1977-12-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. My motion concerns the case of Anatoly Shcharansky, a citizen of the Soviet Union who has been held in a prison without trial in that country for almost nine months, because authorities allege that he was an agent for the United States Central Intelligence Agency. In view of the Prime Minister's refusal to take a strong stand in denouncing the government of the Soviet Union, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That this Flouse strongly condemns the government of the Soviet Union for violating the provisions of the Flelsinki Accord in its imprisonment of Anatoly Shcharansky. This House further condemns the Prime Minister and his government for failing to show more concern for the rights of individuals in countries like the Soviet Union.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, because the matter is urgent I ask leave, under Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), to move:
That this House calls on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to take back to cabinet the question of restoring the basic rate of the war disability pension to the level of the take home pay of the five categories of federal public servants so
designated in 1973, it being the view of this House that good faith calls for such restoration to take place without further delay.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It concerns the fact that Department of National Defence auditors are presently engaged in a top secret and classified investigation of alleged embezzlement of public funds of Canadian Forces Base Ottawa North, formerly Rock-cliffe, such information having come into my possession and subsequently confirmed to me today by the base commander and the office of the Minister of National Defence. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That the House be advised of full details of what has transpired, specifically including whether or not reports are correct that upwards of a quarter of a million dollars has already been found to be involved, and finally, that the House be assured that where necessary charges will be laid in a civilian court, rather than the matter being in any way hushed up by courts martial under military jurisdiction.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce moved a motion under Standing Order 43, as reported in Hansard at page

December 8, 1977
Agriculture
1357 in 1976, that the whole matter "nannygate" be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for study so that the Minister of Transport's continued abuse of the public trust could be examined; and in view of the recent change of attitude of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with reference to abuses of the public trust, induced by his change of position, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That this House regrets the attempt by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, before he discovered the secret of upward mobility into the cabinet, of attempting to ride into office on the back of a nanny.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter.
The Secretary of State announced on October 27 that he would soon introduce a policy concerning minorities of both official languages. In a letter dated November 22, the Federation of Francophones outside Quebec stated that the government has not consulted them in the process of developing that governmental policy. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That the House ask the government to consult the Federation of Francophones outside Quebec and other groups involved before setting their policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning an issue of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that powdered milk surpluses are likely to have on the dairy policy an influence that would cause prejudice to dairy producers, and considering that many industrial milk producers will not have a production quota until April 1, 1978,

a fact that will place them in a difficult financial situation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the House urge the Minister of Agriculture to initiate research with a view to promoting greater use of powdered milk in the making of feed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion can only be debated with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSAL THAT COMMITTEE HEAR REPRESENTATIONS ON TARIFFS FROM PRODUCERS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In view of the representations made by agricultural organizations and the associated food processors asking for changes in the recommendations of the Tariff Board as they relate to fresh and processed food, and in view of the strong representations made by other business organizations in Canada asking for a realistic trade policy which would allow Canadian product producers to have a reasonable sales opportunity in Canadian markets, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling):
That a reference be made to a committee of the House to hear representations from all facets of Canadian economy to explain their needs to the Canadian GATT negotiations and members of this House.


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


INDUSTRY
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Falconbridge Nickel has today announced the lay-off of a further 750 people or 20 per cent of its work force in the Sudbury basin, and in view of the fact that this brings the number of lay-off notices in the Sudbury basin over the last few months to over 4,000, and in view of the fact that this government in the past has dealt with


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
December 8, 1977

such crises in other industries, such as the uranium industry, by initiating stockpiles to protect the jobs of the workers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House instruct the government to immediately commence a program of stockpiling nickel to the extent which is necessary to protect the jobs of the employees of INCO and Falconbridge Nickel in the Sudbury Basin.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43,1 seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that Francophone minorities outside Quebec are in a precarious situation, that they are progressively and irremediably assimilated in spite of federal financial assistance, that they might be less in need of money than of rights and privileges, and also that considerable amounts are being spent in Quebec to protect its Anglophone minority whose linguistic and cultural existence is not jeopardized at all,
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the Federal government streamline its policy of financial assistance to the minorities of Canada in order to render it more equitable and effective.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before beginning the oral question period I know that all hon. members would want to join me in welcoming in our gallery the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany headed by the distinguished vice president of the Bundesrat, Dr. Bernhard Vogel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the deplorable fact that over 20 of the cabinet ministers are absent today, some of whom at least should realize, even if the Prime Minister does not, that out of town cabinet meetings should not be held while this House is in session-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Where is Joe?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: He is not attending an out of town cabinet meeting, I can tell you that. My question therefore is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the announcement this morning by Falconbridge Nickel Mines and of the fact that not long ago the minister had a conference with the chief executive officer of the corporation and that he has had a report in his possession dated at least a year ago prophesying exactly what would happen to the nickel industry, and because these matters were not unanticipated,-as a matter of fact, fairly well known-what specific steps is the government taking to alleviate the situation in the Canadian nickel industry, and what is the government going to do about the unemployed workers in the Sudbury basin?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the hon. member that when the cabinet goes out of town it uses its time very effectively.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: It deals with the nation's business. We do not spend our time raising money for our party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Alexander:: Even Allan smiles at that one.


Alastair William Gillespie: Where is your leader today? I do not think the preamble to the hon. member's question was particularly helpful, but he did ask an important question, and I would like to deal with it, if his colleagues would just quiet down a little bit.
If the hon. member has informed himself about this situation, he must know that the nickel industry in Canada, and to some extent the rest of the mining industry in Canada, is facing a very difficult time right now because of a softening in our major markets. This is not a situation the companies have created. It is a situation which the government is trying to ameliorate in any way it can. There are a number of different programs which are aimed at ameliorating this painful situa-

December 8, 1977
Oral Questions
tion. You know, Mr. Speaker, about this perhaps better than most of us because of your own particular interest in the area, but there have been a number of meetings with representatives of the company, the union and the community involved.
I think all hon. members recognize that this situation has not been created by the companies or as a result of any government policies. It was created as a result of a weakening of markets. We are trying through various measures, through the Unemployment Insurance Commission-and the Minister of Employment and Immigration can deal with questions on this-and through discussions with the industry and with the provincial government, to find some way of easing the situation. At the present time I am not in a position to indicate that we have any solution.
However, we have advised a number of Crown corporations that there are likely to be people looking for work in Sudbury. Syncrude, for example, has sent recruiting teams to Sudbury, and so has the Crown corporation, Eldorado. They have been actively looking for people who are looking for work and who have the trades these corporations are looking for.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Regardless of the admission that the minister and the rump cabinet which is left over here today have no solutions whatsoever and regardless of the minister's advocacy that perhaps this is more a provincial matter than a federal matter, has the minister taken any specific steps? The Falcon-bridge decision affects not only the economy of Sudbury and Canada but also the economy of Norway and the whole European market for Canadian nickel. This is something with which only this government can deal. Have any of the ministers who are left here today had any conferences, for instance, with any of the western European governments about the weakening position of the Canadian nickel industry and about products in Europe? Have there been any discussions with the Norwegian government about this matter? It affects Norway as well.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a discussion with the Norwegian government, but I have had discussions with the responsible minister of the Ontario government, the government which I think is most intimately concerned with this question.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I am emphasizing that you should be concerned.


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member seems to question whether the province of Ontario has any jurisdiction in this area. I point out to him that the provinces own the resources of this country.


Walter David Baker: Why did you intervene in the Supreme Court?


Alastair William Gillespie: Hon. members opposite seem to find it to their benefit now to suggest that the federal government owns the resources of this country.


An hon. Member:: No we don't.


Alastair William Gillespie: I remind them that not only do the provinces own the resources and set royalty rates, but the provinces also set the pollution control standards for the mining industry. It was against this kind of background that yesterday I contacted the mines minister for the province of Ontario to see if it is possible for him and his colleagues and I and my colleagues to meet in the very near future in order to prepare for a federal-provincial conference of mines ministers. I hope it will be possible to have a national conference of mines ministers in January. I have already sent out a telex to the ministers suggesting the date of January 20.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to emphasize to this particular minister and the other ministers present today is that this is not only a national problem, not provincial but is an international problem in which only this government, unfortunately, can act. Is anything being done in the international area on which this industry depends for markets? The government has been warned about difficulties on the international scene for over 12 months.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think it might be of interest to the hon. member and the House to know that I sent instructions to our ambassador in Jakarta, which is the host of a conference of copper producers taking place at the moment and suggested that they should take action-this is the CEPEC organization-to reduce production of copper. The copper industry could well face the same kind of situation that the nickel industry finds itself in today. I was pleased to read today that the majority of copper producers have taken the position of reducing production and to that extent their action should ease or stabilize copper production in this country.


LAY-OFFS AT FALCONBRIDGE MINE-CONSIDERATION BY ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF MINING INDUSTRY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister has referred to a national conference of provincial and federal mines ministers to be held sometime next year. Is the minister aware of the meeting of the national advisory committee of the mining industry tomorrow? If so, could he inform the House if he has taken any steps to have that committee consider what might be done to relieve the situation that has arisen in the mining industry with not only the loss of jobs at Falconbridge but the other loss of jobs? Does he intend to put any proposal to that committee tomorrow that might help the situation?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the meeting of the national advisory committee on the mineral industries tomorrow is to prepare for the kind of round I have discussed with various provinces leading up to a federal-provincial conference. The meeting tomorrow will be focused primarily on the mining industry as a whole, not just the nickel industry though quite clearly senior representatives of that industry will be present.
December 8, 1977

We will be dealing with the industry as a whole. I will be seeking the advice and suggestions of the industry on how best to deal with this very difficult situation.


MANPOWER
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration who apparently is another minister not needed in Montreal today. Is the minister aware that the monthly report with respect to lay-offs reported by Canada Manpower Centres has been suspended as of this month? I ask this in view of the lay-off situation we are dealing with. If he is aware that this report has been suspended, could he indicate to the House why this time has been chosen to suspend this monthly report bearing in mind that it reflected 61,000 layoffs so far this year up to the last report which was in October?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, let me say first of all that I was in Montreal and we received a series of excellent briefings from both management and labour, and other individuals. It was a very worthwhile operation. I thought it was appropriate that I return today. Some of the ministers are still there and participating in very serious government business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I don't know why the hon. member persists in the cheap kind of shot that he takes.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Answer the question.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon. member for York-Simcoe to do a little studying to check what has been done on behalf of the miners in that particular region, as well as the services we have made available. At the same time we recognize the primacy of the union. We do not want to usurp their particular role. We met with the union and management and they said they wanted to have some time to see if they could work it out themselves as part of collective bargaining or part of an agreement. They are endeavouring to work it out, and they do not want us to move in to undermine the role the union has to play. Once we have the green light in that particular region we are prepared to move in and do that which is necessary to help those who are laid off.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the minister of unemployment and immigration. The question relates to the report about which I asked the minister in my first supplementary. The report for November with respect to lay-offs in Canada has not been published. We understand it has not been published under the direction of a director within
Oral Questions
the minister's department. Would he indicate why that report is not being published, bearing in mind that it is extremely pertinent that the monthly lay-off situation in Canada be known not only to every member here, but to the Canadian public, so that we can judge the government's activities in trying to relieve this jobless situation in the nation. In other words, why is it not forthcoming? It looks pretty fishy.


RESOURCES
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I was going to place my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but in light of his insensitive attitude to the unemployed workers in the Sudbury basin I will put my question to the Deputy Prime Minister and hope I receive a positive reply.
In view of today's announcement of 750 lay-offs by Falcon-bridge Nickel Mines-this brings to over 4,000, the recently announced lay-offs in the Sudbury basin, Thompson, Manitoba and Port Colborne-and in view of the fact that these lay-offs are precipitating an economic crisis within these communities as the thousands become jobless and find themselves with no alternative employment, contrary to the statements by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, will the Deputy Prime Minister now give this House a guarantee that he will come before it within one week with a specific economic strategy to deal with the present crisis within the nickel industry; the crisis faced by the communities that house these corporations, and the crisis of unemployment faced by thousands of workers within this sector?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, a substantially similar question has already been addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In my view he expressed the government's attitude with a good deal of concern and sympathy toward the workers in Sudbury. Of course, it is not possible for me to give an undertaking to the hon. member along the lines he put forward in the latter part of his question.


John R. Rodriguez: In view of the fact that the unemployed workers in Sudbury cannot eat sympathy, and the fact that the government has moved in the past to protect industries and their employees when they are going through such a crisis- the most recent example of this was the stockpiling of uranium for seven years-and as well that economic forecasts, including those of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources have predicted the probable recovery of nickel markets within one year, my question will be specific to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will he tell this House if he is prepared now, after today's announcement of still more disastrous lay-offs to finally take the necessary step of initiating a temporary stockpile of Canada's nickel?

December 8, 1977
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That particular proposal has already been considered, and in view of the situation in the market and the very large supplies of metals available, it does not appear to be a workable or appropriate proposal to adopt in these particular circumstances.


John R. Rodriguez: Remember what happened with uranium.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The uranium situation, I suggest to the hon. member, was quite different from the one that prevails at the present time.


NICKEL MINES-PROPOSAL TO IMPOSE IMPORT TARIFF ON NICKEL TO PROTECT EMPLOYMENT
John R. Rodriguez: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and I shall be specific once again. In view of the fact that it is now known that a portion of the metal used by the Canadian Mint to make nickel is purchased from Sherritt Gordon and that this nickel is refined by Sherritt Gordon from nickel purchased from overseas, and in view of the fact that there is at least a seven month stockpile of Canadian nickel available for such usage and that refusal to use this nickel is costing jobs in Canada, will the Deputy Prime Minister state, either yes or no, if he is now prepared to act by initiating a temporary import tariff on unrefined nickel into this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand exactly the way the hon. member brings together in his mind the two aspects of his question, but I will be happy to give more thought to this complex question and see whether his representations deserve further action.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY WHETHER UNITS WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO ABITIBI-TfiMISCAMINGUE REGION
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board and it relates to the decentralization policy in the federal public service. Could the minister tell the House whether he considers moving administrative units in the Abitibi-Temiscamingue region and what are his projects for this region?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Finance has announced all the planned decentralization moves presently being considered by the government. No further moves are being considered at this time.

[ Translation]


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
[Stage Direction]
REASON FOR FAILURE TO LOCATE OFFICE IN ABITIBI-TfiMISCAMINGUE REGION
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary to the Secretary of State. Considering that the National Film Board has established regional offices everywhere except in Abitibi-Temiscamingue, could the Secretary of State tell the House why this region has been forgotten and whether he intends to establish one of these offices in this region as he did in the rest of Quebec?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to meet the representatives of the National Film Board tomorrow and I shall draw the Chairman's attention to the hon. member's representations.


MANPOWER
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, now that we know who the government's "second string" is, I should like to direct a question to a distinguished member of that second string, the minister of unemployment and immigration. To use his words, Mr. Speaker, now that the people of northern Ontario in the Sudbury basin have received another kick in the guts, since we can now identify serious critically high pockets of high unemployment, specifically in the Sudbury basin and in the five eastern provinces where 50 per cent of the one million unemployed Canadians reside, what initiatives is the minister taking, given the responsibility he has, to address himself to these specific and identifiable pockets of unemployment?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, at the end of the question period I will rise on a point of order to indicate why 1 did not respond to the hon. member for York-Simcoe. Nor do I intend to respond to the hon. member for St. John's East.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of some of the one million Canadians who are unemployed and apparently living too high off the hog, I should like to ask the minister of immigration whether he is prepared to tell the House, given the responsibility he has in regard to manpower and unemployment, that he is going to take special initiatives to co-ordinate activities within the government with respect to addressing himself to identifiable pockets of critically high unemployment, such as the Sudbury basin, the five eastern provinces, St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, Thompson, Manitoba and Stephenville, Newfoundland? We know where the critically high unemployment is; what is the minister doing about it?

December 8, 1977


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Employment and Immigration-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: -let me just say that the initiatives recommended by the hon. member are not to be taken; they have in fact been taken. There is an interdepartmental committee established to study these specific problems and that committee has come up with some excellent representations. To give just one example, Mr. Speaker, under phase 2 of Canada Works 116,000 people were working in jobs who would not have been working without that particular effort. That is only one of a series of steps this government has taken to help the unemployed.


UNEMPLOYMENT-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE PRIME MINISTER WILL MAKE STATEMENT IN HOUSE
James Aloysius McGrath: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I will address to the Deputy Prime Minister since we can get nothing but empty rhetoric from the minister of unemployment. Given the fact that the only response we have had from the government is Canada Works, and since barely 10 per cent of the unemployed in the province of Newfoundland, for example, are able to enjoy the benefits of phase 2 of the Canada Works program, can the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that the statement promised by the Prime Minister for tomorrow on new employment strategies will be made in the House, that there will be an opportunity for members to respond on motions and that the members of the House will be given adequate opportunity to examine the Prime Minister's statement before it is made in the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not aware of any promise made by the Prime Minister that a statement would be made in the House tomorrow. I noticed in a headline today that a statement from the Prime Minister had been expected but that was the first I had heard about it. I asked the Prime Minister this morning in Montreal, and it is not his intention and had never been his intention to make a statement in the House tomorrow.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that postal walkouts in Toronto are increasing to the point where only 200 out of 800 employees showed up for work this morning in one location alone, would the minister report on these apparently illegal walkouts and advise the House what steps he is taking, (a) to return postal service in Toronto to at least the snail's pace to which we have become accustomed,
Oral Questions
and (b) to assure that this discontent does not spread to the national level?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the figures given by the hon. gentleman; I understand that sometimes communications can be difficult. In this instance, half of the regular employees are at work. Indeed, 900 of the work force of 1,400 are at work at the south central plant. In regard to the remainder of the force, we are now taking the necessary action through court injunctions to secure their return.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the Postmaster General that the figures I quoted I received from the head of his department in the Toronto post office. By way of a supplementary question, may I ask the minister whether he could ascertain if the operations which have caused the slowdown were alleged violations of the current CUPW contract which stipulates that part-time workers are not to use automatic equipment, or is this just another meagre excuse by the union to slow down mail service prior to the Christmas rush? Which is it, and what is the minister going to do to rectify the problem?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the hon. gentleman that the dispute with the union relating to the use of mechanized equipment has been resolved. It was agreed by both sides that there was no conduct which was contrary to the collective agreement.


Otto John Jelinek: If the minister is so confident, can he assure this House and Canadians generally that they do not need to worry about the Christmas mail being stopped any time this year-or next year, come to that?


Jean-Jacques Blais: I am pleased to advise the hon. gentleman that we are doing everything in our power to ensure delivery of Christmas mail both this year and in the future. Discussions with the unions are proceeding at the present time. We are prepared to secure legal sanctions should those negotiations fail.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture who is surely aware of the difficulties now being experienced by a high percentage of manufacturing milk producers because they have reached the limit of their quotas. In view of those circumstances and in order to prevent a large number of those producers from going under between now and April, has the minister discussed the matter with the federation of Quebec producers? If so, what steps does the federal government intend to take? If not, does the minister still intend to discuss the matter in view of its

December 8, 1977
Oral Questions
importance and the insecurity of which those producers are the victims?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Milk Supply Management Committee met in Ottawa. Both the dairy groups from Quebec, one from the fluid milk producers and one from the industrial milk sector, with Mr. Mailloux and Mr. St-Martin. Again, this morning in Montreal I met with the representatives of the UPA who made representations about the problem they face in the distribution of their quota within their province. The Co-op Federee and the UPA presented a joint brief to the members of cabinet on the panel. We had a lengthy discussion with them. The ones we met today are the ones who distribute the quotas within the province. They admit they are having some problems and the Milk Supply Management Committee which was here yesterday has promised to come up with what they hope will be a solution to this problem within two weeks. They will report back to me at that time. The Minister of Agriculture does not, as many people think, exercise total control. The farm organizations and the marketing boards within the provinces have authority over the distribution of the quota to the farmers in the area. The committee hopes to come up with a plan to solve the problem within the next week or two and it will be submitted to the Canadian Dairy Commission at that time.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. I find it very interesting to hear the minister speak of the meetings and discussions he has had. Because of the situation, the minister will understand that several dairy producers are extremely worried and ask us, as members of Parliament, what is going to happen to them. Can the minister at least assure the House that he is willing to co-operate in the study of any reasonable and acceptable proposal the producers' federation might make?


Eugene Whelan: I am sure even the hon. member will admit that the present Minister of Agriculture is probably one of the most reasonable that Canada has ever had.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: I am willing to meet any reasonable suggestion the producers put forward. I think I have been more than generous and I do not believe anyone could say I have been conservative with the dairy farmers. They could say I have even been very liberal with them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Eugene Whelan: The amount of money we have put into the program to make sure there was a healthy environment and a proper income for the work done is to be seen in the records. But they have some responsibility for administering the quotas. They have the responsibility of administering their share of the national quota which is provided for them. I know
[Mr. La Salle.l
that approximately 90 per cent of dairy producers in Canada have no problem-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In answer to a question by the hon. member for St. John's East the hon. gentleman said there had been no undertaking given by the Prime Minister that he would be making a statement in this House tomorrow, nor was there such an intention on his part. My question is this: Is the Prime Minister planning to make a statement at a press conference outside the House tomorrow with respect to a job creation program as is mooted in the press today?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: cannot preclude the possibility of the Prime Minister meeting the press tomorrow, but that was not the question which was put to me by the hon. member for St. John's East. Nevertheless, I can say specifically, I think, that the Prime Minister will not be making a statement in the House or elsewhere tomorrow on the subject of a job creation program.


Walter David Baker: Is the Prime Minister planning to make a statement outside the House tomorrow in respect of any program involving the Canadian economy? If the answer to that question is yes, would the Deputy Prime Minister instruct the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Walter David Baker: -that with television in this chamber, because members opposite insisted on it, the Prime Minister ought to make his statement here or else he will be judged accordingly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Bearing in mind frequent incidents of hostage-taking and other acts of violence carried out by the use of guns, I should like to ask the minister what is preventing the implementation of the gun control laws which were passed last session?
December 8, 1977

Hod. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice): I have signed an order for the proclamation of many of the sections of the Act effective January 1, 1978. We are continuing to hold discussions with provincial attorneys general in connection with the acquisition certificate system. The provisions which will be coming into effect on January 1 relate to search and seizure, and the increased penalties in connection with the possession or use of guns in certain circumstances.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addresed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the government's stated policy of moving toward self-reliance in energy, can the minister explain how he reconciles such a goal with today's announcement that Canadian Superior Oil Limited, a subsidiary of the American company, Superior Oil, has been given $25 million in insurance support by the Export Development Corporation to cover exploration for oil in the Dominican Republic?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: This is a very interesting venture by the Export Development Corporation. For the first time it has supported in this way the oil industry engaged in a drilling venture in another country. For that service the corporation is, of course, being paid a premium. Besides that, Canada gets the right of first refusal on any oil found in surplus to the requirements of the Dominican Republic. So, we are looking to the future and providing a means of sourcing our future requirements.


Reginald Cyril Symes: I would have thought self-reliance would be better achieved by encouraging the Canadian industry to explore resources in this country more energetically. Might I call attention to a statement the minister made, according to today's' issue of Ottawa Today, in which he expressed the view that, having regard to the projected scarcity of oil supplies it would be wise to have a guaranteed source of imports. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman this question: if this oil is assured to Canada why is it necessary to give Superior Oil a $25 million guarantee against the interruption of supply due to political interference? Surely, the loan is made on the assumption that there is a political risk involved and, this being the case, Canadians could end up with no oil and a loss of $25 million in public funds.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am certainly glad the hon. member misunderstands the position to the extent he does, since he has given me the opportunity to explain it. First, we are encouraging oil exploration in Canada. All drilling rigs are very busy and hard to obtain. Superior decided it wanted to venture into the Dominican Republic, where it will drill its first exploration well. It has indicated that seismographic exploration would be in the neighbourhood of $4 million. If it does not find oil it will
Oral Questions
not cost the federal government one cent. If it finds oil but is not able to recover the money in hard currency from the Dominican Republic, then it will collect from its insurance funds. If the company finds oil and is able to bring hard currency out of the country then nobody loses. The insurance premium, though, is paid every year Superior Oil is in the Dominican Republic.


POSSIBILITY OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES FOR EXPORT OF NATURAL GAS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether Canada had or presently has a delegation in the United States to negotiate the terms and conditions for additional gas exports from Canada?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, this subject has been a matter of discussion between the two governments during most of last fall, but any application would have to go through the normal regulatory bodies.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a November 1 release indicated that the United States was willing to accept more gas in return for trade concessions, and that it depended upon the initiative of the Canadian government, why is it that the Canadian government has not taken that initiative to have those ongoing discussions for gas sales to the United States?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not hear me. I said that discussions did take place from time to time all fall, but first of all there has to be an application. That application has to go before the National Energy Board, and that board has to declare that a certain amount of gas is surplus to Canada's needs before we can export additional amounts to the United States.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the government has made a commitment to finance the establishment of a veterinary college in Atlantic Canada, notwithstanding the fact that the Atlantic provinces may not be able to agree on the site for that college.
1680

December 8, 1977
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not made any decision to establish a veterinary college. I think the hon. member is well aware of the proposal the premier of Prince Edward Island has put forward. As I understand it, he has even gone so far as to advertise for a dean for the school. We have made no decision or commitment at this stage of the game. We are hoping there can be that harmonious relationship that is the desire, I am sure, of even the hon. member and myself, between those great Atlantic premiers and provinces.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It must be the spirit of Christmas, Mr. Speaker, as I do agree in part with the Minister of Agriculture, which really leads me to my supplementary question. In order to get this off dead centre and remove it from the obvious provincial conflict of interest I go back to a question I asked last week or the week before: will the minister use his good offices, along with the Deputy Prime Minister and, I guess, the present government House leader, to have the Howe Report on the establishment of this college referred to the committee on agriculture in order that the various people interested in the establishment of this college, including Dean Howe, could come before a non-partisan body like that committee on agriculture and have this whole matter ventilated so that something can be done?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the provinces themselves agreed to this educational commission, I believe it was called, composed of highly learned and skilled people who made an inquiry, talked to the people of the provinces, made surveys, and I understood the provinces were to accept that commission's recommendations. I am sure that if the commission had said Nova Scotia in its recommendation the hon. member would not be asking these questions.


INDUSTRY
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce regarding the plastic industry of Canada which is experiencing difficulties. TThere are 1,400 manufacturing establishments which have a market of $2.6 billion, of which only one-third is supplied by imports. The industry covers and affects a huge sector of the market place and represents more than six per cent of the total manufacturing industry. This industry is operating at an estimated disadvantage in respect of raw materials and manpower of approximately 22 per cent. What proposal does the minister have to offset this destructive 22 per cent disadvantage which in the long run will put many of these establishments out of business?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I am not as pessimistic as the hon. member. For one thing, I think the 90 cent dollar will help the Canadian plastics industry, and the ability of Canada to
[Mr. Nowlan.)
supply raw materials to the Canadian plastics industry should stand it in good stead. We have a number of specific projects which will help specific manufacturers in the industry at any time they want to apply to the department.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, would the minister consider a monetary proposal such as a reduced interest rate to offset capital costs?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is an interesting thought, Mr. Speaker, but if we reduce interest rates that will cost the federal treasury some money.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. If he answered this question in the last while I would apologize to him. Can he tell us what progress is being made in the filing and studying of actuarial studies for indexing of public servants superannuation, and, if progress has been made, when does he anticipate being in a position to release both the government study and that study which has been commissioned by independent actuaries?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that the report will be in my hands very shortly, perhaps within a matter of days. I have been away for a day or so and it might even be in my office now. I anticipate being able to table it, providing that it may be translated, perhaps before Christmas, but if not it will be upon resumption of the session after the Christmas recess.


MANPOWER
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


An hon. Member:: Unemployment.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I would like to ask the minister whether he is aware of a situation in offices in the Montreal region of the Department of Employment and Immigration in which, because of percentage limits on the number of designated positions, there are persons working in both languages who cannot receive the bonus for bilingualism, whereas in the same offices, because the language of work is French, there are unilingual Anglophones who do receive the bonus for bilingualism?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, with respect I would suggest that this
December 8, 1977

problem might more properly be directed to the President of the Treasury Board, but I will say, because it is our office, that in other areas we have similar problems-


Walter David Baker: It exists all over the public service.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: -where an individual who speaks both languages but is in a designated unilingual position does not get the benefit of the bonus, but performs that particular service. 1 think it is appropriate that we should be looking at the situation. I think we should do everything we can to help our civil servants, not what the hon. member across there is doing.


Walter David Baker: Why don't you repeal the damned thing and help the whole country.


INDUSTRY
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It has to do with the proposed tariff cuts under the current round of GATT negotiations. As Canada is already the world's largest per capita importer of plastic products, and actually imports more than are imported by the entire population of the United States, will the minister consider exempting the plastic fabrication industry from the tariff cuts at this time in order to protect our own Canadian native product?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in the tariff negotiations going on now we hope to be able to deal on a sector basis with non-ferrous metals, and that may well include plastics.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I should like to direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. On December 2 I asked the minister if he would table the report of the standing committee on rules, elections and privileges of the Yukon House dealing with the refusal of assent to a bill that had passed all three stages of that House, and the minister said he would be pleased to look at that suggestion. I would ask whether that will be tabled and, if so, when?


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker,
Labour Conditions
it is the intention of the minister to table it as soon as translation is completed, very possibly tomorrow.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, Yesterday a point of order was raised by the hon. member for Egmont, contributed to by other hon. members, including the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar, having to do with the position of the Minister of Employment and Immigration in respect of a reference he made during the course of answers in the question period.
During the exposition of the question of privilege and the speech an application was made. Consistent with previous practices, the minister, having made reference to a document, would be required to table it. The relevant references appear in May's nineteenth edition at page 431, and in citation 159 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. Both references make it clear that the documents which ought to be tabled when cited in debate, in accordance with precedents referred to, are "public documents", "dispatches" or "state papers". Clearly, these citations refer only to official documents.
There is a British case cited in May's eighteenth edition in which a minister was asked to table a written statement and a letter to which he had referred on a previous day in answering a question. The minister replied that he had made the statement on his own responsibility, and he was not obliged to table the document. The Speaker made a ruling accepting that argument. Accordingly, that sets a precedent as well.
In the case presently before us, the hon. minister has been asked to table a transcript of a speech which he gave outside the House. He has given the House, on his own responsibility-to quote from previous precedents-the contents of the speech, which the House must accept. Since the transcript is not a state paper or an official document in any sense, my view today is the same, after referring to the precedents, as it was yesterday. We ought not to extend that precedent to cover the particular situation involved.
During the question period the minister indicated that he would rise on a question of privilege at three o'clock.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for York-Simcoe referred to me by something other than the title of my department. I represent approximately 25,000 people in that department. 1 hope they are as proud of the department as I am. If members opposite want me to answer questions on behalf of the department, I think it is a small courtesy to those 25,000 people, who are working hard, to address me correctly. I am not sensitive as a politician-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Cry baby.
80027-37%

December 8, 1977
Labour Conditions


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am proud to represent the department. In future I will answer questions, no matter how hon. members opposite address me. I had to make this representation on behalf of the 25,000 public servants I am proud to represent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point of order raised by the hon. minister, I wonder if he would be less tender if we referred to him as the minister of employment and immigration responsible for unemployment?


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Being no longer a minister, no one can accuse me of being sensitive on this issue. When I was a minister, I was attacked on many occasions. I never resented that; it was what I expected. I am sitting here, as a member of parliament, listening to the question period and it seems to me it is courteous for members to address ministers by their official titles. This is creating a very bad impression throughout the country. I hope I will not be in a position of having to tell members opposite that they are being dishonourable.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this rather frivolous point of order raised by the minister, I merely ask: Is it out of order to call a spade a shovel in this House?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham is asking me if it is in fact out of order. I am not altogether certain. It may well be. I hesitated to intervene. I am aware that this has happened several times in the past and I wondered if it would be raised in any way. Perhaps I ought to examine the question and make a definitive expression as to whether it is out of order to make that kind of misdescription of a minister when asking a question. I really do not know. Now that the hon. member has asked me to examine the question, perhaps I should, to see whether it is unparliamentary language. I do not know. I will take a look at it and see.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I will not be too long. I just want to register my concern about the sensitivity of the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration whom I have shadowed for a considerable time. I would ask him to keep in mind the old statement: If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. As a result of his activities in the House during the past couple of days, all I can say is that he should get out of the kitchen, because now he can be called one of the biggest cry babies who sit on the treasury benches.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Speaker, my very brief point of order is with regard to a scurrilous Canadian Press article which appeared in many metropolitan newspapers today. This article would seem to indicate that the people of Belleville are racists and anti-French. This is a totally untrue picture of life in Belleville. It affects my ability to fairly represent these people. I want to clear the record and disavow any such prejudices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the government House leader concerning the business of the House. On other occasions we have discussed the legislation he was proposing to bring forward. Can he confirm today the order in which legislation will be brought forward when the House has concluded its consideration of Bill C-11?
While he is doing so, I wonder if he could tell the House about the pipeline legislation, which has been the subject of questions in the House, and also the contracts that are important to Canadian industries? What is the government's intention with respect to introducing the pipeline legislation into the House? Is it the intention of the government to introduce that bill into the House prior to the Christmas adjournment? If the answer is yes, I would appreciate receiving that answer. If the answer is no, can the government tell us when that piece of legislation will be coming forth, so that those interested in it can study it after it has been printed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the pipeline legislation, it was my expectation that the legislation would be introduced prior to the Christmas break. Now there is no possibility for it to be passed. The intervening period would give all of us more time to work on what is a very complex piece of legislation. Certainly, it is the intention to bring in the legislation immediately upon the resumption of the House in January of next year.
The list of business is the same as was indicated last Thursday when the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton asked the question. I should add that if the elections bill now in committee comes out, it is my intention to call it as a priority item.
Also, I should like to refer to a comment made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert yesterday with respect to a debate on foreign affairs. Is there any way to accelerate the item now before the House, and the elections bill, in order to have a day or so on that subject before the Christmas adjournment? I put that forth as a possibility.


Walter David Baker: I think we are making progress, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the government will take it upon itself to set aside the period of time it has in mind after the normal discussions have taken place with respect to a very important debate on that matter. But that is something we can discuss, as time goes on, in the usual co-operative way.
I want to raise one other important matter with respect to the business of the House. The hon. member for Eglinton touched upon it. I know people will remember that the hon. member for Eglinton, aided by others both on the government side and on this side of the House of Commons, worked hard and long to bring the electronic Hansard and television into the House of Commons, and as a result of that it was the hope
(1512)

December 8, 1977

of all hon. members of the House that parliament would become more accountable in terms of the people of Canada and more relevant to their need to understand public affairs. We had hoped as well, that the government would not continue the practice of making announcements outside the House of Commons where television cameras were used exclusively, although they are now, here.
We had hoped there would not be a continuation, if an announcement were made outside the House-particularly now-of what would be an affront to parliament and to the people of the country. I raise the matter quite seriously. I looked upon the bringing of this great innovation in parliamentary reporting-I hope the view was shared generally by members of the public-as something that could involve the House of Commons and the utilization of the procedure with respect to statements on motions on important government matters.
I just want to say to the government House leader that I think the Parliament of Canada would be very greatly disturbed if tomorrow, or at any other time, ministers did not take advantage of the existence in this chamber of an electronic Hansard which is made available every day to a wider and wider group of Canadians, at great public expense, so that the people of Canada could see important statements made in the setting of the House where members have the opportunity to question government members through the electronic Hansard, as representatives of the people, about what the government intends and expects from the various policies it announces.
I ask my colleague, the House leader of the government, to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the cabinet the very high importance that all members of the House attach to the provision in our rules with respect to statements being made here. If a statement is made outside the House tomorrow, now that statements can be made publicly in the House, I think parliament will have been let down by this government and the people of Canada will be affronted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the assumption that we are still on the question of House business, I have two questions I should like to put to the government House leader. In the first place, will the government shortly be introducing bills to replace the two items in the supplementary estimates that were struck out of that bill, procedurally, yesterday? I refer to an item having to do with DEVCO and to another item having to do with VIA Rail.
My second question has to do with the future business of the House. In view of the fact that the government did not provide us at the beginning of this session, as is frequently done, with a list of the measures it intended to place before parliament could we be provided with such a list before the Christmas recess?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not see very much hope in bringing legislation on VIA Rail or the items that were struck out of the
Business of the House
supplementary estimates providing relief to a number of municipalities in Cape Breton if there is no chance of having the legislation passed. Almost nothing has been passed in this session, and it is already December 8. Therefore, I do not see much point in trying to bring in items on these two matters in light of the pace legislation is being dealt with.
In reply to the other part of the hon. member's question, I will attempt to provide an advance forecast of what legislative items will be attempted in this session, but there has not been much encouragement to prepare a legislative program- although we have been working on it-in view of the present situation in the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question on what he has just said, before he goes on to another subject? The minister may be right about VIA Rail-I do not know-but I am thoroughly satisfied that all members of the House will readily grant a bill with respect to the money that was intended for Devco. That was said very clearly by those who raised the procedural objection. I was on the other side of the argument; I did not join in the procedural objection. I put this question to the minister: Will he canvass the possibility of getting at least the Devco bill passed without debate?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think it is the responsibility of hon. members opposite, who put procedural niceties ahead of the hard-pressed needs of the communities in industrial Cape Breton-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't look at me on that one.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and not plead now, having struck out the item on a procedural subtlety, and come to me and say, "Do something about it", as a result of the very misguided and unwise intervention made by members of the official opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be that the last two or three words of the government House leader will meet my point of order, but I suggest the minister has no right to suggest that I had raised a procedural nicety about the Devco matter. He knows I fought very hard, in procedural terms, for the regularity of that item which I thought was in order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Obviously, I agree with the comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I did not have him in mind when I referred to the rather bewildering action that was taken by the official opposition in light of the very severe unemployment situation which exists in industrial Cape Breton.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton raised a matter with respect to ministerial statements. He is dealing with a purely hypothetical situation. He is saying that if the Prime Minister were to make a statement tomorrow, then he would

December 8, 1977
Business of the House
like to raise a question in advance to make sure that the Prime Minister will not make it tomorrow. I think that is not a valid point of order. But the hon. member does give me an opportunity to tell him and members of the opposition that we on this side do not think that that proceeding has been working very satisfactorily.
If you look at the Standing Order and see how it has been applied, you will see a very vast difference between the rule and the application, because instead of commenting directly- as is required under the rules-members of the opposition have taken the opportunity to discourse on a variety of subjects and bring up criticisms relating to the government that are not involved in the original statement. So it is not a very satisfactory proceeding from our point of view, but we have used it frequently under that disability. However, I would tell the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton that I am surprised he would use the introduction of television as a way of persuading us that the traditional procedures of the House should be changed.
As the hon. member knows, there is no obligation on a minister or on the Prime Minister to make every single statement on policy in the House of Commons. If we did that, we would be taking up a great deal of time in the House of Commons. So it has become the practice to make statements in the House under that proceeding only on relatively few occasions. If hon. members want the practice to be extended any further, I think we will have to come together and improve it somewhat. I just wanted to make that comment.


Mr. Speaker:: We have to clarify the basis upon which hon. members are participating. We have recognized, as a point of order, something which is not-in the pure sense of the word-really a matter of order; but after the question period on Thursday of every week we recognize, under the general heading of inquiry about House business, points which are taken by way of points of order. I do not see any way in which I can limit unduly the participation of hon. members. The matters which have been raised do relate to House business or to anticipated House business, but are not strictly connected to the point of order. If there are hon. members who want to participate in the discussion as it relates to House business, I think I have to permit that to be done.


Mr. Muir:: Mr. Speaker, I am glad you clarified the situation, because we were getting a little fuzzy and ranging from one point of order to another. I hesitate to disagree with my good friend and colleague from Cape Breton, the government House leader, but it was not worthy of him to make the statement which he did make. We know the purpose for which he made that statement was purely political. When the hon. member for Calgary Centre raised his point of order, he specifically stated-and it is recorded in Hansard-that we were absolutely in favour of vote 31a for Devco. A little later the hon. member said we would have to increase it so we could open new mines and provide employment in Cape Breton.

The government has not been willing to do that, has not been doing it, and is not yet prepared to do it. The reason the hon. member for Calgary Centre raised the point was that the government is trying to sneak in a legislative item with a vote for a specified amount. Your Honour corrected that. Your Honour is the first commoner in this House, and any reflection on what was said yesterday is a reflection upon you. I think Your Honour brought in the right decision. As has already been stated, if the Deputy Prime Minister would like to bring in a bill this afternoon to cover these moneys for municipalities in Cape Breton, I can assure him that no member of this party would debate it: we would vote for it as a whole. I am sure members of the New Democratic Party and members of all parties in this House would be quite happy and willing to go ahead unanimously, without one word being said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear,hear!


Robert Muir: Far be it from me to get involved with points of procedure in this House. That is one thing I do not believe in-not too much, anyhow. Many things happen which should not happen. But in this instance I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to get on his feet and say he will bring a bill in Monday afternoon when we meet, or tomorrow-whenever he wants to bring it in-and it will go flying through very quickly. At the same time, he might add another $20 million, $30 million or $50 million, whatever is required. It seems we have $100 million here, $50 million there and $70 million somewhere else, to go all around the world. All we want is enough money in Cape Breton to open at least two mines to put some people back to work.
The Deputy Minister knows that there are between 3,000 and 4,000 applications for work in the coal mines now, despite the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce says derogatory things about Cape Breton coal miners and their work ethics. Bring in the funds and we will vote for them unanimously.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, if I had had the opportunity before the government House leader spoke, I would have liked to have risen on a point of order affecting the business of the House and sought an assurance that statements made about the economy and employment be made here, so that hon. members could question the Prime Minister or the relevant minister.
Unfortunately, I am called upon, now, to rise on a question of privilege because I was, quite frankly, astounded at the remarks of the government House leader when he indicated that now the government apparently is taking the position that it does not like the way in which one of the procedures of the House operates. In this regard, he seems to reflect on the judgment of the Chair with respect to the relevance and the importance of matters which are raised in terms of responses on motions and questions which are asked.
I am disturbed and offended that the government House leader takes the position, on behalf of the government, that major statements will not be made in the House because that
December 8, 1977

offends the government's sense of order or because it takes time. That deprives hon. members on both sides of the House of the right to question and examine the specific initiatives which are being taken by the government. That is a considerable affront to our responsibilities as parliamentarians. I find it inexcusable that the minister, who normally stands for the rights and privileges of members of this House, would simply waive aside this particular area of initiative which is one of the areas of responsibility we have here, that is, to hear statements on motions on initiatives taken by the government and to have an opportunity to make statements in reply, or to question.
Apparently, a new principle is now being enunciated by the government House leader, that because this particular procedure is not satisfactory to the government, on future occasions these statements will not be made in the House. I find that unacceptable and feel that it very much affects the privileges of all members of this House.


James Aloysius McGrath: On the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize other hon. members, but we have been through this before; it has a familiar lyric. We have argued on previous occasions, both under existing procedures and under previous procedures, whether the making of a statement outside the House constitutes a question of privilege. It has been ruled consistently that it does not. I do not know how the general proposition can be any different from the specific one. But in any case, I will hear the hon. member for St. John's East.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I offer a suggestion to the government House leader because this matter is in his hands. If he finds the present procedure for ministerial statements provided for under the new rules which provide for relevant responses, and only Your Honour can rule whether responses are relevant, not the government House leader, and for questions unsatisfactory-and I suspect he finds it unsatisfactory because it cuts too much into his time-why does he not bring a motion to refer this matter back to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization so that we can have a look at it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to precipitate a question of privilege today, especially inasmuch as this discussion is eating into the time reserved for the opposition, which I always protect diligently. Therefore, I will make my remarks briefer than usual. All I am saying is that, under the Standing Order on statements by ministers, we find the following:
On motions, as listed in section (2) of this Standing Order, a minister of the Crown may make an announcement or statement of government policy.
It is an option that is open to a minister which is provided in the Standing Order. It is not a breach of order or a breach of privilege if the option is exercised one way or another. I have said-and it is not intended to be a reflection on any ruling made by the Chair-that from the point of view of the government, the procedure has not been working satisfactorily.
Order Paper Questions
That is all I have said, and I think hon. members have found from time to time that certain other procedures in the House are not working satisfactorily. This procedure is not working as satisfactorily as we expected; that is all. As ministers, we will continue to make statements on motions. There is, obviously, no indication that that is to be changed, but I suggest that when a minister makes a statement outside the House he is not in breach of order or in breach of the privileges of any hon. member.


James Aloysius McGrath: He is in breach of our practices.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In fact, I believe that if ministers exercised this option as often as they could exercise it, it would be a very chaotic situation because hardly a day goes by but ministers issue information which could be put together in the form of a statement. I believe that this proceeding has to be looked at again to give proper satisfaction to hon. members in the way it used to give proper satisfaction.
The appeal of the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys is very touching. He asks me to move quickly to restore the Devco votes. I enjoyed the public penance. It has moved me greatly, but I am not so sure I will take the political chestnuts of the Tory party out of the fire on Monday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about your own?



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 17(2) of the Anti-Inflation Act, I wish to table, in both official languages, a copy of a reference sent to the minister by the Anti-Inflation Board.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 99, 202, 243, 320, 339, 367, 553 and 557.

December 8, 1977
Order Paper Questions
[ Text]


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Have final decisions been made on the type and size of ship to be added to the Borden-Cape Tormentine Ferry Service?
2.	What is the vehicle (passenger cars, trucks, etc.) capacity of the new ship?
3.	How many railway cars will the new ferry be able to carry?
4.	What is the total estimated cost of the ship?
5.	On what date (a) will tenders be called (b) is it estimated that the ship will be in service?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: 1 to 5. Money has been allocated for design only.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Canadian Transport Commission and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Otto Emil Lang: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. Eight persons under personal service contract. Four retired public servants.
2. (a) $121,483; $26,444 to retired public servants, (b) $132,533; $87,738 to retired public servants.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Otto Emil Lang: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: 1. Nil.
2. (a) 1975, $2,266 to one retired employee, (b) 1976, nil.


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


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the National Arts Centre as follows: 1. The National Arts Centre Corporation has engaged part-time employees only through private employment agencies in Ottawa during 1975 and 1976. In 1975 a total of 14 persons were so employed and 25 persons in 1976.
2.	The cost of engaging these part-time employees was defrayed through Main Estimates.
3.	(a) The average hourly rate paid to the employment agencies was $6.15 in 1975 and $5.92 in 1976. (b) Employees engaged were paid directly by the agencies and amounts are not known by the Corporation, (c) The National Arts Centre paid a total amount of $4,672.79 in 1975 and $7,851.35 in 1976 for part-time staff engaged through private employment agencies.


Mr. Stevens: For each year 1972 to 1976 and the nine months ended September 30, 1977, what was the operating surplus or deficit for the (a) Toronto Internationa! Airport at Malton (b) Montreal International Dorval Airport (c) Vancouver International Airport (d) Calgary International Airport (e) Winnipeg International Airport (0 Montreal International Mirabel Airport (g) Ottawa International Airport?


Otto Emil Lang: Operating Surplus (Deficit) 1971-72 to 1976-77 (SOOO's)
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)	(0	<g)Malton*	Dorval*	Vancouver*	Calgary**	Winnipeg**	Mirabel*	Ottawa**1971-72	3,521	3,953	(227)	73	(1.455)	-	(1,965)1972-73	3,591	5,035	302	174	(1,811)	-	(2,178)1973-74	540	5,847	635	42	(1,726)	-	(2,497)1974-75	4,675	6,706	1,257	488	(2,882)	-	(2,725)1975-76	15,288	9,669	1,845	3,263	(880)	(18,382)	(2,040)1976-77	22,389	1,983	5,722	4,468	2	(49,821)	(787)
*These airports are in revolving fund, financed with interest-bearing loans. Other airports are financed with budgetary appropriations.
**The surplus or (deficit) for these airports has been re-calculated for each year to exclude any return on investment or capital charge.
The deficit at Mirabel Airport in 1976-77 is largely due to interest on loans of $29 million and depreciation of $16 million. For 1975-76, the period covered is December 1, 1975 to March 31, 1976.
Data for the period April 1, 1977 to September 30, 1977 is not available at this time.
[Mr. Pinard.J
December 8, 1977


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Do COMTEAMS currently form part of the Post Office Department and, if so (a) what is the description of the term (b) on what date and for what reason were they established (c) what are their functions?
2.	(a) What component or components of the Department in Ottawa is/are responsible for matters relating to COMTEAMS (b) what is the composition of a COMTEAM (c) how many are in existence across Canada (d) at which postal headquarters/facilities have they been established?
3.	(a) Which categories of postal employees normally form part of a COMTEAM (b) to which unions do they belong (c) how frequently are they rotated?
4.	(a) Do COMTEAMS hold regular or periodic meetings with local union officials (b) does the (i) Canadian Union of Postal Workers (ii) Letter Carriers Union of Canada generally accept the concept of COMTEAMS (c) do senior officials of the Department in Ottawa and senior officials of Regional/District Headquarters generally consider COMTEAMS an essential element of the postal organization?
5.	Are official directives disseminated to COMTEAMS by the Public Affairs Branch of the Department in Ottawa and, if so what is the nature of the information?
6.	What is the nature of information disseminated by COMTEAMS at subordinate levels of the postal organization?
7.	Will COMTEAMS cease to be a part of the postal organization and, if so, on what date?
8.	Has provision been made in the Main Estimates for COMTEAMS and, if so, since what date?
9.	What has been the cost to the public for COMTEAMS since their inception?
10.	As of what date were the answers to the above question prepared?
Order Paper Questions
5.	No.
6.	COMTEAM information covers a wide variety of topics of interest to all employees and is often in response to request for clarification.
7.	COMTEAM is more concept than a group, and is considered as ongoing.
8.	The main estimates contain general provisions for communications, of which COMTEAM is simply a process.
9.	Since COMTEAM is made up of existing personnel and functions through existing communications channels, there have been no additional man-year costs to the department.
10.	The government takes responsibility for the answers it provides to questions and for the process involved in replying to such questions. It is not appropriate therefore to provide information about internal administrative arrangements.


Mr. Howie: How many persons were employed in New Brunswick by the Department of Fisheries and the Environment to protect the fisheries resources from illegal activities in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 to date?


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: 


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1. COMTEAMS as outlined do not exist, (a) COMTEAM is a contraction of "Communications Team" and is the term applied to an internal information process, (b) They were established in October 1976 as one result of the present Postmaster General, the Hon. Jean-Jacques Blais' recognition of the need to stimulate twoway communications within the Post Office Department, (c) The COMTEAM process is intended to stimulate two-way communications within the Post Office Department.
2.	(a) The Promotion of the COMTEAM principle is the responsibility of the public affairs and personnel components; it also involves every functional group, (b) Not applicable, (c) Not applicable, (d) Not applicable.
3.	(a) See 2 (a) above, (b) Members of all unions representing Post Office Department employees would be involved in the process in one way or another, (c) Not applicable.
4.	(a) No. (b)(i) No. (ii) Yes. (c) As explained, COMTEAM is not an element of the postal organization; however, the Postmaster General and senior postal officials are pleased with the way the COMTEAM process has assisted in keeping employees at all levels informed. Strong and effective communications among members of an organization are essential if people are to be fully informed and to act soundly on facts and data about the business. COMTEAM is a process for opening up the channels of communication within Canada post and is therefore essential to the organization's effectiveness.
Year	No. of Persons
1975	199
1976	188
1977	185


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	How much did the government pay in subsidies to ferries or ferry systems on the (a) East Coast (b) West Coast in December 1976?
2.	How much does the government plan to pay in subsidies to ferries or ferry systems on the (a) East Coast (b) West Coast in 1977?


Otto Emil Lang: 1 and 2. The
government of Canada provided the following assistance to water transportation during 1976 and is presently budgeted for 1977:
Subsidies	1976
(a) East coast	$ 13,028,110
(b)	West coast	2,654,046
Deficit Payments
In respect of Constitutional Services to
P.E.I. and Newfoundland	$85,863,184
Other East Coast Services	2,701,081


[Stage Direction]
The 1976 subsidy figures are not final since existing contracts contain profit limitation clauses and all excess profit recaptures have not been completed.
The above figures were provided by Transport Canada and the Canadian Transport Commission.
1688
[Stage Direction]
December 8, 1977
Labour Conditions
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 63 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 63 be deemed to have been transferred as an order for return if the return is tabled forthwith?


Mr. Paproski:: I rise on point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that the question was going to be No. 367, but the translation said No. 316.


Yvon Pinard: Question No. 367, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that question No. 63 will be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Text)


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 Manpower and Immigration?
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.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, to move the adjournment of the House under Standing

Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the announcement today by Falconbridge Nickel that it intends to lay off 750 workers, or 20 per cent of its work force, in its Sudbury operation in addition to the 500 already laid off since July of this year.
It is noted that today's Christmas present from Falconbridge to the Sudbury community aggravates an already serious situation there caused by Inco's cutback, not to mention the problems created in Thompson and Port Colborne by Inco and in St. Lawrence by Alcan; and it being further noted that at the same time the employment picture in the mining sector is deteriorating and is threatening to worsen appreciably, according to the government's own figures. Inco, Alcan and Falconbridge have committed large amounts of capital to foreign investments in Guatemala, Indonesia and Chile, Ireland and Chile, again, respectively.
It is noted, finally, that these lay-offs, among others, clearly demonstrate the government's failure to pursue its intention to increase diversification and growth of national and regional economies based on minerals, which I submit constitutes a crisis and an emergency situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I think all hon. members will agree, it is proper that this chamber ought to have machinery for bringing to the attention of the House matters of serious importance which would not otherwise come under our consideration in our regular practices or procedures. That has been the general purpose for existence of Standing Order 26. I think it is appropriate, therefore, to read parts of the Standing Order. Subparagraph (1) reads as follows:
Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration must be asked immediately before the calling of government orders.
I think it is appropriate to read two other subparagraphs. Subparagraph (5) reads as follows:
In determining whether a matter should have urgent consideration, Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the extent to which it concerns the administrative responsibilities of the government or could come within the scope of ministerial action and he also shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means.
Finally, I should read subparagraph (16):
The right to move the adjournment of the House for the above purposes is subject to the following conditions:
(a) The matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency,
calling for immediate and urgent consideration-
I think the Chair has, for those reasons, recognized that matters of crisis ought to be brought before the House in this way if they are not going to have the attention of the House in any other way. On the other hand, the Chair is naturally reluctant to take individual problems in individual constituencies-even when they are very close to home-as representing qualification under this Standing Order. The obvious would follow: every member who had anything of critical proportions affecting his constituency would want to bring it forward for the same emergency treatment.
December 8, 1977

In this situation, there have already been extensive discussions both in this House and in the Ontario legislature, as well as ongoing meetings at every level, to discuss the situation which has been precipitated in the nickel mining industry and expressed by lay-offs at the International Nickel Company. Indeed, the very language of the motion put forward by the hon. member indicates that the situation that Falconbridge announced today aggravates an already serious situation.
I am also influenced by the fact that the announcement by Falconbridge Nickel Mines today allows for some six months before the lay-offs are to take effect, in order to continue the kind of discussions that are already going on between the company and the union and government at the provincial and federal levels.
To a certain extent, I am also influenced-although I put this at the end of the list-by subparagraph (5) of the rule and by the language of the supply motion for this afternoon. This is a rather wide-ranging motion having to do with industrial strategy in Canada and is critical of the government, including in its terms the resource industries. I am sure that those participating in the debate this afternoon will have an opportunity to express themselves on the subject either incidentally or entirely and will still be relevant to the motion now before us.
I want to stress however, that this is not my main reason. My main reason is that which I set out before, that this is a situation which is under considerable negotiation. Meetings and discussions are taking place, and I think it would be inappropriate to grant an application under Standing Order 26 at this time. I do not rule out the possibility of a further application at a later date which might receive different consideration if the circumstances vary. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Carnell Crosbie: That this House condemns the Liberal government and in particular the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and his predecessors from 1963 onward, for their failure to develop an industrial strategy to govern industrial development in Canada, their failure to develop adequate policies to assist export trade and to improve the domestic market in Canada for Canadian goods and services by strengthening the Canadian manufacturing industry, and their failure to provide a mechanism for effective consultation with Canadian manufacturing industry, and their failure to provide a mechanism for effective consultation with Canadian manufacturing and resource industries, including the fishing and agriculture sectors, in the Tokyo Round of the GATT negotiations under way now in Geneva and during 1978.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair notes that not later than 9.45 o'clock p.m., every question necessary to dispose of proceedings shall be put forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 58(10).
Trade


John Carnell Crosbie: Your Honour has just read the motion which I hope the House is going to adopt today. If we adopt this motion, I imagine it will terminate the life of the government-which is a desirable move. This is a serious motion because the manufacturing industry of Canada is in a serious condition. There will be at least four other speakers, besides myself, from the official opposition who will speak on different aspects of the motion.
When I was asked to become critic of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce by our leader in September, I had to confess that I was by no means an expert in the field, particularly in view of the fact that the part of the country I come from is not heavily industrialized. I have had to do considerable homework over the last several months to try to find out the condition of Canadian industry and what the prospects are for trade and commerce. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I have discovered that the state of our industry and our prospects in the negotiations at Geneva are shocking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I regret that the new minister appointed in September is not improving matters which were left in pretty poor shape by his predecessors. Mind you, he has had a lot of predecessors. This department, like many others of the government, has had five ministers since 1972. In November, 1972, Mr. Pepin left the portfolio at the invitation of the Canadian electorate in his district. Then the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) took over for two years and ten months. Then came the present Minister of External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) for a year, and then came the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) for a year. Finally, in 1977, came the present minister.
Mr. Speaker, no minister can do justice to a department if he is there for only 12 months. It takes 12 months to understand what the department is all about. This is an example of how little the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) cares about how well his ministers in the department perform. He has this whirling dervish fancy of changing ministers every year. I note his predecessor, the late Mr. Pearson, did not do that. In the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for example, the present member from Montreal, Mr. Drury, was five years in that portfolio. This department has not had a real star as a minister since our member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) left the portfolio in February, 1963. He was the last Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Canada who made any impact on the world-or Canada-and he is the gentleman I am so proud to sit with here on the Progressive Conservative side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Our present minister is apparently sanguine and satisfied with the present state of affairs of our Canadian industry, our trade and commerce. He is soporific about them. He is not worried. He is steer-like in his attitude toward his portfolio. He is contented. I asked him the other night whether
80027 -38 V5

December 8, 1977
Trade
he had read the report which I am going to refer to in a few minutes. It is a report prepared by the Science Council of Canada on the uncertain prospects of the Canadian manufacturing industry, showing that our industry is in an extremely grave state, with poor prospects at the moment.
At the finance committee meeting on Monday night, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said he was familiar with the report, and did not accept it. He told me why he did not accept it. He felt the Canadian manufacturer has tough competition, but that he is not that pessimistic about his opportunities. The minister is not pessimistic. It is great not to be a pessimist, Mr. Speaker, but we have to face reality. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is not facing reality when he looks at the state of Canadian industry today and is sanguine about our prospects in negotiations at Geneva. If this debate does anything to prevent his continuing being content, satisfied and steer-like, sanguine and soporific, it will have done some good. A rolling stone gathers no moss. A rolling minister develops no new policy.


Mr. Hees:: Right on.


John Carnell Crosbie: He appears, Mr. Speaker, not to understand the problems. Not only that, he is doing nothing about them. I have two quotations giving examples of the minister's attitude toward Canadian industry. According to a report in the Globe and Mail of November 25 from Brussels, the reporter, Mr. Ian Rodger-covering Mr. Horner-said:
Mr. Horner said businessmen seem most concerned about the prospect of Canadian tariff barriers being lowered in the Tokyo Round, leading to more import competition. But he showed little sympathy for that concern.
Imagine, our Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce shows little sympathy for the concern of the Canadian businessman! He went on to say, quoting Mr. Horner:
The Canadian businessman perhaps isn't as aware of the changing world market patterns as, say, the Europeans.
A gratuitous insult to the Canadian businessman-that he is not supposed to be as aware of world market patterns as the European. He does not hold much regard for the Canadian businessman's astuteness. In fact, he infers they are stupid. Further in the same interview, the reporter says:
Nor is he much worried about dislocations in Canadian industry that might be caused by freer trade.
This is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John Carnell Crosbie: He is not worried about dislocations that might be caused by freer trade.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John Carnell Crosbie: The 1.9 million people who work in the Canadian secondary manufacturing are concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The people who work there and who have businesses are concerned.


George Harris Hees: Right.


John Carnell Crosbie: Then he quotes the minister as follows:
It's a funny thing. It may create some dislocation of specific jobs within the manufacturing industry, but I see tremendous growth because the Third World countries require our technology and our manufactured products. I don't see the manufacturing sector failing as much as many of the Canadian businessmen do.
The minister is indeed very sanguine. The Third World countries and every other country of the world-Germany and Japan, etc.-will be competing for business. What makes us think that Canadian industry is in such a state today that it can compete better than the Japanese, Germans and the European Common Market? Manufacturing employment now is 6.3 per cent below its peak level of September, 1974. That is something the minister should be concerned about. He should be trying to increase manufacturing employment in view of our situation. I do not have time to dwell on this, but the minister is travelling so much that he does not have time to attend to the concerns of Canadian business.
The Retail Council of Canada and various sectors of that industry have been asking for a decision for some months from the minister's department, and from the minister, respecting import quotas for the second half of 1978 with respect to clothing, textiles and that kind of thing. The council has pointed out to the department that they have to order eight to ten months in advance. They have to order now; they cannot wait until the end of December for a decision. If it is going to be that late, they are going to be risking loss of trade and loss of merchandise. They will lose money. There has been a series of letters to the minister from the Retail Council to the minister asking him for a decision in this area. As yet, the minister has not yet replied. They were apparently promised a decision in August, according to a letter of November 3 sent by the Retail Council to the minister. As yet, however, the minister has not replied.
Mr. Speaker, what kind of behaviour is this? The whole retail industry of Canada, some wholesale and even the manufacturing part of the industry of Canada, is involved in selling clothing and textiles. They want a decision concerning quotas for the last half of 1978. They cannot get it. The minister is not worried whether they get it, but they themselves are worried. One would think a minister of this department would be very concerned about that kind of thing and quick to give an answer. If he is unable to give an answer, he should explain why. If it is because some kind of negotiations are going on bilaterally with certain other countries-unsuccessful to date-or there is a good or convincing reason, he should say so. Even so, I doubt whether it is justified that our whole retail industry should be in a state of uncertainty as to what they can order, what they cannot order or import for the last half of 1978.
The first part of the motion deals with our industrial situation. I can quote any number of sources. For example in the November 17 edition of the Globe and Mail, Ronald Anderson, a business columnist, wrote:

December 8, 1977

Ministers of industry, trade and commerce for the past half-dozen years have been talking intermittently, but without concrete results, about developing an industrial strategy for Canada.
Further, he said:
Now, Jack Horner, the new Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, has returned to the attack and has promised to announce some form of industrial strategy before the end of 1978.
The head of the manufacturing industry says, "Better late than never." But are negotiations under way now, Mr. Speaker, to reach a serious point in January at the GATT negotiations in Geneva? We should have had our industrial strategy many years ago. But for the purposes of these GATT negotiations, certainly a year ago-not that the industrial strategy is going to come at the end of 1978 when the negotiations are completed and the decisions made-what kind of a way is this for the government of Canada to do business? You might excuse them if they only came into office three months ago or six months ago, but they came into office in 1963, and the present lot in 1968.
I now turn to the report of the Science Council of Canada, which is an independent body formed by the government of Canada, financed by the government of Canada, commend-ably given freedom to express its opinions uncensored. I trust that will continue. What do they find, in their report of October, 1977, to be the prospects for our manufacturing industry? In discussing the first stage of a long-range industrial program which they are undertaking, they say:
Canadian industry is chronically and gravely ill. Indeed, the country, industrially, is rapidly falling behind other nations, and, by default, placing its hopes for the future on a resource sector, which, in its present form, is inadequate to the task of raising or even maintaining the standard of living which most Canadians take for granted.
That is the conclusion of the Science Council of Canada study. When I asked the minister what he thought of it, he said he did not accept it. It was surprising enough that he did not accept it, Mr. Speaker, but he did not give any convincing reason for his non-acceptance. However, later on in the same meeting of the finance committee, when I pointed out that this was a body financed by the government of Canada which had no axe to grind, the transcript of the committee proceedings has the minister saying, "not the best businessmen in the world though". So he denigrated and insulted the people on the Science Council of Canada. This was an observation which demolished their report. I do not know whether they are the best businessmen in the world, but they are a very impressive group of businessmen and university graduates, and it ill behooves the minister to shower them with a gratuitous insult of that nature.
Let me go to the report of the Science Council of Canada, which is not all that long. At page 2 they point out that it is apparent that the technological capability of Canadian industry has not improved, but has in fact deteriorated. They say exports of technology-intensive goods have fallen in relative terms, and many of the industries which produce them are unable to meet foreign competition in the domestic market,
Trade
much less export, Mr. Speaker. They point out that job opportunities for scientists, engineers, MBAs, executives and other specialists are scarce and non-existent.
They conclude that almost every branch of Canadian manufacturing shows signs of weakness. The mature technology industries, such as textiles, clothing and leather goods, are succumbing to fierce foreign competition in the Canadian market. The resource sector, they say, may also be faltering. These conclusions are reached after an intensive study by a group of intelligent people. They go on to point out that in 1975 we experienced a record deficit of $5.1 billion on current account of the balance of payments. I checked the figure today, and the latest adjustment showed a $4.78 billion deficit. In 1976, the figure was $4.19 billion. For the first three quarters of this year the adjusted figure estimated is now $4.63 billion. I suggest that is a pretty grim record.
At page 5 of the report it is pointed out that industrial capacity in Canada fell to a low of about 81 per cent in the third quarter of 1975. In the first three quarters of 1977, the figure has gone from 81.4 per cent to 84.3 per cent to 83.4 per cent. In other words, Canadian industry is working to only 83 per cent of capacity. According to the report, employment prospects in 1976 were the worst confronting graduates from universities or people joining the labour force since the depression of the 1930s. These are not partisan statements, Mr. Speaker, but conclusions reached by the Science Council of Canada report.
The report goes on to list various industries where difficulties are apparent. There is a lack of competitiveness in our manufacturing industries. On page 6 reference is made to the productivity gap between Canada and the United States and the rapid increase in wages and salaries. In 1975, for the first time since 1960, Canada had a deficit on our merchandise trade account of $639 million. I believe that figure has now been adjusted by StatCan to $534 million. We had a $1 billion surplus in 1976, and it is projected to be $2.8 billion this year, though that is less than the surpluses we used to have, particularly when you take into account inflation over the last three or four years. So we see nothing to be optimistic about anywhere in this document. At page 8 of the report the following statement appears:
Canada's share of world exports has fallen from 5.4 per cent in 1970 to 3.8 per cent in 1975. During the same period, imports (expressed as a percentage of the domestic market) moved from approximately 26 per cent to 33 per cent-
There has been a rapid rise in imports of clothing. In 18 of 19 higher technology groups, Canada has experienced growing deficits since 1970. I have not the time to refer to them all. These are some of the problems we are facing, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, this is not a situation which would lead one to be sanguine, soporific or steer-like.
The only answer that the minister has given to the questions we have asked both in the House and in committee about our economic situation is that the fall in the value of the Canadian dollar to 90 cents has been a good thing. He has been ecstatic that it has dropped in value, and he would brutalize it down further if he could. Today it stands at approximately 91 cents

December 8, 1977
Trade
American. He says it is the answer to all our ills. The only strategy adopted by the Minister since taking over his portfolio has been to believe that the fall in value of the Canadian dollar would solve all our problems.
Other people do not think so, Mr. Speaker. For example, Mr. George Post, acting chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, does not think so. In a recent speech to the Canadian Men's Club, he said that the recent depreciation of the Canadian dollar was only a temporary remedy for the country's trade problems and should not be relied upon to correct underlying inflationary tendencies in the economy. That gentleman has no political axe to grind, and I will take his word over that of the minister every time. I can quote dozens of similar opinions, but I will not.
In the November 25 edition of the Toronto Globe and Mail there is a report of a study conducted by the Conference Board of Canada on the competitiveness of Canadian industry. Between 1966 and 1975 the competitiveness of Canadian industry, compared with that of the United States, has deteriorated. This confirms the present state of Canadian industry. The president, Mr. Rene de Cotret, said in an interview:
-another devaluation of the Canadian dollar "is not the answer to the problem". He stated that the behavioural and structural elements that led to the deterioration in cost competitiveness remain in place and that a further devaluation "would just set us up for a continuation of cost deterioration, but at a lower exchange rate." This would bring Canada close to the British disease of a devaluation-inflation spiral, as rising import prices boosted the Canadian inflation rate, he explained.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I will take the explanation of Mr. Rene de Cotret before that of the minister. At least the Conference Board of Canada know their subject. I should also like to point out that in the report of the Science Council of Canada exactly the same conclusion is reached at page 11. I quote:
The depreciation of the Canadian dollar will provide Canada with a shortlived and limited economic respite arising from a temporary boost in export earnings and a tendency for the volume of imports to be cut back. However, as the experience of Britain and other countries whose currencies have been depreciating has shown, a falling exchange rate tends to start a self-perpetuating slide.
They go on to say a falling exchange rate is inflationary because it raises the costs of imports, and so on. At page 12 in this statement:
One wonders just how much depreciation of its currency Canada will have to experience before recognition is given to the most fundamental problem- structural weakness in Canadian industry.
I do not have time to quote further from this report, Mr. Speaker, but anyone who has looked at the situation objectively concludes that Canadian industry is in very poor shape at the moment. Canada has no industrial strategy. We were promised a series of sector studies and strategies when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources headed the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but these have not yet been completed. Therefore, we are groping around without any strategy. That is, unless the minister introduces one this afternoon. We will be very interested to see just what he comes up with.
Suggestions for what our strategy should be have been put forward. The Science Council of Canada, as quote in the

December 6 Globe and Mail, put forward a possible strategy, according to the column of Mr. Anderson to which I referred previously, Dr. Kates, chairman of the Science Council of Canada, suggests that a strategy should include Canadian ownership of companies in key areas; that government policies should support technical advances in those areas. The government has not yet decided what these areas are. There should be a "Buy Canada" policy and development of a small number of technology-based firms of international stature. There should be a range of innovative firms and the establishment of minor technology-oriented programs, such as in the field of liquefied natural gas carriers with ice-breaking capacity. These are areas in which Canada should be pre-eminent because they are suited to our geographic location.
This is the kind of strategy suggested for Canada, Mr. Speaker. We must decide what we, as Canadians, are best at and concentrate on those matters. That is what we are not doing at the moment. If we continue conducting unstructured negotiations in Ottawa, then we will be unable to determine what is going to happen to our industrial sector.
In connection with the negotiations in Geneva, every industry, every manufacturers' association that I know of, complains there is no feedback from the government, no mechanism by means of which they can find out from the government what is happening. They will not be involved in decisions made at Geneva; they will not be asked for their views on the negotiations from January on. I could cite instance after instance; the electronics association, the manufacturers' associations, the plastics industry-the list goes on and on. They are not being consulted.
In the United States, representatives of trade and industry are accompanying the delegations to Geneva. They will be there when decisions are made. Industrialists in this country want to know about these things now. They want to know what assistance they are likely to get in case of certain decisions being taken, certain adjustments being made. These are questions which have not been answered. As far as I know, members who sit on the opposition side of the House have been allowed no input. I wrote the minister asking whether we would be briefed and allowed to know what is happening, but so far I have received no answer from him.
The President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has, it is true, indicated that we shall be briefed. I imagine this will be done in a casual manner. We have not been consulted or told how this is being done. As I say, Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of uncertainty in Canadian industry today.
We want to know what strategy, if any, the government has decided to follow. We want to know what are its goals for industry. Every other country which has advanced and prospered in the last 15 years-I think of France, Germany and Japan-has designated certain areas, more or less specific, in which it was their intention to become competitive. In Japan, for instance, it is electronics; Japan is making computers which compete with those of IBM. It will not risk the success of that
December 8, 1977

industry by permitting the import of IBM equipment. France and Germany decided to concentrate their efforts on the manufacture of certain products and to protect the industries concerned until they become sufficiently strong, on the basis of a domestic market, to compete successfully with the rest of the world. The Canadian government has made no decision along such lines. What is our defensive strategy? We know other countries will want us to drop our tariffs, and that in return we shall ask them to drop their non-tariff barriers.
We also know there are a thousand ways of increasing non-tariff barriers. Our industrialists know they cannot get a chance to compete in a number of markets where they might otherwise be successful. Flow is this to be stopped? Canada does not impose many non-tariff barriers, yet we are faced with non-tariff barriers put up to protect other countries. What is the minister's industrial strategy? He should be addressing himself to the state of the electronics industry. The plastics industry is another industry we should be helping, especially since the petrochemical industry is the base from which the plastics industry gets its supplies. But the chemical producers are in a state of alarm, as our correspondence indicates. These industries should be brought into the dialogue.
We realize that everyone was allowed to submit a brief to the committee on tariffs and trade; but there has been no feedback. There is, I believe, a tendency in the department to regard spokesmen for industry as not being sufficiently in the real world, not sufficiently in favour of free trade. Mr. Speaker, we are not against the concept of free trade when it can be implemented fairly around the world. It is a question of degree. We have to protect our interests, too. No other country is going to sacrifice its national interests because of the holy slogan "Free trade". The other countries around the bargaining table will protect their interests as far as they can and, hopefully, lower trade barriers too. Who will be sacrificed? Who will lose their jobs? How many exemptions will be allowed at Geneva and on what percentage of our trade? Perhaps the minister does not have the answer to these questions.
I do not believe we need to be pessimistic about Canada. There is nothing which cannot be remedied, provided the government goes about its business correctly, gives out the appropriate information and squares with the industries involved. Surely, the hon. member who heads this department and who was in opposition for 14 or 15 years should be one whose desire it is to involve industry and the resource sector in these negotiations. He might at least let them know what is happening.
The same applies to agriculture and to the fishing industry. We have to get trade barriers lowered in these cases. What does the minister hope to accomplish for them? What will he be obliged to give up if he is to accomplish anything for them? Wherever we look in the business sections of our newspapers, we are reminded of the difficulties presently faced by industry. One independent and objective study shows that in the 1960s, when we thought we were well off, Canada's position vis-a-vis
Trade
the rest of the world was deteriorating. The report even says Canada might become-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. Of course, he may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


An hon. Member:: No.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the opposition for enabling me to put a few facts on the record and set aside what appears to be their growing fear.
I listened very closely to the speech of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), but I failed to find in it any indication of the direction in which he thinks Canada should be going, though he did express a host of fears. One moment I thought he was in favour of greater protection, and the next I thought he was in favour of free trade. At any rate, he did seem to play around a great deal with the term "industrial strategy" and read something out of the report of the Science Council which he felt constituted an industrial strategy. It certainly did not, to my mind. An industrial strategy has to take into consideration a whole variety of matters, including taxation policy, what markets in the world are we capable of meeting, what proportion of the domestic market is to be reserved as far as possible, what kinds of goods and services we are best fitted to produce for sale abroad. One element should include a policy of upgrading as many of our own resources as possible.
To my mind, the word "policy" means a plan of action. Around here, the word "policy" has always fascinated me. In my interpretation, "policy" means a plan of action, and "industrial strategy" means several plans of action. Certainly, there are several plans of action in place right now, and I will enlarge upon them during my remarks.
It is true to say that politics for industrial development must be rooted in a realistic assessment of Canada's strengths and weaknesses and in the context of a dynamic world environment. On the positive side, this country has a lot going for it. We are among the most favourably-endowed nations in terms of natural and human resources. Our labour force is growing more rapidly than it is in some other developed countries and, while relatively small in the numerical sense, it is among the best educated and most highly skilled anywhere. Our industries enjoy strong technological interrelationships with those of other industrial nations, so we have access to the most scientific advances that occur throughout the world. Therefore, we do not have to be as pessimistic about Canada's future as some people would like.
What are we doing about meeting with and aiding industry within Canada? Just recently, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce reorganized several programs-I think they number about seven-into one called EDP. We have set

December 8, 1977
Trade
up provincial boards in every province. These boards will have jurisdiction to underwrite credit at a chartered bank up to as much as $200,000, and that may well be increased to $300,000. The national board will have jurisdiction to underwrite credit to the extent of something in the neighbourhood of $300 million in loans.
These boards will assess, first of all, whether a business is viable and should be retained in Canada. If it reaches the conclusion that it should be, then the board will take a look at management and, thirdly, at equity. A chartered bank takes a look at the situation in the direct reverse: it looks at equity, then management, and then, I suppose, at the business. The EDP will look at it in completely the opposite way, with the hope it can maintain permanent jobs in Canada and create more permanent jobs here. It certainly has a very good record in creating and maintaining many industries that may well have folded had they not received a last resort line of credit through EDP.
Having regard to export trade, the department does many things. I might point out that in 1976 we had a surplus in export trade of $1.1 billion, after a deficit in 1975 of $640 million, and in 1977 we expect to have a surplus of $2.5 billion. To me, that is a strong indication that we can, and are, competing in world markets.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In respect of manufactured articles?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will come to manufactured articles later. We have bilateral agreements with a whole host of countries, including Poland, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Iran, China and the U.S.S.R. These involve major contracts which will assist us in selling a whole host of commodities, mostly manufactured, to these under developed countries. The bilateral economic agreement with Poland, for example, was a $300 million business deal. Just recently, about a year ago, we carried out a framework agreement with the EEC. That framework agreement is an industrial agreement through which I am certain there will be a continued expansion of our trade with the European Economic Community.
Having just returned from Brussels, with 164 businessmen, I can certainly vouch for the fact that they returned to Canada far more enthusiastic about their ability to do business in Europe than when they left. It is easy to say that you cannot do business with Germany and Japan because they are too keen and too sharp as businessmen. I do not think we should accept the fact that we cannot do business with any country. We can, and should, be prepared to compete with any country. I priced many articles in Europe and decided in my own mind that we can compete with them quite well.
We have 89 offices, in 63 countries, aiding foreign trade. There are 300 foreign service officers, 170 of whom are engaged in assisting commercial trade. The idea that this department has not done much to serve Canada's domestic export trade in the past 13 years, or during the life of this resolution which began in 1963, is really quite ridiculous because many promotional trade projects have gone forward with fairs, missions and export market programs, expending

something in the neighbourhood of $13.8 million in support of export trade and resulting eventually in increased trade in the neighbourhood of $640 million.
There have been many turnkey projects in which we have assisted in getting contracts for Canadian businessmen, such as the Venezuelan railway project and the hydroelectric project in Brazil for which we are competing right now. The Export Development Corporation has been a boon in assisting Canadian businessmen to get their exports abroad and get paid for them. In 1969, the EDC was empowered to undertake direct and contingency liabilities totalling $1.6 billion. It is currently empowered to undertake direct and contingency liabilities totalling $6.8 billion. The annual level of loans provided by EDC in support of Canadian capital goods exports has increased from $98 million in 1963 to $784 million in 1976.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: To set up steel mills in the United States and pulp mills in Poland.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not know what is wrong with a pulp mill in Poland.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Ask our pulp and paper producers.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I imagine they can read, too. The EDC has done a tremendous job promoting the export of Canadian goods in many innovative ways, one of which was mentioned today in the question period. It is an interesting one which will encourage the export of oil exploration activity and technology. This is a major step and I think it is just the beginning of that concept. Much has been said about the manufacturing trade and exports. I should just like to give the House some figures. Domestic exports have increased at an annual growth rate of 4 per cent in live animals; at 9.3 per cent in food, feed and beverages; at 13.7 per cent in crude materials, inedible; and at 10.7 per cent in fabricated materials, inedible. That is an annual increase in our export of these commodities.-


George Harris Hees: Over what period?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: From 1962 to 1976, the period of this resolution.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What will be the deficit this year?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There will be a surplus this year.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In the manufacturing trade?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Just let me finish. In end products.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) has the floor.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The annual average increase of end products from 1962 to 1976 was 23 per cent, which is an amazingly large increase. The average annual increase of total exports has been 13.7 per cent.


George Harris Hees: What will be the deficit on fully manufactured goods this year?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will get to that.


George Harris Hees: Well, get to it now.
December 8, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest we will be here all day and all night listening to the various speeches, if the interruptions continue. The hon. minister has the floor.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In 1962-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: This is 1977.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I did not draft this resolution. The resolution commences in 1962. Perhaps the hon. member can keep quiet, if he does not want to listen to the figures. His party asked for them. In 1962, approximately $68 million worth of livestock were exported. By 1976, that was doubled to $119 million worth of livestock.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Is that manufactured goods?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will get to manufactured goods.


George Harris Hees: We are interested in fully manufactured goods.


Mr. Gillies:: Is that in real terms?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If hon. members opposite want to hear those figures now, I will give them. In 1962, we exported $654 million worth of end products. In 1976, we exported $12,539,232,000 worth of end products. That is a substantial increase.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, it is real terms; it is real dollars.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the consent of the House to table this document, since hon. members opposite do not want to hear the figures. It can be appended to today's Hansard and then hon. members can read and study the figures themselves.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed that it be printed as an appendix to this day's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Agreed, and so ordered.
[Editor's Note: For text of document, see appendix.]


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is obvious that hon. members opposite do not want to hear the figures.


George Harris Hees: Give us the import figures.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is what we want.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I realize there is a long list of speakers who want to deal with this matter. Some are on this list, and will have their turn to speak.
Trade


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We have heard a lot about manufacturing trade, shipments and the Canadian market. In 1976, our exports were $25 billion and our imports were $30 billion. Thus, the trade balance was minus $5 billion, which I have acknowledged. The shipments, as a share of the Canadian market, were 95 per cent. That indicates that we were not far off our total percentage.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What was the deficit?


George Harris Hees: What was the deficit in fully manufactured goods last year?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Minus $5 billion. Much has been said about the Kennedy Round in tariff negotiations and the entire Canadian economy. With those trade figures, the gross merchandizing trade surplus will be $2.5 billion. Our labour negotiations are in far better shape than they were some years ago, with the average settlement down at 7 per cent instead of 14 per cent. In the last third quarter, the growth in productivity in Canada went up 4 per cent, whereas it went up only 2 per cent in the United States. Thus, one can see that our loss in competitive ability is narrowing. In fact, the growth in the third quarter in the gross national product was 5.2 per cent.
It is all well and good for the hon. member for St. John's West to suggest that we should return to being hewers of wood and carriers of water, in agreement with the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). Certainly, that would not be my concept and it is not the attitude of the Canadian delegation in GATT. We want to maintain a strong industrial industry, and will do so. In the 1963 GATT negotiations, the cutting of tariffs and the improvement of the anti-dumping legislation was mainly dealt with. This round will cut tariffs and deal with the non-tariff barriers. The non-tariffs barriers are far more important than the tariffs. The hon. member can suggest that there are millions of ways to create a non-tariff barrier, but in my study with the delegation in Geneva, I was greatly pleased to speak to Oliver Long, the secretary-general of GATT.
Also, I spoke with the American, Japanese and other delegations who were there. I was pleased with the calibre of the man the Canadian government sent there. He was fully knowledgeable in trade and tariffs. The suggestion that Canadian manufacturers should know all about it all the time would be disclosing to the entire world Canada's deck of cards. I am sure no one would want that done.


John Carnell Crosbie: What is the United States doing?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will deal with the United States in a minute. In our trade today with the United States, 66 per cent is moving there at something like 5 per cent or less. With the suggested cut in tariffs something like 90 per cent of our trade would move into the United States with 5 per cent or less tariff. Thus, we have to concentrate on the non-tariff barrier.

December 8, 1977
Trade
On November 11 Canada tabled a long list of non-tariff barriers and restrictions to trade with regard to agriculture and fish. The Americans were not particularly pleased with that because it indicated to the world that they were not "Mr. Clean" in the world of trade. It indicated to the world that Americans were not the great free traders that they were professing to be. Much of the items tabled dealt with commerce moving from Canada to the United States. There is no doubt the proper strategy was adopted when that long list was tabled at Geneva. The United States tabled a small list, and after Canada tabled its list they realized their list should have been longer.
With regard to the non-tariff barriers, seemingly Japan, the United States, the European Common Market and the Swiss are prepared to agree on the setting up of a series of conduct codes for governments to adhere to. These codes would specifically address themselves to four areas. The first area would be government purchasing practices. Government purchasing practices have been one way in which non-tariff barriers have effectively prohibited penetration into some markets. One could list a number of countries which have government purchasing practices that prohibit our sales into their markets. If something can be done to set up a standard code of ethics for governments to adhere to, certainly it would remove many of the non-tariff barriers dealing with that subject and in my opinion help particularly the electronics and the electro-cable industries.
The second area would be subsidies, countervailing duties and restitutions in the European community. In my opinion there is not much difference between a tariff and a subsidy. I am pleased that subject matter will be dealt with and considered in the non-tariff barriers code of ethics. Custom valuation is certainly very, very important. Quite often it is used between Canada and the United States. It delays the shipment of goods. Technical barriers with respect to the trades, such as product standards, is another way in which non-tariff barriers are developed. With regard to the setting up of a code of conduct for nations, it is widely believed that a surveillance team would have to be set up to make certain that all nations adhere to that code of conduct, nations which have signed the GATT treaty.
Also, some thought is being given to the changing of article 19 in GATT. Article 19 now deals extensively with industries which are severely hurt by imports. Under article 19, these industries could be protected, but action must be taken indiscriminately and must apply to quotas on all nations importing to a particular country. The thought was expressed in Geneva that article 19 should be amended to allow countries to move discriminately in protecting a market which appears to be threatened. In my talks with Mr. Long, he assured me that if countries were allowed to move discriminately under article 19, a strict set of procedures would have to be established and would have to be tried out before action could be taken discriminately because, as can be readily seen, if one were allowed to move discriminately without following a particular
[Mr. Horner.l
procedure, the whole movement toward the liberalization of trade could be harmed.


An hon. Member:: What did you say?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the hon. member does not know the meaning of the word, he should look it up in the dictionary. The hon. member spoke about the textile industry and professed not to know why the Retail Council of Canada was in a quandary with respect to the purchase of textiles. As I have explained many times, in accordance with the international fibres agreement we, as Canadians, should attempt not to keep global quotas any longer than necessary. In an attempt to free ourselves of the global quotas which are now in effect in the textile sector, we would have to negotiate bilateral arrangements with the countries importing into Canada. This fall it was our hope that we could get seven of the major countries importing to Canada to agree to some bilateral arrangements. I told the Retail Council of Canada and the Textile Council that we would attempt, until January 1 at least, to establish bilateral agreements.


An hon. Member:: Far too late.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is a discretionary opinion. I believe it is not too late. The textile people believe that they must start purchasing now for next fall. I think they can start purchasing on January 1 for next fall from abroad, or they can purchase here at home for next fall. We just moved under article 19 to protect the shoe industry in Canada. We have made considerable inroads in the protection of the textile industry. Many people in that industry have been very grateful for the action which the government took to protect their industry. The shoe industry has been severely hurt in recent years. In 1970, Canadian producers had around 79 per cent of the market. In 1976, they had 58 per cent of the market. In the first seven or eight months of this year, their percentage of the market dropped to 41 per cent. That is why we had to move under article 19 to bring about some kind of stop to the flooding of Canadian markets by imports.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments regarding the over-all concept about the strength of the Canadian economy and the 90-cent dollar. I know that hon. members opposite refer to the drop in value of the Canadian dollar as an indication of the weakness of our economy. I suppose that now it has gone back up to 91.2 cents, they will say it is not an indication that our economy is strengthening.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You like the 90-cent dollar?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, the hon. member is right that I like it. Anybody who is an exporter or believes in exporting should like it. It does something to the price of cattle, to the price of wheat, to the price of oil, to the price of gas, to the price of pulp, paper and timber products-all the products we export.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What does it do to our inflation?
December 8, 1977


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It has an effect on inflation, but not nearly equal to the benefits gained.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Four per cent is a pretty telling figure.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is your figure, not mine.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is Dr. Hood's figure.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But not mine.


An hon. Member:: What about farm machinery?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member is worried about farm machinery. If you manufacture farm machinery in Canada, it should not affect you too much. In any case, I would like to see the Canadian economy take advantage of the 90-cent dollar to push our exports into foreign markets. If we are careful and do not allow excessive prices and excessive wage increases to swallow up the advantage we have gained, we should be able to make substantial gains in markets of the EEC, the United States and even in Japan if we are successful in overcoming their trade barriers.
Certainly, it is my belief that the multilateral trade negotiations which are in progress now will succeed. If they do not, the tendency toward protectionism in this country, in the United States and in the European Common Market, will affect world economy detrimentally because if the multilateral trade negotiations fail and protectionism wins, one country will move ruthlessly against another, costs will soar, the economic balance of countries will be disrupted and everyone will suffer as a result. I do not want to see that happen. It is my belief that we as a nation should work toward greater liberalization of trade. If you study any figures with respect to trade, you will find that as world trade increases, the economy of our country improves.
In my recent travels to the industrial community of Germany, and in my talks with the chairman of the chamber of commerce in Germany and people in Geneva and Brussels, I found that they all assured me that without doubt the future of Canada looks brighter than that of any other nation in the industrial world because we have the ability to become selfsufficient in energy, we have high technology available to us, and we have a highly educated and capable work force.


An hon. Member:: And a lousy government.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We also see the government cutting down on its growth, with growth in the civil service this year of less than 1 per cent.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Trade


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, in listening to this debate, my Francophone friends remind me of a phrase which goes like this, "plus ?a change, plus c'est pareil". Translated into English, that means "same old gang". I am glad that this portion of the proceedings of the House of Commons has only limited exposure on television, because I fear for the nation trying to understand these kinds of peregrinations, as a former prime minister used to describe them. At one time, the government which friends on my right used to represent devaluated the Canadian dollar and defended that in growing terms. Members on the other side denounced that as the worst thing which ever happened to the Canadian economy. Now the roles are reversed and we are getting the same conversation but from different people.
I have had the pleasure of listening to the minister in many previous incarnations, and I must say that I enjoyed his speeches more when he wrote them himself rather than having them written for him.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I assure you that no one wrote this one for me.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: I can believe that.


Max Saltsman: I detected a somewhat different style and tone from the intervention which took place today. I also suspect that I have heard this speech before. In the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce there is a standard speech which comes off the shelf, depending upon which minister comes in. It is dusted off, changed a little bit and then paraded before the House as a new policy. Because I am going to be so negative in this speech, I think I should say at least something positive. The positive thing I want to say about the minister's intervention today is at least we have some inkling of the thinking which went on at the trade conference in Tokyo. However, I would be far more confident about the state of negotiations and the outcome of the negotiations if we laid our negotiators on the table rather than papers.
There is something incredibly naive in the position which is being advanced. Tariffs are something we can deal with. Tariffs are something we can argue about if they are transgressed or if they are not honoured, but when it comes to things like non-tariff restraints, how can we really police them? What good is an agreement which is signed respecting something like that? There are many ways by which these things are contravened. For instance, we know that in a number of countries in the world with which we trade and which have non-tariff barriers which are direct government policy nobody, either at the government level or at the business level, will admit that they are practising these things. Somebody has to admit that. Bids are simply lost; something happens which is wrong. The thing is laid out in such a way that we cannot get to anyone in order to talk or to decide.
How can people be taken to court on something like this? How can we make a case if these things are working against

December 8, 1977
Trade
us? I think it is naive to believe that we can sign an agreement, knowing the policies of various countries to protect specific industries they feel are sensitive, and come away with some assurance that we have accomplished something, if this is what our negotiators are doing. I agree with the minister and his advisers that the most serious barriers are those invisible, implied non-tariff barriers. They cannot be dealt with. If we are going to give away something and make the position of our industry worse in return for somebody's promise to drop his non-tariff barriers, I think we are going to be the laughing stock of the world. I wish I had more confidence in our negotiators, but I do not, based on past experience.
I have had a lot of experience with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I have had two kinds of experience with the department. One has been good. When I deal with the department on the basis of a fire brigade on an emergency, I have nothing but the highest commendation for the kind of help which has been given to industries in my riding which have been in danger of folding up or which have needed assistance. There are excellent people in the department, and it is unfortunate that they always have to operate in this fire brigade atmosphere. At the last desperate moment they come to an industry's assistance.
However, when it comes to forward-planning or ideas about the future, the performance of the arson squad of the department has been absolutely pathetic. The planning in that department has to be the worst in the government, if there is such a thing as the worst. Perhaps I am being unkind but, frankly, I do not know whether the officials in the department are giving bad advice to the government or whether the officials of the department give the government good advice and it is rejected. In fairness, I suppose we have to hold the government responsible for the things which go wrong.
Minister after minister-and there have been many of them in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce-has come before this House and pooh-poohed the whole notion of industrial strategy. I am at least glad to say that as inadequate-and I will come to that-as the minister's suggestion for industrial strategy has been, there is at least some recognition that we need an industrial strategy. What is the sense of going to Tokyo to negotiate concessions when we do not even know what is good for us and when we do not even know the consequences of those negotiations? It is like making love in the dark. I am sure the people who are taking part in the activity are probably aware of what is going on, but nobody else knows what is happening.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: With all these bugs around, are you sure of that?


Max Saltsman: We do not know what is going on. We do not even know which industries should be developed and encouraged. Our industrial strategy, to the extent we can say it exists at all, has simply been for the government to say it has done certain things and agreed to certain things, and that is the strategy. It is strategy by accident. But that is not strategy;

that is not planning. I think that accounts for the terrible state we are in.
I understand it to be the minister's responsibility to put the best face forward on Canada's trade position. He gives us a list of statistics about increases in the amounts of exports in every single area, but he very carefully omits mentioning imports because that would destroy his whole argument. How much we export is not important; the only things about trade which are important are terms of trade. Are we getting any benefit from our trade? To give an indication of the kind of deep thinking which has always gone on in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I remember one minister who congratulated himself one day and said that we increased our exports by 17 per cent. That was wonderful. But we also increased imports by 18 per cent. That minister could not understand that we had suffered a net loss. It was like a potlatch: we were giving commodities away all over the place, but there was no net benefit.
Why do people bother to trade at all? They trade because they want to get something more or, hopefully, something they want for the things they exchange. They hope for some benefit. We have been trading in a vacuum. We take pride that we are one of the great trading nations of the world, but trade itself is not important; the only things which are important are terms of trade. The United States trade less than 5 per cent of their gross national product. Does that make the United States any less a great nation? We trade infinitely more than that, yet the more we trade, the more we lose in many ways. The minister carefully avoided explaining that kind of equation to this House, because he could not explain it. If he tried, it would be obvious that we are going deeper and deeper into a deficit position, particularly in sensitive employment-creating industries. We have one of the worst records in the world. We have the pattern of an underdeveloped country rather than that of an industrially developed country.
The excuses put by ministers before this House for the absence of an industrial strategy have been of a number of kinds. They always laugh at it, saying it cannot be done and that we do not need it. If pushed hard enough by the opposition, they occasionally talk about sectorial strategies and about a study of the textile industry or the furniture industry, without understanding the role of either in the economy. They go on and on like that, but occasionally someone is honest and straightforward enough to admit that it is politically difficult.
I can understand that argument. The moment you start to plan and design, you create difficulties. The easiest thing is to do nothing. That is what this government has done-it has taken the easy way out and done nothing. It has said that Canadians are spoiled rotten. It is this government that is spoiled rotten, Mr. Speaker. It has done nothing in this area, and then expresses surprise that the economy is in the shape it is.
From what we have heard, it seems to me that in some ways the government is moving in the direction of freer internation-
December 8, 1977

al trade. They are doing what was done in England when the government there found it could not manage the economy. They wanted to move into the common market, not because of the obvious advantages but because they saw it as a way of disciplining their economy. This government is talking about moving in the direction of freer trade despite the alternatives that are open to it. It is admitting it does not know how to handle the situation and that perhaps if Canadians are thrown to the wolves-kicked in the gut, sort of thing-they will find some way of surviving. In other words, the government will get the international community to do the things it is afraid to do and cannot accept responsibility for. The fact that a kick in the gut hurts, or that it may be pretty deadly, is overlooked.
The minister accuses friends on my right of talking out of both sides of their mouths-not that they are not capable of doing it, for all of us are capable of doing it sometimes, but he does not understand that by and large people have a commitment to free trade. Most people want to see trade liberalized around the world. We do not want a situation that does not benefit us. However, particularly when this government does not have a clue where it is going and what constitutes benefit, this is the real dilemma. I wish we had some sense that the government has done some planning and studying. Perhaps it has, but if so, we certainly do not know about it and there has been no indication of it.
A few years ago I participated in an experiment at the University of Waterloo through a course on designing an industrial strategy. The university decided on this because the minister of industry, trade and commerce of that time kept insisting it was not possible to have an industrial strategy, and that it was a laughable concept-just for kids. Now, of course, the government is a little more amenable to the idea. There is a way of planning an industrial strategy, and we did it; but not in the vague way the minister put before the House today.
We are not a stupid people, Mr. Speaker. A lot of people in this country could assist the government to design an industrial strategy if they cannot do it themselves. A great deal has been written on the subject. The Science Council of Canada has done excellent work. The Economic Council of Canada has done excellent work, and even Mackenzie King, following World War II, put out a good development paper on full employment. The foreign policy review for Canadians also put forth an industrial strategy.
What is important is that all industrial strategies have to start with some objectives. You do not start in a vacuum; you have to ask what we are trying to do for the country. One of the things that runs through the four studies I mentioned is full employment. This has been a constant Canadian goal and a constant Canadian failure. Despite every commitment to full employment, except for very brief periods we have not been able to achieve it because nobody followed through on the political objectives set out in the study papers.
In developing an industrial strategy, you ask questions about what industries would best survive in the kind of Canada we see, and what kind of industries would meet your objectives. If you are looking for full employment, it does not make sense to
Trade
pursue the policies this country has pursued almost from its inception of encouraging vast sums of money into resource development. There have been tragic failures when those resource developments are depleted and promises are not kept, as was the case in the province of my friend.
It would cost almost $1 million today to create one job in those gigantic resource developments, so when you need 300,000 jobs in a year these gigantic projects are not going to be very fruitful. You have to concentrate on more labour-intensive industries.
Mr. Speaker, my guide, mentor and leader is indicating to me that I have two minutes left. I have an amendment to move. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"and this House expresses its concern at the apparent strategy being used at the current GATT negotiations, which will sacrifice some sectors of our manufacturing industry, and the jobs associated with them, in return for increased export opportunities for unprocessed and semi-processed raw materials, thus condemning Canada to remain as an exporter of raw materials to more industrially developed nations.".


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, if we consider all the debates that we have about the industrial sector, it is apparent that there is a real problem in this area. Last week, we of the Social Credit Party of Canada proposed a motion in this regard. Today the official opposition has also moved a motion related to the possibility of developing our Canadian industries so as to create more jobs and to stabilize the industrial sector.
I do not want to criticize simply for the pleasure of criticizing or to condemn the present administrators more than necessary, but I would like to tell the House how the industry should be organized and what means we should take to try to put some order where disorder now prevails, and mostly much concern on the part of Canadian manufacturers. The representations that we make regularly and the practical suggestions that are sometimes made show that the federal government should consider the suggestions of the people who are familiar with this area.
I remember quite well that at the beginning of the present session, on October 18, 1977, the Speech from the Throne said that high rates of unemployment and inflation were clear signals of the inadequacy of economic strategies appropriate to simpler times. They are also signals of the urgent need for important structural adjustments in the economies of Canada and other industrialized countries. Also according to the Speech from the Throne, they are the symptoms of an illness which can be cured only by a re-adjustment of our values, and by a rediscovery of the merits of self-discipline and fair sharing. During another debate, I said that the intentions of the federal government to re-adjust the economic situation should result in legislation better adapted to present needs.

December 8, 1977
Trade
All hon. members are aware that much time has been lost in useless discussions; because of the installation of a television system many of us have tried to get more coverage without giving enough thought to the serious attitude which should prevail in this Parliament so that we may find real solutions to the many difficulties facing Canadians.
There are many problems and it is quite difficult to choose one that should be given priority: unemployment is increasing continually as is inflation created by a financial system in constant contradiction with present economic realities. The control methods implemented have shown that it was easier to control wages than prices. As we approach the decontrol stage, let us wish that results will be better. There is also the problem of distributing quotas to dairy producers and the delay in payments to fluid milk producers. The farming industry is a very important sector. Those who are responsible for that distribution have certainly been very careless in coming to grips with that kind of problem.
We all know that Canadian manufacturers have many difficulties to orient their production in an economically efficient way considering the inconvenience of the competition which is often unfavourable to them on several aspects. In the field of textile and footwear particularly, the government will have to make a decision and it is urgent, to find something else than slowness, inefficiency or motherhood statements which until now did not give Canadian manufacturers the guarantees needed to contribute positively to maintain and create the jobs so badly needed at this time of chronic unemployment.
A paper entitled Action Program submitted by the Canadian Manufacturers Association to the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) and all hon. members of the House pointed out the main factors of the productivity unsteadiness of manufactures. The contents of that paper is a recapitulation of valuable and practical suggestions made by people who have to face the day to day problems caused by international competition on the Canadian market which is too often directly responsible for lower employment in Canada. I shall quote clause 5 of part 1 of that action program which draws to the legislator's attention what could be done to improve the situation. I quote:
The competition policy should be enshrined in our statutes. It should promote the dynamic trends of the market and allow the interference of government only in cases where the abuse of the market power is a barrier to the realization of actual cost savings. To that end, Bill C-42 should be significantly changed particularly as concerns amalgamations, joint monopolies, price differentiation and indirect actions as we pointed out in our separate paper on that bill.
As a matter of fact, they were saying that they had already mentioned the delay which may result from Bill C-42. The November 26, 1977 edition of Le Devoir featured a large size advertisement which was paid by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and which indicated that some 45,000 medium and small size businesses in Canada are demanding a reorganization of our economy. The purpose is to develop a system of free competition in Canada and obtain for independent businessmen a greater say in the administration of the legislation which governs business and the nation.

Those who are in favour of restricting the imports of clothing in Canada argue that keeping people at work is better than paying them unemployment insurance and other welfare benefits. Our textile industry generally meets the international standards of productivity; it should not have to compete unfairly with an industry situated in world areas which are providing special tax concessions as well as cheap labour.
The establishment and expansion of an industry in any region will never take place by chance. The establishment of an industry requires several favourable factors: first of all the entrepreneur, manpower and capital. Those are the three main factors, but several others are needed to ensure the survival and expansion of an industry; a climate of security and stability is sought by any industrialist.
It is obvious that the serious entrepreneur wants to be sure that the investments in a new industry will be secure and stable. In our ever changing world, small and medium-sized industries are faced with problems of adaptation, the solution of which is closely related to their survival. The vulnerability and fragility of small and medium-sized industries are facts which have to be taken seriously, first of all by governments and also by employees who owe their subsistence to the jobs thus created. The present circumstances are well suited to show that the private sector's role is not to deal with and settle all the society's evils. It does not exist to do that. There are some who ask for the suppression of private enterprise and its replacement by state enterprise, under the pretense that private enterprise has not been able to solve the problem of the fair distribution of goods and services. It is not the duty of private enterprise to see to it that the goods which it produces be fairly distributed. Such is the role of the government which is endowed with all the powers to act in the distribution of goods. The prime function of enterprise is to provide goods and services at the cheapest possible cost in order to satisfy the existing needs.
It is not by entrusting to state enterprises the role which is presently played by private enterprise that the issue of distribution will find its solution. The same problems will keep existing because, in fact, only the name and the owners of these enterprises will have changed but the root of the problem will have been left intact. The distribution of goods is a role which belongs to the state. And so long as the state will not decide to assume such a role, there will still be problems of distribution. Modern production capacity is practically unlimited, with regard to both volume and diversity. Usually when we do not choose to carry out massive destructions, such as in war-time, or by creating artificial shortages, products are offered or can easily be offered in great supply to answer the needs of consumers. The economic issue of modern times is not therefore a problem of production but a problem of distribution.
The final objective of production must not be profit, but the satisfaction of human needs. However, profit is an incentive which has proved itself and to suppress it completely would result in taking the chance of considerably reducing the production output and thereby frustrating consumers by imposing
December 8, 1977

a shortage. If it is necessary to denounce abuses committed by certain enterprises which are monopolies, it is not by replacing them with state corporations which are in fact another type of inefficient monopolies, most often running large deficits, that consumers will find their advantage, no matter how small it is.
An economic system capable of maintaining a reasonable profit incentive while ensuring a fair distribution of produced goods would serve the interests of both producers and consumers. Instead of criticizing private enterprise, let us see what can be improved in it. By trying to get private enterprise to accomplish things beyond its realm of competence, all levels of government have surrounded it with a stiffening bureaucracy which prevents it from functioning well and providing all the output it is capable of. It should be more appropriate to howl against the bureaucracy which has everyone at wits' end instead of criticizing private enterprise. Furthermore, the cost of that inefficient bureaucracy is tremendous and increases every day. So it is not surprising that government budgets should constantly go up without an expansion in services. The cost of the bureaucracy is added to the cost of goods, and in the final analysis the consumer and the taxpayer must foot the bill.
Quite regularly, Canadian businesses call to the attention of the government, through briefs or other means of pressure, the amendments they would like to see brought in to the legislation to ensure the development of existing industries and the creation of new ones. It would be absolutely necessary that our administrators take into account the representations made by industry leaders and fashion their legislation so as to allow those concerned to contribute more to the improvement of economic conditions and reduce the rate of unemployment which has become the number one problem in Canada.
Most of the over one million small, independent businesses in Canada are small operations and many are sole proprietorships. In numerical terms, they form the greater number. Although 90 per cent of Canadian companies employ more than 200 people each, collectively, they account for 65 per cent of the country's labour force. To say that small businesses are the backbone of Canada's economic life is not a banal thing- it is a fact. Outside its impact in terms of employment, as we just saw, small businesses can offer solutions to socio-economic crises such as the migration toward urban centres or the quality of life.
An article published in the newspaper in my area, the St-Laurent dated February 9, 1977, under the heading:
Industrialization, maturity and moderation-
-pointed out various factors that contribute a great deal to the establishment of new industries.
In these circumstances some reference to that article are in order. Here is the First quote:
Advantages include a climate of security and stability under which the firm can feel it is making a safe and lasting investment.
A welcoming spirit in the community, both municipal authorities and the people; a perception by community leaders and citizens of the contribution made by a firm to the local economy; the desire among the industry's workers to ensure not only good performance but also expansion, through a sense of
Trade
responsibility and understanding going sometimes to the extent of voluntary sacrifice are also worthy of consideration, especially in the current circumstances where job opportunities are getting scarce.
In areas where it is desired, industrial development is also a matter of maturity and restraint.
Maturity means a sense of realities which, among citizens and leaders and government authorities may be described as a pragmatic, serious approach under which discrimination is made between wishful thinking and reality, between those things that can harm the common good and those that must rationally be accepted in a common betterment perspective.
On the restraint theme at the national level, the article goes on to state, it has often been indicated:
That in a number of areas excessive union claims as to industrial wages and fringe benefits are mainly responsible for the excessive costs of production making our products less and less competitive on the international market place.
Further on, coming back to the local aspect of the situation, we read, and I quote:
... not only is it important for industrialists to feel that they are welcome in the area, in addition the work force must understand that excessive wage demands can at times impede the expansion of the industry and its competitiveness in the markets where the goods it produces are sold.
The problem of the salaries the employer must pay his employees is the key problem of any industry. It is the cause of its success, of strikes and a constant source of difficulties. Too often we forget that salaries are a flexible tool, always perfectible, with which an able manager can win the good services and the respect of his employees. Management, through it, can avoid having to deal constantly with the touchy problem of discipline and thus considerably decrease maintenance costs and losses. Often wise administration of salaries, plus the competence of the manager, guarantee a company a dynamic management.
If seems difficult at times to inspire the employees the interest they should have in the industry on which they depend for their livelihood; yet, it is quite normal to have some interest, even as an employee, since the daily bread served on the family table depends on its revenue. Unfortunately, today the attitude it very often quite different. In some cases, people do no more than what is necessary to keep their jobs. Yet, the workers do determine what salaries will be since they are the ones who keep the business or the industry operating. Often the Financial success of a business depends on their behaviour. In fact, it would seem that when once we have managed to make the worker wholly responsible for his salary, and that of his fellow workers, the problem will have been solved.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has now expired.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that in his remarks this afternoon the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commence (Mr. Florner) chose to put on the record only one side of the equation when talking about fully manufactured products. While we gave the trade figures for exports over a span of years, he failed to indicate what were the import Figures and what was the surplus or deficit

December 8, 1977
Trade
during that period. Therefore, I thought it might be interesting to read into the record the various trade balances between the period 1970 and 1976. In 1970 the trade deficit on manufactured products was $2,973 million; in 1971 it was $3,232 million; and in 1972 it was $4,613 million. In 1973, it was $6,188 million; in 1974 it was $8,796 million; in 1975 the deficit was $9,812 million; in 1976 it was just under $10 million; and for the first six months of 1977, Canada is showing a trade deficit in fully manufactured products of $5,484 million. If this is placed on an annual basis, the result will be a trade deficit of $10,968 million and some people in industry say it will be $11.5 billion. Mr. Speaker, that is a deplorable record, and I suggest it is deplorable for any minister to try to defend it.
Our second concern-and it is one of the main reasons for the initiation of this debate today-relates to unemployment consequent upon industrial weakness. As we know, the total number of unemployed, according to figures released the other day, is some 900,000. Relating the figure directly to the manufacturing industries, we find there are 295,000 unemployed in the major manufacturing areas of Quebec and 235,000 in Ontario. In the manufacturing area directly in this past year, employment in Ontario has fallen by 18,000 jobs and in Quebec it has fallen by 25,000 jobs. So it is frightening for a minister to stand in his place and tell us things are rosy or that he is really not very much concerned about what is going on in Geneva.
We on this side are very concerned about the GATT negotiations, mainly because representatives of the manufacturing industries have contacted us to ask what is going on. We get back to them and say, "You should know, through the tariff board or through your trade associations. After all, you submitted a brief, along with other Canadian industries." They say, "Yes, we did all that, but we cannot find out what is going on."
Every time members on this side ask a question about what is happening, all we hear from whichever minister chooses to answer is, "We cannot reveal our negotiating position." Mr. Speaker, our party went so far as to send one of our own members to Geneva a couple of years ago to try to find out informally what was happening. He did his best to do so, but eventually he came back and said, "All I got was the usual PR briefing which is given to the press." To my mind, the best thing would be to have Mr. Gray or Mr. Ward go there and let .members of parliament talk to them. I should like to see a wide open meeting at which we could talk to them for a day, if we wanted to do so. This might give us a chance to learn what is going on. I am sick and tired of getting back to people in the manufacturing industry, presidents of companies, and telling them, "I don't know what is going on any more than you do, because I cannot find out from the ministers concerned."
One manufacturer and I tried the unusual route of getting in touch with Washington to see if we could find out, through the Americans, what Canadians are doing. I suggest this
[Mr. Kempling.l
reflects a sad state of affairs. I do not accept that we ought not to be told what is going on. The way this government operates as far as secrecy is concerned, about the only piece of paper which is not labelled "secret" or "confidential" is what we find in the washroom. I apologize to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles); sometimes I get a little wound up on these matters.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce recently returned from a visit to Brussels. Members will recall that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was there a few years ago for what were known as the "contractual link" meetings. A document was signed and everything looked great-links with the ECM were to be strengthened and things were to be great for Canadian suppliers. I happened to be in Brussels about a month after the Prime Minister was there. I have some friends who work in the ECM office in Brussels, and I asked them what went on. They said, "Our position is very simple. What the Community wants is a long-term agreement with respect to certain basic raw materials produced in Canada, principally iron ore and uranium. We want them with no strings attached. We want a long-term supply at fixed prices, and if you are prepared to negotiate this with us, we are prepared to give you some special status as far as the Common Market is concerned." That is the position in reality, Mr. Speaker, and very little has happened since.
Now the new minister has given us the same platitudes. We are told, "There are great plans afoot. A lot of things are on the drawing board. Other prospects are coming up." These words should stick in his throat. I have heard this kind of thing from four or five ministers of industry, trade and commerce- and nothing comes up. The ECM is a private community dedicated to free trade for manufactured products within its own members. There is a prohibition on the import of all food products which compete with those of its own farmers. I am interested in what the government intends to do beyond going cap-in-hand to the ECM. Surely, there is some other position Canada can take.
Speaking recently in western Canada, Ambassador Enders proposed a package deal between Canada and the U.S. under which the U.S. would be prepared in certain circumstances to offer substantial tariff cuts. I happen to think this is a good starting point. But what is Canada's position? Do we have a clear idea of where we wish to go and what we want from the Americans? I do not think we have.
I thought I noted a glimmer of hope in the comments of the minister today. The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) commented on the quality of the minister's speech, so I will not say very much about it. Like that hon. member, I have heard it all before. There was very little new in it. We could probably go through Hansard and pick out most of his comments from speeches made by previous ministers of that department. Perhaps a good part of it was from a pat speech that lies on the shelf over in that department which the
December 8, 1977

officials pull out and hand to a new and inexperienced minister so that he can retread it all over again.
I noted a little glimmer of hope in the minister's speech when he began to speak of industrial strategy. I am really sorry that he did not continue. I think he might have made a considerable contribution to this debate today had he expanded his remarks about an industrial strategy.
The minister began to talk about taxation and tariff policies, and said a little bit about co-ordination of taxation policies. Herein lies many of the difficulties we face. I do not know how much co-ordination there is between the Department of Finance and the Department of Industry; between the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Buchanan) and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce; between the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but can you imagine at a time when our industry is producing at about 73 per cent or 80 per cent capacity this government introduces competition legislation?


An hon. Member:: It is ridiculous.


William James Kempling: Can you imagine that?


An hon. Member:: It is very Liberal.


William James Kempling: Can you think of a more ridiculous position at this time? It is very Liberal, but it is a very ridiculous position. Any number of people in business have said that this is the last thing we need.
Any industrial strategy that is put forth has to reflect and deal with co-ordination of government departments. We see this sort of thing going on continually. One of my colleagues was speaking yesterday on Bill C-ll and referred to the difficulties one of his constituents is having with the Department of National Revenue. This gentleman manufactures a wood burning heater almost identical to a unit imported from the United States. The one manufactured in Canada is classified differently by National Revenue from the imported unit, consequently its price is 12 per cent higher in Canada by reason of some bureaucratic decision. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) did not really answer the question, but suggested to the hon. member that he would have to wait until the next budget before any change could be made to the regulations under which the gentlemen of the Department of National Revenue are working. That is a lot of nonsense. Somebody in the Department of National Revenue made an assessment of this piece of heating equipment which was wrong. We do not require an act of parliament to change a regulation set in place by a bureaucrat, let me assure you of that.


An hon. Member:: Just one word from the minister is required, that is all.


William James Kempling: All we need is one word from the minister; that is correct, as my colleague suggests.
Trade
If we look broadly at Canadian industry I think we can divide it into five rather distinct groupings. First we have natural resource development and production. The second group would fall under basic manufacturing of resource products, that is, oil, natural gas, raw metals, pulp and logs-into fuels, plastics, textiles, sheet metal, wire, tubes, paper and lumber. The third group would be product manufacturing, such as automobiles, tractors, computers and appliances. You could break that down into probably three subgroups of component manufacturers who manufacture clothing and special assemblies and controls for large component manufacturers. The fourth group would be public utilities, that is, regulated natural monopolies such as hydroelectric commissions. And the fifth group would be services.
It seems to me, having these five groups, it would be relatively simple to look into the tariff structure and taxation policies within these groups and make some adjustments. My colleague has reminded me that I have only five minutes left so I want to get to another thought, but as I said earlier, I wonder what we have beyond GATT and an attempt to get into the EEC with hat in hand.
My colleague, the former leader of our party, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), suggested in a speech some while ago that perhaps we should be taking a hemispheric approach to our trade. It is my hope that we are not going to hang all our hopes on negotiations at Geneva, because I do not think we will get very far.
In spite of what has been done so far I believe there is a feeling of protectionism around the world. All European countries are concerned about unemployment, just as we are in this country. I think it is only natural to be somewhat protective. I do not think this country or European countries can afford to be expansionary, going into freer trade. Probably some concessions can be made, but I think we must have another bargaining position. I hope members opposite will consider very seriously the proposition put forward by Ambassador Andrews, as well as by the former leader of our party, that we should take a hemispheric approach to trade.
We should look at North America first, Canada and the United States. We should then consider Central and South America. Following that we should perhaps see if we can encompass New Zealand and Australia, and, if they get their problems worked out, perhaps we could encompass South Africa as well. In this way there is a tremendous avenue for trade, and we talk of trade not only in terms of manufactured products but in terms of some of our raw materials as well. If we limit ourselves in future to the one approach to trade for our manufacturing industry we will not be doing a service to the citizens of Canada or, of course, to solving the immediate problem of unemployment here.
We have to look beyond GATT and beyond the European Economic Community. We must ask ourselves what happens if GATT negotiations continue for another year. We must ask ourselves what happens if this feeling of protectionism continues; where do we go from there and what alternatives have we? Are we going to do anything to reduce the tremendous

December 8, 1977
Trade
trade deficit which now exists? Where are we going if the market for basic materials continues to be soft? If the pulp market continues to be soft in future, what do we do then? How will we compete with the pulp production that will be coming from Brazil, and the great increase in pulp production from Indonesia and the southern United States?
What strategies should we develop to overcome these situations, and should we be looking at a little different approach and a little different market? Perhaps we should be suggesting that our place is not in the European Economic Community as a major trader, but rather we should be developing a trading zone or area of our own. It would be proper, in my opinion, for Canada to develop this theme at this time because of the situation in Europe now. Unemployment is very high there, as you know, and those countries are very concerned and protective. I do not think we are going to get very far with them. It would be a good lever for Canada to have another approach to the idea of how and where we are going to place our products in future. We must have an industrial strategy. Certainly we are not going to find continuous markets for our resource products. We will have to develop more manufacturing in this country in order to employ our people. We have a good labour force which is experienced, intelligent, and which I know can produce.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to participate in this debate and I want to get as quickly and as directly as I can to the subject of the motion. However, I cannot resist the temptation to comment on a suggestion made by the hon. member for Halton-Went-worth (Mr. Kempling) in the course of his remarks, that this is not the time for Canada to seek to improve its competition policy. Why is it not the time for Canada to seek to improve its competition policy? He says it is because any number of businessmen in this country will indicate that this is the wrong time to do it, with unused capacity in the economy. Perhaps there are businesses that do not want to see the competition policy in this country improved, but those are the big businesses in our society. They benefit to an extreme degree by being able to concentrate their production.
There is more concentration in the Canadian industrial economy than in any other industrial country in the world. This is a very serious problem. It is not something, as has been suggested, about which we should be patting ourselves on the back. It should not be allowed to persist, because at this time there is a 70 per cent or 83 per cent unused capacity in our economy.
Recently at Queen's Park there was an example raised of coffee being produced and processed in Canada. That very product sold for nearly double in Canada the price it sold for in the United States. There are various reasons for this. There is sales tax, which is different in both countries. There is a difference which relates to the size of the store concerned. One of the reasons that the prices to the consumer are higher in Canada is the higher degree of concentration which exists in

the Canadian marketplace. Perhaps-that means someone in this country is making profits. I am in favour of profits. Profits is not a bad word; but higher prices do not necessarily mean higher profits. Companies can be less efficient, which is the trouble with having inadequate competition in the Canadian economy. There is not the same efficiency which would be produced if competition were taken more seriously and improved.
The competition bill has had first reading. It has been reviewed by committee. I am disappointed the hon. member opposite is not in favour of seeing that bill coming forward as quickly as possible, because it does and will improve the state of competition in our economy.


An hon. Member:: How many jobs will it create?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: factor, and as one of the bases of the Canadian economy, is that it costs $1 million to create one job today. How far off the mark can one be? The jobs which have been created historically in that sector, since this country was formed, are the source of the standard of life of Canada today. More than any other sector, the resource sector has been the one which Canadians can thank for the major contribution it has made to our way of life, for giving us the industrial tools to open up new parts of this country, and for holding this country together as a viable economy.
I wish the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) had been present in the Chamber when his hon. colleague was writing off the resource business and indicating that it was not a business for Canada to be involved in, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Nickel Belt has been on his feet continuously asking the government to support the resource industry in his constituency. He has suggested some proposals which were sincerely motivated, but some of which were unrealistic. These proposals were an attempt to make sure Canada remained in the resource industry. There is nothing wrong with the resource industry. If it costs $1 million to create one job, one must remember we simply do not want the creation of one job. We want the creation of jobs which enrich the standard of life for Canadians. The resource sector has produced that type of job for Canadians and will continue to do so, unless the philosophy being advocated by members opposite is adopted by the government.
Our objective is to get Canadians working at doing things which are valuable to them, saleable in foreign markets, and which will give us the necessary foreign exchange in order to purchase things being produced in other countries.
Turning to the concept of free trade, I should like to put forward some thought about that in the remaining time I have. Canadians, perhaps more than anyone else in the world, are attached to the idea of free trade. It seems to be more than simply an economic theory, as far as Canada is concerned. When free trade is mentioned as a concept, it has an ethical value. Canadians feel free trade is correct. There is a great deal in that. It is a philosophy which leads to a better international community which gives opportunities to developing countries to climb on to the engines of prosperity and do the various things other countries have done themselves. Some underdeveloped countries have developed to the point where they are able to give their citizens a high standard of life.
Developing countries have been too literal in their search for models and have tended to copy the example of eighteenth century and nineteenth century England. At that time the United Kingdom went through its industrial revolution, which was built on the textile business. Later it was developed into the shoe business. In various developing countries the literal message taken has been, "let us get into the textile business because it worked in England in the nineteenth century. Let us get into the shoe business-it worked in England in the late nineteenth century." The result of all that has been a glut in those two industries, which has caused serious problems for the
Trade
textile and shoe industries in all developed countries, in ours perhaps more than others.
I do not know very much about the textile and shoe business in other countries, but in Canada I know that these industries are in very serious trouble because of the glut that has been created by the developing countries copying that model. In a sense I do not think I have heard anyone in the House attack the government measures that have been designed to support these industries, but those measures adopted by the Canadian government for these industries-which, incidentally, I support as well-are not consistent in the long term with the kind of free trade goals for which most Canadians stand. So we have responded in the way that other developed countries have responded, with some kind of anti-free trade temporary measures.
There are other measures that operate against the goal of free trade which, as I indicated, is generally supported, as a concept by all Canadians. There are all kinds of non-tariff barriers which have been developed, and I think that in Canada perhaps the non-tariff barriers are far less significant as a block to imports than they are in any other country.
I heard last night from one of my constituents that his neighbour is an importer of cocoa mats. He told me that the importer was very unhappy with the government and that he would never vote Liberal again because of his experiences recently. I asked my friend for details, and it turns out that a shipment of cocoa mats from India arrived at the customs in Canada. This man had ordered the mats. He went down to start processing them. Incidentally, these cocoa mats are one third the price of the rubber doormats that are manufactured in Canada. They are not nearly as durable, but they are far less expensive.
He tells me that, in his opinion, the officials of the Canadian government were deliberately delaying releasing those cocoa mats so that he could bring them into Canada and sell them. "Is this the kind of thing for which the Canadian government wishes to claim responsibility, to make it more expensive for consumers to buy these cocoa mats, because it costs me $50 or $60 a day to be there every day, fighting to get the cocoa mat documentation approved to get the mats into the country?" he asked.
I did not know whether in fact the delay which he encountered was really caused by deliberate stalling as a kind of non-tariff barrier, but I was able to tell him some of the adventures which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) had related in the House about the difficulty Canadian farmers have met in getting products into the U.S. market, about how trucks full of strawberries and tomatoes going down to the U.S. market from Canada in the summer will be kept sitting for days and days while they rot, while documentation is examined and they are searched for marijuana and other products that are not on the list, in other words, by a whole variety of measures whose purpose, at least to the exporter from Canada, appeared to be to slow down trade.

December 8, 1977
Trade
We know very well that there are a great many non-tariff barriers which have to be addressed. If anything, Canada has been a boy scout with respect to non-tariff barriers. You do not see that anywhere as markedly in Canadian society as you do in government procurement. I noticed that this government seems ready to accept foreign goods virtually on the same terms as Canadian goods, provided of course that the price is lower. I recall hearing about the turbines purchased recently from the Soviet government by B.C. Hydro.


An hon. Member:: Alberta Hydro.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Or was it Japanese turbines purchased by B.C. Hydro, when we have perfectly good industries which are, unfortunately, in central Canada. Perhaps that was held against them in B.C. I am not certain if that was the objection to them, but it is obvious that these non-tariff barriers will make it very much more difficult for us to approach the goal of free trade that I think we would find to be in our own best interests.
It was argued from the other side that free trade is not really the goal of the other industrialized countries but that, for example, the EEC countries, as the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth said, want free trade in manufactured goods within their own territory. I think he is wrong about that. I would not want to guess what the public opinion in EEC countries is, but I know that protectionism is a very easy option for the man in the street who feels his job is threatened or who finds his son or daughter has difficulty getting a job.
The problem of the high number of unemployed in Europe will not be solved by increasing protectionism and closing the doors tighter, except at the price of reducing the standard of living of the people in western Europe, and I do not think that is a desirable option for them. Their leaders know that, and they know that opening their doors in return for having increased access to other markets would bring more benefits to them.
Then there is the problem of Japan. Japan wants increased access for its own goods, but so far it has managed to keep its doors shut relatively tight to make it very difficult for Europe, for Canada and for the United States to have the opportunity to get into its markets. What a shot in the arm it would be for the economy of Europe, of the United States and for our economy, to have a chance at an open door into Japan on the same kind of terms that Japan has had here!
The hon. member member for Waterloo-Cambridge said a moment ago that his past experience with tariff negotiations had made him very pessimistic. He said that our record in the past justified a lack of confidence in how successful our negotiators at Geneva will be in this round. I do not know what experience he is looking at, but if he is looking at the Kennedy Round, the last liberalization of tariffs, he would have to concede that that particular venture was extremely beneficial to Canada. Canada came away from the Kennedy Round with many more opportunities than it had before, and with relatively fewer sacrifices by its industries than were made other countries.

May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m. this day.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I speak tonight on this opposition motion. I consider this to be one of the most important debates we are going to have in this House in this session because the government has not really addressed itself to the question of the GATT negotiations at Geneva. It is also one of the most important issues which will affect Canada not only at the present time but also well into the 1990's and possibly beyond. I think that can be borne out by the number of questions which have been asked by members of the opposition over the past few months. I would like to deal tonight with what I consider to be the most important parts of the GATT negotiations at Geneva, and also to deal at some length with agriculture as it pertains to GATT and with what we in Canada would like to see in terms of our negotiations.
The long-term goal for the Canadian economy still should be one of free trade. That should be something to keep in the back of our minds. I believe it should also be in our minds when any policy is formulated, but the reality in Canada today is such that to pursue a free trade policy at this time would be in my opinion-and I think this is emerging as the consensus in the Canadian community-sheer madness. The following illustrates this point.
In terms of our total merchandise trade our country has had a surplus since the early 1960's, with the exception of 1975 when our exports were severely curtailed by the recession in the United States. On the face of this evidence one might conclude that we really do not have a trade problem at all. Unfortunately, this long string of surpluses in total merchandise trade has tended to obscure some of the rather alarming trends in the secondary manufacturing sector, and this is the area to which I would like to address myself tonight.
All during the 1960's there was an annual trade deficit in manufactured products of about $3 billion. This deficit has been growing larger since the beginning of this decade, and last year it was well over $10 billion. This worsening trade deficit in manufactured products cannot be attributed to just one or two areas. The sad fact is that Canada's trade deficit in manufactured products is getting worse in every single commodity group and with every important country with which we trade. Up until just a few years ago we were content to let our exports of natural resources offset the growing deficit in manufactured products, and this has certainly been well docu-
December 8, 1977

merited. However, in the past few years we have been jolted into a realization that our resources are not infinite.
The question which must be asked is: how much longer can we continue to rely on our exports of raw materials and semi-processed goods to offset our inadequate performance in our secondary sector? How much longer can we continue to ignore the number of lost job opportunities resulting from this inadequate performance? In very rough terms, last year's $10 billion trade deficit in manufactured goods translated into somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200,000 jobs for the Canadian economy.
The federal government's rationale appears to be that Canadian manufacturing companies are not competitive because the market is too small to provide economies of scale in manufacturing such as those available to companies in Europe, Japan and the United States. Therefore we should seek access to those markets, and the mechanism to achieve this is a reduction of tariffs and the removal of non-tariff barriers. This philosophy, in my opinion, is based on theoretical consideration, and it ignores the reality of world trade as it functions, and the realities of the economic environment in which we operate here in Canada. Canadian companies are not competing with French, British or Japanese companies but against the combined efforts of those companies and the governments of the countries in which they operate.
The negotiating strategy of those countries at Geneva are part of the industrial strategies of the countries, and those industrial strategies reflect the philosophy that a strong domestic base for industry is a necessary prerequisite to a competitive export position. However, in Canada we do not have that equivalent, articulated industrial strategy. In addition to this we do not have a competitive and economic environment from which to operate.
Trade issues for Canada are very complex but there are two outstanding matters that must be given serious consideration. First is the cost crisis, and second our proximity to the United States. I should like to deal with both very briefly.
Dealing first with cost, we find that material costs in Canada are in general higher than they are in countries with which we compete-those being the EEC, the United States and Japan. While the basic raw materials may not carry substantially higher costs, the semi-processed materials going into manufacturing carry the higher cost of wage rates, taxation, interest rates and social programs that are in advance of those in other countries with which we compete. That is one of the reasons why it is extremely difficult for Canada to attain a comparable standard of efficiency. Secondary manufacturing, in turn, has the higher cost of plant construction, equipment costs, labour rates, interest rates, and social programs.
The average labour rates in manufacturing in Canada are now about 65 cents per hour above those in the United States. Particular rates show an even greater spread depending on the various commodities and areas about which we are talking. We are therefore vulnerable to lower cost imports, and the $10
Trade
billion deficit in manufactured goods is a tangible manifestation of our problem.
In short, we are in no position to take advantage of the access we are trying to negotiate, and we are vulnerable to the further access we are prepared to grant.
Cost regulations on such matters as packaging and minimum wages, the cost of running the public service, the rapid and accumulated moves to enrich social programs, are all problems that we, as a country, must face up to and try to solve if we are to be competitive.
What is really being said is that we must get our house in order before seeking access to lower cost markets and before granting easier access to Canada for producers in those markets.
This brings us to the matter of Canada's proximity to the United States. We cannot talk about our economic position or the GATT negotiations without talking about Canada vis-a-vis the United States. In recent months several studies have been made on the cost of manufacturing in the United States relative to such costs in Canada. They all indicate that the cost to manufacturers in the United States is 20 per cent to 25 per cent lower than in Canada, and it is not the scale of manufacturing that determines the difference, as the government would have us believe. The difference is in the cost of plant construction, cost of equipment, cost of labour, cost of capital, and cost of many forms of taxation. The scale of manufacturing does have an effect but it is certainly not as drastic an effect as the above-mentioned factors.
If we were to seek a greater share of the United States market with the greater access that is being negotiated, I do not believe that we would be able to compete from Canada. The threat we face is that large, efficient, low-cost manufacturing exists today in the United States, and a significant cut in tariffs will make it just that much easier for it to sell in Canada.
In summing up our negotiating position, I do not believe that the government has conducted adequate studies of the impact on unemployment and on investment that will arise from the result of the current round of trade negotiations. This is one of the things that makes the Canadian public so uneasy when we talk about these negotiations and where they may lead us. What is of concern to most Canadians is that government policy appears, at this time, to pursue maximum across the board reductions in tariffs.
In the area of agriculture it should be noted that nothing has been done-no policy put forward, no idea about where we are going. The Canadian agricultural community is truly concerned that it could be traded for some industrial concessions. The agricultural community is also concerned that time will not be available for the government to put forward a meaningful proposal.
Time and time again members on this side of the House have asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) for a clear indication of what the government is preparing to do. I should like to examine a few agricultural commodities because

December 8, 1977
Trade
I think it is important that we review the situation in its proper context. I should like to start with that very important industry, the horticultural industry.
As expected, imports of horticultural products in 1977 will be over $1 billion, with further decreases in the degree of protection offered the industry due to the inflationary factor and our specific rate of duty. This is truly shocking for an agriculturally enriched country like Canada. Many Canadians do not realize the importance of Canada's fruit and vegetable processing industry which is part of the total horticultural industry, the one most concerned in our trade negotiations.
Although the total value of processed fruit and vegetable products in Canada in 1975 was $981,885,000 it was only 1.1 per cent of the total gross national product. To put this figure in perspective, it should be pointed out that the economy of such regions as the Okanagan and the Fraser Valley in British Columbia, southwestern and central Ontario, the Niagara region, and Prince Edward and Hastings counties in Ontario, the eastern townships of Quebec, the Saint John River Valley in New Brunswick, and the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia are, to a large degree, dependent on the horticultural industry.
In fact in British Columbia fruit production accounted for 36 per cent of the total receipts from all crops, and 12 per cent of all cash receipts in 1975.
The vegetable industry accounted for 53 per cent of the 1974 total farm value cash receipts from crops in the Maritime provinces and 45 per cent in Quebec.
It has been proposed on various occasions that Canada should concentrate on those agricultural crops with which it can compete on world markets, such as wheat, oilseeds, white beans, apples, and perhaps potatoes. It should be pointed out, however, that the agricultural industry in Canada is, by its very nature, regional, and only certain crops can be produced economically in specific areas and under certain conditions.
Before I leave the horticultural industry I should like to state that what it is really asking for is a degree of protection so that it could develop increased production and supply a greater portion of the domestic market. It is asking for fair tariffs, an equalization of tariffs. If this were granted and there was increased production, the industry would become more competitive on the export market.
The dairy industry is looking to the Geneva talks in the hope that fairer tariffs will be negotiated. The meat industry is seeking better access through negotiations to the United States markets and lower tariffs on processed and semi-processed meats. We would like to see greater access to the European Common Market for oil seeds, barley, and wheat. In terms of pork we would like greater access into Japan. These are all areas of concern to agriculture in the trade talks that are continuing. Up to this point, Mr. Speaker, nothing has been done.
What should our policy responses be in terms of our GATT negotiations? In evaluating the present government's policy

response, the conclusion must be a somewhat blind move to significantly lower tariffs. I would like to deal with two or three areas that the government has been looking at, and come up with what hopefully would be a conclusion.
If we move during these negotiations to freer trade, which means lower tariffs, it is my contention that many industries in the country would not survive. Among the ones that would survive would be most resource industries, any industry producing on a world scale, and some agricultural production- grains and oil seeds. While the above mentioned areas of the economy are important, they constitute only a small portion of our total economy.
The second option would be if we, as a country, move to a more protected market or increase our tariffs, and this would also be unacceptable. The eventuality of increasing tariffs would be that the tariffs would have to be increased from time to time to keep up the protection that many industries would become used to, and while this would benefit some industries, for the whole country it would be incorrect.
The third option would be a move to adjust our tariffs to be nearer to our competitors' level and, if needed, use the proper sections of GATT to stop dumping from other countries. In other words, what we should be looking for in Canada is not freer trade but fairer trade. This approach would place agriculture and industry on a similar tariff basis to that of other countries. While no one would deny that our long-term goal should be freer trade, it would be politically and economically stupid to lower tariffs significantly at this time. As an example, our horticulutre industry would be virtually wiped out.
The approach most appropriate should be an equalization of tariffs where necessary, coupled with a commercial policy to assist industries that need help, or to help industries relocate, if that need should arise in the coming year. A commercial policy that recognizes the burden of social programs, excess taxation, labour rates, interest rates, etc., is absolutely critical at this particular stage in our history.
In conclusion, I have proposed no profound economic theories, or no quick cures. What I have tried to state tonight is that the government must first inform the Canadian people as to what is taking place in terms of our international negotiations because they are so important, and then move in a realistic manner to deal with our tariffs as they apply to Canadian industry-agriculture and manufacturing. If this is done, Canada could move with certainty into the 1980's with a positive trading position on which we could build sound, constructive policies here in this country.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, this evening we have a very general motion which really seeks to cover the whole waterfront in relation to a wide variety of domestic and international economic affairs.
It is difficult, in reading the motion, to distil from it its essentials. I shall not attempt to cover all of the issues raised by it. I do note references in the motion to world trade and to agriculture. That brings me immediately to a very crucial
December 8, 1977

matter, the development of a new world agreement on wheat marketing, including economic provisions affecting both grain reserves and prices. It will be useful this evening to spend some time on this subject. It is an important part of Canadian trade policy in so far as western Canada is concerned, and it is especially important for prairie grain producers who are facing a very serious cost-price squeeze situation, who are concerned about the development of proper and effective measures to strengthen their grain income positions.
Some very useful measures are already on the books in this connection, for example, the Western Grain Stabilization Plan, the two-price system for wheat, and the action taken this year to hold this year's initial payment at the same level as that existing for the last crop year. There are a number of others as well. The list of modifications and improvements in our grain production, handling, transportation and marketing operation in the past decade or so is extensive and remarkable when you take the time to consider it.
Taken together all of these changes give us a rather effective package of policies to assist prairie producers in coping with what otherwise could be an extremely difficult income situation. But one useful addition to that over-all package of policies which I would like to see, and which undoubtedly would provide Canadian grain producers with the most comprehensive protection against adverse market conditions internationally, would be a new, effective, and workable arrangement on world wheat marketing. Traditionally the development of such an agreement, including economic terms, has been a part of Canadian trade policy.
Sometimes our trading partners have agreed with us and sometimes some of them have not. Probably Australia has been one of our most consistent allies in this regard. In the United States the attitude has varied from time to time, but the present administration and the present United States secretary of agriculture, Mr. Bergland, have been positive, helpful and enthusiastic.
From a domestic point of view Canada's starting point in these discussions is important, and our first concern is the position of the Canadian grain producer. The farmer's opinions and aspirations are crucial. While the Government of Canada must formally be the international negotiator, the negotiation will be done directly on behalf of producers, and any world agreement we sign must be acceptable to and supported by Canadian grain producers.
Our basic idea is first and foremost the establishment of a range of prices which would be regarded as sound and reasonable by both exporters and importers around the world. To keep prices from falling below the lower end of that agreed range we would want to have a mechanism for accumulating excess stocks in a world reserve which would be stored off the market and not over-hanging the market in order to keep the downward pressure off the price.
Secondly, we would want all participants in such an agreement to help bear the costs of that storage because it is an advantage not only to exporters such as Canada, which would want to have an inventory on hand in order to be able to meet
Trade
the various exporting opportunities that present themselves, but it is also a very real and practical advantage to the importers of this world to benefit from a fundamental security of supply. Up to now North American farmers have essentially borne the world's storage costs. We believe that is unfair. We want to see the burden of those costs shared around the world among the grain trading nations.
Of course, at the upper end of the agreed price range which I described earlier, as we see the proposed agreement, the reserve stocks could begin to be released into the world's markets once again. That is the gist of the kind of agreement toward which we should be working. I suppose the fundamental question at this stage is-can we achieve it? I believe so. I am optimistic about our prospects in that connection. We made substantial progress in this past year.
The interest of the present minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board in a new and workable international wheat agreement goes back many years, to the late sixties and early seventies, just after he was first appointed. Unfortunately, some other major grain exporters at that time were not as enthusiastic. Early this year the minister responsible for the Wheat Board had occasion to discuss the situation once again with the new United States secretary of agriculture, Mr. Bergland. Mr. Bergland and the Canadian minister were largely in agreement about the desirability of a new world wheat accord and on the fundamentals upon which it could operate effectively. The ball finally was rolling in a positive direction after a good many years.
The next step was to have informal discussions with the Australians and the Argentinians to confirm a common view among the world's major grain exporters. Then the focus shifted to the sessions of the International Wheat Council in London. That council is composed of some 45 to 50 nations, the world's major importing and exporting grain nations. All the major international interests are represented there, with the one major exception of the People's Republic of China. It has proven, this year particularly, to be a very useful forum for the preparatory talks which have been going on toward what we hope will be the successful negotiation of a new world wheat accord.
For some weeks now officials of the International Wheat Council countries have been working to assemble the fundamental international basis upon which a formal agreement might proceed. It is Canada's hope that those talks will bear fruit within the next couple of months or so, in order that a final formal round of negotiations could be held in the late winter or early spring, probably in Geneva under the auspices of the United Nations. Canada is determined to do everything it can to help resolve any international differences which may exist so that these world discussions can prove, in the final analysis, to be successful.
In this effort it is useful to bear in mind that the sucessful negotiation of a new world wheat accord, which would bring a new measure of stability to world wheat prices, would also

December 8, 1977
Trade
make it easier for some countries to implement certain other commitments with respect to international trade which might be under negotiations in the MTN. The MTN and the international wheat talks are, of course, quite separate items, but if we are able to negotiate the new international wheat agreement successfully, that could have, in addition to its obvious direct impact, a positive bearing on the MTN discussions, making certain trade undertakings of certain countries somewhat easier to accept and to fulfil.
There is one further aspect of Canada's initiative toward a new world wheat agreement which deserves attention, Mr. Speaker. I refer specifically to the Canadian trade and diplomatic mission led by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, which visited a number of Pacific rim countries in September and October of this year.


William James Kempling: Who went with him?


Ralph Goodale: Work on the international wheat agreement was a priority agenda item for Canada to discuss in Australia, China and Japan in particular. In answer to the question just asked from across the way, I was indeed pleased and honoured to have an opportunity to participate in those talks.
A whirlwind tour like that one was, covering many thousands of miles in just a few days and including a heavy schedule of serious discussions, is an exhausting experience, to say the least, but at the end it is gratifying to be able to report positive progress in the work that has been undertaken. Our talks with senior representatives in the countries which were visited were encouraging and productive, particularly with respect to the development of a new international agreement on world wheat marketing. I believe we are closer now than ever before to the successful negotiation of a fair and workable grain arrangement, including provisions affecting price ranges and reserves.
In Australia we met with the deputy prime minister and minister for overseas trade, the right honourable Douglas Anthony, and also with the minister of primary industry, the right honourable Ian Sinclair, and senior Australian trade officials. In these talks we wanted to review with them the major elements of proposals for a new world wheat accord in preparation for the international talks involving both importers and exporters which are taking place this fall in London. We believe that it is important for Australia and Canada, two of the world's leading grain sellers, to have a consistent fundamental approach in this matter so as to ensure the best possible arrangement for our respective grain producers and the greatest beneficial impact resulting from the enthusiasm in the United States for a new world agreement. We were able in those discussions to confirm the understanding between Canada and Australia regarding the fundamentals of such an agreement.
In China and Japan the development of an agreement was analysed primarily from the importers' point of view. Together these two buyers account for almost one half of Canadian grain exports. It was obviously important to reassure our good customers about our intentions in this matter and to report on the work done to date.

In China we stressed our view that the Chinese, who are not currently members of the International Wheat Council, should join these wheat talks to represent directly at the bargaining table one of the world's largest consuming nations. Senior officials in the Chinese government have that suggestion under consideration and Canada is hopeful that they will give the idea careful attention.
In Japan we found support for the search for ways to bring stability into the world's grain markets. The Japanese have already involved themselves usefully in the discussions so far. Incidentally, it is probably also useful to note that virtually everywhere we went on the mission, buyers of grain commented upon the quality of Canadian grain as probably the best in the world, and expressed general satisfaction about Canadian grain delivery services. They were pleased to learn of our current plans to expand storage space on the west coast and to revitalize our prairie rail network, which will render our export operations that much more efficient. Canada is generally regarded as a trusted and reliable supplier of grain, and with the continuing solid performance of the Canadian Wheat Board I believe we will figure prominently in future grain trading operations in the Pacific rim region.
This mission to the Far East and the work I mentioned which is being done on world wheat marketing are of fundamental importance to Canada, particularly to the west, and represent, I believe, a positive, practical initiative to support and strengthen a key part of the Canadian economy.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as we all know only too well, this country is faced today with an $11.5 billion trade deficit in fully manufactured products. Those are the products which produce jobs or, if we do not get sales, cause unemployment. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association has stated that if we can overcome this very large deficit we will be able to provide more than 800,000 new jobs for Canadians. That, Mr. Speaker, would just about wipe out the present very serious unemployment existing in the country today.
In order to overcome this huge deficit we must make our products more attractive to prospective buyers, both in Canada and abroad, in terms of price, quality and design. The reason we have this enormous deficit in manufactured products is that not only Canadians but many people living abroad have found that foreign-made products are lower in price and better in quality than those we have been turning out. They have been buying foreign goods in ever increasing quantities in preference to Canadian goods.
To make our products more competitive we must do three things. First, we must improve our productivity in order to lower costs and selling prices. Second, we must encourage more industrial research in an effort to develop new and more efficient methods of producing goods which are of better quality and more attractive design. Third, we should encourage our producers to make more trips abroad with the object of getting into personal contact with potential buyers and
December 8, 1977

finding out what is required to meet competition in the markets visited. The products which are turned out as a result of the information thus gained ought then to be displayed at foreign trade fairs and in the course of personal calls on overseas buyers.
To persuade Canadian businessmen to do these necessary things, the government must make available generous incentives, to be paid in direct proportion to the effort that is made and the results achieved. It is a waste of money simply to make large sums of money available to industry in the hope that the money will be used in the way the government wishes it to be used. The reason for this is because businessmen have three options open to them. They can pay out the extra money in additional dividends, or they can put the money into the company's reserve, or they can use the money to carry out the government's wishes. If the monetary rewards are paid in direct proportion to the results achieved, the government, which is the Canadian taxpayer, receives 100 per cent value for the money which is spent.
Speaking in this House on October 21 last, I outlined in detail the incentives I believe should be offered to industry to bring about the results which are necessary, and there is no need to take up the time of the House to outline them again at this time.
I would now like to deal with the trade negotiations under GATT. In the negotiations which are now being held under the world organization known as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the Canadian government has indicated it is willing to allow manufacturers in other countries to have freer access to the Canadian market in return for easier entry of our raw materials into those countries.
Such action as the government is planning at the present time, and which is being negotiated behind closed doors at Geneva, will make it much harder for Canadian companies to sell Canadian products in Canada because our much larger competitors have lower costs of production as a result of their much greater size. They can therefore undersell our producers and bring about higher unemployment in this country.
I want to remind the government that we must overcome this enormous adverse trade balance in manufactured goods amounting to more than $ 11 billion, which is the main cause of the present high figure of unemployment, 8.4 per cent, which prevails today. The kind of action in which the government is engaged in Geneva will make this figure considerably higher. It seems to me there is no check upon what the government is doing in Geneva. We are given no information by the government directly; in order to find out anything one has to talk to those who are actually taking part in the negotiations. In my view the government should advise the negotiators that the prime objective of this country is to overcome the huge trade deficit in manufacturing production which I have mentioned, and in this way to begin making available to Canadians the 800,000 new jobs which will be made available by so doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Trade


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate and to be able to follow the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees). The years since he was minister of industry, trade and commerce have obviously not served to bring to him to understand the realities of the world trade situation if what he said is any measure of his true analysis of the situation rather than an attempt to put the current figures in a partisan frame for the purposes of this debate.


George Harris Hees: Is the hon. gentleman referring to my speech? Of all the impertinence! I have never heard anything like it in my life.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: The hon. member has quoted himself in sanctimonious assurance that everyone accepts without question what he was saying.


George Harris Hees: I was simply giving the facts.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: The hon. member, as a true Tory, is loathe to face the world in a competitive spirit. He is more inclined to fear the unknown, to be fearful that Canada's participation in the world trade conference is certain to result in disaster.


George Harris Hees: I just fear the obvious.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: In the few minutes he spoke he told us he was not able to get any information except from the people who were directly taking part in the negotiations. One is bound to ask who, in Geneva, he was speaking to, because the information we have-


George Harris Hees: They are even keeping it from you. I guess the cabinet will be the last to learn.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: The fact is, Canada must play a part in these negotiations. It is no use fooling ourselves into believing that the world is ordering its trade arrangements in order to suit Canada. It is no use trying to delude ourselves we can avoid the consequences of being one of the largest trading nations in the world. If these negotiations were to fail, if we were to sink back into the kind of trade wars which took place in the thirties, the same disastrous consequences would recur. The consequences of a country like Japan finding itself barred from the markets it enjoys today by walls of protection, as far as the political stability of the Far East and the world is concerned, would be very dire indeed.
The fact is we are participating actively in these discussions. Any real analysis of the negotiations will show the protections being built into them, the complexity of them, and the objectives which are part of the tariffs. The objectives give us an opportunity to enjoy much greater trade. If we walked away from the table and indicated that we were not participating in this negotiation, because we were afraid it would damage our ability to export, the very reverse would happen: we would be cast behind our own walls attempting, with a narrow market of 23 million or 24 million people, to survive in a world well
1712

December 8, 1977
Trade
prepared to go aggressively forward and cut tariffs in this manner.
The Tokyo Round had four objectives when it was commenced. First, there was the reduction or the elimination of trade restrictive or trade distorting effects of non-tariff measures, and the bringing of such measures under more effective international scrutiny and discipline. Second, there was a significant improvement in the terms of access for agricultural exports. Third, there was an examination, as a complementary technique, of a comprehensive attack on all barriers to trade in certain carefully defined sectors, especially from the Canadian perspective where these impede the processing or upgrading of resources in the country of origin. Fourth, there was an examination of the adequacy of the multilateral safeguard system with a view to furthering trade liberalization and preserving its results.
The working out of the ways and means has been a difficult and complicated chore. At the outset there was the intent of the Americans to achieve deep cuts of some 60 per cent. This was countered by the expectations of the European community to have shallow cuts of some 25 per cent. It would appear the track being followed by the key nations now is that which is known as the Swiss formula, and perhaps it will be in the nature of 40 per cent.
As our economy has demonstrated, this is a difficult time for these cuts to be contemplated. Other nations face the same prospects and are voicing many of the same concerns. In addition to the level of the tariff cut, there has been a recognition that there must be a phasing in. In actual fact, the general phasing-in period is over some ten years. In effect it could be something in the order of 5 per cent or something a little more per year, if this were accepted. In any event it gives the nations of the world an opportunity to adjust to the cuts over some ten years.
Members of the opposition are failing to recognize that over the last year the effective devaluation of the Canadian dollar against the United States dollar, coupled with the very substantial devaluation of both dollars against the currencies of Europe and Japan, have provided us with a far greater advantage or cut in the tariffs of those countries than will be contemplated by these tariff negotiations, even after the ten year phasing-in period. The challenge is to utilize this opportunity we have with a devalued dollar.
We must not kid ourselves. The devalued dollar has a very high price for consumers in the importation of goods, and it is a painful dilemma for those who have regularly enjoyed the importation of goods. For those concerned, the opportunities provided by the devaluation, if exploited, can result in very substantial improvements in our trading position. Canadian industry has indeed demonstrated an ability in natural resource areas such as fishing and the products produced by western Canada. Great opportunities are already being exploited.
The hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) indicated that last year Canada sold some 40 per cent more steel to the United States than the year previously. That

indicates we have competitive industries, and we are making great inroads in the world trade.
The published reports that are being made about our tariff negotiations indicate the exceptions which will be built into the program, the opportunities, the flexibility, and the fact that if Canada exploits its opportunities it will enjoy great trading advantages. The deficiencies we suffer because of our narrow population base can be removed. We can look at the major industrial countries of the world and recognize that there are great possibilities to be taken advantage of by us.
In these negotiations we are seeking the elimination of some tariffs of 5 per cent or less, particularly in our resource based industries. It is of interest that two thirds of the dutiable goods we sell to the United States are in this category. A more serious, thoughtful, and careful analysis of our trading and negotiating posture, and the actual realities of the Geneva negotiations, will show that we have great opportunities.
Apart from the tariff cuts there was a more important feature, that is, an attempt to develop a code dealing with non-tariff barriers. People I have spoken to in industry, in my own constituency and elsewhere, do not necessarily complain about tariffs, nor do they complain about imports making competition impossible. They believe the only reason some countries are able to sell in Canada is because of the artificial opportunities created by measures which are unfair and improper, and not because of the lower wage rates. On the other side of the coin, the difficulties faced by our exporters in markets such as Japan and other countries are the barriers which are occasioned by complex paper work and other things apparently designed to foreclose the opportunities for trade. The acceptance of a working code for non-tariff barriers by countries such as Japan will provide great benefits for this country and its export programs.
In tariff negotiations such as this, there must be a number of safeguards. It is essential to the negotiations that these safeguards are real, carefully designed, and enforced in order for Canada to deal effectively with the problem of its industries being victimized by imports dumped in this country.
I have attempted in a few minutes, somewhat informally, to view the areas of concern and to show that our friends opposite are not attempting to provide the House with the real facts, are not attempting to look at these GATT negotiations in a positive and optimistic fashion, and are failing to recognize that we are in a real world, not a dream world, and we have to trade in this world. We have spent our time telling the rest of the world what a great trading nation we are, that we are one of the great trading nations of the world. That implies we have to sit at the table and participate in trade negotiations. The fact is that the Tory mentality leads them to put their heads in the sand and let the troubles pass over, whereas the Liberal party, faced with the governing of this country, has to participate in these negotiations, to recognize its responsibilities, and to make certain that they continue successfully.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 8, 1977


George Harris Hees: Some day you will talk to some real businessman and you will have a great revelation.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I have talked with businessmen and I know that many of them are concerned with the consequences of these negotiations. Many of them are concerned with a variety of problems, and this is one of them, but no one doubts that if the trade negotiations result in reduced tariffs this will impose some additional challenges on Canadian businessmen. The problem is that if these negotiations fail, there will be no market whatever for Canadian products, and the only thing we would be able to do to protect our manufacturers is to follow the old Tory principle of erecting higher and higher tariff walls in the vain hope that we can keep our industries thriving and alive, whereas those of us who know the real world and know that there is no prospect, however high your tariff walls, of hiding behind them in a narrow market such as Canada's, know that it is only in a world of freer trade that real prosperity can be enjoyed by all countries and that the kinds of markets that we need for our products can be found.


George Harris Hees: You are not even convincing yourself, Tony.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I know that I could not convince the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees). He is a long veteran of the wars here and he has gone back and utilized the experience of his own successful career as minister of trade. But those distant, early years are gone. We have now moved on; we are living in a different world. We are living in a highly competitive world now.


George Harris Hees: Yes, we have a $5 billion deficit in trade in manufactured goods.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: These are not the days of the early 1960's when the hon. member had an easy time summoning trade commissioners and handing out cuff links to them with his name engraved on them, urging them to go out and sell. We are now living in a complex trading pattern.


George Harris Hees: You are telling stories your daddy told you, Tony.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: You know, Mr. Speaker, it is a pathetic thing to see a distinguished figure like the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings lowering himself to uttering a jibe like that. I would have hoped he could have said something a little more stimulating. That is not good enough.
I know that others have some valuable comments to offer us tonight.


George Harris Hees: Thank God something new is coming up.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I thought it was essential to relieve the monotonous recitation of fallacious rubbish, which we have heard from the other side, with a few, hard, cold facts about what is going on in the trading world, and I hope that when the hon. member stops barracking he will recognize he has a great deal to learn, and he will start talking to some enlightened businessmen in Toronto and set himself straight.
Trade


George Harris Hees: Tony, you are a great performer.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I think the most sensible thing to do is ignore everything that came from the previous speaker and to go on to something that is perhaps more worth while.
Those were interesting times and ones I certainly remember well when the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), used to be able to speak well in the House. Today, of course, it was sad to hear him. He did not even read well the speech which was prepared for him by his department. In fact it was very painful to recognize that here was a man having to say things which went against his grain and against his beliefs as he stated them previously.
We live in a nation filled with economic problems. We have a $9.2 billion deficit. That is more than the total budget when this government took power. We are in a situation where our dollar dropped to 89 cents this year, and here is the minister trying to tell the Canadian people that our economy is one of the strongest in the world. He is trying to tell the Canadian people that, by golly, it is a good thing that the dollar dropped that low. His reasoning is that it is good for our exports and that, when the value of our dollar drops, we can move our exports into the international marketplace. But what he failed to admit is that whenever there are exports, there are also imports. The low value of the dollar has affected our imports very much.
I was appalled to hear a man who comes from a rural, farming, ranching riding defending that kind of a position, knowing full well that the low value of the dollar is having catastrophic effects on farmers and ranchers in connection with the importation of farm machinery throughout western Canada and the Atlantic region. The truth of the matter is that when we asked him today what was going to happen to farm machinery, he said the Canadian people could buy from Versatile or from Co-op Implements, knowing all the while that those are two of the smaller manufacturers of farm machinery on the North American continent and that, even though Versatile is a Canadian company, the president of that company is on record as having said that he will not expand any more in Canada. According to the president, economic conditions in Canada are too poor, and any expansion of the Versatile company will take place in the state of North Dakota.
We witnessed a very sad performance by the minister who tried to convince us that we have a strong economy. If you took a look at the Financial Post of a month or two ago you would have found an insert the size of Time magazine which said that the reason why the Japanese are not investing in this country is that our labour wages are too high, we have too many strikes, we have lost our competitive position, and our productivity is down in comparison with that of other major trading nations. The same situation prevails in West Germany. But here we have a minister telling us in a speech written for him, that we have one of the finest and strongest economies in the western world. He knows full well that the people of this country know better than that, that this is simply not the case.
80027 - 3914

December 8, 1977
Trade
Just 20 years ago, 28 per cent of our gross national product was going into government expenditures. Under the Trudeau regime that grew to 42 per cent of the GNP going into government expenditure. The minister promised us a rose garden. Then he went on to smell, feel and pat the roses, all the while leaving the citizen out there nestling among the thorns. There is no justification for saying that Canada's economy is in a position of strength, especially when you recognize that when the government took power this country had the second highest per capita income in the world. Today we are in the tenth place, with Belgium one place above us in the ninth. No amount of rationalization, no amount of selective data, no amount of searching in a particular corner of industry, trade and commerce will justify saying that Canada has had a good performance in view of the tremendous slippage in the international market place.
I would be remiss if 1 did not point out how disappointed 1 am that, at a time when the economy is one of the major concerns of our country, the minister stayed in the House today only to give his own speech and to wander around occasionally. A few days ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) moaned about having to spend so much of his time sitting here because he has a bill before the House. At least he was conscientious enough to stay here while something of importance to his department was before this House. Today we are zeroing in on a major department on a critical matter, and I think it is a real slap and an affront to parliament to avoid being present.
We on this side cannot say that we love a 90 cent dollar. Canadians will have to pay dearly for imports. During the winter months more than one third of our food is imported. A devalued dollar means that every consumer who eats imported food will be paying an extra cost. It will not be possible to tell consumers that the devalued dollar is good, because it will have an obvious and definite sting.
We have an expensive government. This government has put us into a $9.2 billion debt. Who pays? People from Newfoundland to Vancouver pay. Of government revenues in this country in 1968, 34 per cent came from personal income tax. Of government revenues in 1976, 53 per cent came from personal income tax. The average personal income taxpayer has had to pay for this government's overspending and economic mismanagement.
This country is a land of hope but no promise. We are adrift without the rudder of a strategy for industry. This could not be better documented than by the fact that Canada, with all its educated human resources and mineral and other natural resources, pays $12 million per day in unemployment insurance. That is absolutely appalling. We spend $1.97 billion more on unemployment insurance than we spend on national defence. We spend about $4 billion per year on unemployment insurance in a country with the greatest potential in resources in the world. The government thinks that is acceptable. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce says we have the

farmers could buy Versatile or Co-op farm implements. He Trudeau) says we expect and demand too much of our society. The Minister of Finance tells the Canadian people to spend more. Canadians can choose from any of those three cabinet viewpoints. However, it would be nice to have some consistency for a change, and a government with a sense of direction and a sense of purpose.
How insulting it must be for the people of Cape Breton to listen to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce saying that the people there have an "inappreciability" about attaining employment and that that is one of the reasons the government is slow in stimulating Cape Breton industry at a time when between 3,000 and 4,000 people are registered at the employment offices and looking for jobs in the coal industry. There is a minister in the cabinet who says that the people of Cape Breton have a lack of desire and that somehow they do not have the willpower to work, when 3,000 to 4,000 of them are lined up looking for work.


Robert Muir: He more or less said they were lazy.


Arnold John Malone: I am sure that was the connotation perceived by the average citizen.
This year's trade imbalance will be $11.5 billion, which in human terms means the loss of 850,000 Canadian jobs. The reason for this is a failure to adapt to the world market place. Regardless of what the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott) said a little while ago, the government has totally failed to recognize the shift in international trade patterns over the past ten years, the strengthening of the Japanese yen, the power of the Middle East oil countries, the development of the European Economic Community, and the strength of the American trade. While that was going on around the world, this country was preoccupied with internal matters. The Canadian government was talking about language and culture and forgetting that we had an international market place to keep pace with. I recognize that all countries need to be concerned about their internal problems, but never at the expense of their position in the international market place. This failure to be concerned about our economic position has resulted in Canada, as a nation, not being able to keep pace with the major shift in trade patterns which has taken place. That is one of the great downfalls of the government. It was so preoccupied with the internal self-consciousness of Canada that it failed to see that the world around us changed.
The Minister of State (Small Business) might try to show that he has the facts, but I submit to him that all he has to do is look at our status relative to our major trading partners to see that a country does not slip from the second highest per capita income in the world to tenth, behind Belgium, in a ten year period, without something obviously being wrong.
Canada has paid other countries to steal its markets. It does not make sense to close down cheese factories when Canadian Cheddar cheese is being rationed in England because there is so little available there. More important, the Export Development Corporation has been embarking upon programs which are and will continue to be a disadvantage to this country's
December 8, 1977

economy. The EDC gave $160 million to finance a pulp and paper mill in Poland. It supported that project in spite of the fact that our own pulp and paper industry is struggling to survive, and in spite of the fact that once the Polish people, with their cheaper labour force, start to produce pulp and paper for the international market, Canada will be at an even greater disadvantage. Today the minister attempted to defend that EDC action. He said that the Polish people can read, too. Of course they can, but Canadian money is being used to encourage industries in other countries which will hire workers in those countries and which will compete with our own industries at a time when we have a high rate of unemployment here. That is not acceptable.
Last summer the EDC announced that it would put $47 million into a mini-steel mill in Perth Amboy, New Jersey. That is not in Poland or in some Third World country. That is in the United States, and that brings to $100 million the amount Canadian taxpayers have lent to steel mills in St. Paul, Minnesota; Midlothian, Texas; and Sheerness, England. Meanwhile our own steel industry in Hamilton and Nova Scotia is encountering stiff competition and the prospect of further lay-offs in the Atlantic region, where the unemployment rate is already alarmingly high. The government argues that a Canadian firm got the contract to build the New Jersey plant, but that is merely a demonstration of the small-mindedness of this government. It says that if we build a plant in the United States, that will create Canadian jobs, but that is only for the short-term. In the long run we will have to compete with other countries which process steel. Those other countries will get the jobs, and they will compete with Canada, with the help of money lent to them by Canada in the first place. That also is not acceptable.
The Japanese have the strongest economy in the world. The Japanese strategy is to increase international sales efforts for existing products and to develop new products through government sponsored research. The Japanese spent $214 million over the last five years to help their computer industry compete with IBM's series 370. Canada has no similar program, but this year will spend $580 million on the CBC. I submit that when Japan tries to get its major competitive companies into the international market place they spend money on research. One of the things that Canada sadly lacks is that kind of competition research.
In 1971 foreign investment in this country amounted to $925 million. By 1976 it had decreased to $400 million, and at the present time we find that Canadians are investing more money outside this country than other countries are investing here. That underscores the fact that the average business person in this country has lost faith in the government and does not believe he can invest successfully any more. Canadian investors are transferring their money to other countries because the government does not have an industrial strategy.
In his speech today the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said that because it did not matter about imports,
Trade
farmers could buy Versatile or Co-op farm implements. He failed to recognize the 40 per cent increase in input cost in farming in 1976. I concede that there was a gross increase in farm income of 2 per cent, but that means a 38 per cent decrease in net income for farmers. The Minister's policy will simply squeeze them even harder. Such rash statements make his speech look as if it has the measles.
I am not prone to quoting Liberals, Mr. Speaker, but Senator Harry Hays has stated that, with the exception of Denmark, Canada has the lowest support for agriculture of any western cultured nation.
I think I ought to point out once again that there simply is no strategy for agriculture, for manufacturing, or for other kinds of industry. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has a package of celestial promises that spill as out of a popcorn popper without a lid. I applaud many of his concepts, but what we are seeing are promises and no action. That is the real problem. The minister talked about developing secondary petrochemical industries in the west. We would like to see that happen, but when we questioned him today about what is happening in the United States with reference to the sale of Canadian gas to that country and the promise that their State Department made to allow Canada new trade concessions if we send more gas, the minister said negotiations had been going on during the fall. The document I quoted from was dated November, and there was no evidence of a course of action at that time. I do not know when the minister thinks fall begins, but surely there ought to have been action by November and we know very well there has not been any. We note also-


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


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Now we will get the message.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I hope we get the message better than we got it from the last speaker. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) but I wonder if he was actually espousing Conservative party policy when he said-he can correct me if I am wrong-that the Export Development Corporation should not support any industry in other countries that may compete against Canada.


An hon. Member:: He did not say that at all.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I understood him to criticize the policy of this government for exporting technology to countries whether they be underdeveloped countries or one such as Poland which would not be called underdeveloped. I assumed that was the policy of the New Democratic Party. I know their policy is not very realistic, but I am surprised when a member stands up on an opposition day and criticizes the government for providing jobs to Canadian workers to send technology to other countries.

December 8, 1977
Trade
Surely the hon. member is not falling into the trap into which the NDP has fallen. They usually fall into economic traps quite easily. He seems to have fallen for the fallacy that it is Canada alone that has this technology and that if we do not sell it to other countries then those people will never obtain that technology. Surely anyone who has studied economics and who has looked at the world market can see that if we do not sell it to them they will buy it from somebody else, and we will have a greater trade deficit.
If the hon. member for Battle River suggests that this should be government policy, then let the House leader for the Conservative party stand up and say that is their policy. I respect the former minister of industry, trade and commerce in a former Conservative government. I know that would never be his policy, so I would appreciate it if he would stand up and say that is not a policy he supports. If the economic reasoning of the Conservative House leader is similar to that of the hon. member for Battle River, we would like to hear his comments as well.
If I may digress, Mr. Speaker, I was surprised and a little ashamed this afternoon during question period when hon. members opposite made reference to the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and some of his cabinet were not present. The Prime Minister was not, like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), crossing the country during times of high unemployment and in a national unity crisis, holding $125 per plate dinners.
Ad hon. Member: With the biggest turnout in Canadian history.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Hon. members opposite are getting angry. They do not like the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. We have only a few minutes left and there is another speaker. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that the way to find out about unemployment is at a $125 a plate dinner. The Prime Minister is away on the nation's business, so perhaps hon. members opposite should be less critical.
The message that the Leader of the Opposition is giving out in Edmonton, Vancouver, and Toronto is that assistant deputy ministers and senior bureaucrats should collect garbage in the summertime or work on the wharves so that they can become workers. The government of the country might come to a standstill, but this is the message the Leader of the Opposition is giving out. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that is only phase one of the program. I am sure phase two would be if the Leader of the Opposition were elected, he and his cabinet would be out there doing the same things.


James McPhail Gillies: When he is elected.


Hugh Alan Anderson: So he would have a total breakdown. I am sure they are saving that for some other $125 a plate dinner in another part of the country.


James McPhail Gillies: I have never heard of such garbage in my life.


Walter David Baker: The House always recognizes the right of a member to make a fool of himself, but it also requires that he remain relevant. I would like to hear the hon. member's comments respecting the motion before the House. That would be most helpful.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Our side take this opposition day very seriously. We only wish the Leader of the Opposition did also. That was the relevancy.
Since time is limited, and as I agreed to make time for a member of the New Democratic Party to speak, I will end my remarks here and allow the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) to speak.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the motion which we are debating says in part that it condemns the government for its failure to develop an industrial strategy to govern industrial development in Canada.
I was amazed, Mr. Speaker, to listen to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) and the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott) talk so cheerfully about the economic situation in this country. 1 wonder which world they live in. Here we are with 900,000 unemployed. Those figures were given to us two days ago by Statistics Canada.
I have a report in front of me prepared by the Science Council of Canada, entitled "Uncertain Prospects", released just two months ago. I will quote from that document:
In 1971 the Science Council was especially concerned about the viability and survival of medium and high technology industries. In 1977 there are real fears about the prognosis for Canadian manufacturing as a whole.
Further on in the document it states:
It is apparent that the technological capability of Canadian industry has not improved. It has in fact deteriorated. Exports of technology intensive goods have fallen in relative terms, and many of the industries which produce them are unable to meet foreign competition in the domestic market. Job opportunities for scientists, engineers, MBA's, executives, and other specialists are scarce or non-existent. Government employment is frozen. This year's university graduates face the most dismal job prospects of the last 40 years. Human resources, which have been created at great cost, are being squandered.
That is part of an analysis by an agency appointed by this government, staffed in the main by business and university people who are not, by any stretch of the imagination, very radical. It will take several years at least to develop a successful industrial strategy, which we do not have at the present time. However, in the next few months this country will have to conclude tariff negotiations which will have a profound effect on our economy. The Tokyo Round of the GATT negotiations, which has been going on for about four years, is at the point where some firm commitments will have to be made shortly.
December 8, 1977

We have grave doubts that our negotiators have developed a successful strategy for this country. I do not even know how that would be possible since the government has given no sign that it indeed has an industrial strategy. It appears to us that the negotiators are bargaining away a good part of our manufacturing sector in return for advantages in the resource sector.
The most recent annual report of the Economic Council of Canada noted that there are no plans for industry to adjust once trade barriers are lowered, to which the federal government is committed. Indeed, the Economic Council said the element that appears to be lacking is a clear plan to foster the adaptation of Canadian industry to the trade concessions to which Canada would agree. At present it appears that the government is prepared to negotiate so that the winners in Canada are going to be in the resource base industries which export unprocessed and semi-processed goods. These industries are, by and large, more capital intensive industries, and the losers will be the manufacturing sector of the economy.
We have seen in recent weeks how poorly the resource industries have managed things for us. We have seen thousands of people laid off, with no prospects of jobs in the foreseeable future. In return for more concessions to the resource industry so that they can sell abroad, it seems to us pretty obvious that the government is prepared to sacrifice a substantial part of the manufacturing industry which, in most countries, is where the interesting, exciting and better paying jobs are provided, and especially in that sector of the economy where jobs have been disappearing at a steady and rapid rate.
It seems to us that the government is naive in its assumption that Canada stands to benefit from the next round of the lowering of trade barriers. If we were talking about real free trade there might be something to it, provided of course there were adequate transition measures to cushion these industries and those people who are injured. We are confident Canadians can be as productive and efficient as anybody else. To develop productive and efficient industries is something which we have not done recently, and which cannot be done quickly. It is our feeling that our negotiators, and we believe they are doing this in consultation with the government, are dealing with these questions in a theoretical way, believing as if by lowering tariffs then immediately Canadian industries will adjust to world competition and will be able to manage.
We have seen in recent years in old established industries in Canada, such as clothing and textiles, a very sharp increase in imports from other countries, countries in Asia and so on. Our industries have not been able to adjust. We have had some very desperate attempts on the part of the government in the last few months to reach agreement on so called voluntary quotas with these countries which are exporting goods to Canada. This has been done when our textile and clothing industries have been virtually driven to the wall.
In the New Democratic Party we have had some interesting experiences in the last few weeks. We have had groups, which in the past have not been very friendly, ask if they could meet with us and outline their problems, such as the Canadian Manaufacturers' Association and the Electrical and Electron-
Trade
ics Association of Canada. I have been here 15 years, and this is the first time they have asked to meet us.
We are not talking about an inefficient, old fashioned industry. We are talking about the electrical and electronics industry, companies like Northern Telecom. These people are very worried, Mr. Speaker. Not only are they worried about expanding, they are worried about maintaining the position they have and the employment that they now provide. They feel that major multinationals, particularly those located in Japan, are determined to break into the Canadian telecommunications market, and are attempting to do so on the basis of price.
They are not worried about fair competition. They feel that they are as efficient as any company anywhere in the world. However, they do feel that the pricing structure of Japanese companies is close to dumping. They point out that this is difficult to prove because of the complexity of the price structure in the Japanese market.
They also believe that while the Japanese are determined to break into our market, as they have broken into the market in the U.S. and the markets of other countries, they are not prepared to let foreign manufacturers break into the Japanese market. They have used, and are very effectively using today, non-tariff structures to keep Canadian, American, British and German products out of the Japanese market. They also told us that similar non-tariff methods are being used by te Germans, the British, and others.
They are predicting, Mr. Speaker, that this government's policies, this belief in freer trade without any thought given to what it does to Canadian industry and jobs, will mean a decreasing number of people working in the Canadian manufacturing industries which have traditionally provided a large number of jobs, indeed the best jobs in the country.
We are not opposed to the cutting of tariffs, but we believe that it must be done keeping in mind the real needs of the Canadian people in this modern society-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section (10) of Standing Order 58, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion, Supplementary Estimates (A), and for the passage of all stages of the bill based thereon.
The question is on the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman). All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.

December 8, 1977
Trade


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the amendment lost. Amendment (Mr. Saltsman) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion lost. Motion (Mr. Crosbie) negatived.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
[Stage Direction]
(A)
Robert Knight Andras: That Supplementary Estimates (A), 1977-78, laid upon the Table, Wednesday, November 9, 1977, subject to the ruling made by Mr. Speaker on December 7, 1977, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Andras thereupon moved that Bill C-15, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1978, be read the first time and be printed.
Supply
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to procedures adopted in this regard, the draft bill has been distributed earlier. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Andras thereupon moved that Bill C-15, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1978, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Turner in the chair.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Robert Knight Andras: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned till tomorrow at eleven o'clock in the morning, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.24 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
1720


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
(See page 1695)

[Stage Direction]
Domestic Exports
		Domestic Exports	and Re-exports
[Stage Direction]
Live Animals
[Stage Direction]
1962
[Stage Direction]
$ 68,054
[Stage Direction]
68,241
[Stage Direction]
1976
[Stage Direction]
119,844
[Stage Direction]
120,236
[Stage Direction]
Food, Feed, Beverages
[Stage Direction]
1962
[Stage Direction]
1,172,135
[Stage Direction]
1,177,329
[Stage Direction]
1976
[Stage Direction]
4,114,610
[Stage Direction]
4,151,083
[Stage Direction]
Crude Materials Inedible
[Stage Direction]
1962
[Stage Direction]
1,361,595
[Stage Direction]
1,370,521
[Stage Direction]
1976
[Stage Direction]
8,262,280
[Stage Direction]
8,303,366
[Stage Direction]
Fabricated Materials Inedible
[Stage Direction]
1962
[Stage Direction]
2,907,126
[Stage Direction]
2,943,145
[Stage Direction]
1976
[Stage Direction]
12,148,886
[Stage Direction]
12,323,075
[Stage Direction]
End Products
[Stage Direction]
1962
[Stage Direction]
654,763
[Stage Direction]
768,331
[Stage Direction]
1976
[Stage Direction]
12,539,232
[Stage Direction]
13,095,905
[Stage Direction]
Special Transactions
[Stage Direction]
1962
[Stage Direction]
14,849
[Stage Direction]
19,522
[Stage Direction]
1976
[Stage Direction]
129,550
[Stage Direction]
138,095
[Stage Direction]
Total Exports
[Stage Direction]
1962
[Stage Direction]
6,178,523
[Stage Direction]
6,347,713
[Stage Direction]
1976
[Stage Direction]
37,328,545
[Stage Direction]
38,146,332
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 9, 1977