a

now making the plays.

And just what is Senator Olson’s vision.
Resource megaprojects! Senator Olson
wants us to conceive gigantic megaprojects
for the development and export of Canadian
resources. With all the hype about new
economic directions, the Liberals have come
right back to what they have stood for
throughout the 20th century.

The Olson vision is one of booms and
busts that makes us entirely dependent on the
vagaries of the world market for resources.

It is a vision that will do little to put
Canadians back to work. Resource projects
are highly capital intensive. They create few
long-term jobs. Most of the jobs associated
with them are simply to put in the
infrastructure to allow the project to proceed.
Once this stage is completed, most of the
jobs disappear, often saddling the economy
with new and severe pockets of
unemployment.

Let’s make Canada a
nation of producers

The Liberals say they are opposed to quick
fixes for the economy. But that is exactly
what the megaprojects are all about.

And with all the hype about the mega
projects, the Liberals have decided to do
absolutely nothing about the $21 billion
deficit in our manufacturing trade. Think
about that figure, $21 billion, for a moment.
It means that each year every man, woman
and child in this country imports nearly one
thousand dollars more in manufactured
goods than we export. The deficit is unique
in the industrial world.

Overcoming that deficit in manufacturing is
the key to putting Canadians back to work.

We must again make Canada a nation of
producers. Only as producers can we have a
sound currency, a sensible interest rate, and
an economy that is sheltered from the
lunacies of the Reaganauts.

How do we deal with the deficit?

The government of Canada has got to
make it clear to the multi-nationals that
dominate our manufacturing sector that they
cannot have our market for free.

If multi-nationals want to make profits
selling here, then they will have to provide
jobs here as well.

What difference would it make if Canada
began eliminating our manufacturing deficit
by putting Canadians to work making the
things we consume? With 1.8 million
Canadians out of work, it would make a lot
of difference. For every hundred thousand
dollars in production shifted to Canada we
would create one new job. If the entire
deficit were eliminated there would be
200,000 more manufacturing jobs in this
country.

Let me single out two key manufacturing
sectors for special mention. First, machinery

Canada’s Deficit in Trade in
Manufactured Products

The steady increase in our manufacturing trade
deficit illustrates the reality of de- industrialization.
The deficit costs Canada two hundred thousand

manufacturing jobs.

UONG L1$=

UOTIG OLS =

uONTTIG 6 $—

Miller Services

1974 1975 1976 1977

production -the key to all other production in
a modern economy. In 1980 our deficit in
trade in machinery totalled $5.7 billion. If
the deficit were overcome, there would be
approximately 76,000 more production jobs
in Canada in this vital field and that’s not
based on economic recovery but on.the
present state of the Canadian market.

In the field of transportation equipment,
cars, trucks, auto parts, aircraft and aircraft
parts we had a deficit of $4.2 billion in 1980.
The elimination of this deficit would mean
the creation of 42,000 new production jobs
in this country.

Canada must reject
© ° ye °
de-industrialization
Do Canadians simply have to accept the
steady weakening of the nation’s
manufacturing capability with its disastrous
implications for jobs?

We must reject the de-industrialization
of Canada.

It is time for Canada to stand up to the
multi-nationals that are enjoying such easy
access to our market. We must insist that if
they want such access they are going to have
to pay for it by providing jobs in Canada.

What difference will it make to Canadians
in other sectors of the economy if we re-
industrialize Canada? For every production
job we create in Canada, at least two jobs in
the service sector will be created through the
spinoff involved.

What we face in Canada is an emergency
in our manufacturing sector. Overcoming
that emergency requires immediate action.

A New Employment
Option for Canada

That action is a new employment option for
Canada which the federal government must

uoHud 11$-

1978

as

: Pi

u oe

oe oe

ape ee

a S

oS ca

St ee
=)

WOHTEG 113

1979 1981

1980

implement at once. It ought to include the
following elements:

1. To ensure that economic stimulus
does not worsen the balance of payments
deficit, Canada needs to establish
production agreements in key sectors with
multi-national manufacturing firms. These
agreements will concern the value of
production of such manufacturers in
Canada. The aim must be to ensure that
production in Canada in key sectors,
whether aimed at the domestic market or
the export market, will equal sales in this
country. Two key sectors must be
machinery and transportation equipment
where the potential exists to create over
one hundred thousand jobs in the next
few years.

Negotiations between the government
and manufacturers in these key sectors
must be very specific in nature, taking into
consideration the present market position
and future prospects of the companies.

To ensure that multi-nationals in these
key sectors increase their production in
Canada and their sourcing of parts and
components from Canadian producers the
government must be prepared to use the
full range of tools available to the modern
state. Of crucial importance is a tough-
minded domestic procurement policy by
the government and its crown corporations
and agencies to favour domestic
manufacturing in its own purchasing.
Government spends more money than any
other institution. That spending must be
channelled into creating manufacturing
jobs for Canadians.

To ensure that production agreements
with multi-nationals are negotiated,
Canada must be prepared to use a whole
arsenal of tools now used by our major
trading competitors. These include:
emergency surcharges on the prices of
companies not willing to bargain in good
faith to produce in Canada as much as

Lumber Worker/April, 1982/7