1977-02-10

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The announced threat of the Greenpeace organization to deliberately interfere with the seal hunt in northern Newfoundland and Labrador is contrary to Section 381 (paragraphs (a) to (g)) of the Criminal Code, particularly the part relating to wrongfully and without lawful authority causing persons to abstain from anything they have a lawful right to do, in addition to constituting criminal interference, intimidation, phony pretensions of being humane, and being without regard for Newfoundland Canadians who are trying to earn a livelihood in the traditional way of life in Newfoundland and Labrador. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That this House orders that the Department of National Defence, under its responsibility for co-ordinating surveillance and patrol and aid to the civil powers and also the RCMP, devise a plan directed to supplementing fishery official strength to protect the landsmen's traditional rights and that until the appeal against Brian Davies comes to court that he be placed in a straightjacket-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No!


POLYSAR
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the fact that an internal report prepared by Polysar Limited and dated January 31 of this year contends that practices
which can only be termed "kick-backs" were engaged in by that company's Swiss subsidiary, PISA, up to at least September, 1976, and considering that the Prime Minister said in the House on December 2, 1976 that guidelines covering such behaviour existed for ministers who have Crown corporations under their command, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Prime Minister explain by means of a statement on motions why the nefarious practices of the Polysar subsidiary were permitted to continue at least to the last quarter of 1976 and quite conceivably beyond that point.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion cannot be put without unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion which I have shown to Liberals, Conservatives, Social Crediters and the hon. member for Moncton-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Epp:: What about the NDP?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My colleagues trust me, Mr. Speaker. It is a motion which I am sure all of us agree should be passed in the hope that the media will take notice of it. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That this House urges the media to make it clear to the people of Canada that anyone now in Canada who is 25 years of age or over will not be affected by the new rules regarding old age security but will, on reaching age 65, be able to qualify under the residence rules now in effect for the full amount of the basic pension.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The presentation of such a motion pursuant to the Standing Order requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. It is moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):

February 10, 1977
Air Canada
That this House urges the media to make it clear to the people of Canada that anyone now in Canada who is 25 years of age or over will not be affected by the new rules regarding old age security, but will, on reaching age 65, be able to qualify under the residence rules now in effect for the full amount of the basic pension.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Canadian Javelin Limited, a public Canadian company, again has a board of directors controlled by John C. Doyle, a fugitive from justice in Canada and the United States, and that the Doyle-controlled board now threatens to drop court actions commenced by the company against Doyle and others for alleged frauds against the company, that the company has not had an annual meeting since June 30, 1975 or issued audited Financial statements since 1974, and that the company's auditors have resigned, and in view of the fact that despite revenues of $7 million a year it has not paid a cash dividend to its registered and unregistered shareholders for ten years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That this House direct the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) to act immediately under the provisions of the Canadian Corporations Act, or other relevant legislation, to appoint a trustee to assume control of Canadian Javelin Limited to ensure the proper administration of the company for the benefit of its shareholders and creditors and that a complete investigation be made of all aspects of the operation of the company since its inception.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some concern about the jurisdiction of the House of Commons as it relates to the subject matter of the motion, but in any case I will ask whether or not there is unanimous consent. Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I request the unanimous consent of the House concerning an important matter. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington):

That this House directs the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to table the pension, gratuities and fringe benefits granted by Air Canada to former chairman of the board, Yves Pratte, and former vice-president, P. J. Chartrand, and that the total pension package be tabled for public information and for members of this chamber.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION FROM VENEZUELA
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before proceeding with the oral question period, I know all hon. members would want to join with me in signalling the presence in our gallery of very distinguished visitors in the persons of a delegation from our good friends and neighbours in Venezuela, headed by the very distinguished and youthful Speaker of their House of Representatives who is this day celebrating his thirty-fourth birthday, Dr. Oswaldo Alvarez-Paz.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, may I direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. To the minister's recollection, was the Kitimat port and pipeline proposal discussed at a federal cabinet meeting on or about August 12, 1976?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sure that that is the kind of question that the hon. member can be serious about asking.


KITIMAT PIPELINE-POSSIBILITY BRITISH COLUMBIA ADVISED CONCEPT OF PIPELINE ACCEPTABLE TO CABINET
William Herbert Jarvis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Subsequent to August 12 and before September 17, were provincial officials of British Columbia informed that
February 10, 1977

the concept of a Kitimat pipeline was acceptable to the federal cabinet.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the proponents of the Kitimat pipeline have received no assurance from the federal government that their particular application will receive favourable consideration. They came to see me; it may well have been in the early summer, if I recall correctly. They were told that their application would have to be prepared and submitted to the National Energy Board and that it ought to be prepared carefully because the National Energy Board would want to ask searching questions.


Mr. Hees:: How does that sound, Iona?


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another supplementary question. Will the minister explain or repudiate a confidential report of the B.C. Energy Commission dated September 17, 1976, in which the following statements appear. First, 1 quote from page 5:
It appears that the concept of a Kitimat pipeline is acceptable to the federal cabinet.
The second statement is on page 9, and reads:
We understand that the federal cabinet considered the Kitimat proposal on August 12, 1976 and were generally receptive.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can comment on what is, from my point of view, a most speculative story. I do not know anything about the particular story to which the hon. member referred.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Send the minister a copy.


Alastair William Gillespie: I did not in any way participate in the talks to which the hon. member referred in the first place, and I have already answered the question in the second place.


An hon. Member:: Repudiate it.


Alastair William Gillespie: I have already indicated that I know nothing about that particular story.


Walter David Baker: Apparently the minister knows little about anything.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell the House whether, in the ongoing discussions with United States authorities, the Canadian government has stated what its policy is regarding oil tanker traffic on the west coast and whether that policy is to try to obtain U.S. agreement on a single oil port consistent with the most satisfactory environmental safeguards.
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be quite as specific about the last part of the hon. member's question as I should like to be. I would need to look at the record, to see what representations have been made to date with regard to a single port. If I may answer the broader aspects of the question, a number of representations have been made in several different discussions, the most recent of which is going on at present with regard to fisheries jurisdiction and a delineation of the boundary, as I answered a few days ago. In that connection one item we have included for discussion along with fisheries, hydrocarbons and related questions is the matter of joint management, or a joint agreement with regard to fisheries pollution control measures. Those are the most active negotiations.


John Allen Fraser: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise the House whether it is Canadian policy to accept an oil tanker port at Kitimat in addition to an oil port in the Straits of Juan de Fuca or the Puget Sound area? What is the proposal in that regard?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, to be perfectly honest with the hon. member, I repeat, I have not seen a document and I would not want to mislead him about what has been said formally in statements to the United States. Since I do not know the answer, the hon. member would be doing me a favour, and I would be doing him one, if I could have a day to look into the matter in more detail.


John Allen Fraser: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the ongoing discussions, what is the response of the United States to the Kitimat proposal for, if accepted, it makes Canadian protests over Alaska tanker traffic appear somewhat ridiculous.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, that, again, is part of what I should like to investigate. To the best of my knowledge, and I ask the hon. member to appreciate that I am speaking from memory, I do not think there has been any formal statement with regard to that particular proposal involving Kitimat. However, I am not absolutely certain; therefore, I would rather reserve my answer until tomorrow.


Walter David Baker: Yes, but what is your policy?


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On December 2, when replying to a question asking whether guidelines for Canadian Crown corporations and other corporations owned by the government exist, the Prime Minister said such guidelines do exist. He went on to say that they contained instructions from ministers to the corporations under their responsi-

February 10, 1977
Oral Questions
bility. Considering that, according to the Polysar report of January 31, of this year, PISA, the subsidiary of Polysar, continued with kickback practices at least until September 1976 and conceivably beyond that point, would the Prime Minister explain what steps were taken to enforce the guidelines to which he referred on December 2?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I do not have before me that text of the exchanges between the hon. member and myself, but I have quite an accurate memory of the exchange and I remember indicating that there were corporations and departments which did have guidelines. I certainly did not say they all had. I had in mind certain Crown corporations and agencies. One example I had in mind was the Canadian Commercial Corporation. I went on to say that we were going to issue over-all guidelines which would apply to all departments, agencies and Crown corporations, and we did that a couple of weeks later. Until then there had been no formal guidelines applying to all.
I did indicate that it was the duty of every government agent and corporation to act within the law and the confines of morality. But the precise guidelines spelling that out in detail and applicable to all were made public by the President of the Treasury Board around mid-December.


John Edward Broadbent: Since in his answer of December 2 the Prime Minister did make specific reference to the fact that ministers who had Crown corporations under their jurisdiction did in fact have such guidelines and did in fact pass them on to the corporations under their reponsibility, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has confirmed that such specific guidelines did apply and were made clear to the Polymer corporation, which was the name by which it was known at the time of the Auditor General's report of 1973, and subsequent to that time, particularly since the matter was raised in the House last fall. Did the Prime Minister take steps to ensure that all Crown corporations received very explicit guidelines that covered these matters?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer to the final part of the question is very clear. We did take such steps and we enunciated the guidelines in the House in mid-December. As far as the first part of the question is concerned, it repeats the earlier one and I repeat my earlier reply. This whole matter of guidelines for the conduct of Crown corporations was discussed by me with certain of the ministers and some of them said that they followed some practices of having guidelines within the departments, and that is what I said.
I did not indicate that every department, agency and Crown corporation was submitted to them. If that had been the case, indeed there would have been no need in mid-December to issue general guidelines. The Minister of Supply and Services, following this exchange or perhaps even preceding it, asked a group of cabinet ministers to put these guidelines in shape and he and the President of the Treasury Board co-operated in

establishing guidelines which would apply to all. Those were the ones that were enunciated in the House.


John Edward Broadbent: Since this matter was brought to the attention of the Prime Minister in 1973, did he not think it appropriate that very specific guidelines be established for ministers of the Crown and with instructions for those ministers to pass them all on to all the corporations for which they had responsibility at that time? Related to that, could he tell us what specific steps enforcing the newly announced guidelines last December 16 have been taken by the government in addition to the general statement which was made in the House by the minister responsible at the time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question of the hon. member stretches over a period of four years. To start at the beginning of that period, I answered this ad nauseum a few months ago in the House, but I will repeat it for the benefit of the hon. member.
As soon as that letter of the Auditor General was shown to me, within days of its writing I had the then president of the treasury board deal with the matter. He dealt with it-


Walter David Baker: Yes, with one phone call and a little note.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -with one phone call. That is how efficient the government is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was so well dealt with by one phone call that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -some three years later the auditors of the corporation, Peat Marwick, issued a statement denying the allegations of the Auditor General and saying that the matter had been settled to their satisfaction, and that is fact which I quoted in this House.

[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Andr6 Fortin (Lotbinidre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
On December 20, 1975, the House passed Bill C-69 concerning the eligibility for benefits of persons aged 65 and more. Considering that the basic principle of acquired right was recognized by the board of referee, the umpire and the Federal Court, considering that 14,085 Canadians are in this situation, including 6,508 in Quebec, and that despite favourable decisions by the Department of Justice, the Unemployment Insurance Commission was still refusing, last November 13, to pay such benefits based on the principle of acquired right, does the minister intend not only to closely consider this
February 10, 1977

Oral Questions
matter, which he should already have done, but also to order that these benefits be paid immediately, as required by the Department of Justice's decisions?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with what the hon. member says, following that decision being handed down, I looked at the facts and realized that we did not have a right of appeal. I therefore sought authority, and received it, to make the necessary payments to those who received the acquired rights. The individuals concerned will be notified, and if they qualify as indicated in the judgment, the payments will be made. We are now in the process of doing that. It may require a minor amendment to the bill which is presently before the House.


Mr. Alexander:: Oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: If that is necessary, it will be done, but I am satisfied from the information I have received from the Department of Justice that in all probability it will not be required.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
Does the minister's answer mean that he ordered the immediate withdrawal of an internal directive which was sent directly to the district office on January 25, 1977 and in which Mr. Robert Sanschagrin, the head of the insurance service, says that the first directives issued on that subject recommended the recognition of those appeals? But according to the brief submitted last December 22, those appeals are no longer receivable as from November 13, 1976, that is exactly 24 hours after the last judgments handed down by the Federal Court, the umpire and the board of referees. Does the minister intend to withdraw that directive immediately and thus authorize those 14,084 Canadians to receive their due?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am not familiar with the directive the hon. member has mentioned, but he was in fact spelling out the law as we understood it to be at that time. It was not until the judgment was handed down that it was discovered that these particular acquired rights had not been covered in the legislation, and on that basis the 600 or so who had launched their appeals were successful, but we feel that whether an individual did or did not file his appeal in that instance, in the interests of equity that individual should have the same entitlement, and I am taking the administrative actions which are necessary to see to it that that is done.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister is somewhat supplementary to the questions raised by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. Given the fact that the Crown corporations are running into such difficulty and the fact that the problems in Polysar were drawn to the Prime Minister's attention four years ago and nothing was effectively done about them, may I ask if he has any plans to put in place some type of system which will audit or check what is being done to correct abuses in the operation of Crown corporations which are officially being drawn to the attention of the government?


John Edward Broadbent: Make a phone call.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in order to take effective corrective action, we would first have to know there was something untoward in the operations of the company. I must preface my answer by indicating to the hon. member that when he put the question to me yesterday I did not know of the results of the inquiry. I have now learned that this has come to light, and to that extent I apologize to the hon. member for not being able to answer his question. I see it has come to light through an independent inquiry that indeed there were some practices that were more than questionable, practices which I would say are dismaying.


An hon. Member:: Illegal.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are therefore faced with a statement which I made in this House based on a press release of Polysar quoting Polysar auditors, Peat, Marwick Mitchell & Co. saying there was no contingent liability, that they had asked their lawyers and there was no question of illegalities and so on. That is the information on which I based my answer in the House and that is the information on which this file was closed four years ago when we were told by a responsible outsider that there were no questionable practices.
Since the hon. member asked me the question yesterday, this whole matter is in doubt and indeed I hope that my statement to the House on December 2 that the parliamentary committee would look very deeply into that matter-I renew that suggestion today.
In so far as our corrective action is concerned, let me say that Polysar of course is not a Crown corporation. It is held by CDC of which the government is a majority shareholder. To the extent that our representatives on the board of directors are able, I will enjoin them to make sure that corrective action is taken and that the guidelines which we issued in December and which were applied to this particular case by the CDC itself-by the Polysar company in a statement they made recently-that application of them will be very strictly followed by all concerned. I rely on the government's representa-

Oral Questions
tives on the board to report to the ministers if there is any breach of the guidelines.


James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Given the fact that it seems that Crown corporations having considerable difficulty are coming to the attention of parliamentary committees, may I ask the Prime Minister if he is contemplating an investigation of the management structure of Crown corporations? I ask this in view of the fact that the Auditor General has specifically limited his operations to financial management and has not looked at how thoroughly boards of directors, for example, representing the principal shareholder-the taxpayers of Canada-are fulfilling their function. Is the government contemplating looking at this whole question of whether this is an effective vehicle for conducting business which may be of interest to the people of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. For the past few years ministers have been asking this type of question about Crown corporations, not so much relating to the legality or morality of their actions but to the degree of control the government has over every aspect of their actions. It has been a dilemma which comes up under many circumstances. For example, when a Crown corporation does not carry out the objectives of the people of Canada what can we do about it? When a Crown corporation has budgets which are very often approved by the government but we are without the ability to go into the details of the management, what can we do about it? We have studied various possible answers to these questions, one of them being to give the government the power of direction- either broad direction to the Crown corporation or specific direction.
This whole matter has been before us and even though we have studied the practices in other countries, we find it difficult to arrive at a solution which would be entirely acceptable to the House of Commons and to the traditions in Canada where Crown corporations are indeed at arm's length and where the "politicians" should not be giving specific direction and intervening in the operation.
This is the dilemma we are struggling with, and I think in the Air Canada Act which is before the House now we have indicated some of the directions in which we are trying to solve this by giving the government specific authority to issue directives of a general nature to Crown corporations. I have no clear statement or final statement, however, in answer to the hon. member's preoccupation which we share on this side.


PRIME MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE OF OTHER CROWN CORPORATIONS WITH SAME TYPE OF REBATE OR FEE SYSTEM AS POLYSAR AND ATOMIC ENERGY CORPORATION
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on the same subject for the Prime Minister. It is a repetition of the question he was unable to answer yesterday because he had not read the report at that time. Does the Prime Minister himself have any knowledge of any other Crown agency, Crown corporation or

February 10, 1977
subsidiary thereof that has the same type of rebate system as Polysar or agency fee system as AECL?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not know of any but certainly since the enunciation of the guidelines in mid-December, any doubt that might be in anyone's mind that the government will not put up with or accept any illegality by government agencies whether in Canada or abroad-I hope that doubt no longer exists. There is a very clear indication in the guidelines that this must cease, if in fact it does exist.



ABORTION


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. The terms of reference set out for the Badgley committee stated:
... to conduct a study to determine whether the procedure provided in the Criminal Code for obtaining therapeutic abortions is operating equitably across Canada.
From a reading of the report did the minister and the Department of Justice come to the conclusion that the law as set out in the Criminal Code of Canada as to abortion was operating equitably with one exception: that there appeared to be no uniformity in reference to the therapeutic abortion committee decision-making in accredited hospitals?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as I read the report, it came to the conclusion that the procedures provided for under the law were resulting in inequities in the application of the procedures, but that those inequities were not caused by the law itself as written but rather by provincial regulations and hospital regulations and the procedures and practices of the medical profession under the law.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer. Was this information not known to the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Justice long before the Badgley report was issued? In other words, was that report necessary to give the minister this information? I have previously asked what this report cost. What was the actual cost considering that they used Gallup to secure certain statistics? What was the cost of printing and translation? What did this report cost when that information was available to the government through the two departments?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the budget for the committee was $727,000. The total cost as of today is $679,000. I suspect this is something of a first for a committee or task force to report under budget. With regard to the hon. member's question, I suggest that even a cursory reading of the report would indicate that while there was in places such as Statistics Canada, the Department of National Health and Welfare and other agencies, some information on this situation the report
February 10, 1977

makes it very clear it was not available in the complete and comprehensive way that the Badgley report has put it together.



REASON LARGE NUMBER OF CANADIANS WENT TO UNITED STATES FOR ABORTIONS

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's answer on the workings of the Act and whether it would treat Canadians equitably. On page 35 of the report the committee estimated that in 1975 9,627 Canadians went to the United States to obtain a therapeutic abortion. That is a little more than one fifth of the abortions obtained in Canada. If the law was working equitably, can the minister advise why one fifth of all therapeutic abortions were done outside the country?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I assume from reading the report that the committee attributed the bulk of that number to a lack of knowledge of the law and rights within Canada; the lack of facilities in accredited or approved hospitals; the absence of procedures in certain parts of the country and a number of other factors which are listed in the report.



ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM GOVERNMENT POLICY ON ENDING CONTROLS AND FOR POST-CONTROL PERIOD

Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Was Mr. Reid Scowen, Director General of the Prices and Profits Branch of the Anti-Inflation Board, expressing government policy this morning when he said on the CTV program "Canada AM" that this Sunday he will climb aboard a plane with others and commence meeting with provincial representatives to tell them what the federal government intends to do with regard to controls, namely that controls will continue until next year at which time they will end; in the case of wage contracts, at the expiration of such contracts and, in the case of prices, at the termination of each fiscal year of the company involved, but in any event there will be a continuing AIB-like agency after 1978?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not government policy.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Will the minister assure the House there will not, in fact, be a continuing AIB-like agency after 1978?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that mandatory controls will end in December 1978, if not before. We have, of course, proposed a monitoring agency without mandatory powers which may well be in existence after that time.
Oral Questions THE BUDGET



POSSIBILITY OF INTRODUCTION PRIOR TO EASTER

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to ask the Minister of Finance a question with regard to the budget. The minister having indicated the problems that now exist with the Anti-Inflation Board, will he now advise whether he has ruled out the introduction of a budget before the Easter break? The latest statistics have indicated to the minister and the people of Canada that in terms of unemployment, we are in trouble, and in terms of growth of productivity, we are in a mess. Has the minister ruled out the introduction of a budget prior to the Easter break?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker.



ABORTION


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In relation to the new government report on therapeutic abortions, the minister was recently quoted as saying that the government intends to encourage family planning in the belief that it is "the only real hope for a reduction in the number of abortions", a point with which many of us agree heartily. Will the minister consider encouraging participation in increased family planning by those groups which are most actively opposed to therapeutic abortion?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, even some of the groups which are opposed to any form of induced abortion agree that family planning is a choice that people should be able to exercise. My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and I will be meeting with provincial ministers and authorities on this report and will be urging upon them a number of measures with regard to family planning and contraception. My colleague, who is not available in the House today because he is on government business elsewhere, will, in a matter of days, be making a number of announcements as to what we will be putting to the provinces.



SUGGESTED CHANGE IN LAW IF HOSPITAL COMMITTEES NOT ESTABLISHED-POSSIBILITY OF DEBATING ISSUE

Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice on the Badgley report. The law at the present time does not require provincial authorities to set up therapeutic abortion committees. The minister has indicated he intends to consult with his counterparts in the provinces with regard to that area. Given the fact that since the amendments to the Criminal Code it has been the experience that some of these therapeutic abortion committees have not been set up, is it the minister's intention when

February 10, 1977
Oral Questions
dealing with his provincial counterparts to point out that in the event these committees are not established, he will have no alternative but to change the law at the federal level so that there is some fairness and equity in the way abortions are granted in this country?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the more desirable course would be to encourage provincial health authorities to ensure there is an equitable distribution of abortion committees.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: When the minister assumed his present responsibilities, he indicated very clearly to a number of groups and the media that we would have a full debate in the House of Commons on the subject of abortions. Will the minister now announce to the House whether that debate will be based on legislation or a motion of reference from the government to a standing committee? Which device is the minister intending to use?


Stanley Ronald Basford: At the moment, Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting either course. It would be desirable for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I to have the opportunity of raising some of these issues with the provinces before there is such a debate.



MANPOWER


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the very limited amount of funds allocated to the Canada Works Program for the central interior of British Columbia, and in view of the satellite department of the Vancouver job creation branch recently set up in Kelowna, British Columbia, will the minister advise what criteria he used to create this additional bureaucracy? Was it the same criteria used to allocate the Canada Works funds?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I think I could best answer that question if the hon. member were to put it in a letter to me. I would then spell it out for him. I do not accept the premise of his question.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, will the minister advise whether this bureaucratic department, in addition to his well staffed and well run Manpower offices, will cost more than the allocation of Canada Works funds in Okanagan Boundary?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants service in his particular area, he should be supporting this rather than taking every opportunity to denigrate every effort that is made to serve that area.



MOTOR VEHICLES


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Federal authorities in the United States took unprecedented action this week in ordering the Ford Motor Company to stop production because their motor vehicles coming from production were not up to federal standards. Will the minister advise whether Canadian federal authorities have made a similar investigation and, if so, have there been any directives or actions carried out in Canada as has been done in the United States?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for a report on the procedures we adopt in relation to this particular kind of case. I will inform the hon. member as soon as I receive this.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the minister intend to use every public opportunity to draw the attention of Canadians to infractions of the human rights part of the Helsinki accord by countries, and I have in mind in particular the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, which deal with dissidents by locking them up?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have done this on occasion and I will certainly continue to do so. As I have said to the House on previous occasions, and I think the hon. member will appreciate this, there is a thin line between how far one goes in terms of public denunciation of specific individuals and the likely treatment that is meted out to them as a result. We will certainly continue to make public declarations whenever it is considered to be desirable.


Mr. Fairweather:: Accepting what the minister says, although those countries are, of course, signatories to a declaration which involves human rights, will the hon. gentleman be able to announce the results of his own department's monitoring system which is in place now to delineate these infractions which are evident in other areas of the public media?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, I can tell the House and the hon. member that such monitoring as we have been able to carry out shows, in our judgment, that a great deal is to be desired on the part of the countries to which he has referred and, specifically, of the U.S.S.R. I do not think there is any question on that point. Perhaps the most important activity in this connection now is the preparation of our

February 10, 1977

case, and that of other countries in the west, for presentation at the Belgrade conference later this year.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister confirm or deny reports that there is to be a rent raise of between 20 per cent and 40 per cent for occupants of married quarters. Bearing in mind the age of the houses which indicates the amortization or near-amortization of most of them, can the minister explain the new-found role of the government as a rapacious landlord?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, no firm decision has been made on this question yet. Rentals of married quarters generally reflect the rents in the local community as the forces are put on to special pay rather than special privileges. Some 52 per cent of personnel live outside married quarters and are paying a much higher rent than those living in married quarters. There is a need to bring some measure of equity into this situation but no final figures have yet been determined.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: The minister says he intends to hold the rent rises to their equivalent in the local communities. Can he therefore assure the House that in the provinces where provincial governments have instituted rent controls there will be no raise exceeding the amount permissible under such controls?


Barnett Jerome Danson: While the Crown is not subject to those controls, that is my intention.



IMMIGRATION


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In a departmental memorandum dated December 1, 1976 and marked confidential, Mr. C. J. Dagg, Chief Investigation Officer for Immigration Department headquarters in Ottawa and his deputy, Mr. T. Moses, wrote to Mr. R. J. Curry, director of the department's facilitation and control division stating that immigration officers in Toronto were working without proper training, adequate protection or co-operation from local police. Can the minister tell us whether he has seen this report and, if so, what specific steps has he taken to correct the glaring deficiencies in the operations of the department in Toronto as outlined by his own officers?
Oral Questions


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: First of all, Mr. Speaker, we shall confirm the authenticity of the "confidential document" referred to. I might say it was the responsibility of these officers to attend in Toronto to look into our immigration enforcement activities. They contacted several of the enforcement officers and part of the information they received indicated the officers in the front line felt they were not properly trained, that they did not have adequate resources and so on-there were some other concerns expressed. They have made their views known through the proper channels and I intend to look into these complaints to determine whether they have merit, in which case corrective action will be taken. Prior to receiving this report I did, in fact, look into other areas where I thought moves needed to be made, and they will be made in the very near future.



ALLEGATION POLICE FEEL IMMIGRATION CASES SUSCEPTIBLE TO POLITICAL INTERFERENCE

Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: One supplementary. Messrs. Dagg and Moses, officers who have had 28 years and 23 years experience respectively in immigration enforcement, state:
There is some indication that the police, both city and RCMP, do not want to become involved in immigration work as they feel it is too susceptible to political interference.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Can the minister tell us whether political interference, either from Canadian or foreign sources, has resulted in arrests not being made or in detained illegal immigrants being allowed to leave detention centres without deportation proceedings being completed?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member is implying that this was the experience of the officers who filed the report, but in fact they were commenting on information they had received from officers in the front line. This was information they had gathered. Our experience is that we have received absolutely first class co-operation from both the Metropolitan Toronto Police and the RCMP. But, as I said, without prejudging these matters I think I should first check into them before taking any action. We have received first class, splendid co-operation from both police forces and I think it has worked very well for the department.



MANPOWER


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I am informed today by the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce that three of the governments in the Atlantic provinces are now prepared to meet with the minister and that a favourable reply is expected from the fourth. Since

February 10, 1977
Oral Questions
the minister plans to make a trip to the Atlantic provinces later this month, is he now prepared to give a favourable reply to the effeot that he will meet with the governments of the four provinces when he visits the region, either in St. John's or in Halifax?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am going to Newfoundland and I plan to speak with business community leaders in St. John's for starters. I did receive a request from the Executive Director, or President, of the Chamber of Commerce, and I indicated in reply that if they wished to co-ordinate a meeting, I was prepared to meet with them. I do not know whether this is in the same vein, but I will check this question out and see what my schedule down there permits.



TRANSPORT


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I welcome very much the minister's announcement earlier this week that he had revised his previous position with respect to the user-pay situation as it applies to the Atlantic provinces. Would the minister state, in specific terms, his intentions with respect to a continuing problem, that of the transportation equipment for the movement of potatoes? This is a subject we have discussed on other occasions in this House. Has the minister received assurances from the government of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick that the equipment would be adequate for this winter? In addition, did the hon. gentleman make any determination with these governments as to whether a decision will be taken by the federal government for replacement equipment, taking into account the studies which the minister indicated last fall were taking place?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should tell the hon. member that what was accomplished in Charlottetown was full agreement between the provinces and the federal government on quite a number of matters and included not so much a change in philosophy but, rather, the addition of words which would emphasize that our philosophy in favour of development of the Atlantic accorded very fully with the desires and aspirations of the people of that region. The question of facilities for the handling of potatoes was discussed, particularly in private meetings with representatives of the Province of Prince Edward Island, and they had current figures on shortages which exist at this time. As I said in the House earlier, one of the questions which still remains to be finally resolved before steps can be taken to correct the situation is the kind of equipment which ought to be provided for the hauling of potatoes in the future.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: With respect to these important studies which are going on, and the deadline, I am sure the

minister was able to give some indication to the government of Prime Edward Island when a decision will be taken, especially in view of the lead time which is involved if the equipment is to be in place for next season.


Otto Emil Lang: I rather agree with the representatives in Prince Edward Island-the premier and the minister of transport there-that we had to be very conscious of the timetable in looking at questions such as facilities as well as the equipment.



MANPOWER


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the rather short lead time with respect to Canada Works and Young Canada Works, I wonder if the minister would be disposed to inform the House as to the possibility of extending the time limit regarding the applications for Young Canada Works.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated this publicly and I was hoping to receive a question about it on Monday or Tuesday last. However, for the Canada Works program I have given instructions that all applications received before the end of this week should be accepted. In the case of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon applications will be accepted if they are postmarked up to midnight, February 11. For Young Canada Works we will continue to accept applications provided they are postmarked before midnight, February 18, 1977.



CITIZENSHIP


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to ask a question since I am neither on your regular list of customers nor on the official list.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State related to his responsibility for citizenship. In light of the February 15 deadline, I should like to know why it was necessary to use the RCMP to lock the citizenship offices in northern Ontario, which had the effect of preventing British subjects from making citizenship applications before the February 15 deadline, knowing full well the
February 10, 1977

Prime Minister's desire to make the announcement on the fifteenth when everyone will have to go through the court?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of the specific incident to which the hon. member refers, but I will, of course, investigate the matter and report to him.


William Arnold Peters: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister give some consideration to providing extra people to serve the needs of British subjects in northern Ontario desirous of making application, or use some influence with other members of the cabinet to extend the deadline for British subjects who are making application for Canadian citizenship?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, we have, of course, plans and training programs under way so that when the new act is proclaimed greater assistance will be provided to a variety of groups in their application for citizenship under the new act.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, might I ask the government House leader his proposals for House business for the balance of this week and into next week, and because of discussions we have had and, with his answer, would he designate next Tuesday, February 15, 1977, as an allotted day?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, today is an allotted day. Tomorrow we will begin second reading discussion of the legislation in the name of the Minister of Justice having to do with human rights. On Monday we will deal with the third reading of the income tax bill, and I hereby designate Tuesday as an allotted day. With respect to the remaining days of next week, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, the business will be announced following further consultation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton further on the same point of order.


Walter David Baker: One further matter, Mr. Speaker. For the purpose of the consultations that we are going to have, I wonder whether the government House leader might consider bringing forward Bill C-17, to reorganize Air Canada, which I understand is of some importance within the organization. Perhaps he might consult with them. Would he also consider designating a day, or some period of time, for a debate on the report of the joint committee on regulations and other statutory instruments, which is quite an important report for both Houses?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have also had a suggestion from my parliamentary secretary regarding a possible period for the debate of that report and I will consider it.
Procedure and Organization
In addition, I realize that the Air Canada bill has some urgency, and certainly I would be delighted if we could arrange to have second reading given to that bill in a relatively short period of time.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You can always use 75C.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rising on the same point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member provides the badge in Gaelic, I will consider bringing it in.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I wonder whether I could ask the government House leader when he will bring in Bill C-2 which has passed committee and is waiting for third reading. This is the bill having to do with the agreement on the storage of crops.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this bill is on my priority list and I would be ready to bring it forward under some assurance that it would pass without prolonged debate; indeed, after very short debate.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions.
February 9, 1977-The Minister of Finance:
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to consider and report upon the document entitled The Way Ahead;
That fifteen Members, to be named at a later date, act as Members on the part of this House on the said Committee;
That the said Committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine witnesses; to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House; to report from time to time; to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable; and to delegate to sub-committees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House; and That a Message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its Members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section (2) of Standing Order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.

February 10, 1977
House of Commons HOUSE OF COMMONS


BROADCASTING OF HOUSE AND COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on motions hon. members will have noticed that there is a notice of motion appointing members to serve with Mr. Speaker on the Special Committee on the Television and Radio Broadcasting of the House. If there were a disposition to let the motion pass, I would call it. Indeed, I gather there is a disposition to pass the motion. Therefore, I move:
That the members serving with Mr. Speaker on the Special Committee on the Television and Radio Broadcasting of the House and its committees be Mssrs. Beatty, Blackburn, Coates, Goodale, Laprise, Pinard and Reid.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course, the presentation of this motion at this time would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such motion at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion standing in the name of the President of the Privy Council. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Jones:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to an item which appeared in Hansard yesterday on page 2896, the second column, on line six and some following lines. Some remarks are attributed to the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail). He is recorded as having made those remarks while I had the floor. I do not recall the hon. member having said what he is alleged to have said in Hansard, and request that those remarks be deleted. If they were said, and I doubt it very much, then I, as the member who had the floor, did not have the right or opportunity to reply to his unfair, sarcastic, inaccurate, exaggerated and unjust remarks.
I therefore request that those remarks be deleted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Without elaboration, I might say that that does not fall within the normal parameters of corrections to Hansard.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point I am making is that the words were not said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If a correction has to be made to delete remarks in Hansard attributed to the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail), this ought to be done at the instance of the hon. member for Restigouche and really not by any other member.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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: 289, 661, 672, 770, 811, 1240 and 1403.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the fiscal year 1975-1976, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Export Development Corporation?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable figures for the fiscal year 1973-1974?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as Export Development Corporation is concerned: 1. By tradition and as a matter of commercial principle Crown Corporations have not been required by Parliament to answer detailed questions on their administration and operations, and in the case of Export Development Corporation, the Export Development Act places the responsibility for such matters on its Board of Directors. The corporation's transactions are reviewed by the Auditor General of Canada, EDC's auditor.
2.	Please see the answer to Part 1.
3.	Please see the answer to Part 1.


Mr. Lachance: Between the date of the presentation of the last budget May 25, 1976 and October 12, 1976, did the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Foreign Investment Review Agency, Metric Commission, Standards Council of Canada, National Design Council and Export Development Corporation (excluding part-time employees hired for the quinquennial census) hire, dismiss or transfer employees to other departments and, if so, how many?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: Between May 25, 1976 and October 12, 1976, the recruitment and separation of public servants was as follows: Hired: Industry, Trade and Commerce; 35 (from inside the Public Service); 27 (from outside the Public Service); Total, 62; Foreign Investment Review Agency; 2 (from inside the Public Service); 4 (from outside the Public Service); Total, 6; 0 Metric Commission; 0 National Design Council; Dismissed: Industry, Trade and Commerce; 11 retired; 1 released; 2 laid off; 4 died; Total, 18; 0 Foreign Investment Review Agency; 0 Metric Commission; 0 National Design Council; Transferred: Industry, Trade and Commerce; 36 transferred to other government departments; 0 Foreign Investment Review Agency; 0 Metric Commission; 0 National Design Council; There are no employees listed for Standards Council of Canada.
In so far as Export Development Corporation is concerned: By tradition and as a matter of commercial principle Crown
February 10, 1977

Order Paper Questions
Corporations have not been required by Parliament to answer detailed questions on their administration and operations, and in the case of Export Development Corporation, the Export Development Act places the responsibility for such matters on its Board of Directors.


Mr. Lachance: Between the date of the presentation of the last budget May 25, 1976 and October 12, 1976, did the Canadian International Development Agency, International Development Research Centre, International Boundary Commission (Canadian Section) and International Joint Commission (Canadian Section) hire, dismiss or transfer employees to other departments and, if so, how many?


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the
Canadian International Development Agency is concerned: Hired 27; Dismissed None; Transferred 6.
In so far as the International Development Research Centre is concerned: Hired 26; Dismissed None; Transferred None.
In so far as the International Boundary Commission (Canadian Section) is concerned: Hired 36 (including casual employees); Dismissed None; Transferred None.
In so far as the International Joint Commission (Canadian Section) is concerned: Hired 6; Dismissed None; Transferred None.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is a definition of the duties performed by persons receiving grants from the Department of the Secretary of State classified as animators under the government's bilingual programme and is one of their tasks to go into an area to agitate members of either a French or English language minority group into pushing for minority language rights?
2.	(a) What is a list of all such grants given in the past four years (b) what are the names and addresses of the recipients (c) how many were involved with furthering or encouraging (i) English language services (ii) French language services (d) are such grants still made and are the animators sometimes referred to as Social Development Officers?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1. Animation in a minority environment is a practical technique for ensuring language and cultural rights. The animator is concerned with groups' sociocultural identification. He seeks to arouse their self-esteem and maximize their participation in various organizations through projects that promote their development and self-determination. Recipients of grants awarded for animation purposes encourage members of French and English-speaking minority groups to participate in community activities by making it possible for them to express their creative abilities and by awakening their pride in possessing, preserving and strengthening their Canadian cultural heritage.
2. (a) and (b) See following table, (c) All the associations, (d) Yes, such grants are still being made, and no, animators are not called Social Development Officers.
ORGANIZATIONS	1972-1973	1973-1974	1974-1975	1975-1976Socidtc franco-manitobaine 340, boul. Provencher C.P. 145 St-Boniface, Manitoba R2H 3B4	$ 132,000	$ 83,000	$ 107,000	$ 95,000Association culturelle franco-canadicnne de la Saskatchewan 2604, rue Centrale C.P. 3235 Regina, Sask. S4L 2N9	$ 84,000	S 55,000	$ 70,000	$ 65,000Association canadienne-fran^aise de l'Alberta 10008 109e rue Edmonton, Alberta	S 84,000	S 56,000	$ 78,000	$ 70,000Federation des franco-colombiens 3170, rue Willow Vancouver, C.-B. V5Z 3P5	$ 48,000	$ 32,000	$ 40,000	$ 45,000Association canadienne-fran^aise de 1'Ontario 260, rue Dalhousie Ottawa, Ontario KIN 7E4	$ 331,000	$ 217,000	$ 285,000	$ 230,000Soci6t6 St-Thomas d'Aquin 5, rue Central Summerside, l.P.E.	$ 22,000	$ 14,500	$ 19,000	$ 19,000Federation acadienne de la Nouvelle-Ecosse 6074, chemin Lady Hammond Halifax, N.E.	S 72,000	$ 46,000	S 60,000	$ 45,000Societe Nationale des Acadiens 80, rue Church Moncton, N. B.	$ 150,000	$ 100,000	
February 10, 1977
Order Paper Questions
ORGANIZATIONS	1972-1973
Society des Acadiens du	-
Nouveau-Brunswick
80, rue Church
Moncton, N. B.
Les Terre-Neuviens fran$ais	$	6,780
Cap St-Georges, T. N.
Gaspesian Cultural Association	$	30,000
P.O. Box 50 Shigawake, Quebec
Eastern Township Social	-
Action Group (ETSAG)
P.O. Box 1358 Lennoxville, Quebec
Committee for Anglophone	-
Social Action (CASA)


[Stage Direction]
New Carlisle, Quebec
Eastern Townships Citizens	-
Association
105 Gordon Street
Sherbrooke, Quebec
Pontiac Social Planning Council	-
Campbell's Bay, Quebec
Mr. Coates: 1.	Was approval given for assistance by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for the establishment of Challenge Mills at Springhill, Nova Scotia and, if so, on what date?
2.	(a) How much was provided in loans and grants (b) what is the amount of employment that would be produced (i) immediately (ii) in the long-term as a result of the firm's establishment?
3.	Was assistance made available through any provincial agency in Nova Scotia and, if so, in what amount and in what form?
4.	How much has Challenge Mills received to date of the total amount in loans and grants made available through DREE?
5.	What is the present employment at Challenge Mills?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned the response to Question number 811 is as follows: 1. Yes. An offer of assistance under the Regional Development Incentives Act was made on March 9, 1976 and accepted by the company on March 24th.
2.	(a) The departmental offer, as accepted by the company, was for an incentive grant estimated at $568,000. (b) (i) The company initially hired 8-10 people for clean-up work at the site, (ii) Employment is expected to grow gradually to 63 within three years.
3.	Yes. The provincial agency Industrial Estates Limited has announced that it is providing long-term loan financing of $1.2 million to the project.
4.	Nil to date.
5.	Approximately 30.
1973-1974	1974-1975	1975-1976
$ 135,000	$ 120,000
$	1,700
$ 23,000	-	-
$ 26,500	$ 55,000
$ 22,000	$ 21,275


Mr. Herbert: By province, in each of the past seven years, how much has been contributed under the Bilingualism Development Programme?


John (Moody) Roberts: The hon. member is referred to Question No. 803 (part 2) tabled this day.
Note: Program was not in existence in 1969.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): For each year since the Regional Development Incentives Act came into force, what percentage of projects approved for assistance under the Act with capital costs of (a) less than $250,000 (b) $250,000 to $500,000 (c) $500,000 to $1,000,000 (d) $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 (e) $1,500,000 or more, were approved or dealt with in any manner by the (i) local (ii) regional (iii) national office of DREE?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: From the enactment of the Regional Development Incentives Act in 1969 until the department's activities were decentralized in 1974, all incentives projects were approved in Ottawa, with the exception of some cases which were approved in the Montreal Office when Region C was designated. Since April 1, 1974, the percentages of projects which were approved for assistance (i.e., offers of incentives were made to applicants) by DREE
[Mr. Roberts.1
February 10, 1977

offices are depicted in the accompanying table. The table is based upon existing levels of signing authority. Exceptions may have occurred when individual cases were referred to more senior officials for resolution of specific or unusual problems; departmental records do not contain information on normal administrative actions of this nature.
Department of Regional Economic Expansion
Percentage distribution of project approvals* by selected project size by authorizing office
Authorized			
Capital Provincial	Regional	Head-Costs	Offices	Offices	quarters($000)	per cent	per cent	per centApril 1974 to March 1975	0 to 249	97	2	1250 to 499	91	8	1500 to 999	90	101 000 to 1 499	78	221 500 or over	100April 1975 to March 1976	0 to 249	98	1	1250 to 499	88	12	500 to 999	100	1 000 to 1 499	100	1 500 or over	100April 1976 to September 1976	0 to 249	97	3	250 to 499	94	6	500 to 999	95	51 000 to 1 499	100	1 500 or over	100
* It is to be noted that all applications are processed in DREE's provincial offices. Recommendations for approval are acted upon at different management levels within the Department depending upon the size of the project, of which more than 87 per cent involved capital costs of less than $500,000 during the periods indicated.
* *
*


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if questions No. 130, 606, 803 and 946 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the fiscal year 1975-1976, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Department of the Solicitor General?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable figures for the fiscal year 1973-1974?
Return tabled.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	(a) How many regional offices are maintained by the Department of National Health and Welfare (b) where is each located (c) for what area is each responsible?
2.	On what date was each established and with how many personnel?
3.	What is the present personnel strength of each office?
4.	In addition to regional offices, are district or other sub-offices maintained and, if so (a) in what locations (b) how many?
5.	Are the duties performed by those manning the regional and/or district offices line functions, in the chain of command from Ottawa to the operator in the field, or do they have other functions to perform and, if so, what are such functions?
Return tabled.


Mr. Epp: 1.	What is the population of francophones for (a) Manitoba (b) Saskatchewan (c) Alberta (d) British Columbia?
2.	In each case, what was the amount of grants given for the teaching of French in (a) 1971 (b) 1972 (c) 1973 (d) 1974 (e) 1975 (f) 1976?
3.	In each case, what was the amount of grants given to universities and colleges in (a) 1971 (b) 1972 (c) 1973 (d) 1974 (e) 1975 (f) 1976?
4.	In each case, what was the amount of grants given per (a) university student (b) student from kindergarden to Grade 12 in (i) 1971 (ii) 1972 (iii) 1973 (iv) 1974 (v) 1975 (vi) 1976?
5.	What was the amount of grants given to municipalities in Manitoba on a per capita basis in (a) 1971 (b) 1972 (c) 1973 (d) 1974 (e) 1975 (f) 1976?
Return tabled.


Mr. Howie: In each fiscal year ending March 31 (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976, what amount was paid to each province for second language training in (i) English (ii) French?
Return tabled.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the questions have been dealt with in this way by reason of the length of the answer in each case.
2920

February 10, 1977
Unemployment


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition) moved:: That this House denounces the government's failure to generate jobs in Canada, particularly in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, and urges immediate and resolute action, including the early presentation of a budget.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion we shall debate today which stands in my name is inspired by the most recent unemployment figures announced earlier this week which shocked all members of the House. They are shocking not simply in terms of the human burden which they impose on nearly one million Canadians who are out of work, but they are also disturbing by reason of what they say about our capacity to keep our country together and realize the economic growth potential which exists here and which can be one of the central means of ensuring that Canadians will choose, because it makes economic and other sense for them so to choose, to remain part of a large country full of promise and possibility.
I do not intend to dwell at length on the figures which are all too familiar to the House of Commons and to those upon whom they impact most directly. To make the House clearly aware of the degree of the problem we are facing, it would be helpful to enter on the record some relevant figures. Last month the number of unemployed in Canada, according to Statistics Canada, reached 889,000. That, sir, is the highest figure recorded by that agency in the more than 20 years it has been providing this labour force survey.


Walter David Baker: Shocking.


Charles Joseph Clark: These are shocking figures, a shocking way in which to start the year 1977, and present a great challenge to the country. The number of people who were actually working in January, even on a seasonally adjusted basis, was up only 70,000 from one year earlier, while the labour force had increased by more than 150,000. That means that in 1976 we created new jobs for less than half the new entrants to the Canadian labour force. While we were registering that meagre performance, we made no progress at all in reducing the backlog of jobless in this country.
Unemployment in the five eastern provinces of Canada- Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island-was even more serious because the number of jobs available there was down by 24,000 from one year ago. During 1976, fully 50 per cent of the increase in

unemployment occurred in the province of Quebec. I repeat, 50 per cent occurred in that one province. Thirty per cent of it was accounted for by the Atlantic provinces. That is, eight out of every ten Canadians who joined the ranks of the unemployed in 1976 lived in those five eastern provinces of Canada.
On a longer term basis it is worth noting that over the past decade the unemployment rate for Atlantic Canada has been, on average, 50 per cent higher than for the country as a whole. In Quebec, the average rate during those ten years of the life of the present government has run at 30 per cent above the figure for Canada as a whole.


Walter David Baker: Some government.


Charles Joseph Clark: The aspect of those figures which is most troubling is that among young people-among those in the 15 to 24 age group-the rate of unemployment in Canada in January was 15.2 per cent, or close to double the figure for the labour force as a whole. The figure with respect to young people in Quebec was 17 per cent. That is to say, the unemployment figure was 17 per cent and in Newfoundland it was as high as 29 per cent. That was the figure applying to those who were forced by the economic policies of this government to begin their work career without the possibility of finding a job.
One could go on at great length enumerating this dismal catalogue. I want to go on and recite one or two basic factors. First, unemployment has been rising in Canada even though one of our traditional excuses, the old boast about having the fastest growing labour force in the western world, no longer rings true. It does not hold water any more. In fact, our work force grew last year at less than half the rate experienced by the United States. It is important to note that in the United States the unemployment rate has been moving steadily downward, while in this country it has been creeping steadily upward. Second, the so-called participation rate, the number of eligible Canadians actually in the work force, is down over one year ago, otherwise our problems would be even worse than they actually are.
Finally, I think it is important as we consider this question to take note of the forecasts of the Conference Board. They say that without some action by this government to stimulate growth and generate jobs, unemployment will average more than 10 per cent this year in all the five eastern provinces which have already borne the brunt of unemployment brought on by the economic policies of this government. We are speaking not simply about figures to feed to computers; we are talking about individual Canadians, about people who face the fundamental problem of obtaining a job around which they can build their lives and on which they can base their futures. We are dealing here not just with a passing event, not with a statistic which cropped up this month and is going to pass away, but with what has become an unfortunate feature of life in Canada under this government and one which has a very permanent and dangerous impact upon the lives not only of individual Canadians but upon our capacity to grow together as a country.
February 10, 1977

I want to read to the House of Commons excerpts from a letter that was sent originally to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) from a man in Victoria. He received no answer from the Prime Minister's office and so sent the correspondence to me. In a long and eloquent letter he talks about his six children; his oldest son, having worked his way through university, now unable to find a job in his profession; his daughter, a graduate nurse, in the same predicament; his daughter's boy friend, with a degree in business administration, also not able to find a job. The example, he says, is discouraging to his younger children. One of his daughters is talking about going to work in a fish plant in British Columbia when she graduates from high school because "when they are open she can earn great money", and because it is seasonal work she can draw UIC benefits when the fish plant is closed. That will give her time, she says, to walk on the beach and sit in a beer parlour with hundreds of other kids planning a similar future. This father asks:
What the hell is wrong? Why are we letting this happen to us?
He concludes:
I think everyone owes their country a service. I also happen to believe that a country owes something to its citizens, especially the ones that are working and striving to be better citizens and are preparing themselves to do great things. They've got to have a chance or we are finished.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That is the report of one father, of one correspondent, to one member of parliament. Colleagues on this side of the House can cite countless others, particular those who come from regions of the country where unemployment has hit hardest.


Jack Marshall: Hundreds of them.


Charles Joseph Clark: The point, which is an important one to make, relates to what has been called the work ethic in Canada. Sometimes the suggestion is made that Canadians generally, and young Canadians in particular, do not want to work, that that is the reason they, in the words of this father, walk on the beach and sit in the beer parlours. There have been studies by this very government of the extent to which the work ethic is strong in Canada and the conclusions are that the work ethic is alive and well in Canada if there is work for those who practise that ethic.
I want to read into the record excerpts from Canadian Work Values prepared by the Department of Manpower and Immigration relating to surveys conducted over the last two years. It reads:
When those in the labour force were asked whether they would rather-if given their preference-work full-time, part-time or never, more than 95 per cent chose either full-time or part-time.
Later the report reads:
Seventy-five percent of those people who said they were in the labour force agreed that "I work more because I like to than because I have to".
Those are not reports of a country in which the work ethic is in trouble or is in decline. The cause of the unemployment
Unemployment
figures that we have seen this month is not based upon the failure of the work ethic but, instead, on the failure of the government of Canada to recognize its responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The matter which has to concern us most as parliamentarians planning the future of this country is that while the work ethic is alive and well in Canada, Canadians like other people, are very adaptable. If our institutions create situations where there are no jobs to go to, where it is easier to go on unemployment insurance and to walk the beaches and stay in the beer parlours than it is to find work, then we will see a decline in that work ethic, not because there is a decline in the will of young Canadians but because this government is not doing its job of giving Canadians a chance. There is no question in my mind that this government can break down the Canadian work ethic if it wants to, and it gives every indication of it by its failure to generate jobs.
There are other long-term political impacts to the kind of statistics that we saw the other day. One of them clearly relates to political stability in this country, because there is a clear relationship between political stability and economic progress even in this fortunate country.

Let us take the case of the province of Quebec, for example. It would be easy to delude ourselves and believe that a few cultural concessions will solve all our problems and consequently that the threat of separatism will vanish forever. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I had the opportunity, both before and after my election as leader of the Progressive Conservative party, to visit the various regions of this province and each time I saw that Quebeckers attach great importance to the economic well being of their province. The federal government seems to be the only one to ignore it. Nevertheless, last November 15, when they brought the Parti Quebecois to power, the people of Quebec expressed their economical concerns in no uncertain terms. I have already said, and I repeat it today, that Quebeckers did not vote in favour of independence, but for an efficient government likely to grapple with and solve the very concrete problems they are facing. Unemployment is surely one of those problems.
In that context the federal government must of course assume its share of responsibilities, urgently face reality and introduce real solutions to the unemployment problem, not just palliatives. If it remains apathetic, it will only emphasize the risk of making part of the population lose all hope and opt for radical solutions.

Mr. Speaker, there is also a third long-term impact of this continuing slowness of growth, this continuing failure to realize the promise of the country. That is the development of a sense in Canada that we are a stagnant country, not achieving the growth of which we are capable, not generating the jobs which our young people and other Canadians have a right to
80008-471/2

February 10, 1977
Unemployment
expect, not realizing a potential which is unparallelled among the nations of the world if only our government would act to achieve that potential.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The sense of stagnation that is developing in the country also imposes strains upon our unity as a nation. There is now, in western Canada, growing talk in loud voices, with perhaps few numbers behind them at the moment, about a kind of separatism in that region. I think it is important for us to recognize that where part of the sense of separatism in the eastern provinces is separatism of the disadvantaged, what we are seeing in western Canada right now is, instead, separatism flowing from the frustration of the entrepreneur. This frustration is flowing from people who sense that their country is being stacked against them, is placing obstacles in the path of the generation of growth and the generation of jobs which is so much part of the ethic of that region.
We are not talking here simply about the statistics which came from Statistics Canada the other day. We are talking about human lives, human opportunities and about serious impacts upon our capacity as a nation to grow together, to remain together and to maintain the work ethic and the standards which have been part of the Canadian experience and have generated the growth and the progress that we have known in this country. The government can no longer blame external circumstances or other governments, the opposition or anybody else, because they have been the government of Canada for nearly a decade and some of their ministers have been in office longer than that. They are clearly responsible for the failure of this country to realize the economic growth potential and generate the jobs that we can in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I am not going to detain or entertain the House today with a long review of the record of bad government we have received from the government opposite. It is all too well known to Canadians. However, it is important to remember in passing that one justification this government gave for introducing a controls program by surprise, in the dead of the night and without consultation, was that that would allow the government to avoid fighting inflation by recession and unemployment. Now, as a result of the mismanagement of the affairs of this country by the government, we have the worst of both worlds. We have a system of controls, with all its distortions in investment patterns, in loss of new plants, in loss of new jobs and in diversion of opportunity to other countries or to other times, and we also have a situation of near recession. We have an economy which underperformed its realistic growth potential last year, and unless some definite action is taken by this government it is going to do even worse this year.
Yet the minister tells us, in effect, that his hands are tied and he cannot do anything to get the economy back on a course of sound and steady economic growth, because if he does, he might overstimulate it. 1 ask the minister, and

Canadians also ask him: is he not aware of the amount of slack which already exists in this economy? Does he not feel that there is considerable room for stimulation in an economy which has unused capacity of up to 20 per cent in some sectors? How can he be so afraid of overstimulation when the Conference Board forecasts that without some change in government policy we will have negative real capital investment in 1977?
I want to talk for a moment about the argument of unused capacity because it is interesting in that regard to look at some of the figures for the third quarter of 1976, figures on the utilization of productive capacity in manufacturing industries, industries which would create jobs if encouragement were given to them. The figures show that during the last three months of 1976 the chemical industry was operating at only 83 per cent of its established capacity. I remind the House that furniture producers, heavily active in the province of Quebec, were employing only 72 per cent of their productive capacity. The electrical products industry was operating at 81 per cent capacity, and the durable goods sector-automobiles, major appliances and the like-was functioning at 82 per cent capacity. What is significant here is not simply the failure to come closer to capacity; it is that many of the industries which have been operating at less than capacity are in those parts of Canada where the unemployment problem we have today is most acute.
I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald)-I hope he takes the opportunity today-has an obligation to explain to the House why the President of the United States feels justified in advocating some $30 billion in new stimulus for the economy of the United States, which already is an economy outperforming ours in every major category. Why is it that the Carter administration feels that it can and, indeed, that it must provide stimulation to the U.S. economy, which is already growing faster than ours, at a time when unemployment in the U.S. is going down, and yet we cannot act in an economy which it is forecast will grow no more than 3.5 per cent this year and at a time when unemployment threatens to reach one million Canadians? I would be interested in hearing the minister's answer to that question. There is one answer which is well known on this side, and it is that, unlike the government of Canada, the government of the United States is committed to providing jobs for its citizens. That is a model and an example which should be followed here.
There are a number of matters which one might want to touch upon today, but I think one of the fundamental requirements is a new budget as soon as possible. Today the Minister of Finance indicated that there might be one before Easter. The other day in the House he spoke in terms of several months from now. Canadians rely upon economic growth and upon the generation of jobs and they just cannot wait for the convenience of the Minister of Finance. We need a budget as quickly as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 10, 1977


Charles Joseph Clark: Just in case the reason for the minister's delay is that he does not know what to do, we want to take the opportunity today to suggest some of the elements which that budget should contain, elements which would cut into the recurrent high unemployment figures in this country and which would give Canadians not only a chance but a sense of having a chance in this country.

First, in the budget it should be recognized that permanent employment is created not by government programs but rather by strong economic expansion in the private sector.
Second, steps must be taken to encourage consumer demand, perhaps by reducing sales tax: this would not create inflation.
Third, activity in the field of housing in Canada is slowing down at an alarming rate, at a time when the jobs in that industry are most necessary. That slowing down is particularly obvious in the construction of new units, the sector where the rate of vacancies is the lowest.
Stimulants must therefore be found to give new momentum in that field. If need be, the minister should say he is willing to discuss with the provinces the impact of rent controls in new buildings.
Fourth, we have witnessed in Canada for some time now serious cuts, on the part of corporations, in their budgets for research and development. These cannot be gauged strictly in terms of lost jobs. They are also contributing to our loss of competitiveness in foreign markets. Adequate stimulants are needed to encourage new expenditures in R and D, of such a nature as to encourage innovation and industrial productivity.
Fifth, the government should seriously consider introducing the concept of special fiscal contracts with companies desirous of locating new industries in underdeveloped areas of our country.
This approach which was applied with a certain amount of success in the Republic of Ireland and in New Hampshire in the United States has more guarantees to offer, I think, than the various measures put forward by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, as far as a viable and continuous industrial development in these areas is concerned. Mr. Speaker, to anyone who has the courage to face reality, it is clear that Canada has to cope with a serious problem: the lack of confidence on the part of investors.
This lack of confidence does not solely issue from the results of the November 15 election in Quebec, and I insist on this point. At most, the election of a new government in Quebec added a new element of uncertainty to an already precarious situation. On this point, it should be noted that, according to the Conference Board, new capital investments in Canada will drop this year and that this forecast is based on data which were compiled before the election in Quebec.

It is worth noting, too, that the Atlantic Economic Council has been pointing to this problem for some time as a major element behind the continuing difficulties in that region. It is
Unemployment
time-indeed, past time-that the government of Canada faced up to this problem squarely and honestly. It is not going to help the situation one iota for ministers to begin, as some of them have already begun, at least by insinuation, to try to shift the blame for the problem to the new government of the province of Quebec rather than to the policies of the government of Canada. If investors have any concern about the future course of political events in Quebec, that is all the more reason for their being able to look to the federal government with some sense of confidence and some sense of reassurance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: So if it has been important for the government of Canada to create a climate of confidence in this country prior to this point, it is even more important now. That sense of confidence has been sadly missing for far too long. When we needed a climate of certainty we had a government that consistently changed the rules, often in the middle of the night and often without warning or, just as bad, a government that left important sectors of the economy hanging for years with no rules at all. Perhaps when one looks at all this, the difference in the approach of the two principal parties in the country to the economic future of the country and our capacity to create jobs and realize our potential, in the final analysis it comes down to a basic view of this country.
The Prime Minister and this government talk a lot about the virtues of Canada and why Canadians in all parts of the country want to keep it together. I do not doubt for one moment their dedication to the principle of unity. Of course they are committed to it, as all of us are committed to it. But the more I see of this government, the more I watch and hear their responses to the critical problems of Canada, the more I am struck by how little they really expect of Canada and how small and narrow a vision of this country they offer to Canadians.
That small vision makes it easy for them virtually to ignore the 800,000 jobless. They do not seem to believe Canada can do any better than that. This is a government which offers no real hope to Canadians, because it has no real hope itself. If there is any danger that Canadians are uncaring about the unemployed and the underemployed among us-and I do not believe Canadians are uncaring-it is partly because they have a federal government that does not seem to care.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We have been given a great gift in this country-a gift of potential to grow, to find opportunities, to express ourselves, to build secure lives, to build good families. This is a country whose potential is literally unparallelled in the world-a country of great promise. The sadness is that we are not realizing the potential for growth, for jobs or for progress. Instead, we have a country dominated by unemployment, by anger and by a growing sense of despair.

February 10, 1977
Unemployment
In a speech the Prime Minister made recently outside the House he indicated some fundamental changes in the rigid approach to federalism that has marked the government's conduct in the past. We have yet to see the proof of that promise although it has been made. I take the occasion of introducing this motion to make the point clear that we need from this government, immediately, an indication that it is prepared fundamentally to change its approach to economic progress in this country. 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 policies of this government. It will only be done if there is determination to realize the potential of this country.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to give our unqualified support to the motion before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I do so because since this parliament returned last fall after the summer recess we have been saying that the number one issue before Canada, both in economic and human terms-and not just the people of Atlantic Canada or Quebec, as important as their problems are-is that of unemployment. Although the official figures published within the last couple of days indicate that 889,000 people are unemployed, for reasons that I and other members of my party have tried to make clear in recent days the accurate figure realistically describing the number of Canadians out of work is over one million. That is the highest level of unemployment not only since Statistics Canada has been providing data but since the depression. Politicians frequently indulge in rhetoric that causes language to lose its original meaning, but in this case we have what can only be appropriately described as a human tragedy for over one million Canadians.
We support the motion because we believe it is a fundamental objective of any government at the national or provincial level to create opportunities for work. If there is anything which my party and I stand for in global terms-I refer to the social democratic movement-it is the opportunity within the framework of the economy of any country for men and women who want to work to do so. People in Canada, as elsewhere, want jobs; they do not want hand-outs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: After all kinds of pressure-indeed, 1 am prepared to acknowledge pressure within their own ranks- this government created an unemployment insurance system that is good. What it has not done is to provide the complement that social democratic parties have always done-assurance of the possibility of work. If you have a social insurance scheme that enables people to live with dignity when they are out of work, the absolutely essential concomitant to that is a commitment to full employment to minimize the number of jobs at any time without occupants. It has been the total failure of this government to consider that option that is so objectionable and so fundamentally distasteful to anyone who

is concerned. Human dignity can only come to individuals and their families from the capacity and opportunity to work, to contribute to their families and to the community through productive labour.
We believe in the motion basically because of our commitment to the right, as we see it, of all Canadians to have a job and an opportunity to make their contribution. We are, and have been, concerned about the direction of this government because of its mishandling of the economy leading to serious negative consequences for the country. If more of the 93 per cent of the people who have jobs are not as concerned as we would like about creating opportunities for those without work, at least they should be concerned about the immense cost of this level of unemployment to the economy and they should be moved by the economic arguments. In 1972, $1.9 billion was paid in unemployment insurance benefits; in 1975, the figure was $3.1 billion.
If you compare the first nine months of 1975 of unemployment insurance pay-outs with the first nine months of 1976, which is the most recent figure available, we see that in 1976 we were running well ahead of 1975 in terms of what it was going to cost in unemployment insurance pay-outs for people to do nothing. In the first nine months of 1975 it cost Canadians $2.6 billion in unemployment insurance pay-outs. In the comparable period of 1976 it cost $2.8 billion-up .2 per cent. There can be no doubt that when the final figures are in for 1976 we will have spent more than ever before in Canadian history on unemployment insurance pay-outs to people who need and deserve the money. There should be no mistake about that. If people cannot have the opportunity to work, we must ensure they have the economic subsistence to get by. My point is that it is an immensely stupid drain on the economy to pay people to do nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Second, if you calculate the lost production in goods and services which we would have had if these men and women had been working, it costs the Canadian economy about $6 billion a year. That would go a considerable way toward reducing the rate of inflation. Increasing the supply of goods and services, as every economist knows, would have the effect of bringing down prices. We are losing that production. Finally, in terms of economic costs we are losing hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues that these men and women would be paying if they were employed. Because they are not employed, and therefore not paying the level of tax they would pay if they had jobs, other working Canadians have to bear a disproportionate share of the tax burden. In addition to the human costs which are fundamental to us, the economic costs to the Canadian economy in billions of dollars year after year should cause all Canadians to be concerned about this question. It should motivate even this sterile government to take some concrete steps to turn the economy around.
February 10, 1977

The phenomenon we are dealing with is not a recent one. It is important for us to absorb that fact. It is not a new practice of the Liberal government. In fact, it is not just characteristic of that party. The last time we had comparable levels of unemployment, although they were not quite as bad, was during the last years of a Tory government. In the period 1962-63, unemployment figures were setting new levels of undesirableness for the Canadian economy. What I am saying is that this pattern is characteristic of parties in this country which have governed at the national level. They do not believe in taking the steps that are required in terms of national economic planning to deal with both unemployment and inflation.
Mir. Stevens: Like in the United Kingdom.


William Heward Grafftey: Like the socialists in the U.K. Tell us what is happening in England.


John Edward Broadbent: 1 am hearing examples of governments trying to clean up decades of Tory mess. They are trying to clean up decades of Tory mismanagement. Listen to the statistics. I will give the figures for the United Kingdom and a few other countries. Here is the record, comparative terms, of the eight leading industrial countries. These are the average unemployment figures for the period 1960 to 1974. The best is West Germany, which has had a social democratic government for years, with an average of .8 per cent. The next is Japan, with 1.3 per cent. I give credit to Japan because they believe in some economic planning, unlike the Tories to my right or the Liberals across the way. Third is Sweden, with 1.9 per cent. Fourth is France, with a 2.3 per cent average. Then the United Kingdom, with a 3.2 per cent average; Italy, with a 3.6 per cent average; and the United States with an average level of 4.9 per cent.
Which country in the industrial world has the worst average of unemployment? It is our own. The average rate of unemployment for that period in Canada, I am ashamed to say, was 5.4 per cent. That was up to 1974. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald)-who is in the chamber today-knows better than anyone else, the average since 1974 has become worse, not better.
This government has done virtually nothing. We raised this issue last fall at the opening of parliament and in special debates just before Christmas. Even after a month's recess at Christmas the government did not come back with a commitment to do something to provide jobs for the more than one million Canadians out of work. If we look at what they are doing now in terms of allocation of funds for direct job creation, compared with a few years ago when the level of unemployment was lower, we see they are even doing proportionately less than at that time. For the year 1971-72, when the unemployment level was 6.4 per cent, the government spent $603 million on direct job-creation programs. In 197677, when the unemployment rate had jumped to 7.1 per cent, the amount spent by this government on direct job-creation programs had dropped to $264 million. For 1977-78, the current fiscal year, with an unemployment average being
Unemployment
forecast for the year 1977 of between 7.5 per cent and 8 per cent, this government plans to spend only $243 million in direct job-creation programs.
Surely this is a scandal. It is something that a government with any sense of human priorities would not tolerate. A few years ago, when unemployment was significantly lower, they were spending almost three times the amount in job-creation programs. The government is an uncaring one, one that is motivated, in terms of people-oriented programs, only a few months before an election. It is a disgrace.
Having said these things about the government, I must say that I regard the official opposition, to understate it, with considerable skepticism as they now express their concern about unemployment. I simply cannot understand that party putting a motion before the House at this time which does not even call for a vote of non-confidence in the government. This at a time when there are over one million people out of work. In recent weeks and months that party has proposed changes to government programs that most seriously affect those from parts of Canada about which today they are allegedly expressing concern. I refer to the changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act which were first advocated by the financial spokeman for the Conservative party, who was in the chamber a few moments ago. These changes were also actively supported by the labour critic of the Conservative party of Canada.
Those two men, before the Liberal government of Canada brought forward this change in the unemployment insurance regulations, both inside and outside the House said that the basic entitlement period for a person to be eligible for unemployment insurance should be changed from the existing one of eight weeks to 12 weeks. It was the Conservatives who made that recommendation. It is the Conservatives who are now saying we should be concerned about the problems of Atlantic Canada and the province of Quebec.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) is seeking the floor on a point of order.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I presume the leader of the NDP is making his charge in ignorance of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) which would make an exception for areas of high unemployment in connection with the qualifying period.


John Edward Broadbent: Quite the contrary. I am fully aware of the hypocritical amendment proposed by the Tory party. As I said a few minutes ago, it was that party which advocated the change from 8 weeks to 12 weeks. They have since discovered the thousands of Canadians who would be affected in Atlantic Canada. Just by coincidence this is an area which provides them with a large number of their seats. They got a political reaction and then introduced an amendment which would apply to certain regions. I say to the hon. member that an unemployed Canadian is an unemployed Canadian, and that it

February 10, 1977
Unemployment
doesn't matter whether he is in Ontario, Atlantic Canada or British Columbia. My party would not tolerate the kind of hypocrisy which has been indulged in by the Tories on this issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I want to put on record the number of Canadians in Atlantic Canada who will be directly affected by this Tory idea taken over by the Liberals. Assuming a continuing unemployment rate of 7 per cent, which is a conservative estimate with a small "c", the number directly affected in Newfoundland will be 16,500; in Prince Edward Island, 3,000; in Nova Scotia, 15,000; in the province of Quebec, about which so much concern has been expressed, 106,000. That is the number who will be cut off from benefits. Does it make any sense for a party like the Conservative party to rise in this chamber and express concern about the need for jobs, bearing in mind their advocacy of measures which would cut off from benefit thousands of Canadians who need such benefit now, not some distance down the road? That kind of hypocrisy is something which my party would never endorse.
I have put on record the number of persons who will be affected by the change which is coming in the unemployment insurance regulations as far as Atlantic Canada and Quebec are concerned. I should like, also, to mention the dollar value of these changes because of the impact on job creation. Newfoundland will lose between $24 million and $28 million. Prince Edward Island will lose between $4 million and $5 million.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but the time allotted to him has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue if he has the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: I appreciate the consideration of my colleagues and I shall try not to abuse it. I was listing the revenue which would be lost to the provinces of Atlantic Canada, and Quebec, because of the changes in the unemployment insurance law as proposed by the Conservative party and accepted by the Liberal government. Nova Scotia would lose between $9 million and $11 million for the coming year, and New Brunswick between $19 million and $22 million. In the province of Quebec, about which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Clark) rightly said we should be particularly concerned at this point in our history, the loss will be between $93 million and $102 million. This money would be directly beneficial to the families suffering from unemployment. It would also have a good effect on the economy, because these people, if they got the money, would be spending it.
We have said that something has to be done about unemployment. We say it should have been done last fall, two weeks ago, last week. We shall be happy if the minister will act next week. Maybe he will be moved now that the figure of over one million Canadians unemployed has sunk into his mind with all

its human implications. We have called for direct tax cuts for people in the low and medium income brackets who will spend the money and stimulate the economy which at the present time is only operating at 85 per cent of capacity in the manufacturing centre.
We have called for the reactivation of government work programs which were put aside during the period of restraint, programs which would stimulate expansion at the municipal level across Canada. Third, we have called for a significant increase in home construction, low income housing, to meet both the need of job creation and the human need for decent accommodation. Finally, as a short-run measure, we have urged the government to take steps to provide new and extended insulation capacity in federal offices and residential buildings right across Canada. The government took up that suggestion more than a month ago and applied it to Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. We asked that there should be a national program in this area. This would not only create jobs; it would help toward the solution of an almost equally important question, the conservation of energy.
These, Mr. Speaker, are concrete steps which ought to be taken by a government which is truly concerned about the right of Canadians to work and the loss to our economy resulting from a million Canadians wanting to do something but being out of work. It is not enough, of course, for a government to deal simply with unemployment. It must simultaneously set up a mechanism to plan the national economy. This is what has been done in Sweden, in West Germany, in Norway and in Japan. A policy which deals with inflation for a time, moves on to deal with unemployment and then switches back again, is not good enough. We must plan the economy in a rational way so as to minimize, in a modern market economy, the amount of inflation while maximizing the number of jolts available for those who want them. That is the real issue.
Our party is committed to maintaining the capacity of our people to realize themselves as responsible citizens in their communities and among their families, and the most effective way in which they can do so is by finding jobs. It is time the government showed more sympathy with that objective.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the motion be amended by adding at the end thereof the following words: "This House also urges that the government
(1)	immediately decrease personal income taxes for those in the lower and middle incomes to stimulate purchasing power and take up the current slack in the economy,
(2)	immediately reactivate all federal capital works projects and encourage the provinces and municipalities to follow suit, and at the same time, lift any restraint on shared funding of such projects,
(3) immediately expand-in consultation with the provinces-the capital budgets for low income and co-operative housing and land assembly,
(4)	immediately launch an assisted repair and renovation program of homes owned by pensioners, the disabled and low-income families, and
(5)	immediately launch a program-in co-operation with the provinces-of insulating or improving the level of insulation in all residential buildings-a program which would provide not only jobs but would also conserve energy."
February 10, 1977


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the motion today provides a useful opportunity, by way of preparation for the budget, to hear the views of the various groups within the House on possible measures of economic stimulus that might be taken, just as in recent weeks I have taken the occasion to discuss the approach of the executive of the Canadian Labour Congress, that of various groups across the country and, of course, most recently that of the provincial governments last week.
By way of introduction, I would just indicate that my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) will be participating in the debate and talking in particular about specific federal commitments for industrial expansion, and more specifically in the province of Quebec. My colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) will also be participating for the purpose of talking about his direct job-creation program.
Therefore, what I should like to do is to talk about some of the fiscal and monetary measures which have been effective within the last several months in particular in stimulating personal disposable income; to indicate that in many respects the measures which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Clark) and the leader of the New Democratic Party have put before the House are already incorporated in measures the government is taking; and also to make some comments relating to the very serious and important concern that exists about unemployment and the very serious concern we must have and continue to have respecting the level of inflation in Canada.
Firstly, I would review once more for the House the measures we have taken in the category of enriching personal disposable income. By a series of measures previously taken through legislative action in this parliament and effective as of January 1, 1977, there has been a transfer from the federal public sector of approximately $1,700 million, on an annual basis, to the incomes of individual Canadians. Indeed, adding to this particular transfer the equally automatic transfer that is effected by indexation of provincial tax in the nine provinces which participate in the tax-sharing agreements, there is approximately $2 billion worth of fiscal transfers, on an annual basis, which has gone to the incomes of Canadians. What this, therefore, means is that the various measures which have been taken in Canada will have some effect, indeed in percentage terms greater effect, on personal incomes of Canadians than the tax cut measures which President Carter has indicated it is his intention to put to the United States Congress.
Let me review these measures again in some detail. Firstly, the income tax indexation is well known to the House and I would only rehearse the figures involved. Canadians but for the indexing operation, would have had to pay, on an annual basis, in 1977 $950 million more than in fact they will now have to pay. Indeed, starting from the deductions effective as of January 1, 1977, those tax cuts are already going into the incomes of individual Canadians. As I have indicated, with the automatic indexing which is offered under the tax-sharing
Unemployment
arrangements with the provinces, a further approximately $300 million has been flowing into the incomes of Canadians in the nine participating provinces in addition to the amounts of reduced federal income tax.
In terms of specific groups in the community, many of whom are in the middle and lower income groups, there have been not just tax reductions but actual increases in transfer payments-an increase in the transfer payments to old age security recipients of $390 million, on an annual basis, and to the recipients of family allowance $160 million, also on an annual basis. In other words, the senior citizens of Canada and families with children are already receiving increased payments on a monthly basis over those they were receiving in December, 1976.
Further, the working people of Canada, people in the work force who are contributors to and participants in the unemployment insurance program, are as of January 1, 1977, paying less by way of contributions to the program than they were required to pay in the year 1976. This reduction in unemployment insurance contributions amounts, on an annual basis, to $250 million. So you can see, Mr. Speaker, that on the basis of these various measures which are offered under existing legislation there has been a return to individual taxpayers, on an annual basis, of close to $2 billion in terms either of transfer payments or obligations to pay tax which have been forgone.
But that is not all in terms of stimulative effect, Mr. Speaker. I have talked about the impact of fiscal policy and I think I should also draw to the attention of the House the fact that within the last three months, with three successive reductions in the bank rate, the Bank of Canada, in monetary policy terms, has also increased the personal disposable incomes of Canadians. If I may make reference to a statement that was made at the first ministers' meeting on February 1, 1977, it was said there:
We estimate that Canadian families, over time, stand to save about $1 billion a year in interest charges for each percentage point decline in interest rates. This saving breaks down into about $250 million on consumer loans and $750 million on mortgages. This, in itself, represents a substantial net addition to personal disposable incomes. There can be no doubt that it also strengthens consumer and business confidence.
That quotation is not of myself but of the provincial treasurer of Ontario, Hon. Darcy W. McKeough, who was talking about a $1 billion reduction for each point in the interest rate. Given the fact that the interest rate has gone down 1 !6 points, the reduction will be even more than that. Therefore, the combination of the reduction in income tax, the increase in transfer payments, and the reduction in the bank rate and, therefore, in interest rates that are payable by Canadians, has increased personal disposable income by more than $3 billion. These are measures which have been effective within the last two or three months. So when hon. gentlemen talk about further measures to stimulate personal disposable income, they are obviously ignoring the fact that those measures are already operative within the economy, that individual Canadians are already being spared additional tax or interest payments
2928

February 10, 1977
Unemployment
which, but for these measures supported by this government, Canadians would have had to pay.
If I may go to some of the remarks made so far, may I first comment on the speech of the leader of the opposition and then that of the leader of the New Democratic Party. In his remarks the leader of the opposition made reference to job-creation rates. I think I would have to emphasize that one has to be concerned at the current level of unemployment in Canada, and one has to guard, as well, against any undue optimism when presented with the figures for January, 1977. But there are some elements which could have a positive potential from the standpoint of the work force. I refer, for example, to the fact that since December, 1976, there were
69,000	created jobs among that group within the age bracket 15 to 24, which is one of the groups which has been most severely hit by increased unemployment since August, 1976.
In other words, for the first time since that year the figure respecting the younger members of the work force has turned around and shows an increase in the month of January. In addition to that, smaller increases occurred in the number of men and women over that particular age, making for an increase of 79,000 jobs in Canada since December, 1976.
The hon. gentleman made reference to the government's having ignored Quebec in regard to particular measures, and my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is here with us for this debate, will have a specific opportunity to give, chapter and verse, the measures which have been taken under his direction to provide an active and more competitive economy for that particular province.
I followed with interest-because it was important to follow the suggestions of the leader of the opposition-some of the measures that he would have included if the presenting of a budget had been within his responsibilities. I find again, as I have already said in my general statements, that there is a substantial measure of agreement between the hon. gentleman and myself. Indeed, to a very great degree the points which he enunciated are ones which are now effective or operating favourably in the economy. If I understood him correctly, he would, if he had responsibility, have committed himself to no increase in government expenditures. That has been the policy of this government.


John Edward Broadbent: That is right.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That has been the policy since the statement of October, 1975, and, indeed, will continue to be one of the elements which guides us in our continued concern about the impact of inflation in Canada. The hon. gentleman said that he would have preferred stimulating consumer demand, he having said at another point that the Carter administration has stimulated consumer demand by allowing increased personal disposable income. Therefore, why should not the same thing be done in Canada? Of course, I just dealt with that, Mr. Speaker, by pointing out measures which will

provide about $3 billion on an annual basis. They are now in place and in operation.
Let me say a word about housing. I make this comment both to the Leader of the Opposition and to the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). It is interesting to note that despite all the rhetoric one hears about the housing policies espoused by this government, particularly those set forth to this House by my colleague who is now Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) but who was then minister of state for urban affairs, this government created on an annual basis in 1976 the highest rate of housing unit construction which we have known in Canada. The figure as at the close of the year was 279,000 units. That is the highest level of housing starts which we have achieved in Canadian history.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, but the population is higher, too.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is well above the level stipulated by the government when it said it would need to create one million new housing units in the next four years. The rate is well above the annual rate necessary to achieve that. It is interesting to note, in connection with the building of those
279.000	housing units across Canada, that the government of Canada, through various programs introduced by my colleague, has been responsible for assisting in the creation of
120.000	of those additional housing units, particularly for those at the lower end of the income scale. I had occasion to refer to this fact in recent days during the course of debate when dealing with projects such as the Dundas-Sherbourne project in my constituency which will provide housing for low-income Canadians at the bottom of the income scale. As well, the government has assisted many others at the middle range of the scale, through the Assisted Home Ownership Program, in being able to finance a home. In general terms, the government has provided substantial assistance and has made a substantial contribution to the achievement of the record figure mentioned. Indeed, although the current rate of housing starts observed in January, 1977, has fallen off the dramatic rate obtained in 1976, the rate has not fallen off severely. I notice that the rate for 1977 is projected at 268,400 houses, which still represents a substantial contribution and is still ahead of the target which the minister set forth in his statement one year ago.
I now come to regional development incentives. I think we shall need to study what the leader of the opposition said in this respect.


An hon. Member:: That program is a farce.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We shall need to see to what extent his proposals vary from the substantial panoply of measures which the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) now has in operation particularly in Quebec and Atlantic Canada. I noted one interesting innovation contained in the remarks of the leader of the opposition-his suggestion that particular assistance should be given to research and development projects of corporations. I shall take careful note
February 10, 1977

of the hon. gentleman's words in this regard in the course of the preparation of my budget.
I now turn to the leader of the NDP. He began by saying, as he has so often in the past, that we have ignored job creation in Canada. My colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, will in an effective way be able to deal with programs which he has put in place for the purpose of direct job creation. The hon. gentleman raised an interesting point and suggested that because the rate of growth of the Canadian economy is down, some Canadians are not making the level of income they might otherwise expect and other Canadians are therefore paying a greater level of taxes. That is not correct. Indeed, as I have already said, the level of taxation is down as a result both of the tax measure which we hope will soon be enacted and as a result of indexing.
Therefore, there has been no increase in the impact of taxation upon Canadians. On the contrary, there has been a reduction. Of course, the federal government by assuming a deficit has for this period of time been prepared to pick up the difference in order to avoid imposing an additional burden.
As I have pointed out already, the direct tax cuts are in effect. Approximately 120,000 housing units have been provided for those who are largely in the low and middle income brackets. These measures have already been put into effect.
Let me make an observation about the amendment which has been moved. The hon. gentleman opposite talked about unemployment at present, but he is not concerned about present unemployment when the building season starts or when planning can be completed and major projects undertaken later this year and in 1978. In that sense it is difficult to follow his reasoning when he suggests there should be reactivation of federal capital works projects and that provinces and municipalities should be encouraged to follow suit. For reasons which I have indicated many times previously, we think there must be restraint on public expenditures in Canada in order to provide an opportunity and room for expansion in private expenditures. It is clear that legislation enacted to provide for capital works projects would not for months and months produce any major new jobs.


John Edward Broadbent: For the first time, you are right.


Mr. Rodriguez:: That is why you should have started one year ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I listened with calmness and courtesy to the leader of the NDP. Perhaps his eager colleagues might show me the same courtesy. Whether or not any capital projects are now brought forward, it is fair to observe that any such projects would not assist substantially this current winter in dealing with present levels of unemployment.
Before I conclude my remarks, let me say that I have given an indication to the House of the increase in personal disposable income which has resulted from the fiscal and monetary
Unemployment
policies espoused by this government. I have indicated the direct expenditures which the government has made in fields such as housing and direct employment creation. In a few minutes the House will hear from my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to the same effect.
In closing, I wish to bring to the attention of the House a matter of fundamental concern since it is important to look at the economy in a balanced way. We do not think we can look on the economy with one eye, as the hon. gentleman opposite did. One of the factors which distinguished the speeches of both hon. gentlemen who preceded me was that they, apparently, are happy with the 6 per cent rate of inflation in Canada. They were not concerned enough about the inflationary challenge which Canada faces at present. They showed no evidence of concern with respect to what a continuation of inflation at the present rate, or even several points below the present rate, would do to Canada's economic competitive position in the long run.
When debating the economy of our country, it is fundamental to understand that we cannot afford "one issue politicians", politicians who talk one day about inflation, the next day about unemployment. We need to take a balanced look at the economic problems we face and, at the same time, try to bring forward measures which will deal with unemployment in particular sectors of the economy such as younger age groups. At the same time, we need to deal with structural problems which are evident in certain regions. But we have to do so within a framework which makes certain that the success we have gained until now in reducing the double-digit rate of inflation to below 6 per cent is not only a gain that can be held but one that can be added to by even further reduction, because in the long run the problem of inflation is also the problem of unemployment.
If Canada continues to run a level of inflation above that of our industrial competitors, if we continue to have a level of industrial costs and a level of industrial wages in particular that runs substantially above those in the countries against which we compete in foreign markets and which compete against us in our own markets, then we will not only be concerned about the impact of inflationary increases on our personal lives but people will be concerned about losing their jobs, for the loss of competitiveness by the Canadian industry will mean, in the long run, a far greater challenge to the job picture in Canada than any of the temporary changes in the economic cycle which we have known up to this time.
I would like to say one more thing in closing, I think the leader of the opposition employed some admirable rhetoric in talking about our country. At the start he spoke about the growth potential and the promise and possibility of Canada. I agree with those two terms. I think we do have an enormous growth potential, and there is enormous promise and possibility in Canada. But one thing we have to remember, all of us from political leaders through to the working man on the assembly line, is that while we have enjoyed a very high
80008-48(4

February 10, 1977
Unemployment
standard of living in this country, we have enjoyed it by reason of being able to retain our own costs in control and by remaining competitive in our markets at home and abroad.
Unless we are effective in restraining the rate of inflation in Canada, we are not only not going to be able to compete abroad but we will have difficulty sustaining the position of our manufacturing industry in our own markets. It is for this reason that 1 find many of the suggestions made by the hon. gentleman not to have been a constructive approach to the very serious economic problems which we have. But I would have to say, in all fairness, that one of the points made by the leader of the opposition was indeed a constructive suggestion, and several of those made by the leader of the NDP were in the same vein. I will consider those as I will be considering the suggestions and observations of many members of the House and many people throughout Canada in preparation for the budget which I hope to be presenting to this House within a matter of some months.
Just before I conclude-I see the leader of the opposition is back in the House after being out of it-I would like to say that I find myself in the same difficulty in which he found himself. Because of the shortness of notice, I was not able to move all my appointments, and I will not be able to remain in the chamber for all the speeches. I hope hon. members will not regard this as a discourtesy, and 1 apologize to them in advance.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take part in this debate. First 1 should like to thank the author of the motion and those who chose this opposition day to raise a matter so much discussed throughout the country. We know that when speaking about unemployment, there are huge difficulties involved. I really appreciate that the province I am living in was specifically mentioned together with Atlantic Canada which faces even more serious difficulties.
Mr. Speaker, I too listened to the speeches like the other members of the House. I heard the answers by the minister a few moments ago who was pointing out the effort his government had made, the expenditures his government had incurred, the decisions his government had taken recently. Of course the government has to make some decisions. What is unfortunate is that those decisions are often long overdue. The government takes decisions every day because it has to and it seems to me that the government was not able to do anything to foresee the difficulties and hardships that Canadians have been facing in recent years.
After listening to what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) just said it seems that the situation is not so bad in this country. The government acted with enlightened moderation, and we just have to go out of this House to see the difficulties and the misery that we are now facing and not only in Quebec, but in several provinces of the country. I think that the question is very relevant and that it is important to recall certain things to hon. members.
I Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).]
I remember very well that in 1968, for example, when I came in this House as a new member, we were told that unemployment would be reduced. At that time, there were approximately 170,000 unemployed. The government had this very important goal which was included in its principle of a just society; it wanted to fight unemployment. There were
170,000	unemployed. Then, from that figure, we passed to 200,000, 300,000, 400,000, 500,000 and then came the inflation factor. I remember that the Prime Minister stated publicly: "You know, there are 500,000 unemployed and inflation is starting to eat up everyone's wallet. You will have to get used to unemployment." So, with about 500,000 unemployed, the government tried to have Canadians admit that unemployment was not only temporary, but that it would remain and that we had to take steps not to fight it but to maintain it. And that we had to create unemployment to fight inflation. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have both, inflation and unemployment. I still hear the minister saying today; Despite all of this the situation is not too bad, the government has a sound administration.
There are many government members in this House who are very well aware of the difficulties facing Quebeckers. Of course, one would be tempted to accuse the provincial government, and not only the one in power since November 15. The difficulties the premier of Quebec had since 1966 with this government are well known and we recall that over the years the federal government has given more than one negative answer to recommendations made by Mr. Bourassa's members of cabinet. We all remember that but of course we will not talk too much about it today. Nevertheless, unemployment is in a precarious state in Quebec.
Those were this government's objectives and commitments. And if one dares accuse the government for failing to take action, for lack of vision, then we have no solutions. In addition, it seems that someone is always trying to make us believe that the government has done everything. If the government has really done everything, Mr. Speaker-I had counted 500,000 unemployed, but today, in 1977, the number has reached 800,000 and according to some very conservative economists, in 1978 we will break the one million barrier, as it were-well if that was the Prime Minister's objective, to get used to unemployment, 1 do not think Canadians are willing to pay for and support a million unemployed in the country.
So, Mr. Speaker, the only patent result of this government's administration in the last ten years is a complete failure as regards the fight against unemployment and inflation, I am led to believe that it was easier for the government to create unemployment than to create jobs. I think we will agree on that. There was also some talk about economic investments that would create jobs. We will be reminded of course of the extraordinary expenditures made by the Regional Economic Expansion Department to create new industries.
To what extent, for instance, has the government cared for the preservation and protection of our Canadian industries? Every day some of them close and many are expected to close
February 10, 1977

in the future. It seems that the government has yet to find the solutions that will help protect our Canadian industry first.
Of course the government is going to talk about its free trade policy. We must open our doors to friendly countries, but little effort has been made to protect our industry in Canada. Should I recall the dramatic situation in the textile industry and hon. members from Quebec who are here know this. The situation in this industry has deteriorated. Of course we had to accept foreign products but I do not think we were seriously concerned about the future of the textile industry, particularly in Quebec where it employs thousands of workers, and in high unemployment areas. This situation results from the lack of courage, the lack of audaciousness, the lack of initiative of a government towards a particular industry. Quebecers know what price they have to pay for it, when we consider that in the manufacturing sector one worker out of four is in the textile industry.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) made a statement recently; many people are concerned but he made a statement after God knows how many other ministers had let this industry fend for itself. This afternoon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) announced some economic injections or some cost-sharing programs, but the harm is done.
Flow would it be possible to give a new direction to this industry, to ensure the contribution our industries and Canadian workers are entitled to? How many years will it take for Canada to recover a market which was once controlled by a Canadian industry. Therefore I suggest once again that one can blame it on the weakness, the lack of leadership, of foresight or courage on the part of the government in its relations with importing countries.
A few days ago I was informed about the catastrophic situation in which the footwear industry finds itselfs. Questions are in the air, we are being asked: what are your solutions? We should see that industries be reoriented and stabilized as soon as possible. Some of them have closed their doors; the structure is still there, ready to receive workers and to manufacture something. No question of it and in the footwear industry the same policy applies. The policy was one of no intervention but our footwear industries have also difficulties, even in Quebec, and I am talking about federal decisions. Talk about public powers! That means important loss of jobs for the province of Quebec. But we will come back on that point later.
The government will compensate with fantastic amounts of money spent for social programs. There has been a good deal of leadership in that field. With social programs we are going to keep one million unemployed and we are going to increase pensions of every description but we are going to get people used to it and corrupt a whole generation with unemployment! A whole generation will get used to living on unemployment benefits and we are going to deny older people the right to retire at 60 if they wish to do so. We never said that old people should be compelled to retire at the age of 60, but I wonder why should the government not consider that people aged 60 and concerned about their physical condition might find it
Unemployment
logical and rewarding to ask for a well deserved rest and a well deserved pension, and leave room for the thousands of unemployed young people we have in this country. From the point of view of productivity, it is far from being outstanding. The possibility of creating an optional retirement pension has been mentioned to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). I do not mean anything compulsory. Thousands of people between 60 and 65 might feel ready for a little rest after having served their country and worked in industry during 40 years. But, no, it would be too expensive. Maybe the government thinks it is a better idea to maintain almost one million unemployed.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, it seems easier for this government to find money or new ways to maintain thousands of people without work than to create job opportunities. Should I remind hon. members that agriculture was far from being a success in 1976. I remember that some of our friends from Quebec on the other side were far from being happy with the government policy. I even remember hearing the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) confess publicly, barely three weeks ago on television, on a Sunday night, that his government has made a colossal error with regard to its dairy policy. He did not say so in the House, but he did in answer to questions put to him that night. I have not heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) support the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, but I do agree with the hon. member for Papineau when he says that colossal errors were made with regard to the dairy policy.
We know what that cost Quebec last year, and that Ontario producers paid through the nose, as a consequence. But once again, credits will be voted for social measures and we will be expected to applaud the government. That is why we feel the government has failed in its responsibilities, because it did not have the foresight, the courage and, above all, the initiative to plan employment, I should say to protect and keep what jobs there are in Canada. So, what was done to protect and encourage Canadian industries is not too bright. This opposition day gives us the opportunity of reminding the government that we are asking it to provide money for creating new jobs, but the most basic decency demands that we should first of all save our industries and protect those jobs, especially when we know that Canadian consumption can use up Canadian production.
As for housing, a small S500 program was provided to attract buyers and promote expansion in that field. It did not last long and, when we are faced with increased unemployment and huge difficulties, they take away the $500. Nowadays it would probably cost $1,000 to put the housing industry back on its feet again.
The minister mentioned earlier an increase granted last year to that effect for the number of units but failed to mention at what cost. And to think that today the average worker will commit himself for 30 years and pay in interest IV2 times the real value of his house! But they do not talk much about that.

February 10, 1977
Unemployment
The important thing for the government and producers is that policies have been set up with regards to loans and loan granting has been made easier. It posed no problem. Pay back when you can!
In agriculture, the same thing goes for milk producers. The government compelled farmers and milk producers to borrow, that no one can deny. Whenever someone wanted to borrow $30,000 from a farm loans office to upgrade his operations, the government would say: You cannot go wrong, you are going into the milk industry, you will have the good life, your children will follow. That is why you do not need $30,000 but $60,000. You do not want to buy 30 cows, you want 50.
Everything is settled and for a long time. But after only one year, the farmer had to give up a certain number of cows. I am not going to rehash the same story but the minister is looking at me and I am certain that people in his own riding have told him the same story. It is not the case only in my part of the country, it is the same everywhere. As a matter of fact, I remember that some Liberal members who sat on the Committee on Agriculture last year were not happy about this policy.
We now blame the government for not having had the necessary foresight, for having badly oriented certain groups of producers and also for having given thousands of Canadians illusions about their position and for not having been able to protect them at that level. I now would like to talk about the cuts in research budgets. In the long term, Mr. Speaker, we know how costly this can be for Canada. Experts tell us so, and I am not the one who invented this, I would not be able to do so. I have read some material like everyone else. Some people want to cut expenditures in research. Once again we shall let foreign countries make the inventions and we shall once again depend on these countries to sell them to us at the prices that they will choose. But it is not a part of government policy to provide, maintain and emphasize research to constantly protect Canadian industry, for Canadians and by Canadians. I think this would be more logical. But no, cuts must be made! There is growing concern about this and university specialists tell us about this, not only to us, members of the opposition, but to all members of parliament, and the government is surely aware of it.
Earlier the minister explained the efforts that he is making. Mr. Speaker, we have to be glad about this opposition day on unemployment and take the opportunity to repeat certain things as I am doing. As a Quebecker, I deplore the inertia that the federal government has shown for too long and its lack of foresight, which has been very costly and which has placed the province of Quebec in a difficult situation because of extremely high unemployment rates.
I was looking at unemployment levels in various areas. I know that certain members on the other side must be terribly concerned when, for instance, the rates are up to 19 per cent in northern Quebec. In some places, they are up to 11 per cent and 13 per cent. The situation is bad in the Gaspe Peninsula when the unemployment rate has reached 22 per cent. We would be happy to listen to the Minister of Finance say that

the government has made tremendous efforts and that we should be satisfied with these efforts.
Mr. Speaker, I know that my time has expired and I hope that this day will have been beneficial by urging the government to reflect about what has been said in the House today. I would like to repeat that in Quebec, we are waiting for the government to take specific stands. I assume that Quebeckers opposite will take this opportunity to remind their government they have failed miserably to remedy the unemployment situation for lack of a policy.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Before recognizing the minister it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert)-Canadian Pacific Railway-Commuter service in Montreal area-Request for report; the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise)-Trade-Level of cheese imports-Government position; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Manpower-Canada Works Program-Funds for native projects in urban communities.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):
That this House denounces the government's failure to generate jobs in Canada, particularly in Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces, and urges immediate and resolute action, including the early presentation of a budget.
Hon. Jean Chr6tien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise in this debate after having had the pleasure of hearing the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) for a few minutes. I submit the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) said nowhere in his speech-
The opposition leader is leaving the House. I realize he has to work very hard to keep his job.
I do not remember hearing the Minister of Finance ever saying we are satisfied. We are not satisfied. As the Prime
February 10, 1977

Minister said a few days ago in this House-as long as there is one Canadian in this country who wants to work and cannot find a job we will not be satisfied. We work from that principle. What we want to do is try to improve the situation considering the circumstances in which we find ourselves.
We have problems, I admit, but if hon. members opposite want to give us credit for it, which 1 doubt, I will say that in the last three years while the United States of America, the most powerful western country in existence, was for 27 months in a period of recession we, in Canada, managed to go through a period that was not one of recession. We did not have a period of great economic growth but we went through a period in which we did not go below the zero line as was the case for the Americans during 27 consecutive months. We encountered certain difficulties but of all countries of the western world in the last three years we were probably one of those which were the most successful. In spite of that I must admit we had problems and that we still have problems. But the problems we face in Canada are probably not more difficult to solve and not more serious than those of other countries.
I understand the hon. member, and I agree with him when he says that it is not good that workers who want to work should not find jobs. However, I believe that we managed in Canada in the last 15 years to give ourselves a social structure that allowed us to reduce to a certain extent the ill effects of unemployment. Today we can be proud of the fact that generally speaking in our society there is suffering but nobody is starving or freezing. There are always a few individuals who for particular reasons are in that predicament. But this government's program vis-a-vis the social needs of the people of this country is probably the best in existence to the point where today many Canadians claim that the fact that we have such a generous unemployment insurance plan has become for certain people an escape door to avoid their responsibilities vis-a-vis work.
1 would not want to waste my time in this large debate. I would rather simply concentrate on what we have done in recent months to provide specific help for certain industries in difficulty, particularly in answer to the motion by the leader of the opposition whom we saw reappear in the House. He does not come here often. We are quite happy to see him when he shows up, and see him today raise the problem of Quebec and the Maritime provinces.


Roch La Salle: He has too much work.


Mr. Chrfetien:: I do not think it is because he has too much work, Mr. Speaker, but every time the leader of the opposition appears in the House, he looks so pitiful that he does not come back the following day, this is obvious. The Prime Minister tears him into pieces and I do not blame him for staying away, because if I were in his shoes .. .


Roch La Salle: Those are not good arguments, Jean!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is a humble way to confess that he is very appreciated. I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, that in the last few months, we have taken specific initiatives to try to alleviate the
Unemployment
situation in the province of Quebec. Let us take for example our textile policy. I heard the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) raise that problem earlier on.


Roch La Salle: Yes, certainly.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Last night, Mr. Speaker, there was a program on Radio-Canada, "Consommateurs avertis" where in general all policies of the government are criticized; but in this half an hour program, where normally the consumers are supposed to be against the new textile policy that we have established in November, "Consommateurs avertis" gave its support to all decisions which have been taken. Besides I believe it was the first time in many years that the unions, the industry and the government worked hand in hand towards a common goal.


Roch La Salle: We have waited 10 years for that!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am sorry but in 1970, when my colleague Jean-Luc Pepin held this portfolio he announced a new textile policy which allowed us to modernize our industry. I believe that today the textile and clothing industry in Canada is strong enough to compete with other developed countries. The representatives of the Canadian clothing and textile industry gave me their assurance that they were not afraid anymore of American or European competition but they pointed out that I had to protect them against countries such as Taiwan for example, where textile workers are paid 46 cents an hour, while in Quebec and in the rest of Canada textile workers receive 10 per cent more than in the United States.
That means we were able to increase our productivity, and with the protection we have announced last November 29, we hope to be able to restore some balance.


Roch La Salle: I agree with that.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we must also take into account the consumer's interest and the needs inside our country. If we close our borders tight against imports in every field, we will be penalized because we are an exporting country. Last year we exported $1.3 billion more than we imported, which means that we are extremely vulnerable, and that under such circumstances it is required of the government and particularly of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that they use their judgement. The new policy about the clothing industry we have announced last November 29 has been welcomed by nearly everybody in Canada, and particularly in Quebec, and will be well accepted. But again, that is never enough.


Roch La Salle: That is too late.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: For 1977 I announced a policy to restore the 1975 level in Quebec, they said I should have chosen 1973. Had I chosen 1973, I would have been told to chose 1971. It reminds me of the story about the guy eating bread and maple syrup: some syrup to finish his bread and some bread to finish his syrup. One day he died because he never did finish. You have to stop some time and find the happy medium.

February 10, 1977
Unemployment
I should also like to talk about another program extremely important for Quebec, which the hon. member for Joliette did not mention and on which the press did not make an adequate report unfortunately.


Roch La Salle: My time had expired.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: He talked about all kinds of things, but I am glad to see he would have talked about it. On October 29 last, exactly one month before the establishment of the textile policy and of course, I have only been holding that position since September, I announced that Canadair in Montreal would undertake a program for the construction of a revolutionary executive jet, the Learstar. If the program becomes productive, we will directly create some 1,500 jobs at Canadair in Ville Saint-Laurent, which means more jobs than on the Olympic sites during the construction of that so popular stadium in Montreal. Unfortunately the press did not often mention it. And not only those 1,000 jobs directly related to Canadair.
This program will create 1,500 additional high-technology jobs in other parts of Canada. Some people felt I was taking a gamble going into that. I remember replying to some questions in this House. I stated that the prospects were not too bad and that I thought we had a good chance of selling 25, 26 or 27. I am glad to report to this House today that as of yesterday we signed 65 contracts and another ten will be completed very soon. The marketing is so good that we hope by the end of the year to have sold at least 125. The break-even point, Mr. Speaker. We have done this in the past two months. I wish the opposition would open their eyes once in a while.
We will give another illustration. In this morning's paper it was reported that we had sold a train to Amtrak in California-high technology, produced by Canadians, in Montreal. If the leader of the opposition (Mr. Clark) were around more often, he would know that. In fact, he would have mentioned it in his speech. He should thank me for that, but I guess he did not know it. Those are real words, "high technology." This train will be built by Bombardier-MLW in Montreal, it was announced today. It is right there. It is too bad that it was not mentioned in the motion. I do not know what is going on over there. They should look at what is really happening, rather than always trying to find skeletons and not finding any. I want to touch upon another matter.

... the construction of ships in Levis recently. They had obtained orders for three ships to be completely rebuilt. However the subsidies for shipbuilding were not applicable because they were not new, they were entirely rebuilt. I felt they were almost entirely new and I succeeded in having regulations amended so that the Lauzon shipyard will be operating during the next 18 months thanks to the intervention of the federal government.


I am glad to see a member from Newfoundland in the chamber this afternoon. On February 4 the Canadian Development Corporation approved a loan of $14 million to support the sale of five tugboats to Norway. These are to be built in Marystown, Newfoundland. It will involve 500 man-years of work in Newfoundland. This is in an area that is very competitive. To date, approximately 85 per cent of all orders for shipbuilding in the world have gone to the Japanese market. This is because of their different techniques, and so on.
We are looking abroad, as well. I made a trip to Venezuela not long ago. I am quite happy to report to the House that a Canadian firm from Toronto submitted the two lowest bids for the Metro in Caracas. They have not yet signed the contracts. There are some problems. However, they were the lowest bidders in two of the contracts which the Venezuelan government placed on the table some months ago. This shows that Canadian entrepreneurs can be efficient. I am proud to see that. I am sure everyone knows of the large project which the Canadian government is supporting with a group of industries in Canada, the Canaven program. We hope to be chosen as the contractor for the construction of a huge railway in Venezuela.
There is not a country in the world that has more expertise in railway construction than Canada. Over the past century we have been obliged to build railways all across this land. When the bids were opened a few weeks ago Canadians were the lowest bidders in this very complex project which will cost $1 billion. We are not sure we will get the contract, but we were the lowest bidder. There are some technical problems to overcome, but at least we are in the game. The benefits from such a contract would be spread across Canada. I understand the rails would be made in Cape Breton. I am glad to see an hon. member from Cape Breton in the chamber. He is always asking me questions about his area, which is his duty.
If Canada obtains this Venezuelan contract, it will involve a large order of rails from the steel mill in Cape Breton. The engines and the cars would be produced in Central Canada, Hamilton and Montreal. We worked very hard to get this contract and we hope we will be successful. The main contractor would be from Alberta. CNR and CPR are involved. They are trying to bring together all the technological knowledge and ability that is available in Canada in order to do a good job in Venezuela. That is only part of what we are doing at the present time. The opposition chooses to ignore those positive steps we are taking, preferring to sit comfortably in criticism. [Translation]
And I say it again, as long as there is one Canadian who wants to work, who is unemployed, we will be concerned. But miracles do not exist. There are extremely complex problems in a country such as ours. As far as I am concerned, my country is Canada. I have no hesitation on that, there is no other country in the world better than Canada, none more free than Canada. That is why we try, as in CANAVEM project, to unite the interests of Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta to prove that we Canadians can accomplish something
February 10, 1977

positive for the well being of all citizens. We are not sitting on the fence as some are; at least, I am not.
In my riding I shall not ask PQ members for help to be elected. That is clear.


An hon. Member:: You will be defeated.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Defeated? There is no danger for me to lose, that is clear. I do not go to bed with just anybody, that is also clear.


An hon. Member:: Nor do I, I also choose them!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: But it is really incredible to think that those people who want to divide Canada, who are not willing to make any compromise to stay within Canada, who want to separate, also want us to court them. I find that really disgusting and unacceptable. I will not make any proposal nor offer to those people, not for anything in the world. If the Parti Quebecois wants to cooperate with me at the administrative level, if it wants to do what it was elected to do, that is to administer the province of Quebec, we shall help them. That is why I continue to make all the efforts I can so that Quebecers can take advantage of federal programs. But they will have to stop talking about independence, I can tell you that!
In Chicago, where I went, as well as in San Francisco, in Sacramento and in Los Angeles, the first question put to me was always the following: Will Canada be divided or not? This is not likely to help Canada or Quebec. They should deal with their problems and stop establishing planning committees whose terms of reference are to submit a report within six months or a year, and make concrete decisions.
In this respect, we should be clear and precise in order to continue helping Canadians from the east as well as from Quebec, I am glad to say it and I repeat it, not without getting arrows from the opposition. The hon. member for Sydney keeps asking me when I intend to introduce a decentralization program. As far as Sydney is concerned, I will soon, but I hope he will tell the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) in the front row to stop complaining against that program.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot ask for decentralization and let your House leader shoot arrows across at me all the time. I am in favour of a program of decentralization. It was the most important feature in the program of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Clark) when he was running for office but his seatmate was always against it. They want it both ways. I am not on both sides of the fence; I am squarely on one side of the fence.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Unemployment


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: For example, we are developing a data centre for the Department of National Revenue in St. John's. I am glad to see the hon. member for St. John's here: I hope he will be thankful one of these days. We have moved the Department of Veterans Affairs, not without criticism from the other side, to Charlottetown. We have moved divisions of the Unemployment Insurance Commission to Bathurst, New Brunswick. We are moving the superannuation divisions to Moncton. We have moved the cheque redemption division to Matane, and we have moved some data centres of the Department of National Revenue to Shawinigan and Jonquiere.


An hon. Member:: And St. Maurice, too.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes; and one in Shawinigan. We have done the same thing for Winnipeg, and one has gone to British Columbia. This is the kind of activity we are carrying on. So far we have decentralized 2,300 jobs which will be going from Ottawa into the field where there is need for jobs. The first phase of the program I am charged with will involve 5,500 jobs, more or less. There will be an announcement, because the opposition is so divided on this issue that I do not know where they stand. Anyway, it is too difficult for them to follow me in all my activities, so I will put it in one package in order that hon. members opposite can understand it. I was making announcements one after another and they could not follow. Therefore, I have to make one announcement so as to make it simpler for the opposition.


Mr. Ellis:: Will the minister accept a question at the end of his speech?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I just want to conclude.
[ Translation]
We do what we can. I hope people will start realizing that a debate is now going on that is harmful, and that we should, above all, work together in trying to solve current problems. I am told that yesterday the hon. member for Joliette said that an economically strong Quebec can become independent. Such a statement can help neither Quebec . . .


Roch La Salle: 1 did not say that!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: So much the better if he did not. That is what Le Nouvelliste of Trois-Rivieres reported this morning. I am happy to hear the hon. member say he did not make that statement. It's all to the good! I congratulate him on not having said so. However, riding the fence can be dangerous: if one slips, one can fall on a post. When one is openly on one side, there is no danger.
I am a Canadian and I am not ashamed of it. Canada is a great big, beautiful country and I can fight for it. I trust the hon. member for Joliette will do the same in the province of Quebec instead of flirting with the separatists.


John Raymond Ellis: After all the thunder we have heard, I want to ask one simple question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and

February 10, 1977
Unemployment
Commerce (Mr. Chretien). Out of all the programs which are doing these great things, can he name one single program which will do anything for a man living in blastings county? Let him name one program.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1 should like to inform the hon. member that when we started decentralization two years ago, we decentralized a unit into Belleville, Ontario. Is that not true?


John Raymond Ellis: A program of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Every one of them.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we can all relax. I wish the 29,000 who are officially unemployed in Newfoundland had been watching the minister this afternoon. They could have relaxed, because according to him there is no problem. He has produced so many jobs that there is no unemployment in Newfoundland. The figure of 29,000 is a myth though 29,000 people have vanished in the miasma of the minister's remarks.
If they could have watched him speaking they would have understood us when we talk about an arrogant government. He tells us the government has done all that is possible to deal with the situation. If that is his admission, let him get out of office, because if the result of doing everything that is possible is to limit the unemployment figure to 800,000, and 29,000 in Newfoundland, to say nothing of the present figure in Quebec, he should get out of office.
The hon. gentleman is scooting quickly out of the chamber now, so we can relax. The hon. gentleman had the gall to mention, as a feather in his cap, the loan he is making for five ships to be built in Marystown. Newfoundland had to beg on bended knees to get the hon. gentleman even to consider that and to get the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) to push for it. Then they tried to screw Newfoundland into having to put their credit on the line as well, and he claimed that to his credit. I say it is a shame that he did not agree to it long ago. Originally there were ten ships, not just five. So don't regard Marystown, Newfoundland, as any great employment creation job done by the minister in the last few months.
I could not believe my ears when I heard the minister say that there was no danger of his losing his seat. By golly, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the electorate in his constituency will hear about that. If a minister of the government or if any member of the House thinks that this wonderful, tremendous minister, who is doing such a job of creating so much work and who is so perfect, is not in danger of losing his seat, let me tell them that his seat will be in jeopardy at the next election.
This is a government which has the gall to call a program the Canada Works program. They should be calling it the "Canada does not work program", not the Canada Works program. To create work is why we need this wonderful program. They are giving Canada the works; that is their

program. In view of the smug and arrogant speech made in this House today on unemployment, which is at its highest ever in the land, and particularly high in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, it is not any wonder that this government is in such disfavour and has but one straw to grasp, Quebec, which they are going to use for all they are worth. However, they are going there anyway as soon as the electorate gets the chance to put them out.
I only have 20 minutes, Mr. Speaker, so let me come to the motion, which reads;
That this House denounces the government's failure to generate jobs in Canada, particularly in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, and urges immediate and resolute action, including the early presentation of a budget.
I do not need to spend much time on how bad the situation is in Newfoundland because that is well known. In my maiden speech in this House I spoke on this exact subject, I think on November 15. Nothing has happened since then except that the situation has become worse. In Newfoundland the actual unemployment figure is 17.1 per cent; that is the Statistics Canada figure. This amounts to 29,000 unemployed. To those we must add 8,000 or 9,000 able-bodied on relief, and all of those who are not looking for work because they know they cannot find it. Then we must add the low participation rate, which is about 15 per cent below the national average, and several other factors I mentioned which indicate that the real unemployment rate in Newfoundland is at least 25 per cent to 30 per cent. And the hon. gentleman opposite says the government is doing all it can! Well, I will tell him about a few things it is not doing before I sit down.
The government is taking a cruel and inhuman attitude in ignoring regional differences in Canada. There are a number of other factors which show what the situation is in Atlantic Canada. I looked last night at the comprehensive review of the unemployment insurance program which is an official document of the government's advisory council. In 1974, when the situation was not as bad as it is now, the Atlantic provinces had 8 per cent of the labour force, but 16.8 per cent of the beneficiaries of unemployment insurance. Quebec had 27.1 per cent of the labour force and 36.4 per cent of the beneficiaries. When you look at how long the claims went on for, Atlantic Canada averaged 22.5 weeks in 1973 and the prairies averaged 15.4 weeks. In 1974 the Atlantic provinces averaged 21.8 weeks and the prairies 12.3 weeks. The claim rate in the Atlantic provinces was 63 per cent above the national average, and the cost ratio was 2.2 times the average. In Newfoundland, in 1973, we had 4 per cent of total benefits and only 2 per cent of the population. The situation in 1976 was much worse, and it will be the same in 1977.
What is the government's solution? It is to bring a bill before this House to change the eligibility requirements from eight weeks to 12 weeks, which has removed 16,500 people from eligibility in Newfoundland and will take $28 million out of the economy of Newfoundland in 1977 and 1978. The Progressive Conservative party will be moving an amendment, which the minister said the other day-I hope he changes his mind-the government will not accept, to the effect that in
February 10, 1977

areas of high unemployment, in areas considerably higher than the national average, the eligibility period should remain at eight weeks in recognition of their higher unemployment rate, the fact that the people in the area cannot get jobs, as well as other factors that I mentioned earlier. It is the same recognition as that given in the provision that permits a person to have benefits for a longer period, depending on the region in which he lives. The principle is the same.
We agreed to the 12-week measure in areas where unemployment has not been allowed by the government to become the tragedy which it is in the Atlantic provinces. If the hon. gentleman for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) was conducting a filibuster the other day, it will be nothing compared with the filibuster that I intend to attempt to conduct if hon. gentlemen opposite do not accept some reasonable amendment such as this.
I have outlined the problem. What is the solution? There has been no solution offered so far. There has been a retrograde amendment to the unemployment insurance legislation that we hope to correct. Although the Canadian economy is bad and the forecast for this year is not good-I will not go into all the details-in Newfoundland we have not had a 1 per cent improvement in the gross provincial product; it was not 1 per cent better in 1975 or 1976, and it is forecast to be no better in 1977.
The level of construction is very low, unemployment is very high. Prospects for this year are very poor. We need to have a budget brought down which will stimulate the Canadian economy, will provide encouragement for investment and help regional economies. We need tax cuts to stimulate spending. We are also going to need increased government spending in certain areas where there is very high unemployment, such as Newfoundland, the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, on capital projects and on general government services so as to tackle the problem of high unemployment. Yes, there has to be some restraint of government expenditure, but more has to be spent in areas of this country which are a living scandal, such as Newfoundland and the Atlantic provinces with their unemployment rates.
The provincial governments of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.l. cannot solve this problem. I cannot say about Quebec. They think they are miracle workers, and perhaps they can, so we will wait and see. But I know that in the four Atlantic provinces the provincial governments do not have the financial capacity or borrowing power to solve the problem. They do not control the Bank of Canada. They do not print the currency. They do not control the money supply. Their hands are tied. Newfoundland has been borrowing a couple of hundred million a year for the last four or five years, and they cannot borrow any more. They are doing everything they can. They have now introduced a little program worth $2 million for job-creation purposes and it is all that anyone can expect of them.
It is the federal government that has to help in this situation. It is the federal government that has the fiscal capacity and flexibility to help, and the Newfoundland government has
Unemployment
asked the federal government to help. When I was a minister of that government in December of 1975 and all during 1976, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was our representative in the cabinet, and he has been forgetting Newfoundland. He is turning his back on Newfoundland. What help has he pushed through to help Newfoundland in its extreme need? Nothing except Canada Works.


Walter David Baker: He thinks more of Cuba.


John Carnell Crosbie: I will come to that if I have time. Even in his own district the fish plant at Gaultois is closed today and should not be. The premier of the province has written to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) outlining a whole series of matters on which I can only touch today. He has asked for special assistance for Newfoundland in view of the extremely high unemployment we have. I am not saying that he has not had an answer. Probably he has had an answer, but he has not had any help. No special program has been devised or settled on to help Newfoundland.
Not only that, but they have been doing positive things to hurt the provinces, such as cutting down on federal-provincial financial assistance and all the rest. The province of Newfoundland has thrown out the lifeline to the federal government. The Prime Minister has taken the lifeline and has thrown it back. We are floating on a sea of unemployment. We have our hand over the Canadian lifeboat, the federal government, hopefully to climb into it, and all that has happened is that our hand is trampled on by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs and we have been given no help. In fact, we have had the opposite-cutbacks in DREE spending, as I mentioned in my maiden speech, as well as cutbacks in public works spending. The minister who has just spoken mentioned the new taxation data centre. That is great, but it does not help the unemployment situation if construction will not commence for another year. We need to start that, and more, this spring. There is an environment building under way but Public Works budget has been cut for the last two or three years. The people down there cannot maintain their facilities properly. Why can't they have some extra money for repairs, maintenance and painting? That would create jobs. Spending on small crafts and harbours has also been cut. Mr. Speaker, spending in a dozen areas in my province has been cut, as if my province were like Ontario or Alberta.
The Newfoundland dockyard needs expansion. The government should spend a few dollars on expansion and enable the yard to instal a synchrolift, which would enable it to do more repair work. They had negotiated a contract for repairs to the Russian fishing fleet, but that was terminated by Ottawa several years ago because Ottawa felt it was not in the national interest. That situation has now changed with the introduction of the 200-mile limit. That dockyard should be encouraged to obtain that kind of business. And which minister of the government is attempting to get contracts of that sort for the Newfoundland dockyard which employs 320 people? There were two lay-offs at the yard in the last two weeks. I wrote to

February 10, 1977
Unemployment
the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) about them but have received no reply.
I asked him if he would let a couple of CN vessels to use the dockyard, to prevent lay-offs. But no one here cares. Only 50 or 60 men were laid off; but that represents another 50 or 60 men on the unemployment rolls of Newfoundland. I suppose from the minister's point of view it is no emergency; only a few men have been laid off. That is the government's attitude. Neither the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) nor the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) has done anything about that situation on the south coast of Newfoundland; the Gaultois fish plant has already closed because of our present fishing regulations. It has closed despite the introduction of the 200-mile limit, and in that very area two or three others may close in the next couple of months. At Gaultois 220 men were thrown out of work, because the Minister of Fisheries either will not or cannot act; or, possibly the Secretary of State for External Affairs is not putting pressure on the Minister of Fisheries.
There is evidence to show that the federal government is to put the squeeze on Newfoundland because Newfoundland dares to claim jurisdiction over offshore oil and gas resources. Spending in Newfoundland is to be cut back. There was some suggestion that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) had been in favour of assisting, to the extent of $2 million, in the matter of certain hydroelectric studies which were to be undertaken for three years in Labrador; unfortunately the federal government cannot assist in this regard, it being so hard up for money.
Ottawa thinks it is going to bully Newfoundland into accepting its policy regarding offshore resources. Mr. Speaker, never, never will we be bullied. They will never bully Newfoundland into accepting their offer, because Newfoundland can at least hold out for 18 months until the saviour gets into power, in the person of the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark).


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Gull Island hydro project, another huge construction project which ought now to be under way, has been scuppered by the federal government. The oil refinery at Come-by-Chance has closed and the federal government has not moved its little finger to open it again. It is indifferent. It has sloughed the question off. It says, "it is not our responsibility." It initiates no action. It leaves it to a little province to act, a little province which has less resources than any in Canada. It says, "It is your problem." During the last general election campaign the Secretary of State for External Affairs was down at the site at Come-by-Chance, telling the union people how the area was going to open up and what programs were to be initiated during the winter. He has not been seen there since. That is the attitude of the government.


Walter David Baker: You bet.


John Carnell Crosbie: Another one of the government's programs is user pay. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who introduced

that program is now involved in the greatest surrender since Napoleon retreated from Moscow. He has retreated from his concept.


Walter David Baker: And Napoleon paid his own way home.


John Carnell Crosbie: At least Napoleon did not have an aircraft to fly in. Someone on radio the other day asked, "Who was the author of "Fear of Flying!" The fellow asking the question said, "It certainly was not Otto Lang". He did not know who the author was, but it was not Otto.
There is no question about our need and about our difficulties. No one wants to pretend that we face simple problems which any government can overcome. Therefore, why should those speaking in this debate pretend that the problem is just about non-existent, or that there is no grave problem, that the government is doing everything possible, and so on. To say that the government is doing everything possible is to admit that a huge percentage of the people of this country are going to lead useless, non-productive lives all their lives. How can you admit that? How can any government stay in office and say that, or have that attitude?
That was a perfect illustration of this government's attitude. It says, "We are doing everything possible." But it is going to do a lot less. At least, that is what it seems to imply.
The government has been battling the inflation for which it was primarily responsible. It still hesitates to turn from the battle against inflation to the battle against unemployment, for which it was responsible as well. It cannot deny responsibility for inflation or unemployment.
It will do nothing to help with the Gull Island program in Newfoundland. It offers no special help to overcome unemployment except the LIFT program and the new Canada Works program which, although better than nothing, is not very much of a program.
The government is dealing with eastern provinces which do not have the flexibility of increasing their own spending and so solving their own problems. The government is remote from their difficulties. The Canadian International Development Agency spends $1 billion a year in foreign aid. Mr. Speaker, we shall need to ask some foreign country to start an Atlantic provinces development agency to look after us, if this government's attitude does not change.
The government's attitude was well illustrated today. I suppose we are all tired of listening to the grim unemployment figures. In my province, particularly in my district, there are many, many thousands of unemployed people. They want jobs. They write to me and telephone, saying they want jobs. We all know that some small number of the unemployed do not want to work, but the vast majority do want to work; but they cannot get work and see little prospect of employment this year. We shall not get employment in Newfoundland this year if we must depend on the government of Newfoundland and private industry for construction money. It is just not there. It will not flow to Newfoundland unless the federal government
February 10, 1977

institutes new programs which will grapple with our great problems and create jobs.
Our labour force is the fastest growing in Canada. We shall have large out-migration again. This constitutes a serious problem in Newfoundland, and what is the government offering us? Ministers speaking in this debate have said little of how the government will tackle our difficulties. We have heard the same old malarkey again. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) got up and voiced the same old malarkey. We hear it every day. He says he does not know when he will bring down a budget, and this and that is to blame for our present difficulties. We are suffering from general inflationary tendencies, and he talked of wage and price controls and so on. Mr. Speaker, our people want to know what is the program for jobs? What is the program for economic development? How is the government going to get Canada moving again? Those are the questions they ask.
Our people wonder what will happen to them when their unemployment insurance benefits run out, and in Newfoundland people in the thousands will run out of unemployment insurance benefits this year. They will stay on unemployment insurance to the last minute, and then they will not be able to find jobs. They want to know what will happen to them then. They are waiting for the government to tell them; and if the government will not tell them, if the government's attitude is that it is doing everything possible, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce suggested, our people will want the government to call an election. They will want another party in power which will be prepared to do something about the problems I have outlined.
The government appears to be tired. It is fretful, indifferent, callous and smug. My God, I was nearly smothered by its smugness this afternoon. I was amazed at the smugness of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as shown in his speech. No wonder many in Quebec think that Rene is going to save them. I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker: in my view, the Quebec crisis will never be solved by the present crowd opposite.


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Some people suggest that Prime Minister Trudeau is the only one who can hold Canada together.


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. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude in a minute. As I said, some in Canada think that our present Prime Minister is the only person in Canada who can keep this country together. He was originally elected in 1968 on the platform that he could solve the Quebec question with the policy of bilingualism. He has had eight or nine years in which to do this.
Unemployment
Having heard the Prime Minister say six months ago that it was all dead, and it was on our TV screens two weeks ago from New York where he, Rene Levesque, alive and well and talking to all of North America, some people are suggesting that the Prime Minister is the man to hold the country together. It is the same as suggesting, I say, that Neville Chamberlain was the man to lead Britain through World War II after having promised peace in our times, and the war broke out a year later.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat dismayed at the tone of the remarks made by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). I had rather hoped he would have positive suggestions and ideas to put forward.


Walter David Baker: Why do you guys get the big salaries? Let us hear a few things from the other side.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I had thought the official opposition would add a little more credibility to their debate and add more sincerity to their approach to the unemployment issue by at least calling for a vote. But what we have is an academic exercise. The speakers are going on and on but not standing up to be counted at the appropriate time. I was disappointed that the opposition members, who had an opportunity to call for a vote, did not see fit to do that. So this debate will run its course until ten o'clock.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. One of the reasons that there is no vote tonight is that we did not want to put government members in the embarrassing position of supporting that shambling lot over there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member is engaging in a point of debate.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The embarrassment is that which the opposition parties have suffered in the last few votes we have had when they have been unable to muster more than 60 or 65 members for a vote. I am not surprised, therefore, that they have not been able to get a sufficient number of members to vote on this non-issue.
There is no doubt that the Canadian economy now faces and has faced, particularly since 1975, serious economic problems including, in particular, the problem of unemployment, and nobody is hiding that under the rug. Back in October we indicated our concern, we looked at reports that were coming in, and we initiated measures that were going to be taken.
If we are to understand these problems and deal with them effectively we must see them in perspective and not through some political rhetoric such as we have had here this afternoon from the hon. member for St. John's West.
We must recognize that we have not been alone in facing these problems; we must also remember that over the longer period of the 1960's and early 1970's the performance of the

February 10, 1977
Unemployment
Canadian economy was exceptionally strong. During this period the growth rate of the economy was of the order of 5 per cent. The growth in employment was of the order of 3 per cent. Even during this healthy period there were specific times of difficulty as, for example, in 1967 and 1970-71. This is the typical pattern of all free economies, that is, alternative periods of rapid and slow growth.
The unique feature of the Canadian economy during this period was the rapid growth in the labour force of 3 per cent to 4 per cent, particularly arising out of the dramatic influx of youths and women into the labour market; in fact, during the period, and except for a few recent months, we experienced the highest growth rate in the labour force of any western industrialized country.
I read an article by Mr. MacGillivray, whose research is usually well documented, and I was surprised that he saw fit to pick one particular time frame when he said Canada's labour force was not the fastest growing in the western industrialized world. I wonder why he felt it necessary to pinpoint that area. Nevertherless, the growth of the economy during this period was sufficient to provide the required additional jobs to keep unemployment rates relatively low for the period as a whole.
The following are the specific problems of unemployment put in this perspective. We are still faced with a rapid growth in the labour force. But, at the same time, we are faced with relatively slow economic growth rates. We are not alone in facing this problem. For us, however, it is worse than for many other countries because of the openness and vulnerability of the Canadian economy to the changing economic situation of our major trading partners, particularly the United States. Our ability to devise satisfactory remedies for our problems, we must remember, has been severely constrained since we have found ourselves in the grip of serious inflationary forces.
Given this perspective, what is the government's response? Faced with these problems and constraints on action, the government has adopted selective measures to help prevent and alleviate the serious problem of unemployment. Briefly, the government's employment strategy includes the following: a doubling of the LIP funds for the current winter period to $200 million; the launching of a year-round Canada Works program involving the expenditure in 1977-78 of some $200 million on direct job-creation; and the strengthening of rehabilitative or preventative measures, for example, through training involving annual expenditures close to $600 million.
I think the government, recognizing the problem, has pinpointed the areas where, given the restraints we have, and given the fact that we do not want to be inflationary, help must be given, and we have pumped millions of dollars into these areas, notwithstanding the sloughing off which the hon. member for St. John's West thought we should do with millions of dollars. Under LIP we have pumped $17 million into the island of Newfoundland alone.
The selective measures, particularly direct job-creation projects, in which 120,000 individuals will participate in 197778, have two critically important advantages. First, they rank amongst the best employment measures in terms of cost per

job created and in terms of generating employment quickly. Indeed, they have been a model on which other countries have based their own job-creation programs.
Second, the government's job-creation programs can be, and are, targeted to groups and communities most seriously affected by the problems of unemployment. For example, we have special programs for youths and the disadvantaged. We have also allocated the largest proportion of job-creation funds to the provinces east of the Ottawa river which are suffering acute unemployment problems. We are also allocating a large proportion of job-creation funds to meet the more severe problems of unemployment during the winter season.
We must not lose sight of the fact that the Unemployment Insurance program is a major bulwark against the problem of income deficiency arising out of unemployment. By supporting the level of individual incomes, it helps in a significant way to maintain the over-all level of demand within the economy. This in turn helps to sustain a higher level of employment.
The combined expenditures of unemployment insurance and the departmental appropriations will involve the expenditure in 1977-78 of some $4.5 billion to help alleviate or prevent unemployment in Canada. We have embarked on this with a spirit of innovation. We have been sensitive to the changing nature of unemployment, the labour market, and the economy, as well as the limitations of traditional approaches.
I note that the hon. member who spoke before me seems to be satisfied to stay with the status quo, to keep to the eight weeks and not to use the money. He seems to be saying-and that concerns me-that we should now go to selective areas in the country and move back to the eight week program. We are using that money as a lever to get more money. If the hon. member would look at the individual figures, and particularly those for Newfoundland, he would see that from the small amount of money that is coming from the unemployment insurance program we will be in a position to pump three, four and five times that much money into the economy of Newfoundland, given the leverage I have indicated.
We are approaching these changing problems in a spirit of innovation. Specifically, we have included in Bill C-27 provision for the developmental uses of the unemployment insurance funds so that claimants will have a variety of productive program alternatives while they are receiving their benefits. These include participation in training programs, job-creation projects, and work sharing arrangements. The latter two, which will be launched on a pilot project basis, could lay the ground work for new and more successful approaches to deal with problems of unemployment in the future. Canada can be proud of its innovative nature in dealing with the specific problem.
Criticism of the measures of unemployment causes me no little concern. Recent comments made by some members of parliament have unfortunately confused the discussion of the scope and nature of unemployment problems. Various measures of unemployment published by Statistics Canada inevita-
February 10, 1977

bly have their limitations, and these are well recognized by Statistics Canada itself. They are, however, incomparably more reliable as indicators of the scope and nature of unemployment and changing trends than the statistics concocted, interpreted and misinterpreted by some. A particular case in point is the recent assertion made by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) to the effect that the unemployment rate for 1976 was really closer to 11 per cent than the 7 per cent reported.
Specifically, the hon. member contends that during that year some 455,000 people who were laid off or who had lost their jobs should have been counted among the unemployed rather than among the non-labour force, as they were in fact counted in the labour force survey. He maintains that these people are "discouraged workers" or "the hidden unemployed".
The hon. member has no factual basis for making this assertion. In the first place, the 455,000 people to whom he refers were laid off or lost their jobs at any time within the previous five years. Moreover, there is no indication whether on termination of their jobs any of these people searched for work or even had an interest in continuing to work. But what we do know is that they were not looking for work at the time the labour force survey was conducted.
The hon. member also ignores the fact that this category includes people whose jobs ended due to seasonal factors, such as the end of the fishing, logging, trapping, farming or tourist season. We know that many of these people are interested only in that type of seasonal work.
Many studies of the problems of "discouraged workers" have concluded that while statistics in this group should be gathered, the people who comprise it should not be counted as unemployed. Indeed, statistical agencies throughout the world have found that a definition of unemployment incorporating a measure of an individual's desire to find work is far too subjective and ambiguous to permit the production of objective, meaningful and consistent data.
However, we recognize the limitations, and what is our approach? Our approach to the question of the limitations of using Statistics Canada figures as sole indicators of unemployment is much more equitable, objective and defensible. In particular, in the formula for allocating funds in the first phase of the Canada Works program we have included statistics on unemployment insurance beneficiaries. Specifically, we have used such beneficiary statistics in the case of those provinces where the number of beneficiaries exceeds the number of labour force survey unemployed.
This approach, on an objective basis, helps to compensate for certain limitations in the labour force survey definition of unemployment. For example, unemployment insurance beneficiary statistics include those who are virtually unemployed but have earnings from part-time employment. Such individuals may be counted as beneficiaries, but they are excluded from the labour force survey unemployed.
Unemployment
Therefore, in the provinces east of the Ottawa river, the number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries is higher than the labour force survey unemployed. Selecting the higher measure results in the allocation of a large proportion of Canada Works funds to provinces east of the Ottawa River, where it is recognized that the problem of unemployment is more serious. In the case of Newfoundland this involves an increase of some 50 per cent in the measure of unemployment, to give some degree of equity to these particular statistics.
In the case of the provinces west of the Ottawa River, it is to their advantage to use the labour force survey unemployed, which is higher than the number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries. This is attributable in part to the number of people who are unemployed but do not qualify for unemployment insurance benefits.
The use of unemployment insurance beneficiary data in connection with the labour force survey thus achieves a balance which is not possible through the use of other sources of data alone.
None of us has the final solutions to the complex problems of unemployment. While our own employment and insurance programs are among the most advanced of any country in the world, we recognize that still more imaginative and concerted efforts are required. With this goal in mind, the government has undertaken a systematic review of the current unemployment situation and is reassessing programs and mixes of programs which are likely to be most effective in coming to grips with the problems of the next two years. At the same time we are carrying out an in-depth examination of the longer term aspects of employment and unemployment, so that we will be prepared to meet the problems of the next decade.
What is called for is a broad strategy which examines the widest possible variety of programs and approaches, ranging from the stimulation of the private sector to direct job-creation programs, where appropriate, and supplemented by income maintenance, where necessary. This strategy also involves a continuing search for innovative measures tailored to the ever changing dynamics of our society and economy.


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there are only a couple of minutes before six o'clock, I wonder whether I may call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a sad state of affairs for parliament and, therefore, for Canadians as a whole, that

February 10, 1977
Unemployment
while unemployment, according to the latest figures from Statistics Canada, is at the highest level since the formation of that department, that it is left to the official opposition to introduce a motion dealing with this serious subject matter rather than depending on the government to act.
It is not something that has developed overnight and caught the government unaware or ill-prepared with which to cope. As we all know, the unemployment figures have been creeping up steadily over the past decade of this Liberal administration's reign until they have reached this incredible level where nearly one million Canadians now find themselves without a job. Meantime, the government sits placidly by, working on the introduction of bills such as an Act to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, or introduces for debate, after a one month Christmas recess, a bill to televise the proceedings of this House, a move that would surely bring about the deterioration of this Chamber into a three-ring circus. These are examples of the government's sense of priorities.
We cannot even blame it on international conditions because other western industrialized nations such as Japan and West Germany have virtually full employment, while at the same time we see the United States unemployment figures steadily decreasing, a fact based on that nation's own priorities and action.
Throughout this debate many reasons were cited for the high level of unemployment in Canada, and a number of recommendations to cope with the problem were enunciated, none more precisely than by the Leader of the Opposition Mr. Clark who opened the debate so eloquently this afternoon. Having listened to subsequent speeches, I find myself a bit appalled by the fact that no one has put a finger on the root of the reason for unemployment. The problem does not lie with the extension of the government's costly job creating programs, for example, because the majority of these programs do not solve the unemployment problem on a permanent basis; they give an appearance of assisting the situation on a temporary basis, when in fact in the long term they can simply be defined as phony.
The problem is not even with our large industries such as General Motors or Stelco where employment, in fact, has increased over the past years in accordance with the growth within their specific sectors. No, Mr. Speaker, this is not where the bulk of the labour force is and where the potential exists. Nor is the bulk comprised of the membership of the Canadian Labour Congress, for example. The majority of the labour force in Canada, and the greatest potential increase- this is backed by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce-are in the owner-managed sector of our economy, most often referred to as small and medium sized enterprises. Over 60 per cent of the labour force is employed either directly or indirectly by this vital sector. That sector is virtually ignored by this government and its philosophies of centralization. Oh yes, I know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) recently appointed my friend from Kamloops as the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Marchand), but this move means absolutely nothing if the government's policies in gener-
[Mr. Jelinek.j
al are not altered in any way, shape or form, and this philosophy of centralization continues to exist.
One can only assume that the reason for forming this sub-ministry is simply a temporary move to pacify the disgruntled small businessman. If one looks back prior to the 1974 election and remembers a Ministry of Multiculturalism having been established, only to be quickly abolished after a Liberal mandate was assured, one could easily conclude that the same procedure may be followed in this instance and that the future of the Minister of State (Small Businesses) will not be long lived.
To illustrate a specific example, allow me to point out the plea of the small or specialty apparel shops, of which there are literally thousands in every part of the country. As a result of the blanket quotas on the imports of textiles imposed recently by the government, the majority of these small shopowners are being threatened with bankruptcy and are presently in the process of laying off perhaps tens of thousands of employees because they fall under this blanket quota program.
It is not because they are a threat to our own textile industry which, granted, deserves the protection it needs. The majority of these shops do not even attempt to compete with the large textile manufacturers such as Dupont and others, and must continue to be dependent on quotas which they may not even have had in 1975. Yet, when questioned just yesterday, the Minister of State (Small Businesses) was apparently so unconcerned with this situation, which falls directly within his jurisdiction, that he had not even approached the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) with representations as to the possibility of exempting the quotas within this important but harmless market.
This is only one typical example where government action is harmful to the small business community and results in a yet further deterioration in the employment situation. There are, in fact, countless examples of such instances all stemming from the fact, as I said earlier, of the government's insistence of continuing their philosophy of centralization and introduction of legislation for the benefit of big business without having had any consultation, or given any thought whatsoever to what consequences a small business will face.
It is of immense necessity that governments in general extend their consultations to the small firms sector and deal with that sector as a separate entity when developing policies and introducing legislation. The fact that the potential labour growth is within this small firms sector can no longer be ignored, and one must realize at the same time that the most economical form of employment opportunity lies with the entrepreneur who is constantly struggling to avoid the obstacles this government's actions cause to fall in his path.
Surely it would not be difficult for the government to reduce the tons of bureaucratic paperwork the small businessman is expected to cope with, including the total revamping of the costly tax structure as it relates to the small business community. Instead of strangling this community with bureaucracy
February 10, 1977

and all sorts of restrictions and controls, it is time that the government initiated forms of incentive, be they through the tax system, research and development, or what have you, incentives that would encourage the growth and development of the small firms thereby creating built-in employment at the lowest possible cost.
In any event, the fact of the matter remains that the largest economic growth potential is virtually at a standstill. Because it is in a stagnant position, the many jobs that could be generated from within this sector are simply non-existent. All of this is caused by the government's inability to come up with basic, long range policies. Instead, it governs on a day-to-day ad hoc basis causing an unprecedented climate of confusion and uncertainty within the economy as a whole. A businessman, be he involved in a large or small enterprise, simply cannot take the risk to expand or plan for the future knowing that the government may impose upon him overnight unexpected and impromptu changes, as it did with wage and price controls, for example.
There are many other areas that reflect on the unemployment figures that we, as Canadians, are faced with today, and they relate directly to the government's inability to deal with small and medium sized businesses in a realistic and businesslike fashion. However, with the time limitations that are imposed on us, I would like to introduce just one other area of potentially mammoth employment, related directly to the small and medium sized business sector. 1 am referring, of course, to secondary industry and secondary manufacturing.
In this regard I simply find it very difficult to comprehend the present situation in which we find ourselves. Canada, being one of the richest nations in natural resources, is at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to secondary manufacturing. We encourage foreign interest to develop our natural resources, and to a certain extent this is a necessity, but then we fight like hell to sell our raw materials abroad where, as a result, jobs are created and economies bolstered. Then we purchase the finished goods in large quantities, goods that have been made out of our natural products in the first place, and we pay for them through the teeth without having reaped any advantages within our economy.
Needless to say, this trend that we have allowed to develop, and in fact encouraged, should and must be reversed if we are to reverse our sluggish economy and if we are to develop realistic long-range and permanent job opportunities. There are a number of ways this can be done, be it through various tax incentives or the availability to the entrepreneur of the vast technological research and development programs which the government is capable of having, but mainly it is the attitude and general philosophy of the government itself that has to be altered first.
We can no longer depend solely on the costly make-work programs which I alluded to earlier. They simply are not realistic and do not solve the underlying problems of unemployment. They are certainly not popular with the small businessman either. When the Canadian Federation of Independent Business asked their membership whether or not
Unemployment
they supported federal LIP programs as a way of providing direct employment, for example, only 16 per cent approved and over 65 per cent categorically did not. This poll was conducted on a national basis.
It is very clear that socialistically oriented programs tend to postpone the inevitable, and we are currently witnessing this inevitability. Therefore, if we want our country to remain the great place that it is, we must revert to the basic philosophies that it was built on, and I am of course referring to the freedom and encouragement of a successful free enterprise system, a system that must be maintained in its original form.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) this afternoon, I wondered whether they were talking about the same country. Indeed I wondered if they were talking about the same world. The Minister of Finance talked about this government transferring more than $2 billion to the taxpayers of Canada so that they could better meet their costs, and how they had increased old age pensions by $390 million. He told us that those who were unemployed received among the highest benefits in the world, and so on.
Then the minister said they could agree with everything which was in the motion and in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) with one small exception, because the government had already done those things. What the minister forgot to tell us was that the number of those presently unemployed is higher than it has ever been since Statistics Canada began to collect these figures.
I listened to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He began by telling us the government was not satisfied with the situation, and that as long as there was one unemployed person who wanted to work it would not be satisfied. He went on to recount all the good things it had done. He said our social programs are among the best in the world, and then he gave examples of programs it had introduced and which had created work, he said, in Montreal, Moncton, Saint John, and so on. Well, just a few days ago the unemployment figures for the month of January came out. How did the Toronto Globe and Mail report those figures? The headline on February 9 read: "889,000 Unemployed in January-Highest Total on Record".
The news story began:
Unemployment in January was 889,000, the highest recorded since monthly labour statistics began to be collected in 1953, Statistics Canada reports.
Since they concern the subject we are discussing today I think these figures ought to be put on record in relation to the speeches-the cynical speeches in my view-made by the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. There were 889,000 people unemployed last month, representing an increase over the same month in 1976 of 89,000.

February 10, 1977
Unemployment
What was the number of unemployed by regions in unadjusted figures? In the Atlantic provinces it was 105,000; in Quebec, 274,000, up 32,000 over the same month in 1976. Look at the rates. In the Atlantic region the unadjusted unemployment rate was 13.6 per cent. In recent weeks we have been discussing whether the figures are correct or not. I do not think anybody but one or two cabinet ministers would deny that there are thousands of people presently unemployed who are not counted in the statistics. There are a number of reasons for this. They might have been unemployed for longer than the period during which they are included in statistics. They might be young people who have never held a job. They might be single wage or salary earners who feel that unemployment in their areas is so high there is no use registering for work.
In Quebec there were 274,000 unemployed in January, and the unadjusted unemployment rate was 10.3 per cent. I am not so naive as to think the only reason some people in Quebec believe in a separate state is because they are hungry or because they are unemployed. I recognize there are linguistic, cultural or historical reasons why some people there have come to believe in a separate state. I do not believe that all the 40 per cent of the people of Quebec who voted for the Parti Quebecois were voting for a separate state, but I suggest to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that the 274,000 people who are unemployed in the province-I suppose if you look at Quebec east of Montreal you are looking at an unemployment rate not of 10 per cent but of between 12 and 14 per cent, and in the Gaspe you are talking about a rate of 30 or 40 per cent-could be forgiven if they are not enthused by the concept of one Canada. I am surprised there are not more who have been turned off in their thinking about Canada.
I suggest to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that what we do not need are ringing platitudes about his belief in one Canada. What we do need is a belief on the part of the federal government that Canada can have full employment. It is thinking of that kind which could lead Quebec and other regions to believe that Canada as a country means something.
We have heard ad nauseam from the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) that the unemployment figures are not as serious as they sound, because among the people they include are many women seeking to earn second incomes. Then we hear the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) saying recently that women should not be working. Again, it is said there are a lot of young people who really do not want to work and who try to get by on unemployment insurance. Well, the recent survey by Statistics Canada which showed there were 889,000 unemployed tells us two-fifths of them were heads of families or single people living alone. The bureau's own figures suggest that the additional number of workers available for work but not counted could amount to anywhere between 108,000 and 573,000 during January, depending upon the criteria used.

What I am saying now is what this party has been saying for a considerable time. We are in a major crisis, and it is only the government which refuses to face the fact.
What are the prospects for 1977? I refer hon. members to a survey recently carried out by the Conference Board, a very respected organization which conducts economic surveys, and whose membership includes academics, business people and a few labour people. The result of that study is reported in a recent issue of the Globe and Mail as follows:
Canadian economic growth will slow markedly in 1977 with real gross national product expanding only 3 per cent compared with nearly 5 per cent this year, the Conference Board in Canada estimates.
The prospects for 1977 have deteriorated because of the unanticipated continuation of the weak economic recovery in the major industrialized countries, particularly the United States, which are Canada's trading partners.
A slow-down in the growth of the GNP means more unemployment in 1977 than in 1976. The Financial Times, again not a very radical or revolutionary journal of opinion, said in a recent editorial:
Canada's economy should have produced 87,000 more jobs than it has since May, 1975-the bottom of the recession-in order to have made any inroads into the number of unemployed.
The outlook for unemployment is expected to worsen in Canada this year, especially without any fiscal stimulation. From Plains, Ga., president-elect Jimmy Carter has already shot his $15 billion fiscal bolt, largely directed at creating jobs in the U.S.
The article goes on to point out that even if Canada had that kind of program, which it has not, it would not mean a very drastic cut in the rate of unemployment we are presently facing. If we believe that this country could have full employment and that the bulk of our people who are now unemployed really want to work-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) rising on a point of order? The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is the shortest speech you have made yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


David Orlikow: If we believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is better for people who are now unemployed to be working than to live off unemployment insurance benefits or welfare of various types, then we must ask ourselves how we can put our unemployed to work. It seems to me that we have only two possibilities which, pursued separately or together, are these: either the private sector of the economy will expand and hire a substantial portion of the tens of thousands who are unemployed, or in the public sector the federal, provincial and municipal governments will activate programs that will employ people.
Let me examine the private sector and ask whether it will fill the need and hire a substantial percentage, I will not say all, of the 889,000 people who are now unemployed according to Statistics Canada. It is obvious that the demand for products produced by Canadian companies, by the private sector of the Canadian economy, is not there. Manufacturing capacity
February 10, 1977

is now operating at only 85 per cent of capacity. This means that whatever tax incentives the government proposes in its wisdom two or three months from now, or whenever it is the Minister of Finance brings forward his budget, they will not in fact do the job. The C. D. Howe Research Institute, in examining the result we might get from further tax concessions, said that these "are unlikely to be the major determinant of investment; business perceptions of the future prospects for the economy are likely to be the critical factor in investment decisions".
That being the case, Mr. Speaker, it is not likely that companies that are not now working at full capacity will be hiring any substantial number of people. With close to one million unemployed we are losing in the neighbourhood of between $5 billion and $6 billion worth of production each year. It seems to me that if the private sector is not in a position to hire people-I do not say that in any critical sense; it will hire people when there is demand for its products-then there is only one alternative, and that is government action.
We have proposed today in the form of an amendment to the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) five specific methods for dealing with unemployment. The first proposal is for an immediate decrease in personal income taxes for those in the lower and middle income groups, for the purpose of stimulating their purchasing power, and to help take up the current slack in the economy.
The Minister of Finance claims that the government has already done this through its indexation of income tax. I do not have the time today to put on the record again what we have done many times to show that the bulk of benefits derived from indexing income tax goes to those in the middle and upper income brackets. They are people who can afford to save. They are people who do not spend all the money they get back as a result of tax cuts.
I should like to compare our indexing proposals with that which President Carter has proposed in the United States. He is proposing an immediate tax credit of $50 for every taxpayer in the United States. The bulk of this money will go to people in the low income brackets who will spend it because they find it difficult to meet the rapidly increasing cost of living in the United States. We suggest to the government that that kind of proposal should be put into effect in Canada immediately. People should be given the opportunity to take the credit, not on their 1977 income but on their 1976 income, when they prepare their 1976 income tax return.
We have also suggested that there should be an immediate reactivation of all federal capital works projects, not just those of the federal government, and we should encourage the provinces and municipalities to follow suit, at the same time lifting any restraint on their share of funding such projects.
Let me give the House an example which I gave before the Olympics were held. I thought then, and still think, that it was madness to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a two week extravaganza in a city of two and a half million people which is still dumping its raw sewage into the St. Lawrence river. The city has plans that are ready for a sewage treatment
Unemployment
plant, but it has had to delay the implementation of those plans because it has borrowed so much money for the Olympics that it does not have any credit.


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


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in a debate like this one, it is natural for the opposition to try to depict the employment situation in Canada under a certain lighting. I did say "lighting" because, as a matter of fact, we were rather offered a great "blackness" with these fireworks of questionable of "Broadbentic" statistics, or others.
I do not intend to minimize the gravity of the situation but I would like to recall, as the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) did this afternoon, that the unemployment problem should be considered in its real context. However, this phenomenon is not limited to Canada. All the large industrial countries, including the United States where President Carter is going to implement a special program in this area, have to face a similar situation. Indeed, as far as statistics are concerned, ours as published each month by Statistics Canada are more complete with their distribution by region, by class of workers or by age group. In most countries, where there are several different schemes they are instruments which could not be rigorously accurate. It is understandable because we know that tens of thousands of Canadians shift from one job to another every week and it is, of course, a sample. But because of such estimates we can provide our job creation programs with better accuracy so as to allow further consideration to the needs of specific regions such as the province of Quebec and the Maritimes.
This kind of barometer also allows for better appraising of the impact of some programs and thus enabled us to realize that in January in the province of Quebec, because of the efforts made by the federal government through its public works and its job creation programs, the situation had improved and there were 20,000 fewer unemployed. It does not change the situation for those Canadians who are out of work but the program which I will refer to in a few moments and which has been specifically designed for that purpose will look after this situation.
Mr. Speaker, the number of Canadians who are working and the standard of living of the Canadian people, including those who are having problems, have never been so high. There are countries which do not have statistics on unemployment; would Canadians accept this other formula which indeed denies the word accept itself. There are also other formulas La Presse editorialist Ivan Guay pointed out last January 12 how some policies of the Labour Party which were often praised in this House had led Great Britain to its present economic difficulties. I was in England last September and I also found out that although there was a rate of inflation of 13.5 per cent, the unions of that country were allowing that workers be

February 10, 1977
Unemployment
granted increases of about 4.5 per cent. They were accepting 4.5 per cent in order to settle agreements. But here, how much criticism we got, especially from the official opposition, when in our current anti-inflation programs the increases granted are always higher while inflation still exists.
Magic remedies and final solutions lie nowhere on our planet, and the global effort the government of Canada is making this year has no equivalent with its programs whose efficiency has already been proven, and other programs which are ahead of what is done throughout the world; many countries are indeed on their way to adapt them, such as LIP. But in Canada, we are ahead of our time with programs like "Canada Works" and "Young Canada Works", which I will discuss in a moment. That does not consider the regional assistance nor the considerable amounts made available to the provinces through equalization which next year will provide the provinces for instance with $2.5 billion, including $1.3 billion to Quebec.
Here again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to hon. members' attention what must exist between provincial government and the federal government, and in particular the Quebec government. Very recently, in the Ottawa Journal of last February 9, we read that the mayor of Hull is very much worried about the existing situation, and I quote:

Taking into account that each worker spends on average $800 a year in the place he works, Mr. Rocheleau says that one building alone with 5,000 employees would mean $4 million being spent in the area nearby.

The mayor is worried over the fact that projects amounting to $26 million could be cancelled, just because of a policy which would be rather difficult to understand for the Quebec government. Just as he does I wish the new Minister for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) could meet them to correct the situation in which they seem to get in.
Mr. Speaker, 1 was just referring to the Local Initiatives Program, a program which allows enormous sums of money to be pumped into the economy where the situation is most serious. For this winter we have a program worth about $200 million which will create 47,000 jobs, about one third of them in Quebec. Furthermore, we are presently completing the allocation of $60 million for Phase I of Canada Works program. There will be $140 million more in this sector by the end of this fiscal year, which will allow for the creation of a total of 61,000 jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote some figures dated February 8, 1977 which show the interest of most Canadians looking for employment and the groups which would like to co-operate with the new Canada Works project. We note that on February 8, 1977, there was 6,630 applications to create about 62,000 jobs representing $340 million. This shows the interest of some people in creating employment in Canada. I agree with the leader of the NDP. We know that Canadians are not lazy and that they would rather work than receive unemployment insurance benefits or social welfare allowances.

I do not feel however that programs such as Canada Works or the Local Initiatives Program are a form of social assistance. I am sure of that in my constituency, because I have some evidence that the people who are now interested in various LIP projects are eager to work and willing to help. Nor only do they earn a salary, but their work has a social aspect. In most cases, they help senior citizens, visiting them at home once or twice a week, to do their housework and other things. What those women do in those programs is desirable, and I trust that in the not too distant future the provinces will give similar home services to the needy. Once again, the federal government will have taken an initiative which can perhaps be followed up by federal-provincial agreements.
In all its programs the government has given special attention to the young, helping them either to complete their studies or to have easier access to the labour market. For instance, in the next few months, thanks to three programs, namely Young Canada Works, the Summer Job Corps and summer jobs in various federal departments, 47,000 jobs will be created, at a cost of $65 million. The program Young Canada alone will allow expenditures of $26 million. The number of manpower centres on Canadian campuses will increase from 70 to 88 across Canada in the next three years.
Another program will exist after Bill C-27 has been studied. I trust the House will pass it fairly quickly. With the integration of the two departments, the Department of Manpower still has a very interesting program in co-operative education. A budget already set at $500,000 will enable the federal government, and those provincial governments that are interested, to cooperate in looking for a solution to what I feel is a major problem so that students, while taking classes, can spend some time in private industry; this training period can serve as a bridge between studies and a job. Too often, when applying for a job, young people with 12 or 15 years of schooling are asked whether they have some experience. Unfortunately, they are unable to say that they have some and their application is turned down. I think that a thorough study of the matter with the funds made available after the creation of the new department could probably solve one of the major problems. Perhaps this will answer the question put today by the leader of the opposition when he referred to the father who was rather disappointed because his children who were graduates found it difficult to land a job. The educational system should also provide courses for which there are openings so that the young people will not realize, once they have completed their studies, that there is no employment for them.
In addition, young people and other groups of workers can take advantage of a massive operation whose full extent I have been in a position to evaluate as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration; the training or retraining programs for workers in institutions as well as in industry.
Mr. Speaker, in 1976-77, the department is going to spend $477 million for institutional training and $64 million for
February 10, 1977

on-the-job training, a total of $541 million. In 1977-78, within two months from now, the Department of Manpower and Immigration is going to increase its spendings in this field, allocating $513 million for institutional training and $70 million for on-the-job training or a total of $583 million. This is to help Canadians improve their skill and find a job.
Indeed, not only will these investments increase the qualifications of the Canadian workers and allow them to find a job more easily instead of receiving unemployment insurance benefits but they will also help them take a more active part in the economy of our country. I could talk about many other programs to help the disabled workers who need special training. For example, there is the LIAP-Local Improvement Assistance Program-which, with $14.8 million, will create this year 18,840 man-months. In our department, we have, among others, the workers' mobility program.
Mr. Speaker, if I have enough time, I would like to point out other innovations in a bill now before the House and which will be applied if the Department of Manpower and the Unemployment Insurance Commission can better coordinate their operations once they will be merged. I hope I can deal more deeply with this subject when we will study the bill, but right now I want to tell you how the work sharing program will be applied. Beginning next fiscal year, it will help avoid lay-offs in factories or industries with temporary problems.
Usually, we cut down on personnel, which creates unemployment and results in a loss of skilled staff for a company. This work-sharing program will help keep the whole personnel, but the work week will be temporarily reduced and the cost will be charged to the new Employment and Immigration Commission. These are pilot projects which will come into effect next fall in an effort to improve the condition of the workers who have difficulties and help them keep their incomes. This will be done as generously and cautiously as possible.
This formula brought positive results in several industrialized countries, especially the German Federal Republic and its cost is partly balanced by the unemployment insurance spendings which could not otherwise be avoided. Obviously the elaboration of such a program is complicated and cooperation will be expected not only from governments, and employers but from workers and their unions as well. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) indicated recently that there was a danger that the employers might be tempted to abuse the system and make it absorb some of their losses. I agree that we will have to proceed with care but if we doubt the good faith of those who are ready to participate in such a program, we would never have had programs such as local Initiatives, training on the job, Canada Works, Young Canada Works, etc. Of course the opposition would be in a better position then to criticize the government and produce fine statistics.
Mr. Speaker, the new job creation strategy announced recently by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration includes a new formula which will allow this year a pilot project for the unemployed which will encourage them to
Unemployment
participate voluntarily in projects of direct job creation within the community and still receive their unemployment insurance benefits. Or still, again on a voluntary basis, to take training courses while their benefits continue to be their main source of income. It will be suggested that in certain cases the benefits are higher than the salaries being offered. Those are rare cases, and the formula is intended particularly to help those who are thinking about improving their skills while they are waiting to find a job, therefore improving their chances of finding a job, and also keeping more busy in an interim period which they want to be as short as possible.
In brief, Mr. Speaker, we are in the presence of an additional effort by the government which all told is going to cost over $1 billion to bring unemployment across Canada to its lowest level possible with special attention going to those areas where the situation is more difficult. In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I still want to note certain points raised by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) who seems to be extremely concerned with small business or at least certain small businesses. I would indeed like him to define them. If it is about certain storekeepers that he is concerned, I hope that in his case there is no conflict of interest.
I have here an item made in Hong Kong bearing the name Jelinek Import Registered. This may not be one of his companies or the company of one of his relatives but it is still the same name. The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) was also in agreement with the positions taken by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and, as he suggested this afternoon, bringing imports from Asia and elsewhere back to the rate of 1975 helps to create more jobs in Canada.
That is the main objective. In my area and in Quebec as well as outside thousands of textile workers are losing their jobs because of continued imports of all sorts of clothing made outside this country. 1 think they should rather buy Canadian to create thousands of jobs in Canada and not import or be afraid that some imports will not come in. There is not a dealer handling 100 per cent imports. In the majority of cases they have Canadian products, for sure.
And even they are permitted to import 75 per cent of the current quota. I think it is enough to continue to create jobs here, and that would not be one of my main fears. I think the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is simply doing its job, and it certainly has the support of the majority of government members.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to say a few words on the motion moved by my leader this afternoon:
That this House denounces the government's failure to generate jobs in Canada, particularly in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, and urges immediate and resolute action, including the early presentation of a budget.
I listened very carefully to the speech of our leader which, I thought, was a reasoned one and contained very good suggestions. It was well presented. I also listened to the speech of the

February 10, 1977
Unemployment
leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent), which similarly was good. However, I regretted his attitude at one point. For a while I even thought we were in government because he was attacking the Conservative party so much. However, I suppose that if, for 30 or 40 years, you cannot change the polls or win an election you have to lash out in every direction. Nevertheless, on one point I do agree with the Leader of the NDP, contrary to what the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) said, namely, that there are more than 889,000 people unemployed in this country. The minister better realize that day after day members from the Atlantic provinces and from Quebec are in constant contact with people they represent. They receive letters from them saying, "Look, I have to get a job. You say, "Go to Manpower". Look, I am tired of going to Manpower. I've been going there for months and I cannot find any work there". This is not the fault of the officials in the Manpower offices. They do not have any work to give anyone. Let me give you an example.
The following is the type of letter I get from my constituents:
Dear Sir:
This is the first time that I have written to any MP. I guess there is a first time for everything.
The reason that I am writing is to get a little information to help plan my future. Just maybe you can help.
I am a widower, with three small children. I have worked every day since I got out of school. I was laid off at SYSCO ten weeks ago. 1 was wondering if you could advise me on my next move. I have been going around looking for work but there is none to be found. I love working; it keeps my mind off things. Do you think I should stay around and wait to sec what happens at SYSCO or should I pull up roots and go west to look for work?
1 have lived all my life in Sydney and I don't want to leave and I don't want to go on welfare. Do you think something will break soon?
Keep up the good work and keep fighting for the working man. May the Lord be in your corner.
This is the type of letter we get, time and time again, from many people who cannot find jobs. The thesis put forward by the Leader of the NDP is not new. I have stated it in the House before. I have also said it outside the House and I say now that the figures we get are not legitimate. There are thousands of people who are not classified as being unemployed in the Manpower offices, therefore they are not considered to be out of a job. So the figures we get are phony. There are over 1 million unemployed in this country. I say that to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who has become arrogant when anyone asks him a question about the unemployed in this country. He used to be a regular, fine, decent gentleman. I think he better watch out and take lessons from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) who knows how to answer people in the House and who does not get carried away by the importance of his position. We can do without his arrogance. It does not help the unemployed.
As my leader said, eight out of every ten Canadians joined the ranks of the unemployed from the five eastern provinces. These are not bodies, as referred to in bureaucratic language, they are not just figures or statistics, they are human beings.

All we heard this afternoon was statistics. All the last speaker gave us was statistics. All we heard from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), from the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) was statistics. But they do not pay the rent, they do not pay the mortgage, they do not buy the food, and they do not buy clothes for the kids.
Before I go any further I want to say a word about Quebec, La Belle Province. The good people of that province are not interested in separatism. They are not one bit interested in moving away from Canada. What they want is an economic climate in which they can make a buck. That green stuff talks. What is the use of being able to speak two, three or four languages if you cannot find a job? If we provide the proper economic climate-and the government should provide that climate-we will not hear very much about separatism in the province of Quebec.
On several occasions the Minister of Finance expressed his serious concern about the unemployment situation, and I believe him. He talks about job creation, but since December, 1976, he tells us that there have been only 79,000 new jobs created. What the hell is the good of 79,000 new jobs when over one million are unemployed? I know it has helped a little bit, but it is still not the answer.
The minister is the bantam rooster type. Although he is not small, he is ready for a fight. However, he condescended to say that the leader of our party and the leader of the New Democratic Party put forward some good suggestions, and that he would keep them in mind when he is proposing a budget a few months hence.


John Raymond Ellis: That is where he gets his ideas.


Robert Muir: That is quite right. I go along with one point in the amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party. In fact I go along with all of them. I go along with co-operative housing in Nova Scotia. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) has been down there. The former minister, the minister who is now looking after the Boy Scouts of Canada, our last line of defence, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson), was down there talking about a cooperative program in Nova Scotia which would provide jobs. He is doing nothing about it and has done nothing about it. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) talks about grants and about all the jobs they produce, but they are not producing jobs in the Atlantic provinces. I do not know where they are producing jobs.
One of the factors which has affected the employment situation in Cape Breton in the last couple of years has been a strike at Nova Scotia Forest Industries, which affected 1,500 employees. That was a legitimate strike. The company was trying to get the employees to work for nothing. The Cape Breton construction industry is down to its lowest ebb in years, creating more unemployment, because of the economic climate in this country. Construction employment at the heavy water
February 10, 1977

plant has wound down. There was a disastrous fire at Devco's No. 26 colliery, which put more people out of work. There has been a softening of demand in the world steel markets. At Canadian Motor Industries we used to assemble Toyota cars, but that effort has gone down the drain. They have pulled out. 1 raised this matter time and time again with the then minister of industry, trade and commerce, but there were no results. Nothing happened. Forty of the boys who were laid off got together and borrowed $3,000 apiece and set up a fund of $120,000 to try to do something themselves with other agencies, but there was no co-operation either from the provincial or federal governments.
General Instruments employed 1,000 people assembling tuners for car radios and so on, but it is gone. There was no effort made by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to keep that company there. The Kaiser strontium plant is going out of business. Just today the Nova Scotia development minister said that the province could not buy or subsidize this plant. That means 100 more people out of work. I tried to make contact with the Asahi Glass Company in Tokyo. What has Devco done about that? What has the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce done to get them interested in taking over this plant? Nothing.
In the last two years 1,664 men have been laid off by the SYSCO steel plant, the Sidney Steel Corporation. Today, when I checked the number on the payroll at SYSCO, it was 2,290. Two years ago it was 3,954. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce mentioned me in dispatches several times today during his speech that I was always raising hell and crying for more rail orders, etc. Why would I not, when we have all these steelworkers walking the streets, losing their houses, being put out into the cold, and unable to pay their electric bills because the power rates are so high?
The minister also said I have been after him about decentralization. Of course I have. Let us move a government department down to Cape Breton. That would provide 800 or 900 jobs. The lame excuse of the minister was that some members in this party did not think it would be a good idea. That is not the point at all. The minister misled the House because the members of this party, as well as the mayor of Ottawa, said that they want a program and that they want to know what is going to happen. Is there going to be an announcement tomorrow that some department is moving? We want to know ahead of time. The minister promised that there would be an outline right after Christmas, but it has not come yet. I would like to see a department brought down there so that people in that area can be employed. Let us not move people just for the sake of moving them. The Department of Veterans Affairs is moving to P.E.I., but that will not be for another three years. It might be like the causeway the Liberal Government was going to build to P.E.I.; it never did come about; perhaps the move of the Department of Veterans Affairs will not, either.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said that no one is actually suffering from hunger and cold. I have gone with welfare workers and found people living in tents in cold
Unemployment
weather, and tried to find places for them to live. Why does the minister not get with the people and find out what is going on? There are people who are starving in this country. There are people who do not have a place to live, no matter how many statistics the government throws around about housing starts, etc. There are people who are suffering.


An hon. Member:: Give us solutions.


Robert Muir: We will give you solutions. Why does the hon. member not make his speech standing up and not while sitting on what little brains he has? When I am through, the hon. member can speak. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, to have to use that kind of language, but it is very apropos of the hon. member. In any event, our leader gave solutions today, and so did the leader of the New Democratic Party, but will they be used by this government?
What about the consortium Gerry Reagan is trying to set up for a new steel plant? Gerry Reagan used to sit here.


An hon. Member:: Never heard of him.


Robert Muir: The steel plant is going down the drain. He has played around with setting up a consortium for years. Why does this government not get busy? Mr. Reagan could not do it; his province does not have enough money.
This government has its priorities all screwed up. It can throw $40 million to Cuba, and money to Iran and all over the world. Why does it not send it to where it is really needed? There were 1,000 workers at the docks at North Sidney, stevedores-I say to the hon. member who is interjecting- maybe you do not know what a stevedore is because maybe you have never worked, but a stevedore is a person who works hard like a coal miner or a steel worker-but now the number is down to 200 per shift.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. When hon. members have the floor, they should address their remarks to the Chair.


Robert Muir: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You are very kind. There used to be 1,000 men per shift working there, and of course because this government gives subsidies to private shipping firms, the shipping goes in other directions. It does not go through the port of North Sydney to Port aux Basques in Newfoundland. So what happens? There are only 200 working there. The rest of them are walking the streets.
Under the terms of confederation, in accordance with section 31 of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada, provision was made for the taking over by Canada of the vessels and other marine services formerly operated by the Newfoundland Railway. Subsequently, by order in council, Canadian National Railways was entrusted with the management of these services.
Pursuant to section 32 of the terms of union, Canada is obliged to maintain, in accordance with the traffic offering, a freight, passenger and vehicle steamship service between

February 10, 1977
Unemployment
North Sydney and Port aux Basques. That is in Newfoundland, for the information of hon. members on the Liberal side.
The policy of the Ministry of Transport is, therefore, to conform with the terms of union and provide such service in keeping with demand.
CN Marine is the principal employer in both North Sydney and Port aux Basques. CN Marine employs somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 people directly, and they, with their dependants, make up about 10,000 to 15,000 people.
Port aux Basques in Newfoundland has been historically the entry point for goods coming to Newfoundland from mainland North America. It is, therefore, incomprehensible that this government or this minister, "travelling Otto," should consider increased subsidies to some private outfit which cannot make it on its own, take millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, feed them the money to operate against a Crown owned corporation which has had its ships tied up in the harbour doing nothing.
There is another solution.


William Arnold Peters: You have told them; now try to make them understand.


Robert Muir: I would have to draw a picture; even then I do not think they would understand.
Further, Mr. Speaker, the constituency of Cape Breton-The Sydneys does not meet the qualifications for the additional $30 per week allowance for material costs associated with Canada Works projects because the Minister of Manpower states our unemployment rate is not high enough and we do not meet the other ridiculous criteria! That is poppycock, Mr. Speaker. The amount allocated for projects in Cape Breton-The Sydneys is a measly $382,000. That is crazy. That is not worth anything. Under the Local Initiatives Projects Cape Breton-The Sydneys received $1,700,000, unfortunately-I say unfortunately, because the unemployment rate was so high that is why we got so much. Of course we have to consider the formula used to determine the allocations under the Canada Works Program- now get this the constituency has to have had an unemployment rate in excess of 7 per cent for the first quarter of 1976. Then the constituency, according to Statistics Canada 1971 census figures-imagine-1971 figures-in the lowest 20 per cent of all ridings in terms of either average family income or the median value of single detached, owner occupied now farm dwellings. What gobbledygook! Did you ever hear the like of that Mr. Speaker? Down on the south shore in the riding of Queens-Lunenburg they call that "bafflegab". Nobody can understand it.
I say to the hon. gentleman who was shooting off before: try and explain that to a man who cannot find a job and has not been able to find one for over a year, and whose unemployment insurance benefits have been exhausted. He is not on the books anywhere. All I can say is that the bureaucrats who came up with this formula might know all the answers, but they damn well do not understand the questions. It is the same

problem. Some ministers run their departments, and some departments run their ministers. If the Minister of Manpower and Immigration were interested in the unemployed, he would call those bureaucrats in and say "What kind of foolishness is this? Straighten that out. I want to see what it is all about."
We have the unemployment down there; that is the sad part of it. We have lost General Instruments. We have lost Kaiser Strontium. We have 200 out of 1,000 stevedores working, we have all of these steelworkers laid off, and coal mining-there is another solution. If the government wants solutions, the Arab sheiks have made DEVCO a success and the Cape Breton Development Corporation now that coal is becoming king again because of the energy problem. But try and get the government to open new coal mines! There is no faster way to put people to work than to open coal mines. Let us open two or three new coal mines. Even the oil companies in the United States are buying up leases and opening coal mines. Such cutbacks and restraints! You cannot even get an extension for mail delivery, which would provide half a dozen jobs for people in many areas.


William Arnold Peters: No matter how you explain it to that backward member he will never understand.


Robert Muir: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce stated this afternoon "We are doing and have done everything possible". The Minister of Manpower and Immigration speaking for the government, of course, said this afternoon, "None of us have the answer to unemployment". Mr. Speaker, if on their own confession they have done everything possible and none of them have the answer-and they admit that-and we have over one million people unemployed, is it not time that those two ministers were moved and some crackpot like the member who has been interjecting be made a minister? He could not do any worse. There is no reason in the world why he could not be a minister. He is just as stupid as the rest of them. He reminds me of the man they tell about who was so stupid he did not know the difference between arson and incest, so he set fire to his sister.
The greatest joke is trying to find out about training from the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I wrote to him trying to find out about training, and on November 30 he wrote to me as follows:
I am pleased to be able to tell you that the federal-provincial manpower needs committee for Nova Scotia, carefully reviewed the supply of construction tradesmen-
We want tradesmen because at least they will get an allowance and it will help them to feed their families and they will be trained when they have to move to Ontario, or whatever they are forced to do. The letter continues:
-and the need to train additional workers, to meet the needs of the proposed steel mill to be built by Cansteel.
Now listen to this part, Mr. Speaker:
Although the project is in the planning stage, site clearance is expected to commence during 1977, and when construction gets under way approximately 1,600 tradesmen will be employed during the first year, rising to 3,700 in the fourth year.
February 10, 1977

To hon. members here that does not mean anything, but up to the the present time the Premier of Nova Scotia says no consortium has been set up. We do not know where they can put a steel plant. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) does not know anything about it, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does not know anything about it, but the Minister of Manpower and Immigration tells me they are going to start construction.
Mr. Speaker, there is so much but I see my time is up and you are looking at your watch.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, suggestions are being made. Let them get off their asses and get people to work and get this country back on its tracks again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I see by orders of the day that this is supposed to be an opposition day. Certainly we can understand now why the Progressive Conservative party and the other opposition parties were not in favour of having television brought in on our return after the Christmas recess. After watching the show just put on, I am sure it would not have a very high rating in terms of general entertainment across the country. It did seem to amuse some of the colleagues of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark), however-a few of the ten or 11 members of that party who are in the House this evening. There are not too many NDP or Creditistes either. Yet we know that there are approximately 125 members of the opposition. This is supposed to be an opposition day but they do not seem to find the motion put forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition important enough to support.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are only a dozen Liberals.


An hon. Member:: Where is your minister?


An hon. Member:: Fifteen members.


Maurice James Harquail: I think it is rather a sad day-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) has the floor.


Maurice James Harquail: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My sympathy is with you. I realize the great difficulty in having these people show some respect for parliament. They spend many hours preaching about it. Every speaker at one time or other, whether it is the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) or others, lectures parliament on how important is is for us to have respect for it. Yet when a member stands in his place with his legal right to speak and be heard, this is what we have to put up with. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for bringing order to the House.


Robert Muir: The truth hurts.
Unemployment


Maurice James Harquail: The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) has a very short memory and failed to mention what the Minister for Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) said this afternoon when he informed the hon. member that they were very close to obtaining an agreement with Venezuela


Robert Muir: For five months and we are working on that. We have not got it yet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member has had his say. I suggest we now listen to the hon. member for Restigouche.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his support, but I suggest he should direct it to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to help him obtain that contract so that we can provide jobs for the people of Cape Breton that he was talking about.


Robert Muir: We have been waiting for it. You had better wake up and find out what is going on.


Maurice James Harquail: It is interesting to see the hon. member show a bit of respect for the government and the programs that are being carried out through DREE and the Department of Manpower and Immigration. He admitted that he received over $1 million through the Local Initiatives Program and that he is quite happy to accept additional money through the Canada Works program and will be quite happy to receive money under the Young Canada Works program. They always show great respect and great support for the government at that time.
Of course we know that in the maritime provinces, especially those administered by a Conservative government at the moment, they are very cautious not to mention the federal government after the agreements have been signed-not to mention the federal government after they have obtained these funds, but they are right there for the signing and are very anxious to get the publicity. They try to hoodwink or mislead the public by saying it is a provincial program, but their memories become very short when it comes time to mention where they got that money.
We all know that in terms of equalization payments so far as New Brunswick is concerned-they talked about one billion dollars last year. Half a billion dollars is handed over by the federal government to the province of New Brunswick on their day-to-day budget operations in addition to the hundreds of millions of dollars that is handed over through DREE and through regional development incentive programs. However, no mention is ever made after they receive the money.
It is much the same situation in Newfoundland. This afternoon the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) talked about the same old stuff that he talked about in his maiden speech in this House. He said that at one time he was a minister in the government of Mr. Moores. He did not tell us
2952

February 10, 1977
Unemployment
why he left Mr. Moores. He did not explain why he did not stay to help Mr. Moores solve some of the problems he was talking about. Nor did he tell us of any of the solutions he had for his province when he was a member of the present administration of Mr. Moores. The hon. member left the provincial administration and the Newfoundland people with their problems. He decided to let them try to work them out for themselves. However, he did not acknowledge the millions of dollars pumped into Newfoundland through equalization payments under DREE and other programs.
The effect of the 1977 indexing of federal personal income tax is close to $950 million. The effect of indexing family allowances is $160 million, and indexing old age security payments is $390 million. The effect of the change in the reduction in UIC payments represents $250 million. This is the type of thing we like to get on the record and speak about. We can be sure that we will not hear about it from the official opposition.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to point out that the hon. member's speech is the same speech that was read this afternoon by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest to the hon. member that is not a point of order but a point of debate.


Maurice James Harquail: I would only say that the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, should get his eyes checked because I do not look like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald).


Robert Muir: Is that an insult or a compliment?


Maurice James Harquail: I will not let myself get down to the low tone of the debate we heard this afternoon and this evening from the previous speaker. I refuse to do that. I am one who likes to see dignity maintained in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice James Harquail: I will not let myself be brought to the level of debate we listened to from the opposition this afternoon. The other day they said they wanted to do great things for Canada. We listened to Rodriguez.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order!


Maurice James Harquail: The hon. member for Nickerbelt, the Nicker-bocker kid, or whatever he is called, tied up this House.


William Arnold Peters: There must be some ridings you are able to pronounce.


Maurice James Harquail: It is always nice to have the assistance of Mr. Peters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order!


Maurice James Harquail: What is the name of your riding, Mr. Peters?


William Arnold Peters: Timiskaming.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he must refer to another hon. member by his constituency and not by name.


Maurice James Harquail: Timiskaming, that does not surprise me.
As I said earlier, it is little wonder the opposition is opposed to having television brought into the House after witnessing some of the performances that go on here.


Robert Muir: Even make-up wouldn't help you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice James Harquail: The opposition takes great pains to avoid some of the facts and Figures. For example, in addition to the amounts of money that I mentioned with regard to indexing federal personal income tax, and other programs and moves that have been made, the major transportation subsidy payments covering five areas transferred approximately $280 million to the Atlantic region in 1976. You can bank on it that the opposition would avoid mentioning that.
Tomorrow morning the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) will be signing a formal agreement with the premier of New Brunswick, the hon. Mr. Hatfield. This will represent in excess of $40 million to assist in the continuation of the construction of Route 11 from the city of Moncton to Campbellton, New Brunswick.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice James Harquail: This is as a result of long negotiations that have gone on because of the problems encountered as a result of the negative attitude of the Progressive Conservative administration in that province. However, I am delighted to be able to say tonight that at last we have an agreement. They have finally been wise enough to accept the money being offered to them by the federal government. After that agreement is signed tomorrow, I hope they will not be too bashful to mention that this money came from the federal government.
In addition to the sub-agreement with regard to the highways, there are the benefits that will come to them under the new agricultural program. The question of programs and amendments to the agricultural development subsidiary agreement, the agricultural agreement, is extended. In addition, money will be poured into that province by DREE under the small business incentives program, as well as more money in Kent county.
These are a few of the sub-agreements to be signed tomorrow. I am delighted to be able to announce and put on record in my speech this type of positive move being taken by this government. Of course the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, in addition to negotiating with New Brunswick, negotiates continuously with Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland with regard to federal-provincial agreements. They bring millions of dollars to create new jobs, develop the highway structure so that the economy can be
February 10, 1977

improved, and assist in the development of the tourist trade of the Atlantic provinces.
This is the type of positive action the people want to know about. It has to be supported if we are going to continue to alleviate high unemployment. No one is sidestepping the fact that we are faced with these complex problems.
I hope that some day the opposition will sit down and seriously consider the problems facing this country. They should consider making some reasonably legitimate suggestions, rather than taking a full day of the time of this House with the type of motion that is before us today.
The decentralization approach which the government has taken, one area of activity with regard to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, is revealed most markedly in the administration of the Regional Development Incentives Act. Provincial directors general now decide on cases involving up to $500,000 in capital costs and 40 jobs, while regional assistant deputy ministers are authorized to approve all cases involving capital costs of between $500,000 and $1.5 million and up to 100 jobs. As a result, more than 70 per cent of the decision making authority in this program is now outside the Ottawa area. The incentive officers have become increasingly familiar with their regions. There is greater co-operation than ever before between the two levels of government on the matter of incentives to industry. This is the type of positive approach that the government takes in co-operating with those provinces.
It surprises me to see in the motion before the House today remarks criticizing or calling for debate with respect to the type of assistance being given by this government to the four Atlantic provinces. However, it does not surprise me when we observe that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is not able to state his position on any of the policies which they like to skirt around and sidestep from time to time. He does not seem prepared, informed, or ready to take a stand on any of the issues facing us today.
He tells the Canadian people he would like to remain as Leader of the Official Opposition. In his travels across the country, he talks about how he will do this and that, and what a great future there will be. However, he does not seem to have the capacity or ability to put on record exactly what his position is with regard to the very difficult problems which face us today.
The Canadian people will be watching the performance of the opposition very closely. We hear them continuously moan, cry, and lament. It will not be surprising to see them remain in that position for another ten or 15 years, as has been the case for the last number of years. When you consider their performance and input in this House, you observe almost a non-opposition situation. They say nothing constructive. They do not seem to be interested in putting forward worth-while ideas. It appears they would prefer to sit in the House and be entertained, as we found when the previous speaker was making some smart remarks about the situation in Cape Breton Island.
Unemployment


Robert Muir: You go down there and tell the people what you are saying now.


Maurice James Harquail: He, and two or three of his colleagues were amused. They had a great time. But, as I said earlier, I would much prefer that they should look seriously at the comprehensive and effective program which has been introduced by the government, and the positive steps which have been taken. I think, for example, of the hundreds of millions now being spent by the Department of Manpower and Immigration and of the steps taken by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) to ease the situation through a number of programs and policies.
The situation today reminds me of the situation last year when the opposition took a great deal of the time of the House setting themselves up as great defenders of labour. They were speaking against the establishment of the Anti-inflation Board. We all agreed that something drastic needed to be done to halt galloping inflation, and the action taken at that time has proved a positive step for the government to have taken. Today we hear labour people, including many of the senior labour organizers and officials, agreeing with the position taken by the government; they are supporting it in almost every sector, and encouraging the government to move cautiously before removing these restraint measures. I believe this speaks well of the dynamic and decisive leadership which came from the government in a most critical period.
This is a government which accepts its responsibilities and does not turn its back in difficult times but marches forward and meets problems head-on. Not only do we meet problems head-on but we resolve to come up with policies and programs to eradicate the situation, as has been evident in 1976. I invite the opposition to accept its responsibilities and try to refrain from excessive and unnecessary verbiage of the kind we have to listen to in the House from time to time on so many occasions. I realize we have to try to work with the opposition. That, after all, is the set-up. That is the structure of parliament. There must be an opposition, and if we had a good opposition it would make for good government and the better working of the parliamentary system. Unfortunately some of those who make up the opposition fail to make a positive contribution as far as their role is concerned.
Going back to the Atlantic area, I should like to take the opportunity to encourage those who are charged with the responsibility for administering the province of New Brunswick to accept their responsibilities in terms of seeking to develop policies and programs which would show a greater degree of co-operation between the two levels of government in many areas, not only in the area of DREE where they smilingly sit down to accept all those moneys, but also in the area of education, health and welfare, and justice, as well as some of the other on-going programs. I would encourage them to be serious and accept their responsibilities in the day-to-day administration of that province and to see that the moneys forwarded to them by the federal government are indeed spent in the various sectors of that province as they have been
2954

February 10,1977
Unemployment
destined and directed to be spent. I am thinking of one particular area which I understand is being cleared up now in the northern part of the province I represent. It has to do with the second language program; for the last few years they have said there is no money to hire extra teaching personnel or to arrange for facilities to carry out this program.
An bon. Member: What do they do in Moncton?


Maurice James Harquail: That is another subject I shall deal with tomorrow.
The positive steps taken by the Minister of Finance with respect to the subsidies and other federal moneys which are being awarded to the Atlantic provinces certainly do not place the opposition in a very happy position today. In the motion they have placed before us they mention the unemployment position, but they are not prepared to mention the fact that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) has taken some definite and positive steps in this area to provide jobs through the strategy he has put forward in connection with the Canada Works and Young Canada Works programs. Only today he announced new time limits with respect to applications to accommodate students and young people who wish to participate in the Young Canada Works program-


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am very dismayed that we on this side of the House were obliged to bring in a motion today in order to focus attention on what I call a national disaster, that is, high unemployment. The last speaker talked about decisive leadership. All I can say is that at this time in our history we Find there are increasing numbers of our youth who feel alienated, increasing numbers who are prepared to work but are unable to do so because of incompetence in the management of the economy. We have not found jobs for our youth.
When the hon. member refers to decisive leadership, I think of the senior citizen who is frustrated and who feels that we, as parliamentarians, do not realize the presence within that group of a bank of skilled resources from which there have not been sufficient withdrawals, that the government has no idea of what these people could do in terms of bringing about a better climate in terms of the economic situation. They have been put out to pasture. That is the kind of decisive leadership the hon. member was talking about. He continually forgets that business is suspicious. Business is also frustrated and is holding back. Why? Because the government likes to play games and it likes to change the rules during the game. He talks about decisive leadership, and I think of the farmer who wants to eke out a decent livelihood. Under the policies of this government that is not possible. The hon. member talks about decisive leadership, but I think of the way this government conducts its federal-provincial relations. This government believes in confrontation, not consultation and co-operation. That is why this country is in a hell of a mess.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The provinces say that this is the government's idea of co-operation and consultation; "We have option A and option B and we are going to push ahead with option B; what do you want to do?" I am not making this up, Mr. Speaker.
I had a very pleasant experience in the Atlantic provinces. They told me that that was the way the federal government operated. But do you know what really disturbed me? I have been fortunate enough to have the confidence of my constituents since 1968, but I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Porte-lance). I want to be kind because he is a nice chap and means well, but he is a Liberal and sits on the other side of the House and he has to read the speech that is prepared for him. I wonder whether he is getting the same number of letters that I am getting from university and high school graduates who are now looking to members of parliament for jobs. Does the parliamentary secretary not receive those kinds of letters from people in all professions, Ph.D.'s in chemistry, engineers, business administrators, high school students? I hear some nitwit over there, but that is what he calls them, not me. He has no idea what we are talking about here. Does the parliamentary secretary not receive these letters?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Portelance) is rising on a point of order.


Arthur Portelance: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I heard the question that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) asked me, and truly I never received one letter from any of these well-qualified people in my region.


Mr. John Campbell (La Salle-£mard-C6te Saint-Paul):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to me by indicating me with his finger. I have not received one such letter, and I think all the comments he has made are completely false and he should read his speech more attentively.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, this is my yardstick. This is how I can tell that this country is in trouble. I do not know where other hon. members go. Perhaps they do not go to their offices. But when they tell me that they have not received one letter from a university graduate or a Ph.D., then I wonder why the parliamentary secretary was so selective. Why did he tell me how many letters he had received from anybody who is looking for a job?


Arthur Portelance: I said I did not.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Now says he did not. You see how they deliberately try to confuse, how they try to mislead. He is not talking to any dummy over here, though he may think so. Be honest and be truthful.
We are experiencing right now the problems and frustrations of our youth. When we think what the government has
February 10, 1977

done with respect to research, both medical and scientific, with the government's tunnel vision that money has been cut off. This is one of the most important matters to which we should be addressing ourselves because through research we are dealing with our future. But through its shortsightedness and tunnel vision our researchers are doing what? Perhaps the parliamentary secretary doesn't understand this either, but they are all going south, and more will be going south.
I am not here to be mean, Mr. Speaker. I am not being mean tonight; I am trying to whack some sense into the brains of hon. members opposite. I heard what the parliamentary secretary said; he did a beautiful job, so he thought. He said that we had to look at unemployment in its true context. Then he started to describe conditions around the world. Well, I am not interested in conditions around the world; I am interested in the leadership that should come from this government to solve this very chronic and desperate situation. Do not try to bamboozle the people by comparing us, say, with Angola. I know he did not mention Angola, but I do not know why he did not, because with all due respect it is a very dishonest way to look at a very humane problem.
Then he said that living standards here are high and he started to compare them. I am not interested in comparisons; I am interested in what this government is going to do. I like the parliamentary secretary, he is a nice guy, but he must be talking about members of parliament when he says living standards are high. Everybody thinks that our standard of living is high. I do not want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, what my wife thinks about that, but let us not try to say that things are great so we should not get too excited. That is not a proper approach when there are some 900,000 people out of work, though others have said that because of the confusing way we compile our unemployment statistics the figure could be one million.
To say we should look at unemployment in its true context and to relate it to the living standards of other countries is no way to approach the problem. We have senior citizens who want to work and become involved in the mainstream of Canadian life. Yet the government says to them. "Get out of the work force at 65 because you are not going to get any more unemployment insurance; you cannot contribute by way of premiums, nor will you get any benefits". That is the mentality of this government. This reservoir of manpower which could be of such importance to the development of this nation is told by the government that at 65 its members should get out because they are useless, whereas other workers can contribute to and benefit from unemployment insurance. What kind of nonsense is that?
On the other hand, those who want to work, our youth, cannot get jobs because the government does not have the imagination or the aggressiveness to bring about the job creation that is so needed. They laugh at us, Mr. Speaker. They tell us the minister will be making an announcement regarding DREE. Up until this the government has believed that this is a problem that does not concern the Canadian people. Surely when we go to our respective ridings we hear the problems of
Unemployment
the frustrated. Do we not hear about the problems of the unemployed?
As I have said, I have been in the Atlantic provinces and I am going to Quebec soon, I hope, God willing, in order to share the experience of our senior citizens in regard to their quality of life. We are concerned about unemployment in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, and that is why we have underscored it.
We urged the government and pleaded with the government to take immediate, resolute action, including the early presentation of a budget. As my leader pointed out earlier today, eight out of every ten Canadians who joined the ranks of the unemployed in 1976 lived in the five eastern provinces of Canada. That is a shame, a national disgrace.
Mr. Muir. The hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Har-quail) did not seem to realize that. He did not seem to know anything about that.


Miss B6gin:: Are your Ph.D's ready to go there, to work?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In Newfoundland 13.6 of the people were unemployed; in New Brunswick, 11.1 per cent, or more; in Prince Edward Island, more than 9 per cent; in Nova Scotia, more than 9 per cent were unemployed, and in Quebec the figure is 10 per cent and climbing. Lord knows, if the true figures were only known we could perhaps add another five or six percentage points to all those statistics.
Some people do not appreciate that it is one thing to be unemployed in Ontario but quite another to be unemployed in the Atlantic provinces or Quebec. Why, Mr. Speaker? The reason is that jobs do not exist in the Atlantic provinces. The jobs just are not there; the opportunities are not there, and there is no industrial development in the area. In Ontario the situation is quite different, and I say this with all due respect to those who may be unemployed. I hope the people of Hamilton will understand what I am trying to say. It seems to me that it is much easier to get a job in Ontario and, say, Alberta.
We may say we are all Canadians, that we are all pulling together and that there is equality of opportunity. However, for some of us there is more equality of opportunity and that disturbs me. When there is not equality of opportunity one sees animosity and anger. Anger builds up to such a pitch that you find the Liberal government of Quebec being kicked out-but I will not dwell on that.


Mr. MacFarlane:: Come on; you are talking about the land where I lived. Do not talk about it that way.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As I was saying, because the government in Quebec did not have its ear to the ground, did not keep its eyes open and see the people's economic frustration, it was kicked out of power. It goes to show you what can happen.
When we came back from the Christmas recess, what was the government's priority in terms of matters it brought for-

February 10,1977
Unemployment
ward for consideration in this House? At a time a slow growth, high unemployment, business uncertainty and lack of confidence, we debated television coverage of proceedings of the House. I do not care one way or the other if television is brought into this House. Frankly, I do not think it will last. Once people see some of our dismal performances, my own included, they will turn their sets off very quickly. But that item was brought forward because it had priority. It was brought forward while economic questions begged for solution. As I said, the unemployment rate is a national disaster and a national disgrace. What has happened shows that the government has a callous disregard for the suffering of hundreds of thousands of Canadians.
I condemn their hesitancy in moving, condemn their footdragging and condemn their procrastination. That is the government's attitude. The government says, "We will wait to see what Jimmy Carter does; he is the savior. What happens in the United States is bound to rub off here."
We knew what was coming. Heaven only knows-I know the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) wants to speak and I will not rob him of his opportunity-heaven only knows, the Conference Board in Canada, the University of Toronto Institute of Policy Analysis and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development pointed out most vividly to members of parliament, the people of Canada and the government that, in the absence of immediate action, we shall face higher unemployment and a stagnant economy. Despite all those economic indications and forecasts, the government sat back, silent. It took outsiders to tell the people of this country what is happening in this country, and all the time the government remained silent, hesitant and indifferent. It turned a deaf ear and watched the unemployment Figures rising until they reached the one million mark.
In human terms, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about anger, frustration, despondency and futility. One million people unemployed means that retailers cannot sell their wares. Unemployment of that proportion affects producers. You start multiplying the effects of unemployment and you will see what a hell of a mess this country is in.
I have a lot more to say, Mr. Speaker, but out of respect for my hon. friend, I will let him wind up this debate in his usual manner.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I was not particularly interested in winding up this debate. However, I have listened with interest to the speeches which have been made and I feel sad for the Canadian public. The motion we are debating is most worth while. In some of our regions unemployment is running as high as 20 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Thirty per cent.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, perhaps as high as 30 per cent. Yet some hon. members ridiculed what the hon. member from Cape Breton said about unemployment today. In addition, an hon. member from Newfoundland rose and ridiculed the whole
problem of unemployment, when about one in five in his area is unemployed.


An hon. Member:: It was the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail).


William Arnold Peters: It does not make much difference. There is a lot of unemployment there as well, Mr. Speaker.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It makes a difference to me, because I was the only speaker from Newfoundland in this debate and I did not ridicule unemployment. The hon. member is referring to the hon. member from New Brunswick, the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please, that is not a point of order. It is a point of debate.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, in the riding of almost every member of this House, including Ontario constituencies, there is a considerable amount of unemployment. The unemployment question is dammed important in northern Ontario ridings. It is important for all hon. members of this House to consider not only the question of unemployment, but how we can create employment.
I was shocked to hear many members on the government side offer nothing constructive and only offer lots of ridicule. If the government is really serious in asking for the co-operation of all parts of Canada to end this problem, it should not be looking to Jimmy Carter for salvation. We, in Canada, should ask ourselves what we can do to provide jobs. The government would be well advised to institute in this House a debate which would allow members of parliament to provide input as to how employment in this country is to be created. I suggest that a winter works program will be of little benefit in many areas and will not cure our difficulties or provide regular employment, the sort of employment people can count on day after day. I am ashamed that many members of parliament have not made more constructive remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 58, the proceedings under the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

February 10, 1977

Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, the constituency of Vaudreuil includes the Canadian Pacific Railway commuter passenger train service that runs from Rigaud through Hudson, Vaudreuil, lie Perrot, Ste. Annes, Baie d'Urfe and Beaconsfield, into Montreal. A total of about 7,500 passengers use this line each day on which there are a total of 26 stops. The annual loss is over $300 per passenger.
The announcement of the CPR in January of fare increases, coupled with drastic cuts in the number of trains, was followed by some 40 letters to me from individuals and municipalities requesting federal intervention to stop the reduction in service.
Most of the complaints relate to the reduction in trains between Vaudreuil and Rigaud. About 400 passengers a day use this section of the line. In such a situation one does not First argue jurisdictional responsibilities, so on Thursday of last week I proposed a motion which can be found on page 2667 of Hansard. It reads:
That the Minister of Transport personally intervene on behalf of all the commuters in the Montreal area and solicit from CPR a postponement of its intention to reduce the frequency of service until the province of Quebec indicates its policy on or before July 1.
The request for the postponement is related to the urban transportation study by the province of Quebec which is expected on or before July 1 of this year.
In recent months the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has intervened to obtain a delay in the introduction of fare and service changes for the Montreal commuter rail services announced by CNR and CPR. The minister has indicated that the Financial support of these services is the responsibility of the province of Quebec, and his intervention has been taken to minimize inconvenience to the public until the provincial government has determined how it will exercise its responsibility.
Although it is acknowledged that the provision of urban transportation services is the responsibility of municipal and provincial governments, which should also take responsibility for the costs, a federal program of capital assistance can help in relieving problems by providing capital to assist in the expansion of public urban transportation services.
I recognize that any federal urban transportation assistance program is not likely to subsidize the operation of urban commuter and transit systems. Nevertheless, this government has made a commitment to provide assistance to urban areas in order to alleviate their transportation problems. The promise of this financial assistance, and the role played by the federally appointed Canadian Transport Commission, led to the public appeal to the federal government.
I appreciate the prompt action of the Minister of Transport. Many residents in the constituency of Vaudreuil are entirely dependent upon public transportation, and service cuts of the magnitude of those announced by CPR would impose considerable hardships on those people who, for a multitude of reasons, do not have the use of a private automobile.
Adjournment Debate
Now that there is a little more time for a fuller discussion of the subject tonight, I will be pleased to hear any further comments from the minister or his parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, First I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) who raised this important question on urban transportation. It is not the First time that the hon. member has raised that question in the House. He also raised it in committee. I think the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) agrees with this philosophy or principle raised by the hon. member.
[Translation\
Current urban criteria being what they are now, the aim of the Department of Transport is to banish cars from the heart of the cities to give public transport the priority. Since then, many meetings have been held between federal and provincial governments and, in the case of Ontario, it was clearly established where responsibilities would like for public transport services.
Even now in Ontario, Go Transport and Go Transit exist; the work is performed by the federal government but the province of Ontario Finances the deFicits. The problem of urban transport is urgent and we want to follow up on the request of the hon. member. On October 25 last, a meeting was held of all the mayors of the municipalities concerned. Transportation by CN rail was then discussed: we have Laval-des-Rapides and Montreal: the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) is now speaking of the same problem with regard to the role of the federal government in connection with the services given by the CP on the south shore. I should like to point here to the hon. member for Vaudreuil that I am quite willing to table the correspondence exchanged at that time with the minister of transport, Mr. Raymond Mailloux, with regard the shared responsibilities.
At the October 25 meeting last year, with regard to the increase in costs and decrease in services, it was agreed with the minister of transport, Mr. Raymond Mailloux, that before July 1 a report would be tabled at the National Assembly on integrated urban transport services, speciFically for the south shore and the north shore at Montreal. We therefore hope that that report will be tabled ...


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


TRADE-LEVEL OF CHEESE IMPORTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I on appropriate occasions in the past have made numerous representations to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) regarding the unacceptably high level of cheese imports.

February 10, 1977
Adjournment Debate
On January 25, 1977, I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to clarify press reports attributed to the chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission to the effect that the freeze on cheese imports imposed a year ago would be extended for an additional year. I also asked the minister if he would not consider using a well accepted government practice of utilizing a previous five-year averaging approach in establishing a more acceptable and equitable basis for cheese import levels. If such a principle were to be adopted, our cheese import level would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 38 million or 40 million pounds.
Replying in the usual fine tradition of his cabinet colleagues, the minister said in part that he would inquire. It is widely known and recognized throughout the industry that, although naturally not accepted by the government, the decision to freeze import cheese levels at 50 million pounds a year ago was largely, if not entirely, the result of opposition protests, protests which were raised here in this House on this side of the House.
Concern about this problem is the result of a number of factors. When the quota on cheese imports was first set by the government in 1975, it was established at too high a level. Imports of variety cheese in 1973 and 1974 were 38 million pounds and 45 million pounds respectively. If a significant portion of such imports had not been subsidized by the countries of origin, the volume experienced in the two years prior to the application of the quota would never have been achieved.
Second, in 1974 it is common knowledge that greater volumes entered Canada illegally because of inadequate policing methods, and further to that, no action was taken except to legalize the entry.
Third, another case in point involves cheese believed to be from East Germany which is trans-shipped via West Germany and enters our market at the level of 56 cents a pound. This transshipment situation was never proved; however, there is no way West Germany could sell cheese at 56 cents a pound when the Common Market support prices are close to a dollar.
Yet another factor which discredits the use of 1974 cheese levels as a standard is the fact that more cheese was imported due to a shortage of Canadian milk that particular year. The government failed to take into account that commencing in 1972 Canada's trade in cheese had become totally imbalanced, largely because of the trade protection measures imposed by the European Economic Community, whose member countries enjoy some 65 per cent of the share of the expanding cheese trade into Canada.
Our cheese exports, which traditionally have been dominated by sales to the United Kingdom, fell from the 30 million pound level in 1970 and 1971 to 18 million pounds in 1972 and to 6 million pounds in 1973. Since then they have amounted to less than three million or four million pounds.
In contrast, cheese imports, mainly from the trading bloc which has wiped out our traditional export market, have nearly doubled, from some 20 million pounds in 1970 to probably close to 50 million pounds in 1976.

When the loss of cheese exports is combined with the growth of cheese imports over the past five years, the Canadian dairy industry has lost a potential market for half a billion pounds of industrial milk, or about 5 per cent of total requirements.
Every ten million pounds of cheese imported into Canada cost the Canadian dairy industry approximately $4 million. It should not have come as any surprise to the federal government under these circumstances that the dairy industry strongly opposed the establishment of the quota level at 50 million pounds in the past two years. The government failed to recognize that the Canadian dairy industry is quite capable of producing nearly all the varieties of cheese that are being imported into this country. The government has implied that this is not possible, and that consumers must be able to purchase the cheese of their choice. I wish to lay this myth to rest once and for all. It should be noted as well that savings on lower cost cheese imports are not passed on in the same relative proportions to the consumer.
In the first place, the Canadian industry manufactured and offered for sale to the public, some 50 different varieties of cheese in 1975, many of which are the exact same varieties being imported. Second, about a dozen specialty cheeses which together make up about half the imported varieties in tonnage, either are or can be manufactured in Canada without difficulty.
It is nonsense to suggest that Canada requires the imported cheeses because of our inability to make them. The real problem is the government's lack of policy to prevent imports from being subsidized by the countries of origin. The effect of this is that the Canadian manufacturers have no incentive to invest in plant and equipment to manufacture some of the large volume import varieties here.
I would like to point out that a ten million pound reduction in cheese imports would generate some $20 million or more of sales for the domestic industry, while at the same time saving skim milk powder export costs of close to $5 million.
It should be noted, as well, that the special access agreement for mature Canadian cheddar which Canada worked out with the EEC in early 1975, and which the government announced with considerable satisfaction, is in today's environment practically worthless. It is high time for the government to review this access agreement and either improve it or put more restrictions on cheese imports from EEC countries to Canada.
I would suggest that the responsibility for the control of all dairy products should rest with the Canadian Dairy Commission, which already manages dairy product export operations. It controls butter imports and has a vital over-all co-ordination role to play in carrying out federal government dairy policy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Postmaster General (Mr. Smith).
February 10, 1977


Mr. Walter Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure this evening to correct the unfounded and misleading statements which the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) made in this House on January 25, 1977.
I should like to begin by advising hon. members that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has never proposed that the cheese import quota should be doubled. The global cheese import quota was first implemented in Canada in 1975 in support of the domestic supply-management program for industrial milk. Prior to this date, there was no limitation on the quantity of cheese which could be imported into this country. The government took this action under Article 11, section 2 subsection (c) of the GATT which permits the implementation of import restrictions in support of supply management programs. The maximum import level for all types of cheeses was maintained at 50 million pounds for 1976-77, and the Minister of Agriculture has already indicated on numerous occasions that this level will not be increased for the 1977-78 dairy year.
It should be noted that under this quota imports of cheddar cheese are limited to a maximum of one million pounds. The other 49 million pounds represent specialty cheeses. The market for these cheeses has increased rapidly in Canada in recent years to the point where it is now economically feasible for Canadian cheese manufacturers to produce some 60 varieties. However, Canada continues to import some 200 cheese varieties, the market of which for many of these does not justify their production in Canada. Hopefully, with increased consumption of these varieties, it will become economically feasible to produce them in Canada, as has happened with numerous other varieties of specialty cheeses.
The maintenance of the quota of 50 million pounds has permitted the domestic industry to absorb growth in the market such that the cheese sector accounted for some 31 million hundredweights of milk, or 30 per cent of the industrial milk supply in 1976, compared with 29 million hundredweights, or 27 per cent of industrial milk supply in 1975.
Rather than restricting opportunity in the Canadian cheese industry, the limit on imports has permitted it to look to the future with confidence.


MANPOWER-CANADA WORKS PROGRAM-FUNDS FOR NATIVE PROJECTS IN URBAN COMMUNITIES
David Orlikow: February 10, 1977
Adjournment Debate
gary and Vancouver which are facing increased problems as a result of the movement of native people from the reserves into the cities. I would urge the minister to reconsider his decision and to give favourable consideration to the question I raised on February 8.
[ Translation]


Arthur Portelance: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that we give special attention to the natives when distributing funds for the Canada Works program. In the first place, we have provided a special allowance for status Indians living on reserves and on Crown lands. Indeed, since they are not included in the inquiry on people at work made by Statistics Canada and that they will probably not be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, they would not otherwise be taken into consideration in the basic allocation of funds.
Likewise, we do not grant special allowances to status Indians nor to the Metis people who do not live on reserves, because they are not included in the inquiry on people at work. However, when the advisory commissions draw up the list of priorities submitted by non-status Indians, they also take in consideration the proposals from Metis and status Indians who are not living on reserves. In addition, if we do not receive enough reasonable suggestions from Indians living on reserves
and on Crown lands of a riding, the unused funds are added to the riding's allowance and the Metis and status Indians who do not live on reserves get the priority in respect of these additional funds.
More precisely, about the electoral district of Winnipeg North, Mr. Speaker, I would add that the rate of surplus manpower is 6.01 per cent. Regular allowance amounted to $100,000. Since the riding does not include status Indians living on reserves nor on Crown lands, it has not received the special allowance that was intended.
In the ridings that did not receive a special allowance for Indians, the members of the advisory commissions have been asked to take into account the needs for employment in their riding and to give priority to suggestions made by sectors or groups where unemployment is the highest. If, in the electoral district of Winnipeg North, the natives living in cities represent a group where unemployment is high, I am sure the advisory commission will give them priority; further, considering the allowance made to Winnipeg North, I am convinced that the natives' needs will be met satisfactorily.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Friday, February 11, 1977