1978-04-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, even though this is a day on which all of us believe a budget will be announced, we do not want to lose sight of the public service. I therefore rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity to bring to the attention of the House, for immediate action, the deeply-aroused and justifiable fear among members of the public service arising out of the deliberate and drastic actions of the government which indicate that the rights of the public service to collective bargaining are in jeopardy.
I would, therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That this House declares its unequivocal support of existing undiminished bargaining rights for members of the public service, and protests the right of the government to assign or change duties of public servants, for such would end the classification standards and thereby reduce the merit system.
Furthermore, it protests and condemns the announced policy of the government as being discriminatory and unjust in that the ending shortly of wage and salary controls will not apply to the public service.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In accordance with the terms of Standing Order 43, such a motion cannot be put to the House in the absence of unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, following press reports of a few days ago that the American Motors Corporation will be laying off some 1,000 people on a temporary basis this summer and about 350 people on a permanent basis, all at its
Brampton plant. In light of the fact that since 1974, American Motors has received the benefit of just under $18 million in remissions of duty payable on its car imports, having failed to meet the conditions of the auto pact with respect to production and jobs, all of which duty remissions have been passed by cabinet as orders in council, and since these latest lay-offs mean that American Motors will be even further away from meeting its commitments under the pact, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce be instructed to make a full report before this House as soon as possible of all discussions between his department and American Motors regarding the impact of these lay-offs, of what commitments his department has obtained from American Motors to get employment back up to reasonable levels in Brampton, and what sanctions the government is prepared to take against American Motors in light of its continued failure to meet employment commitments under the auto pact at its Brampton plant.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member. Under the terms of Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to present a motion, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of great urgency and pressing necessity. Notwithstanding the opinions expressed by the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, and by eminent authorities such as Senator Eugene Forsey, that it was a grave invasion of the rights of parliament and an affront to the people of Canada to raise postal rates other than by amendment to the Post Office Act, and the recent reference of the proposed rate increase to the Ontario Supreme Court by the Periodical Publishers Association representing Canada's major postal users, the Postmaster General announced on April 1, April Fool's Day, popularly known as All Fools' Day, that he was proceeding to increase rates by administrative decree under the Financial Administration Act, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
80033-44*72

April 3, 1978
That the Postmaster General introduce amendments to the Post Office Act in the current session to legalize his actions, to restore the confidence of major users of the postal service and, particularly, to restore the morale of the employees of the Post Office Department by demonstrating leadership which is long overdue.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Canadian dollar has now dropped to somewhat below 88 cents and continues to show signs of erosion, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That in recognition of the individual who has been largely responsible, the Canadian dollar be renamed the Trudeau fuddle-buck.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith).


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It has been brought to my attention that the National Research Council will be transferring 18 of the 22 families of NRC personnel now based in Churchill. The reason for the transfer is that the NRC cannot afford to pay the rent subsidy for housing as set out by Treasury Board order. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the minister act immediately to stop all plans to transfer National Research Council personnel out of Churchill.
A move such as this, after spending $50 million on the redevelopment of Churchill, would be another of the stupid, blundering errors that this government is so capable of making.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate 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, I have a motion on a matter of urgency which I should like to present under Standing Order 43. If I am not careful, I shall find myself saying that it is seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that Jack Marshall and I have been such good friends for such a long time that it is hard to think of him as gone.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House urges the government, before this session is ended, to bring in legislation to restore the basic amount of the war disability pension to the average level of the five categories of public servants so designated in 1973, and to provide prorata pensions for the widows of veterans in those cases where the veteran's pension was less than 48 per cent, it being understood that this House will act quickly to pass such legislation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VACANCIES
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a communication notifying me that two vacancies have occurred in the representation, namely, the hon. Joseph-P. Guay, P.C., member for the electoral district of St. Boniface, by resignation, and Jack Marshall, Esq., member for the electoral district of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, by resignation.
Accordingly, I have addressed my warrants to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of new writs of election for the said electoral districts.


BUGGING OF MPS' OFFICES
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might take a moment, prior to beginning the question period-I will extend the question

April 3, 1978

period by a minute or two, if I take that long-to inform the House of something. The initial action of the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) some weeks ago, followed by similar information given to me by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), respecting the presence of electronic devices in their offices caused me, after consultation with representatives of all parties, to request an investigation by the Ottawa police force. Hon. members will now know that that investigation has resulted in charges which were laid last week.
During the course of those investigations, I sought interim reports only by way of confirmation from the police that investigations were ongoing. I did not request any formal or written reports. I presume that had no conclusive actions resulted from those investigations, probably I would have asked for some sort of report which I would have passed on to the House. In any case, last week when I was out of the country, the Ottawa police force endeavoured to inform me of their intention to proceed with these charges. Being unable to reach me, they contacted the Clerk of the House, who reached me, and after discussion I advised the office of the Prime Minister and the office of the Leader of the Opposition through the Clerk of the House.
I completed the consultative process this morning by advising representatives of all parties of the actions that had been taken by the police, and as this matter is before the courts, I would not propose to seek a report of any sort from the police. In fact, I was informed later today-just before coming to the House-that if I were to do so, I could not really receive much more information than is publicly known, that is, that the investigations have led to the laying of charges and that these charges are now before the courts.
In the circumstances, I do not propose to pursue the matter any further. I will simply make a statement, after consultation with representatives of all parties, so the House is fully informed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Can the minister tell the House whether he has reconsidered his refusal to bring in an immediate budget, and whether he is in a position today to give us the date when the budget will be brought down?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have never refused to have a budget. I said I did not want to
Oral Questions
have a budget before the end of March. I will be announcing the date of the budget after the cabinet meeting this week.


Charles Joseph Clark: Can the Minister of Finance, now that we have finally forced him to bring in a budget-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -tell the House of Commons when we can expect to have that statement of the economic plans of the Government of Canada brought before this House of Commons?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I just said I would give the date on Thursday, and it will not take too long a time to have a budget. I just want to tell the hon. member that in the last few months I have listened very carefully to the kind of thing he is proposing-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -and I think I have more confidence now that anything I do will never be as irresponsible as what the hon. member is proposing.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am trying to elicit from the Minister of Finance some indication. He has told us that a decision will be made on Thursday, presumably when the cabinet meets, and that a date will be announced following that. I want to know whether it is likely that the House will have a budget within the next 30 days, or are we going to be faced with a date that is as long delayed as the by-election dates which have been delayed by the Prime Minister so that the Government of Canada can attempt to avoid an economic reckoning as it is attempting to avoid a political reckoning?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think the hon. member does not have to worry about that. If I decided I would bring down a budget, it would not be too long before I brought it down. I am sure it will be soon, this month; that is all.


VALUE OF CANADIAN DOLLAR-GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. As we await the disclosure of the budget date, the dollar continues to decline, breaking the 88-cent level this morning. With over $500 million having been drained from our reserves in the month of March, and $20 million going out this morning alone in defence of the dollar-which, of course, is supposed to be floating-would the Minister of Finance indicate if the government plans any foreign issues in addition to the $750 million issue which was sold, dated April 1?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if I decide to seek other loans on foreign markets, I will advise the House and the markets the very day I seek them.

April 3, 1978
Oral Questions


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My supplementary question is again to the Minister of Finance. As the United States 20-year pay issue dated April 1 is already selling at a $1.75 discount from its issue price, would the Minister of Finance indicate if the government had anticipated that type of discount when it originally placed the issue? If so, how do they feel that discount will be received by those who might buy future Canadian government United States' pay issues?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think I could not anticipate what the situation would be on the American market for all the bonds being dealt with there. I think I came at the right time in the market, so I got all the money I wanted at a good rate.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the dollar is continuing to drop so dramatically, and that our $750 million issue is selling at a discount from its issue price, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will not go on any more selling capers such as he did in New York, because it will be disastrous for Canada's reputation within the international communities?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INFORMATION ON ECONOMIC SITUATION GIVEN TO U.S. AUDIENCE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. A short while ago the Prime Minister spoke to the Economic Club of New York. During that speech he said "the recovery is under way": he was referring to Canada. Canadians were amazed to discover it, of course. Since unemployment currently registers officially at one million, and unofficially at 1.6 million, since investment intentions for 1978, according to the Minister of Finance, are worse than they were for 1977, since the dollar dropped 24 hours after the Prime Minister made his speech, and continues to drop, I ask the Prime Minister most seriously why he misinformed his American audience and, more importantly, why he misinformed Canadians who were watching that television performance? Can he cite one economic indicator which would substantiate his absurd claim?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party is asking for one indicator, I will give him one or two. In the year 1977 there was a marked decline in domestic inflationary pressures. There was significant improvement in the trade balance as the year progressed, and a revival in corporate profits. Real exports rose by 7.7 per cent over 1976 levels, for a second year of strong improvement, while imports dropped only 2 per cent over 1976 levels, for a second year of strong improvement. Therefore, there was a strengthening in the last part of 1977.

That is why I am saying that the trend is toward an optimistic outlook.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering that answer, perhaps the Prime Minister will be given the award for dubious economic achievement of the year at the Academy Awards tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Even the Prime Minister should know that the facts he cited in relation to the new entrants into the labour market, the declining level of investment, and the need for new jobs are all misleading. There is a real demand for new job creation. As he indicated in his discussions at the first ministers' conference prior to his New York performance, when he referred to the recessionary state we are in, the picture is not at all rosy.
With reference to the intention of bringing in a budget, given the fact that manufacturing is operating at only 80 per cent capacity, and that we are not going to get new investment in 1978 even up to the low level of 1977, will he assure the House that there will be tax cuts for medium and low income taxpayers to stimulate economy and, second, some public sector investment in such things as housing and rail facilities, to create new jobs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party is making some proposals for the budget consideration. If he waits for the budget statement, I think he will see whether some of them have been met or not and he will give his usual criticisms. I just want to point out to him that his party has been consistently negative on the economy since I have been around for the last 10 or 15 years.


An hon. Member:: A long time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, since the Leader of the New Democratic Party was good enough to refer to my New York speech, he should look at the figures there and he will see that Canada consistently outperformed all the OECD countries in respect of most industries-except for Japan-in terms of real growth, and he will see that in terms of job creation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, what makes the position of the opposition a little dubious is that consistently, year in and year out, they have poor-mouthed the economy; but any objective look at it will show that in the past 10 to 15 years-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are quite wrong, Pierre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 3, 1978


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, maybe I can appeal to you as a reasonable person.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in the past 10 to 12 years Canada has consistently outperformed all the other countries, and as I say-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It has, by any objective standard. If one looks at the performance of the opposition during that period, he will see they have consistently said the economy is going down the drain. I had hoped that a little bit of historical perspective would make them a little more objective, but obviously they do not intend to be.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will have to do a little better than that in the coming election. Since these countries-and this comes off the top of my mind-the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, West Germany, not to mention Japan, and other industrial countries, either in terms of inflation or in terms of unemployment, have been away ahead of this country for more than a decade, why does the Prime Minister continue to try to misinform the House? Specifically with reference to the budget, will he give us assurances that the leading priority will be the job creation and the Canadian economy, so that the more than one million Canadians who do not believe this nonsense and want jobs will be able to get them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, since the Leader of the New Democratic Party has described this nonsense as off the top of his head, which indeed is pretty shallow, perhaps rather than making general statements he would take some of the statistics I gave in New York and indicate which of them are wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question either to the Minister of Finance or to the Prime Minister, indeed to the one in charge depending on the nature of the following question. Considering that the government should be anxious to improve the industrial and economic development of every region throughout the country and that there are situations as absurd as the fact that it costs from $5 to $16 more to import copper ore from British Columbia to Quebec while deliveries of this same ore to Japan cost $16 less, would the minister tell the House whether this year he intends to encourage, through lower freight rates, exports of copper
Oral Questions
ore from British Columbia to Quebec in order to improve economic and industrial development in Quebec to the same extent as in British Columbia?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this question should be put to my colleague the Minister of Transport. Of course, the government is now implementing a report, that is Mr. Justice Hall's report, which aims at improving transportation in Canada and which we are considering. Some aspects of its recommendations have been accepted by the government and others will be later on.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. I ask it only in relation to the need for accuracy in looking at our economy. I have in front of me the Bank of Canada Review for February, 1978, which indicates on page 5 that in the last two years the rate of real growth in the Canadian economy was the lowest, except for Great Britain, of all the big seven countries. It also indicates on page 11 that the inflation rate in Canada was substantially above the average for those seven countries, for the last year, December to December. I am trying to reconcile those facts with the statements the Prime Minister has just been making in reference to the Canadian economy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is a student of serious documents, I can lend him the speech I made in New York, from which he will see I made the very point he is now underscoring. I was indicating that from 1965 to 1975 we had a performance which was better than practically every other country, a period during which his party and the New Democratic Party were consistently saying that Canadians were getting poorer than everyone else.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: What about 1969?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This hon. gentleman might want to read my speech, too. I indicated that the years 1976 and 1977-which is confirmed by the question-were bad years for Canada and we were, indeed, under the average. I indicated the most recent indices which indicate that our performance was improving and that we hope that 1978-and these are confirmed by the predictions of objective bodies-will be better for Canada than was the average and, indeed, amongst the best. That was my position in the speech and the hon. member will be glad to see that he confirms it by his question to me.


James McPhail Gillies: Going back to the Minister of Finance-I was not referring to the right hon. member's speech, which I did in fact read; I was referring to his answers in the House of

April 3, 1978
Oral Questions
Commons today-it would seem to me to indicate that the government itself felt there were indications that the economy was performing in a substantially improved way. As 1 read these statistics, and I direct this question to the Minister of Finance-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker-if I can make it clear- when you take the over-all period, we have performed better than other countries. I also took, as well as the two recent years, the period between 1972 and 1977 and I indicated- including the two bad years in Canada-that we have still done considerably better than the United States. This was the point I was making.


James McPhail Gillies: If I can go back to the Prime Minister-not to prolong a discussion on interpretations with the Prime Minister-I take the position that the critical problem is not whether we did well between 1965 and 1972, or 1972 and 1975, and so forth, but what we are doing now and where the economy is moving at the present time. If you look at the statistics for the month of January, the rate of increase in the gross national product or the real national expenditure declines: it was down three-tenths of 1 per cent in the month of January. Retail sales are off, domestic investment is off, the dollar is down to 87 cents, the trade surplus is mixed.
I would suggest-and perhaps my question should go to the Minister of Finance-before you bring down the budget, will you bring into the House, as is the common practice, a statement about the economic affairs of the nation, for review by the House of Commons and the appropriate committee, and in that statement will we see revised forecasts for the performance of the economy based upon the way in which the economy was operating over the last year, which indicates the forecasts made last October have no possibility of being fulfilled during the coming year? I ask that question because, surely-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, all those answers will be in the budget statement which I will be bringing before this House soon. I would like to tell the hon. member that the one who predicted a couple of months ago a 4.5 or 5 per cent growth in the g.n.p. for 1978 made a good prediction. These growth rates were made public by Mr. de Cotret, of the Conference Board, who now indicates 5 per cent is not enough. The hon. member should read some of the statements made by the future critics of the opposition in economic matters.


An hon. Member:: I do not believe you.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I believe him, and he is your man now.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Acting Minister of Transport. It arises out of the very serious shortage of hopper cars which are used for the movement of rapeseed products, particularly rapeseed meal. I ask the acting minister if he would prevail upon the CNR to ensure that sufficient rolling stock is made available for the movement of this very important export product. The result of the shortage has necessitated the closing down of some rapeseed-crushing facilities, specifically the United Oil Seeds crushing plant at Lloydminster. Could the acting minister undertake to impress upon CNR the necessity of providing sufficient rolling stock for this purpose?


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, representations are constantly being made to the Canadian National in an effort to solve the extremely serious problem of the shortage of cars for the transportation of grain as well as of certain forestry products in Quebec and northern Ontario. I shall look into the matter for the hon. member and if I can supply him with further details in writing, I shall be happy to do so.


SHORTAGE OF HOPPER CARS FOR MOVEMENT OF CORN
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, further to the previous question, I would also like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Transport. When looking into the matter with which the hon. member for Vegreville is concerned, would he also make sure that sufficient hopper cars are supplied to towns and elevators in southwestern Ontario for the movement of corn? There is a serious shortage in that regard.
[ Translation]


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, it is not up to me or the Minister of Transport to supply those cars, but of course we shall be happy to make all the representations necessary to the railway companies.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Since recently the public accounts committee received evidence that the overpayments in 1976 were, in fact, $160 million, of which $60 million was recovered for the unemployment insurance account-not as previously represented-and
April 3, 1978

since the statistical evidence offered by the Clarkson, Gordon special report to the committee shows that fully 60 per cent of all applications for unemployment insurance benefits in 1976 contained some sort of irregularity, and more than 10 per cent of all applications resulted in overpayments, will the minister admit that these figures are correct now, and serious, and will he tell the House what measures, other than the $100 million advertising campaign, the government is taking to prevent this $100 million rip-off of the taxpayers?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, here again, the hon. member casts, frankly, a bad light on the people who are in fact receiving unemployment insurance. A very small minority receive overpayments and are involved in ripping-off the system, as he suggests. If the hon. member had seriously been interested in his figures and getting some approbation for them, he could have extended the courtesy of showing them to me in advance. He also neglected to report the series of actions that are being taken by my department to catch those who are, in fact, cheating the system. But the hon. member, of course, sees only one side of the coin, namely, the black side.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I would just stress, in advance- so that I am not misunderstood-this is not a suggestion from this side or from myself. I ask the minister, does the government have any plans to institute a type of means test by which an individual's total income, for example for a 12-month period, would be taken into consideration in determining eligibility for benefits?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, that is something we are considering. I do not want to usurp the role of the advisory council, who are going to be charged with looking at this particular issue. The situation, however, is that those in the top echelon of the salary range contribute a substantial amount to the fund and derive very few benefits in unemployment insurance. So there are source funds available from that particular group. I think we have to take a look at both sides of the issue to determine what would be in the best interests of the plan to cut off people who are, for example, over a particular salary level, from receiving unemployment insurance. It may be the fact that this tax is having the necessary impact.


RATIONING OF SUPPLIES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources: it follows a question that I asked three weeks ago about our medium-term oil supplies. Given the fact that the National Energy Board figures indicate that production will decline from two million barrels a day to one million barrels a day in ten years, and given Mr. Toombs' statement that a super conservation program will be required, suggesting that the government is considering rationing by 1980, is the govern-
Oral Questions
ment actually considering rationing? And if the situation is as bad as it appears to be, why are we waiting until 1980 for such action?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's question was based on an inadequate or a shortened version of Mr. Toombs' remarks to a meeting very recently. He did indicate that in the event of an emergency-a phrase which was not carried in the press-it might be necessary to introduce rationing by the early 1980s. Of course, the government has recognized that an emergency could occur at any time; that is the reason we are presently drafting a bill which we hope to introduce in the next session of parliament to deal with the allocation of crude oil products and gas rationing. I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that this is contingency planning based upon an emergency and not upon a normal course of events.


POST OFFICE
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General relating to growing deficits in the Post Office which arise from poor management, low morale among employees and continuing loss of business due to deteriorating service. Now that the Postmaster General has decided to continue the negative policy of his predecessor in dealing with deficits by illegal rate increases rather than by the positive approach of improvements in service and marketing, when will the minister be providing the dynamic leadership he promised when he took over the department early in the new year?


Hon. J.-Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I only want to indicate that steps are being taken on a continuing basis to improve postal operations. As to the two problems facing the Post Office just now, namely labour relations and-

-management-labour relations, every step has been taken to try to improve communications with our employees. I can tell the hon. member that improvements have also been made so far as mechanization and automation are concerned. I do not think it is a question of leadership: it is there, and we exercise it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister assure the House that the amendments which have been mentioned as coming into effect after the election will be introduced during the current session? These amendments have been recommended by management and by employees, including rural mail carriers and postal users.

April 3, 1978
Oral Questions
Because of the urgency of the matter, will these amendments be brought forward during the current session?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Mr. Speaker, my department is compiling all sorts of changes which could be made to the Post Office Act. I suggest that these changes are not urgent, as they would not in any way solve the problems we are faced with in the areas of automation and labour relations.
For the time being, I will simply say that these changes to the Post Office Act will be made either during the current session or the next.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the hon. member is only quoting part of the statistics. The fact is that some 40 per cent of those who participated in the Canada Works program are young people. Also, the economic growth factor that we are endeavouring to create is in permanent jobs, which has found great acceptance in the Atlantic provinces where we can use the money not on a temporary basis or on a band-aid basis, as the hon. member has indicated from time to time, but on a more permanent basis. I think this is a more effective use of taxpayers' dollars and in the long run will be more beneficial, particularly for his region of Canada.


MOVEMENT OF NO. 3 WHEAT
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that should be directed to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statement by a high official that the Wheat Board will not be making any more sales of wheat from this crop year due to transport limitations, can the minister tell the farmers of northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan if the large amount of No. 3 utility wheat will not be moved this crop year?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think when the hon. member checks the record, he will find that more wheat was moved last year than in any year in the history of Canada. I am not in a position at this time to say what wheat will or will not be moved. I will have to check and let the hon. member know.


William Gordon Ritchie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When making the inquiry from the Wheat Board, could the minister also find out what quotas farmers are likely to have for this type of wheat?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can rest assured that I will check this for him with the Canadian Wheat Board.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the fact that his department allocated $60 million dollars for Young Canada Works in 1977, but reduced the allocation to only $43.5 million, despite the record levels of youth unemployment in the country-in ridings such as mine the unemployment rate for students is running at 60 per cent-will the minister assure this House that additional funds will be committed to this program for the crucial summer ahead?


Andrew Hogan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister is still refusing to make available the extra funds that will be needed desperately by students who will have to return to universities and other educational institutions next year. I wish he would let me know, as one member from the Atlantic provinces, what this whole business of growth component is as it relates to mine and other constituencies in the Atlantic region, because we cannot get this information from his department.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member cannot get it because he does not ask for the information.


Andrew Hogan: 1 do ask.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That is the situation. I have been talking about the situation since the new legislation came into effect, and about the fact that this money will be available to the Atlantic provinces. I met with the forestry ministers of the Atlantic provinces and indicated to them the vast sums of money that could be made available to help them in the area of forestation. Instead of criticizing, the hon. member should be applauding the difference in emphasis.


Andrew Hogan: Ha, ha!


HIRING OF EMPLOYEES ON PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the right hon. Prime Minister and pertains to a very important branch of government, the public service. It is now public knowledge that the management of the West Block cafeteria has received orders from the Trudeau administration to cease hiring English-speaking persons for serving food to persons dining there, and to hire English-speaking persons only for dishwashing and other kitchen duties in the rear. What is the reason for this autocratic order which creates two classes of employees and more national disunity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Upon reflection, the hon. member will realize he is asking a question on a matter which is under my responsibility and not that of the Prime Minister.

April 3, 1978


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, now that she has bought her year's supply of barbecue products from the hon. member for Vancouver East. The chairperson of the allocations committee of the Planned Parenthood Federation said in her report of June 17, 1977:
It is important for associations to remember that their primary role is to be agents for change rather than service agencies.
Since the federation receives about $670,000 annually from the federal government, most of it from the minister's department, I ask the minister whether she, as the principal financial supporter of that organization, endorses that statement?


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, I am bit embarrassed to answer such a question. I do not know what we are doing in this place except making social change. 1 do not see what is wrong with the statement, taken out of context, that the hon. member read to me. I can see the implications he is suggesting, and I do not think that is an honest, intellectual way to work. First of all, I should like to read the report; secondly, if the hon. member has clear allegations I would prefer that he had the guts to announce them.


Benno Friesen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am glad the hon. minister can attribute an intellectual question to me, whether she perceives it to be honest or not.


Miss Begin:: It is quite rare on that side.


Benno Friesen: In view of the fact that of a 1977 budget of $701,653, only $30,624 come from non-governmental sources, thus indicating that there is really very little popular support for the federation, does the minister not feel that governmental financial support ought to be commensurate with public support or, alternatively, that the government should give equal Financial support to agencies which project alternative views?


Miss B6gin:: We are still in the dark about what the hon. member is referring to, Mr. Speaker. He does not call a spade a spade. I should like him to say what he is talking about that is supposed to be wrong with an association whose work is known to all Canadians, which obviously receives money from the private and public sectors and which is doing a good job. If the hon. member has something on his mind, why does he not say what it is?
Oral Questions


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Communications.

After the meeting of communications ministers last week in Charlottetown, the minister was quoted as saying that it was a very successful one, but the press said that the meeting concluded with five hours of squabbling over the joint news release. Would the minister please inform the House which version is the correct one?


Hon. Jeanne Sauv6 (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, most of the newspaper reports I read reflected the very positive character of the meeting, but I did read one that referred to a squabble over the press release. It is true that there was a break in order to study the press release. It was rewritten. The reason it had to be rewritten was that the ministers felt it did not sufficiently reflect the vigour of the discussion and the amount of consensus we had reached. Apart from supporting Bill C-24 and urging early passage of that bill in the House, the ministers agreed that pay television is a very important phenomenon and a very important service which might be introduced in this country. Despite the fact that they said it was entirely their jurisdiction, they did entrust me with the mandate of developing a model for pay television if and when it is introduced in the country, taking into account that the model will encompass provincial interests as well as the national interest.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General regarding the efficiency of the Post Office. I am sure he now has material on his desk whereby the sheriff of the judicial district of Hamilton-Wentworth informed him that out of 70 jury notices forwarded by registered mail, 14 have not arrived. They were returnable on January 23. We all know the Post Office is in a mess, but we did not realize to what extent.
Has the minister looked into this matter, knowing that if you do not receive a jury notice and do not attend for service, you are subject to a jail term? Will the minister advise whether he looked into this matter in order to determine just what occurred?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I looked into the matter as soon as I received the letter from Sheriff Betzner of Hamilton informing me that only two summonses were recovered from the 16 or 18. I wrote

April 3, 1978
Oral Questions
to the deputy postmaster general saying I was not satisfied with that answer and that a further inquiry should be made to determine who was responsible for this.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I think this problem calls for a little more than that. In light of the seriousness of this matter, and in view of the fact the minister has had it before him since about February 28, will he assure the House that he is actively considering this question by a full inquiry, as asked for by the sheriff of the county of Wentworth? Will he also assure the House that when he receives the results, they will be made public through a statement in the House by the minister, so that we can determine just what kind of mess the Post Office is really in?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that I am not the kind of man who would let something like that go. As soon as I receive a report from my department, I will see that the hon. member gets a full report from me.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who expressed concern at the food conference regarding what she and many others perceive as a serious dietary problem in Canada. What steps does the minister intend to take to offset the 50 per cent increase in price that will be applied to powdered skim milk in Canada as a result of the move by the Minister of Agriculture to remove the subsidy? What steps is she taking to offset the effects this will have on the poor, the low income earners and the aged in this country?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that question should be addressed to me but, rather, to the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As far as my responsibility is concerned, I presume the hon. member is asking me the question on the assumption that it affects low income families. There are no specific programs of that nature. Our system of supplementation of income is through the route of family allowances or other income supplementation programs that we are studying in the department. When I am in a position to inform the House of further developments, I will.


James Aloysius McGrath: 
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary for the minister, who just does not seem to appreciate the seriousness of this problem or her responsibility in addressing it. That is regrettable. In light of the impact this will have on the poor, the low income earners and the aged of this country, is the minister prepared to give an undertaking to this House that she will use part of her budget to pay for some of the surplus skim milk powder in this country and make it available to the poor and the aged?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, that is proof that the hon. member is not interested in a solution to the problem. He should have addressed that request to the minister who has the means to take such an approach. He deliberately asks me, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who does not have any other tools than those consisting of income supplementation programs. The hon. member knows very well the work we are trying to do. If he agrees with it, I will be before the committee tomorrow morning. I will be pleased to hear what his party has to say then, and he can give me his support.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Finance. As he is not here, I will address it to the Minister of Justice. Prior to the Easter adjournment, the Minister of Finance indicated that he had not received back from the drafting section of the Ministry of Justice the proposed amendments to the Bank Act. Is the Minister of Justice in a position to tell us when those instructions were received, what progress has been made, and when he anticipates his drafting section will be able to return the
April 3, 1978

amendments to the Minister of Finance so that they may be introduced in the House?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Without answering all the details of the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker, very considerable progress was made before and during the Easter recess. I hope the Minister of Finance will be in a position to introduce a bill very soon indeed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, 1 will address my supplementary to the Minister of Finance, who has returned to the chamber. The minister advised my colleagues earlier that a decision will be taken this week with regard to the presentation of a budget. Will he advise whether at the next full cabinet meeting there will be a decision as to when the amendments to the Bank Act will be introduced? In light of what has been said by the Minister of Justice, does the minister expect to introduce the new Bank Act provisions within the next fortnight?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when the cabinet has decided, I will give the date to the House of Commons. However, 1 have nothing to add to the answer given by my colleague, the Minister of Justice.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether his government is agreeing to finance 75 per cent of the cost of Trans-Canada Highway improvements in the province de Terre-Neuve or the Atlantic provinces generally? The provinces have asked for a 75-25 per cent sharing ratio with the federal government. The Minister of Transport said so far the federal government will only participate to the amount of 50 per cent. Has that now changed and have the proposals of Newfoundland and the Atlantic provinces been accepted by the federal government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, for a detailed and up-to-date report on the discussions, I refer the hon. member to the minister responsible for the negotiations, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


John Carnell Crosbie: A further question to the Prime Minister. Since when has the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion replaced the Minister of Transport, who was the responsible minister in these negotiations with Newfoundland? Has the Prime Minister reallocated the duties of members of the cabinet?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion the government is spending huge funds for provincial infrastructures. Of course, the Minister of Transport also assumes some responsibilities and as the ministers of my cabinet refer to each other and co-operate, the hon. member can be assured that if one of them answers, I can answer for the other.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: I have a question for the Postmaster General, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman has been back in his constituency and will now better understand the great demand which exists in new subdivisions for the extension of postal delivery services to those areas. I should like to know whether, after the Easter break, he is in a position to announce the government's intention to extend postal delivery services to these new areas. The people concerned are really mad about this.


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I must advise my colleague that I have just arrived from a visit in Edmonton which is in the vicinity of his constituency-

I listened carefully to all the remarks people were making in his constituency and I can assure the hon. member that I will make a careful assessment of what can be done with the means at our disposal.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Postmaster General may understand that Saskatoon is in Saskatchewan. Will he give an undertaking to announce a delivery service to new subdivisions some time this month? Will he be able to make a statement of the government's intention this month?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am not aware of the particular problem in the hon. member's constituency. I will look into it and give him an answer.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Now that the dairy year has come to a close, I should like to ask whether, since stocks of skim milk powder have not accumulated at the rate anticipated, the minister is in a position to advise

April 3, 1978
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act farmers that some proportion of the $7 holdback can now be rebated to those who have been penalized?


Eugene Whelan: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Dairy Commission is not in the business of giving away products. It does not make good sense that farmers should be penalized, if we are just going to give away the product on a world surplus market. Both the United States and the European Economic Community are in a surplus position with regard to skim milk powder.
I am sure the hon. member is aware that this year we withdrew the subsidy on skim milk powder, amounting to about $13 million, while at the same time transferring payments to pension indexing and social services, including family allowances, to the tune of $587 million in new funds. This money went into programs to help the poor of this country, and there is nothing inhumane about that at all, Mr. Speaker.


William Arnold Peters: The minister is a great one for answering everything but the question put to him. Farmers today are interested in knowing what the Canadian Dairy Commission is proposing for the coming year. When does the hon. gentleman anticipate he will be in a position to advise the House and the country with regard to the new dairy policy?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this program is one which has taken a lot of time to put together-longer, indeed, than 1 had hoped-because of the need for consultation between provincial marketing groups and the producers themselves. A recommendation has now been placed before the government, and I hope within a few days we shall be able to announce that what has been one of the best dairy programs of any nation in the world will be even better than any seen in the past.


CURRENCY AND EXCHANGE ACT
Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-39, to amend the Currency and Exchange Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read for the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADA REFERENDUM ACT
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-40, respecting Public Referendums in Canada on Questions relating to the Constitution of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-38, to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read for the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

* *
*


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-432, to amend the Canada Elections Act (partisan poll officers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in introducing this bill is to equalize the number of poll officers from the various parties during federal elections so as to bring us into a more modern era of bipartisanship-there would be two political parties represented as between poll clerks and deputy returning officers as is the practice in all the major provinces of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
^H
April 3, 1978

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: the first reading of Bill S-3 (from the Senate), respecting Canadian non-profit corporations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   Wm. Andres@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 35, 317, 424, 458, 698, 711, 962, 964, 986, 987, 1,073, 1,080, 1,117, 1,325, 1,331, 1,338, 1,342, 1,343, 1,351, 1,377, 1,384 and 1,432.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the Department of Agriculture's Dairy Programme announcement made on April 4, 1977, did the announcement state in part that the sum of $20,000,000 was budgeted for the Canadian International Development Agency to purchase skim milk powder for international food aid and, if so, how much has been spent to date, what was the disposition of the skim milk powder and if a balance remains, how will it be spent and how will the skim milk powder be disposed of?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned, the answer is as follows: (a) Canadian Dairy Commission Policy No. 411,871 dated April 1, 1977, stated that $20 million is budgeted for the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) to purchase skim milk powder for international food aid. (b) As of the February 8, 1978, CIDA has purchased $18,060,741.25 or 36,654 metric tonnes of milk powder from its budget, (c) Disposition of the milk powder is outlined in table below, (d) The balance outstanding is held available to meet requests received from recipient countries, prior to the conclusion of this fiscal year (1977/78).
Disposition of Skim Milk Powder
	MTN		MTN
Afghanistan	45	Lesotho	30Arab Republic	4,150	Mauritania	1,995of Egypt Bolivia	165	Mexico	4,050Burundi	93	Nicaragua	40Cameroon	50	Niger	117Cap Vert	880	Peru	1,570Colombia	1,710	Rwanda	30Congo	32	Senegal	1,000Cuba	5,000	Somalia	600El Salvador	70	Sri Lanka	2,900Gambia	405	Syria	138Ghana	40	Thailand	700
Order Paper Questions Disposition of Skim Milk Powder
Haiti	MTN 451	Tunisia	MTN 87Honduras	116	Turkey	81India	2,000	Vietnam	8Indonesia	180	Peoples Democratic	92Jordan	240	Republic of Yemen	
Non-governmental organizations-1,631 MTN.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has Loto Canada Inc. 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 Loto Canada Inc. in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Fiscal year 1976-77: 1. (a) (i) Not applicable. (ii) Not applicable, (iii) Not applicable, (iv) Not applicable. (v) Yes, 5. (vi) Yes, 2. (vii) Not applicable, (viii) Not applicable, (ix) Not applicable, (x) Not applicable. 1. (b) Not applicable.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	(a) Quebec: $5.75; Ontario: $5.75. (b) Not known, (c) (i) Not applicable, (ii) $8,306.10.


Mr. Elzinga: Since the inception of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, how much money has been granted by the government in yearly totals in (a) British Columbia (b) Alberta (c) Saskatchewan (d) Manitoba (e) Ontario (0 Quebec (g) New Brunswick (h) Nova Scotia (/) Prince Edward Island (j) Newfoundland (k) the Northwest Territories (1) the Yukon Territory.


Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: please refer to DREE annual report, 1975-76, tabled May 6, 1977, and DREE annual report, 1976-77, tabled March 7, 1978.


Mr. Leggatt: In each Fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of New Westminster by the Department of Agriculture and those agencies that report to it?


Eugene Whelan: Departmental accounting systems are not designed to provide expenditures by constituency. However, operational expenditures for offices located within the constituency are estimated as follows: 197071, $119,000; 1971-72, $128,000; 1972-73, $138,000; 1973-74,

April 3, 1978
Order Paper Questions
$162,000; 1974-75, $180,000; 1975-76, $205,000; 1976-77, $228,000. The following estimated expenditures were made by the Canadian Livestock Feed Board and represent payments made under the Feed Freight Assistance Program for movements of feed grains. 1970-71, $24,075; 1971-72, $15,579; 1972-73, $118,196; 1973-74, $82,306; 1974-75, $61,006; 197576, $27,165; 1976-77, $36,160. The Agricultural Stabilization Board advises that their accounting systems are not designed to provide expenditures by constituency and this information could only be obtained by conducting a manual search of 11,000 producer files. The Canadian Dairy Commission has made no expenditures in the constituency of New Westminster.


Mr. Howie;: What amount was spent and approximately how many jobs were created by DREE in each province since the inception of the Department?


Donald Paul Wood: Under the Regional Development Incentives Program, the reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: please refer to DREE annual report, 1976-77, tabled March 7, 1968.


Mr. Howie: Since its inception in 1969, what amount did DREE pay to (a) each province under general developments (b) industries in each province under the Regional Development Incentives Act?


Donald Paul Wood: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: please refer to DREE annual report, 1976-77, tabled March 7, 1978.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1976, were studies made for the Department of the Solicitor General by outside consultants regarding crisis centres?


Mr. Rod Blaker (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Yes. The Research and Systems Development Branch of the Department of the Solicitor General has entered into three research contracts to study crisis intervention techniques. One contract is with the University of Western Ontario for a research study to evaluate a crisis intervention strategy being used by the police in London, Ontario. The results of the study will be used to improve the effectiveness of intervention techniques in crisis situations, particularly those occurring during domestic disputes. A second contract is with the University of Ottawa for an exploratory study of the nature and effectiveness of rape crisis centers in responding to the needs of victims of rape. The United Way of greater Vancouver also has a research contract focussing on the social service role of the police, with particular reference to domestic crisis intervention.

This study has demonstrated that specific training of police officers is one effective technique in improving crisis intervention procedures. Canadian Penitentiary Service and National Parole Service, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, National Parole Board. Nil.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, did the Department of Labour engage outside lawyers or consultants in New Brunswick?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1976, has the Department of Labour conducted any studies into the use of a court-like forum for the settlement of labour disputes in substitution or prevention of strike action?


John Carr Munro: The Department of Labour has under continuous review methods used for the prevention and settlement of labour disputes. Part V of the Canada Labour Code provides for a number of procedures, and for some flexibility of approach, to allow departmental intervention to be appropriate to the circumstances of each situation. Some of the existing procedures might be perceived as having characteristics of a "court-like forum." However, rigid, court-like attitudes and procedures are, in general, unsuitable for the expeditious handling of labour disputes and are not consistent with a free collective bargaining system.


Mr. Howie: Has the Department of Labour conducted any studies into alternatives to strike action since January 1, 1976?


John Carr Munro: The Search for alternatives to strike action is a perennial one amongst major western industrial countries where collective bargaining is accepted as the most equitable and viable method of determining wages and working conditions. Over the past two years, the Canada Department of Labour has increased the activities aimed at improving the working environment and thus removing from the bargaining arena as many contentious issues as possible; improving the collective bargaining process by strengthening its legal framework, improving services and reducing delays; and improving the industrial relations system by fostering a sense of joint responsibility in making it work more efficiently and with less disruption.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Will agricultural research stations in Alberta benefit from the Labour Intensive Programme and, if so (a) which ones and in what locations (b) what amount will be allocated to each?
2.	What are the job descriptions and what will be the remuneration applicable to each job?
April 3, 1978

Order Paper Questions


Eugene Whelan: 1. Yes. (a) verlodge, Alberta will benefit from the Federal Labour Inten-Agriculture Canada's research stations at Lacombe and Bea- sive Program.
Lacombe	Labour	Other Costs	Total	1977-78	$13,500	$2,000	$15,500	1978-79	34,500	2,000	36,500	Beaverlodge	1977-78	$12,000	$5,000	$17,000	1978-79	24,000	-	24,000	Classification	Number	Total	AnnualLacombe	Title	and level	of People	Remuneration	Salary Range1977-78	General Clerks	CR 2	6	$10,475	$8,483-$ 9,256Computer Clerks	DA CON 2	2	3,025	8,985- 10,4571978-79	General Clerks	CR 2	6	25,874	8,483- 9,256Computer Clerks	DA CON 2	2	8.626	8,985- 10,457Beaverlodge	Hourly Rate1977-78	Sample Analysts	GL MAN 3	4	$12,000	$5.101978-79	Sample Analysts	GL MAN 3	10	24,000	5.10
MR. ANDRfi LAMY


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Mr. Andre Lamy appointed Government Film Commissioner and Chairman of the National Film Board and, if so (a) on what date (b) what is his annual salary?
2.	What were the previous positions he held in the Public Service?
3.	Is he bilingual and is he fluent in the English language?
4.	Did he take a government-sponsored English language course and (a) if so (i) in what location (ii) on what dates (b) if not, will he be taking such a course and on what date?
5.	Does he receive the seven per cent bilingual bonus?
6.	Was he tested in the English language and, if so (a) on what date (b) in what location (c) by whom (d) what were the results?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. Yes, on August 22, 1975, by "Governor General in Council Approval in 19751848". He is in the annual salary range of a DM-1: $43,000.- $58,800.
2.	Before Mr. Lamy was appointed Government Film Commissioner and Chairman of the National Film Board, he was the Deputy Commissioner.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.
5.	No.
6.	(a) Yes, on October 1, 1973. (b) At the National Film Board, (c) By the personnel service which was delegated this task by the Official Languages Bureau, (d) See Part 3 above.


Mr. Rodriguez: For each fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of Nickel Belt by the Department of Fisheries and the Environment and those agencies that report to it?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Fiscal Year	Amount
1970-71	$31,500
1971-72	44,300
1972-73	51,000
1973-74	51,200
1974-75	51,316
1975-76	41,005
1976-77	41,756
1977-78	
(to January 31, 1978)	56,870
In so far as the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is concerned: Nil. In so far as the Canadian Saltfish Corporation is concerned: Nil.
In so far as the Fisheries Prices Support Board is concerned: Nil.


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence spend any money in 1977 on marine search and rescue on the (a) West Coast (b) East Coast and, if so, in each case, in what amount?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Yes. (a) $1,818,150. (b) $3,522,352.
Note: In addition there was a capital expenditure of $1,832,774 associated with the formation of the Search and Rescue unit at Gander, Newfoundland.

April 3, 1978
Order Paper Questions CROWN ASSETS DISPOSAL CORPORATION


Mr. Bawden: 1.	Did Crown Assets Disposal Corporation hold a sale, 410-3-82398, on March 17, 1977 of items in the custody of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in Hull, Quebec?
2.	Was Sedburgh School the purchaser of Item No. 1 listed as "Generator set, diesel engine, portable, 4000 watts, Honda" and, if so, was Crown Assets advised by the purchaser that upon collection the diesel engine was missing?
3.	Was the merchandise inspected by Crown Assets prior to sale?
4.	Was the diesel engine stolen while in the custody of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources or was the documentation faulty?
5.	Was a refund made to Sedburgh School and, if not, for what reason?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Yes. (b) no.
3.	No.
4.	(a) No. (b) yes.
5.	Yes.
ment on request to DND anytime after June, 1978, the anticipated date of completion of the contract and issue of the final report.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	To date, what is the total cost of the Grain Handling and Transportation Commission?
2.	To date, what is the total cost of the Commission on the Costs of Transporting Grain by Rail?
3.	To date, what is the total cost of the Prairie Rail Action Committee?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: To February 28, 1978 the total costs paid were: 1. $1,698,981.84.
2.	$487,595.
3.	$98,487.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Epp: How many armed forces personnel have been relocated in postings designated bilingual in provinces other than Quebec and what is the number of personnel involved in each province?


Barnett Jerome Danson: The
number of armed forces personnel posted to designated bilingual positions outside the province of Quebec was as of March 1, 78, 4,553. The listings by provinces is as follows: Newfoundland, 18; Nova Scotia, 675; New Brunswick, 458; Prince Edward Island, 28; Ontario, 2,725; Manitoba, 122; Saskatchewan, 106; Alberta, 140; British Columbia, 275; North West Territories, 6; Total, 4,553.


Mr. Dionne (Kamouraska): Since 1970, did any taxpayers fail to claim a certain amount of income tax withheld at the source in accordance with the Income Tax Act and, if so, what was the amount for each year?


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of National Revenue):: For the taxation year
Unapplied Tax Deductions
1970	$105,642,648.50
1971	103,766,522.18
1972	202,996,080.03
1973	163,215,516.91
1974	157,977,892.60
1975	221,102,311.82
1976	248,455,898.68



ARMOURED VEHICLES

Mr. McKinnon: Have armoured vehicle spares in the amount of $410,109 been ordered from General Motors and, if so, are such spares for armoured vehicles at present held by the forces and, if not, for which vehicles are they intended?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes. The spares are long lead time spares required for the wheeled armoured personnel carrier, a variant of the armoured vehicle general purpose (AVGP), which is scheduled to be delivered starting in October, 1978.



UTILIZATION OF CAVITIES IN FROZEN GROUND

Mr. McKinnon: Has the Department of National Defence a $10,045 contract with the University of Alberta for investigation of the utilization of cavities in frozen ground for military purposes and, if so, will copies of the investigative report be made available to Members of Parliament and, if so, on what date and by whom?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes. Copies of the report will be available to members of parlia-



INCOME TAX EMPLOYEES SALARIES

Mr. Dionne (Kamouraska): From 1965 to 1977, did the government allocate any funds for the salaries of public servants and employees of all categories, investigators and others responsible for the application of the Income Tax Act and, if so, in what amount?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Fiscal Year	Salaries $000's
1965-66	40,360
1966-67	48,383
1967-68	53,802
1968-69	55,896
1969-70	71,064
1970-71	79,610
1971-72	94,629
1972-73	114,286
1973-74	132,126
1974-75	169,217
1975-76	186,064
1976-77	219,258
1977-February 28/78	223,922
April 3, 1978



RECOGNIZED POLITICAL PARTIES

Mr. Jones: 1.	How many recognized parties are there under the Canada Elections Act?
2.	What are the names, official addresses and details of each of the said recognized parties?


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: 1 and 2.: See table below as of March 21, 1978.
Note: It is assumed that "recognized parties... under the Canada Elections Act" refers to those political parties whose
Order Paper Questions
names are contained in the Registry of Political Parties required to be maintained by the Chief Electoral Officer pursuant to the provisions of section 13 of the Canada Elections Act. The parties with an asterisk(*) before their respective names indicates that the parties have been accepted for registration. The registration will not become "effective" until the next general election and then only upon a party having officially nominated cnadidates in at least fifty (50) electoral districts, i.e. they cannot issue tax credit receipts nor have the party name on the ballot pending the foregoing.
Name of Party	Name of Leader	Address of Principal Office of Party	Name and Address of Chief Agent	Name and Address of AuditorLiberal Party of Canada	The Rt. Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau	102 Bank Street, Ottawa, Ontario.	The Federal Liberal Agency of Canada, 102 Bank Street, Ottawa, Ontario.	Coopers & Lybrand, 130 Albert Street, Ottawa, Ontario.Progressive Conservative Party of Canada	Charles Joseph Clark	178 Queen Street, Ottawa, Ontario.	P.C. Canada Fund, 40 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario.	Touche, Ross & Co., 200 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario.New Democratic Party	Edward J. Broadbent	301 Metcalfe Street, Ottawa, Ontario.	Robin V. Sears, 301 Metcalfe Street, Ottawa, Ontario.	Newton & Lyon, P.O. Box 978, Manotick, Ontario.The Social Credit Party of Canada	Gilles Caouette, Interim Leader	Room 358, Confederation Building, Ottawa, Ontario.	Romuald Rodrigue, 675-15th Street, St-Georges-Ouest, Quebec.	Eddy Parisien, 737 Richmond Street, Ottawa, Ontario.Communist Party of Canada	William Kashtan	24 Cecil Street, Toronto, Ontario.	Margery Ferguson, 24 Cecil Street, Toronto, Ontario.	Mrs. Helen Burpee, 68 Nairn Avenue, Toronto, Ontario.Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada	Hardial Singh Bains	P.O. Box 264, Adelaide Station, Toronto, Ontario.	Richard Daly, 23 Frankdale Avenue, Toronto, Ontario.	Robert A. Shortly, 336 Keewatin, Toronto, Ontario.Canada Party	Stuart J. Neilson	P.O. Box 3084, Ottawa, Ontario.	Stewart I. Crawford, 309 Lanark, Ottawa, Ontario.	Deloitte, Haskins & Sells, 99 Bank Street, Ottawa, Ontario.Party Rhinoceros	Jacques Ferron	1020 Francis Street, Longueuil, Quebec.	Robert Millet, 1020, rue Francis, Longueuil, Quebec.	J.-C. Ladouceur, 2476 Villiers Street, Longueuil, Quebec.United Provincials National Party of Canada	Joe Lehnert	P.O. Box 222, New Westminster, British Columbia.	D. W. Brooks, Box 226, New Westminster, British Columbia.	P. A. Schmidt & Co.Libertarian Party of Canada	R. Bailey	4866 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario.	P. Miniato, P.O. Box 520, Brooklin, Ontario.	Costa, Durley, McCauldin & Palmer, 45 Charles Street East, Toronto, Ontario.National Reform Party of Canada	R. A. Gilson	R.R.4 Box 26, North Bay, Ontario.	Vacant	D. Pigden, 237 Main Street Est, North Bay, Ontario.


Mr. Andres:: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

April 3, 1978
Northern Pipeline



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Art Lee (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of Your Honour's earlier statement regarding electronic surveillance I wonder if Your Honour can assure the House that officers and principals of Uniserv Sound are not now operating within the precincts of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that the hon. member has a point of order. I understand his concern. However, I am, of course, not in a position to give any such assurance at this time, and I am not sure that I ever could be.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, March 22, consideration of Bill C-25, to establish the Northern Pipeline Agency, to facilitate the planning and construction of a pipeline for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska and Northern Canada and to give effect to an Agreement between Canada and the United States of America on principles applicable to such a pipeline and to amend certain acts in relation thereto, as reported (with amendments) from the Special Committee on a Northern Gas Pipeline. And on motion No. 4 (Mr. Symes), and motion No. 6 (Mr. Holmes).
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to welcome back to the House the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) who was not with us on Tuesday, March 21, and Wednesday, March 22, when a major portion of these amendments was debated.
The minister's colleagues missed his presence. It is a pity that he was not here because the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), who attended the majority of the committee meetings, seemed to have left his responsibilities to the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), who advanced some rather empty, unintelligent, and innocuous amendments.
The amendments we were dealing with at the time of adjournment were motions Nos. 4 and 6 with respect to the injection of a native presence into the bill. I had made a few remarks with respect to the representations made by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, but before I terminate my brief remarks I want to correct a mistaken impression which appears to have been held by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Milne). As stated by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent

(Mr. Holmes), we on this side wanted to see a stronger amendment in the bill with respect to the native presence than that which is now set forth in motion No. 6. We wanted to see two elements in that amendment. We wanted to see, first, that the land which would be occupied along the route of the pipeline would be treated in such a manner that any existing native claims would not be prejudiced by that occupation.
Secondly, and equally as important, we wanted to reassure the native peoples that their ongoing negotiations toward a final settlement would not be prejudiced by the bill itself.
The first of those elements is in the amendment which the government has accepted. The second of those elements is not present. We settled on the basis of getting this much from the government. We would have liked to have seen the other element contained in the amendment. With those words 1 intend to leave the amendments with respect to native peoples. I believe that the amendment which the government finally did accept, as set forth in motion No. 6, adequately protects native interests not only in the Yukon but also in northern British Columbia as well as any which may exist in Alberta with respect to any interest the native peoples may have in the land on which the pipeline will be located. That, to my mind, covers the situation as far as the land itself is concerned, and adequately protects native claims. There was no such protection before, but this amendment will provide it.
I would like to say one last word about the position taken by the NDP. In essence it reflects the position which is being taken by the representations of the native people themselves. Members of the NDP say that there should be no development whatsoever until native claims are settled. The native organizations say there should be no development until their claims are settled. To my mind that is a totally irresponsible position to be taking.
Out of one side of their mouths members of the NDP are saying that we need jobs in Canada. They criticize the government, as we do, for bringing about a situation where there is in excess of one million unemployed, yet out of the other side of their mouths they try to throw up a roadblock by saying that there should be no pipeline whatsoever until native land claims are settled. They thereby would throw down the drain 100,000 man-years of employment.
It seems to me that members of the NDP cannot have it both ways. That is why, before the adjournment, I referred to them as being rather sanctimonious. It is quite a hypocritical stand for them to be taking. It is hypocritical to say that there should not be this development, thus dispensing effectively with the jobs they criticize the government for not creating. The stance of my party, as expressed by my leader repeatedly, is that there is no reason why negotiations for settlement of native claims cannot proceed hand in hand with any development, including the pipeline, without the one prejudicing the other.
No one has been able to convince me yet-and I invite members of the NDP to try-that the building of a pipeline would prejudice native land claims. No one has yet been able to convince me that the building of a road, the building of a
April 3, 1978

bridge, or the bringing into being of a new mine would be prejudicial to the settlement of native land claims. 1 invite members of the NDP to tell me how they feel this would happen. It just would not happen at all.
Native peoples negotiate on the basis of land, cash, royalties and so forth. Whatever land is to be occupied by the development of a new mine can be negotiated on the basis of royalties. That has been done elsewhere in this country, and elsewhere in the western world where native land claims have been settled. There is no reason why that cannot be done here. In his ignorance of the Yukon the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie does not realize that 90 per cent of the native people in the Yukon do not share the views expressed by their leaders down here when they appear before committees. The Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Marchand) is listening very carefully, and he knows what I say is true. Millions of dollars are poured into the support of native organizations, which are headed by bureaucrats.
Since 1973 well over $40 million or $50 million has been poured into native organizations in the Yukon, yet the kids in Pelly Crossing, Ross River Upper Liard and other native Yukon communities are still running around with no jeans on their backsides. So one wonders where the money goes, particularly when one legal counsel is paid $95,000 a year for a great many years. The present legal counsel is being paid $65,000 a year, and he was just appointed last June.
One wonders whether these moneys are being properly spent. The native people of the Yukon are not seeing the benefits. If they would come to an agreement in principle and pick up the $50 million which is now lying on the table waiting for them to pick up, they would be ready and capable of being part of the economic activity and development which will take place as part of the pipeline. However, instead of taking that sensible course, the result of the course they are taking is the loss of $400,000 a month in interest on that money. The economic and social conditions which exist in their villages throughout the Yukon will continue to exist while they adopt that dog-in-the-manger attitude.
It does them no good, it does the country no good, and it does the Yukon as a whole no good for any segment of the population anywhere along that line to adopt the attitude that they will prevent a project of such magnitude-a project that would bring about national benefits-for the sake of having a lever for the purpose of bringing about what they think will be a favourable settlement. On the contrary, it is in their best interest, just as it is in the national best interest and in the over-all best interest of the Yukon, to see that this project goes ahead without prejudice to the final settlement of their native land claims.
With those words stating our position on the matter I will leave those amendments, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Symes:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) would not
Northern Pipeline
want to misrepresent my position as put forward in the amendment. He knows full well that I am of the belief that the native land claims would be settled by 1981 or 1983. I would like to put this question to him: does he seriously believe that Foothills will be able to raise the necessary finances for this type of pipeline without the issue of native land claims having been settled first? I see no investor who would be willing to invest-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question?


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments in response to some of the ridiculous statements made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who criticized my colleague, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), for moving the amendment and for putting forth the arguments he did, one of his reasons being that the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie had not attended meetings of the committee.
The hon. member for Yukon should be the last member in the House to talk about attendance of members of parliament, because he himself is so frequently absent from the House. The hon. member for Yukon knows, or should know, that the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie was not a member of that committee, that our member on the committee which dealt with this bill was the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), who listened to all the evidence, who participated in the debate, and who holds exactly the same positions on the issue as the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. If he were here today-I think he will be here later on this afternoon-he would be making arguments on precisely the same lines as those made by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.
I am surprised that the hon. member for Yukon, who professes to be interested in the welfare of the native people of this country, should express surprise that we raise issues which are of concern to the native people. He has native people in his constituency, and he must know that the native people in his constituency, as in every other area of this country, have consistently been ignored, that whether one looks at the standards of education, the standards of health or standards of employment, the native people are at the bottom of the heap.
The infant mortality rate of native people is dramatically higher than that of any other group in this country; the educational attainments of the native people over the years have improved but they are still at the bottom of the totem pole, and the employment of native people is still worst of any group in this country. In the cities of Canada they find it almost impossible to find employment, and on the reserves unemployment runs at anywhere from 50 per cent to 95 per cent.
It is not surprising, therefore, that native people have been very suspicious-not just the native people in the Yukon but those in every part of Canada-of the supposed good intentions of the white people and of both the federal and provincial governments. It is not surprising, because they have had such bad experiences in the past. They know that the agreements

April 3, 1978
Northern Pipeline
and treaties have simply not been lived up to, and certainly have not been amended or changed to meet their needs in modern times. They have not been changed so that the spirit, which was supposedly contained in the treaties when they were originally signed, has any meaning in modern times.
Based on the experience of the native people in all parts of Canada, and based on the history of Canada, we have come to the conclusion-and we know we are right-that should the pipeline be proceeded with and should all the details, except those pertaining to native land claims, be proceeded with and the pipeline begun, the chances of the native people of the Yukon getting a fair and equitable settlement are virtually nil.
I suggest to the hon. member for Yukon that when he proposes, as he did consistently in his speech, that the pipeline be proceeded with immediately and the question of native land claims settled later, what he is saying in fact is that the native land claims are not important and that they would be settled probably at 2 cents on the dollar after the project has begun. That is the only clout which the native people of the Yukon have, and we saw a dramatic example of just how this works with regard to the James Bay claims.
Does the hon. member for Yukon really believe that if the native people of James Bay had not gone to court and had not been able to get a court order holding up the James Bay project, they would have achieved the kind of settlement which they got? There is not a chance in the world that that would have happened. If the James Bay people got a settlement which goes at least part way toward meeting their fair claims and which gives them the right to exclusive use of a fairly large piece of land in their ancestral homeground, if they got a large amount of money which will be used to help them develop alternative methods of employment, it is because they had the power, through the courts before the project was completed, of holding up the project. So when the hon. member for the Yukon says that we should leave this issue until later and go ahead with the project right now, what he is saying is that this project is so important to the non-native people of Canada that we must go ahead with it right away, and in doing so he is prepared to sacrifice the basic rights and needs of the native people of this country. We are not prepared to do that.
The hon. member for Yukon knows full well that no one in the NDP has tried to hold up the passage of this bill. He knows that this bill will pass in this session of parliament; it will probably be passed in the next few days. So when he says that we are prepared to stop this bill, he knows that what he is saying is not in fact correct. First of all, to put the case of the native people in the way in which it has not been done, certainly by the hon. member for the Yukon, I have a feeling he may not be speaking for all members of the Conservative party. Certainly he did not put the case for the native people, particularly those in his own constituency. By moving this amendment, we are attempting to provide the House with a clear opportunity to vote on a proposal suggesting that this project should not be proceeded with until the native land claims have been settled.
If the government is prepared to deal with native land claims in the Yukon in a fair and equitable manner, surely it should not be difficult to reach an agreement. The manner in which the government has blown hot and cold over the years on the question of native land claims is what bothers me. I put some questions on the order paper last October. They were not answered until a couple of weeks ago. At that time we saw how generously the lawyers who have acted for the native groups in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, northern Manitoba and the James Bay area have been treated. They have been paid hundreds of thousands-millions of dollars-to act on behalf of native people in the courts in an attempt to protect their rights. I commend the government for that. I think the government should have done that, and I am glad it was done. The government then turned around and appointed people to negotiate on behalf of the government with native people. My experience indicates that the people appointed have very little sympathy for the rights and needs of native people. 1 am talking about the former cabinet minister, for example, who will be negotiating with the native people in the Northwest Territories. The government has blown hot and cold on this entire question of dealing with native people, their rights, and an equitable settlement in the near future.
No land claim settlement will jeopardize the construction of the pipeline. Failure to settle the land claims will create financing problems. Until there is a settlement, and as long as native people have the right to go to court in an attempt to block the construction of the project, as they did in James Bay, no financial institution will be willing to lend money to the pipeline construction, because they will not know when the project will begin, when it will be constructed finally, nor when the gas will move down the pipeline to the United States. The sales of gas to the United States will enable the companies involved to commence paying back the money which they borrowed for the construction.
This amendment will not hold up the construction of the pipeline. On the contrary, we are attempting to ensure that when the bill is passed there will be no difficulties created, nor will legal delays be possible which would postpone construction and place the entire project in jeopardy. We are attempting to guarantee native people that their land claims will be settled before the project goes ahead. It would be a guarantee to native people, as well as telling the government to get off its rear end and begin to negotiate seriously. We do not need the type of procrastination which we have experienced again and again. So-called negotiations have gone on from generation to generation, and not just for a year or two.
We urge hon. members to support this amendment. We feel it will make the bill stronger rather than weaker. Also it will facilitate the construction of the pipeline, rather than hold it up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?

April 3, 1978


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is now on motion No. 4 in the name of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I declare the motion lost. Motion No. 4 (Mr. Symes) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is now on motion No. 6 in the name of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Holmes) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10 deal with schedule III and should be grouped for debate, with a vote on motion No. 8, and another vote on motions Nos. 9 and 10.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-25, An Act to establish the Northern Pipeline Agency, to facilitate the planning and construction of a pipeline for the transmission of
Northern Pipeline
natural gas from Alaska and Northern Canada and to give effect to an Agreement between Canada and the United States of America on principles applicable to such a pipeline and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto, be amended in Schedule III at page 51 by striking out the third line of paragraph 9(a) and substituting the following therefor:
"plan consistent with paragraphs 3(e) and 3(/) and particularly sub-clause 21 (2) of this Act designed to guarantee the maximum possible use of'.
Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-25, An Act to establish the Northern Pipeline Agency, to facilitate the planning and construction of a pipeline for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska and Northern Canada and to give effect to an Agreement between Canada and the United States of America on principles applicable to such a pipeline and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto, be amended in Schedule III at page 51 by
(a)	striking out lines 1 to 3 of paragraph 10(a) and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) the company shall design a program consistent with paragraphs 3(e) and 3(J) and particularly sub-clause 21(2) of this Act for the procurement of all goods and services for the pipeline that guarantees that"
(b)	deleting sub-paragraphs 10(a)(i) and 10(a)(ii) and substituting the following therefor:
"(i) where productive capacity exists in Canada preference will be given to Canadian sources in the procurement of such goods and services and their constituent components,
(ii) the level of Canadian content is at least 90 per cent with respect to the origin of products, services and their constituent components,".
Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-25, An Act to establish the Northern Pipeline Agency, to facilitate the planning and construction of a pipeline for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska and Northern Canada and to give effect to an Agreement between Canada and the United States of America on principles applicable to such a pipeline and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto, be amended in Schedule III at page 52 by striking out the last line of sub-paragraph 10(h)(ii) and substituting the following therefor:
"trade practices such as dumping, direct and indirect industrial subsidies, transportation subsidies and special tax incentives;".
He said: Mr. Speaker, motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10 standing in my name relate to the question of maximizing and guaranteeing Canadian content in the northern pipeline project. Motion No. 8 seeks to maximize and guarantee the Canadian labour content of the project. Motion No. 9 seeks to maximize and guarantee Canadian content in the pipeline itself, the steel and all other associated projects. Motion No. 10 seeks to define unfair trade practices for clarification, and to strengthen the bill before us so we will not have Canadian companies facing unfair foreign competition when bidding for contracts on this great project.
I should like to deal briefly with motion No. 8, because motion No. 9 is the most substantive and everything else relates to it. The labour content will, of course, relate to the material content of the pipeline.
Given the high state of unemployment in this country, with 1 million officially out of work, but with real unemployment, taking into account hidden unemployment, being somewhere around 1.5 million to 1.6 million, surely we should ensure that this project to build this pipeline from the Alaska gas fields through Canada to the United States provides the maximum possible employment for Canadian labour.

April 3, 1978
Northern Pipeline
As I said before, the pipeline traverses Canadian territory, but in the foreseeable future we will not be deriving benefits from the natural gas flowing through it. Indeed, we will have to rely at some future date on the construction of the Dempster lateral, if and when it is built. In return for giving our American friends this land bridge to move their gas to their southern markets, surely it is not unreasonable to expect that we should get the maximum labour and material content in respect of this project.
The reason we are moving the amendments is that despite the assurances of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mac-Eachen) that we are going to have 100,000 man-years of employment, we are suspicious that this actually will be the case. The reasons for our suspicion were outlined at the second reading stage and I do not have to go into them at this time in great detail.
There are a number of points that should be remembered. First, the guarantee of the Deputy Prime Minister is verbal. It is nowhere stated in the legislation, and it can change as ministers, governments, or what have you change. For this reason we want to take the Deputy Prime Minister at his word and include in the legislation some of the concepts and figures he has given in this House. We have found in the past that what we had been promised by the Liberal government one day has not necessarily turned out to be the case a few months later.
We are also concerned that we will not get the 100,000 man-years promised by the Deputy Prime Minister. If one looks at the various reports put out by both U.S. and Canadian government departments estimating man-years, one will find quite a discrepancy. The company, in testimony before the National Energy Board, gave different figures. We find, for example, that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion commissioned a study on the pipeline and manpower, and concluded that unless we have guarantees written into the legislation, such as proposed by the NDP in its motions, we will not have 100,000 man-years of employment as promised by the Deputy Prime Minister, but something more like 67,000 man-years.
In addition, I referred to examples of United States government departments which also are very optimistic that the United States will get a high proportion of the labour content of this pipeline. They pretty well exclude all Canadian labour on the Alaska portion. The estimates in the United States are that the maximum we can get is about 3 per cent Canadian employment on that section of the line, and virtually nil in respect of the other portion in the United States.
We all remember, of course, that the United States has very many skilled pipeline labourers from the Alaskan, Alyeska Pipeline project available and ready to move in, if and when the opportunity arises. I know there is to be a monitoring agency in an attempt to maximize jobs for people in those areas through which the pipeline will be running, but we all know that the economic determinant here is skilled labour, and that much of that skilled labour is American.
My concern is that unless we have some very strong legislative guarantees we will not have the kind of man-years of employment promised again and again by the Deputy Prime Minister. We are supported in this, for example, by a department of this government, namely, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I would also refer to a report put out by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce of this government, entitled "Canadian Industrial and Manpower Requirements and Content for a Northern Gas Pipeline." This was an analysis published on February 24, 1978. It looks at various pipeline applications at the time; Arctic Gas and Alcan as well. At page 22 of this report it is stated:
The study indicates that most, if not all, of the manpower requirements can be met in Canada. The Department of Manpower and Immigration has presented a policy statement to the Pipeline Commissioner to reflect the objective of 100 per cent Canadian labour sourcing. However, should foreign labour sourcing be necessary, care would have to be taken to ensure that Canadian worker content is optimized. In addition, it may be necessary to develop mechanisms to deal with a possible "spillover" of Alaska wage rates into the Canadian labour sector.
The report of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce indicates that we do have the labour available and, if given a fair chance, we can ensure: that Canadians get the jobs.
In addition, the same report notes at page 7:
It should be noted that apparent pressures from U.S.A. sources have caused Alcan to engage separate U.S.A. engineering management firms for the Alaska portion of the line despite the obvious efficiency of using the Canadian engineering team already assembled.
That gives rise to my concern that we are going to face a lot of pressure from Americans when both the bidding and construction get under way. There will be pressure to have American skilled labour used to the greatest extent possible on this pipeline project. For this reason we should strengthen every clause in the bill that supposedly assures us we will have maximum Canadian labour content.
Motion No. 8 strengthens the verbal commitment of the Deputy Prime Minister by the wording in the legislation.
Motion No. 9 deals with Canadian content, and seeks to again obtain hard, written guarantees in the legislation, particularly if we are going to have maximum Canadian content including steel, valve, and other industrial components.
To begin with I should like to examine what spokesmen for Foothills, the company that is to build this vast project, have said before the National Energy Board. In undertakings given in testimony before the National Energy Board, Foothills promised compliance in certain respects. At page 6D3 it is stated:
The Applicant believes this policy of "Canadian Goods and Services First" will be in the best long term interest of all Canadians because:
1.	The expertise gained by industry and the workmen involved will remain in Canada and will be available for future projects within Canada. In addition, this knowledge will provide a valuable commodity for export to countries in a less favoured position.
2.	The expanded facilities and capability will provide Canada with a more diversified and stable industrial sector.
3.	The Canadian purchases will produce positive employment and economic impact on the regional areas where the goods are produced.
[Mr. Symes.J
April 3, 1978

I am sure my colleague in Cape Breton-East Richmond is very concerned about the regional spin-offs of such a pipeline construction in the steel industry.
4.	A significant portion of the incomes generated by purchases of Canadian goods and services will be spent in Canada, generating further economic benefits. There will also be, because of import substitution, a positive effect on the balance of trade.
So, here was Foothills before the National Energy Board arguing that maximizing Canadian content of this project would have beneficial spinoffs in all areas of the Canadian economy, and we agree. That is why we would like to see some of the promises and undertakings before the NEB reinforced in this legislation that is before us. When it is left to wording such as maximize or optimize and so on, the whole percentage content can vary quite dramatically, and that is why I would like to see some specifics. In my motion I suggest that at least 90 per cent, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said on many occasions, of the content of the pipeline should be Canadian.
We are confident that on a competitive basis, and with that 90 per cent guarantee, there would be no price gouging, and certainly the amendment that we moved earlier, which was unfortunately ruled out of order, was to ensure that. In light of the guarantee, if there was any kind of exorbitant increase in prices, then the government would, of course, have the option of accepting bids outside Canada or from non-Canadian producers. Indeed, as I understand the treaty, that is still the case.
The treaty calls for competitive bidding and probably it would take precedence over some sections of the legislation before us. The fact that Foothills has said it would be a benefit and has given a kind of commitment that it will try to maximize Canadian content for us, is not quite good enough. We want to see that guarantee in the legislation. And why so? Looking at so many of the background reports that have been done on this pipeline, one gets the uneasy feeling that we may end up with less than the Deputy Prime Minister has been promising us. I refer to the report done by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, on page 3:
Given that American firms are very well placed to win contracts for the U.S.A. portions, they, as a result, are in a more favourable position to bid on contracts for the Canadian segment by being able to pass on to the pipeline contractor some portions of the savings to be achieved by combining the Canadian requirements with their existing production for the U.S.A. sections of the line.
Here is another government report which analyses the situation and raises the concern that without these kinds of guarantees there is a natural advantage to the American contractors and bidders.
And again from the same report on page 5:
The danger that sales contracts of Canadian branch plants of foreign multinationals which exceeded their existing capacity would simply be transferred to the non-Canadian parent instead of to alternative Canadian suppliers. Similar problems could occur if the low cost offshore plants were to be used to fill a bid made and originally intended for the successful Canadian subsidiary.
Here is another concern that, because of the branch-plant nature of our economy, if a subsidiary of an American company or any other company could not meet the requirements of the orders, rather than a Canadian company getting the surplus work it would be transferred to a parent company of
Northern Pipeline
that subsidiary. In other words, the possibility of diminishing Canadian content exists. It is a reality and has been acknowledged by a department of this government.
From the same report I point out on page 9, which deals with the pipeline itself:
Competition in world markets is intense and Canadian companies could be outbid by the pricing strategies of Japanese and European pipe producers. Projections by steel experts reflect a tough world competitive situation.
Again, we are committed to accepting bids on a world-wide basis, and we know-I will get into this when I move to my motion No. 10-that they are all unfair trading practices that foreign governments use with their industry to bring the cost of steel pipe below actual costs of production. If that happens, our steel manufacturers will be at a competitive disadvantage. They will not be able to meet these foreign bids. My fear is that there is no mechanism provided to stop that from going on. That is why I want this amendment in the bill.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce study and report concerns me because it looks at the matter of pipe fittings and concludes that there may be difficulty in maximizing Canadian content. They state at page 10 of their report:
The Canadian supply market for pipe fittings has been dominated historically by wholesalers, who distribute imports mainly from Japan and the U.S.A., and distributing subsidiaries of large U.S. producers. These latter subsidiaries have historically procured the rough product from their U.S. parents and only minor additional value is added in Canada. If this situation is not to be perpetuated, it must be clearly stated that Canada expects a high Canadian content for pipe fittings manufacture, at least for the Canadian sections.
Going to page 11 it states:
Unless some form of initiatives in Canadian policy are taken there will be a great temptation to procure pipe fittings from abroad, especially low-priced imports from Japan.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the studies that have gone on indicate that we should be concerned with maximizing Canadian content, and my amendment will guarantee us that maximizing that we all want.
When we look at the Foothills undertaking before the National Energy Board, they state on page 6D-2 under "Project Procurement":
The Applicant will purchase goods and services from sellers who provide the best combination of price, delivery, service and quality. This normal commercial purchasing criteria will, however, be specifically tempered by the policy which one of the Applicant's sponsor companies (The Alberta Gas Trunk Line Company Limited) has historically followed. This policy is one "where a sufficient number of qualifying Canadian sellers are available to provide competitive quotes, AGTL will limit its bid list to Canadian suppliers.'' When bids must be solicited from non-Canadian sources, the policy is to "buy Canadian" whenever the order can so be filled, and when price is reasonably competitive.
Again, Foothills is in agreement with the kind of amendment that I am putting forward, if one believes the testimony given before the National Energy Board.
Canada has the capability to produce the material content. We have the skilled labour. Surely this will be a great boost, not only in the short-term but in the long-term, for our manufacturing sector which has declined so badly in the past decade. It should be a great chance to regain some lost
4076

April 3, 1978
Northern Pipeline
business. This is why we say it should be put in the legislation to maximize the Canadian content.
Let us say, as I do in my amendment, that we have the 90 per cent figure as the Deputy Prime Minister is so fond of telling us. I know the argument he has advanced in committee and in this House-that we cannot put these guarantees into the legislation because that would contravene the GATT. I thought that this pipeline agreement was a bilateral agreement between Canada and the United States, like other bilateral agreements we have had in the past. I think of the auto pact. Surely under this circumstance we are not bound by the GATT agreement. This is a joint energy undertaking and therefore, in light of the fact that we are providing a land bridge, it is quite normal and reasonable that we should expect domestic content in the construction materials and labour used in the pipeline.
The report of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce notes precedents on pages 35 and 36 in respect of pipeline construction. The last paragraph on page 35 reads as follows:
At the time the Alyeska pipeline was built, it was made clear to several Canadian suppliers that they would have little chance in obtaining contracts for U.S.A. business if similar goods could be obtained in the U.S.A. In fact, ATCO prefab buildings were the only significant Canadian item imported. Similar reports are now being heard vis-a-vis the U.S.A. portions of this pipeline. It should be recalled that significant portions of the Trans-Canada gas pipeline and of two major oil pipelines supplying the Canadian market (the Interprovincial and the Portland-Montreal pipeline) are located in the U.S.A. These portions were built by U.S. management and manpower using primarily U.S. equipment and supplies. Even today, tariffs continue to be paid in the U.S. on the movement of Canadian-owned oil. Thus, in view of this established pattern, it seems reasonable that we should seek to optimize the Canadian content of a northern pipeline, regardless of the ownership of the gas to be transported.
So we have precedents of joint energy undertakings by the two countries whereby the country that had the major part of the pipeline going through it received the majority of contracts for the labour and building of the pipeline. It would seem to me that the Canadian portion of the line would not contravene GATT or anger the United States unduly if we insisted upon maximizing Canadian content for it.
I am somewhat amazed at the way the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) leaps to the defence of the government on this issue, saying that we do not really need these guarantees in the legislation. I recall the comments of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). There is a steel plant in his area, and in the past he has called for guarantees. I recall, as well, the comments of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), who is worried that without guarantees the pipeline is a sell-out. I was struck not only by his wit but his good sense when he referred to the spurious argument put forward by the government, that the GATT prevented us from having guarantees in the legislation. As reported at page 2866 of Hansard he said:
The industry, trade and commerce report says that if we word it carefully we would have no problem with GATT. But this will not solve the project engineering services that are not affected by GATT. Japan, Germany and the United States don't care about GATT. The only ones who care about GATT are those in this "GATT government". The Canadian people have to get this GATT government so that it will not get them.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yukon and other members of the Conservative party who have castigated this government for not making policy, and for its disastrous handling of the unemployment situation all of a sudden embrace as the stone tablet from Mount Sinai, so to speak, the words of the Deputy Prime Minister as being good for all time. Yet they should not trust this minister and the government, but should want guarantees written into the legislation, rather than take their word that there will be some monitoring agency under the control of this government which, as we all know, will be dealing with so many matters after the fact, and we will not get the content we want.
I predict that without these amendments we will not get the 90 per cent content or the 100,000 man-hours of employment the government is so fond of talking about.
Motion No. 10 relates to the unfair trade practices part of the bill. When I think of the way this government has failed to defend Canadian industry, large or small, against unfair trade practices, I wonder how serious it is about making sure we are not underbid on contracts because of these unfair trade practices. That is why I moved my amendment to define what is meant by unfair trade practices so that the government cannot get off the hook when some of these problems occur. The amendment reads in part as follows:
"trade practices such as dumping, direct and indirect industrial subsidies, transportation subsidies and special tax incentives;"
The history of the steel industry in this country is quite clear. Countries such as Japan have been able to dump steel on the Canadian market, and Algoma Steel has proved this. We know, for example, that in order to get the contract for a Mexican gas pipeline, United States steel companies deliberately underbid by 20 per cent the whole cost of production. The object was to keep the mills in production rather than suffer temporary lay-offs. I think it is very important, therefore, that the government take these unfair trade practices into account.
I was appalled at the statement made in this House by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) when he said that we do not have to worry because we have our anti-dumping legislation which will suffice. I wonder how effective that legislation or any of our legislation is when put against the United States DISC program or the transportation subsidies given to Japanese steel, or the hidden tax subsidies given to West German and Italian steel companies. I do not know whether the government is monitoring all these factors. I do not know whether it will be able to show us that it will really look at the situation, should it occur. When the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce stands in this House and gives a bland assurance that the anti-dumping legislation will suffice, I am appalled. We have it in Hansard that he let the cat out of the bag. He obviously was quoting from briefing notes, and quoted part of those notes he should not have.
I wish to refresh the memory of hon. members on this issue. It concerns the whole business of unfair competition. I refer to
April 3, 1978

page 3035 of Hansard. With regard to state subsidies and special tax concessions such as DISC, the minister stated, and I quote:
Action under the Anti-dumping Act could be taken in cases where exports into Canada are financed under more favourable terms than are available to the foreign manufacturer for its domestic sales. Under regulation (11 A) of the Anti-dumping regulations, credit and other financing terms can be taken into account in determining the normal value, export price, and, hence, the margins of dumping under the meaning of the act.
As I say, he should have stopped there, but he continued to read from his briefing notes, and this embarrassing statement came out:
It should be noted that neither (11 A) of the Anti-dumping regulations nor the imposition of countervailing duties for reasons of export financing subsidies appear to have been tested as yet. Moreover, the anti-dumping option would really only come into play after the fact, which renders its use, other than as a threat mechanism, somewhat ineffective.
Need I say more about this government's intent of legislative capacity to protect our domestic producers from unfair foreign competition? That is what worries us. As the bill is written, we will have open world competition on contracts for the Alcan pipeline. We know from the past we have had unfair foreign competition.
Our steel industries can compete on a fair basis. We do not deny that. In fact, we support it. It is the unfair competition we are worried about. That is why the New Democratic Party has put in these amendments to try to strengthen the protection for the Canadian steel industry and construction industry, and for the Canadian worker.
Surely it is only reasonable and logical that we do all we can to strengthen the legislation. As we all know, legislation is much more binding than any undertaking before the National Energy Board or any assurance, inside or outside this House, by a minister of the Crown. That is why we moved these amendments. I commend them to the House.
Everyone knows that we in this party are in favour of going ahead, but under the conditions that we maximize Canadian content and Canadian job creation, and prevent our industry losing these important contracts through unfair foreign competition. That is why we have moved these amendments to strengthen the bill. We do not have confidence in the minister or in any of the monitoring committees controlled by this government to effect what otherwise should be in the legislation.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I want to make some comments on this matter of Canadian content. It is vital to future employment in a steel plant in Canada that is in very serious condition. When talking about the steel industry, everyone seems to talk about the Ontario steel industry. There is another important plant, not as important now for the whole of the national economy as in the past, but terribly important for the people of Nova Scotia, especially those in eastern Nova Scotia and Cape Breton Island. There is another plant, not one that is integrated such as Stelco, Algoma or Dofasco, in Regina which is also very important. It must be considered in relation to what will come out of this pipeline as far as Canadian content is concerned.
Northern Pipeline
In order to put my concerns about the Sydney steel plant in perspective, I want to quote from a meeting of the Standing Committee on Regional Development held on Tuesday, March 21, 1978. I will skip over some parts and attempt not to distort the meaning of what was said, in an effort to get hon. members to realize that it is not only the Ontario steel industry involved here or whether the Ipsco plant in Regina will take part in these orders. In reality, world competitive conditions will decide in the ultimate analysis whether Canada will get a proper share of the pipe contracts.
I am not a member of this particular committee and, therefore, have not attended the committee meetings. However, I gather from what members of this party and other opposition members are saying, we are faced with a situation in which the determination of the steel content of the pipeline will be world competitive economic conditions.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), is basing a lot of fact on two points. The minister has said something very often. Many would probably be inclined to agree with him. I would question whether it is so. The last member of our party who spoke and most other members of our party feel the same about this. The two points emphasized by the Deputy Prime Minister are, first, that the Hamilton Stelco plant, with its pipe mill at Welland, does not have any worry. Because of its efficiency, it can compete against the Americans, Japanese, Italians and other Europeans. The type of pipe that will be used, the diameter and so on, will result in some spinoff to the Ipsco plant in Regina. Second, in addition, there will be a monitoring agency which will look at whether any unfair competitive practices will be followed by world competitors.
The Deputy Prime Minister and the government seem to believe that will guarantee us a fair share of the market, that it will mean 90 per cent Canadian content. 1 remind hon. members that, in the ultimate analysis, the Deputy Prime Minister is only saying that, in his opinion, the Canadian plants are capable of making this pipe and can compete because of their efficiency. That is the only guarantee we have.
You do not have to read too much Canadian economic history to realize that many types of barriers have been erected by other countries, especially the Japanese industry, which is a very different type of structured steel industry from our own.
Anyone who is familiar with the situation knows that the world steel industry is not an easy one to monitor. The previous speaker reminded us that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), referring to anti-dumping regulations, had mentioned that section 11 (a) had never really been tested. To my mind we are being totally unrealistic if we think only in terms of competition between Canada and the United States for these steel contracts in regard to the pipeline while completely ignoring the Italians, the rest of the European producers, and Japan.
The government appears to be depending upon world competitive conditions to maximize Canadian content. But consider the Japanese steel industry, for example. It is a private
80033-45%

April 3, 1978
Northern Pipeline
industry in the sense that it is owned by private shareholders. But aside from the fact that it receives the type of assistance which all corporations are given today under a mixed capitalist system, by way of deferred taxes, special depreciation allowances and so on, the Japanese steel industry is unique. Competing against the Japanese steel industry is not a matter of company against company; it is a matter of individual companies in Canada or the United States competing with the Japanese government.
The alliance between the Japanese government, industry, and labour has led to a unique situation. I do not know how many hon. members have read a fairly recent publication by Kenneth Galbraith entitled The New Industrial State. One of the reviewers of that book, another professor from Harvard University, said Mr. Galbraith, in his book, had given his readers new insights into the nature of multinational corporations and what are referred to as oligopolistic corporations, which means four or five industries which are capable of controlling output in such a way as to operate a good deal independent of the normal market restraints of supply and demand. As the previous speaker was making his point about the necessity of guarantees it occurred to me that the thesis of Mr. Galbraith's book was probably more applicable to the Japanese economy than to the economy of the United States. This is important because 1 believe the government itself has recently begun to realize that the economy is not working in the way the textbooks say it should. Things are not as they appeared when I taught Economics 100 and Economics 200.
Industry in Japan is so structured that it amounts to a corporate state in which private ownership is allowed to exist subject to a great deal of public control and regulation. The Japanese are not very interested in seeing that a particular steel firm makes a profit. They are concerned about whether that steel plan can produce efficiently enough to provide the steel necessary for construction, and especially for automobiles, at rates which will maintain Japanese exports in a strong position against world competition.
The point I am trying to make-and this is the third time I have repeated it-is this: in signing this guarantee, or in concluding this bilateral agreement with the United States, we acted under the assumption that the competition would largely be between Canadian and U.S. firms. The minister has contended that the provisions of GATT prevent us from insisting on guarantees. However, as the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) has so well argued, this is no ordinary agreement. It is a special agreement. Why is it a special agreement? It is special because we are giving the Americans a land bridge so that they may transport a product which they desperately need. Surely this is not the kind of multilateral agreement which is covered by GATT. I maintain it is a special type of bilateral agreement.
Not only are there non-tariff barriers surrounding the steel industry which are very difficult to fathom, but firms in western Europe, and, of course, in Japan, are supported by government to an extent far greater than is the case in North America. This being the case there is a great deal of doubt in

my mind that we shall be able to reach the figure of 90 per cent to which the Deputy Prime Minister has referred.


An hon. Member:: He is naive.


Andrew Hogan: I am not sure whether it is naivete. But as I understand the way in which the international steel industry works, his reasoning leaves a lot to be desired as far as I can see. If the agreement had specified that the competition would be between Canada and the United States, we would today be in a different ball game altogether. Indeed, I would be inclined to agree with the thinking of the Deputy Prime Minister. But that is not the case. The companies which will be providing the gas obviously wish to keep their costs down so that they can make as much profit as possible. A number of the steel plants in the EEC countries, especially Italy, are in a position to supply the material which is needed. They have surplus capacity and they can produce the pipe. This being the case, I fear we may have to settle for 60 or 70 per cent instead of the 90 per cent the minister promised. Such a reduction would make an immense difference to the Sydney steel plant.
I know the Deputy Prime Minister is concerned in a general way that the Sydney steel plant should benefit from a spin-off effect in the form of orders for slabs and other materials which would be sent to Stelco, for example, which is expected to get a large share of the contract. But unless Canada gets 90 per cent of the work, there is little chance there will be any spin-off to the benefit of Cape Breton at a time the plant there desperately needs a shot in the arm.
When I asked Mr. McGee about this in the meeting of the regional economic committee, he told me it would take a year to a year and a half to complete studies on Sysco's renovation. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) is here, and he knows that what I am saying is true with regard to studies and action on the modernization of the Sydney steel plant, as reported by Mr. McGee, the Atlantic region administrator of DREE. Mr. Kent is the president of the Sydney Steel Corporation which, as most hon. members know, is under the provincial government of Nova Scotia and not under Devco where it should be, and when Mr. Kent appeared before the industry committee of the Nova Scotia government last week, he said that there would be a plan presented by the end of May. However, as I mentioned, just two weeks ago Mr. McGee told me that it would take a year to a year and a half before the studies would be completed and before it would be possible to take action. Mr. McGee went into detail, and I appreciated that very much. 1 am concerned about many things in this regard, but this is not the time to raise them all. I am concerned, however, about what will happen in the meantime, and one thing the Sydney plant vitally needs is a spin-off from the effects of this northern gas pipeline.
The Deputy Prime Minister is trained in economics, just as I have an academic economic background, and he knows that there is no way that there can be guarantees when the bidding is open to world competition. The Stelco pipe mill in Welland
April 3, 1978

is very efficient, but there is still no way that we can provide guarantees when contracts will be open to world competition that Canadian firms will win as much as 90 per cent. As pointed out by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie as well as by myself, it is one thing to talk about North American competition, but it is another thing to allow Japanese competition and the competition of others who are helped in numerous ways by their governments, and who look at the steel industry in a different way than we in North America do. That is the reason I express fear about the lack of guarantees in this all-important legislation. My party is strongly in favour of this pipeline, but I also support the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.
I know how difficult it must have been in the bilateral negotiations for Canada to reach this agreement with the United States, but it seems to me that history will record that the Deputy Prime Minister, who had the onerous job of conducting negotiations on our behalf, would have done better to have said to this House that we can expect to be able to compete because Stelco has an efficient plant in Welland and because there is a plant at Regina. However, the Deputy Prime Minister should also have said that since we are unable to exclude the Europeans and the Japanese from bidding and since the pipeline people want to keep costs down and make a profit, the goals of 100,000 man-years of employment and 90 per cent Canadian content will not be met. I think that would have been more realistic.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for giving me additional time. I will take just one minute to repeat that I am convinced that the government has been trying to use the excuse that GATT will not allow us to enter into a special agreement with the United States, which I do not buy. I do not agree that the Anti-dumping Tribunal and the monitoring agency will be sufficient. I am not convinced that there will be 90 per cent Canadian content. I am willing to bet that the government cannot ensure 90 per cent Canadian content.
Mr. Kent recently described the steel plant in Cape Breton as an orphan which depends very much on selling semi-finished steel to big producers like Stelco, and the result of this lack of guarantees will be that the steel plant will suffer. Despite the difficulties which would be involved in negotiations we ought to have had guarantees. To repeat, I think our negotiators misunderstood the world competitive situation. Our negotiators were thinking in terms of Canadian-American relationships and forgot about the large role governments play in countries such as Japan and Italy. That role will make a big difference in the final analysis with regard to this pipeline.
Northern Pipeline


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on motion No. 8 in the name of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Motion No. 9 standing in the name of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that the vote on motion No. 8 disposes of motions Nos. 9 and 10.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Erik Nielsen: That is the way I had it from Mr. Speaker when he was in the chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Motions Nos. 9 and 10 deal with manpower and procurement and the conditions set out in schedule III and should be grouped for debate, with a vote on motion No. 8 and another one on motions Nos. 9 and 10.
The question is therefore on motions Nos. 9 and 10. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the motions will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.

April 3, 1978
Northern Pipeline


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
[DOT]	(1652)
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members.
[DOT]	(1702)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is on motion No. 1 in the name of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes). The question on this motion will dispose also of motion No. 11.


Mr. Speaker:: I motion No. 11 lost.	declare motion No.	1 lost and I declare
The next vote is upon motion No. 3 in the name of the hon.		
member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes).		
The House divided on motion No. 3 (Mr. Symes) which was		
negatived on the following division:		
	(Division No. 34)
 YEAS Messrs.	
Alexander	Gauthier	McGrathAlkenbrack	(Roberval)	McKinleyAndre	Gilbert	McKinnon(Calgary Centre)	Gillies	MunroBaker	Hamilton	(Esquimalt-Saanich)(Grenville-Carleton)	(Swift Current-	MurtaBaldwin	Maple Creek)	NeilBlackburn	Hnatyshyn	NielsenBrisco	Hogan	NystromBroadbent	Holmes	OrlikowCaouette	Howie	Paproski(Villeneuve)	Huntington	PattersonCiark	Johnston	Peters(Rocky Mountain)	Kempling	RitchieClarke	Knowles	Roche(Vancouver Quadra)	(Winnipeg	SchellenbergerCoates	North Centre)	ScottCrosbie	La Salle	SmithDarling	MacDonald (Miss)	(Churchill)Dick	(Kingston and the	StevensDinsdale	Islands)	StewartDionne	Macquarrie	(Marquette)(Kamouraska)	Matte	SymesEpp	Mazankowski	TowersFriesen	McCain
NAYS Messrs.	Whittaker Woolliams-60.Anderson	Demers	KaplanAndras	Dupont	Lalonde(Port Arthur)	Dupras	LamontagneAndres	Duquet	Langlois(Lincoln)	Ethier	LapointeBasford	Fleming	LeeBechard	Flynn	LefebvreBegin (Miss)	Foster	LessardBussieres	Fox	LoiselleCaccia	Francis	(Chambly)Campbell	Gauthier	Loiselle(LaSalle-femard-Cote	(Ottawa-Vanier)	(Saint-Henri)Saint-Paul)	Goodale	MacEachenCaron	Goyer	MacFarlaneChretien	Guay	MacGuiganClermont	Guilbault	MarchandComtois	Herbert	MclsaacCyr	Holt (Mrs.)	McRaeDanson	Hopkins	MilneDe Bane	Jamieson	
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
April 3, 1978

Northern Pipeline
Messrs.
Munro
(Hamilton East) Pelletier Penner Prud'homme Railton Raines Reid
Rompkey Roy (Laval) Sauv6 (Mrs.) Sharp Smith
(Saint-Jean)
Stewart
(Cochrane)
Stollery
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner
Watson
Wood
Yanakis
Young-73.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 3 lost.
The next question is on motion No. 8.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 8 lost.
The next question is upon motion No. 9, which will also dispose of motion No. 10.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motions Nos. 9 and 10 lost.
The question is upon the motion of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) that the bill be concurred in.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-25, to establish the Northern Pipeline Agency, to facilitate the planning and construction of a pipeline for the transmission of national gas from Alaska and northern Canada and to give effect to an agreement between Canada and the United States of America on principles applicable to such a pipeline and to amend certain acts in relation thereto, as reported (with amendments) from the special committee on a Northern Gas Pipeline, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At the next sitting of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae)-The Canadian Economy-Inclusion in budget of incentives for voluntary work-sharing; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)- Veterans Affairs-Request war disability pension be raised to level of 1973 formula; the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith)-National Defence-Armed Forces personnel engaged in search for remains of Soviet satellite.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Mr. Anderson:: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is an agreement to proceed this afternoon with notice of motion No. 6 standing in the name of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert).

I therefore ask that all items preceding No. 6 in the list of notices of motions be allowed to stand by unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


EDUCATION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, October 31, 1977, consideration of the motion of Mr. Herbert:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing an office of education, to conduct research in the provinces with the co-operation of the provincial governments and also in other countries, to consider the provisions of federal financial assistance for second language training in elementary and high schools and to disseminate information with a view to improving the education of Canadian youth.
Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the motion moved by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) that the government should consider the advisability of establishing an office of education. I believe that at this time, when we are all concerned about fostering national unity, such a move would be regarded with deep distrust as an intrusion by the government of Canada into an area of provincial responsibility. Such a move would serve only to widen the gulf between the different levels of government rather than pulling us closer together as seems to be necessary today.
Historically, at the time of confederation the government of Canada played no role in education in Canadian society and the British North America Act placed the responsibility for education with provincial governments. The Government of Canada has been and is directly responsible for education in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, in the armed forces, in the penitentiary service, and for the education of Canada's native peoples.
Throughout our nation's history there have been many occasions on which the government of Canada has been called upon to play an active role in educational developments. For example, the government of Canada became involved in education in response to the educational demands of industrialization in the early 1900's, the demands of veterans returning from two world wars, and the enormous expansion of postsecondary enrolments in the 1960's. In each case, participation by the government of Canada was effected without usurping the authority of provincial governments and for the benefit of the country as a whole.
In 1966 Prime Minister Pearson clearly stated the position of the government of Canada with respect to education. He said:
Education is, under our constitution, a matter of provincial jurisdiction. The federal government does not dispute this or wish in any way to do so. At the
April 3, 1978

same time, education is obviously a matter of profound importance to the economic and social growth of the country as a whole... the federal government accepts primary responsibility for employment and economic activity generally in the country. We recognize that provincial governments share our concern in these matters and pursue these common aims in the conduct of their own affairs.
I believe that a review of the history of the involvement of the Government of Canada in education will demonstrate clearly that this involvement has occurred without usurping the constitutional rights of the provincial authorities.
Participation by the government of Canada in education dates back to 1876 when, in an effort to train more Canadians to serve as army officers, the Royal Military College was established at Kingston. Another early step was a 150,000 acre land endowment to the University of Manitoba in 1885, as provision for capital expenditures and establishment of a permanent source of revenue for the university. Although these early steps were of considerable significance, federal involvement was still quite limited in the latter part of the 19th century. Indeed, at that time education was considered to be a family responsibility and participation was largely determined by social status and religious belief. Public responsibility extended only to elementary schooling, and secondary schools, which were usually supported by religious organizations, were reserved to train future elites.
There was additional pressure on the Government of Canada in the early 1900's. This was linked specifically to the flow of young people from farms to cities, which began to jeopardize agricultural production, and to the shortage of skilled manpower in manufacturing industries. Following requests for action from business and labour, the Government of Canada appointed the Royal Commission on Industrial Training and Vocational Education in 1910. The work of the commission resulted in important legislation: the Agricultural Aid Act of 1912, and the Agricultural Instruction Act of 1913. The former supplied grants to provinces to develop agricultural education and techniques; the latter specifically gave assistance for training directly to the three existing veterinary colleges and, indirectly, by channelling funds through the provinces to agricultural colleges. This was the genesis of channelling federal aid for education through provincial governments.
In 1916, as a result of Canada's war involvement and a desire to improve research and development, the federal government formed the National Research Council. Initially, this was an effort to co-ordinate government research programs. During World War II, the National Research Council played a vital role in co-ordinating and conducting scientific research. The Council now has an extensive program of grants and fellowships.
When the federal government established the Dominion Bureau of Statistics in 1918, provision was made for a division to be concerned with education statistics. The education division published its first statistical report in 1921, and it has expanded its services and publications considerably since then.
Office of Education
The economic depression of the 1930's served to identify a major problem within the secondary school system. On school leaving, many students found that they had few occupational skills with which to enter the labour market. In an attempt to alleviate this problem, the federal government introduced a new program for technical education in 1937 with the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act. This act, directed towards maintaining the morale and increasing the employability of young people, was negotiated in agreement with the provinces, on a cost-sharing basis, through the establishment of various occupational training projects. Eligibility was limited to those between the ages of 18 and 30. Emphasizing vocational and technical skill, this Act initially provided funds of about $2.5 million during its two years, but corrected only to a limited degree the inadequacies of technical and vocational education.
A Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations, known as the Rowell-Sirois Commission, was appointed in 1937 to make an assessment of the economic and financial basis of confederation; the distribution of federal and provincial powers; and federal-provincial financial relations. While its mandate did not extend to education, the commission felt that equality of educational opportunity did come within its domain. According to the commission, the concept "education" had changed and expanded to include new dimensions since the time of the BN A Act.
In view of this, the commission recommended that "the federal government should have full power to provide employment aid for those recognized as employable-which would make the training of unemployed youth a matter of even greater federal concern than at present." The commission assumed that the provinces would provide a system of courses to those Canadians requiring further training.
While the commission stated that a free hand in education was vital to provincial autonomy, it identified certain problems arising in this context. Representations were made to the commission concerning "the existence in several provinces of a sense of grievance which may well contribute to national disunity as well as to lack of harmony within the province concerned." Although the commission lamented the disparity in educational opportunity throughout the country, it made no relevant recommendations. Solutions rested on financial proposals which would place the provinces in a position to meet their responsibilities for education, if they chose to do so.
The commission also suggested that a council, analogous to the National Research Council, could be established to support research work in the social sciences in Canadian universities and elsewhere. The commission suggested, furthermore, that it might be appropriate for the federal government to establish a national library.
Growing Canadian cultural awareness and concern for a Canadian identity prompted the federal government to appoint in 1949 the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences. The commission, also known as the Massey Commission, released its report in June, 1951. In the field of higher learning the commission saw three major
4084

April 3, 1978
Office of Education
problems: scarcity of financial aid to the arts and humanities; the financial condition of universities; and orientation toward a small educated elite. As the commission noted, the number of veterans enrolling as students was quickly diminishing and, as a result, the federal aid that came with them was eroding. The commission believed that action was urgently required in this sector and that it was the duty of the federal government to assist in some way.
In view of the fact that the Canadian constitution did not forbid financial assistance to a citizen in order to help him to carry on studies in his chosen field, the commission did not feel that it would be improper to recommend federal aid in the form of contributions to individuals. A further recommendation was the continuation of federal support for the program of the National Research Council. As for disciplines outside of the boundaries of natural science, the commission recommended the establishment of what is today the Canada Council.
Perhaps I should stop at that point because we have certainly run into problems as a result of the establishment of this council. I would certainly recommend that the government look at the present Canada Council appointments and especially at whether parliament should in some way be involved with the appointment of people to the Canada Council instead of the present system whereby they are appointed under the direction of the Secretary of State.
Many of us are aware that some of the publications which have been subsidized by the Council-and I refer particularly to the Blue Ointment Press in Vancouver-are a degradation to the printed word in Canada. At a time when this parliament is examining the question of pornography and legislation to curb it, it seems very strange that pornographic materials should be published under the auspices of the Canada Council. I hope members on both sides will look very seriously at a body appointed by the federal government to determine whether funds should be appropriated to assist artists, novelists and poets which degrades itself by publishing pornographic materials. I think the House should look at this question, whether in a committee or whether when brought up on estimates.
I think there should be some regulation governing the Canada Council whereby members of this House would have the right to assist in appointments. In an attempt to be fair and impartial, so that decisions are not made by political bodies as to what is art and what is not and as to what should be funded in the cultural area, what has happened is that in appointing people who have a knowledge of the arts something has gone wrong, and material which should not be published is being published under the auspices of the Canada Council. I say that more in sorrow than in anger because I feel that the Canada Council has an important role to play in Canadian culture. However, if publications such as the one I mentioned by the Blue Ointment Press of Vancouver are published as a result of government funding, I suggest that a thorough examination should be made so that Canadian culture rather than Canadian pornography is advanced.

In view of the fact that the Canadian constitution does not forbid financial assistance to citizens, I wonder if I may raise another point which I think should be considered, since very seldom do we have the opportunity to discuss education in the House of Commons. It appears from what has occurred in the last several years that our educational system is not providing the skills which are needed in the work force. One of the highest rates of unemployment in Canada can be found among students.
I think we are dealing with an antiquated system. Our society needs more skilled people every year, but our students, while being educated, are not acquiring the skills required by the labour market. Perhaps even more importantly, they are coming out of high school without any definition as to what their role in society might be. High school graduates are going from job to job because they have not considered future occupations, and they are not being advised what opportunities there are or what path they should be taking. As time goes on I think it will become more and more important that there be guidance at both the provincial and federal levels. At a time when our school enrolments are decreasing our universities are attracting more and more students. I certainly do not believe that the Government of Canada has any right to step in and say to a person that he cannot make use of certain facilities because there is no forseeable need for certain skills; but this information should at least be made available.
Surely students should be counselled before they enter faculties of education or faculties of general arts. They should be told that their skills may not be needed, so that if they proceed they will at least know that they may have problems finding jobs upon graduation. For a number of years students have not been counselled as to what jobs might be available in the future or made aware that some job opportunities may diminish as time goes on because of a variety of factors. The birth rate has decreased over the last 15 years or so, and in the future fewer schools and fewer teachers will be required.
A great deal of work can be done, not necessarily through an educational council, but through working with the provinces. There have been various conferences in the last month or two at which federal and provincial governments have discussed matters of common concern. Earlier in the pipeline debate I said that there will be a crucial shortage of trained personnel when pipeline construction begins. At the present time we do not have enough welders and mechanics. We know that the pipeline will be coming on stream. Therefore, provincial and federal governments should be making arrangements. They should not wait until construction begins; these arrangements should be made several years in advance. That to me seems elementary. However, are we making those arrangements now? Is the federal government, in conjunction with the provinces, doing that?
I honestly believe that we do not need another bureaucracy. We need departments-for example, the Department of Employment and Immigration-which use common sense. Federal and provincial departments together should determine what the needs will be in the foreseeable future and work
April 3, 1978
together. We need heavy duty mechanics. There is not one logging camp or mine in British Columbia which is not advertising for heavy duty mechanics. There are many people who wish to work, but I suggest there are not enough skilled people; one does not have to be the most gifted parliamentarian to understand that. On an almost daily basis business people come to me telling me that they cannot get Canadian labour and asking me if they can hire labour from outside Canada. What have we been doing with our education system for the last ten years? Why do we not know what our requirements are in the field of specialized skills? We are going to require more people with special skills when pipeline construction begins.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that private members' hour had to start late today because this is an extremely important and interesting subject, and I had hoped to deal with it at some length.
I must say that I have some reservations about the motion before us. I have reservations not so much because of the principle of the motion but, rather, about the form of the motion. I am certainly on record as having favoured some kind of co-ordinating authority for Canadian education. I think it is deplorable that students across Canada are denied any degree of mobility from province to province because of different educational standards. I find it equally deplorable that Canadian history is different from one part of the country to another.
The hon. member who preceded me gave us a useful and succinct account of the constitutional aspects of education in Canada and the history of federal involvement. I think we have to remind ourselves that under the BNA Act the legislatures of the provinces are responsible for education. However, perhaps that act should be modified. Perhaps a modification is overdue, but I do not think the modification should be as outlined in the motion before us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess. [DOT]


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
_______________________________________4085
Anti-Inflation Act


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-18, to amend the Anti-Inflation Act and guidelines, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put on the record a few remarks with respect to Bill C-18. I should like to emphasize that the history of this bill, both in the House and at committee, has been a most unfortunate one. The fact is we have had a Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) whom we all agree is only a part-time Minister of Finance.


Mr. Paproski:: That is right.


Marc Lalonde: Where was the hon. member for the last ten minutes?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The hon. minister for intergovernmental affairs, whatever that means, has asked where I was. I was explaining to the Canadian Press why the minister has found it necessary to raise the bank rate another half point, and why he has now gone to the Canadian chartered banks and asked for $2.5 billion as the new line of credit, instead of the $1.5 billion standby line of credit which was originally arranged by the minister with our chartered banks.


Marc Lalonde: Order. The hon. member should deal with the bill.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As soon as I start giving an explanation as to where I was, the very same minister who asked for that explanation now interrupts by saying "Order".
In dealing with Bill C-18, it is critical for the House to realize how inept the federal government has been with respect to the handling of our economy, and in particular, the handling of the inflation situation in this country. The fact is the government has failed to give a proper explanation to the

4086

April 3, 1978
Anti-Inflation Act
House, or certainly to a committee of the House, as to why its so-called anti-inflation program has failed so miserably.
We must bear in mind that we were told by the government this year that our inflation level would be down to 4 per cent by about October. Incidentally, the Minister of Finance keeps changing his story. Initially we were told in committee by the Minister of Finance that the inflation level in Canada would be 6 per cent during 1978. Realizing how devious this minister can be and how he twists his terms, we zeroed in specifically at committee and said: "Mr. Minister, would you explain? What do you mean by 6 per cent? Do you mean come June, 12 months over June 1977, it will be 6 per cent? Is it the average 1978 inflation level over the average 1977?" He said: "No doubt about that; I am talking average 1978 over average 1977". Within two weeks the minister reversed himself and said that he meant a 6 per cent inflation level in December this year compared to December 1977. That is an entirely different picture. The present Minister of Finance is about the only Canadian who believes today, if he in turn believes, that we are going to reach even a 6 per cent inflation level by December 1978.
The reason I refer to the sorry progress of this government with respect to Bill C-18, both in the House and in committee, is that when the government returned to the House and asked for this amending legislation to be passed in order to patch up some of the deficiencies in the initial anti-inflation program, I would have thought any responsible minister of finance would have said: "I feel you in the House should be given a full accounting of how the program has worked, a blow by blow description of how we have failed and where we have been successful in the anti-inflation program". I would have expected the minister to outline where the fiscal restraint, which was promised in October 1975, was felt in the economy. None of us can find the spending restraint which they claimed in October 1975 was going to be followed. I expected the Minister of Finance to explain why the monetary growth has been so aggressive since October 1975, yet we were told that they were going to be more restrained in their monetary growth at that time. Also, the Minister of Finance should have indicated where the promised deregulation took place since October 1975. In fact, more government regulation, not less, has been put on Canadian industry and the Canadian public since then.
I make these points to outline how the government has not given a proper accounting in the House regarding its antiinflation program. Most importantly, the activities of the Anti-Inflation Board and the entire effect of the so-called anti-inflation program has been glossed over by the government. For example, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) attempted to get away with certain misstatements today during question period, when he indicated that somehow or other our economy was doing tremendously well. I do not know why he singled out Japan, but he indicated that, other than Japan, Canada is doing better than anyone else. That is an untruth which he put forward in the House and generally to the Canadian public.

Let me be specific on this important subject. In the February 1978 Bank of Canada Review there is a very interesting analysis of what the bank calls the international economic and financial developments in 1977. This report was prepared by the international department of the bank, under the direction of Mr. John White. At page 10, table II, it is made quite clear that Canada's record, as far as inflation is concerned, has been a disaster in spite of the controls program which we are now being asked to patch up, in the sense of relieving some of the deficiencies existent in the program from day one.
Every hon. member should read the entire Bank of Canada article, and in particular, what is said with respect to Bill C-18 concerning consumer prices. In the 12 month period of December 1976 to December 1977, the inflation level shown for Canada is 9.5 per cent. Of course, that is the rate put out by Statistics Canada on that date. The performances of seven major industrialized nations of the world have been reviewed. Included in the United States, Japan, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy and Canada. Inflation in those countries for that one year period ending last December reached a high of 7.2 per cent. So we have the startling revelation by the statistical department of the Bank of Canada, which is confirmed nothwithstanding the anti-inflation program introduced by the government in October 1975, that we have had higher inflation than other countries during the same period. In fact, our inflation was 2.3 per cent higher. When one reviews the figures of the Bank of Canada, perhaps the most serious observation to make is that our main trading partner has consistently had a better inflation record without controls than we have had with controls.
It is unforgiveable for the Minister of Finance to sit in the House tonight and remain mum about these facts when we are reviewing a bill designed to amend the legislation about which when it was brought in the government was saying it would perform such magic with inflation. This minister owes an explanation on behalf of his former minister of finance, and certainly on behalf of his emperor, sometimes called the Prime Minister of this country, as to why this country's record has unfortunately been so much worse than the economic records of other countries.
Let me go back to what I think is a most serious revelation, and that is the comparison of Canada's inflation level at various time periods, reviewed in the "Bank of Canada Review", with the inflation level for the same time periods of the United States, our main trading partner. For example, we find that in the 12 months ended December, 1975 the U.S. inflation level was 7 per cent while our inflation level was 9.5 per cent. For the 12 months ended June, 1976 the United States brought its inflation level down to 5.9 per cent, and I emphasize that this was without controls, whereas Canada's inflation level was still 7.8 per cent. For the 12 months ended December, 1976 the United States inflation level was down to 4.8 per cent-below 5 per cent-yet the Canadian rate was 5.8 per cent, still above the U.S. level. By the 12 months ended in
April 3, 1978

June, 1977 the U.S. inflation rate was 6.8 per cent compared to the Canadian rate of 7.8 per cent.
In short, for every period to which I have referred there has been a worse Canadian inflation rate than that of the United States. In the last 12 months period ending in December the Canadian inflation rate was worse than the rate of any of the seven major industrialized nations, and certainly worse than the inflation rate of our main trading partner, the United States. For the 12 months period ended December last year the United States inflation rate was 6.8 per cent compared to an unbelievable Canadian rate of 9.5 per cent. This is the background for the debate we are entering into tonight, and these are the facts we must consider when deciding whether this government should receive support for Bill C-18, to amend the anti-inflation legislation.
As we know, the bank rate has been increased again tonight. This government has sought and obtained an additional $1 billion stand-by credit from our Canadian chartered banks. In all likelihood a revelation will be made tomorrow morning concerning the outflow of funds from our foreign exchange which will truly startle the international market once again. As I said today during the question period, it has been estimated there probably was an outflow of $500 million during March. My advisers quite frankly tell me it was much more; I was trying to low-ball the facts today. In fact, we believe this outflow could have been as much as $700 million during the month of March. In any event, we are going to know these figures in the morning.
In asking for an additional $1 billion to shore up the Canadian dollar, this government is clearly anticipating the anxiety to be felt tomorrow not only by Canadians but by the international market regarding our falling dollar and the state of our foreign exchange fund.
Is it surprising that we have this dilemma of high unemployment, high inflation and a current account deficit four times that of the average deficit of any major industrialized nation in the world? Is it surprising when we realize that since last December there has been thrust upon us a Minister of Finance who has turned out to be only a part-time minister? This is a position that requires the full-time attention of our best available person; but unfortunately we do not have such a man in our present Minister of Finance.
Having regard to the plight of our dollar, how often have we been told that somehow or other the fact that our dollar has depreciated or is falling in value has resulted suddenly in more attractive exports in international trade? We have been told that somehow or other we should have had a discounted dollar long ago. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) has told us that in his view an 89 cent dollar is a good thing for Canada.
I point out these facts because I believe this government has no idea of the effect of a cheap dollar on the inflation rate in this country. It is interesting to note that at page 10 of the "Bank of Canada Review", to which I have already referred, Mr. White comments concerning the falling dollar situation in
Anti-Inflation Act
Italy and the United Kingdom that occurred a few years ago. He states;
In Italy and the United Kingdom where depreciation of their currencies have added to inflationary pressures the relative stability of both the lire and the pound this past year contributed to slower rates of price increases.
What Mr. White is confirming in that article is that a falling dollar means more inflation in the country whose currency is falling. It is as simple as that. Unfortunately our dollar has been falling because this government has been less than candid and less than clear as to the level at which it deems the Canadian dollar should be trading. This government's lack of knowledge about how to handle this type of problem has resulted in an undermining of world confidence as far as international money markets are concerned. This has created the impression that this government would somehow or other welcome an even lower level for our dollar. This is virtually a bottomless pit, and it apparently does not matter how far the dollar drops.
During one of the briefing sessions for Canadian businessmen by the Department of Finance the businessmen were floored when an official, asked if he would worry should our dollar drop to 80 cents, said that a floating dollar is a floating dollar, and if it goes to 80 cents, that is where it goes. That is not how international money markets operate. Other countries expect governments to have confidence in their ability to handle the economic affairs of their countries and they expect those governments to be able to indicate whether their currency is at a fair level in a specific range.
What this goverment has been doing is pretending on the one hand that it has not interfered with the behaviour of our dollar on international markets, while on the other hand it has been using hundreds of millions of dollars from our United States foreign exchange reserves to defend the dollar that it claims it would like to see float even lower. The sad result is that we now have the worst of all worlds. This is the result of this government's hard-nosed measures and tendencies to have the dollar dribble down and down in value, while at the same time allowing our reserves to be dissipated. Perhaps when the figures are revealed tomorrow we will find we have lost $1.5 billion of our reserves since January 1, while at the same time we have a dollar valued obviously much below the point to which the government felt it should fall.
Our dollar would not be trading at today's level if we had a government which inspired international confidence. This government can fool many Liberals in this country, as it likes to do; it can fool many Canadian voters, as it wants to do; but it will not fool for any prolonged period of time, if at all, those hardnosed international financiers of this world. This government has now faced up to the stark reality of having to deal with international bankers who do not want rhetoric or charisma, but rather, hard, cold facts about how our economy, which is obviously out of whack, is to be righted.
Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker, and it is pertinent when we are dealing with Bill C-18 to bear them in mind because I

April 3, 1978
Anti-Inflation Act
do not feel that this government even now has learned the lesson that their spending programs, previously and currently, their monetary increases, and that type of policy bring inflation which, in turn, undermines international confidence. This means that our currency will be put at a lower price level in relation to the other harder currencies; but perhaps they would like to see that.
When I say this I think of one piece of misrepresentation that we must put on the record and make sure there is no doubt, so far as Canadians are concerned, as to what it is all about. This government likes to fool various people. They went into New York and they tried in their way to fudge the issue concerning our economic picture for 1979. We have never been able to get a firm statement from this government as to what their revenue and expenditure position will be in the coming year. They have tried to fudge the issue.
When this government went to New York with a preliminary prospectus issued on March 8, 1978, they tried to get by with simply showing the fiscal 1978 figures for Canada and making no disclosure as to what the deficit might be for 1979. Frankly-and you will recall some of the questioning in this House, Mr. Speaker-this surprised us because we were told by certain investment officials with the American government: "There is no way that we were going to tolerate the Canadian government not making full, true and plain disclosure before $750 million was loaned to them" which is what the government was seeking effective April 1, 1978. They said: "Tell us what will be your cash deficit where 1979 is concerned; come clean." Let there be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that is why this little Minister of Finance crept into this House on March 16 and gave a statement as to what in fact the deficit would be as far as cash needs for 1979 are concerned.
We now find that on March 22 the March 8 preliminary prospectus filed in Washington was changed to give a more complete disclosure as to the plight we are actually facing in Canada. There is a new footnote put into that prospectus and it very interestingly says this:
In a statement by the Minister of Finance on March 16, 1978, it was indicated that financial requirements for Fiscal 1978 are now expected to total $8,800 million-
This is up decidedly from what they tried to get by with showing in Washington and New York. The footnote goes on to state:
-and are anticipated to be about $11,000 million for fiscal 1979.
I think it is a tragedy that we have a government, led by the emperor, who is now so indifferent to knowledge in Canada. And to our right to have the facts, that he has no compunction through his Minister of Finance about refusing to give out facts until he is brought to his knees in Washington and New York, and only when his bankers said: "Unless you tell us those facts you are not going to get your money".
We are now dealing with a new problem as far as foreign financing is concerned, and this was revealed earlier today. The long end of the American issue that was placed in New York is now selling at a discount of $1.75. It was brought out at par, Mr. Speaker, and it is now trading at $88.25; and if

you want to undermine the confidence of international investors still further, pull that kind of trick on them. Sell them an issue effective on April 1, tell them it is properly priced, that you think there is an equitable rate structure put on your issue, and then on Monday, April 3 have them live with a $1.75 discount on the issue that you have sold them. Try selling another issue, Mr. Speaker, as you need further funds down the road, and you will receive a very chilly reception.
I mention this because of the news today. The increased bank rate, the increase in our line of credit with our own Canadian chartered banks, means the government is going to have to go back to the international trough once again and say: "Please give us another bail-out". What I am suggesting is that, because of the way the present issue has been handled, they are going to get a pretty chilly reception. Let there be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, when I say that the issue fell to $1.75 discount from its issue price, the long end of it; that put it into perspective. It now means that in the eye of international investors, Canada's credit rating is lower than that of most of the major U.S. corporation credits.
Most of the large finance companies in the United States are now being given money at a cheaper yield than Canada is able to borrow in that international market. It is very humiliating for a nation with the resources and talented people we have in Canada to have to live with a situation where our national credit is put on a basis junior or more speculative than the credit of certain corporations, including finance companies, in the United States. Those are the facts.
In dealing with Bill C-18, Mr. Speaker, we have got to bite the bullet. The reason our dollar has gotten into its present plight and that we are on bended knee in New York and Washington asking for more and more foreign borrowing is because the inflation program of this government did not work. As I said at the beginning, we have higher inflation than the combined inflation levels of seven industrialized nations of the world. Every year that the program has been in effect our inflation level has been running higher than the inflation level in the United States, and that to international investors means that our dollar has to go down in relation to the American dollar. And down it went.
The government, in an attempt to make a bad thing look good, has said the discounted dollar is the best thing that was ever invented and that somehow or other it is going to spur the economy. I have already read into the record John White's comment as to what happened with a depreciated dollar in Italy and the United Kingdom. The fact is that a discounted dollar that is lower as far as its relationship, for example, to the American dollar is concerned, is only a good thing if you take advantage of the competitive position it artificially gives. A depreciated dollar is only good if you can get a handle on your own inflation to ensure that the depreciation that you are now trying to utilize will remain and keep you competitive with your international competitors. The United Kingdom tried lowering the value of their pound, and we find today that if their oil revenue is taken out they are still running a substantial current account deficit with the rest of the world,
April 3, 1978

in spite of their so-called depreciations or devaluations. On the other hand, the Germans have never had a devaluation or a depreciation. They have had nothing but a surplus with the rest of the world.
Those are the hard facts. We will not gain permanently by simply depreciating our dollar. In fact, it becomes a repetitive thing-the more you depreciate the more your inflation goes up; the more inflation goes up the more you have got to depreciate still further. There is no doubt the government would rather see our dollar higher, and every protestation that they make that somehow the dollar is a good thing at 87 cents is simply trying to let on that a bad thing is a good thing. Elowever, it will not be bought internationally. If it was otherwise, surely we could ask the government why they encouraged the dollar to go to $ 1.03 premium at one time; why did they go to our corporations and municipalities and our provinces and ask them to go into foreign lands to borrow money? Why did they drop the withholding tax to facilitate borrowing that money in order to keep up the Canadian dollar if at the same time they thought it was a bad thing to have a high Canadian dollar? They cannot have it both ways. If they now say it is a good thing to have an 87-cent dollar, that must mean it was a bad thing when the dollar was at $1.00 or $1.03. On the other hand, if it is good to have an 87-cent dollar, why is it not even better to have a 77-cent dollar or a 50-cent dollar? How is it that the magic level that the so-called floating dollar reaches is always the ideal level, according to this government? I think we know the answer, Mr. Speaker. The government is in a tizzy. It is panicking. Its political expediency does not jell with economic reality. Today we have perhaps the greatest indication of how political expediency rules as far as this government is concerned.
In spite of the fact that it has been generally felt that we needed new budgetary measures six months ago, or possibly twelve months ago, the government consistently said they were not needed and that the economy was doing better than most economists said, that inflation was better than most economists said, and that real growth was better. In March, 1977, the previous minister of finance-now gone like so many other ministers-said that unemployment would be less toward the end of 1977 because of the imaginative provisions he brought in. Yet we now have the highest unemployment of any industrialized nation in the world.
This is the record of this government, Mr. Speaker. It asks us virtually to rubber stamp this bill, to pass this act for the anti-inflation program. I think it behooves us to ask why this part-time Minister of Finance is not willing to stand up in this House and give a full explanation of the failings of the anti-inflation program.
On that score, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should be more specific about why I feel he is a part-time minister. We have never had a Minister of Finance so reluctant to come before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. We cannot get him there.
Anti-Inflation Act


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am always there.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: When he gets there he does not want to answer any questions. Let me take the House through the scenario of Bill C-18. The government brought in Bill C-18 and we gave it relatively prompt passage in this House. Our caucus, and I believe the caucus of the New Democratic Party, felt that the proper place to deal with such a technical bill was in committee where we could ask questions of the minister.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I was there five times.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We hoped to receive information in return. There were certain amendments we proposed to make to the bill and we wanted to get it out of second reading and into committee for study. We got it into committee and there was,
I suppose the term is "leaked" to us, certain draft legislation concerning the setting up of an inflation monitoring agency and also another bill called the Financial and Compensation Data Returns Act.
We were left with the impression, from the responses of the minister in committee, that we had caught the government slightly off guard-that they had tried to slip Bill C-18 through, hoping the legislation would remain dormant, that nobody would question it and that they subsequently intended to bring in both these bills for which we had the drafts.
When we brought this matter up, the minister's response was rather odd. First of all, he said he knew nothing about the legislation and did not know what I was talking about. It was pointed out that the draft legislation had his name on the first page. It said that "minister" means "minister of finance". Clearly if somebody had been drafting legislation that the minister knew nothing about it was a most curious thing, and it makes one wonder what the government is up to. We pressed the point and there was a kind of admission that maybe at some lower echelon someone might have been toying with draft bills. In any event, the minister wanted no part of it.
In order to facilitate the questioning of the minister- because up to that point he had refused to acknowledge there was such draft legislation-I offered him the draft, but he said he did not want to touch it. It was untouchable, Mr. Speaker. I can only presume that if any member of the House was minister of finance and someone came to committee with a draft bill that said he was the minister referred to in the bill, he would be curious to find out what was going on. This minister, however, said he did not want to touch it. We pressed him and the answer was to the effect that really it did not have much to do with Bill C-18. In fact it had everything to do with Bill C-18 because it is on the question of what happens after the anti-inflation program ends. The impression was left that this does not have too much to do with Bill C-18, that the Prime Minister had asked the Economic Council of Canada to do the monitoring but certainly they did not want any provisions like those referred to in the draft legislation.
It was a stand off, Mr. Speaker. In effect, we said if the government want us to pass Bill C-18, they had better come clean and tell us what they have in mind for a monitoring

April 3, 1978
Anti-Inflation Act
agency and this so-called returns act, which had provisions such that people could go to jail for years if they almost inadvertently failed to sent in a requested report. The result- and I do not disagree-was that the chairman suggested we adjourn the committee until it was clear what the Economic Council was going to do. If it is not going to get into monitoring, clearly some provision will have to be made for monitoring, and this legislation, or something similar, will have to be brought in. I emphasize that the aura that the minister tried to put around it was that there was nothing to the draft legislation I referred to; that it was almost a figment of someone's imagination and he did not contemplate bringing in legislation immediately.
That leads me to the delay, Mr. Speaker. It was decided to postpone future meetings because in fairness it was felt the minister should be given the opportunity to get his house in order. It was not clear whether he was going to go the Economic Council route, or the route of some legislation along the lines of that I referred to.
The plot thickens, Mr. Speaker. As you know, the illustrious emperor, the Prime Minister, sent a letter to Dr. Ostry of the Economic Council of Canada dated March 15 and signed by his own hand. It set out very, very interesting things that he requested the Economic Council to do.
As a preliminary matter, perhaps I should make it clear that in effect what has now followed is that we have an Anti-Inflation Board carrying on with respect to the bulk of Canadian companies and workers till December 31, 1978; but as of April 14 we have Dr. Ostry and her posse coming into the picture to scrutinize what is going on in the nation with respect to inflation. Specifically, it refers to her checking out and "analyzing price and cost developments in the national economy". Those are the emperor's actual words.
I mention this because it is absolutely hypocritical of this government to pretend to the Canadian public that they are doing all these monitoring procedures, that they are desperately trying to identify who is the villain as far as prices are concerned, who the villain is on the labour side, whether the small shopkeeper or whoever, without accepting the responsibility for inflation. They do not have to go 100 yards from where they stand to find out where inflation is created in this country. It is literally created on the south side of Wellington Street by the printing of an excess amount of money in reference to the real growth of the economy. Any economist will acknowledge that.
This government is allowing the printing presses to be run through the Bank of Canada facility. It allowed 12 per cent more money to be created in Canada last year than the year before, in spite of the fact we only had 6.2 per cent real growth. I said our inflation was 9.5 per cent. Is it any mystery? Add up those figures and you will see why we have the inflation to which I am referring.
Is it not hypocritical for a government to pretend, presumably for political reasons, that they are trying earnestly to do

something about inflation? They are now setting up a two-tier level of monitoring and supervision of inflation when they have been goosing the economy through the printing of excess money. Those are the hard facts.
When dealing with the role of the Economic Council, I want to draw to the attention of hon. members a very interesting fact. The Minister of Finance said that the draft legislation that I referred to had no meaning, or somehow or other was virtually a figment of somebody's imagination. However, when we review the letter from the Prime Minister to Dr. Ostry of March 15, we find that he sets out from A to F the various jobs he would like the Economic Council to do. Save for a realignment of paragraphs and a few changes of words, we find what he has asked Dr. Ostry to do is almost word for word what was in the draft legislation bearing the name of the Minister of Finance, which he told us in committee he knew nothing about. If we are to believe the Minister of Finance, something is really amiss in the Department of Finance and throughout the entire government. Presumably somebody is on the loose drafting legislation and is sufficiently in the know that his terminology is able to leap into the Prime Minister's letter to Dr. Ostry and be adopted by no less than the Prime Minister as the terms of reference for the Economic Council of Canada to follow in carrying out their monitoring procedures.
When I started to bring this out in committee, I was rather startled to find that the well-primed chairman of that committee was quick to say that it had no relevance to Bill C-18, in spite of the fact we delayed any further meetings of the committee until we could understand what the role of the Economic Council of Canada would be. We were told it would have no relevance. When we persisted, the Minister of Finance quickly refused to answer any questions. He said that what the Prime Minister said in the letter was not his business, that he would answer anything concerning Bill C-18 but not get into the role of the Economic Council in relation to monitoring or what-have-you.
The reason this is important is that if hon. members read the October 20, 1975 statement of this government, the fourth prong or wheel of their anti-inflation program was a deregulation of the Canadian economy. They said that was going to relieve-and I believe it would have-the present constriction within the economy that is contributing to inflation.
The program really had four wheels. It had de-regulation for the first wheel, fiscal restraint for the second wheel, monetary restraint for the third wheel and the AIB activities to which this bill is addressed for the fourth. Where it is relevant to concern ourselves with the Economic Council, in spite of the fact that the other three wheels have not worked worth a darn, namely fiscal restraint, monetary restraint and de-regulation, we find that the government is now proposing through its approach to the Economic Council of Canada a continuation of the AIB to have still further regulation and supervision of our industry beyond anything that was ever conceived.
It is important to bear in mind that the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board gave us the following estimates of the
April 3, 1978

percentage of companies, professional firms and employees who would be released from controls by various dates. Bear in mind the government has represented that their de-phasing or de-control period will begin on April 14 of this year. It is important that we remember what they mean by that.
The chairman of the AIB made clear that by May 1, 1978, only 9 per cent of the employees in Canada, 9 per cent of the companies and 4 per cent of the professionals will be free from the AIB activities. By June 1,13 per cent of the employees, 10 per cent of the companies and 8 per cent of the professionals will be free. By October 1, 62 per cent of the employees, 78 per cent of the companies and 77 per cent of the professional people will still be bound by the anti-inflation program. On December 1, 53 per cent of Canadian employees, 68 per cent of the companies and 75 per cent of our professionals will still be bound by the program. Let us get that into perspective. Until December 1 this year, the majority of the employees, over two thirds of the companies and three quarters of our professional people will still be bound by the Anti-Inflation Board rulings and the whole program, notwithstanding the de-phasing that begins on April 14.
I put those figures on record because there has been too much talk that somehow we are suddenly going to go out of controls. In truth, that is not right. We are not out of controls until very late this year. In fact, the chairman of the AIB made it clear that they do not see us being completely clear of the AIB for at least a year after December 31, 1978.
We are in the position tonight of having to face the fact that the government has represented that de-controls begin on April 14, when in all likelihood de-controls in the form they anticipate will not be effective until well into December of this year for the bulk of our businesses, employees and professional people. That is the main point I want to make on this subject.
Notwithstanding that degree of control, we find that the Prime Minister, in the letter to which I referred, has asked the Economic Council of Canada to do an overview of everything that has been happening. Not only is it an overview, but on page three of his letter the Prime Minister states:
Because of the potential importance of an individual price or cost increase and the need for information which is not publicly available, however, it may be considered by the Council or-
I would stress the word "or".
-the government that a special inquiry into a particular case is warranted. It is recognized that the carrying on of such special inquiries into individual price or cost increases under the powers of the Inquiries Act may be needed from time to time, but that such special inquiries would not be appropriately carried out by the Council itself. Such special inquiries would, however, be facilitated by the assistance provided from the Council's ongoing analyses and staff support.
On this basis and pursuant to Part 10 of the Economic Council of Canada Act, I therefore request that the Council undertake a specific responsibility for analyzing price and cost developments in the national economy. More particularly under this reference, the Council would exercise the following duties, subject to the description and limitations set out above:
He then lists the terms of reference he would like the Economic Council to follow. They are essentially the terms of reference anticipated in the government's draft inflation moni-
Anti-Inflation Act
toring agency act to be carried out by that agency should the act ever be passed.
Not only do we find these two levels, but the Prime Minister goes on to say he feels the Council should review the situation for two years. These are his words addressed to Dr. Ostry:
You should discuss with the Treasury Board the provision of the additional resources which the Council will require in order to carry out these additional duties.
Nobody knows the number of additional staff the Economic Council feels it should have in order to carry out this new monitoring function. It has been estimated that 100 additional civil servants will be needed. News accounts from various sources are now making it clear that in any event there will be no abandonment of the 700 employees who presently work for the AIB. Thus we may end up with 700 employees from the AIB "doing their thing", plus another 100 people working for the Economic Council, all hoping to get a handle on inflation in Canada.
Referring to the employees of the AIB, an article in the April 1 edition of the Financial Post states:
There are several hundred who are full-time civil servants and these people have been guaranteed new government jobs with no cut in pay.
Think of the scenario. We have the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) credibly arguing that the time has come to cut down the public service, not by firing people but through the ordinary process of attrition; and at the same time the government, so we are assured in this article, has guaranteed that these employees will not lose their government jobs or suffer any reduction in pay. Yet this is a perfect example of an area in which they could cut down costs. The article in the Financial Post went on to say:
The AIB's middle managers have been preparing one-page resumes on all of these people. The resumes are being sent to all government departments to be used in filling job vacancies-when the AIB is ready to let them go.
Most of these workers will be released toward the end of the year. Blackwell-
That is the name of an official quoted earlier in the article.
-concedes there is a danger the job market could be temporarily flooded but he predicts the huge Ottawa bureaucracy will absorb the workers fairly smoothly.
Is it not almost laughable to find a government which pretends it is a government of restraint giving ironclad guarantees that none of these employees will lose their jobs or suffer pay cuts?
I am giving this background because I think we must accept the fact that, should the party opposite ever be returned with a majority to this House, the controls program will not end. What they intend to do, through this devious approach, is to reignite the entire controls system at the earliest opportunity and inflict it, perhaps for an indefinite period, upon the Canadian public. 1 do not think there is any doubt about it. The Prime Minister believes in controls. He has lost faith in our system. He no longer believes in the economy of the marketplace. He does not believe that the system which has brought prosperity to this nation can build an ever greater nation on the basis of free enterprise. Somehow he has accepted the line of the socialists, the supporters of the NDP, that an even greater degree of state intervention and control is needed

April 3, 1978
Anti-Inflation Act
in order to secure increased prosperity. He does not realize that exactly the reverse is the case, and that if we wish to turn the economy around what we need is a renewed vigour on the part of the private enterprise system as opposed to an extension of government controls.
We are dealing tonight with a big subject. Bill C-18 is a measure which contains many clauses and it is important we should deal with some of its inconsistencies and draw attention to amendments which ought to have been considered before the legislation left the finance committee. Hon. members who took part in the meetings of the finance committee on the bill will, I am sure, agree with me that it was passed only under the guillotine. The more the Minister of Finance refused to answer questions concerning the anti-inflation program the more the Liberal members on the committee insisted that the measure should be passed at once. Using the brutal majority they exercise in every committee of the House they insisted that the bill be passed without the benefit of further evidence from the part-time Minister of Finance or of amendments which we on this side thought were needed.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to be specific. I will begin by drawing attention to clauses 1 and 8. Clause 8, as undoubtedly Your Honour knows, makes the application of clause 1 retroactive to December 16, 1975, which is the date of the order in council establishing the regulations of the AntiInflation Act itself. Clause 1 enlarges the coverage of the present guidelines to include businesses in trucking, shipping, longshoring and grain handling sectors which bargain collectively. The amendment in C-18 ensures that profit guidelines will apply to companies which as a wage negotiating group form a unit large enough to merit control. The Anti-Inflation Act is constructed in such a way that wage-earners come under controls when the employing company comes under control. The amendment would also enlarge the coverage of wage controls.
Some additional construction companies are also brought under the controls by use of the same method applied to transportation industries. The companies and unions identified in clause 1 were brought under controls on April 22, 1976 by Order in Council P.C. 1976-910: SOR/76-273. The order came into effect on April 15, 1976 and was issued under the authority of section 3(2)(a)(v) of the Anti-Inflation Act. Before that section could be used it was necessary that the governor in council order the Anti-Inflation Board to study the potential inflationary impact of the groups to be affected and to report back.
The governor in council ordered the study on December 16, 1975. That was order No. P.C. 1975-2927, but it was never gazetted. That was one of the questions I wanted to put to the Minister of Finance in committee. Why was that order not published in the Canada Gazette? In any event, it was passed under what was alleged to be the authority of section 12(2) of the Anti-Inflation Act. Evidently the groups were found to be of strategic importance to the containment and reduction of

inflation in Canada. Those are the words of section 12(2) of the Anti-Inflation Act.
The study and recommendations were not published and appear to exist only as internal memoranda within the AIB itself. Surely we in the committee were entitled to ask for that memoranda and not to be cut off and guillotined by the majority Liberals on that committee, as happened on March 21.
The purpose of clause 1 is merely to give explicit legislative sanction to procedures already authorized by order in council. That must be clear. For reasons that are not completely clear, the government passed orders in council which by clause 1 the government wishes to confirm. No new procedures are authorized in clause 1. What is new is that the guidelines are made retroactive to December 16, 1975, whereas the order in council applied only from April 15, 1976. It is not clear who the government is trying to catch. Presumably there is a little black hole into which the government feels it must throw some people because of the inadvertence of the government with its order in council. I think this House has the right to know exactly who the government feels it is retroactively catching with the wording in clause 1, which is different from the wording in the order in council to which I have referred.
In any event, the Anti-Inflation Board advises that this change is a formality undertaken for the sake of uniformity and that no company or union will be required to give back profits or wages because of the new retroactive application. I hope the board is right, but surely in committee we were entitled to learn from the Minister of Finance what his answer would have been to that type of question. If clause 1 is of such small significance, one wonders why the Minister of Finance has chosen to trouble parliament with it. If the insertion of clause 1 was necessary to the legislative coherence of the program, why was it not necessary to insert it into Bill C-89 in the first instance? Why was it not put into Bill C-89?
Hon. members will recall that Bill C-89 was debated in April, 1976, the same month in which the order in council was proclaimed. The order in council was virtually identical to clause 1 of Bill C-18, the bill before us tonight. Apparently the administration did not wish parliament to debate this measure, although a ready opportunity existed when Bill C-89 was before the House. Delay in the debate of a measure like clause 1 clearly shows the reluctance of this administration to permit public debate on the anti-inflation program. That is one of the points I have been trying to bring out tonight.
This government-and I do not blame if-is obviously embarrassed by the failure of the anti-inflation program. However, whether it is embarrassed or not, it should be willing to make a complete reckoning to this House, and through this House to the Canadian public, as to why it has failed so miserably with its anti-inflation program.
Coming back to measures like clause 1, I think I should simply conclude by mentioning that de-control day was to be April 14, 1978. We must wonder whether the measure was really prompted because of the debate that the government anticipated would take place with regard to the utility of wage
April 3, 1978

and price controls themselves. Those are the references I wanted to make to clauses 1 and 8 as they appear in the bill which is now before us.
Let me now touch on clause 5 and clause 6. Some have called these the "ghost" amendments for decontrol. These amendments introduce a novel legal concept. The Anti-Inflation Act will expire by proclamation, presumably, on April 14, 1978. Incidentally, the only indication we have that decontrol will begin on April 14, 1978 is a comment made by the Prime Minister and reiterated on October 20 by the Minister of Finance. That is all we have. We have found that we cannot necessarily believe what these two gentlemen say, so how can we be absolutely sure that decontrol will begin on April 14? The fact is that to date that has never been proclaimed.
In any event, as I was saying, if the government sticks to its word, the anti-inflation program will presumably begin to be dismantled on April 14. Compliance with the terms of the act will, however, still be required in the sense that we have referred to the percentage dephasing month by month.
This brings me to the so-called ghost amendments which we find in clause 5 and clause 6 requiring compliance with a law which, if we believe the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, will no longer exist. Clause 5 makes extensive revisions to section 47 of the Anti-Inflation Act. Hon. members will recall that section 47 provides for the continuance of proceedings already instituted under the act, even though the act expired in the middle of the proceedings. The purpose of the section is to allow the completion of work under way by the Anti-Inflation Board, the administrator or the tribunal despite the termination of the act which gives these bodies authority to regulate wages and prices.
The amendment in clause 5 goes one step beyond the original section 47 by extending the powers of the board, the administrator or the tribunal to operate after the anti-inflation program has been legally terminated. Clause 5 would allow the Board to initiate proceedings after the legal end of controls for violations of the controls program which may have occurred while the controls were still in force. For example, if a company generates what is called excessive revenue during the final compliance period of the controls program, this amendment would allow the Anti-Inflation Board to investigate the revenue portion of the firm, find it to be in excess of the guidelines and order and enforce the distribution of the excess revenue of the firm.
The board, administrator or tribunal would have these powers-and I emphasize this-despite the fact that the act which gave them these powers will have expired. If we pass the bill which is now before us, that would be its effect, and let there be no doubt. These residual powers necessitate certain additional consequential amendments. Reporting requirements will remain in force. AIB staff will be retained. Vacancies on the board may be filled. All this may take place after the act has expired, perhaps as long as a full year thereafter.
On this particular point I am always taken aback by the number of people on the government side-in fact, including the chairman of the AIB himself-who are unaware of the
Anti-Inflation Act
fact that the present anti-inflation legislation can be extended beyond December 31, 1978 by a simple order of the cabinet.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, we have to come to the House.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If the Minister of Finance would care to look at the act he would find that the government can extend the termination of the AIB to whichever period it sees fit, subject to confirmation by the House at a later date. But the important thing that is often being forgotten is that this act does not automatically terminate on December 31 of this year. It can be extended by the government, and the only restraint on the government after it has extended the act is to be overruled by a vote in the House.
This brings me back to what I was saying that if, heaven forbid, this government should ever be returned with a majority, let there be no mistake; it will extend the AIB program, and if the House cares to have a vote on that program, the government will use its majority to push it through the House.
Let us bear in mind when considering Bill C-18 that the AIB will not necessarily end simply because the emperor, the Prime Minister, has said he thinks it should end by April 14. Also the Minister of Finance has said that, but both can reverse themselves. Believe me, political expediency is the only law this government obeys. Economic realities are secondary. If the government thinks it is politically expedient to tell us today that it intends to have a decontrol of the anti-inflation program, given re-election it will restore the controls program at the earliest opportunity.
Let me come back to clause 5. Clause 5 also attempts to invalidate the so-called AIB clauses in wage agreements. This was a deficiency pointed out by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) at a meeting of the committee. He was the first to make it clear that the legislation which the government brought in was defective. So clause 5 attempts to invalidate the so-called AIB clauses in wage settlements or, as it is sometimes referred to, there is a bounce back effect once the controls program ends with respect to any type of wage settlement that might have been higher than the guidelines.
Clause 6 also deals with wage agreements that have been reached calling for increases in compensation within the guidelines but which also specify that, after the termination of the controls programs, wages shall be paid at a rate considerably higher than would be allowed under the guidelines. Let me be a little clearer on that. For example, a 6 per cent wage agreement in force might provide for wages to be increased by a further 6 per cent once controls expire on whatever date is set. Clause 5(5) of Bill C-18 declares that such a provision would have no force or effect.
I suggest this measure is also a ghost clause. It requires compliance with the provisions of an act which will have expired, if we believe what the government is telling us.
Clause 6 also deals with wage agreements and is designed to prevent what has been called the bounce back of those wages, to which I have already referred. The bounce back would

April 3, 1978
Anti-Inflation Act
occur because of the particular method used under the AntiInflation Act to control wages. If a wage agreement has been negotiated providing for an increase in compensation in excess of the guidelines, the AIB or the administrator rolls back what would then amount to an increase in excess of the guidelines. The actual roll-back procedure does not affect the wage agreement itself but only the amount which can be paid out under it. Suppose a compensation agreement calls for a 12 per cent increase in wages when only a 6 per cent increase is justified under the guidelines. The decision of the AIB, or the ruling of the administrator, specifies that a 6 per cent increase only may be paid out. The decision or ruling does not, I emphasize, alter the terms of the contract itself. Thus, when the Anti-Inflation Act expires and the AIB ceases to exist, the original contract would immediately become payable at the old rate or, in the example I have given, at 12 per cent. Further, companies might be required to pay retroactively wages lost due to the AIB limit on the pay out of the settlement.
Clause 6 states that a ruling of the AIB or the administrator actually modifies the terms of the contract so that it will comply with the guidelines. This is not merely a ghost clause, as the "deemed modification" of a contract will take place while the Anti-Inflation Act is still in force, although the effect of the modification will be felt even after the act has expired. In conjunction with clause 5, clause 6 should prevent any attempt by a union or a company to exceed the guidelines while the compensation agreement is in force.
However, and this is the point, there is nothing in either clause 5 or clause 6 which will prevent a union and company agreeing to terminate a contract when the act expires. Once terminated, a new contract could be negotiated comparatively free of any guidelines.
The ghost amendments are a legal oddity and it is difficult to predict how effective they will be. Fortunately, they are only transitional powers for the decontrol period. One hopes that the administration will resist further attempts to create legal obligations pursuant to such non-existent laws. The ghost amendments show how much easier it is to start controls than to end them.
Having reviewed Bill C-18 and some aspects of the antiinflation program to the point that I have at this time, let me point out that surely the Prime Minister was right when he made that famous statement that controls are a disaster looking for a place to happen. Do you recall that, Mr. Speaker? In fact, controls are not something that effectively control inflation-they cause problems. The Prime Minister had it right. Now unfortunately we have had inflicted upon us a controls program which, as I said earlier, has resulted in higher inflation in Canada than our main trading partners have experienced, certainly higher than in the United States. Yet we are being asked tonight, without, I suggest, having had a proper opportunity to review this legislation in the committee, to pass Bill C-18 relatively quickly, and without the explanation from the Minister of Finance to which I believe we are entitled.
This brings me to an interesting question when we are considering the anti-inflation position of the government. How often will we be subjected to the rhetoric we get from the government on what they propose and intend to do with respect to certain matters such as inflation? All we are left with is rhetoric but no action. I refer to this because already I have made reference to a letter written by the Prime Minister to Dr. Ostry in which he set out the terms of reference he would like her to follow in carrying out the monitoring of inflation starting on April 14.
There was also a letter sent by the Prime Minister to what were called business and labour leaders, which was dated July 29, 1977. In the letter the government set out what it regarded as an appropriate decontrol and post-control arrangement. The letter had many paragraphs in it, 15 I believe. In paragraph 8 it was stated that the government hoped to establish what they called a multipartite consultative forum and monitoring agency. This has been described in "Agenda for Co-operation", a copy of which I have here. The Prime Minister stated at that time:
These have been described in Agenda for Co-operation. In more specific terms, it is now proposed that the consultative forum should be constituted as follows.
This is the form he was proposing less than a year ago. He indicated that there should be ten participants from business, of whom at least five would be selected from a list of ten nominations by the business council on national issues. It would have ten participants from labour, of whom six would be selected in consultation with the Canadian Labour Congress. Five participants would come from interested groups, and five would be federal government ministers.
In item 9 of his letter he stated that, in selecting the participants, the government would ensure an appropriate balance with respect to industrial sectors and regions. In item No. 10 he stated that in selecting the board of the monitoring agency, the government would ensure that people of stature with a recognized experience in business and labour would be included.
On October 20 last year the Minister of Finance referred to those clauses before the House, yet we have heard nothing further. We have received no explanation from the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister as to why the proposals were not carried out.


Barnett Jerome Danson: You did not ask me.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps that is the best evidence we have received as to where the entire program has gone wrong. It may be administered by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson). If that is so, it should have been made clear much earlier, and then we could have directed our questions to the Minister of National Defence. I was not aware that "Minister of National Defence" meant "defence against inflation", or whatever interpretation the minister places upon it. I do not mean to be critical of the jolly Minister of National Defence. He is a neighbouring member of parliament to my

April 3, 1978

riding. He is a jolly good fellow. If he was made Minister of Finance, I would hope he would do a much better job in that portfolio than he has done as Minister of National Defence. Certainly he could not do a worse job than the present Minister of Finance.
Perhaps we will receive a little more insight bit by bit from the ministers as to who has the truth. Now I have learned that we should have directed questions concerning the anti-inflation program to the Minister of National Defence, to that degree a little progress has been made this evening.
I should like to know what happened concerning this letter of July 29. At that time it sounded somewhat interesting. An illustrious emperor was going forth and stating, in a letter addressed to labour and business leaders, what he would like to see happen. Well, what happened? Where was he turned down? Are we to accept that the Economic Council of Canada is what he had in mind? If that is so, we must remember that the labour component of the Economic Council dropped away. They decided they did not want to participate any longer in the Economic Council. Clearly there is no labour participation in the Economic Council.
I raise these points, and in particular this letter, during the debate on Bill C-18 because we should have been entitled to ask the part-time Minister of Finance in committee what happened to those proposals. Was it the government's decision to drop them? Was it labour or business? Who exactly said "scrap that letter, the idea is no good"? I could refer to various sections of that letter, but I should like to indicate that the 15 clauses set out have never been heard from since. Perhaps the Minister of National Defence has been having secret meetings with business and labour leaders. Perhaps he is the man who runs the anti-inflation program. As far as we have been able to make out, no meetings have taken place. The government has not met with labour, business or consumer groups. In short, the government is getting ready for an election. They are hoping to bamboozle the Canadian public and ensure re-election when they decide to go to the country. If that is the intention of the government, it is very, very important for its performance with respect to inflation to be put on the record clearly.
The policies of the Trudeau government have placed this nation solidly in the grip of inflation on a relatively permanent basis. The current annual rate of inflation is 9.5 per cent. That rate means prices in this country will double every eight years if it is permitted to continue. Because of the ineptitude of the government, it will continue at some comparable level should the government be allowed to continue running the financial management of Canada. Every hon. member must accept the basic premise that inflation is created by the Bank of Canada through the excess printing of money in relation to our real growth. The government is aware of that. As long as that is tolerated, the consequences must be accepted. One of those consequences is high inflation.
High inflation is nothing new to the Trudeau government. Actually, prices have risen by 87 per cent since our Prime Minister took office. That is according to the consumer price
Anti-Inflation Act
index. If one looks at the deflator, or the implicit price index, one will find that prices have gone up 100 per cent. That 100 per cent increase is 13 per cent higher than what the CPI reflects. In the main it is government inflation which is reflected in the deflator. That has gone up even faster than the rate of price increases as reflected by the CPI.
When the government's record on inflation is considered, the broken promises regarding inflation should be noted. The Trudeau government announced that it had defeated inflation on several occasions, only to have it return with a vengeance. In December 1970 the Prime Minister crowed the following: "Inflation no longer exists in Canada". Since then, prices have risen by 72 per cent. When the Prime Minister campaigned against wage and price controls in 1974, the "emperor" then said: "We are going to bring inflation under control. That I pledge to you". That pledge has brought price increases of 35 per cent since then.
The litany of failure to bring inflation under control continues to the present day. In October, 1975, the Liberal administration introduced the wage and price controls which they campaigned against in 1974. This fact is well known. The controls program presented targets for inflation from a level of 10.6 per cent in October, 1975. The rate of inflation was forecast to fall to 8 per cent by October 1976, to 6 per cent by October, 1977, and to 4 per cent by October, 1978.
The 1978 target was achieved when the inflation rate stood at 6.2 per cent in October. One year later, however, the inflation rate had increased to 8.8 per cent, well over the target of 6 per cent. Although the Trudeau government promised 4 per cent inflation in 1978, it has reneged on that commitment and now forecasts 6 per cent inflation this year. My guess is that it will soon abandon that target as well. The fact is that at the present time the Minister of Finance, and possibly his emperor friend, are the only people in Canada who still seriously believe there will be 6 per cent inflation in this country in the current year.
What about the 1978 inflation prospects? Our minister has forecast 6 per cent inflation in 1978. Many private sector forecasters think this is unrealistic. The Conference Board of Canada expects inflation to average 7.4 per cent in 1978. In that respect I note that the Minister of Finance often quotes the Chairman of that Board, particularly since he decided to run as a candidate for this party.
The Bank of Commerce expects 7.8 per cent inflation this year; the Bank of British Columbia predicts 7.9 per cent and Levesque, Beaubien, Incorporated in Quebec expects 7.8 per cent inflation. Even the government's own advisory agency, the Economic Council of Canada, which the government has asked to monitor inflation, expects inflation to average 7.4 per cent in 1978.
What are the inflationary pressures? We know wholesale prices are 10.9 per cent higher at this time than a year ago. Adding to inflation are two further pressures on prices in

April 3, 1978
Anti-Inflation Act
Canada. I refer, of course, to the continuing fall of the dollar and our higher energy prices.
In the area of food costs, the impact of our falling dollar is already apparent. Higher import prices will continue to push up consumer prices. Canadian manufacturers who use imports in production face higher costs. Canadian corporations which have borrowed funds in foreign currencies will be required to pay much higher repayment costs.
In that connection, it has been estimated that the total foreign borrowings of Canadians, be they municipalities, corporations, provincial or federal governments, are approximately $33 billion. It does not take much of a mathematician to figure out that if you have a 10 per cent decline in the value of the Canadian dollar in relation to those currencies you have borrowed you will be losing $3.3 billion should you have to repay those foreign currencies with a falling Canadian dollar.
On that particular point-and I am pleased the Minister of Finance is here-I hope that before this debate ends he will explain to the House what his government expects to do to relieve the plight of the municipalities, corporations and provinces which, at the government's behest, went out and borrowed in foreign funds and are now left with considerably higher monetary amounts to pay than first anticipated, directly as a result of the government's current decision to allow the dollar to fall. I was going to say "allow the government to fall", which would be a blessing, Mr. Speaker.
Let me put that into another time frame. It could cost $3.3 billion in extra payout on the part of those who borrowed foreign funds if they have to pay off their debts in terms of Canada's fallen dollar. One must think of the interest cost as well, because most of those obligations were expressed not only in respect of capital, but in respect of the interest on foreign currencies. The debt or interest payments will also be 10 per cent higher than anticipated. There should be some indication from the government about its intent to relieve that situation. Does the government intend to leave those municipalities, corporations, and provinces in effect holding the bag because they acted in response to the government's request to go out and seek foreign funds at a time when the government was desperately trying to hold up the Canadian dollar? The dollar would have fallen in any event because our trade imbalance was already running at an alarmingly high level.
One other point I should touch upon is that we are very conscious of the effect of a falling dollar in relation to import prices. However, I was most surprised at a committee meeting to find that the Minister of Finance and his advisers were not as conscious of the effect of a falling dollar in relation to various commodities within Canada. I refer specifically to the price of some Canadian goods such as beef and lumber. The prices of both those commodities are quoted to Canadian buyers in terms of the U.S. dollar equivalent. As a result, to the extent you have a falling dollar you automatically ensure that domestically in Canada the price of beef, lumber and other commodities will go up. Hopefully the Minister of Finance will come forward and explain why this government feels the falling dollar is such a desirable thing when it will

have such an impact, not only on the price of imports to this country, but also on the price Canadians will have to pay for such commodities as beef, lumber and others.
Dealing with this broad subject of the inflationary pressures we will experience this year, the federal Department of Finance has estimated that the recent devaluation of the dollar could add 4 per cent to our inflation rate within two years. The government will increase the domestic price of oil and natural gas twice during the year, each time by one dollar per barrel or its natural gas equivalent. The immediate impact of the price change will be felt in home heating and automobile fuel. The two price changes alone will raise the consumer price index by 1 per cent by the year end. Oil and gas used by consumer goods producers will result in higher consumer prices. Energy costs account for between 5 per cent and 10 per cent of farm production costs. The 1978 energy price increases may increase, if we follow that through, consumer goods by 1 per cent or more. These are some of the pressures we are facing in relation to inflation during 1978.
Let me touch on one question which is perhaps more important during this debate than any other. What causes inflation? The blame for inflation has been laid at almost everyone's doorstep. I mentioned earlier that the government liked to say that labour, business or foreign countries were to blame. Do hon. members remember when we had that minister of finance, two or three back, by the name of Mr. Turner? He used to come into the House when he was embarrassed about inflation and say that because anchovies off the coast of South America had gone wrong-somehow or other they could not find them-it meant we had higher inflation in Canada. At other times we have been told inflation was caused by the financial gnomes in Zurich who were manipulating the system. We were even told there were mysterious cartels at work which somehow or other caused inflation. It later became brutally clear that this government had set up a cartel in respect of uranium, the like of which the world had never seen before. As a result this will cost Ontario consumers, and presumably other consumers in Canada, additional hundreds of millions of dollars. It does not matter who the government pretends is responsible for inflation; the fact is that inflation could not and would not occur unless the government either encouraged, or permitted it, and that is the simple truth. Not only the Minister of Finance but the emperor himself have consistently encouraged inflation and permitted it. Inflation is always caused by government. It is the government which controls the supply of money, and it is excess money which causes inflation.
This brings me back to the falling Canadian dollar. The interesting thing that has happened is that while the government has been acting so irresponsibly with respect to inflation, they to a certain degree were getting away with it so long as other governments acted equally as irresponsible. However, there has been a sobering influence in the world. Countries such as Germany and Switzerland, and Japan to a lesser extent, have decided they are going to stop the excess printing
April 3, 1978

of money as far as the economy is concerned. They have said they are going to get a handle on inflation and in short are not going to play the game of printing more money and living with inflation any longer. The result is that our big spending friends on the other side have been caught off base because they now find that the game has changed and that they no longer can spend as excessively as originally. The government can no longer print money as excessively as they were because countries such as Germany, Japan and Switzerland are not doing it.
To the degree that this government has failed to be equally as responsible, we find that international investors have been moving away from our dollar to invest in the German Deutschmark, the Swiss franc or the Japanese yen. That is what is happening, and let there be no pretence of anything else. In the eyes of the world, we are one of the weak currencies today, and to the degree that the international investor looks upon Canada as a weak nation, the run will continue so long as they look on the German, the Swiss or the Japanese currencies as stronger. The run will continue from our currency to that type of more solid currency.
I think it is important when we are considering this amendment to the government's Anti-Inflation Act that we virtually insist that the Minister of Finance get up and give an explanation as to why as were told in October, 1975 that the government have a program to handle inflation and yet we find that we still have no answers.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You have taken two hours.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Minister of Finance is saying that he thinks I am taking too long. To what extent, Mr. Speaker, am I entitled to time? I was not given the right to put questions in the finance committee. Surely if there are points that have not been made by the minister or his cohorts concerning this anti-inflation program, members of this House have the right to speak and ask what they feel fit.
Let me come back to the main point that I want to make, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the government can control inflation. As an example, suppose a customer has $100 to spend and he normally spends $25 on each of food, energy, housing and clothing. If the price of energy, for example, should double, he must either buy less energy or less of something else. The only way he can continue to buy the same amount of goods as before is if he increases his supply of money. It is the same with government and with the Canadian economy. An increase in the price of oil or an increase in wages or profits is not inflationary unless more money is printed at the same time. If the supply of money remains the same, an increase in the national price of oil simply causes people to spend less on other items. If the pie remains the same size, a larger slice for one group means a smaller slice for other groups. Individual price, profits or wage increases are redistributed in their effect and are only inflationary if the government tries to stop the redistribution by increasing the supply of money. By trying to cancel the effect of price and wage changes through increasing the supply of money, the government only provokes others to restore their share. More money
Anti-Inflation Act
in the system does not necessarily make the pie any larger. It just makes it more expensive to buy.
When the federal government lives beyond its means, one of the ways it pays for its deficits is by selling securities to the Bank of Canada, and it in turn pays for the securities by printing money. This is inflation in its most direct form. The government should not finance deficits or even try to ease the shock of a particular price increase by an increase in the money supply. Stimulated monetary policies are not necessarily inflationary, and the money supply should always expand in relation to the actual size of the economy.
It must be made clear that inflation cannot occur unless it is permitted to occur by an expansion of the money supply. The relationship of monetary growth to inflation is clear. From the winter of 1968 to the late fall of 1977 the money supply increased by 156 per cent. I hope you will pay particular attention, Mr. Speaker, to the figures that I am giving. Between that period this government printed 156 per cent more money in Canada. Over the same period real economic growth was 55 per cent. The difference between the two, 101 per cent, represents the amount of money created in excess of that required to finance the growth in the economy. It is no surprise, therefore, to discover that the general price level in the economy increased by 100 per cent in the same period, almost exactly the same as the amount of excess money printed.
Let us note those figures again, Mr. Speaker. In the period from late 1968 to the fall of 1977 the government caused the Bank of Canada to grind out 156 per cent more money supply in the nation. During the same period the real growth was only 55 per cent, so they created in excess of 101 per cent as far as the money supply is concerned. Our inflation when you use the deflator was exactly 100 per cent during that period, within one per cent of the excess money created during this government's reign of office.
Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker, and when we are considering amendments to the anti-inflation legislation, Bill C-18, the government should explain why they continuously pretend that they need monitoring agencies, that they need controls, that they are not too sure what is causing inflation when, simply, they are printing the inflation that we are living on.
I would like to touch on the historical perspective of this situation. A large proportion of the money printed in recent years has gone to finance the Trudeau government's deficits. The Bank of Canada has printed money to finance 33 per cent of the federal cash requirements in the past five years. The $5.6 billion of federal securities purchased by the Bank of Canada represents more than 60 per cent of the total addition to the money supply over that period. The spending practices of the Trudeau government created the budgetary deficits which were partially financed by increasing the money supply. Since 1968, federal spending has more than quadrupled-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.

April 3, 1978
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to a monologist explaining his simple theories in a very complex world.
I believe that at this point we are in the middle of an international economic crisis with the problems that most countries have to face. Techniques are not working, particularly techniques which clearly should create jobs and increase demand. Those particular techniques do not work and have not been working as they used to. A good example of this is that, although we have put $4.5 billion or so on the demand side of our economy in the last 15 months, we have not been able to solve the problem of creating employment. In addition, we have serious energy problems which make for greater economic problems.
Because of the baby boom in the 1950s and early 1960s, Canada is experiencing a very large growth in the labour force. About 300,000 young people come on the labour market each year, or about four or five times the number that came on the labour market in the 1950's. These problems create some very serious distortions in the economy and create unemployment at the rate of 8 or 9 per cent. In the age group 15 to 24, unemployment is in the area of 14 or 15 per cent.
Because it is very difficult to create jobs, given the fact that demand and other techniques do not work and respond the way they used to, we have to look at methods of reorganizing the job market. I am particularly concerned with the failure of our experts to increase the number of jobs available. The rate of growth in the United States in the first quarter of this year is most disturbing-it is actually a zero growth rate. Given this kind of problem, it seems to me we must do something far more significant in terms of job creation or putting a large number of people into the work force.
One method we might look at is this. If we cannot create additional jobs, then the amount of work available could in some way or other be shared among the people available to do it. I should like to look at work sharing and the possibilities of voluntary work sharing as a partial solution to some of the problems which face us. I know there is already some worksharing, especially when plants have lay-offs, but it seems to me a large number of people who are working would voluntarily adopt some form of work-sharing. This could be pairing, shorter weeks and so on. The reward, of course, would be the extra leisure time. I think this is particularly the case in professions such as teaching and nursing where pairing is

worth-while. Many people would like half the work-load by taking half a day's work each, or working a week at a time, for instance.
Some problems are involved in work-sharing but one of the advantages, particularly with pairing, is that the productivity of the two individuals involved is usually higher than the productivity of one person doing the job full time. Other problems concern benefits, incentives, extra clerical work required by the employer for pay-rolls and so on.
These are some things that could and should be looked at by this government. I ask the minister to look seriously at incentives which would have the effect of overcoming some of the objections to work sharing. I would like the government to take on a program of attempting to get Canadians to volunteer to share the work they have with those Canadians who cannot find work. In that way we would not have one large group of people on the labour market, working eight hours a day for 40 years, with another group not working at all. I know there are regional problems and so on, but that would be a partial solution.
With the government coming out with a new budget within the next month or so, I hope it will seriously look at incentives to share the amount of work available among the people available to do it.
[ Translation]


Mr. Raymond Dupont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in the area of job opportunity development, the government has proposed to create more jobs through its employment strategy and also to support the principle of sharing the work that is available between a larger number of people.
In 1977-78, the government allocated $458 million to the employment strategy for fiscal year 1978-79. That amount includes nearly $330 million for direct job creation under those two programs, Canada Works and Young Canada Works which have proven both viable and flexible, because they created jobs for the unemployed in areas where they were most needed. In 1977-78, it is estimated that the various programs and initiatives funded under the employment strategy gave work to some 185,000 people, an approximate 611,000 man-months.
In 1978-79, a total $50 million from the Canada Works Program will be used to support the new economic growth segment of the program. That segment stems from the realization that a significant number of federal bodies can develop worthwhile projects capable of creating immediate jobs and also promote the creation of a greater number of jobs in the private sector.
In addition to programs involved in the employment strategy, mention should be made of two other initiatives in the area of employment. First $150 million were allocated to Federal
April 3, 1978

Labour Intensive Projects to create more job opportunities in the public sector. Second, the employment tax credit program will promote more job creation in the private sector. Under this two-year program started March 8, 1978, an estimated $100 million will be granted annually in the form of tax reductions.
Last year, the government amended the Unemployment Insurance Act so that among other goals employment levels could be maintained through work sharing in industries where lay-offs were needed. Under the new measures, the people involved in any given week will be paid for every day worked, and get UIC benefits for the remaining days.
At the beginning, labour representatives and management had some reservations regarding the principle of work-sharing. Nevertheless, despite these reservations, a good many companies and groups of workers had shown their interest by participating in this program as soon as it was started. It seems that the companies and the groups have adopted a realistic approach toward the usefulness of that program. This participation has naturally taken place on a purely voluntary basis, the application being jointly presented by the management and the workers of the companies concerned.
In order to assess the usefulness of the principle of worksharing in the Canadian context, the program has been started on an experimental basis. On March 27, 14 such agreements regarding work-sharing were signed, thus preventing some 770 persons from being laid off. The concerns expressed by labour representatives and management toward work-sharing show how important it is to carry out a thorough assessment of each pilot project at the trial stage-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to inform the hon. parliamentary secretary that his allotted time has expired.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


VETERANS AFFAIRS-REQUEST WAR DISABILITY PENSION BE RAISED TO LEVEL OF 1973 FORMULA
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, March 17, as reported in Hansard at page 3872, I put two questions to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). One of them had to do with the basic rate of the war disability pension and the other with the formula which determines when a disabled veteran's widow will get a pension following the death of her husband.
As the minister knows, and as the House knows, I put these two questions to the minister as often as I can. Indeed, earlier this afternoon I sought to present a motion under Standing Order 43 dealing with these two issues. Until not many weeks ago my questions about veterans affairs were three. In addition to my plea that something be done about the basic rate and the formula respecting widows, I was calling for amendments to
Adjournment Debate
the legislation respecting compensation for prisoners of war. As the minister knows, not only did he win his battle in cabinet and obtain agreement to bring in a bill extending compensation to prisoners of war of the first world war and also to evaders and escapers in the second world war, but he also won that legislation on the floor of the House in a matter of two or three hours; the bill went through all its stages on the same day.
I remind the minister of this because I should like to impress upon him, as I did when I questioned him on March 17, that he could do it again. If he brings in a measure improving the legislation affecting our veterans I can guarantee that the House will give it approval in a very short period of time. Speaking of time, we all know there is not much of it left for this session or, indeed, for this parliament. Surely the minister would like to go into an election campaign knowing that this legislation has been passed instead of having a record which says, time after time, only that the matter is under consideration. I would remind him that the convention of the Royal Canadian Legion may be held right in the middle of the election campaign, and though he may be busy in Prince Edward Island I suspect he will be invited to that convention. When he gets there he will find that two foremost issues will be those I am bringing forward tonight-the question of the basic rate and of the formula which applies to the widows of veterans.
With respect to the basic rate, the facts are well known to all concerned. Back in 1973 a formula was agreed to which called for the rate to be set so that the amount available for a 100 per cent disabled veteran would be equal to the average take-home pay of five categories in the federal public service. The hope was that this formula would carry through. Instead, although the rate was set in 1973 the increase each year has been only in accordance with the rise in the consumer price index and the basic rate has fallen behind.
It is true that the 7.2 per cent increase in January of this year narrowed the gap slightly. I received a letter only today informing me that the gap was now down to $311 a year. But I would remind the minister that this year's increase for the public service has not yet come through and no doubt when it does the gap will be back to $500 or $600 a year.
This is an issue on which there are strong feelings from coast to coast. I am making a plea to the minister. But I am also giving him a tremendous opportunity. He is going into an election campaign. He is going to a meeting of the Canadian Legion. Why not come through with this restoration of the basic rate to the amount that would be calculated by the formula agreed to in 1973?
I make the same offer to the minister with respect to widows. In fact, it would not surprise me if, when the Legion convention is held, those who take the resolutions before that convention will give very high priority to this question of widows. As veterans get older and more and more of them realize that their pensions are below 48 per cent and that their

April 3, 1978
Adjournment Debate
wives will not get a pension if the veteran dies first, they are concerned about this provision. It still just does not make sense to say that when a wife looks after her veteran husband who is on a 48 per cent pension and he dies first she gets a full widow's pension, but if the wife next door is looking after a veteran who is on a 47 per cent pension or anything less, she gets no pension at all. To say she can fall back on the war veterans allowance really does not answer the point.
I appreciate the fact that the minister has stayed here for the late show tonight. If he is looking for something new from me, I have to reply that there is nothing new to say on these two issues. We have been over them time and time again. The something new is in the minister's hands. The something new is for the minister to get up tonight and not just say that they are under consideration but to say that he shares my hope and the hope of all members of this House that these two issues will be acted on by the government and by parliament before this session ends.


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for his continuing concern for the wellbeing of our veteran population and their dependants. The hon. member knows that the question of increasing the basic rate of disability pension has been discussed in this House several times in the last few months. Disability pensions were increased by 7.2 per cent on January 1 of this year. The basic rate for an unmarried 100 per cent pensioner is $596.70 a month. If that pensioner is married, the amount is $745.88 a month, and if he and his wife have two dependent children, his pension is $880.15 per month.
I have said that I intend to have the government consider the possibility of raising the basic rate again, and when I have something to report to the House on this subject, I shall be pleased to do so.
The hon. member suggests that a widow should receive a pro rata pension if her husband had been in receipt of a disability pension of 47 per cent or less. This is because she would receive a widow's pension if his pension had been 48 per cent or more at the time of his death. It was decided that a veteran receiving a 48 per cent or more pension would have been disabled to the degree that his disability would have contributed to his early death. It should be remembered that a widow will be pensioned if her husband's death occurred during wartime or was attributable to his service, regardless of the degree of the assessment of his disability.
Canada continues to be a world leader in providing benefits to disabled veterans and their dependants. I know of no other country that pays automatic survivor benefits to widows approaching the 48 per cent basis that we in Canada use.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL ENGAGED IN SEARCH FOR REMAINS OF SOVIET SATELLITE
Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, on February 1, as recorded at page 2438 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) if the armed services person-

nel stationed at Churchill were involved in searching for the satellite which came down in the Northwest Territories. At that time I was appalled by the remarks made by the minister. He said he had been up to the Northwest Territories, and he told us of the very harsh conditions in the Northwest Territories under which the armed forces personnel had to work. I pointed out that there are thousands of people in the Northwest Territories who work in these conditions day in and day out.
That brings me to the reason I have raised this matter in the adjournment debate tonight. Over the last 25 years Churchill has become a very important area for winter warfare training. I believe Churchill is the most appropriate location for winter warfare training because there is tundra just north of Churchill, the tree line is just to the south of Churchill and there are ideal training conditions.
Over the past few years we have seen a total erosion of the involvement of the armed services and of the Department of National Defence in Churchill. Fort Churchill was built in 1946; now it has been almost totally demolished. There are only 35 armed services families left there. There is concern that these 35 families will be slowly transferred out of Churchill and that the fort will be almost completely dismantled, which will mean that no one from the armed services will be left in that location.
Let us take a look at the geographic location of Churchill, the excellent airport facilities and storage buildings there, etc. Fort Churchill is the most northerly point along the Hudson Bay coast and into the Arctic, and it is an essential location from which to protect our northern frontier. I do not understand why the government, instead of training personnel in winter warfare in other locations where northern conditions must be simulated, does not put more emphasis on relocating the armed forces personnel in Churchill.
In 1946 when the army was first located in Churchill, the town was built up to a point where approximately 5,000 people were living in Churchill between the fort and the town site. Now that the fort has been dismantled, a $50 million resettlement plan was set up for the Churchill town site which involved moving all the facilities from the fort.
At the same time the CBC is pulling out of Churchill at the end of June, which will mean that only 12 CBC people will be left there. Also, the National Research Council will pull out of Churchill, as I understand, because, as they say, it is too expensive for them to remain there. That will leave only two NRC families in Churchill. The space program is to be continued but people will move from Gimli to Churchill for the rocket launches and then back to Gimli.
I am glad to see the minister here tonight because it is very important to the people of Churchill and, I believe, to the whole of Canada to have an active and effective winter warfare training element in a place like Churchill. A further erosion of the presence of armed forces in Churchill will mean that a community where a $50 million redevelopment program
April 3, 1978

has been commenced will decrease to the point where it will number some 1,200 people only. First there was the building up of a community from 1946 onward until the tearing down of the fort in 1976. Then there was a redevelopment and rebuilding of the town. Now the federal government is slowly pulling out its services from that community. This is another blatant example of lack of government planning.
There is an $11 million recreation complex being built in the town of Churchill as part of the redevelopment program. This complex is serving now some 15,000 people only. It is like an albatross, around the necks of the people in Churchill amounting to about $8,000 a year, which the maintenance of this complex is costing them. Churchill does not have a big enough tax base to support such a complex. The population of Churchill is faced with actually locking the doors on it if there is to be an erosion of government involvement there. It is the government in the first place that made the main decision for the redevelopment because the federal government paid the lion's share for it.
I ask the minister to give serious consideration to retaining a good size core of armed services personnel in Churchill. It provides an excellent opportunity. There is not another place in Canada where winter warfare training can be simulated any better. A unit such as that would be very beneficial in searching for a satellite which has come down, though I hope that never happens again. The troops would be accustomed to the climate and conditions and would be able to step in because they have taken their daily training in that area.
Also I should like to mention I was very disappointed to see the Thompson application for a militia was turned down. This ties in with the fact that the number of armed services people in Churchill is diminishing. We want to see a little more involvement by the Department of National Defence in the north to protect our frontiers.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments of the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith). I appreciate he is aware of the tremendous investment the federal government has made already in Churchill. I hope in the long run that will pay off. Particularly I was interested in his comments regarding its suitability as a winter warfare training centre. The hon.
Adjournment Debate
member is quite right; the conditions of the Arctic can be simulated there.
The units which participated in the search for the downed satellite were not from Churchill. I am sure many of the people who were involved received their Arctic training in the Churchill area. This area is certainly considered a valuable training area. It does not lend itself to the large infrastructure required by the nature of the training. One difficulty is that there are a variety of different types of Arctic conditions. Our troops are training in different parts of the Arctic. When they move there, they are there to survive in that very rugged atmosphere. One of the good things is that there is an opportunity for relaxation in Churchill because of the excellent facilities which have been provided. I know the sports and recreation complexes to which the hon. member referred.
We must look at the broad picture of where we receive the most value and best return for the investment in infrastructure which we have. That is done automatically on a continuing basis to see that taxpayers' money is being handled properly in the first place, and that we are using the facilities to their best potential. Certainly Churchill offers a potential, but it does not lend itself to the large type of infrastructure of other places because of the nature of the training. The troops are on the road and away from the base itself, but they are necessary to maintain minimum facilities. I am sure the hon. member realizes that, as he also realizes the value of that training to the Canadian armed forces.
With regard to the other point about other government departments, I am not in a position to comment, nor is it appropriate for me to comment, on the Thompson situation with reference to the Cameron Highlanders. We are not talking about pulling out any who are there, but it is something which has been under consideration. In so far as Churchill is concerned, there are no immediate plans for any changes there. The value of the area for Arctic warfare training is appreciated. Our troops go there on their own and maintain themselves in that quite rugged environment. It is that type of training which has made our troops among the best in the world in Arctic and winter warfare.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, April 4, 1978