Mr. Rose:

Mr. Speaker-

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. I appreciate that the hon. member has a supplementary. He will be recognized in due course after we have completed the first round of questioning.

Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.

Is the minister aware that the Unemployment Insurance Commission refuses to pay unemployment benefits to workers having lost their jobs not because of some labour conflict but because of vandalism in James Bay? Does the minister intend to take action so that people laid off in James Bay will receive the unemployment benefits they are entitled to?

Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):

Mr. Speaker, if there is no evidence of direct participation in the dispute and they are otherwise entitled I am sure, though I will check further, that those people applying for benefits will in fact receive them, but they will be subject to the normal conditions that apply to entitlement.

Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the Prime Minister's somewhat generous admission in the House on April 19 that the government has over-all responsibility for the general monetary policy of the country, including bank interest rates, and in light of today's announcement that several major banks are increasing the consumer loan rate to as much as 13.9 per cent because of the general shortage of money and increasing costs since the last move by the Bank of Canada, can the Minister of Finance tell us specifically, are these increases in consumer loan rates in line with the policy of the government? If not, would he tell us what that policy is?

Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):

Mr

Speaker, the monetary policy of the government reflects action taken by the Bank of Canada. The Prime Minister was quite specific when he said that the government has to be in accord with the general monetary policy set by the bank, although it does not take responsibility for specific

May 1, 1974

rate movement either up or down. The monetary policy of the government, as I have stated it and will state it again on a future occasion, is sufficient to accommodate the efficient and reasonable expansion of the economy.

Mr. Speaker:

The hon. member for Perth-Wilmont will be recognized for a supplementary. I have not forgotten the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, who has a supplementary to another question.

Mr. Jarvis:

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that businesses are finding it increasingly difficult to secure extended bank credit loans and people in many areas, indeed most areas of the country, are also finding it increasingly difficult to obtain mortgage loans even at 11 per cent, may I ask the minister if this situation is acceptable to the government and part of government policy? If not, what is the government's policy? Specifically, does the government intend to permit loan rates and mortgage rates to seek world levels which may be as high as 17 per cent, as in the case of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):

Mr. Speaker, with the economy expanding as rapidly as it is, obviously the objective of the Bank of Canada and the banking system is not overly to increase the money supply. There then has to be some selection in the according of credit. As I understand it, that selection is being made by the banks, subject to the moral suasion that I put upon them in favour of small businesses, farmers, fishermen and those areas of the economy encouraging capital expansion rather than outright consumption.

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We are somewhat reassured by the fact the minister has told us Canada does not intend to depart from the principles articulated in 1971. Does the government intend to make a statement on motions at an early date outlining Canada's stance in somewhat greater detail than was the case with those principles dealing with salmon fishery negotiations well prior to any signing of a further United States-Canada fisheries treaty?

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should ask my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, to answer this question. He has been engaging in these negotiations and doing very well. Perhaps he should answer.

Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):

Yes, Mr. Speaker. There have been similar statements and more detailed statements made in relation to the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference. The basic principles contained in the 1971 preamble to the Canada-United States agree-

Oral Questions

ment on salmon are also contained in our proposals for the Law of the Sea stance.

Mr. Rose:

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I said I was reassured a little earlier because after the statement by the Minister of Fisheries I am not reassured at all. What I am really asking is whether the government intends to bring to this House its position as a result of the outcome of these negotiations before any signing takes place?

Mr. Davis:

Mr. Speaker, negotiations are proceeding. The next such negotiations are set for September. No real progress has been made in these negotiations with the United States. Until we make progress, we do not see any point in reporting further.

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In order to resolve the present overfishing of halibut stocks in the Bering Sea by the Soviet Union, have any steps been taken to arrange a conference with a view to securing agreement with the Soviet Union that they will enter into agreements which come under the North Pacific Fisheries Commission and abide by the terms of that treaty?

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I answered a similar question yesterday. The answer to the question is yes. We and the United States have approached the Soviet Union and Japan. Both of them have indicated a willingness to discuss the question. The problem with Korea is there are no diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and Korea. Therefore it would be very difficult to arrange a five-power conference. We are therefore proceeding otherwise. If we can arrange an international conference to make greater progress, we will certainly do so.