave):
That the government direct the Minister of Transport to instruct the National Harbours Board and any other appropriate authority, including the port of

March 8, 1977
Miss Teen Canada
Montreal Authority, that this surplus fund, comprised by and large of paper depreciation on capital holdings and from the transfer of lands to the City of Montreal shall not be used for this purpose.


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


Some hon. Members:: No!


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this being International Women's Day-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -I should like to present a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 which deals with a very practical issue. First, I would explain for the benefit of readers of Hansard that the Minister responsible for the Status of Women is the same person as the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House calls upon the Minister responsible for the Status of Women to inform the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the denial of a pension or allowance to a woman between the ages of 60 and 65 because she does not have a husband is a violation of human rights and of the principle of equality, and this House calls upon the Minister of Justice to join with the Minister responsible for the Status of Women in pressing the Minister of National Health and Welfare to correct this injustice forthwith.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MISS TEEN CANADA
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to move a motion congratulating Miss Nancy Jane Newburn who was chosen Miss Teen Canada at a ceremony in Toronto last evening. It should be noted by all members of parliament that Miss Newburn is a native of Sudbury and a representative of northern Ontario in that pageant. Since you, Mr. Speaker, represent that great city in this House, we ask you to personal-
(Mr. Forrcstall.]
ly extend the greetings and good wishes of all members of the House of Commons to Miss Newburn on this happy occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43, the pressing and urgent circumstances of which appear from the motion. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House demands the government cease and desist from instructing legal counsel on its behalf to attempt to prevent civil servants from obeying subpoenas or to provide them with immunity from such subpoenas.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be made only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On Friday last the Prime Minister wrote to the chairman of the CRTC inviting the CRTC to investigate doubts as to whether the English and French television networks of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are fulfilling the mandate of the corporation. I wonder if the Prime Minister can advise the House whether he has received a detailed response from the chairman of the CRTC and, if so, what that response is.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not received any response as of yet.


SUGGESTION MINISTERS MAKE SPECIFIC CHARGES AGAINST RADIO-CANADA
Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since it has been the consistent practice of the Prime Minister to refuse inquiries on other
March 8, 1977

important matters either by an agency of the House of Commons or by any other government agency unless specific charges have been made by a member of this House, and since there have been general charges made-and perhaps specific charges; we have not yet seen the list of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs against Radio-Canada by ministers of the Crown, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to instruct his ministers who feel they have charges to make, to make those charges to the CRTC specifically, and to make them public so that this House and the people associated with Radio-Canada will know of what they are accused, and by whom?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot indicate how the CRTC will conduct its inquiry. I can say that if the CRTC wants to hear from ministers or from members on this side as well members on the other side regarding opinions or observations that they may want to make, I am quite certain that opinions will be volunteered from this side. Once again I cannot ascertain how the CRTC will want to conduct its hearings or if it will want to hear specific accusations from this side.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the double standard the Prime Minister is applying. He refuses to have inquiries into other matters unless specific charges are made in the House, yet proceeds in the case of Radio-Canada to have an inquiry undertaken, without specific charges. My question to him did not relate to what the CRTC is to do; my question to him is whether he is going to instruct ministers who have raised questions about Radio-Canada to make specific charges, and make them public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is, I believe, some confusion in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Fraser:: He is not confused.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I could insist on my ministers renewing the charges they made a few weeks ago.


John Edward Broadbent: And documenting them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And documenting them, Mr. Speaker. But I had thought that by proceeding via the CRTC route we would diffuse the need for those kinds of charges-


An hon. Member:: What about smear and innuendo?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I and have the investigation made by the CRTC itself. So far as the so-called double standards are concerned, it seems to me that the distinction is rather easy to see and make. I have refused investigations into alleged illegalities, for the simple reason, as I have said in the House, that I feel due process of law is the normal way to investigate crimes or alleged crimes.


John Allen Fraser: What about improprieties?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 indicated, in so far as the courts were concerned, that if they were frustrated in some way or the police were frustrated in some way from pursuing the verifica-
Oral Questions
tion of the allegation of illegality, I would consider setting up an inquiry. But in this particular case there have been no allegations of crime, or of illegalities. The allegation had to do with content and innuendo. This, 1 suggest, the Leader of the Opposition would not expect me to ask the police or courts to look into; that is why I asked a quasi-judicial body to look into it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is well known to this House that there have been complaints about alleged separatism in Radio-Canada for many years. These have been raised in debates in this House as far back as in 1967. But this inquiry which was announced on Friday followed precisely and exactly after the flurry of public attacks by members of the Cabinet of Canada, of the Liberal party of Canada, about separatism in the CBC. It followed those attacks directly. Consequently, since accusations by ministers of the Liberal party were the cause of this particular inquiry, will the Prime Minister accept his responsibility and instruct ministers whose general accusations caused the inquiry to be specific and public about their accusations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition feels that the inquiry was instituted merely because there were complaints by ministers, I can only comment that he is badly misinformed about public feelings in Quebec, the CBC, Radio-Canada, and about content.


John Allen Fraser: Do you mean public feelings caused the inquiry? Whom are you kidding.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Accusations have been made over a period of several years about alleged separatist leanings of the CBC. They were made long before ministers voiced them a couple of weeks ago. The Leader of the Opposition should be made aware of this, if he is not aware of it already.


REASON FOR INQUIRY INTO TELEVISION ONL Y
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister can tell us why the CRTC has been asked to investigate only the television side of broadcasting? Is it perhaps that separatists who can be seen are considered as more dangerous than those on radio? What is the rationale?


An hon. Member:: Look in the mirror.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I must confess that the reason for our singling out television is that I was hoping it could be done within a rather short deadline, by July 1. But I have since learned that it would be almost as easy for CRTC to conduct at the same time an inquiry into the radio side, and I have written Mr. Boyle to ask him if he believed it possible within that time framework to include radio.

March 8, 1977
Oral Questions


POSITION OF EXPERTS ATTACHED TO COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Perhaps we will have just a series of tabled letters. Could the Prime Minister tell us about the use by CRTC of outside experts? Are they to be attached to the commission? That part of the Prime Minister's letter, with great respect to him, was rather general. Are these to be ad hoc members of the commission, are they just technical experts, or who and what are they and whence do they come?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There again, for the same reason when I wrote to the chairman of CRTC. I made the point that since 1 was asking for a report within a fairly short period of time, 1 saw no objection to having outsiders join him or CRTC. I did not give him any further instructions and I would not expect him to want any of me. I await his answer, and would expect him to have freedom of choice in that matter.


LACK OF SPECIFIC ACCUSATIONS IN REQUEST FOR INQUIRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister as well. Quite apart from how CRTC decides to undertake its inquiry, if it should decide to proceed, 1 would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not realize that in writing to CRTC as the Prime Minister of Canada and requesting such an inquiry, it was of fundamental importance, in order to avoid the impression of creating a Nixon-like pressure on the news media of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -that in his letter requesting an investigation he provides very specific instances that he wanted investigated.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think what the Leader of the NDP described as a request was an invitation, and in his question he has hinted that perhaps I would not get a positive response. 1 do not know what response I will get, but I submit that in the very way he asked the question he indicated his belief that CRTC is free to act or not, and that is also my belief.


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister did not answer the question. I should like to refer back to his own suggestion or at least his reference to the rule of law. Would the Prime Minister not agree that when accusations are raised without specific instances being referred to, what you are doing is casting doubt on all the employees in such an institution and on all their actions, and therefore, quite correctly, such an inquiry, particularly initiated by the head of a government, is seen to lead to a kind of witchhunt in the organization concerned?
[Mr. Trudeau.)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this seems to revert to the earlier question put by the Leader of the Opposition. I repeat, there is no accusation or suspicion of illegality or wrongdoing here. The suspicion and the allegations are in the area of conveying bias or slanted views of the news or a slanted picture of the unity of Confederation. There is nothing illegal in doing this, but when the taxpayer puts up half a billion dollars a year to have a public broadcasting system, he is justified in ascertaining that that system does not set out to destroy the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As 1 said to the Leader of the Opposition, this is not a matter in which we can say, let the law follow its course, or let the police do their work, as I have done when they have asked for commissions in other areas. This is a matter of opinion, innuendo and nuance, and 1 do not think it is for politicians or partisans to make a judgment on this. I do think that the people-


Mr. Grafftey:: You have made your judgment.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course I have made my judgment, and that is that we should refer the question to the CRTC, which is a quasi-judicial body.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in asking my final supplementary I would like to refer to the letter by the Prime Minister himself dated March 4. He has just said to the House that no one makes suggestions of wrongdoing. I say to him that he was precise in suggesting wrongdoing in his letter when he called upon the CRTC to investigate whether or not the CBC is carrying out its mandate.


An hon. Member:: Whether or not.


John Edward Broadbent: If that is not a suggestion of wrongdoing, 1 do not know what is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: If the babblers would be quiet I would like to get my question asked. In the past the Prime Minister has expressed in this House his concern about the principles of justice, but we are not talking about the Criminal Code here. 1 would like to ask him if he believes it is consistent with the principles of justice to call into question the reputation of a major news gathering agency in Canada without citing one specific incident in his letter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, once again the term "wrongdoing" is used by the Leader of the New Democratic Party in an ambiguous fashion. Yes, it is a wrongdoing to spend taxpayers' money for a purpose which is not that for which the money was provided.


Charles Joseph Clark: Otto Lang.
March 8, 1977


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But there is no illegality in the particular allegations. It is a question of whether the CBC is or is not pursuing its general objectives. The leaders of the opposition parties do this all the time when in the estimates committee they ask ministers or officials whether they are following their mandate. They do not make accusations. They probe and they try to find out. In this particular case there have been accusations of a very general and ongoing nature.


An hon. Member:: By you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: By us, and I would say also by a very large number of Quebecers. Anyone who has had the advantage of living in the province of Quebec and talking to the people would know that there is a loud, continuing and even agonized cry about the CBC destroying the unity of this country, and hon. members of the opposition should know that, if they do not already know.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
Could he tell us clearly what is the air-ground or ground-ground language of communication used at the Canadian military air bases in Quebec?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that both official languages are used at St. Hubert, which is an MOT station. Actually, the practice at the present time is that English is a common language for military operations.


René Matte: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
1 would like to ask the minister if the policy for air-ground or ground-ground military communications in Quebec is in accordance with the bilingualism policy of the government, that is whether the use of French in those communications is tolerated or encouraged in all Quebec military airports?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the use of both official languages is indeed encouraged. 1 might say that I am in the process of looking into this entire matter. I am not fully informed on it, but I give a very high priority to encouraging the use of both official languages throughout the armed forces as a matter of course.
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. President Carter has indicated that the United States and Canada are near agreement on plans to ship Alaska natural gas, and possibly oil, across Canada to the lower 48 states, as reported by the Associated Press yesterday. The president apparently indicated that Canada will play a major role in moving gas and possibly oil out of Alaska. My question is, what is the agreement that is near between the United States and Canada on shipping Alaska natural gas and possibly oil across Canada to the lower 48 states? Has the Prime Minister agreed with the president on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline project suggested by Arctic Gas or on one of the other proposals or just what agreement is now near? How is Canada to play a major role in moving gas and possibly oil out of Alaska?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as with so many reports, that is probably an incorrect one. 1 can say to the hon. member that there is no agreement. There cannot be one near either because I made it very clear to the President that the government would not be in a position to make any decision until we had heard from the National Energy Board and from the commission of Mr. Justice Berger, which I believe is not expected before the end of April.


John Carnell Crosbie: The president is also quoted as saying that his chief energy adviser, James Schlesinger, and the Canadian Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, met last Friday to probe further agreement with Canada on the shipments. Why would these representatives of the United States and Canada meet to probe further agreement on shipments if there has not already been an agreement? If there is no formal agreement between the United States and Canada in this area, has the Prime Minister reached an understanding with the president to the effect that Alaska natural gas and possibly oil will be permitted to be moved across Canada to the United States or has the Prime Minister given the President the impression that Canada will take an affirmative approach on these issues when Mr. Justice Berger and the National Energy Board have reported? Will the Prime Minister comment on that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, a whole series of comments would be called for here. I would just say that 1 agree with the hon. member's logic in the first part of his question, and I would be inclined to say, exactly.

March 8, 1977
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Is it the policy of this government to instruct its Counsel to appear before municipal boards or courts and try to obtain blanket immunity for civil servants so that they do not have to appear in response to subpoenas and give evidence?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Not generally, Mr. Speaker. There may be the particular circumstance where it would be warranted.


Gerald William Baldwin: In view of the fact that any such attempt is based on the ancient royal prerogative of Crown privilege which anti-dates the Bill of Rights, a right which is being asserted by the Prime Minister and his friends at the present time, will the Minister of Justice instruct his counsel not to make any such requests and to see about securing some form of legislation by which the right will be specifically spelled out and not left to chance as they are at the present time?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, these instructions were given to counsel in connection with an Ontario Municipal Board hearing. However, I want to point out that counsel assured the Municipal Board that officials of the National Capital Commission would make available to the board all the information that they could, and provide the board with every assistance that they could. As 1 take it, only from newspaper clippings, the matter in issue was the subpoenaing of other officials from the National Capital Commission who would possibly be called upon to discuss information, the disclosure of which would place them in contravention of their oath of office. I can assure the hon. member that the Justice counsel assured the board they would provide every possible assistance they could.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the Minister of Justice take into consideration that this attempt to provide selective information would deprive counsel of the right to cross examination which is one of the cherished privileges of the courts of today.


Stanley Ronald Basford: That was not the effect of the submission, Mr. Speaker.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is with regard to the sale of 25 LearStar jets to the Federal Express Company of the United States. The minister informed me last Friday that the Canadian Export Development Corporation would be financing the purchase of 25 of these aircraft. Will the minister inform me the percentage of

the sales of these planes the Export Development Corporation will be financing? With regard to the other 75 orders, will the Export Development Corporation be financing the purchase of those planes?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, of the 71 already sold, 25 will be financed through the Export Development Corporation for a total amount of some $115 million. I think that the sale of 46 aircraft has been made without any intervention by the EDC.


LEARSTAR JET PROGRAM -REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF DESIGN AND STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS BY MR. GOLDEN
A. Daniel McKenzie: During the week of January 31 in Reno, Nevada Canadair and Lear Aviation had a meeting with regard to the design and structural problems that Canadair is having with this aircraft. Will the minister have Mr. David Golden investigate these structural problems as he has informed me that contracts may be terminated if Canadair fails to supply these aircraft within 12 months of the scheduled delivery date?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Golden was asked to study the structure of Canadair Limited and de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited. He will certainly be called upon to examine the development of aircraft built by those two companies and if he has comments to make, he could make them to me. For my part, I feel that the LearStar program is progressing extremely well under the circumstances.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Since a group of 100 leading British Columbia citizens, the list headed by a former NDP member of parliament, Grace Maclnnis, has asked western members of parliament to investigate or act on the failure of the CBC to fulfill its mandate both with regard to unity and journalistic quality, will the Prime Minister advise this House if the CRTC chairman will carry out the investigation on a national east to west scale?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether all members of this House would agree that that is not too vague an accusation by Mrs. Grace Maclnnis and others. However, 1 think that her concern is certainly one which we share. I would merely remind the hon.
March 8, 1977

member that when I wrote the president of the CRTC I did mention that aspect of the English and French networks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EFFECT ON INQUIRY OF INTRODUCTION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of his assumption that this inquiry into the CBC is based on innuendo, insinuation and implication, will the Prime Minister agree that if the CRTC is going to carry out this very difficult inquiry that any suggested influence or interference with its affairs, either direct or implied, should be removed. In that light, has the Prime Minister had a chance to talk to the Minister of Communications about the second phase of the telecommunications legislation which very directly involves the CRTC and changes in its composition so that element can be brought out into the open also?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, 1 agree that something or somebody should be removed. On the second part of the question, we have had some talks and they are ongoing between the minister and myself.


COMMUNICATIONS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Communications? In view of the fact that this invitation to have an inquiry into the CBC by the CRTC very directly involves the CRTC, can the minister assure the House that the second phase of the legislation will be introduced so that any questions involving changes in the CRTC would not affect either directly or indirectly the hearing requested by the Prime Minister?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, that inquiry can be made by the CRTC if the latter decides to comply with the invitation of the right hon. Prime Minister. It can also be included in the current mandate of the CRTC.
As for the second phase of the legislation, it will be tabled in the House in due course; the hon. member can then move amendments or come up with suggestions in the House or, in any event, see how the bill defines the relationship between the CRTC and the federal government.
Oral Questions


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-POSSIBILITY OF AGREEMENT TO SALE OF GAS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the discussions held last week in Washington with energy officials of the United States government. In a report emanating from a meeting of newspaper editors in the White House, President Carter is quoted as saying that Canada has substantial supplies of natural gas and whether the United States can make use of the surplus along with Alaskan gas is "something I will have to decide." May 1 inquire of the minister if he has agreed to the sale of Canadian gas in the Mackenzie Delta to the American market and if not, what information has been given to the United States authorities which would lead the president to believe that Canada has substantial surplus supplies of gas which could be made available to the United States from the Mackenzie valley pipeline?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that no offer was made. I can only assume that, as sometimes happens, this is a completely erroneous newspaper report.


NORTHERN PIPELINES-DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON FINANCIAL GUARANTEES
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister is quoted in the press as stating that he would discuss with the United States government the matter of financial guarantees for northern pipelines. In view of the minister's statement to the House that no guarantees had been asked for and, so far, none given, I should like to ask whether any understanding has been reached between the two governments with respect to financial guarantees? In particular, I should like to know whether such guarantees will be given jointly and what proportion of the cost would be borne by the Canadian people?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, no understanding has been reached with respect to completion guarantees or any form of guarantee with respect to a possible pipeline going through Canada. When I was in Washington I did discuss the possibility that a request might be made with respect to either CAGPL or Alcan, two applications that I thought would be of most interest to the United States and that we would be doing some contingency planning ourselves on the basis of that possibility. I suggested to the United States that in view of their interest in a pipeline in the north they might want to do their own contingency planning and set up their own group for that purpose. I believe they will because the other option they have, the El Paso option, would also involve some kind of subsidy or completion guarantee or guarantee of financing of the tankers involved.

March 8, 1977
Oral Questions


OIL- POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF EXPIRY DATE FOR EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES IN VIEW OF IMPORTS FROM INDONESIA
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question. I should like to ask the minister about his statements at the press conference in Washington in which he said it was a distinct possibility that Canada could import Indonesian oil, I presume through the Kitimat pipeline, and if such were the case it might be possible to extend the expiry date of oil exports to the United States which is 1981. Is it the government's intention to extend the expiry date of oil exports to the United States and does the government accept the proposition that we should take Indonesian oil as a swap and continue to sell Canadian oil to American customers?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has taken two quite separate aspects of that particular press conference and joined them together. Let me deal with the two quite separately. I did discuss with United States officials the question of continuing to supply the northern tier refineries and the importance to Canada of swaps in being able to maintain this particular activity as our own exports would be scaled down in the years to come-swaps of secure oil for secure oil. The hon. member may know that the presidential adviser, Mr. Schle-singer, agreed that this was from his point of view a completely understandable position. I went on to point out that there might be an opportunity to protect Canada and the United States in the event of another oil embargo and that an oil storage facility in Newfoundland, in particular at Wa'oana, might be used for this purpose.
As to the question of Indonesian oil, I acknowledged when 1 was asked a question about whether there would be any advantage to Canada in the Kitimat pipeline that there might be and that clearly this decision had not been taken but that one of the possible advantages to Canada would be the opportunity to import oil on our west coast and perhaps Indonesian oil.


OIL-DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON POSSIBLE USE OF BELL ISLAND STORAGE FACILITIES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the minister able to tell the House if he had any specific discussions with the new administration in Washington with regard to the possibility of crude oil storage in Canada using the Wabana facilities on Bell Island?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the answer to the last question I did have fairly extensive discussions with the new administration on that point.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House what those discussions were?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there was interest on the part of the United States officers and officials that I spoke to about

this possibility. There was agreement that there should be a committee of officials to examine the details of how such an arrangement might be worked out.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that in setting up the youth corps, the chairman of the national co-ordinating group of youth organizations had written to the Prime Minister and received a promise that before the youth corps was set up, the volunteer organizations in Canada would be consulted and so far they have not been consulted, is it the minister's intention to discuss this with this body of volunteer organizations?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to one hon. member opposite just a few days ago, I hope to be able to make an announcement along these lines in the near future and certainly volunteer organizations will be very involved.


Paul Wyatt Dick: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, as it is anticipated that only six per cent of people entering the youth corps will take the military option may I ask the minister if this is a firm figure or is this only the number that the military could absorb?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, it is an incorrect figure.


HARBOURS
Mr.   Claude-Andr@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Yesterday a group of hon. members from the Montreal area met the Montreal port authorities as well as the leaders of Local 375 of the Longshoremen's Association. It was indicated that the Cast Shipping Company might very soon be leaving for the port of Halifax, which would result in increasing the tax on cargo from $2.94 to $4.90 and would have disastrous effects on the future of the port of Montreal. Does the minister intend to intervene by suggesting that the government take over the $17 million debt incurred by the Maritime Employers Association?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we now have an observer present at meetings which are continuing in relation to the Cast-Maritime Employers Association dispute. It does seem to us that it is in the interests of
March 8, 1977

both parties to arrive at a settlement because from Cast's point of view it is likely the least expensive place for the business to be handled and, or course, the business and its income is important to MEA. Therefore, I am hopeful that a successful conclusion will be arrived at in the course of discussions which are going on.


SUGGESTED PROHIBITION OF USE OF SURPLUS FUNDS OF PORT OF MONTREAL TO DISCHARGE DEBT OF MARITIME EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, as much as the Port of Halifax would like to have this business, the hon. member is absolutely correct about the crippling effect it would have on the port of Montreal. What we on the east coast want is not business at the expense of another part of Canada but an assurance from the government that they will not use the surplus account funds of the port of Montreal to reduce a debt which, after all, is a legal debt contracted between an employer and its employees. To use the money in that manner would constitute, at the very least, an illegal act. What we are asking is that the minister will not even consider such a course but, rather, that he will issue instructions on behalf of the government that this is not to be done.


Otto Emil Lang: 1 pointed out in my earlier answer that I saw the question as one which does not even arise because of the mutual interest of the parties in arriving at a settlement. I should like to assure the hon. member with regard to his broad concern that the government will continue to act in an equitable fashion as between different regions and ports of this country.


J. Michael Forrestall: Could the minister give us some assurance that conversations are not taking place, and have not taken place, between the MEA and the National Harbours Board or any other group with respect to the use of that surplus account fund? That is a public fund.


Otto Emil Lang: We have only been there in an observer capacity in relation to the discussion on rates. The only mention of the fund I know of has arisen either in the press or in the questions asked by the hon. member.


GERIATRIC RESEARCH-REQUEST FOR SUPPORT
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the number of senior citizens relative to the work force is estimated to double in the next few decades leaving a smaller group of workers to meet the economic and social responsibilities, has the minister any plans to finance and fully support geriatric research to keep
Oral Questions
older people healthy and working longer years to help the economy out and lighten the tax burden on the family man?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I can assure the hon. member that I share his concern about this problem. As the hon. member has stated, it is one which has substantial implications for the future economy of our country. There have been and are presently studies undertaken on the strictly medical side of the question by the Medical Research Council and on the socio-economic side through Health and Welfare development grants. Funds are available for researchers who are interested in pursuing this matter. At the present time, there are discussions going on between the MRC and the Canadian Association of Gerontology as to how MRC programs could best be used to meet the needs of senior citizens.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Would the minister take up with his colleagues the establishment of incentives to encourage the urge felt by older citizens to keep on working when they are physically fit?


Marc Lalonde: I would certainly be happy to discuss this matter. We are at the present time examining the whole question of private and public pension programs and surely this is one aspect which should be looked into.


THE CONSTITUTION
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House from which of the provincial premiers he has received replies to his letter of January 19, 1977 regarding patriation of the constitution, and will he table those replies as he did his original letter to the premiers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am afraid I cannot answer that question without first making an inquiry. I believe one or two answers have come in but 1 am not certain if that is the total number. I know that two have come in because 1 acknowledged their receipt. I am not sure whether there are more. I would have to inquire. As to tabling them, I prefer to follow the usual custom of getting answers from everyone and tabling the answers together.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General in his capacity as deputy government House leader. Has a decision yet been made as to when the debate on the budget will commence, bearing in

March 8, 1977
Oral Questions
mind the fact that there might be some difficulty about completing it before a contemplated Easter break? If a decision has not been made, would the hon. gentleman consult with the government House leader and perhaps advise the House as to the results on Thursday?


Mr. Blais:: There has been no decision taken on that matter as yet. Representations are noted, and consultations will take place followed by an announcement in the usual course.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the growing concern in the pulp and paper industry in the Atlantic region because of the infestation of the spruce budworm, while it is recognized that there is provincial responsibility, could the minister advise the House whether any consultations have been held with the pulp and paper industry and whether any action is being taken by his department to deal with this serious problem?


Hon. Romeo LeBIanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, there was a meeting early in February with the representatives of six of the provinces to deal with this very matter. Some provinces, at that time, indicated their intention to go ahead and carry out spraying. Others did not. These are, of course, management decisions which the provinces have to take. The federal government is spending $3 million annually on research into the budworm problem and now there is co-operation with the United States government which recognizes the threat in the State of Maine and intends to spend sums up to $3 million in response. So there are good combined efforts going on.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would probably call for too long a preamble. Might 1, then, simply ask the minister if he has any idea when we might expect some answer to the problem of the Tyendinaga Mohawks on the Tyendinaga Reserve with regard to the Turrin-Penn lease near Shannonville?


An hon. Member:: Would you repeat that in English?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1 received a letter from the hon. member on this subject only yesterday and 1 will try to give him an answer by mail as soon as possible.


GUIDELINES CONCERNING USE OF BOXCARS WHICH HAVE CONTAINED DANGEROUS CHEMICALS
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns the dioxin poisoning incident which was reported last week. Would the minister tell the House whether he has asked his colleague, the Minister of Transport, why boxcars which have been reported as containing dangerous chemicals were not properly cleaned out? In particular, can he say why the boxcar which brought contaminated grain to Ottawa on February 8 was not cleaned out prior to the loading of grain? Would the minister tell us whether, following this incident, his department has set up any guidelines governing the use of contaminated boxcars hauling grain?


Marc Lalonde: Details of this particular incident, Mr. Speaker, are still under investigation. When all the facts are known appropriate action will be taken to ensure that such an incident is not repeated.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: My question is for the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. If I understood his answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre correctly, it would appear that the Export Development Corporation is putting up something like 95 per cent of the funds needed for the Federal Express Company to fulfil its order. Could the hon. gentleman tell the House if the other 45 or 46 orders that he claims to have received are based on similar financing by an arm of the federal government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker, there is only the order of the Federal Express Company which was presented to the Export Development Corporation; the latter studied it according to the usual procedure when dealing with foreign transactions; it came to the conclusion that this was the type of deal it could finance just as it does, every year, finance Canadian exports for hundreds of millions of dollars.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: My question is related to the one asked by the hon. member for Athabasca. I would like
March 8, 1977

to direct it to the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to the unfortunate accident where a container of the toxic insecticide, dioxin, contaminated a CN rail car which was subsequently loaded with feed grain and shipped to a feed dealer in Ottawa on February 8, 1977. Can the minister report what action he has taken to ensure that such accidents do not further jeopardize the health of workers, innocent participants, such as the dealer, the farmer and the food manufacturers and can he tell us whether they will be adequately compensated?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add very much to what has been said by my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. We are working very closely together on this. I think it is too early to say what the findings are, but I am assured that action will be taken, indeed has been taken, so as to ensure that this does not happen again. Tests are going on and we should have results later this week which I think will prove to the public that everyone acted in a proper manner.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also supplementary but is directed to the Minister of Transport and has to do with the dioxin incident in the city of Ottawa. The minister is no doubt aware that the dioxin got into the milk in Ottawa because a boxcar which was used to carry chemicals was only cleaned out in a very cursory sense and feed grain was then put into the boxcar. I should like to ask the minister whether or not it is now his intention to bring in regulations to ensure that deadly chemicals like dioxin, which is one of the most deadly known to mankind, will never be shipped in the same car as foodstuffs in order to avoid this very unfortunate kind of incident in the future?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the car in question was apparently cleaned in a way not related to the carrying of dangerous materials. The present regulations in relation to dangerous materials, under the supervision of the transport commission, do not include several chemicals of the family in question, and indeed neither do the regulations in the United States. When those regulations do apply, they require very thorough cleaning of cars which ensures against such problems; and of course following this incident, the issue is being reviewed in a desire to see whether these chemicals or others should be added to the list.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT TO GUARD AGAINST CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION OF FOOD
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which goes to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that we had two cases of very severe food contamination last month, first, the PBB's from Michigan and now dioxin, is the minister now giving any consideration to establishing within his department an environmental unit so that the reaction time to these incidents can be a lot shorter? In the case of dioxin it was four weeks before they were able to find the contaminated boxcars.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not completely agree with everything that the hon. member said, but we are well aware that some of these things are very hard to control. We are also well aware of the fact that use of the cars, and so on, should be properly defined, that is, the kind of material which may be put in the cars. Action has been taken, and even if there is suspicion that certain grains may be contaminated they have been destroyed. The department has been running tests on milk and dairy products. Milk has been detained and not allowed on to the market. We do not think at this time that there will be any trace elements show up, from the preliminary tests that we have already made. We are optimistic that no damage has been done, but this is not to say that we should not make sure that this does not happen. It should not happen, and I think somewhere along the line there has been human failure which just should not have occurred, that is all.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order concerns remarks made earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. All members of this House are well aware that the hon. member is known for a scrupulous, scholarly approach to factual matters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Only in rare instances does a lapse of judgment set in, according to which she systematically misinforms the House and leaves an impression that is 100 per cent opposite to that which prevails in reality.
In speaking to this point of order, I should like to say in a most serious way that she has maligned the former member for Vancouver-Kingsway who devoted almost her whole life to the preservation of civil liberties, and at a time when the present member's Liberal colleagues were systematically persecuting Japanese Canadians on the west coast during the second world war.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has risen on a point of order relating to a mistaken reference to the former member for Vancouver-Kingsway. Perhaps he should confine himself to that.
3754

March 8, 1977
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: This is precisely to that point, Mr. Speaker. The suggestion was made by the present member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway that a petition or a protest has been generated, on which is to be found the name of Grace Mclnnis, the former member for Vancouver-Kingsway. The suggestion was made that somehow this petition bore directly or indirectly on the question of separatist tendencies in the CBC on the one hand or, on the other hand, was devoid of specific references to the carrying out of the mandate of the CBC.
I want to suggest that the member has misinformed the House. The petition that she refers to did precisely what ought to be done by someone who is concerned about the CBC's mandate. First of all, the petition was presented to the present head of the CBC. It concerned regional programming in British Columbia and had absolutely nothing to do with carrying out, in a different context, the mandate of the CBC. Second, it presented fact after fact for consideration by the CBC. In short, it did not do at all what the Prime Minister has done in taking to the CRTC vague and undefined allegations.


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. First, I asked that there be an investigation both west and east, but if I may I would like to read part of a letter. I point out that I am indeed factual because I have before me a letter dated February 4, which is an appeal to every member of parliament. It is from the B.C. committee for CBC reform and I can table it. It says:
Dear Mrs. Holt:
You, as a representative of the Canadian people, have the power-and we are sure also the inclination-to institute a thorough investigation into the CBC. We welcome the initiative of Mr. Mitchell Sharp-
That is in relation to a previous request for an investigation.
-in finally bringing before the House on February 3, 1977 the question that has been bothering hundreds of thousands of Canadians: what has happened to that once great institution which was the CBC?
Some ten months ago a group of prominent citizens in B.C. got together to voice their protest with regard to the steady deterioration of the CBC which had been going on for several years, i.e. the loss of equity in both radio and television, the lack of concern for what the regions wanted, the lack of funding for any locally produced programs-
And so on. At the top of page 2 appears the name of Grace Maclnnis, former MP, Vancouver. Another well known name in the list is Sidney B. Simons, barrister. West Vancouver, another prominent NDP-er.


Some hon. Members:: More.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Regrettably, sometimes points of order are more fun than debates. The point of order is whether or not the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway had in any way misled the House in her intervention during the question period. This was contributed to by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and it seems to me that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has now amply laid to rest any suggestion of misleading the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I did not permit the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby to go further afield into other allegations. Neither should I now, I think, permit the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway to refer to other members who may have signed the petition or to other people whose names appear on it. The fact is that the only question which was at stake in the point of order was whether or not the former member for Vancouver-Kingsway had in fact added her signature to a request for some kind of investigation. I have no intention, under the guise of a point of order, to get into a debate on how widespread that investigation should be. I think the point of order solely concerns whether or not the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was accurate or inaccurate in telling the House that this signature was in fact on that kind of complaint.


Mr. MacKay:: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a point of order. I should like again to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council the extreme difficulty that I am having in getting answers to a number of questions on the order paper relating to Statistics Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the hon. member for Central Nova would raise that under Questions on the Order Paper, which I hope will be reached in a minute.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,055, 1,056, 1,267, 1,473, 1,475, 1,512, 1,549, 1,622, 1,711, 1,717, 1,729, 1,843 and 1,859.


Mr. Symes: 1.	Was a detailed outline of expansion plans for forest industry operations in Northwestern Ontario submitted by Reed Paper Ltd. to the Foreign Investment Review Agency at the time of the proposed takeover of Alpa Industry and, if so (a) what was the proposed acreage of cutting rights Reed included in such an outline (b) what was the total amount of new investment proposed (c) what was the proposal for (i) new plant facilities (ii) plant expansion and what was the dollar value in each case (d) how many new jobs (i) were to result from the expansion (ii) have resulted to date?
2.	What is the number of employees presently engaged by Reed as opposed to April 1975?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned: 1. At the time of review of the proposal by Reed Paper Ltd. to acquire control of Alpa Industries Limited, the agency received an indication
March 8, 1977

from Reed Paper Ltd. of an expansion of their forest industry operations in northwestern Ontario and in this respect negotiations were being carried on with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources for additional timber limits. The confidentiality provisions of Section 14(1) of the Foreign Investment Review Act preclude the agency from releasing specific details of the information submitted by the company at the time of review. Reed Paper Ltd. has recently advised the agency that the acreage for timber cutting rights is still being negotiated with the province of Ontario but, in any event, would not likely exceed 19,000 square miles. The agency has also been advised by Reed Paper Ltd. that its investment in the forest industry operations in northwestern Ontario would be in the order of $400 million. Between April, 1975 and October 31, 1976 the company increased its permanent work force in the region by about 100.
2.	Reed Paper Ltd. has also recently advised the agency that its total employment in Canada in April, 1975 was around 7,400 and at October 31, 1976 around 8,000.


Mr. Symes: 1.	Was a DREE grant of $237,745 approved for Dryden Paper Co. Ltd. operations at Red Lake Road, Ontario and, if so, how much had been paid out by the Department to date?
2.	Were ten new jobs to be directly created as a result of the DREE grant and, if so, how many have actually been created to date?
3.	What (a) is the total number to date (b) was the total number as of August 1974 of employees at Dryden Paper's Red Lake Road operations?
4.	Was a DREE grant of $805,273 approved for Dryden Paper Co. Ltd. at their Dryden, Ontario plant and, if so, how much has been paid out to date?
5.	Were 77 new jobs to be directly created as a result of the DREE grant and, if so, how many have actually been created to date?
6.	What (a) is the total number to date (b) was the total number as of August 1974 of employees at Dryden Paper's Dryden, Ontario plant?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. Yes. This offer of assistance was, however, withdrawn after the Dryden Paper Company Limited (now Reed Limited) advised the department that it did not intend to proceed with the project at this time. No payment was made against the offer.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Yes. Again, however, the department withdrew its offer when the company indicated that it did not intend to proceed with the project at this time. No payment was made.
5.	Not applicable.
6.	Not applicable.


Mrs. Appolloni: 1.	What is the cost of the Kit entitled "Sex Education" published by authority of the Minister of National Health and Welfare?
2.	Who compiled the list of contributors?
Order Paper Questions
3.	Who received contracts for the art work and graphics?
4.	By whom is Yon Van Berkon employed?
5.	Who requested the compilation of the "Sex Education" teachers' guide and by whom and to whom is it distributed?
6.	Under which vote in the estimates has payment of this project been authorized?
7.	Were the ministries of education of various provinces consulted with respect to production and distribution?
8.	Into how many languages has the Kit been translated?
9.	Have the private schools and/or their representatives been consulted with respect to production and distribution?


Marc Lalonde: 1. Cost of kit entitled "Sex Education"

A Teacher's Guide: Printing costs to date.-$23,500. (i.e., 6,000 units of 6 booklets in English and 3,000 units of 6 booklets in French.)
2.	The staff of the Family Planning Division, Social Service Programs Branch.
3.	Adimec Inc.
4.	Mr. Yon Van Berkon is self-employed. On this particular project he worked under contract to Adimec Inc.
5.	Compilation of "Sex Education"-A Teacher's Guide followed discussion initiated by staff of the Department of National Health and Welfare who consulted professionals in the field of family planning. Kits are distributed by the Family Planning Division to those outlined in part 7 and in response to requests.
6.	Operating funds of the Family Planning Division under Vote 45.
7.	The Family Planning Division has an established contact route with staff involved in family planning in the provincial health and welfare ministries. The kit, in its draft form, was viewed and appraised by various officials and professionals across Canada. The kits in final form were forwarded to these persons and to provincial authorities with a request that they contact the appropriate staff in their ministries of education. Provincial reaction is favourable.
8.	The kit has been distributed in both official languages.
9.	Yes.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Have projections been made as to the future need for (a) military (b) civilian personnel at CFB Gagetown and, if so, what are they?
2.	Is consideration being given to locating a tank squadron at CFB Gagetown?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. (a)
and (b). Yes. It is forecast that the following additional personnel will be required at CFB Gagetown by 1978: Military, 100; Civilian, 5.
2. Yes.
80010-3l'/2

March 8, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: Does CRTC follow any procedures for the investigation and suppression of programming unacceptable because of violent or immoral content and, if so, what are they?


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: The CRTC does not have authority under the Broadcasting Act to suppress programming. When complaints are received regarding the content of a program which has been broadcast, the commission reviews the program to determine whether a breach of the commission's regulations may have occurred.


Mr. Herbert: Has the government considered administering a programme of family allowances based on earnings of the previous year similar to the system used for payment of the supplement to the old age security payments and, if so, what is the estimated cost over and above the administrative cost of the existing family allowances programme?


Marc Lalonde: When consideration was given to the Family Income Security Program (FISP), the government looked at many options, one of which was to grant family allowances on the basis of earnings of the previous year, a system similar to the one used for payment of the Guaranteed Income Supplement in the Old Age Security program. However, when the government introduced the FISP legislation in the House of Commons in 1972, debate on the legislation was terminated with the close of the fourth session of the twenty-eighth parliament. The legislation was not re-introduced during the twenty-ninth parliament after consideration of arguments presented in the course of this prior debate.	________________________


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Anti-Inflation Board obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Board in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. (a) Yes. (b) No. From December 1, 1975 to December 31, 1976.
(>/	British Columbia	Part-time Employees [DOT]Man-Months 2.0(ii)	Alberta	-(iii)	Saskatchewan	-(iv)	Manitoba	0.5(v)	Ontario	255.7(vi)	Quebec	3.6(vii)	New Brunswick	-(vm)	Nova Scotia	-(ix)	Prince Edward Island	-(*)	Newfoundland	-' The personnel from private employment agencies were employed	
by the AIB at times when the particular urgent requirements of the Board needed additional administrative assistance. The term of employment varied from a few days to a few months, To determine the actual number of different individuals involved would require a manual review of the very large number of invoices involved from all the agencies. Manpower and financial resources are not available and therefore, the answer is submitted in man-months.
2. Employees were paid from the 1975-76 Supplementary Estimates and the 1976-77 Main Estimates.
3.
	1975		1976	
(a)	Average (c)	Amount (a)	Average (c)	AmountHourly rate	Paid	Hourly rate	PaidBritish Columbia	-	-	$5.32	$ 1,713.41Alberta	-	-	-	-Saskatchewan	-	-	-	-Manitoba	-	-	5.60	439.60Ontario	$5.88	$17,999.88	6.49	249,810.11Quebec	-	-	5.03	2,914.27New Brunswick	-	-	-	-Prince Edward Island	-	-	-	-Newfoundland	-	-	-	-
(b) The hourly rate paid to the employees of the agencies is not known to the Anti-Inflation Board.


Mr. Coates: 1. What is the total number of CBC employees, both French and English operations, radio and television, located in the Province of Quebec and what is
[Mr. Danson.)
the estimated payroll for the fiscal year 1976-77?
2. What is the estimated value of all property and equipment owned by CBC in the Province?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1.4,346 as of January 31, 1977. $72,454,029.
2.	$ 133,904,000 as of March 31, 1976.
March 8, 1977


Mr. Howie: For the year 1976, did the Department of Fisheries and the Environment have any student summer employment programmes in (a) Canada (b) New Brunswick and, if so, in each case (i) what were they (ii) how many persons were given direct summer employment and what were the wages (iii) what was the cost?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: (a) Yes; (b) Yes. (a)(i) In Canada the programs were: 1. The Career-Oriented Summer Employment Program (COSEP) administered by the Public Service Commission. 2. The Non-Career Oriented Summer Employment Program (NON-COSEP) administered by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, (ii) The following numbers of persons were employed in DFE: COSEP, 277 students; NON-COSEP, 220 students; Total, 497 students. The average wages were: COSEP $2,600.-NON-COSEP $2,056. (iii) The total cost to the department was $1,172,520. (b)(i) Fifty one COSEP students were hired in New Brunswick. (45 in bio-chemistry, 2 in applied sciences, 1 in administration, 3 in forestry.) 30 NON-COSEP were hired, (ii) As above, (iii) Total cost, New Brunswick, $194,280.


Mr. Howie: For the year 1976, did the Department of Manpower and Immigration have any student summer employment programmes in (a) Canada (b) New Brunswick and, if so, in each case (i) what were they (ii) how many persons were given direct summer employment and what were the wages (iii) what was the cost?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The Department of Manpower and Immigration has the responsibility for co-ordinating the planning, implementation and evaluation of the Student Summer Employment and Activities Program (SSEAP). Two programs, Canada Manpower Centres for Students and Job Exploration by Students are sponsored specifically by the department. The following table describes the number of students employed, their wages and the cost of the program for the seventeen SSEAP components for the year 1976:
	New Brunswick	Canada
Student CMCs		
Employment	42	1127Wages (000's)	$107.1	$2873.8Total Cost (000's)	$112.5	$3018.9Job Exploration by Students	Employment	101	887Wages (000's)	$43.5	$311.9Total Cost (000's)	$48.5	$360.4Total SSEAP Programs including Public Service Commission	Employment	951	23357Wages (000's)	$1193.6	$25989.0Total Cost (000's)	$1475.2	$30628.5
Order Paper Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE-SERVICE PERSONNEL


Mr. Herbert: How many service personnel are in each province and territory, excluding the National Capital Region?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Newfoundland, 742; Prince Edward Island, 1,004; Nova Scotia, 11,562; New Brunswick, 4,207; Quebec, 10,475; Ontario, 15,865; Manitoba, 3,903; Saskatchewan, 1,618; Alberta, 7,937; British Columbia, 8,211; Yukon, 5; Northwest Territories, 317.


Mr. Yewchuk: Has the Department of National Defence paid compensation to any individual, group or association, or to the Government of Alberta, for the lease of land for the Primrose Lake Air Weapons Range and, if so (a) on what date (b) to whom and by what method (c) in what amount?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes. (a) March 31 annually, (b) To the province of Alberta by Government of Canada cheque, (c) 1954-1974 $66,350 annually; 1975-1976 $307,600 annually.
NATIONAL REVENUE-TAX EXEMPTIONS Question No. 1.859-Mr. Huntington:
1.	What is the total amount of exemption claimed against income by taxpayers for dependants (a) other than spouses and children (b) other than spouses and children who are not resident in Canada?
2.	In the case of taxpayers claiming support for dependants (other than spouses and children) who are resident off-shore, does the Department of National Revenue check the validity of such claims and, if so, by what means?


Hon.   Monique@: 1. (a)
$128,863,000 for the 1974 taxation year, the latest year for which complete statistics are presently available, (b) This amount is not tabulated.
2. The Department does check claims for non-resident dependants. The claim must be supported by a completed declaration form. Evidence of the amount spent in support of the dependant must be provided. In some cases, claimants may be required to provide further information to substantiate the deduction.
[English\


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I notice that the parliamentary secretary did not enumerate questions which I placed on the order paper between November 1 and December 16 last. Not included on today's list of questions were questions Nos. 886, 975, 1,052, 1,053, 1,164, 1,358 and 1,380. Not one of those was announced. I have risen on this point of order previously. I do not want to delay or inconvenience the House, but 1 point out that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and I discussed this matter, as can be seen by reading Hansard, on November 1, November 8, November 15 and November 22 last, among other occasions. I ask the minister or the parliamentary secretary to undertake to

March 8, 1977
Order Paper Questions
answer those questions in ample time for them to be discussed before the Statistics Canada estimates are disposed of by the relevant committee.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce may well have some information to give the House on the point. The House should be aware that during the present session of parliament 1,999 questions have been placed on the order paper, of which many have been answered, including some relating to the matter to which the hon. member has just referred. I assure the hon. member, as I have previously, that we are endeavouring to provide, as quickly as possible, the rather complicated information he has requested.


Mr. Paproski:: Get with it, Ralph.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, may I speak on the same point of order. The hon. member for Central Nova asked some questions with great precision and particularity. Statistics Canada has prepared answers, with equal precision and particularity. I have signed, in my capacity as parliamentary secretary, that part of Statistics Canada's answer which relates to the responsibilities of my department; at least, it is in the process of being provided in order to be printed in Hansard.
Other parts, or answers, falling under the responsibility of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, with respect to the National Capital Commission, and under that of the Solicitor General with respect to RCMP investigations, are also to be provided. We are doing all we can to have those answers printed in Hansard by the time Statistics Canada appears before the committee. After the hon. member has examined the answer, and noted the particularity with which it has been supplied, perhaps he will see fit to apologize to Statistics Canada.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank both parliamentary secretaries for their information. If, and when, any apology is required I shall certainly not hesitate to make it. In the meantime, I hope the parliamentary secretaries will provide the information requested and proceed with more efficiency and dispatch than has been shown so far.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Edward Broadbent: That this House condemns the failure of the government to provide economic leadership and in particular its failure to introduce measures which will ensure economic growth and provide jobs for the more then 1,000,000 Canadians who need them; and calls upon the government, in its March 31st budget, to correct these failures by:
1.	establishing new direct job creating programs in needed social fields such as housing;
2.	reducing taxes for middle and low income earners; and
3.	assisting urban communities financially to ensure an immediate expansion of municipal capital works projects including rapid transit.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as the motion before the House makes clear, the Canadian economy, putting it briefly and accurately, is in terrible shape. Growth is almost non-existent, and as most in this House have finally realized, more than one million Canadians are without work. The situation is deplorable in terms of its effect on people. First and foremost, in Canada as elsewhere, ordinary people want to work, want jobs, want to contribute directly to the well-being of their families and communities. They prefer jobs to hand-outs: that is the human reality.
Second, the present situation is dangerously bad for the economy. Existing unemployment levels mean that we are paying some $2 billion a year in unemployment insurance and welfare; we are losing between $6 billion and $7 billion a year in production, since goods are not being produced; and we are losing at provincial and federal levels hundred of millions of dollars in taxes which would otherwise be paid by Canadians if they had jobs and were earning money with which to pay taxes. The result is that the rest of us, particularly middle and low income Canadians, have had to pay more taxes than would otherwise have been the case.
Bad though our circumstances are, it is important to know that the present malfunctionning of our economy, with its attendant high unemployment, is very bad for national unity. November 15 was the most important date in recent Canadian history. Its events were a sign of serious discontent in the country. But what they symbolized is not new. Economic grievances in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada have been building up for years: they have been ignored by the Liberals for precisely the same number of years.
Anxiety and conflict about the future of Canada are inescapably related to Canadians' sense of economic well-being, to their sense that our federalism is fair to themselves and their families, to their feeling that Ottawa, to put it bluntly, cares about them as people. How is it possible for young Quebeckers who are experiencing directly in their lives the reality represented in the statistic that more than 50 per cent of the new unemployment in Canada, as a whole, occurred in their prov-
March 8, 1977

ince alone, to feel an emotional commitment to the central government?
How is it possible for young men and women of Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, that beautiful part of our country, 70 per cent of whom were unemployed according to a survey done last summer, to feel emotions of commitment to their national capital and central government? How is it possible for the more than one million Canadians in the regions in virtually every province, Canadians without prospects of employment, to feel a strong sense of identity with their nation's capital?
In circumstances such as these there is a tendency for Quebeckers to blame English Canada, for Canadians elsewhere to believe that Ottawa does too much for Quebec, and for virtually all other provinces in Canada to resent the province of Ontario. These are the precise consequences that occur in a diverse and large country like Canada when people, wherever they are located, have the accurate perception that they are being unfairly treated by the central government.
The point is that a sense of economic fairness in life's opportunities is inescapably related to feelings of national unity. The point is that the Liberals have persistently ignored this and, in particular, have been responsible for the current disgraceful level of unemployment. We need a real growth rate of at least 5.5 per cent just to maintain current levels of unemployment. Surely that statistic itself should be of concern to all Canadians. Just to stay where we are, with more than one million people out of work, we must have a growth rate of 5.5 per cent and we are not getting it-and the prospects are not better, they are worse. In the last quarter of 1976 we had a negative growth rate of .6 per cent.
With the current policies of the government, real growth for 1977 is estimated to be only about 3.5 per cent. I ask hon. members to keep that in mind and relate it to what I said a minute ago about maintaining existing levels of unemployment, let alone improving the situation. If we have a growth rate of only 3.5 per cent, and we need 5.5 per cent to keep one million or fewer unemployed, the conclusion is inescapable and distasteful: unemployment in Canada will get worse, not better. It means that government policies, if they are going to reflect the concern about the unemployed and concern about national unity, will have to change fundamentally.
The budget that is to be brought down on March 31 should, in the view of the NDP, contain the following set of proposals. I put them forward not in a dogmatic sense, not with the conviction that they are the only approaches that can get us out of our terrible economic mess, but in the sense that the government must adopt measures like these, if not these precise ones, if it is to show the concern that is required about the more than one million unemployed in the country and the concern across the land to bring about some sense of economic justice in order to promote national unity.
We say that the government must move directly in terms of job creation, and I will make some specific suggestions. First, they should immediately reactivate the federal capital works
Economic Policy
projects set aside during the period of restraint, and simultaneously encourage the provinces and municipalities to follow suit. With more than 145,000 construction workers unemployed across the land-that is the figure for January, 1977, the most recent data-this move would not in itself be inflationary. If people are out there looking for jobs, you will not put more pressure on the job market by providing employment. What you do is to provide the jobs and stimulate the economy.
Second, the government should immediately expand budgets for low income and co-operative housing projects. Third, it should immediately expand to all of Canada the insulation program for houses and apartments now in effect in only Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. When the government lifted this particular proposal out of our suggestions ma'de last October, we were delighted that they applied to two of our eastern provinces this sensible and practical proposal. What we say now is that the government should go all the way in adopting a good idea and extend it to the remaining eight provinces in Canada. This program would not only provide jobs but also conserve energy.
Fourth, the government should immediately tell our municipalities that its 1974 election promise to provide $290 million in financial assistance for rapid transit will be implemented. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) said one day that it would not happen. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said to the House three days later that it might happen. Then we have the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), presumably going back to the position of the Minister of Finance, saying no, he does not think it will happen. We say that that promise made sense in 1974. It was a promise to do something to assist our municipalities in rapid transit. It made sense in 1974, and it makes sense in 1977. In addition to providing jobs needed in the economy, it will constitute a conservation measure to reduce our consumption of oil, a measure which is long overdue. It is the kind of concrete step in federal assistance in a serious conservation direction which is long overdue. These are four concrete suggestions for direct federal involvement in job creation.
In addition, we believe that other steps are needed, particularly in the fiscal area. We recommend an immediate tax cut for low and middle income earners. We recommend that a $1.5 billion tax cut be brought into force immediately, to be complemented by the abolition of the indexation system, a proposal of the Official Opposition which the government foolishly and erroneously adopted. The step we are recommending is to have a tax cut of $1.5 billion for medium and low income tax payers and to abolish the indexation system, which will save about $1 billion for the treasury.
The net result would be an infusion of $500 million into the economy for those who most need it. We are saying specifically that the tax cut for medium and low income tax payers should be in the form of tax credits, with more money going to lower income people and less to upper income people. We are recommending, for example, that those with a taxable income of $5,000 should get a $400 tax credit, those with a taxable income of $10,000 should get $300 tax credit, those with

March 8, 1977
Economic Policy
$15,000 should get $200, those with $20,000 should get $100, and those Canadians earning $25,000 or more a year should get no tax credit because they need nothing at this time in terms of a tax cut. Such a tax reduction would provide a badly needed stimulus to the economy and therefore would provide additonal jobs.
Earlier I indicated that I did not believe expanding by means of direct spending in the construction field would lead to further inflation. I said that this was obvious because there were 145,000 construction workers out of work. Let me add that the tax cuts which I am proposing would not be inflationary. I cannot understand the preoccupation of the Minister of Finance with the small "c" conservative economic advice that he is apparently getting which suggests that at this time there should be a trade-off between inflation and unemployment, and that if he stimulates the economy through tax cuts, there will be inflation.
At this time in the performance of our economy I suggest that that is nonsense, and I will tell the House why. At present, the manufacturing sector of the Canadian economy is operating at only 81 per cent capacity. That is an 11 per cent drop in three years. In 1973, stimulating the economy by means of direct tax cuts of the kind we are advocating could well have put inflationary pressure on the manufacturing sector that was operating at 92 per cent capacity, which was the case at that time.
However, now, when it is operating at 81 per cent capacity, stimulating by tax cut is not only the most immediate, direct way of creating jobs but it also does not provide any additional inflationary pressure on the economy. All that would happen as a result of such a tax cut is that existing plant, equipment and office space which is not being put to work now would become active, and idle men and women who are collecting unemployment insurance or welfare-or both-would have the opportunity to contribute some constructive labour to the community. That is precisely what we think ought to be done.
Having made these positive suggestions, I want to take this opportunity to say something about what ought not to be done. Given the past performance of the Liberal party, 1 am deeply apprehensive that it will move in the direction I am now going to discuss. Tax concessions to corporations are simply too expensive at this time, and more important and related to the argument, they would not be effective. Because of the high rate of unused capacity, tax concessions to stimulate capital investment would be ineffective unless they were so massive as to be a lot more costly to the government than other means of direct stimulation to create jobs in the demand sector of the economy.
Most economists are now agreed that tax concessions are not the best medicine at this time. That is not a view put forward exclusively by the New Democratic Party of Canada. As the C. D. Howe Research Institute said last December:
The case for additional tax concessions to boost investment in the short run is being considered mainly in the context of the weakness of this sector's contribu-
[Mr. Broadbent.J
tion to aggregate demand growth. But with the degree of excess productive capacity and the pervasive pessimism about the future that now exists, such concessions are unlikely to have as prompt, or as powerful, an influence on investment spending as some might think. Therefore, if a reasonably quick boost in demand is required, the chances are probably greater of getting it by stimulating private consumption.
In other words, by direct tax cuts to low and medium income earners who will almost automatically spend it. Let me add another comment from that category of economists who are not normally in wholehearted support of the kind of proposals made by the New Democratic Party. Mr. Bob Simon, director of taxation at Brascan, agrees with the argument 1 just made. Let me quote a succinct sentence which sums up his own argument. With reference to corporations he said: "People won't build until they need to". Unless there is a general, sufficient demand in the economy and a general, sufficient expectation that if businesses expand, their resources will be used, businesses simply will not act. This makes elementary economic sense. One would have hoped that the Liberal government learned this many years ago, and I say to the ministers who are here, for God's sake do not bring forward that kind of tax concession for corporations in the upcoming budget. If that is done, ordinary taxpayers will have to pay more as a result of corporations paying less, and we will not get additional jobs.
In addition to these short-run considerations, there is a great deal of evidence that tax concessions of the kind we now have permanently in place vis-a-vis corporations distort investment decisions by making the cost of capital artificially low compared with labour, and by favouring large, capital-intensive industries over smaller ones they in fact have an opposite effect to what is intended. Instead of producing more jobs in labourintensive sectors, from an economic point of view we encourage an irrational overinvestment of capital which leads to a reduction of jobs. That kind of long-range argument used to be made within the cabinet by Eric Kierans. I do not know of a present member of the cabinet who has enough economic and social sense to consider it. I hope someone is in there arguing, but I suspect there is not. On behalf of my colleagues, I repeat that argument today.
Beyond these important short-run steps of direct stimulation to the economy by job-creation programs and indirect stimulation by tax cuts which I have called for, we need a major long-run shift in policy. What we need is a commitment by the national government that a job should be available to every man and woman in Canada who wants to work. This goal is not the goal of the government of Canada, nor is it the goal of the government of the United States. It has never been a national objective of any government in North America. It is, however, the serious commitment of a number of social democratic governments in western Europe, and I suggest it is long overdue on this continent.
As far as we in the New Democratic Party are concerned, if a commitment is to be seriously made and seriously implemented, it would have to contain the following elements: first, we should have a full employment act passed in Canada. That act should recognize the right of Canadian men and women to
March 8, 1977

work. Full employment should be stated as a national and continuing objective. Second, and related to that, on an annual basis and as required by this proposed national full employment act, the government should have to bring before parliament its annual targets for job creation. It should set out in realistic terms the number of jobs it plans to create in a given year and in what sectors it is anticipated they should be created. Then at the end of the year the government should be obligated to review its own record of job creation, and those on the opposition side of .the House should be obligated to put the government to the test to see if it has lived up to its mandate.
Finally, as a further element of such a national strategy for full employment, the government should establish long-range targets. These targets should not just be annual; they should be for periods covering four to five years. On behalf of my party last fall I suggested that in realistic terms full employment could be achieved in Canada. I did not suggest it would happen next year or the year after, but perhaps four years down the road. It is as long and as serious a process as that, I am prepared to acknowledge; but we will not achieve it in this country unless the government commits itself to achieving such a goal and begins now to implement short-run strategies to bring it about.
Last fall we suggested that we could bring down the rate of unemployment 1 per cent per year over the next four years, so that in four years we would have an unemployment level not exceeding 3 per cent. That is virtually full employment when we take into account people who are voluntarily out of the labour market at any given time because they are moving, because they want a change, or for whatever rational, human reason. I repeat that what we need is a commitment of long-range proportions from the government of Canada to achieve a full employment policy.
In addition to the specific points that I think are necessary for long-range strategy, I would also assert that to give reality to this objective the government would have to develop the long talked about but totally ignored industrial strategy for Canada. Central to this would be development of a program for regaining Canadian control over Canadian industry. This is particularly important in the resource field where we must ensure that resources existing in Canada now and which are more frequently than not exported to the United States, Germany, Japan or some other industrial country, are kept at home for secondary manufacturing, processing and development. What I am saying is that an employment strategy that has as its objective the possibility of a job for every adult man and woman in Canada ultimately depends upon the restructuring of the economy and upon this government taking seriously the obligation of regaining control over our own economic destiny.
I have made some specific suggestions about what the government should do in the short run and in the long run. I say to the minister who is about to reply that we should have had a budget months ago to deal with our disastrous level of
Economic Policy
unemployment. I plead with him that when the budget comes down on March 31 it concerns itself with emphasis on job creation, that the proposals brought forward to create jobs will bear equitably on middle and low income people, and that it will be a first step to a long-run national commitment to permanent full employment.


Hon. Jean Chr6tien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, first I would apologize for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) who is absent today. He already had engagements in Washington and New York. He apologizes to the House for not taking part in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, inflation and job creation are not separate and self-contained problems. Responsible economic leadership has to take account of both problems at the same time. That is what the anti-inflation program is all about. The major goal of the government is to steer the economy on the path of stable and steady growth, not just for the next six months but for the future. We are a major trading nation; we have to sell abroad; we compete against imports in our own markets. We cannot adequately protect jobs or create new jobs for our growing labour force if our prices and costs are out of line.
The Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Callaghan, who leads a socialist government, recently remarked that governments cannot delude themselves into thinking that they can buy their way out of unemployment. Countries have to get their costs right. That is why that socialist government continues to grapple with an incomes policy and is forced to make massive cuts in public spending because the lesson has been learned too late.
This is increasingly understood by the major industrial countries. What we see in the world today is a careful balancing of the inflation and unemployment problems, a careful management of the recovery from the slowdown of 1974-75. Of course, this will require adjustments to be made to keep the balance. I will refer later to steps we have already taken. The Minister of Finance will decide what further steps are necessary in preparing his March 31 budget.
On the inflation front we have made a lot of important progress. We have had the increasing support of the country. We have also had the support of the provinces, including the New Democratic Party governments who have to live with the facts of life and the responsibilities of government. In fact, it is such a successful program that the last few weeks have shown that many Canadians do not want to see an early end to controls.
The government's view is well known. If we can get agreement about responsible behaviour in terms of wages and prices, then we can do without mandatory controls. That is the issue. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said, controls are a breathing space where we have to sort out, together, what is reasonable and responsible. We are working very hard at that process with business, with labour and with the provinces, and we are making good progress.
3762

March 8, 1977
Economic Policy
During 1976 the anti-inflation program worked well. By December, the year over year increase in the consumer price index was down to 5.8 per cent. The rate of increase of non-food prices is coming down, declining to 8.4 per cent.


Mr. Blackburn:: It had nothing to do with the A IB.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That point has been made many times, and I am glad the hon. member interjected. I would point out that in the food chain, prices at the farm gate are not controlled but from the farm gate to the market more than half the cost is controlled through the processing industry, the marketing industry, and so on. I have to agree that the AIB is not controlling the food industry entirely but it is doing so through the processing industry, the marketing industry and the transportation industry, and these account for more than 50 per cent of the cost of food. To that extent the AIB program does control food prices.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: What about beef prices? They went down without it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Food was not controlled, but food processing, transportation and marketing have been controlled.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: And imports?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: There was also a further moderation in wage settlements. Average increases for the first year of large contracts were 9.8 per cent in the fourth quarter of 1976, down from 12.7 per cent in the third quarter.
We still have some way to go. Our costs are still somewhat out of line, and that affects job creation and investment. We have to recognize that the majority of jobs in this country have to come from the private sector and the climate for investment has to be attractive in terms of costs. Curing inflation and creating jobs go together. Real wages increased around 4 per cent in 1976 due to the success of the anti-inflation program; labour's share of the gross national product increased; the share of corporate profits before tax declined from 11.5 per cent in 1975 to around 10 per cent in 1976. As the Minister of Finance has stated, getting investment in Canada moving is a priority and it is a priority because that is how new, permanent jobs are created.
While we made important progress against inflation in
1976,	we have already acted to strengthen the pace of the recovery, and the government will be taking what additional measures are necessary to support growth in the forthcoming budget at the end of this month.
In 1976, real growth in the Canadian economy was 4.6 per cent. Growth in other countries has been somewhat sluggish and this has affected us through exports. But the trade account is improving. There was a $1.4 billion surplus in January,
1977.	The decline in value of the Canadian dollar will be an important stimulus to exports, and 1977 promises to be a good year for exports.
I should like to talk about some of the points that the opposition made: for instance, that in the United States they

have had a program of stimulation of the economy. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, will bring in a new budget, but 1 should like to point out that since January 1, through indexing of personal income tax, close to $1 billion has been put into the pockets of Canadians because of exemptions being increased by 8.6 per cent. This is an automatic adjustment which is comparable to the measures proposed by President Carter of the United States. Indexing of the old age security will provide another $300 million to Canadian pensioners, many of them in the low income group. Indexing of the family allowance will put an additional $160 million into the hands of the Canadian consumer this year. On January I, through previous legislation, we cut the contribution to UIC by $250 million, which puts another-


Mr. Alexander:: Where is the bill?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not know if it is in the form of a bill or otherwise. 1 will not argue the legal aspects of it. In any event, it is another $250 million in the pockets of Canadian consumers. What I have enumerated to this moment is a stimulus to the economy of more than $1.5 billion since January through these automatic programs. On a per capita basis it is as good as President Carter has done to stimulate the American economy.
My colleague, the Minister of Finance, is working on a budget. I have had some private discussions with him. Of course, it is his responsibility to finalize the program. I am hopeful that it will be a good budget.
There is another aspect of the economic policies of the government that will help somewhat. There have been three reductions in the bank rate since January, from 9.5 per cent to 8 per cent. This will help the economy because it will be cheaper for Canadians to borrow money.
The leader of the New Democratic Party made a big pitch about housing. I would refer him to the facts for last year. In February the starts increased by 8.1 per cent to an annual rate of more than 287,000 units. Ten years ago the Economic Council of Canada predicted that there should be at least 200,000 starts a year. For most of the time in the past five years we have had above 250,000 starts a year. It is not perfect, but it is quite a good situation.
The hon. member talked about job-creation programs. I know that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), the manpower critic for the official opposition, will be speaking. I wish to advise him that in that field we have put forward some new programs since the beginning of the year. For example, we doubled the LIP program to a maximum of $200 million. 1 could elaborate on those programs but I do not want to take away from the speeches that my colleagues will be making later.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: How many permanent jobs have you created since then?
March 8, 1977


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, even if I take the place of my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), 1 would like to use these few minutes to comment on the situation of our economy and on the steps which are taken within the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to stimulate the Canadian economy.
Concerning export programs, every day in the House I answer questions showing that Canadian products are making an ever wider breach into export markets. As far as the province of Ontario is concerned, for example, again this week I heard representations from contractors who are going to present very soon to Venezuela an important plan to get the contract for the equipment and the electric controls related to the construction of a subway in Caracas. A few weeks ago Ontarian contractors were awarded two of the three contracts for the construction of the Caracas subway.
You know, Mr. Speaker, I visited Venezuela myself and, in cooperation with a group of Canadians representing industries from Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta, we made a proposal for the construction of a 700 kilometer railroad from Caracas to a western province in Venezuela, to introduce Canadian technology in that country. We made such considerable progress that we submitted the lowest tender. We expect to be invited soon to negotiate a contract with the government of Venezuela to carry out a part of this project.
I also want to answer the hon. member from Ontario who made representations as to how we stimulate employment in industry. I would like to tell him that only a few weeks ago, in Toronto, I gave supplementary credits to de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited to help convert the DASH-7-the STOL aircraft-into a patrol aircraft. I think the future looms great for this aircraft. Why? With the Canadian technology in this area, we are going to hit the market at the right time and this aircraft is going to consume much less fuel over fairly short distances than those jets we are using now. It is a short take-off and landing aircraft which I hope will make it possible to develop downtown to downtown services. We are now working in cooperation with the Department of Transport to implement a DASH-7 service between downtown Montreal and downtown Toronto and perhaps Ottawa. This aircraft is so advanced as regards elimination of noise pollution that it is not more noisy than a bus on a freeway, which means that the level of noise during take-off and landing is not essentially higher than that made by a bus. For instance, if one day we were to use the downtown Toronto airport on the island, the people on shore would not be aware of any take-off or landing. It is not more noisy than a Cessna, maybe even less. This is a Canadian technology which we want to promote and I intend to exhibit the DASH-7 during the Paris air show next summer and to travel in the near future to Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel. I have asked de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited to send the plane over there so that I can use it to show it to the authorities there because I believe Canadian technology can be very useful on markets which are presently developing.
Economic Policy
People wonder what I am doing. Someone in the House said earlier: Tell us what you are doing to protect the textile or footwear industry. Everybody knows that we have moved very diligently in this regard. Two months or so after taking over the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, we have imposed quotas on all imports because we felt we had allowed too many imports and that we were or would be losing a substantial number of jobs. Now, no later than today, I talked to the president of a large Canadian textile and clothing firm who said that the policy I have put forward about two months ago in this field had already resulted in increased orders.
I could go on like this, Mr. Speaker, in many other fields. However, I might talk for a few seconds, with your permission, about the famous LearStar jet project. I was asked questions in the House this afternoon on that matter. This is becoming one of the greatest success stories in the history of industrial development in Canada. Within three months, we have already sold 71 aircraft at a cost of some $5 million each. The prototype is not even completed but a combination of factors, the fact that it is a long-range plane with a range of over 5,000 miles and a fuel consumption of approximately two thirds that of competitive aircraft, the fact that the demand is greater for that type of plane since many air services have been discontinued throughout the world and executives feel the need to buy planes for their business trips, and also that we now have the expertise in Canada to build that plane, for all these reasons it is a very exciting program.
Today, less than six months after Canadair first became interested in that project, 60 orders with deposits have been placed and contracts signed. The tunnel testing is giving better results than expected.
I am informed that the sales committee set up by Canadair will probably result in the following situation: by the end of 1977, a total of 131 aircraft will have been sold, the minimum required for that project to be completely profitable. I only want to give you one example. By the end of this year, as I have just said:
We shall probably have 131 planes, the minimum number required to make the project viable. Just to show you, Mr. Speaker how these things work, I can tell you that when de Havilland developed the famous Twin Otter they had made 20 before they sold one; and the Twin Otter program has resulted so far in the sale of 540 planes. Compare that with the LearStar program. The success is unbelievable. At this stage, when we do not even have a prototype flying jet, we have already sold 79, and by the end of the year sales may well have reached the 100 mark.
So here in Canada, with the help of Mr. Lear, the engineering genius from the United States, we have been able to develop a concept which is extremely attractive and which puts Canada in the forefront of this high-technology industry around the world. I might add that of the 79 sales made so far, only two or three are for the domestic market. All the others
80010 - 32^4

March 8, 1977
Economic Policy
are for export. So we have a great advantage. This project is creating jobs in Canada and the high-quality finished product is being sold around the world. This is one example of the job of work the government is doing in an effort to maintain our capability in the field of high technology while increasing our exports abroad.
I could speak of many other things. The debate this afternoon is very welcome on the part of those who sit on the government side. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, will be presenting his budget within three weeks and 1 hope every member who takes part in the debate today will make a concrete proposal. Here is an opportunity for them to express their views. I have been assured by my colleagues that their suggestions will be carefully looked into. Of course, not all the suggestions we make-and here I include my own-are accepted in the decision-making process. But all of them will be considered by my colleague in the preparation of the budget.
In conclusion, may I say that of course we face many problems in Canada. Unemployment exists side by side with inflation. The leader of the New Democratic Party mentioned the situation in West Germany. I would make it clear to him that, like any other country, it is our desire to see full employment and I will never stop working toward that end as long as one man wants a job and is unable to find one. But it is not possible to compare the situation here with the situation in West Germany. In Canada since the war the labour force has increased by 150 per cent, while in West Germany there has been virtually no increase in the labour force. West Germany imports labour from Italy, Spain, Portugal, and so on. When there is a recession, those workers go back to their country of origin. This is not what we do in Canada. When an immigrant comes here he has an opportunity to settle permanently. We have welcomed a lot of immigrants to Canada.
We want to find a proper solution to our difficulties, but 1 would point out that some of our problems today are due to the success of the economic policies of the government in 1974 and 1975, for example. For 27 months the Americans were in a deep recession. Here in Canada there was not much growth, but there was some growth-.6 per cent in the first year I mentioned and almost 2 per cent in the following year. Last year it was 4.6 per cent. So it is difficult for us to show the same numbers as the Americans because of the catch-up on the American side. We had less to catch-up with than they did.
For the first time in the economic history of this country we find ourselves with less unemployment than the United States, despite the fact that winter conditions south of the border are altogether different from ours-though admittedly the difference has not been so marked in the winter we have just experienced. But in the last three years unemployment in Canada has been less than in the United States. When one realizes how closely the two economies are intertwined, it must be admitted we have done rather well.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Tell that to the one million unemployed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Well, I said a few moments ago that I would not stop working to create employment opportunities while there is one person in Canada who was looking for a job. In Canada we have tried to cope with some of these questions through job-creation programs. We have probably one of the most generous programs to alleviate unemployment that there is. Some critics of the government claim at times that our social and unemployment programs are so generous that a percentage of Canadians refuse to work because they feel happy with the level of support given by the government. I am just telling the House that we have done better than the United States, but we are not satisfied with the situation. We want to keep people working. The budget of the Minister of Finance at the end of the month will be another step in this direction.
May I say in closing that despite all of the problems we have in this country, I would not trade my nation for any other nation in the world.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I say I accept the minister's last statement unreservedly. 1 want to place some comments on record for the edification of my colleagues on the other side. First of all, I charge this government, notwithstanding what the minister has just said, with foot-dragging, procrastination and with callous disregard for the plight of the one million people who are unemployed, as well as for those who may soon join the same line. A budget is long overdue. It is inexcusable that we must wait until March 31. After all the hollering and screaming and concern which has been registered for months now, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) comes kicking and screaming and has now decided to give us a date.
Having said that, I suggest that in framing a budget the following priorities should be considered; a reduction in unemployment, with the emphasis on the private sector; an improvement in terms of return on investment and capital expenditures; a re-emphasis placed on the market system; an improvement in the competitive position of Canadian industry; an improvement in productivity, in business and in labour confidence; and an unwinding of controls-the last of which, in my view, is of extreme importance.
As has been stated by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Finance and the chairman of the AIB controls have, in effect, adversely affected investment, productivity, employment, business confidence, initiative and labour problems. In his statement before the federal-provincial conference on February 1 the Minister of Finance gave five reasons why the green light was on for decontrols. I want to put them on the record. He said in his speech:
First, the economic situation throughout 1977 and into 1978 looks relatively favourable for exit from the controls program . . . Consequently, the economic situation would appear to give us a green light for decontrol.
The second factor that must be considered is the state of expectations. It gives us a more ambiguous signal. . . The decline in inflationary expectations stems from the better price performance recently experienced, and the commitment of most of our governments to the anti-inflation program . . .
March 8, 1977

The third factor is business confidence. Corporations are finding the prices and profits regulations administered by the AIB to be burdensome, and there is cause for concern that firms may be holding back on new investment projects .. . But the existence of controls, and in particular, the apprehension that they may remain in effect for a long time, is an added handicap . . .
Fourth, a significant benefit which can be derived from the development of an orderly program for decontrol and the necessary post-control arrangements can be a renewed basis for constructive co-operation with organized labour. One aspect would be renewed participation by labour in the work of important boards and councils.
I suggest that needs no explanation. Then the Minister of Finance said:
Fifth, I should note the problems that will crop up as the expiry date of the legislation nears. As the anti-inflation program moves into its third year and as its expiry date comes closer, the enforcement of controls will become increasingly difficult.
Those statements of the minister need no further elaboration. I need only re-emphasize that we will be moving a motion around March 31 to the effect that controls should end. The date for this remains to be seen.
If I may deal specifically with the budget, I should like to put some points on record. My party would like to see in the budget the following provisions: first, recognition that permanent employment is created not by government programs but, rather, by strong economic expansion in the private sector; second, stimulation of the housing industry in terms of construction of homes which people can afford, and 1 underscore the words "which people can afford"; third, tax cuts for middle and low income earners, thus encouraging consumer spending. We have long called for such a policy.
Fourth, the introduction of special fiscal contracts with companies wanting to locate or lease new industries in underdeveloped areas; fifth, encouragement in the areas of research and development in order to protect the future; sixth, a definitive statement on decontrol and post-controls, thereby regaining the confidence of both labour and management; seventh, economic forecasts and targets dealing with growth, job creation, inflation, unemployment and government spending both in the short term and in the long term. By long term 1 mean about two to three years. It is absolutely ridiculous that at no time can we challenge this government's forecasts and targets except on a year to year basis. We want to see what the government is doing and how it is proceeding. Then last, but certainly not least, we want to see the government honour its 1974 election promises regarding urban transit which in effect would have conserved energy and created employment.
On reading the motion 1 am reminded of my leader's speech of February 10 on a motion that we put forward condemning the government's complacency in the face of economic stagnation. My leader expressed concern about the sense of stagnation that exists, blaming the government, as did others-and rightly so-for the stagnation caused by the government's refusal to give any priority to the need to stimulate economic growth and to generate jobs. He pointed out in no uncertain terms and with great emphasis, as reported at page 2924 of Hansard:
We have been stagnant too long. We have a country to build. We have jobs to encourage. We have great promise to achieve. It will not be done by the timid
Economic Policy
policies of this government. It will only be done if there is determination to realize the potential of this country.
The Globe and Mail, as far back as November 4, 1976, in its lead editorial painted a very vivid but very sorry picture as a result of the findings of the university of Toronto's Institute for Policy Analysis. I quote from its lead editorial headed "More jobless unless Ottawa acts":
If the federal government doesn't act quickly to stimulate new business activity and new consumer spending, unemployment will get even worse than it is now. There will be 868,000 Canadians out of work the year after next-nearly
200.000	more added to the existing host of unemployed in this country.
That's the alarming prospect held out in a study released this week by the
University of Toronto's Institute for Policy Analysis. It says Canada faces continued sluggish growth and even higher unemployment for the next few years "unless the government acts to revive the flagging private domestic sector".
The last paragraph of this lead editorial reads:
Timing is everything. And the time for a budget to provide the necessary nudge-a hearty shove, even-to the Canadian economy is now.
That was written on November 4, 1976, but could well apply to the budget to be brought in on March 31, 1977.
What does the NDP motion mean? It implies we are spending $4 billion on unemployment insurance, and rightly so. I say that in the sense that no one wants to be without income; yet no one wants to be unemployed or on welfare. But the unemployment rate is the result of this government's attitudes, of its bankrupt policies and programs which were a disincentive to work. As the NDP leader said, we are losing billions of dollars in lost productivity and millions of dollars in taxes, and high unemployment is contributing to national disunity.
I do not have time to deal with these points, but they are a fact. Thinking Canadians agree that large-scale unemployment is an indefensible waste of our most important resource-our human resource. Although the motion has merit, and I pat my NDP friends on the back, it lacks one vital ingredient. It does not say that the budget should reflect faith and support for private enterprise which can create jobs. When you mention private enterprise to my friends on my left they reply with a tirade of abuse, refusing to accept the much desired and effective role of private enterprise.
What is the reality? Mr. Speaker, permanent employment is not created by government programs; it is created by strong economic expansion in the private sector. As we look ahead to the balance of 1977 we must spare at least a moment to look at the year behind us. Most of us would say that it is thankfully behind us. If one stretched one's memory back to last spring one could recall prophecies saying the economy was pulling out of the 1975 recession and increased exports would sustain a Canadian economic boom in 1976 and 1977. The Minister of Finance foretold a growth rate of 5 per cent in 1976 and
250.000	new jobs for the unemployed. Things, however, did not work out.
We now know that the budget forecast missed the mark. I hope any forecasts the minister will make in his budget address on March 31 will not be as wide of the mark as the forecasts

March 8, 1977
Economic Policy
he made on May 25. Facing the mounting evidence provided by private sector economists, the minister conceded that the economy would not achieve its 5 per cent growth target. As for job creation, it appears that less than 85 per cent of the expected new jobs will materialize. Also, the unemployment rate, instead of holding steady, is slowly rising.
Although 1976 was a bad year, it may appear good by comparison with 1977. Even the Minister of Finance has shed some of his Micawber tendencies and admitted economic growth in 1977 is likely to be lower than in 1976. Economic and fiscal physicians, if I may call them that, warned the minister this would happen; unfortunately, he disregarded their advice. How much lower our economic growth will be is open to question. At least two internationally respected forecasting organizations predict that our economy will grow between 3 per cent and 3.5 per cent.
Forecasters indicate that job creation will proceed at an even lower pace in 1977 and the unemployment rate will continue a steady rise to more than 8 per cent by year end. The apparent presence of large amounts of slack in the economy will not create appreciable benefits in terms of price increases. Inflation rates may increase somewhat during 1977, rising to as much as 8 per cent. Both the OECD and the Conference Board suggest that the government's price target of 6 per cent for the second year of the anti-inflation program may not be achieved. This we understand; even the minister admitted as much.
Declines recorded for 1976 in the real value of business investment are likely to be repeated in 1977, and spending on new housing will contract after the 1976 boom. This anticipated decline in business investment in plant and equipment may be traced to a number of facts, including continued overcapacity, weak profits, uncompetitive exports, unhappiness with the government's mishandling of the economy, and uncertainty about the country's political future. The Conference Board forecasts that real business investment spending will decline by 2.5 per cent, or $670 million, in 1977.
Almost certainly this will not be a prosperous year for the one million unemployed, for those in disadvantaged regions where tens of thousands of people are condemned to chronic unemployment. It will not be a prosperous year for those leaving university, community college and high school, for their chance of finding a job is lower today than at any time since the 1930s. For them and many other Canadians 1977 will be a year of disillusionment, a year which may well leave lasting scars across our social landscape.
I resent very much the minister's relating our predicament to that of the United States and saying that things here are not too bad. How can you say that when one million of our people are out of work? They expect action. They expected it long before March 31. Canadians know from their direct experience that between 1967 and 1977 the Canadian economy performed poorly. They know that its performance during the period 1974 to 1977 was disastrous. But the government has taken no action. We hope it will do something meaningful on March 31. The Economic Council of Canada, the Conference
[Mr. Alexander.)
Board of Canada, the OECD and the University of Toronto Institute for Policy Analysis-all respected fiscal physicians- have noted the weak and depressed state of our economy and urged the need for stimulus.
1 read the editorial printed on November 4, 1976, and noted the financial position at that time. Noted authorities told us that we faced disaster, but the Minister of Finance remained silent, ignoring their advice. They told us about slow growth, higher unemployment, decline in business investment and decreasing export business. In the face of this, I submit the government should have brought down a minibudget to avert the danger of economic chaos. But no, that was beyond the comprehension of the Minister of Finance.
We need a new climate in this country, a climate of positive direction, of confidence in government policies, policies which unfortunately this government will not introduce. At present we are leaderless and rudderless. This condition reflects the government's bankruptcy and reflects our economic chaos. What has been the government's answer to date? Canada Works, Young Canada Works, and amendments to the UIC legislation. The government thinks it will save money by increasing the minimum work period from eight weeks to 12 weeks. Incidentally, where is that bill? First the government introduced it, then when Liberal backbenchers became nervous they did not proceed with it. I understand it is to come forward again. That is the government's "on again, off again" approach to this important legislation.
These programs are extremely unsatisfactory in their approach. It is an ad hoc, piecemeal process which makes mockery of a very serious matter. You are building up hopes and aspirations, but in the long run there is nothing lasting or meaningful in the types of jobs to which I have referred. Canadians need jobs. They demand that meaningful and lasting jobs be created. In my view, this can best be accomplished by the private sector through private enterprise. But what does the private sector say? I have here the pre-budget submission of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I have no hang-ups about the Chamber of Commerce. I believe they represent a very significant sector of the economy. This is what they said:
Business capital spending has been declining since the end of 1975, and the outlook is not encouraging. Business confidence is now at the lowest point in recent memory. The threat of aborted recovery, weak markets, a corporation tax structure that compounds the ravages of inflation, controls over wages and profits, and the stultifying effect of excessive government controls and regulations are all contributing to this serious deterioration in businessmen's confidence about the future environment for growth and development in Canada.
I believe that the health of our investment and capital markets is important for job creation and labour productivity.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.
March 8, 1977


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, 1 do not have much more to say, but let me put one more thing on the record. I hope my colleagues will not mind because it may take two or three minutes to read it, but I will do so as quickly as 1 can. It regards manufacturing. My friend to my left has indicated, as I do now, that manufacturing is in serious trouble. Canada's balance of trade in end products of the major commodity groups is in a serious deficit position, in the billions of dollars, which is affecting about 250,000 jobs. We know that the chemistry industry is operating at 83 per cent of its productive capacity, the electrical products industry at 81 per cent of its productive capacity, and the durable goods industry at 82 per cent of its productive capacity.
Let me put on the record what the president of Westing-house wrote to me, and I think to many hon. members. It registers his concern about the future of the electrical manufacturing industry in relation to GATT negotiations. He wrote:
We are the only industrialized country where provincial policies inhibit the national development of a secondary manufacturing industry that can be internationally competitive. Some provinces actively seek imports, others, in the thrust for industrial development, encourage further fragmentation of industry.
These circumstances cause two undesirable results. First, our markets are exposed to easy penetration by foreign manufacturers and, second, the relatively small and fragmented Canadian market cannot provide a sufficient base to make Canadian manufacturers internationally cost competitive.
The Canadian manufacturer pays the highest wages in the world, he pays relatively more for transportation due to the geographic distribution of the population, and despite the abundance of natural resources in this country he now pays world prices for raw materials.
In my view, the federal government has been most reluctant to address these problems, and, in fact, has aggravated them with its emphasis on broad international freer trade policies over the past decade. Pursuit of these policies has resulted in a worsening trade balance in every group of manufactured products and with all our major trading partners. The net result has been fewer jobs, lower investment and reduced output.
While this company supports liberal trade policies, it also believes that trade must be conducted fairly, without discrimination and with reciprocity. The realities of world trade in many electrical products are at variance with these principles. In every country where an electrical industry exists, actions have been taken to ensure its continuing viability as the technological backbone of those countries. Canada has taken no such action and, as a result, inroads have been made by foreign imports. Our trade deficit in electrical products has quadrupled over the last decade, taking an estimated 20,000 new jobs out of the country during that period.
There can be little question that in coming years Canada will have to rely to a greater extent on the goods producing sector in order to provide the job opportunities which will be demanded by the well educated new entrants into the labour force. For this to happen, we must recognize the need to preserve appropriate secondary manufacturing capability. It is wishful thinking that this country can accept a tariff cut in the order of 50 per cent on all its manufactured products without destroying much of the job-creating potential of this sector.
I want to thank hon. members for giving me extended time, thus enabling me to register my concern regarding the GATT discussions which will be taking place or are taking place. In conclusion, let me say that I hope, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) said, that the Minister of Finance will read the speeches made here today because I think-as a matter of fact, I know-that we in this opposition party have given him concrete suggestions. We have presented to him the priorities which he should be studying so as to adopt in his budget, if not all the proposals we have made, at least some of them so the we can provide long lasting and meaning-
Economic Policy
ful jobs not only for those who are presently unemployed, who now number some one million, but also for those who will join them unless a meaningful budget is brought down.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on this opposition motion which was moved by the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). This gives me the opportunity to follow up the excellent speech made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien). He has given us some background information on his strategy, but he has mainly dealt with the effects of the industrial strategy of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I was quite impressed by the success achieved by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in connection with the building of a subway in Caracas as well as a 700 kilometer railway line. If Canada is the lowest tender, this will no doubt mean more jobs for all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I was also very proud to be a Canadian when I realized to what extent Canada was in the vanguard in the field of aeronautics and job creation in manufacturing through the contract awarded Canadair for the production of 71 Lear-Star jets. In my opinion, this announcement by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce shows that the government is well aware of the importance of developing an advance technology industry, namely the aeronautics industry, in order to create an increasing number of jobs by manufacturing more of those products in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal especially with paragraph 3 of the motion regarding urban transit. Today, I would have preferred that we proceeded with consideration of Bill C-33, the purpose of which is to define the objective of the transportation policy and to authorize the consequential rearrangement of powers, and so on. I would have preferred to go on with the second reading of Bill C-33 concerning the new objective of the transportation policy for Canada so that it could be referred to the committee for clause by clause consideration; this would allow us to implement as soon as possible this legislation on transportation which all Canadians have long been waiting for. And as the former transport minister said, if the Department of Transport is really a mess, we should at least have the opportunity to define once again the objective of the transportation policy for Canada. However, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate concerning urban transportation and the role of the federal government within this service.
The growth of urban communities as well as the increasing number and use of cars certainly represent a serious problem for all governments not only in Canada but in the whole world. The mover of this opposition motion condemns the government for its policy concerning urban transportation. In my opinion, he should have been much more specific or else he should have given a clearer definition of the urban transportation problem. He should have tried to better focus the problem, in order to

March 8, 1977
Economic Policy
see, define and understand better so complex a problem as that of urban transport.
Public transport is closely related to the layout of cities. In some of them, up to 40 per cent of the land is set aside for transport. The problem therefore cannot be envisaged only in terms of those considerations and cannot be isolated from the other transportation systems: it should instead be integrated into them. To illustrate the extent to which public transit should be increasingly integrated, one need but study the situation that now exists in Montreal on the south shore and the north shore where it is essential to integrate public transportation.
In the light of that information, Mr. Speaker, one can conclude that rapid transit systems are primarily a provincial problem. Indeed, it is the responsibility of the provincial governments but, unfortunately, for too many years, provincial governments and cities have rather overlooked the problem, stressing private transport or the development of intracity expressways and throughways, or again intercity highways. Public transportation has been so neglected that today we have twice as much to do in order to provide Canadians with public transit that can at least compete with the other means of transportation. Provincial governments, and I insist on that, Mr. Speaker, have tended to show more interest in roads, superhighways for cars at the expense of public transit and other means of transportation, and that goes as well for cities as for the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the intervention of the federal government is justified because the provinces have given preference to public transport at the expense of public transport. We have not changed our minds and we still want to help the Canadians who must use a mode of transport in the evening or in the morning. All hon. members on this side of the House are aware of the importance of urban transit. Hon. members on this side of the House have certainly made the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) aware of this problem of public transport in the cities on many occasions, either at special meetings or at special caucuses.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members on this side also tried to influence the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) in order to obtain more money for public transport. All of us entirely agree that this is a very important matter and that we must make every possible effort, and even superhuman effort to help upgrade public transport in the budgets, considering the monetary situation and this very important service.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we should not believe that nothing has been done in the area of public transportation. I noted the speech that the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) delivered during the debate of March 3. If we were to consider every request made for money to be put in public transport, we would never see the end of it. The hon. member for York-Simcoe mentioned a budget of $200 million for the Toronto area alone. If we were to give the same or even more consideration to Montreal, the metropolitan region, we could not even set up a public transit system which we could rightfully expect. Therefore it goes without saying that

because of the inflationary situation priorities have to be established.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that we have done a great deal of things in that area. In cooperation with provinces and municipalities the government set up a development program, launched research work and granted a fiscal rebate of 12 per cent on bus purchases. For the province of Quebec alone this amounts to $35 million. For the City of Laval which also acquired buses it comes up to about $3 million. Then either through various methods, research, improved city planning or taxation, the federal government intervened to help the provinces and municipalities.
I should like to point out the implementation in Ontario, and more particularly in Toronto, of the GO-transit system which is now operated by the CN and whose costs are paid by the province of Ontario. The system is now working efficiently and I think that if the Montreal area is to benefit from an early solution to public transit difficulties experienced by CP on the south shore and by CN along the Lac des Deux-Montagnes from Montreal via Laval, the government of Quebec should consider the decision made by the Ontario government and apply an identical system which would be operated by the CN. Then I think that it would be an element of solution to the public transit issue and that could be done in the very near future. As of July 1, following an announcement by the CN the province of Quebec has to decide, after presenting its report on transit planning in the metropolitan area, what will be the future of the CN and CP in the Montreal area on the south shore as well as on the north shore. This is another way of helping municipalities and provinces provide local residents with better services.
At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned the growth of urban population. It is expected that, by the year 2000, 55 towns will have a population of 50,000 and that 23 of them are in Ontario and 13 in the province of Quebec. In other words, of the 55 towns which are expected to have 50,000 people in the year 2000, at least 21, representing a total population of 14 million, can be considered as part of a 700 mile long corridor stretching from Quebec city to Windsor. This will be a residential corridor, which brings me to say a few words about a newly established company, called Via Rail Canada. This CN subsidiary, which will be a management firm for passengers' services, will be responsible for the planning, marketing and provision of better passenger train services, within this Que-bec-Windsor corridor, which accounted last year for a potential number of 4 million passengers. An improved system will result in more milage per dollar and better accommodations for passengers, and, revised timetables will ensure a much more effective passenger service.
Mr. Speaker, I think I am not telling any member anything new when I say that CN and CP passenger rail services never were a business or an asset for those companies if one considers that passenger service last year represented only 3 per cent of CP's business figure and only 8 per cent of CN's and both CN and CP were piling up deficits year in and year out. In 1974, a deficit of about $25 million was recorded by those two
March 8, 1977

companies. Last year their combined deficit was about $32 million and following an amendment to the Railway Act in 1967 the federal government has been paying 80 per cent of both CN and CP liabilities from passenger service.
Consider that 80 per cent of liabilities are underwritten by the federal government. That amount last year was near $175 million, and it is estimated that unless changes are brought to the present situation a deficit of about $400 million will be recorded in the 1980's. Mr. Speaker, things should be made clear. The purpose of that CN subsidiary-Via Rail Canada- is not to compete with bus transport but rather provide passengers with a more adequate, much more comfortable service. That does not take anything away at all in terms of legal liability vis-a-vis CN and CP passengers. The formation of Via Rail Canada will bring about changes. We want to assure unions and employees that a program was developed whose main purpose is to provide a permanent job to those affected by the changes made in the railway passenger service system. Now we have assured those railway employees that a structure is now being set up to enable those CN and CP employees to find employment.
I wanted to indicate briefly how much we wish to improve transport conditions in municipalities as well as passenger trains. I want to assure all members in the House and the Canadian people that government members are so much aware of the importance of public transportation that we will have to obtain more funds. We are also aware of the fact that the government must make a choice and this is why we hope that the fight is not yet over, that it will still be possible to obtain additional funds for urban transit.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the motion of the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) which reads:
-That this House condemns the failure of the government to provide economic leadership and in particular its failure to introduce measures which will ensure economic growth and provide jobs for the more than 1,000,000 Canadians who need them; and calls upon the government, in its March 31st budget, to correct these failures by:
1.	establishing new direct job creating programs in needed social fields such as housing;
2.	reducing taxes for middle and low income earners; and
3.	assisting urban communities financially to ensure an immediate expansion of municipal capital works projects including rapid transit.
I think this is a true statement and that all members of the House view with alarm the staggering number of our citizens who are unemployed. The government figures show somewhere around 900,000; however, the leader of the New Democratic Party is no doubt much closer to the correct figure when he states one million, if we include those no longer registered for employment or eligible to receive benefits. Many people have probably given up all hope of securing a job through the Manpower office.
Economic Policy
In my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka it is taken as a matter of course that a great many men and women find it difficult, indeed almost impossible, to secure year-round employment. A great many used to be engaged in the lumbering business and during those years there was always a two or three-month period in the winter when lumber camps closed before the sawmills opened. This is no longer the main industry but, thank goodness, there are still some sawmills operating in the riding which provide employment in a great many cases for longer periods. There are small and large industries in the riding which provide some employment. The largest employs 200 people. That may not seem very large to giants of industry such as General Motors and Ford. During the winter months especially it is almost impossible for those out of work to get a job. A great many of our citizens are engaged in construction work and tourism, both highly seasonal occupations.
I just talked to the Manpower centre in the riding and was informed that at the end of February, 1977, 2,947 people were registered for employment. This compares to almost the same number in February, 1976, when it was 3,072. The figures cover Muskoka and the east part of the Parry Sound district. The Canada Manpower Centre in North Bay reports that at the end of January, 1977, there were 2,246 male and 1,506 female unemployed, for a total of 3,752. These figures cover North Bay, Sundridge, Nipissing, part of Parry Sound, part of Renfrew North and part of Timiskaming. The Parry Sound Manpower office reports 1,700 registered clients without employment.
The minister recognized the serious unemployment in my area and increased the amount available for LIP grants to $801,000, more than doubling the original amount. A further $192,000 has been approved for Canada Winter Works programs, and $72,000 for the Young Canada Works programs. It was mentioned that a total of $200 million has be^n allocated for the LIP program. While this is certainly a large figure, it is still providing jobs that are of a temporary nature.The money is certainly acceptable, but it is only a temporary or band-aid approach. When the programs are over, the persons involved are back on the unemployment rolls. I will admit that this usually happens in the spring; those temporarily employed on such programs during the winter months are for the most part able to find other work in the summer season.
To improve the economy of the area and of many other rural ridings across the country the solution is to assist them in attracting industry and to assist small business and industry already located there to expand. This can be done by providing funds for expansion and for working capital at better interest rates and over a longer period of time.
The opposition motion also recommends job-creation programs that include housing. The recent report of the Canadian Council of Social Development stated that one-third of all Canadians cannot afford decent housing because government aid programs are missing their targets. There must be an overhaul of Canada's housing policy at the three levels of government in order to provide more housing for those in the

March 8, 1977
Economic Policy
lower income brackets. When 280,000 families in Canada pay more than 50 per cent of their family income for housing, 500,000 families pay more than 35 per cent, 820,000 pay more than 25 per cent, and when two-thirds of those Canadians in need of housing cannot afford to buy or rent a home without government subsidy, we have a problem of tremendous proportions. We must take decisive action now or face terrible and unparallelled problems later.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) stated that during 1976 there were 287,000 housing starts. The government are to be commended for that. However, the great majority of those housing starts were for people in the middle income bracket. Those in the low income bracket could not qualify. At the present time only public housing is really answering the need of low income earners. This group suggests a better deal for non-profit and co-operative groups through subsidies and tax breaks, and directing government subsidies almost exclusively toward families at the bottom end of the housing scale. The villain of the piece can also be traced to the high cost of land and mortgage rates of interest. In order to further reduce the high cost of home ownership, our party would allow the deductibility from personal income tax of mortage interest payments on the principal residence. I have recommended that the government should permit the write-off of property taxes on the principal residence to a maximum allowable limit of $500 from personal income tax. At the present time this is an unfair tax on tax.
Consideration should be given to a more flexible National Building Code to'allow for regional variations. We also feel, and have advocated, that the 5 per cent federal sales tax on building materials should be abolished. This past year the government provided grants for home owners who had insulated their homes. I believe the figure is $300 for those who do the job themselves, and $500 if the job is contracted out. It so happens that those grants apply in only two provinces, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. It may just be a coincidence, but those are the only two provinces in Canada which have Liberal governments. I can assure the government that there are a great many areas in Canada where the economy is just as slow, the home owners are just as hard up, and there is as great a need for that type of assistance respecting insulation. I hope the government, in its wisdom, will see fit to extend this program. In my area of Parry Sound-Muskoka, and throughout northern Ontario, the climate is very extreme and insulation is very necessary. With insulation there would be considerable fuel saving.
It has already been pointed out that it costs 25 per cent more to live in Canada than it does in the United States. This applies to the cost of shelter. I think we can add another 25 per cent to the cost of living in certain northern areas of Canada. In the northern part of my province everything costs more. The people must pay extra costs over those paid in southern Ontario and other southern regions of Canada.
[Mr. Darling.)
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has finally announced his long-awaited budget for March 31. Let us hope that it will provide a reduction in taxes for middle and low income earners as requested in the motion we are debating today. It is absolutely necessary that the minister should come up with solutions and assistance to get people back to work on a continuing basis rather than the present hit and miss methods.
The leader of the New Democratic Party outlined certain credits at various tax levels. That is certainly food for thought and he is to be commended for it. Many urban communities, both large and small, are in dire need of financial assistance in order to proceed with necessary capital works projects. In Ontario alone, over 300 community arenas have been condemned as being unsafe. Federal assistance in this field would mean that many of these projects could be started immediately. The Ontario government has provided substantial and generous grants for these projects. However, many municipalities are finding it impossible to raise the balance through direct municipal taxation and private donations. Many towns and cities have building programs which are held up because of lack of funds.
It was suggested that the capital works program be reinstated. That is an excellent idea. I hope the Minister of Finance gives serious consideration to that suggestion. It was stated that at present there are 145,000 construction workers unemployed and receiving unemployment insurance benefits. I would assume that they are receiving the maximum benefit. If they were taken off the UIC rolls and put to work on these various building projects, it would be an excellent solution.
Our larger cities are very concerned about the lack of public transit. Metropolitan areas are crying out for federal money for rapid transit expansion. The high cost of gasoline and automobiles is making it necessary for the average working man and woman to leave the car at home and use public forms of transit. As hon. members are aware, the government placed an extra ten-cent tax on gasoline, which has been a great hardship to people who must drive to work each day-in many cases a good number of miles. In my own area many people from the small towns and villages commute to large centres such as North Bay, Parry Sound, Huntsville, Bracebridge, and Gravenhurst. Some of them drive as much as 100 miles per day. They are not allowed any deductions from their income tax for this purpose. This is discriminating when we consider that a great many taxpayers can qualify for business expenses. I am thinking of salesmen, doctors and many other people in the business world. These people for the most part have incomes much higher than the ordinary workingman.
I think of the people in northern Ontario, the area with which I am most familiar. Miners in the Sudbury area live considerable distances from the mines, sometimes 20, 30 or 40 miles away. Consideration should certainly be given to them. This applies even more to workers in industries which do not pay the high wages of INCO and Falconbridge. The industries in northern Ontario are resource industries. It would certainly be helpful if the federal government would provide additional
March 8, 1977

grants through DREE, and possibly other programs, to set up additional industries there to provide permanent, good-paying jobs to those who are now seasonally employed and find it difficult to obtain permanent employment.
I have to repeat what 1 have been saying in a great many speeches on a subject that is very dear to my heart, small business. Small business provides more than half of all the jobs we have in Canada. If we are to make any meaningful effort to tackle the present level of high unemployment we will have to look to helping this segment of our economy. In our system, whether or not the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) likes it, private enterprise can come up with better solutions to the problem of unemployment than the government. We must recognize this fundamental difference between our system and those of socialist or communist countries. In countries where the government owns and controls the means of production, distribution and merchandising, it stands to reason that the government will be the largest employer in the country. It is this basic difference that makes the present government's make-work programs inefficient and unsatisfactory in the long haul.
The millions of dollars spent on LIP and Canada Works will give temporary relief to a few thousand people, but what is really needed are long-term, career-type jobs which will allow workers to plan their lives just as we plan our own lives. Our people have a right to expect this. The hundreds of millions of dollars spent on ad hoc, make-work programs might better be spent encouraging business and industry to expand. We could use some of the money to encourage new businesses to be established. We now have a minister responsible for small business. While I have great respect for the hon. member appointed to that portfolio, I have to wonder if he is being given the latitude and support he will need if he is to make a meaningful contribution to this important segment of the national economy.
I have waited with a great deal of hope and anticipation to see if we are going to have a small business administration such as that in the United States to assist people in starting up in business, with both financial and informational assistance. A small business administration would enable prospective business men and business women to assess market conditions with respect to their product or service. It would not be possible to assemble all of the information one would need to establish a business, including up to date information in depth on the marketability of a product or service, without going to considerable expense. This information should be available from a central government source. Such an agency should be authorized to make long-term, low interest loans to businesses to purchase equipment and stock, to finance expansion and modernization and to facilitate the amalgamation of similar enterprises to form conglomerates or chains. It would also make capital available to people who want to start up a business or purchase or buy into a business.
Economic Policy
This agency that I envisage would have responsibility to study the different types of forms, reports and other kinds of paperwork that is presently imposed on small business people. The cost in time and expense to small businesses today just to keep up with the paperwork demanded by the government is causing businesses to fail every day. We simply cannot allow this pig-headedness and stupidity to threaten such an important segment of our economy. Much of the paperwork demanded of small businesses results from lack of co-ordination between agencies in government concerned with financial and commercial matters. It has grown unchecked through the years, and a large part of it is redundant and uneconomic. In many cases it is totally useless.
The whole body of Canadian business law needs to be overhauled, just as we have recognized the necessity to overhaul our criminal and civil law. It is ridiculous to pile still more laws and regulations on the body of law that is already stifling small businesses in Canada, which is in fact choking many of them to death every week. There are already so many forces in the market today mitigating against the interests of Canadian businessmen and exporters that we should be thinking of ways to help, rather than to hinder, small businessmen. We are no longer competitive in world markets, or even the continental market, with respect to a great many Canadian products. If businesses are forced to restrict their production and marketing to the domestic market, one already saturated with cheap imports, then it is small wonder that more and more small businesses are going under and that fewer and fewer are being established.
The complex tax structure small businesses have to cope with requires that even the smallest of them deal more and more with tax lawyers and accountants, neither of which come cheaply. We must seek ways to ease the tax burden on small businesses. If they thrive, we will more than make it up in increased profit taxes and taxes from the firms' employees. We would get increased production and a better level of services. If, on the other hand, we force businesses to go under, we get more and more unemployment and we reduce our tax base. We have a choice and we have the resources, but we have to make a decision.
There are other forces besides big government which work against the interests of small businesses. Small businesses, by their very nature, are unfavorable. They are vulnerable to pressures from big business and from big unions. They can be placed in an unfavorable or non-competitive position by the actions of big corporations. While we do have anti-combines laws which prevent such things as price-fixing, there are many ways, some of them subtle and some not so subtle, in which small concerns can be placed in an unfair position. They must have some avenue of appeal against unfair competition and business practices.
Small businesses and small industries are vulnerable to pressures from big unions, even more so than the larger corporations. For instance, while a man like Joe Davidson seems able to subject the Canadian people and the postal workers themselves to great losses in services and money, into

March 8, 1977
Adjournment Motion
the millions of dollars, on the pretext that the Post Office is not bargaining in good faith, we can survive these losses. Not so the small business or industry. Over and over again we have seen that one prolonged strike is all it takes to destroy a small firm, along with all the jobs that it once provided. Here again, employers must be guaranteed the same rights as the big unions and they must be afforded the same protection as the unions. They must have assurance that they can withstand the pressures, threats and actions that often accompany what would be normal and reasonable negotiations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stan Darling: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank hon. members for allowing me to continue. I shall be as brief as possible. I am making a strong appeal to the government to wake up and look at the options open to us, to make a meaningful attack on unemployment. Let us help the business and industrial communities to solve this problem for us. Short-term, make-work programs are necessary to some extent to ease the plight of those who are chronically unemployed. But we must also recognise that we allowed this situation to develop to its present state. Spending millions, or even billions of dollars of taxpayers' money will not provide a long-term, permanent solution to high unemployment, unless that money is put in the right place. Non-revenue projects cost twice as much as the original grant because once the money is gone, there is no return. We cannot afford to use this approach as the basis of the cure.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of the adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Transport-St. Lawrence Seaway toll increases; the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-Airports- Pickering-Government intentions with regard to construction; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnaty-shyn)-Administration of Justice-Use of writs of assistance.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Broadbent:
That this House condemns the failure of the government to provide economic leadership and in particular its failure to introduce measures which will ensure economic growth and provide jobs for the more than 1,000,000 Canadians who need them; and calls upon the government, in its March 31st budget, to correct these failures by:
1.	establishing new direct job creating programs in needed social fields such as housing;
2.	reducing taxes for middle and low income earners; and
3.	assisting urban communities financially to ensure an immediate expansion of municipal capital works projects including rapid transit.
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me this is a most appropriate time to be discussing such a motion as my hon. friend for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) has put forward. 1 say this in light of the fact that many agencies around the country are of the opinion that something more precise needs to be done with regard to reducing the level of unemployment. I agree with the previous speaker that a figure of one million unemployed is probably much more realistic than the figure currently provided. Like him, 1 find there are many in my riding who, although unemployed, are not registered with the Manpower office for employment. In fact, I would estimate that one-third of the unemployed are not registered.
The simple reason is that there is no work in the area; secondly, they have been unemployed for a considerable period. Their only solution is to move, and this they cannot do because of marital commitments. So there is a large body of unemployed who are not registered and are not taken into consideration by Manpower when deciding on winter works projects, LIP grants, youth project and other projects.
One of the things we fail to realize is that the government is the only body which is responsible for creating employment. It is easy for the government to put people out of work, and this government has done its very best to co-operate with the United States to leave the North American pattern unchanged without embarking on projects of its own which might solve unemployment in this country. The government decided, really, that the United States economy would be on the upturn in the last part of 1976, and it waited for this. It jointed in programs with our southern neighbour, but we have found ourselves in a worse position than the United States. Unemployment in this country is at a catastrophic level.
The government did embark upon a program which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in 1974 would not work. He indicated why it would not work and referred to the pitfalls that had befallen others who tried to freeze wages. He now
March 8, 1977

finds he has been proven corrected and that he is an able prophet. The Conservatives are now saying that the Liberals spoke against controls, that they then implemented controls and now look at the mess we are in. So the Prime Minister really has the worst of both worlds. He predicted that this would happen and he has now been proven right. One effect of controls has been to control only wages and some salaries. They have not been applied uniformly. Controls did not affect prices. It is of interest to note that a worker today can pay up to 50 per cent of his income for housing. Housing has not been controlled.
Interest rates today are the responsibility of the government. I was stupid enough, as were others in the House as well, to agree with officials who. told us that if we took off the ceiling on interest rates of 6 per cent, where it had been for years, it would create competition among the banks. It was the old, free enterprise idea that if there was competition interest rates would go down. Well, they sure went down, Mr. Speaker! In fact, they doubled, and in some cases considerably more than doubled so far as housing is concerned.
We have done nothing about interest rates. It is true that Canada is now in a very odd position. We have improved nothing and we find the value of our dollar going down. Our ability to borrow in the markets of the world is less than it was even a year ago. It will be difficult for the federal government and for the provinces to borrow money, all because the Prime Minister said he was the only one in this country who could unite the country. He now has us at the stage where there is some doubt that this can be accomplished by anyone; certainly it cannot be accomplished by him. Other countries are reacting to the situation and this is having an effect on our dollar. The cost to us is going to be very heavy.
What has happened to costs in this country? The AIB did nothing about energy costs or about medical costs. Really, it has done nothing about food costs. In fact, it did not do anything about anything, except to control wages and salaries. In the process it made business, management and labour very dissatisfied and cautious about any type of expansion in this country. The only body that can do anything about this situation today appears to be the federal government.
The federal government must do at least two things which are almost impossible to accomplish. Firstly, it has to establish some stability in our nation. This cannot be done by a referendum, by taking on "the enemy", or by somebody saying, "I am the only one who can be the saviour". This will have to be done with a great deal of co-operation, openness and willingness to negotiate. This certainly has not been the long suit of the present government.
Secondly, the government must do something about unemployment. As the previous speaker said, we have developed a number of ad hoc programs, though the government did not participate in the development of some of these programs. We have provided a sum of money for individuals and organizations if they come up with some kind of scheme. Such a scheme will be financed at almost the minimum wage in order to provide work for those who cannot find any other kind of
Economic Policy
work. But this has not done anything for the country. It is a stopgap measure, the kind of thing that has not done anything for the people involved.
As a rich country five or six years ago with a fairly high standard of living it was all very well to tell our young people to do their thing and we would finance it. But we can no longer enjoy that luxury. If we are merely supplying money today to provide minimum wages for people who in other instances would be on unemployment insurance or welfare, then we are not getting any great advantage and certainly there is no long-term benefit to the country. I can remember back in the fifties and even in the forties we used to talk about a shelf of works, the kind of work programs which the federal government would design and implement. The provinces would also design and implement such programs. From the federal point of view we even said we would be willing to accept projects which were designed and initiated by the municipalities.
We have come a long way from the day when the federal government was capable of designing make-work projects in this country, or when the provinces were able to design employment programs which were of advantage to the country, which created work that eventually led to full-time employment. All we are doing today is providing hand-outs. If you check, Mr. Speaker, you will find that this year these hand-outs had a lead time of about two weeks, or not even two weeks in most areas, from the time applications were made available to when programs were instituted at the municipal level and winter work was provided. It is a lousy program, the kind that will not provide any permanency of employment in this country.
What can we do? Last week an industry in my area closed because of the fight between Levesque and Trudeau, and the implications of that fight were noted on the money markets of New York.


Mr. MacFarlane:: Who started that one?


William Arnold Peters: It was started-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please! Would the hon. member please speak of the Prime Minister, and not refer to him as "Trudeau".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I apologize and stand corrected. I should have said that the fight was between the Premier of the province of Quebec and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau).


John Edward Broadbent: Whatever his name happens to be.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Isn't that interesting?


William Arnold Peters: My hon. friend says that is interesting. That plant had 200 employees, and it closed because its borrowed money was recalled. It operated with long-term loans of

March 8, 1977
Economic Policy
approximately $15 million from the Mercantile Bank, which in its turn is owned by Chase-Manhattan. The plant had borrowed about $15 million from the Japanese, and other amounts from ASARCO Corporation.
The company was operating and developing a fairly large asbestos mine. You may remember that the Premier of Quebec told his New York audience that his government was thinking over the asbestos industry in Quebec. Well, this company of which I am speaking owns a property in Thetford Mines and another in my area. I am told that on instructions of Chase-Manhattan, the Mercantile Bank called their loan. They called it, and the plant closed down that day. The hon. member opposite may laugh, but it still means the loss of 200 jobs.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I did not laugh; I did not even smile. Do not use words like that, I did not even smile.


John Edward Broadbent: You are smiling now.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: No, I am not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then it's your face.


William Arnold Peters: That company was affected by our country's difficulties. Now it is most difficult for that company to continue its operation. If the government wanted to help, it could have instructed Texas Gulf, the company controlled by Canadian Development Corporation, to look into that property to see if it can be operated successfully. The Japanese will buy our asbestos. I am pleased at the development in my area, especially since the company met Ontario's health standards for the industry. I want to see it continue in operation. But it can only stay in business if the federal government asks the Canada Development Corporation to take the company under its wing.
I suggest that CDC should also look into other companies in my area. I am thinking particularly of a large, modern sawmill built not long ago at Kirkland Lake and employing 200 people. The government sank quite a bit of money in this mill in the form of DREE grants. But it was stupid because it did not take an equity position in that company and others like it which had received DREE grants. Some of these companies go bankrupt; and although the government has pumped large sums into them it has no say about their operations because it was not smart enough to take equity positions in them. If it took an equity position, a government representative would sit on the board of directors. In this way the government could provide technical knowledge and access to funds to tide them over serious difficulties.
The previous speaker said that free enterprise can do things more efficiently than can Crown corporations. That is not so. We have helped almost every business which started in this country in the last four or five years; unfortunately we did not take an equity position in them.


John Edward Broadbent: Right on.


William Arnold Peters: Even the people involved in these businesses are happy to have the federal government as a partner. Why, Mr. [Mr. Peters.)
Speaker? They know the government will make available to them management experts, sales experts, and experts at raising money. I am sure the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) agrees that most industries we start in northern Ontario lack capital. Pretty well every one of those businesses is under-capitalized. For example, take the forest products industry.
We have in my area one of the most up-to-date little plants in the country. It produces flakeboard which is plastic covered and made into cases for stereo components for RCA Victor in the United States. It has been able to compete successfully with other companies engaged in the electronics field. I estimate the value of that plant at $9 million; I also estimate the capitalization at less than $2 million, and I am ignoring borrowings. Businessmen know that if you are under-capitalized to that extent, you are operating on bank loans, and banks will not carry loans indefinitely. If there is a drop in the price of the product, or a change in your rate of return, you must put new capital into your business or secure a large increase for your current revolving fund. This is true of businesses in northern Ontario, and equally true of those in northern Quebec. One hears almost constantly of businesses in those areas going bankrupt. What is the reason? They lack capitalization.
As the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka suggests, if we were to take the money we now put into make-work projects and apply it to the establishment of long-term industries in northern Ontario, we could create long-term employment for people now living from day to day, working short intervals, trying hard to work eight weeks in order to qualify for unemployment insurance.
We should enter fields others mentioned. I will not cover them in detail. Housing is a good example. Mr. Speaker, we do not need the kind of housing builders are building today. In Timmins, a mining town, there is a great surplus of housing, expensive housing which people working in the mines cannot afford.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to carry on?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I will end on this note: we need to examine our housing. I was speaking of Timmins. Not long ago I talked to one of the main contractors in that community and one of the leading real estate agents. He said that there is surplus housing in the community, but it is mostly of one kind. It is expensive. It is expensive because he must raise money to put in the sewers, water, roads, and other ancillary services which go into a subdivision. Mr. Speaker, we should provide municipalities with long-term money for picking up real estate
March 8, 1977

in areas not now under development. We should allow our municipalities to do some of that basic development. The municipalities could buy land with money provided for long periods at low interest. The interest cost on land is reflected in the purchase price of a house. I suggest that high interest on land costs and on the cost of services people must pay are not doing any good to the cause of housing.
Houses built for our underhoused population in this country should be low cost. 1 am one of those who believes that houses can be built at a reasonable cost and sold to those who want to live in that type of housing, if only the government would give the necessary leadership by enabling the provision of mortgages at a low interest, and giving the kind of assistance that is necessary to allow for a rapid expansion of the housing industry, which would have a spin-off effect on the lumber industry, the plywood industry, and other industries providing furnishings for those houses. In my opinion this will result in a greater rate of employment.
I would like to go on to speak about urban transit which should be improved in the city of Ottawa. I have in my pocket bus tickets that are two years old. They cost me four for $1. Last year they were three for $1, and this year they are five for $2. That is how quickly costs for transit are going up. One waits for a bus for a long time, and then it costs you 50 cents if you have a drop fare. It is just as cheap to drive your own car, but is it cheap for the nation in the energy that is used? Is it cheap for the city which has to build a new lane on the expressway because cars clog it in the morning? Our priorities are not very good. The forthcoming budget will allow the government to redeem some of the mistakes it has made over the last few years, but I hope the government will take full advantage of the budget to increase employment.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to make a lengthy speech at this time. I want to be associated with the last part of the motion relating to rapid transit, and in particular I wish to associate myself with the remarks made in the House in the debate on Bill C-33 by my colleagues, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) who spoke on March 2, the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) who spoke on March 2, and the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) who, in my opinion, made a particularly good speech on this subject.


John Edward Broadbent: What about all the members in the opposition and their speeches?


An hon. Member:: He does not want to be associated with them.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The whole question of rapid transit is one about which all of us who represent urban areas must be concerned. In my opinion the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Kaplan), in his remarks on March 4 in this place, offered arguments which were very unconvincing. He spoke about the need for conservation, but he did not deal
Economic Policy
with what is, in my opinion, the very important contribution in the form of energy conservation which is implied in the support of public transit. He spoke about the need for restraint, which I fully support without question.
In the debate in which we are taking part now we are offering some advice to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) in the matters that he might consider in his forthcoming budget. I sincerely hope that in considering the problem of energy, which the Minister of Finance must do, he will look at what must be done by way of encouragement of public transit and discouragement of the use of the private automobile and the unnecessary consumption of gasoline.
I do not know what are the costs in the budget of subsidizing gasoline or, shall we say, of maintaining a generally uniform price structure for gasoline from one coast to the other. My colleague, the hon. member for Laprairie, yesterday suggested in the House that they might be in the order of $800 million a year, but these must be very rough estimates. The sums of money are very large indeed, and what I and my colleagues are seeking, those of us who are speaking in support of urban transit, is a long-term view. We ask the government not to be penny wise and pound foolish, not to undertake policies that are for the day only and that, over a long period, will cost a good deal more in funds which could properly be spent on urban transit now.
I said that I did not intend to make a lengthy speech, but if I may, I should like to talk about what is happening in this city.
I noted that the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) referred to the bus fare structure in metropolitan Ottawa. I was an alderman on the city council for a number of years and saw the growth of what was probably a typical Ottawa suburb.
I represented on city council an area without a single apartment building. In large sections of the city there were almost only three and four bedroom bungalows inhabited by people bringing up their families in the family formation years. This brought a tremendous burden on the school system and led to an overbuilding of elementary schools in my part of the city. It distorted many of the priorities that a logical planning sequence would have indicated. My colleague, the hon. member for Laprairie, documented this very convincingly and eloquently in his speech in the House.
At this stage we have still the opportunity of putting forward some logical priorities in the field of urban transit, knowing that this is the only way, over a longer period, in which we can have a rational energy conservation policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I speak not only of the encouragement of urban transit-and I want to speak about the means which, I hope, will shortly be adopted by the government-but also of the discouragement of the private automobile. It is not an easy thing to be a member representing a constituency such as mine and to support a charge for parking by government employees in the central core of this city. This government instituted a charge for parking in the fall of 1974. I have had only one or two complaints about it. I expected a deluge of complaints, but

March 8, 1977
Economic Policy
the people I represent know that there must be a deterrent to the use of private automobiles. They know that the parking spaces they use cost the taxpayers money. They know also that it is infinitely better in every way if we can develop a good transportation system as an alternative.
I ask that the government carry the thinking a little further. The charges for parking should not only be at the central core of the city. I attended a community association meeting in my constituency last week at which the people there asked that charges be imposed at Tunney's Pasture-which is not really a suburb but at one time was considered a suburb-because they know now that the overuse of the existing parking facilities in that area creates a blight, a community nuisance, and is an inefficient use of energy. It pollutes the air, and is wrong in every way. The same can be said about Parliament Hill.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that you would convey to others associated with you in that office the need for a policy of charging for the use of parking on Parliament Hill. I am ashamed as a member of parliament to park my car on the Hill free of charge. My constituents pay when they drive their cars to work and park in the central area of the city, and I hope there will be an initiative from Mr. Speaker's office to bring about a re-examination of the policy of free parking on Parliament Hill for a chosen group. The policy is wrong, it cannot be defended in principle, and I will be delighted to pay my share of the charges which, I am sure, would be only right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I am glad to hear hon. members on the other side support this.
We have to live with the necessity for conserving energy. We have to live with the fact that we cannot go on with the balance of payments problem which energy will create for us to a much more serious extent every year. We have to set individual examples.
I had the privilege of serving as a member of the transit commission of this city for some time. I learned then what a sad state public transit technology was in. I went with other members to San Francisco where a major program involving hundreds of millions of dollars was being undertaken. Before making their decision they set up their own laboratories to test equipment. They were testing four types of direct current motors, and about three types of alternating current motors. The problem in technology was as basic as that.
The metro in metropolitan Montreal was a tremendous thing. It adopted a technology which is now generally considered to be obsolete. Rubber wheels were put on steel rails, and, so that that could be done, the stations had to be designed to use gravity braking. The city of Montreal is not in a position to convert that system to anything else now because it is locked in with it. However, had appropriate technology been used in this cold part of the continent we know so well, had there been leadership from the federal government and from provincial governments, and had there been research and testing projects,

the basic decisions could have been made with greater wisdom and knowledge.
On March 2 in this House my colleague, the hon. member for York East, outlined what is available by way of research and demonstration project assistance in Canada. This has been available since 1972-73. My colleague pointed out that over the first four fiscal years the great total of $1.25 million was paid out by way of federal grants for demonstration and research and for urban transit technology. I suggest that that is hardly something in which we can take a great deal of pride.
There are certain provisions under the National Transportation Act, but we are not debating that act at this point. I welcome what is being done, but it is grossly inadequate. There is an opportunity for us in Canada today to put our money where we have an urgent, crying priority, and to solve in a technological sense the problem of how to move people from city to city -commuter transit-and the problems of urban transit, moving people within cities. Canada can make a contribution with the knowledge, the skills and the technical capacity which are available to us. This could be of great assistance to us not only with regard to our domestic problem but also in developing export markets in other parts of the world.
During the course of the 1974 election campaign the party to which I belong made a very explicit promise in terms of the type of assistance which would be available. I believed in that promise. I believed it made a great deal of sense. It was a matter of very deep regret to me to learn recently that there are people in responsible positions who suggest that that promise cannot be honoured. I, for one, will do everything I can to urge the government and others in this place to support a policy of aid for urban transit as soon as it is possible to have such a policy.


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: First of all, I would like to commend the New Democratic Party because they put forward a motion today which condemns the failure of the government to provide economic leadership and in particular its failure to introduce measures which will ensure economic growth and provide jobs for the more than one million Canadians who need them.
Mr. Speaker, today's motion calls upon the government to correct these failures in its March 31 budget through three specific measures which read as follows:
1.	establishing new direct job creating programs in needed social fields such as housing;
2.	reducing taxes for middle and how income earners; and
3.	assisting urban communities financially to ensure an immediate expansion of municipal capital works projets including rapid transit.
Mr. Speaker, these three specific measures proposed by the NDP are most interesting and we would be hard put to find one member in the House who stands against developing our own resources while providing useful jobs to unemployed citizens who are deprived of any lucrative occupation. It is evident that establishing new direct job creating programs in
March 8, 1977

needed social fields such as housing represent a very valuable objective for us. But the problem is what kind of response this proposal will get from the government? It will surely answer that it has no money, that it has not the financial means to set up such programs with the limited funds presently available.
The same kind of answer will be given to any proposed reduction of taxes for middle and low income earners. Mr. Speaker, everybody agrees on the principle of the matter. In our opinion, our colleagues of the NDP did not invent the suggestion contained in the motion they put forward today.
Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit members have been asking for the same thing since 1962 and always the government, which at the time was led by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) answered that it could not reduce the income tax of people in the lower income bracket. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[ Translation]
Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, as I said before supper time, the socreds have been demanding since 1962 what is being proposed today by the New Democratic Party. The government at that time which was headed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) would readily reply that it could not reduce income tax for low income earners for the same reason given by this government today, namely that they did not have any money. The same thing occurred, Mr. Speaker, under the Pearson government and it is still the same now with the Trudeau government which claims it has no money, and is unable to reduce the taxes of low income people.
As for the NDP third proposal, I am pleased to point out that the development of urban communities through federal funding of public works is a matter in which social crediters have been interested for a long time.
When we suggest that public works sponsored by municipalities and provinces be financed through interest-free loans by the Bank of Canada, we bring forward a concrete and efficient way of enabling urban communities to acquire essential services without going into debt for thousands of years. We also know, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of that debt accounts for more than half of the budget of some municipalities. How can a city acquire the necessary services when half or more of its funds go to pay the interest on its public debt? It is obviously impossible. The proposal of our friends of the New Democratic Party to press the federal government into spending considerable sums of money for municipalities is certainly not the ideal solution. As a matter of fact, the only result of that solution
Economic Policy
would be that the federal government, instead of municipalities, would go into debt.
Mr. Speaker, the Social Crediters propose that municipalities get loans without interest from the Bank of Canada for their development. The Bank of Canada is the financial institution which must be the servant of Canadians. If this bank would lend the necessary sums in the form of new credits guaranteed by all our resources, municipalities could get on with the establishment of the necessary services without having to go into debt and get crushed by the cost of servicing the debt only. For all useful purposes, Mr. Speaker, the three specific measures put forward today by the New Democratic Party will merely be pious wishes as long as the government will not have money enough to realize all those projects. The NDP itself, if it were in power, could not implement the measures it is putting forward today, and we would hear the leader of the NDP complain about the lack of funds.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is no shortage of Canadians ready to work. There is no shortage of manpower. There is no shortage of skilled people. As we are all aware, we have the necessary engineers, architects, technicians to carry out all those ambitious projects which could make life easier for us both in our cities and rural areas, nor are we lacking materials, Mr. Speaker. We have steel, concrete, all the metals and raw materials required for the construction of rapid transit systems as advocated by our colleagues of the NDP. How come then, Mr. Speaker, there are so many idle hands in our beautiful and wealthy country? How come it is impossible to realize our main projects in the social sector? We always get the same answer: because there is no money. And our NDP friends do not even talk about this problem which is a basic one, the prime source of our present difficulties.
The measures proposed today tackle the symptoms, the obvious signs of the problem but they do not deal with its deep causes. We all recall the former leader of the Social Credit party of Canada, the late Real Caouette, who used to say that dealing with the appearances of the problem is like putting a band-aid on a wooden leg. As the former hon. member for Temiscamingue used to say so well, so long as we have not thoroughly revamped the economic and financial system we will continue to hear the governments say: That is a good idea but we don't have any money. What we are asking for, with our Social Credit economic reform, is simply that the monetary system reflect today's realities.
Everyone admits that it is not normal for the government to be paralyzed by a lack of money, while thousands of people would like nothing better than to go to work, creating services and goods of benefits to all Canadian citizens. Nor is it normal, Mr. Speaker, to see that, in spite of the fact that we have within reach the materials required to give the services asked for by municipalities and individuals, we are unable to act simply for lack of money. Yet, subway and railway services, to increase the speed of urban transports, are not built with dollars, but with such materials as steel, concrete, plastics

March 8, 1977
Economic Policy
and metals, and of course, with competent people, engineers, architects and technicians. And do we have all that here in Canada? What are we waiting for to put the financial system in line with reality? As long as we live in a monetary system that does not take into account the physical realities of the modern era, we will face that problem, we will discuss motions that are wishing thinking, and we will hear governments claim we are short of money. If the New Democratic Party is not prepared to propose a thorough reform of the financial and monetary system, it could at least propose some measures that might make it not so easy for the government to give us the same answer: We are short of money.
Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit party of Canada, of which 1 have the honour to be a member, has always included within its programme a clause recommending lowering the age of voluntary retirement to 60. As a result, not only do we support lowering the retirement age, but we press for old age security pensions and benefits under Canada Pension Plan that are high enough to guarantee the aged a decent living. Is Canada economically and financially able to meet the requirements of the motion now before us? The GNP is maintained at a reasonable level in spite of the increasing number of unemployed. They might contribute to increase the gross national product if they could use their energy to increase our national production, which would enable us to achieve the goal set out in this motion.
Mr. Speaker, one may also wonder whether Canada can financially afford such expenditures. As far as I am concerned,
I think that budgetary cuts are certainly necessary, particularly in connection with the servicing of the national debt. During the present fiscal year, the Treasury Board has to pay $4 billion in interests on the national debt, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) refuses to say to whom these interests are being paid. One only has to refer to the answer recorded in Hansard for February 1, 1977, in reply to a question No. 1389 put by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert).
The hon. member for Bellechasse was then seeking information which should be made available to all Canadians with regard to the total of the national debt. Who are our creditors? Is it a long or a short-term debt? It seems that we are always seeking information which apparently is never available. Interest is being paid and we cannot even find out to whom. There is money owing, but to whom?
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, to all such motions which have been moved since 1962, the government had always pleaded the lack of money. How is it possible to lack money when we do not even know to whom we are paying interest and owe money?
One other thing, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the government should develop as many job-creating programs as possible, such as LIP and Canada at work. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, an attempt should be made to keep the administrative costs of these programs as low as possible, so that the largest amounts possible will be appropriated for that purpose.
(Mr. Caouelte.)
Obviously many municipalities were able to establish services like recreation centres and arenas through LIP projects and this year's Canada Works. A few weeks ago 1 had myself the opportunity to participate in the opening of the Barraute arena in my riding, and that was done thanks to the jobs created by local initiative projects. And it is also because of the wonderful work accomplished by the municipal council of that town which achieved something very important for the people of that municipality. So I strongly encourage the minister responsible for those job creation programs to make all possible efforts to increase the funds available so that many more good projects can be implemented.
I wish to underline the fact that municipalities are now in a very difficult situation. Their revenues from land taxes are not enough to cover their financial burden. The interest on their public debts seriously affects their budgets. Again this week, Mr. Speaker, I met members from the Val d'Or municipal council who had to beg the Minister for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) to get credits to lighten the financial burden of their municipality through the financing of some services. Mr. Speaker, that is only one example of the difficult position of our municipalities throughout the country. It is clear that tailoring job creation programs to the priorities of our municipalities is a positive and efficient means to reduce their terrible burden.
Then I encourage this government to make every possible effort within the present monetary structure to give first priority to job creation programs to develop municipal services. Of course, it would be more interesting to see the government undertake a reform of the financial and monetary system but I think we cannot count too much on the present government to show leadership in that field. In view of the constant administrative blunders of this government, we are not too enthusiastic about seeing it launch into major reforms which would be beyond the competence of its members.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleagues for giving me these additional few minutes. I will not make ill-use of this time.
In conclusion, I would propose that we study the current situation in the province of Quebec, namely the election of the Parti Quebecois. We should be able to ask ourselves now, Mr. Speaker, if the unemployed would really have the possibility of finding work, of being useful to society, if the independence problem really became an issue in our great and beautiful country. I am convinced and so are all my colleagues in this House that if all Quebecers had a chance to benefit from new job creation programs administered by the government, they would not even think about independence and separation.
March 8, 1977


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to participate in this debate brought on by the NDP. 1 think that at this time it is worth reviewing the motion they have placed on the order paper.
That this House condemns the-failure of the government to provide economic leadership and in particular its failure to introduce measures which will ensure economic growth and provide jobs for the more than 1,000,000 Canadians who need them; and calls upon the government, in its March 31st budget, to correct these failures by:
1.	establishing new direct job creating programs in needed social fields such as housing;
2.	reducing taxes for middle and low income earners; and
3.	assisting urban communities financially to ensure an immediate expansion of municipal capital works projects including rapid transit.
One criticism that I should make is that the motion nowhere refers to the private sector. Business capital spending has been declining since the end of 1975 and the outlook is not encouraging. Business confidence is at the lowest point in recent memory. The threat of aborted recovery, weak markets, a tax structure which compounds the ravages of inflation, controls over wages and profits, and the stultifying effect of excessive government regulations are all contributing to this serious deterioration in business confidence about the future environment for growth and development in Canada. Unless capital formation is given every encouragement, workers will lose now through more unemployment and less productivity and they will lose in the future by being paid pensions of lower real value.
We are all aware that the private sector of the economy provides many jobs. Unless this area is stimulated we shall see unemployment levels rise even higher. My hon. friend from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) outlined the position of our party. As usual, he did a superb job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Elzinga: In the past little while our party has received a certain amount of criticism for not advocating policy. All one has to do is read the speech by the hon. member for Hamilton West. He has done a superb job of outlining the areas in which we feel the government should act. One thing that puzzles me even more than the criticism we receive for not advocating policies is that the governing party does not receive any criticism for not having any policy itself.
I ask hon. members opposite to tell us their policy with regard to the one million people who are unemployed. All one has to do is look at the immigration bill presently before parliament. What the government wishes parliament to do is pass the legislation so that regulations can be enacted by order in council. It does not wish to tell parliament or the Canadian people what those regulations will be in advance of the passage of the legislation. This can only lead us to believe that the government has but one policy, a policy of doing nothing and of securing its re-election at the expense of the expectation of the Canadian people.
Economic Policy
Turning to the motion, I wish to deal first with item number one which speaks of the establishment of new, direct job creation programs in social fields such as housing. Housing is at a critical stage. My first suggestion would be that interest payments on mortgages be tax deductible. I am sure this idea would receive reports from both sides of the House. Members of my own party and members of the opposition parties with whom I have had conversations have told me they would support such a move. The budget which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) intends to bring down on March 31 is the means by which to implement the proposal. Let us hope that in the budget we shall see something along these lines.
The motion speaks about establishing new, direct job creation programs. Let us hope any such programs will be more effective than those we have seen in the past. The minister recently announced the Canada Works program. In my opinion this program is nothing but a pork barrel for the Liberal party.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Shame!


Peter Elzinga: We see this when we calculate on a Canadawide basis the amounts received by Liberal constituencies as compared with the amounts received by Progressive Conservative constituencies and others. We find that the Liberal constituencies receive on an average in excess of $50,000 more than Conservative constituencies. If that is not pork barrelling I do not know what is.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense!


Peter Elzinga: All we have to do is look at two constituencies. First, the constituency of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) in Vancouver East. It is to receive $514,000. Now look at the constituency represented by our party whip, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski). It will receive $100,000. I am sure the unemployment rate differential is not so great as to warrant five times the amount of money going to the constituency of the Minister of Justice. If that is not pork barrelling I do not know what is.
Some time ago I asked the minister responsible for this program if he could explain the procedure used-the funding formula. Do you know what the minister said to me, Mr. Speaker? I asked the minister this question well over a month ago and he has not yet seen fit to reply. He has said absolutely nothing.
To deal with the second part of the motion, reducing taxes for middle and low income earners, I believe that taxes must be reduced for these people. A reduction in taxes will increase consumer spending, which at this point is what Canada needs. Canada's economic opportunities are in grave danger of being sacrificed to the apparent political opportunism of the Liberal administration. The economic situation is critical. Only by an immediate tax cut and an end to controls can unacceptable unemployment be avoided and economic growth restored. By delaying the taking of these needed economic initiatives, the

March 8, 1977
Economic Policy
Minister of Finance is depriving Canadians of potential jobs and of more secure prospects for defeating inflation, with the chance of real gain and wealth for all.
In postponing the removal of controls until 1978, when the minister himself admits that they could be removed now, he is adding to uncertainties about the economic future for both labour and business. If economic conditions are favourable to the ending of controls, there is little reason to prolong the dislocations which an extended controls program brings. Is it just a coincidence that the end of controls in 1978 will coincide with the year of a likely federal election?
Most economists agree that our economy urgently needs a tax cut to restore growth and to create jobs. Progressive Conservatives have argued for reduced taxes since May of last year, and the need is now critical. Instead of responding to economic conditions through a display of leadership, the minister was vague about the date of the budget until a few days ago. The fact is that it will take six to nine months before the effect of a tax cut begins to turn the economy around. To avert tragic levels of unemployment this fall, tax cuts should have occured this past fall. But the Minister of Finance did not have the foresight to make those cuts. Even if tl)ere is a stimulative budget on March 31, the good effects will not be felt until 1978. Meanwhile, according to the NDP's figures, some one million Canadians remain unemployed and the economy stagnant. Is it a coincidence, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has deliberately delayed the good economic news until an election year?
If I may deal with the third part of the motion, which refers to assisting urban communities financially to ensure an immediate expansion of municipal capital works projects, including rapid transit, during the 1974 election campaign the Liberal administration, when it was on the hustings, promised $290 million to municipalities for rapid transit. It is now reneging on its promise. I think it is imperative that there be this expenditure on rapid transit. Failure to implement this promise is causing disastrous effects on municipal planning in areas like Edmonton. Rapid transit would relieve congestion in large urban areas. It would stimulate jobs for the unemployed, and the long term saving effect in regard to energy consumption would be felt in such areas.
Again I ask, what is the Liberal government doing in this regard? Absolutely nothing. Now is the time to implement measures to ensure the availability of rapid transit. This administration promised aid to rapid transit in 1974 to the tune of some $290 million; to date this promise has not been kept. Had we in the Conservative party promised aid to rapid transit in that amount during the 1974 election campaign I am sure it would have soon been implemented. It appears to me that this administration is inclined to flip flop frequently. All one needs to do is to look at what members opposite said about wage and price controls which we proposed during the 1974 election campaign. They stated that they would not work. We were condemned by our Liberal opponents.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: They were less than honest.


John Edward Broadbent: They were right.


Peter Elzinga: In 1972 exactly the same thing happened. In that campaign we said we would index personal income taxes. We proposed modest increases for pensioners. Hon. members opposite did not like the idea of a modest increase for pensioners, yet immediately after forming a minority government they implemented what they had been campaigning against. And hon. members opposite wonder why we in the Conservative party are careful about bringing forward our policies. We want to make sure that if our policy is going to be stolen by the present administration it is correctly introduced, so that what the government brings in for the Canadian people is on the right scale.
Another suggestion of mine would be removal of capital gains tax on the farming population. This is one of the few ways in which individuals in rural areas can save for the future. So many of our farming population continue to invest while earning their livelihoods, and when they retire their only source of income is the revenue they receive from the sale of their land.
This capital gains tax also causes difficulties for them in other ways. If a farmer in my area were to sell a piece of property, he would have to pay capital gains tax even in the event that he reinvested in another piece of property. I sincerely hope that the Minister of Finance will take this proposal under serious consideration, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) said he would when he spoke in this debate on behalf of his colleague.
Another area I wish briefly to cover is the mail carrier service in Canada today. I am extremely pleased that within the constituency of Pembina there is the only area in all of Canada where the freeze on mail carriers was broken. For this I have to thank the then postmaster general, Bryce Mackasey, who gave us an additional five mail carriers for the residents of Mill Woods. There are other areas in Edmonton which deserve to have what Treasury Board term an essential service. All residents of Canada pay the same taxes according to their incomes, yet they do not receive the same services if they do not have available to them mail carrier service. As I said earlier, mail carrier service is termed an essential service by Treasury Board, yet this administration has seen fit to discriminate against a certain segment of our society in this regard. Let us hope that in the coming budget the Minister of Finance and the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) will make funds available to service all areas equally with mail carriers.
It is also interesting to note my good friend from Edmonton Centre recently sent out a questionnaire to his constituents asking them to share with him their various problems. On practically every second questionnaire returned there was a complaint having to do with the post office. It is interesting to note that the United States runs its post office department in co-operation with the private sector, and their budget has shown a surplus. The NDP, which is so socialistic, should investigate this area, because since the United States has involved the private sector in the operation of its post office,
March 8, 1977

the post office budget of that country has run at a surplus. Previously it had run at a deficit.
I hope the government will give high priority to legislation dealing with budgetary matters. The delay in enacting the May, 1976, budgetary proposals and the 10 per cent surtax announced in December, 1975, caused great uncertainty among taxpayers. Many taxpayers were forced to make decisions before the end,of 1976 on the basis of draft legislation which might have been amended before it became law.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That was an example of government bad management.


Peter Elzinga: I hope the Minister of Finance will abide by the priorities he spoke of when addressing provincial ministers of finance. According to the Globe and Mail of February 2, 1977, the Minister of Finance, speaking to provincial Finance ministers during the first day of a two-day federal-provincial meeting, said that the priorities proposed in choosing measures to stimulate the economy are to stimulate investment, to promote further improvement in the balance of payments deficit, to generate downward pressures on prices, and to relieve areas and sectors of high unemployment. I commend the Minister of Finance on those proposals. I only hope that he carries them into effect positively, and will so announce in the budget speech on March 31.
In closing let me again pay tribute to the hon. member for Hamilton West. He began our party's participation in this debate and did an excellent job putting forward our proposals for the forthcoming budget.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is he running for leader?


Peter Elzinga: I am sure the residents of Hamilton West are proud to have such a capable spokesman representing them.


John Edward Broadbent: You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You people are just jealous, that's all.


Peter Elzinga: As a matter of high priority, we shall devise definite policies to bring about an improvement in business confidence, a reduction in unemployment, a reduction in the rate of inflation, an improvement in the return on investment and capital expenditure, and control of public spending, which this government has not seen fit to do.


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


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. member who just resumed his seat did not want more time to speak. I see him shaking his head.
Economic Policy
I enter the debate this evening willingly, to speak on my party's most important motion. It deals with the economic condition of this country and the suffering of our people, suffering brought about because the government has failed to direct the economy adequately. I do not know if I will live long enough to see either a Conservative or Liberal administration in this country plan the economy. Those administrations seem to operate more or less on an ad hoc, day-to-day crisis basis.
When the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) spoke this afternoon on my party's motion he went to great lengths pointing out the accomplishments of his government in recent years. The minister is to be congratulated for being able to paint a rosy picture at this time in our economic history when unemployment is higher than it has been at any time since Statistics Canada began compiling unemployment data. If I am not mistaken, more people are unemployed today than were unemployed in the 1930's. All this reminds me of John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath", only we have no California valleys to which our unemployed can trek in search of work. The government forces them to trek to unemployment insurance offices, to line up, sometimes to complain they are not getting their cheques, although through no fault of their own they are out of work.
The government's record in recent years in providing economic leadership has been totally abysmal. The rate of inflation, as measured by the consumer price index, remains unchanged when the food component over which the AIB has little control is excluded. Today Canadians find themselves basically in the same economic circumstances they were in before the imposition of controls. Really, the only accomplishment of which the government can boast is that, since October, 1975, it has distorted collective bargaining and penalized unfairly some of the organized and most of the unorganized working people of Canada. That is about all it can boast about.
The New Democratic Party suggested as far back as the last budget that the swelling unemployment rate was a major problem to which the government should address itself. The leader of my party stressed in speeches across the country that it is time to quit viewing unemployment as just a statistical problem and to begin dealing with it in human terms. This government simply doesn't understand the misery caused to the one million currently without jobs or under-employed, in the sense that they can only work part-time, perhaps one or two days a week.
The government thinks that by having unemployed workers receive an average of $96 per week from unemployment insurance the problem becomes less serious. The payment is a palliative. If the French monarchy had introduced a program like this in 1789, perhaps it could have averted the revolution. The program is a palliative; it allows people to subsist, and takes away the urge to go to the barricades and tear down our buildings.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) is more interested in spending his time figuring whether 889,000 people are out of jobs, or if the figure really is 1,100,000. But he and his colleagues miss the point, that mentioning

March 8, 1977
Economic Policy
various figures will not alleviate the plight of people out of work.


John Edward Broadbent: Right.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has now said that he will bring down a budget at the end of this month. Although I do not know what the budget will include, I can say one thing. Certainly no budgetary measures to be introduced on March 31 will have any effect on people now unemployed. As the Minister of Finance well knows, budgetary measures can take between six months and one year to have impact on the economy. That means that we could wait for the spring of 1978 to see a downturn in unemployment rates. Of course what will happen depends on specific measures announced in the March 31 budget, but judging from past experience it is safe to conclude that not much can be expected from this government. It is always a few months late. It starts planning in March to relieve winter unemployment. Really, it just makes no sense. Its actions escape logic. The government has consistently paid lip service to creating jobs for Canadians; as we have seen, its achievements to date have been nil.
I will recall the May budget of last year when the finance minister said that the Canadian economy will generate more than 250,000 new jobs "this year". Previous ministers of finance used that kind of rhetoric. Creating 250,000 new jobs each year sounds noble enough, until you remember that in the past three years the labour force has grown at well over
300,000	people a year.
With respect to employment measures, the Minister of Finance in the last budget did not mention any moves the government would take to reduce the jobless rate. When I spoke in the last budget debate I said, if I may quote myself, that this government is resigned to going through the rest of this year with unemployment at about 7 per cent of the labour force. Obviously, I was mistaken. We now know that the government is resigned to 8 per cent unemployment, and next year the figure could be higher.
The main features of last May's budget were measures to increase the qualifying period for those on unemployment insurance. This is typical of the kind of economic leadership we have been getting from the government. Each time the unemployment rate goes up, the government toughens the Unemployment Insurance Act. The government believes that the number of claimants on unemployment insurance should remain static, regardless of what the actual unemployment rate is. Successive ministers of manpower and immigration have been heavily influenced by those in the country who see the increased costs of unemployment insurance in terms of more people ripping the system off. These people fail to realize that increased jobless figures will naturally inflate the cost of providing benefits to the unemployed. This is something I do not believe I have ever heard the minister say. I do not think he has the courage to say that.

Recent press reports have suggested that certain corporate leaders have asked the Minister of Finance to decrease corporate taxes as a measure to stimulate the economy. I only hope that this approach is rejected by the Minister of Finance. Past budgets should have convinced him once and for all that these types of measures have had a spectacular lack of success.
A former member of the Liberal cabinet, Mr. Eric Kierans, said last September that he doubted any nation in the world has given its corporate one thousand persons or industries a more handsome gift package of subsidies, tax allowances, two-years write-offs, cheap loans and the like than our present government. In view of this, and in view of the fact that past reductions in corporate taxes have done little to increase employment, the Minister of Finance should reject these pro: posals outright.
As I mentioned, previous actions by the government give little hope that any future actions taken by it will resolve some of our economic difficulties.
The New Democratic Party has laid down certain proposals which would lead to full employment. We know that this would not happen overnight, and we admit that, but at least we know that those proposals would lead to full employment. We know this objective of providing a job for each man and woman who wants one is not an objective of the government. The present economic situation attests to that. At the same time we know that the government does not have as one of its objectives the reduction of the inequality which exists in this country.
Figures on income redistribution released by Statistics Canada and published in the Globe and Mail on February 22 show that the poorest fifth of families received 7.1 per cent of after-tax income compared with 37 per cent for those in the top 20 per cent of income earners. The figures show that there has been little improvement in the inequality of income distribution during the past decade, despite all the programs of the government. The lack of economic leadership in Canada has left the poor in exactly the same position they were in ten years ago.


John Edward Broadbent: Marginally worse.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: And as my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), says, marginally worse. Many people are seriously questioning why, in a country as rich as ours, the unemployment rate is 8 per cent, and why no real efforts have been made to redistribute income. The simplest answer, to my mind, is that the present system confers many benefits upon a small segment of Canadian society.
With respect to unemployment, Robert Lekachman, a professor of economics at the City University of New York, said in a recent article in Harper's magazine that, and I quote:
. . . full employment is ihe most efficient agent of equitable income redistribution which is at all politically feasible.
March 8, 1977

It is for this reason that vested interest groups would prefer to have fairly high unemployment levels. Lekachman further stated:
During periods of high unemployment wages tend to stabilize or remain low and people, scared of losing their jobs, gripe less and even work harder.
Professor Lekachman continued:
During high unemployment periods factory and office workers, alert to potential lay-offs and plant shutdowns, are unlikely to nag unions to make work more interesting and less menacing to health and personal safety.
Professor Lekachman went on to say:
. . . the hunger of communities and regions for jobs and tax revenues has allowed large corporations to extort an endless assortment of valuable concessions either as blackmail to keep existing installations or bribes to lure new ones. Full employment, on the other hand would bring into the labour force men and women who now struggle on welfare and unemployment insurance. Full employment would push wages up for those who are now making less than is required to live on.
What Professor Lekachman was saying was that when there are high rates of unemployment it is beneficial to the employer because he can trade one worker off against another. That is a very important aspect of our economic system today with respect to employment and unemployment.
Professor Lekachman said that a long spell of full employment would substantially narrow existing differentials. The article went on to say that this is unlikely to occur, however, because, and I quote:
. . . These repercussions are severe enough to alarm gentlemen in their clubs and boardrooms.
This particular economist also had something to say about the nation-which this government accepts-that societies must choose between inflation and unemployment. Professor Lekachman destroyed the myth that there has to be a trade-off between employment and the price level. The Phillips curve- familiar to all economists-says that when there is high unemployment it is usually accompanied by low inflation, and conversely, when there is high inflation, unemployment is low. As we have seen in recent years, this is simply not the case any more. Our present rates of inflation and unemployment are both high, yet the Minister of Finance still carries on as though the Phillips curve is theoretically sound.
"Stagflation" is created mainly as a result of the concentration of market power in our society. Here again the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) acknowledged the effects of the concentration of power during his celebrated discussion two years ago, but to date he has done nothing to curb this concentration of power.
Full employment can be achieved without inflation provided effective and selective price controls can be administered. As we have seen, the government is committed to neither. That is why my party introduced this motion, and that is why I am speaking tonight.
I want to make just one or two more remarks before my time runs out. I assume that most hon. members, as I do, call back at night constituents who telephone their constituency offices. Tonight I telephoned a constituent whose wife works in a garment factory in my city of Brantford. Believe it or not, if
Economic Policy
an electric, automatic or mechanical needle goes through a finger or pierces a bone, the injured person cannot leave the factory for doctor's assistance until the end of his or her particular shift.
I was astounded when the person who telephoned me told me that if these employees want to get a glass of water, they have to pay five cents for a styrofoam cup into which to put the water. I wonder how many hon. members would say nothing if every time they went out to the opposition lobby or the government lobby to get a cup of coffee they had to pay five cents. Even on our earnings I wonder what they would say. Hon. members can imagine what these people think when they want a glass of water. I am not going to mention the plant, and I am certainly not going to mention the employee because she would be very conveniently laid off at the end of the week if I did. However, this astounded me.
Why is it then, we ask ourselves, that some people do not want to work in some jobs when they have to pay a lousy five cents just to buy a styrofoam cup so they can get a glass of water? This is the kind of thing we have to clear up.
I support the motion. The government will probably come up with a few goodies on March 31.1 understand there is some movement afoot to put on a full scale TV extravaganza so that the minister, with his few little goodies, can go across the nation into everybody's living room, and people will think it is just great, they are televising the debates in the House.
Let me tell you one thing. Budget debates come, budget debates go, and today we have still-in fact 1 should not say "still"-we have more than one million Canadians out of work.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, 1 know honourable members will agree with me that housing is a social concern, and that the need of all Canadians for affordable housing suited to their needs is a subject which is most appropriate on an opposition day. I want to thank members of the NDP for bringing this subject up because it gives me occasion to bring forth, as parliamentary secretary, some of the things which the department has been doing.

1 think that one of the important roles of the government in the housing sector is the help they can provide to influence the production and the distribution of housing units according to the needs. This was one of the great priorities of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs last year. I think we were quite successful in shifting the production of housing from high-cost to moderate- or medium-cost units. We tried in particular to stimulate the construction of moderate-cost housing.
We have been trying to convey this message for over a year at the federal level. We forecast that we would have a demand-oriented market and that purchasers would be interested in moderate-cost housing. We had warned the residential construction people concerned that those who would do business

March 8, 1977
Economic Policy
would be precisely those who would sharpen their pencils and start producing for the market of moderate-cost housing.
We told anyone interested that federal support was concentrated on good housing at moderate prices, and this is where we operated, Mr. Speaker, namely in the area of the Assisted Home Ownership Program.

Although our activities in the housing field have been designed primarily to ensure that Canadians remain among the best-housed people in the world, we cannot overlook the stimulus effect of new construction on the economy of the country, and on employment, as I shall outline in a few moments.
Hon. members will recall that in November of 1975 the minister responsible for housing at that time, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson), introduced a series of measures designed to meet the demand for more affordable housing and to assure an adequate level of new production. These measures were incorporated in a four-year strategy known as the Federal Housing Action Program. We set a target of one million new homes to be produced by the end of 1979, to fill an estimated need based on known demographic and other factors.
The first year of the program proved to be successful even beyond our expectations. We had set a target for 235,000 starts, and the industry, responding in important measure to the stimulus of the Federal Housing Action Program, produced more than 273,000 starts-a volume that was greater than during any other year in the country's history.
One of the most important features of these initiatives is the revised Assisted Home Ownership Program, better known as AHOP. In effect AHOP assists home buyers by reducing the initial effective interest rate to eight per cent, as long as the new dwelling falls within established maximum price ceilings. These maximums naturally vary from region to region to stay in line with local market conditions for modest housing.
AHOP harnesses private capital in that first mortgage loans are made by approved lenders at market rates. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation then provides an interest-reducing loan, in the form of a second mortgage, which results in an effective initial mortgage rate of 8 per cent. This rate graduates upward to market rates during a five-year period.
It is important to keep in mind that for the first five years of this mortgage-reducing loan, interest does not accrue. Interest starts in the sixth year, and the repayments on the loan begin the seventh year. This unique procedure allows a Canadian to buy a new home on the basis of future income growth, which is of obvious importance at a time when house prices have escalated so rapidly.
There were many aspects of last year's housing production that provide encouraging signs for the future, and the results of AHOP were among them. The home buyer interest in AHOP confirmed our belief that people want good, moderately priced housing, and will buy it when it is made available.

Starts under AHOP went beyond expectations, with some
37.000	approvals. Most significantly, about 60 per cent of the
64.000	NHA-approved loans for new home ownership were for units below the AHOP price limits and therefore qualified for the interest-reducing loan.
We were most pleased that we were able to announce yesterday that the Ontario Home Ownership Made Easy Plan has been integrated into AHOP to offer increased financial assistance to a wider range of lower income Ontario home buyers.
Now, in Ontario, qualified purchasers who take the maximum AHOP federal assistance-which is the interest-reducing loan plus a subsidy of $750 in the first year of ownership- may now apply for an additional grant of up to $750 from the province. This integrated plan will reduce minimum annual income requirements for qualified Ontario purchasers by as much as $2,500 below existing levels.
Another feature of the federal action program is the Assisted Rental Program, which is also known by its initials- ARP-which was introduced to encourage the production of moderate cost rental accommodation.
As hon. members well know, for some time there has been a serious shortage of affordable rental accommodation in most urban areas of Canada, and rental units produced in recent years have not been sufficient to ease the shortage. At the end of last year, the vacancy rate in Canadian urban areas stood at a very tight 1.3 per cent.
CMHC assistance under ARP is designed to ease the builders' cash flow problems during the early years and provide a reasonable return on equity so they will be encouraged to produce more badly needed apartment accommodation.
The results under the first year of ARP operation was an increase of 15 per cent in rental production over the previous year, to 88,600 apartment units. We expect to see more rental construction this year, now that builders are aware that they can realize a fair return from rental units put up with the assistance of ARP. We anticipate an easing in the rental vacancy rate this year, partly because of an expected increase in apartment construction, and for another reason as well.
Residential building activity was at a high level as we turned into 1977 and, in addition, the volume of approvals for new construction towards the end of the year was at an almost unprecedented level. Inventories of newly completed units will therefore be high during most of 1977, and much of it will be in multiple unit dwellings.
At the end of January, for example, there were about 19,000 newly completed but unoccupied housing units in Canada. More than 11,000 of these were multiple-unit dwellings.
A large number of these multiple-unit dwellings-about 60 per cent-will be for sale as condominiums, and the rest will be for rental, but in either case, the primary market will be people who are now renting accommodation. This is expected to free a significant number of rental units in urban centres, and assist in easing the vacancy rate.
March 8, 1977

Although we tend to emphasize the need for new housing, which is obviously our first consideration, we cannot overlook the continuing importance of conserving present stock-particularly in the older areas of our towns and cities. A home that is preserved and restored, and given at least an extra 15 years of life, is just as useful as a new home, although it will not show up in the statistics on starts. I can recall a favourite expression of the former minister of urban affairs. When he used to attend our briefings he would come in and say, "A save is a start". I think that is a pretty good cliche.
The Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program-better known as RRAP-provides financial assistance for the restoration and repair of dwellings in designated areas. Last year the popularity of this program went far beyond our expectations. We had budgeted for $60 million for RRAP-four times the budget amount of the previous year-and even then we began to run out of money in September. More funds were channelled into the program to meet immediate requirements. For this year a total of $107 million is available for RRAP, which should go a long way toward meeting requirements.
I am pleased at the enthusiasm shown for this program, because in cities and towns across Canada there are many fine homes that can readily be preserved. By doing so, we not only retain needed housing stock, but help preserve the character and dignity of older areas in our cities and towns.
RRAP in itself creates excellent employment opportunities, as hon. members can realize when they consider that about 15,700 houses were rehabilitated under this program last year, thereby creating a good demand for local trades and encouraging seasonal employment. This year we expect an additional 22,500 housing units will be restored under RRAP, providing even more employment opportunities.
Federal housing activities administered through CMHC cover an extremely wide territory. I will not take the time of hon. members to go into further detail on individual programs, but I think it is important in the context of employment creation to realize that residential construction creates jobs directly, through manpower needed in the building trades, but indirectly as well, through businesses that cater to homeowners, such as appliances and furnishings. We cannot overlook, either, the manpower needs of firms that provide the infrastructure, building the sewers, the drains, and filling other servicing requirements.
I have spoken today on only a few of the recent initiatives of the federal government in the housing field, but I have deliberately not touched on one of the most important mandates of CMHC, which is to provide suitable housing for people who require the most help in obtaining shelter, the poor, the sick, the elderly, and others who cannot sustain themselves without assistance. All hon. members are so familiar with the programs that provide assisted housing-directly and in co-operation with provinces, municipalities and non-profit organizations-that they do not need to be reminded of our extensive activities in this field.
Economic Policy
1 should like to mention, though, that the thrust of the federal housing action program was to utilize private capital rather than taxpayers' dollars in the production of residential housing, allowing public resources to be used directly on behalf of Canadians in greatest need, those who are socially and economically deprived.
The federal initiatives in housing have had a significant impact on employment, an impact that cannot be measured in its entirety because it reaches into so many fields. We do know, however, that the federal housing action program meant at least 35,000 additional jobs in Canada last year-jobs that would not otherwise have existed in residential construction and in all of the businesses and industries affected by housing. Further, it is estimated that the four-year program will involve more than one million man-years of employment.
I do not think there can be any doubt, Mr. Speaker, that federal initiatives in the housing field are not only meeting the real needs of Canadians for good, affordable housing, but continue to create a large volume of productive jobs while, in general, adding stimulus to the economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate tonight and will centre my remarks around the second section of the motion before us which refers to reducing taxes for middle and low income earners. The people who fall in that category as much as any other class of our society are the farmers of Canada. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has set out the position of this party very clearly and has mentioned our hopes for what will be contained in the budget of March 31.1 wish to elaborate on only one point, the capital gains tax as it relates to the farming community.
Time and again I have put forward proposals to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) that would help alleviate the crippling effect of the capital gains tax on farmers. This has come into sharp focus in the riding I represent and in the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk. The reason is that there has been a large land assembly program undertaken by the provincial government which has purchased sites for a satellite city in the former township of Townsend and in the former township of South Cayuga.
In addition, farm land has been taken over by three important industries which have placed themselves in the centre of a rural farming community. Stelco is moving its plant from Hamilton to the south shore of Lake Erie; adjacent to that Texaco is building its largest oil refinery in North America, and Ontario Hydro already has the largest thermal station in Canada located in this area. As a result there has been a great demand for land, and thousands upon thousands of acres of farm land have been sold. At this point farmers came to the full realization of the crippling effect of the capital gains tax.
Let me show by actual example how this works. The selling price per acre of farm land in the general area I speak of was $2,000. The V-day value set by the auditors or the land appraisers of the Department of National Revenue was $300
3786

March 8, 1977
Economic Policy
per acre. That means a total capital gain of $1,700 per acre, half of which, $850, is taxable. The average size of a farm is 200 acres so that means a capital gain of $170,000. If we take a farmer who makes about $10,000 a year and add that, we are talking about a taxable income of $180,000. The rate of tax will then be determined by the tax bracket which is appropriate. The result is devastating, and dozens and dozens of farmers have come begging for advice on how to survive.
The problem usually arises with the determination of a fair V-day value. It is determined largely by the appraiser sent by the Department of National Revenue, and unfortunately most of them have learned their jobs from textbooks and have no farming experience or background. They do not know the real cost of operating a farm, or what is the value of the land. If the farmer had foresight he had the land valued before December 1, 1971, so he knows what the V-day value is-providing the land appraiser he hired is acceptable to the Department of National Revenue. If he and the department cannot agree, he can approach the tax appeal court-where he is confronted with the same land appraisers hired by the Department of National Revenue. Finally he can go to the law courts, and of course this costs money. In my area some farmers band together and share the legal costs of a test case on the capital gains tax.
What options are open to the farmer faced with this problem? If he is on the edge of retirement or can retire and sell his farm he looks to the proceeds as his retirement pension. It is traditional in farming circles for the proceeds of the sale of the farm to provide the retirement pension or superannuation for the farmer. Over the years he has not had sufficient income to make an annual contribution to a pension fund. Therefore he follows the course I have just mentioned. Every cent earned by the farmer has gone toward improving his farm for the time when he will sell it.
What other option is open to him? He can sell the farm, as I suggested, and set up a pension fund. He has no opportunity to establish a registered retirement savings plan in addition to the one I mentioned. He has to struggle for efficiency in order to survive in this day of rising input costs for farmers. He takes all his profit, loans and mortgages in order to modernize his farm buildings and buy equipment, trying to keep pace with rising farm costs and the need to be more and more efficient in order to survive. Everything he has is tied up in his farm.
The capital gains tax is enforced in the case I mentioned and the figures I quoted. It leaves the farmer with no pension except the paltry benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. This is especially true if he has used the proceeds of the sale to purchase another house in which to live out his retirement. It is a sad situation.
One option open is to retire. If he is young, middle-aged or less, and wants to buy another farm, what happens with the capital gains tax? He may not really want to retire or sell his farm but is forced into it by the threat of expropriation. He would rather stay where he has farmed all of his life. Being

forced to sell, he expects to use the proceeds of the sale to pay for a new farm and relocate there. Again his hopes are dashed for the reasons 1 have mentioned.
Capital gains goes to our revenue offices across the country. The cost of relocation requires a heavy mortgage again. What really happens is that at middle age or later he has to start again to build up a farm. It is grossly unfair.
So much for the problem, what about the solution? One answer, and I proposed this many times to the Minister of Finance, is that there be a once in a lifetime exemption for the sale of a family farm without attracting capital gains tax.
In 1970 and 1971 when the tax reform legislation was being debated in this House of Commons, we in this party argued forcibly and logically that farms be exempt, period. The government was adamant, saying they must be taxable for capital gains. It continues to hold that position to this day. It did make one small concession. The tax department agreed that a sale of a farm from father to son, where the farm would continue to be operated as a viable farm enterprise, would be exempt.
I personally made the proposal that there be a once in a lifetime exemption on the sale of a family farm. I would include in that an incorporated farm enterprise where the holders of the shares of this company are father, son, mother and other members of the family. This would permit retirement with dignity on a pension the farmer has paid for by the sweat of his brow. It would also permit relocation if that were desired.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture made a submission to the Minister of Finance in February of this year. On page six, item two, they underline the point I have been making. They say, and I quote:
The objective of improvement of farm productivity, rationalization of land use, and preservation of the family farm structure of enterprise are very ill-served by the present law which, except in the case of involuntary sale as in expropriation, require that a farmer realize and pay tax on capital gains if he wishes to sell assets such as a portion of his farm to buy another better located parcel, or to intensify his enterprise by making investments in buildings for livestock production on the remaining portion of his land.
This is a very important matter. Cases have been brought to our attention where two farmers are practically unable to make an exchange of land even though both would benefit because the exchange would trigger the capital gains tax which neither should have to pay on such a transaction. Sometimes the exchange does not take place and one or both of the farmers leave the business. This results in the encouragement of large land holdings by those better able to purchase the land.
The second problem I want to draw to the attention of the minister is the inflation factor which should be used in calculating capital gains from V-Day value up to the date of the sale. The real value of the property has not increased to the amount that I mentioned in my example, $170,000. The increase is largely due to inflated land costs, particularly in the area I represent, and I believe this holds true all across this
March 8, 1977

country. Some consideration should be given to the inflation factor so that a percentage could be deducted for that reason.
The increase in capital gains is largely illusory. I again refer to the submission which I quoted a few moments ago. 1 quote from page seven, item three:
It is of course as clear as crystal that in an inflationary economy some or all of capital gains represent illusory gains in real terms because of the declining real value of money. It continues to be the policy of the federation that the taxation of such illusory gains is confiscatory and should not be permitted. This position we would note is being increasingly supported by the business community, and recently by the Joint Taxation Committee of the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.
That is a very reasonable suggestion. The Minister of Finance would do well to take heed.
The third proposal would be an assignment of land value each year into a registered retirement savings plan. Rather than make a parallel explanation, I will simply quote again the brief by the CFA, pages seven and eight, item four. This would give the farmer an opportunity to build up a registered retirement savings plan which, as 1 said a few moments ago, is most difficult for him to do under present conditions. I quote:
In general of course when a taxpayer invests in a retirement savings plan he has to save out of his income sufficient money to make that investment. This is very advantageous from an income tax point of view, and most taxpayers are not too severely restricted in the sort of investment that they may choose to make. A farmer, however,'is typically under constant pressure to make additional investment in his farm to maintain its technological efficiency and economic viability. This severely limits the ability of farmers to take advantage of the tax deferral benefits of investment in registered retirement savings plans, and also reduces the amount he may make available from his income for investment, because it must be an after-tax amount.
We would propose that to correct this situation a special provision be made that would permit the farmer to obtain tax deferral, if he wished to do so, by assigning part of the value of his land each year (up to $5,500) to a registered retirement savings plan account. The existence of the deferred tax obligation involved could be registered as a lien on the land so that it could not be sold or transferred without automatic notice to the tax authorities.
We would propose that the value of the RRSP account would at any time be simply the aggregate of the amounts of money assigned to that account, up to $5,500 per year, so that for example if $5,500 were assigned for 10 years the value of the farmer's retirement plan would be $55,000 and would be taxable as income if realized unless invested in an annuity or the amount invested in another plan. Under such an arrangement we would see no need for a procedure to determine if the amounts credited to the plan were actually invested in the farm enterprise. It should be provided that the farmer could at any time, if funds became available to him to do so, reduce or dissolve the special RRSP account by investing part of the amounts in that account into another RRSP. In the event of the death of the farmer, the RRSP could be inherited by the spouse, or if by others would become payable.
It would be our expectation that such a provision would be used sparingly by farmers, in fact, but that it would be exceedingly useful to some-especially young farmers with heavy investment requirements.
This outlines a proposal to give the farmer the benefit of an RRSP which he does not presently enjoy.
One other item I should like to draw to the minister's attention has to do with the capital gains tax especially as it affects farmers who sell their quotas or, in my area, where they grow tobacco, their marketing board rights on tobacco land. In the Income Tax Act this is discussed in what is referred to as the "nothing section". But when the rights are
Economic Policy
sold they become really "something" in the way they attract capital gains tax.
1 am suggesting to the minister that consideration be given to permitting a farmer to use the income received from the sale of these quotas or rights to purchase equipment to serve him in a new enterprise on his farm. For example, instead of growing tobacco or shipping milk, he might grow corn. The proceeds from the sale of the quota could be used, in that case, to buy storage equipment, drying equipment, combines and so on. Thus he would be able to make use of the roll-over provisions of the act. At present he cannot do so, and I suggest to the minister that the hon. gentleman find ways of making this possible.
In conclusion I would point out that the budget coming up on March 31 offers the Minister of Finance an excellent opportunity to give effect to some of the proposals I have made from time to time in the House, and which I am making again tonight.
I might add that what I have said about the family farm applies equally to small businesses operated by a family. The small businessman plows back his earnings into his business in the form of new equipment, the remodelling of his shop or store, and when the time comes for him to retire or sell his business, he too hopes to use the proceeds by way of a retirement pension. The capital gains tax deprives him in the same manner of the support in his retirement he might otherwise have enjoyed. I respectfully suggest that both for the farm community and the small businessman the minister should provide some relief in his upcoming budget.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to take part in this debate. I have studied the motion a number of times in the past hour. It is a perfect example of the pious, self-righteous, self-serving motions we have come to expect over the years from the New Democratic Party, a party which is long on ideas, long on ideals, but which closes it eyes to political practibility, the difficulty of implementing good ideas within economic constraints.
Much has been said this evening about the performance of the Canadian government in managing the Canadian economy. I think I can say to those assembled here tonight that the government has done an incredible job in managing the economy over the difficult period we have been through in the last few years. Throughout industrialized nations we have seen in the last few years an absolute stagnation if not a decline in their gross national products. Our own has been nothing to crow about, but when we look at the figure in narrow terms we are bound to consider the growth, or lack of growth, of the Canadian economy in relation to the performance in other countries around the world. I say the government has done a first rate job and it puzzles me why the opposition cannot admit that it has done an incredible job in managing the economy.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Tell us about urban transit.


David Michael Collenette: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) wants to hear more about urban transit.
80010-33V2

March 8, 1977
Economic Policy
Obviously he did not get enough out of the speeches made by myself, my hon. friend, the member for Halton (Mr. Phil-brook), the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson), and the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), who spoke firmly in support of some form of assistance, some way of discharging our obligations undertaken in the 1974 election campaign.


Mr. Leggatt:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


David Michael Collenette: The other day the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) asked me to permit a question. I said in view of the hour we could discuss the matter privately. We met in the elevator in the Confederation Building and had a nice chat. I am sure this could be the avenue for our discussion after the debate closes tonight.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I know where he stands. I want to know where you stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) has the floor.


David Michael Collenette: Perhaps I should not pay so much attention to the ribald comments from the other side. At any rate, if I have time I will return to the subject of transit aid, though I hardly think it bears repetition in view of the statements made by my hon. friends and myself in the past week.
One of the means the government has employed to cushion the blows of inflation, to restrict the harm done by the recession of the last few years, is that of indexing. The hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga), who is over there by the curtains, takes a somewhat resentful attitude to this on the ground that it was the Conservative party who put forward this idea. That is Fine. There is nothing wrong in a good idea being implemented if it Finds support among Canadians and contributes to the well-being of the country. Are members on the other side so petty that they would take so selFish a position?
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is bereft of any kind of policy statement. Now we can see how this attitude on the other side has developed. They are sore because a good idea was implemented. Canadians will ask themselves: is this the kind of party to which we ought to entrust the government of the country? I would say not. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has been around for many years and has been associated with efforts to promote the cause of old age pensioners, medicare, good unemployment insurance legislation, a non-discriminatory immigration bill, and so on. I do not hear him bemoaning the fact that the Liberal government which has instituted so many of these progressive policies got its ideas originally after some prompting from members of his party. They are grateful, I am sure, that they were put into legislative form by the Liberal government for the benefit of all Canadians.

Ideals are Fine. Ideas are Fine. But they constitute only part of the political process. It is not good enough to have ideals and ideas without a vehicle for their practical application. In this respect I suggest that the Liberal party is a model, not only for this country but a model for parties in other democratic countries, on the basis of its performance over the past year or so. We have ideas and ideals. We have been flexible. We listen to public opinion. We put these into legislative form for the benefit of all Canadians, so there must be something right about that approach because we have been returned many times to give leadership to the nation.
To demonstrate my very impartial and gentle nature, I want to give the hon. member for New Westminster a chance to get on the record tonight. After all, this motion was put forward by his party. But before I sit down I want to talk about the unemployment statistics which have been bandied about in this House.
In the last month the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), the leader of the NDP, has been talking about the scandalously high unemployment which is verging on 10 per cent-the hidden unemployment. I am not debunking the fact that we do have a serious unemployment problem in this country, but we should analyse statistics properly. Statistics can be manipulated for one's own ends. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) has been very effective, I think, in criticizing the approach of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has left the Chamber now; I guess he did not want to stay for the rest of the debate.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He is behind the curtains.


David Michael Collenette: He is behind the curtains. He has charged that there is hanky-panky with unemployment statistics. The only hanky-panky that I have seen any evidence of is the tactics which have been used by the Official Opposition in this Chamber, day after day, and month after month, since my election here in 1974.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: One million unemployed.


David Michael Collenette: Someone says there are one million unemployed. There are different kinds of unemployment. For example, there is selective unemployment. There are people who do not particularly want to move to western Canada, for one reason or another, where there are plenty of jobs.


Mr. Andre:: We call them Liberals.


David Michael Collenette: I am glad to see the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) in such fine form this evening. It is nice to have him back and to have the benefit of his articulate comments. As 1 was saying, there are different kinds of unemployment. Take, for example, someone who leaves school, who lives in Thunder Bay or Sault Ste. Marie, who gets a job 50 miles away in a less popular part of the country, and who does not want to move. He is counted as unemployed.
March 8, 1977

Then there are many women in our work force who work not simply for economic reasons, though the economic benefit is appreciated, but also for self-fulfilment. The families of these women do not need a second income, but if they are laid off or they choose to leave their job they are designated as looking for work and become part of the unemployment statistics.
I should like to pay particular tribute to a very incisive analysis of this particular problem-the absolute manipulation and distortion of unemployment statistics by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby-by Mr. Jack MacArthur, the business editor of the Toronto Star. Those of us who represent Toronto ridings have not been too kindly dealt with during the past few years by the Toronto Star, and sometimes 1 shudder when 1 open the editorial pages. Mr. MacArthur is not a person who is a defender of the government in the absolute sense, but he is a very discriminating and perceptive analyst and journalist who criticizes where necessary and gives credit where necessary. I would advise members on the other side, especially those in the NDP, to read his article which appeared in the Toronto Star for February 10 last in which he talks about high unemployment and low unemployment being the same thing.
Paragraph three of the motion before us asks the federal government to assist urban communities financially to ensure an immediate expansion of municipal capital works projects, including rapid transit. My views on rapid transit are pretty well known. This kind of clause is very similar to one introduced in the House by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), I think before Christmas. It is the old chestnut that keeps coming up, namely, that the federal government should forgo the federal sales tax on municipal purchases, the basic argument being that this is a tax upon a tax. That may well be so, and in participating in debate on the hon. member's motion I gave him credit for bringing this point to our attention.
There are a number of anomalies and problems with municipal financing. In the province of Ontario the provincial government has appointed a commission, under Mr. Willis Blair, a former mayor in part of my constituency, to look into the property tax base. Mr. Blair is suggesting, among other things, that federal and provincial buildings-I am not sure whether he mentioned the churches, but buildings that do not pay taxes-should be taxed to increase municipal revenue. Like the motion of the hon. member for Vegreville, this is again a half-hearted, piecemeal approach.
Any fundamental discussion of federal assistance for municipalities has to be organized within the context of the constitution of this country. We have to redraw provincial and federal responsibilities. We have to rethink our financing. Until we are prepared to do that, and until the provinces are prepared to sit down with the federal government and talk about overlapping jurisdictions and more equitable sharing of revenues, I do not think we should be jumping in with one foot. We should think out the whole problem very seriously.
I did promise that I would sit down and give the hon. member for New Westminster an opportunity to say his piece. I see there are ten minutes left and I should just like to
Economic Policy
reiterate some of the comments I made on urban transit. It may be argued, and it is argued by my colleague for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), that the federal government has no constitutional jurisdiction to fund urban transit systems. This is a particular point of view. 1 do not believe that this is a fiat which is written in tablet form or inscribed in stone for all time. This is a matter that should be discussed within the confines of a federal-provincial conference on the new constitution.
In 1974 we did make certain promises. If the government is going to have any credibility with people in the urban areas, especially in metropolitan Toronto, which includes an area which I happen to represent, we must at least have some attention paid to partially discharging these promises. We should not have a kind of open-ended program which will drag on for years and years, a cost sharing program like medicare where the federal government writes a blank cheque and the provinces go on spending money ad infinitum. But perhaps we should have a three or five year commitment by the federal government to have money available to encourage municipalities to develop public transit systems.
I am not going into all the arguments in favour of public transit and why it should be encouraged. However, I would agree with the motion in that the government must, in its budget, give some financial commitment and must put in practical form some of the promises that were made in 1974. I realize the problem of financial restraint which the government has. As I said last week, the government has done a very effective job in putting a clamp on the growth of government expenditure, and should be applauded for that.
The second paragraph of the motion speaks of reducing taxes for middle and low income earners. I agree this is a very laudable suggestion and I hope that the Minister of Finance includes it in his remarks on March 31.
The first paragraph of the motion was dealt with very effectively by my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), and I do not propose to comment further.
As the House can see from my remarks, the three parts of the motion do not seem to be too unrealistic. However, it is the preamble to this whole discussion which upsets me. As I have said, it gives further evidence of the self-righteous or pious approach which is so typical of the NDP, and is the principal reason that I cannot support the motion in this form.
I have much more to say, but with true parliamentary courtesy I will yield the floor to the hon. member whose party proposed the motion originally.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) for relinquishing the floor, particularly since I may say some things about which he may not be happy.
Piety is not a quality one should criticize. There is nothing the matter with being pious in this world. Why criticize an

March 8, 1977
Economic Policy
NDP motion for being pious, when it is right? That's what counts. Perhaps it is pious; perhaps it is self-righteous. But it is right. There is righteousness in the motion, and piety. What is the matter with either quality? Why did the hon. member criticize the motion and trot out those tired cliches about piety and self-righteousness, without considering that ours has been the only constructive motion for dealing with the economy brought forward in this House? And I am not talking about generalities. Our motion deals specifically with the problems facing the nation.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: You could say it was bombastic, too.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The hon. member suggests it is bombastic, too.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Stop talking about Stanley in that way.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I want to deal with one point with which the hon. member for York East dealt, rapid transit. When we were drafting the motion we thought of the hon. member for York East and of that other hon. member whose riding escapes me.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Halton. "The hon. member for Philbrook."


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: We were thinking about the backbench revolt of hon. members opposite. We wanted to help those hon. members to revolt. We were anxious to see independence on the backbenches of the Liberal party, and we said we would give them another opportunity to fight for rapid transit.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They can vote against Bill C-33.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I will relinquish the floor immediately if the hon. member for York East wants to rise in the House now to say that he will vote against Bill C-33 on second reading. I want to hear that commitment in public, because that commitment counts, not all the other rhetoric one hears in debate. I want to know how the hon. member will vote on Bill C-33. Second, I want to know if, when the government refuses to live up to the promise it made in 1974, he will relinquish his seat and run either for the NDP or the Conservative party in his own riding. If he says that, he will make some impact-


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I cannot leave that assertion unchallenged. In no circumstances ever in my lifetime would I consider running for either of those two parties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: We wouldn't accept you.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Just for a moment you made us nervous.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I consider that as a promise, although it sounded pious and self-righteous. Let me return to the substance of the motion, which deals not only with rapid transit but with housing as well.
As a nation we are short of energy. We are spewing energy into the air every day, wasting it. Surely, considering that one million of our people are unemployed, and six million of our
[Mr. Leggatt.)
housing units not properly insulated, we could put people to work across the country insulating houses. That program would (a) cut down the waste of energy, and (b) put people to work. The government has made a slight move in that direction, for which we give it credit. It has started an insulating program in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. That program must be extended across the country. Many members of this House, no matter where they sit, would support that program. Therefore we urge the government to come forward in the forthcoming budget with a meaningful employment program directly related to problems of energy waste.
Let me now touch on municipal works projects. Frankly, all in this House are sick and tired of make work projects not doing the job. Let me give you an example. We have 145,000 unemployed tradesmen in Canada, or one out of seven, according to latest Statistics Canada figures. Yet through LIP, Canada Works, and Young Canada Works we are creating jobs which those unemployed tradesmen could do. For example, they could rebuild the dock in white Rock. All kinds of projects are going on, and skilled tradesmen are anxiously awaiting for their chance to work on them. But instead of working, many of them are drawing unemployment insurance. That is putting our priorities in the wrong order.
The answer is capital works projects at the municipal level, municipally administered. Both labour and capital ought to be administered municipally, in municipal projects right across Canada. We do not need the involvement of the federal bureaucracy. We could do thousands of things in our communities; the free enterprise sector of our economy has not done them, obviously because there is no profit in them. I do not blame free enterprise; I understand the system. But, as a nation, we could undertake some of these projects.
We could undertake a project in my own riding, for instance, to clean up the fishing bars on the Fraser River. We could pull all of the stumps. We could build tremendous parks all along the Fraser River. That make work project could last for five years. But we do not do this because of ideological shortsightedness, because it is not profitable and because, as I say, free enterprise will not tackle it. Surely the government ought to be active in this area. Its involvement would create enough employment to put a significant dent in our unemployment statistics.
My party is often accused of being anti-business. I tell you that our proposal to reduce taxes for the middle and low income earners would be the best break business in this country could ever get. If accepted, it would increase purchasing power. The little guy would get a break and use his purchasing power to buy what he needs. I hope these appeals are not falling on deaf ears. I am delighted to see the minister present; I know he listens carefully. I understand that we are to see a gun bill very shortly; I hope he is not going to give in to the snipers' lobby. We are not sure. We hope there will be some teeth in the bill.
I want to emphasize how beneficial would be a reduction of taxes at the low end of the income scale. We often wonder how to put purchasing power in the hands of low income people.
March 8, 1977

The answer is obvious. We have allowed people to deduct their political donations from tax payable. That is great for people interested in politics. Why cannot we do the same for low income families, and allow them to take day care expenses off their tax?


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


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May 1 inquire of the acting government House leader what business it is planned to call tomorrow?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Old age security.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, I understand that hon. members opposite who have discussed this matter with the House leaders know that tomorrow we shall consider the Old Age Security Act.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) made a significant statement outside the House concerning the debt attached to the St. Lawrence Seaway. This problem has been before us for some time. With his usual political dexterity the minister landed himself in great difficulty in this House because of his decision to make the gist of his statement outside the House. Be that as it may, hon. members learned the details of the statement, and those details have been the cause of considerable discussion. His statement presented to me at least three major questions which I hope can be answered by the parliamentary secretary tonight.
First, the question that brings us here tonight was asked by me on Thursday, March 3. I asked:
How firm a commitment is there from the United States on the proposed St. Lawrence Seaway toll increases, and where did that commitment come from?
Adjournment Debate
I asked that because the minister in his statement outside the House indicated that the St. Lawrence Seaway tolls would be doubled. The Minister of Transport replied:
Mr. Speaker, as the announcement yesterday indicated, the question of arranging these increases by agreement is a matter of negotiation, so it is not a matter at this point of talking about a commitment.
Apparently the matter had not been raised during the visit of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to Washington to call upon the President of the U.S.A.
We are dealing with a substantial sum, the debt of the Seaway, that is, its capital cost, which is generally considered to be around, $642 million. The interest on that debt alone is considered to be at least $200 million, and some members of the House have alluded to the whole problem as being more than a $1 billion problem. But even taking the figures that have been presented on the more conservative side-if 1 may use that statement of my colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)-it would seem to be at least an $800 million problem.
The Minister of Transport in replying to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East said:
Mr. Speaker, as far as the debt is concerned, there are two parts to the debt, the accrued interest which it is not intended to treat as a current liability and in due course to remove,
1 took from that use of language that he meant that this $200 million, or whatever the accrued interest is deemed to be, is wiped out.
The minister went on to say, as reported at page 3571 of Hansard:
and the balance of the debt, the initial construction cost, which it is intended to convert into equity.
He noted later that it was hoped to realize a modest return on this equity, something in the order of one per cent, which would mean that on the $800 million now owing and not retrieved by the tolls that have been imposed on the operations of the Seaway so far, one could hope to get about $6.4 million a year back. It seems to be a very small return on a substantial amount of money, and of course as somebody said it does not begin to represent a proper return on the amount of money that has been invested by the taxpayers of this country and the taxpayers of the U.S.A. Even doubling the tolls, which seems to be a hefty increase, will not bring about anything that will approach Fiscal probity in this particular matter.
The questions I would like to direct to the parliamentary secretary and which will be raised when the department's estimates are before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications are the following: is this going to be a precedent for all transportation in Canada, that the taxpayers put up all the capital and that the return upon that capital turns out to be a laughable figure? Is this the brave new future for transportation in Canada, when we are faced with some rather large transportation problems?
Since the minister told us that it would be a matter of negotiation and not a matter of commitment from the United States, will the Americans agree to this increase? Will they

March 8, 1977
Adjournment Debate
think it is adequate and just? Will they think it should be more? What will their position be? This seems to me to be a very strange way to carry on a partnership. Admittedly this is a very contentious problem, but it is strange that one side should announce what the solution is going to be, apparently without really having discussed the matter with the other side. As I noted earlier, the minister seemed very firm in his statement to me about the fact that there were going to be negotiations and that there had not been a commitment.
The figures presented to us by the minister on that day after his press conference indicated the nature of the increase on the tolls through the Seaway. I represent a port which has had some fights with the minister over the "at and east" rates on flour and grain shipments. It seems to me, with the St. Lawrence Seaway tolls going up to the level the minister proposes, that what the minister has often called his unit train concept of moving grain from western Canada to Halifax and Saint John for shipment abroad will still not be competitive, all other things being equal.


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


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to refer hon. members to the statement made by the minister on March 2 concerning the situation on the St. Lawrence Seaway. Attached to his press release was a memorandum addressed to all members of parliament and senators concerning a lot of documentation. The minister reminded us of the economic impact of toll increases. I would like to refer to that documentation which was distributed to all members of parliament and senators at that time concerning this important sector.
I wish to refer to the statement made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and Mr. Paul Normandeau, President of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, concerning the steps which will be taken to restore the Seaway to financial health. They said that parliament is being asked to convert to equity,, to be held by the federal government as an investment, the $625 million debt for loans acquired to construct the Mont-real-Lake Ontario section and to upgrade the Welland Canal.
I would like to mention that 13 of the 15 locks along the Montreal-Lake Ontario section and Welland Canal are owned and operated by Canada, and any operating deficit picked up by the federal government is equivalent to subsidizing the United States, and I think hon. members agreed that we had to revise this situation.


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


AIRPORTS-PICKERING-GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO CONSTRUCTION-POSSIBILITY OF DIVERTING FUNDS TO AID COMMUTERS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, the question raised tonight in the adjournment debate by myself

follows at least 90 oral questions which have been directed to the government concerning the proposed Pickering airport. We have pressed for an answer many times. I myself have put more than 20 questions on this matter. The government has consistently evaded any attempt to take a clear stand or view with respect to this ill-conceived project. The latest round of questions 1 had with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is no exception.
On February 14 I asked the minister whether, in light of the fact that there has been little or no growth in air traffic at Toronto's Malton airport, the government might reconsider its stubborn, but senseless commitment to saddle the country with a white elephant similar to the one it built at Mirabel. Despite the fact that the minister himself admitted that "air traffic had failed to reach projected levels", not just in Toronto but throughout North America, and despite the fact that it had just recently been revealed that Mirabel had lost $47 million in its first year of operation, the minister hedged once again saying only that air traffic had not been reduced significantly.
I asked my question because current statistics show that air traffic in Canada and in many other parts of the world has, so to speak, "plateau-ed out". The government's repeated statements that somehow Malton will become overcrowded do not appear to be backed up by existing statistics; in fact I often suspect that the government, for bizarre reasons known only to itself, based the entire project at Pickering on rather questionable projections in the first place.
The point is this: it is always reprehensible for the government to spend great sums of money on frivolous or dubious projects, but it is especially callous for it to do so when it is openly dickering with the possibility of breaking its election promise to provide $290 million to aid urban transit across Canada.
There is a wide discrepancy among projections for the estimated cost of Pickering. Certainly we know that to date they have spent $110 million; but the lowest estimate, $200 million, is an amount sufficient to finance all the urban transit projects which are currently being jeopardized in Metro Toronto due to the government's reneging on its 1974 promises.
It is inconceivable to me that the government can be oblivious to the fact that there is severe commuter congestion in Toronto while it stubbornly refuses to give up its dream of building a second airport that is not required. It is inconceivable to me that the government can turn its back on 75 per cent of our population who live in our urban centres in order to accommodate the marginal 10 per cent who use airports on a regular basis.
It is time the present administration gave us a candid answer. Will it scrap Pickering and divert the remaining funds to more productive enterprises such as the Toronto terminal improvement project, which is needed to relieve congestion at Union Station? Will it repudiate the remarkable statement made Friday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
March 8, 1977

of Finance (Mr. Kaplan) that the people of Toronto should be grateful the government broke its promise? The parliamentary secretary in effect said in that statement that the promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1974 had a double advantage; first of all they got the Prime Minister re-elected and, second, now that the Prime Minister chooses to break those promises, somehow he will end up saving people of the Toronto area some money. That is the Alice in Wonderland reasoning put to this House by the parliamentary secretary only last Friday.
I hope the government will come to its senses and say it has agreed to abandon the Pickering project, that it was an unfortunate concept in the beginning, a civil servant's dream and that it now realizes the airport is not needed.
I hope the government will take this opportunity to commit the money earmarked for Pickering for more worth-while developments in the Toronto area, namely, the urban transit which is needed to facilitate people who wish to go to work and who pay taxes in that greatly congested area of Canada.
The time has come when the government must get its priorities straight. For years we have urged it not to plunge money into the development of airports but to put it into more meaningful development that would aid people in getting to and from work. This is the question that I say we have put to the government 90 times: will it reconsider the Pickering development, come to its senses and divert the funds that were to be put into that needless development to a more worth-while project such as urban transit in the Toronto area?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is very difficult to follow in his goal, his financial philosophy, and his administrative approach. As I said in my speech this afternoon, the hon. member in a speech on March 3 asked for more funds in the urban transportation budget. According to his own figure, and it was mentioned tonight, he is asking for his own area a sum of $200 million. If we consider the Montreal area, the Vancouver area and other municipalities, it would take not only millions but a billion dollars. How can the member reconcile those demands, be conscious of the inflation situation, and also be opposed to an increase in the expenses of the federal government, while protesting Treasury Board policy?
First, I would like to clarify the hon. member's mistaken impression that there still exists certain moneys, formerly earmarked for Pickering, which can now be made available for such programs as urban transit.
The 1975-76 estimates included $51,109,000 for expenditures at Pickering. During the preparation of the 1976-77 Main Estimates CATA recognized that only $39,964,000 would be required for 1975-76. Therefore the anticipated unused funds were applied against the revolving fund loan authority, thereby reducing the requirement for new loan authority. The decision to set the Pickering proposal aside in the fall of 1975 resulted in still lower levels of expenditures for 1975-76. This was taken into consideration in the 1977-78 estimates and again served to reduce new loan authority
Adjournment Debate
requirements. Therefore, there are no funds remaining within the fiscal framework.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-USE OF WRITS OF ASSISTANCE-POSSIBILITY OF AMENDMENTS TO PROVIDE FOR ISSUANCE AT DISCRETION OF JUDGE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my participation tonight arises from questions which I raised in the House of Commons on February 21 of this year in connection with writs of assistance which are available in the enforcement of the Customs Act, Excise Act and others passed by this parliament. I also raised the matter of writs of assistance on previous occasions.
I was pleased to hear the minister indicate on February 16 that he shared my concern about some of the powers provided under the Criminal Code and through investigative agencies. I was pleased to have his assurance that he was giving the matter some consideration and in fact had directed the Law Reform Commission to make a study with regard to this whole general area.
I wanted to pursue this matter in the course of the question period on February 21. I asked the minister whether, having had an opportunity to study the judgment of Mr. Justice Collier, he was in a position to give some tangible evidence of his concern by undertaking to recommend changes in the legislation which would have the effect of allowing some discretion by the judiciary in the issuance of writs of assistance in the future.
At that time the minister indicated that he was looking at the matter. However, from his reply I got the impression he was only looking at internal arrangements of his own department and other departments respecting applications for writs of assistance, and determining by internal arrangements what could be done to avoid any abuses.
I am pleased to see the minister here. His presence in the House indicates that this is a matter of some importance. It is certainly regarded as important by the Canadian Bar Association.
The civil liberties section of the Canadian Bar Association has characterized the availability of writs of assistance under the legislation to which I have referred as repugnant. Eminent jurists have commented adversely on this provision, as have lawyers across the country and people generally who are interested in the proper administration of justice and in the preservation of civil liberties. I believe the fact that the minister has stayed up so late this evening to deal with the matter is a reflection of the importance he attaches to it.
My own point of view, and I want to put it on record, is that writs of assistance are a glaring exception to the general rule of Canadian law that judicial authority must be obtained before warrants are issued. This also covers wire tapping. It seems to me the police should not have the authority to obtain writs of assistance which are unlimited as to time and which
3794

March 8, 1977
Adjournment Debate
are unspecific in nature. Another facet of this subject is that the statute has been so interpreted as to make it unnecessary for the minister or officials in his department when making applications to the courts to give any particular reasons in support of their requests.
Looking over the assessment of Mr. Justice Collier I recall that the material before the judge actually consisted of two paragraphs in an affidavit, one showing that the applicant was the director of the enforcement branch of the Customs and Excise branch, and the second stating that he required writs of assistance for the persons specified on an attached list for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Customs Act.
When we put the judiciary in the position of being glorified notaries public, I wonder why we waste the time of the courts by asking them to give approval to that kind of application. It might be simpler in all these circumstances to have the minister himself grant these writs. To carry the process to a logical conclusion, there is really no reason why the courts should be involved. I should like to know whether the minister is giving serious consideration to amending this statute so as at least to give the courts the ability to exercise discretion with respect to these applications-whether he will recommend that applicants for these writs should provide some reasonable explanation as to why they are required, and that, in future, the writs be subject to a limitation in time. This is not unreasonable and would in no way impede the administration of justice.
In conclusion, I simply request the minister not to allow this issue to be put on a back shelf, but to give it immediate attention because I do think that having regard to the principles governing our laws-


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


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for raising this issue tonight and for his questions in the House on this subject of writs of assistance which, as he says, are an extraordinary legal remedy and a procedure it is incumbent upon us to examine from time to time. I am also grateful to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) who raised this matter with me and with the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) many months ago in correspondence with us.
The immediate issue comes to light as a result of a decision of Mr. Justice Collier in Federal Court very recently, in which he was asked, on the application of myself or my officials, for a number of writs of assistance. I am pleased with the line of argumentation that the hon. member has made which pointed out that these are extraordinary legal remedies, but which called for some requirements as a minimum. I think we want to be careful in a country such as ours, faced with the law enforcement problems that we have, and faced with law enforcement officers often operating in extremely remote areas, that we do not outlaw writs of assistance without careful examination.
While complaining of the total lack of information provided to him as a judge having to issue the writs, a footnote to the judgment of Mr. Justice Collier states:
I am not suggesting writs of this kind should never be asked for or granted. There may be moral, political or social grounds. The material in support of this application, for example, is completely devoid of any facts which might indicate there is some political, moral, social, economic, or administrative ground for granting this particular individual the powers sought.
So even the learned judge, while complaining, I think rightly, about the lack of information before him, conceded that there may well be valid reasons for the exercise of the writs.
In examining the matter one finds that the administrative procedures within departments are such as to endeavour administratively to eliminate abuse. In fact, the administrative procedures are such that a writ is not supposed to be used unless there were circumstances where, if a justice of the peace were available to issue a search warrant, one would in fact be granted.
It is not enough solely to rely upon administrative procedures, and that is the reason that I have said, in the light of Mr. Justice Collier's decision, that no further writs of assistance will be applied for until the whole procedure is reviewed. In saying that I meant not only administrative procedures but legal procedures.
The hon. member has asked for three things at least, and 1 have no hesitation in agreeing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to interrupt the minister but his allotted time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Wednesday, March 9, 1977