1969-01-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the special committee, that is to say, of the Striking Committee, to constitute the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, with copies in English and French. By leave I propose to move the adoption of the report later this day.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, by leave I move, seconded by Mr. Davis, that the third report of the Special Committee presented this day be now concurred in.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Isn't that the Striking Committee?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Second and third reports of the Standing Committee on Agriculture-Mr. Beer.

[Stage Direction]
First report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts-Mr. Hales.

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on transport and communications, in French and English-Mr. Trudel.
[JVote: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the house will
recall that on December 20 last, at the time
we adopted the rule changes, it was proposed that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization should be given further powers to review certain matters with relation to the changes in the rules. If the house is agreeable I would like to move the following motion:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization be instructed, and hereby is instructed, to review the operation of the house under its present standing orders, and that, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the committee be, and hereby is instructed, to give special attention to (1) the way the several standing committees study the estimates, (2) the means by which the position of the chairmen of the standing committees can be made somewhat more comparable to that of the Chairman of the Committees of the whole house, (3) the matter of ministerial attendance at the meetings of the standing committees, and (4) the means of meeting the need to make available to the standing committees stronger and more extensive support facilities.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) is quite correct in saying that this motion has been agreed to by representatives of the parties. One matter, however, has arisen since the motion was drafted. I wonder whether I could put it to the President of the Privy Council in the form of a question. Does he regard this motion as including authority for the committee to study the question of having the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the various standing committees produced a little faster than is now the case, in order to expedite the work of the committees?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes; we would regard that as being included under the fourth section of the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table a report concerning the security agents in some of our
4880	COMMONS
Protest Executions of Jews national museums, which report constitutes a reply to the numerous questions put to me in the house in the last few days.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am certain all members of the house have been shocked by the recent events in Iraq. The Canadian government, and I know many Canadians, are deeply disturbed by reports that 14 Iraqi nationals, nine of them of the Jewish faith, have been publicly executed on charges of espionage. As the Secretary General of the United Nations has pointed out, mass trials and executions are always to be deplored. They are, however, particularly abhorrent and dangerous when they inflame passions and stir up blind hatred. The Canadian government associates itself fully with the statement made by the Secretary General and with the action he has taken. What must be of particular concern to all of us at this time is the report that the Iraqi government is contemplating a further mass trial of 35 persons, of whom 13 are said to be of the Jewish faith, on similar charges. I hope this is not true. In addition to the basic humanitarian considerations, the Canadian government is profoundly concerned by the effects these events may have on the search for peace in the Middle East. Actions of this kind can only retard and obstruct the achievement of a just settlement in the Middle East. Despite the understandable dismay these events have caused in Israel, I would ask the government of Israel to refrain from retaliatory measures.
The round of bloodshed, violence, reprisal and renewed hostility in the area has gone on for too long and must be broken. It will only be broken by a peaceful and accepted settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute. The Canadian government strongly urges the great powers, which have a special responsibility under the United Nations charter, to ensure the maintenance of peace, to engage fully in the process of conciliation and actively to support the efforts of the Secretary General's special representative, Ambassador Gunnar Jarring, to bring about a just and lasting peace. The attainment of a settlement rests ultimately with the parties themselves, but the assistance of the great powers may be essential if the present deadlock is to be broken.
The views of the Canadian government are being brought to the attention of the Iraqi

DEBATES	January 29, 1969
government through the Canadian Ambassador accredited to Iraq.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, of course, like the minister and like the Secretary General of the United Nations we deplore the brutal killings in Iraq. The world hardly needs another reminder of the dangerous situation in the Middle East, and the urgency of a solution.
The recent proposals by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics deserves careful and sympathetic study by the United States, and of course other countries of the world, for unless the super powers of the world-to use an ugly phrase-can agree on a solution and guarantee peace in that part of the world, then no lasting peace is possible.
If it is not presumptuous of me, I should like to compliment the new President of the United States who, in a public statement he made a day or two ago, took what I felt to be a very sensible, calm and open-minded attitude toward the Russian proposal for a Middle East settlement. In the meantime we agonize with our Israeli brethren, and are touched by the further evidence of man's brutality to man; brutality, of course, of which Jews have borne far too great a share in man's history.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, of course we join with the minister and the Secretary General of the United Nations in deploring the mass trials and executions in Iraq. I want to congratulate the minister for having quickly expressed his protest against these trials and executions. Despite the fact that, as hon. members know, I myself am a Jew, I also want to support the hon. minister's statement urging the government of Israel not to retaliate in this case, as it has done in other cases.
It seems to me that the primary need in the Middle East now, as has been the case for many years, is a search for peace. Attacks and retaliation, even though the retaliation may be justified, cannot forward the cause of peace in that area. In speaking on this subject I cannot help but feel despair at the fact that the situation in the Middle East would not be nearly as dangerous for the peoples there, and for the peace of the world, were it not for the deliberate big power action of rearming, particularly the Arab states in that area since the June war, which has made them feel that they can again act in such a way as to wipe out the state of Israel from the Middle East. It is surely this rearmament of these
January 29, 1969

states in the Middle East that has given encouragement for attacks and counterattacks, and encouragement to refuse to sit down with the state of Israel to discuss the possibility of peace. Surely this is making the job of mediating in this situation almost impossible.
I think that the members of this parliament, and every other parliament of middle sized or small countries throughout the free world, ought to protest in the most vigorous fashion against the deliberate, divisive and dangerous policy of the super powers in the Middle East to the detriment of the future of the peoples there, and of peace throughout the world.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the news reaching us from Baghdad is spreading confusion and great concern not only in Canada but throughout the world. We see the frailty of world peace and how heavily the threat of a nuclear war weighs upon the world.
Mr. Speaker, as long as violence is the main weapon used to build peace, to guarantee the security and freedom of individuals and peoples, it is nothing but illusion to think that peace can some day become a reality.
We, of the Ralliement Creditiste, deplore such executions that beget hatred and stir limitless currents of violence.
According to the latest news, 35 other prisoners, 13 of which are Jews, will be brought to trial accused of spying and sabotage. In other words, this is only the start of the ravages.
Mr. Speaker, I think that a peace settlement worked out through the United Nations will only be possible and durable inasmuch as the big powers will stop putting their own interests foremost and will be more concerned about the precariousness of world peace.
I would urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to support wholeheartedly the appeal made by U Thant, secretary general of the United Nations, who asked the big powers to co-operate in order to find a quick solution in the Middle East. We hope that such a solution will settle efficiently the problem of peace in the Middle East which, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs put it, has been suffering for too long, thereby indicating that the present situation is in fact a cold war rather than a true state of peace.
Housing Task Force Report
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)



HOUSING


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table two copies in English and two copies in French of the report of the task force on housing and urban development.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: We have read it in Time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, it is in time, before the end of January, as I promised you months ago it would be.


Mr. Bell:: Just in Time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This report culminates the
work of a task force appointed by the government last August and which since that date has travelled more than 25,000 miles to visit 27 centres across the country. As well as holding formal hearings in each of these centres, the task force made on-site tours of various housing projects and sponsored a series of public meetings to discuss housing and urban problems in a more informal setting with Canadians in general.
In tabling the report I would like to express the appreciation both of the government and of myself to the six distinguished Canadians who participated with me in this inquiry. A word of thanks is due, too, to the many organizations and individuals across the country who took the time to give the task force their views and recommendations on these important subjects.
While this inquiry was carried out within a relatively short period of time, I believe it does represent the most comprehensive review of housing and urban problems undertaken in Canada since the Curtis inquiry almost 25 years ago. As such, I am sure this report, and the work which preceded it, will contribute to greater public discussion and understanding of the many issues which face our country in this area. As minister responsible for housing, I intend very shortly to place before the government recommendations on some of the matters arising out of the report on which I believe urgent action is required.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, we are glad to see that the Minister of Transport is recovering from his cold. Most of us know how he has been feeling. The minister's career is an illustration of
January 29, 1969

Housing Task Force Report Murphy's law: If something can go wrong, it will. The minister or one of his staff obviously supplied Time magazine with an advance copy of the report, presumably for publication on the anticipated day of release. Unfortunately for the rights and privileges of parliament, his cold could not stop the presses of Time magazine. Unfortunately, also, for the members of the press gallery, who do not like to see ministers giving pet privileges, the leak to Time was a "Luce" practice.
The chief failure of the report, a failure which may undo much of the minister's hard work, arises from its attitude toward the provinces, and provincial involvement. The task force, I suggest, would have been better informed, and its report would have been better received, if the studies had involved more provincial consultation and if the task force had better reflected all three levels of government.
One of the main recommendations calls for direct federal-municipal dealings. There are no references to provincial housing corporations although these were, after all, established to deal with problems which may be unique to their provinces and municipalities.
The second area of weakness concerned the attitude toward interest rates. In this respect the report is very weak indeed.
In the suggestions there is more hope than realism. Under no circumstances should the government allow the ceiling to be removed from interest rates for housing until there is an adequate supply of money available, so that there can be a firm assurance that rates will drop-not "may be expected to drop", but will drop.
We have been stung too often in the House of Commons on the matter of interest rates. So far the government has shown no indication to do its part to restore the economy to the point where interest rates may be held at an acceptable level, other than paying a minimum amount of lip service.
The third area of weakness is the failure to come up with a better program of housing for rural Canada.
Recommendation No. 30 is that C.M.H.C. should exercise particular care to ensure that rural areas have adequate mortgage funds. This is simply a pious declaration. What is needed is a whole new approach by C.M.H.C. to the regulations it imposes for construction in rural Canada.
Members of my party are pleased with the suggestions for the land bank assembly, the elimination of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, the proposed setting up of

a department of housing and urban affairs, and with the suggested use of existing housing stock for public housing purposes. These are good Conservative policies which we have consistently advocated. I suppose that it is only human if I point out to the Prime Minister, (Mr. Trudeau), to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), and to other members of the Liberal party that they have attacked us over and over again, charging us with irresponsibility in some of these proposals. Now that they have found respectability on the government side in the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), I hope that members there will support their minister. We certainly will in these four areas.
I am pleased with the suggestion in the report that there will be worth-while measures to bring housing within the reach of the lower income groups, and I am also pleased with the special program for Indians, Eskimos and Metis people. Our one man task force, Mr. Heward Grafftey, has pointed out graphically to members of my party that there are shacks in northern Canada housing as many as 13 Indians. The conscience of Canadians will surely support the minister in an all-out attack on this kind of injustice.
I would like to note briefly in passing that the task force was apparently never told that land developers do in fact pay income tax on their operations. The task force recommendations in this area are therefore suspect for creating a bogey that in large measure does not exist. It is however a popular bogey.
Finally, I should like to make two suggestions. The first is that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) change his position of not presenting a budget this spring and bring one in immediately, or at least bring in a measure to eliminate the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. I make a special plea to both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance in this regard.
Second, I would suggest that the subject matter of the report be immediately sent to a committee of the house for study so that this house will be in a position to act at quick speed when the minister is ready with his legislation. In that respect we wish him well, and we hope he will be able to get it before us soon.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the report of the task force on housing and urban development constitutes a colossal fraud on the Canadian public.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
January 29, 1969	COMMONS


John Gilbert: It took an outrageous amount of money, time and effort to inform the Canadian public of something that they already knew, namely that we have a housing crisis in Canada and, second, that the federal government should accept a leadership role in solving this crisis. The Prime Minister scored a big zero at the Commonwealth Conference-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Gilbert: *-and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) scored a double zero in this report, with his recommendations.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
The solutions to the crisis offered by the government are pitiful and pathetic. They expand the old fallacies of the past which produced the housing crisis. As to the urgent problem of public housing and urban renewal, they have replaced them by a research department. No concern has been shown for persons whose incomes range between $4,000 and $7,500, who are obliged to pay high prices for homes, and face high interest rates. Little thought has been given to people in this situation, and there has been no consideration of a subsidy on the interest rates charged to them.
No real housing target has been set-for example, a target figure of 250,000 homes, to make up for the shortage brought about by poor building performance in past years. There is to be no increase in construction sufficient to bring down the price of homes. Certainly no consideration has been given to providing a proper "mix" of the types of homes needed.
One feels the government is condoning present exhorbitant interest rates and taking no action, either with respect to the financial institutions or with respect to their own policy, which would have the effect of bringing down these excessive rates. It strikes me as strange that we in Canada can build a sufficient number of cars, television sets and radios to meet the needs of our population, while we cannot build sufficient homes to give people the basic social right of decent housing. This report, in our humble submission, constitutes a shameful approach to the housing crisis in Canada.


Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to express my views on this reform project of the National Housing Act. I had my first look at the report this morning and I want to thank those who made it available to me.
DEBATES	4883
Housing Task Force Report
At last, we are dealing with a rather important program. Construction has fallen, which has resulted in a housing crisis, and the people are very much concerned. On the other hand, from a moral point of view, I am convinced that the Commission will really have reached its goal, because I feel that royal commissions are probably the most efficient way to lull the people today.
During the last few years, everything has been done to bleed the Canadian people white through higher income tax deducted at the source, higher industrial income taxes, higher excise taxes, higher sales taxes, both from the wholesaler and the retailer. It will be recalled also that to ram down our throats the famous 11 per cent tax on building materials, the whole thing had to be done in three successive stages.
The high cost of money has been added to all those taxes which contributed to increasing the cost of living. What else could we expect since, on March 21, 1967, the Canadian parliament passed Bill No. C-222, that, in addition to removing the 6 per cent ceiling on bank loans, enabled them to make ten-year loans at any rate they saw fit.
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the Progressive Conservative party is complaining about that increase in interest rates since I noted-and I have here a photograph in support of my statement-that on the day Bill No. C-222 was passed 70 Conservative M.P.'s were absent. They preferred to stay away since banks contribute to the elections funds of the two old political parties.
In any event, in view of the high rate of interest, the high cost of capital, and the increase in all kinds of taxes, our economy has reached its saturation point, so that everything is now at a standstill.
Agriculture, trade, commerce and construction are in a slump and the present government, with its well-organized program, keeps pulling in the same direction. I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, since the government still has its thinkers and advisers, and the goal will ultimately be reached, I imagine.
Strangely enough, though, all the problems created by the government become practically insoluble. Then the government hires a group of understanding commissioners who tackle those problems and travel across the country to study them.
Mr. Speaker, without any reflection on your integrity, since you were chosen as an independent member, let me rate among the
4884	COMMONS DEBATES	January 29. 1969
Housing Task Force Report best Canadian actors the liberal members in office at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member in order to remind him of the provisions of our Standing Orders to the effect that in the House the comments of an honorable member following the statement of a minister, should be brief.
I appreciate the significance of the subject under consideration, however, I remind the hon. member that, a while ago, he said that he was concluding his remarks.


Roland Godin: I am concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker. This is because I was talking about social credit. It is a matter of monetary reform and I know that the Prime Minister wants to go further now.
The Prime Minister stated in England, and I quote:
-that he favoured true communism as the ideal solution. His definition of true communism is that everyone should give to others the best of what he owns.
Mr. Speaker, I will not go that far. I would not ask the Prime Minister to give away his own millions to the Canadian people. But I ask him and his colleagues in the cabinet to put the people's bank at the service of the people.
January 29, 1969	COMMONS



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. McIntosh: 1.	What payments have been made to Mr. Peter Aykroyd by the Centennial Commission in the last four years?
2.	Is he presently in the government service?
3.	If so, in what capacity is he employed?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices and by the department of the Secretary of State as follows: 1. From 1964 to 1967 inclusive, the Centennial Commission made payments of $71,510.39 to Mr. Peter Aykroyd.
2.	Yes.
3.	Program Administrative Officer, level 8 (Privy Council Office.)
DEBATES	4885
Questions


OFFICE SPACE OF CABINET MINISTERS
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	In the case of each of the Ministers of the federal Cabinet, what is the total area of office space provided for the Minister and all those Assistants attached directly to his office?
2.	In each case, what is the lease price per square foot or construction and furnishing cost on a per square foot basis?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minisier of Public Works):: 1. The total office space occupied by each Federal Cabinet Minister combined with that occupied by each Parliamentary Secretary, Executive Assistant, Special Assistant and Research Assistant attached to each Minister's office is detailed on the attached list. The figures do not reflect accommodation provided in the Parliamentary buildings.
2.	Owing to the variation in ages of the various Crown-owned buildings providing ministerial accommodation, it is not possible to give figures in answer to this question, that will provide an accurate basis for information or comparison.


SPACE OCCUPIED BY FEDERAL CABINET MINISTERS TOGETHER WITH THEIR PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANTS, SPECIAL ASSISTANTS AND RESEARCH ASSISTANTS
[Stage Direction]
Department
Transport External Affairs
National Health and Welfare Secretary of State
Minister
The Hon. Paul Hellyer The Hon. Mitchell Sharp
The Hon. John Munro The Hon. Gerard Pelletier
No. of square feet in departmental offices
1,490
Offices in centre and East Blocks only 1,970 1,755 1,385 1,417 1,865 2,014 1,665 1,337 1,350 1,412 1,449
1,611
Offices in parliamentary buildings only 1,750 1,223
Solicitor General	The	Hon.Public Works	The	Hon.Manpower and Immigration The Hon. Treasury Board (President) The Hon. Finance and Receiver General The Hon. National Defence	The	Hon.Industry, Trade and Commerce The Hon. Forestry & Rural Development The Hon. Energy, Mines and Resources The Hon. National Revenue	The	Hon.
Justice and Attorney General The Hon. Indian Affairs and Northern
Development	The	Hon.Labour	The	Hon.
Privy Council (President) The Hon.
George Mcllraith Arthur Laing Allan MacEachan Charles Drury Edgar Benson Leo Cadieux Jean-Luc Pepin Jean Marchand J. J. Greene Jean-Pierre Cote John Turner
Jean Chretien Bryce Mackasey Donald Macdonald
[Stage Direction]
Questions
January 29/ 1969
No. of square feet in
Department	Minister	departmentalFisheries	The	Hon.	Jack Davis	810Agriculture	The	Hon.	H. A. Olson	1,550Veterans Affairs	The	Hon.	Jean-Eudes Dube	749Consumer & Corporate Affairs The	Hon.	Ronald Basford	1,719Defence Production	The	Hon.	Donald Jamieson	1,789Post Office	The	Hon.	Eric Kierans	1,275Communications	The	Hon.	Eric Kierans	885Without Portfolio	The	Hon.	Robert Andras	409Without Portfolio	The	Hon.	James Richardson	Offices in centrWithout Portfolio	The	Hon.	Otto Lang	500

Mr. Fortin: 1.	Is the government considering the possibility of submitting to the Supreme Court of Canada the litigation between the Province of Quebec and the Province of Newfoundland concerning Labrador?
2.	Is the government considering the possibility of allowing the Provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland to submit the matter of Labrador to the International Court of Justice in The Hague?
3.	Has the government received any correspondence, briefs or other documents relating to the matter of Labrador?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the office of the Prime Minister and the Department of Justice as follows: 1. The Government is not aware of any such litigation.
2.	By Article 34(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, only States may be parties in cases before the Court.
3.	Yes, but none since 1964.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS FINANCIAL STRUCTURE
Mr. Fortin: Have consultations taken place between the Canadian National Railway and the government with a view to revising the financial structure of the CNR and, if so, what are the results of such consultations?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Yes; the matter is still under consideration.
See also replies to Questions Nos. 99 and 980.


RICHMOND, QUE.-UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	What was the total amount of contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund paid by citizens of the federal constituency of Richmond in 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968?
2.	What portion was paid by employers?
3.	What portion was paid by the workers?
4.	What portion was paid by the government?
5.	What amount has the Unemployment Insurance Fund paid in benefits in 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 (a) in Canada (b) in each province (c) for the federal constituency of Richmond?
6.	To how many claimants in each of the provinces and in the federal constituency of Richmond were benefits paid?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: The Unemployment Insurance Commission advises: Items 1, 2, 3 and 4: There is no information available which shows a breakdown of contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund by federal constituency. In Richmond, as elsewhere, employers and employees contribute an equal amount, and the government contributes an amount equal to one-fifth of the combined employer-employee contributions.
5.	The attached table shows the amounts paid in benefits on a national basis and by provinces for the fiscal years 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. No information is available concerning the amount of benefit paid to residents of the constituency of Richmond.
6.	No information is available concerning the number of individuals who receive payments by provinces or in the federal constituency of Richmond.


AMOUNTS CONTRIBUTED
[Stage Direction]
Financial Year	Total	Nfld.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta	B.C.s	$	s	$	$	;	$	$	;	$	s1964-	65	
335,030,187	18,034,340	3,077,707	17,818,566	17,458,724	107,053,534	94,274,111	14,557,887	9,879,562	17,665,229	35,210,5271965- 66	
297,813,249	17,437,474	2,974,627	16,149,755	15,850,086	97,763,610	81,861,170	12,796,197	8,814,260	13,587,711	30,578,3591966-	67	
307,006,732	17,880,751	2,956,271	16,922,160	16,327,512	96,193,260	89,162,488	10,725,739	8,576,826	11,771,716	36,490,0091967-	68	
388,581,791	19,812,720	3,425,191	18,703,896	18,754,360	126,193,093	118,670,523	13.452,882	10,149,924	14,457,182	44,962,020January 29, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	4887
Questions
Questions
[Stage Direction]
January 29, 1969

Mr. Coates: 1.	How many Canadians have been given the honour of being designated as (a) Companion of, and (b) Service Medal recipient of, the Order of Canada?
2.	Of these, how many in each of these categories had been, or were, civil servants at the time of appointment?
3.	Have any former Prime Ministers been granted Companions of the Order and, if so, which former Prime Ministers?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Registrar of the Order of Canada that the answer to starred question No. 1,100 is as follows: 1. (a) There have been 76 Companions appointed to the Order of Canada to date, of whom seven are deceased; (b) There been 146 recipients of the Medal of Service, of whom four are deceased.
2.	(a) There were 11 Companions in the employment of the Canadian government at the time of their appointment to the Order of Canada. This figure includes: Crown Corporations, 2; Expo, 2; National Defence, 1; States Visits, 1.
(b) There were 22 recipients of the Medal of Service in the employment of the Canadian government at the time of their appointment to the Order of Canada. This figure includes: Crown Corporations 1; Expo 8; States Visits 2.
3.	Since only those persons who are no longer active in politics are eligible for appointment to the Order, only two former Prime Ministers have been made Companions -The Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent and the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson.


PLACE RADIO CANADA CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What are the reasons for the delay in commencing the construction of Place Radio Canada?
2.	What is the work schedule for the construction of Place Radio Canada up until the completion of the work?
3.	Do the contracts granted by the CBC for Place Radio Canada require the approval of (a) the Cabinet (b) the Treasury Board?
4.	Was there any delay in obtaining approval and for what reasons?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. The Corporation originally planned to call for tenders for Phase
[Mr. Mackasey.l
II (building construction) of Place Radio-Canada before completion in December, 1967, of Phase I (excavation and foundations). Phase II was deferred to allow for thorough review of the scope of the project. The closing date for tenders, originally August 30, 1968, was extended until October 1, 1968, at the request of the contractors who required additional time to complete their bids because of the complexity of the project.
2.	Commencement of building construction mid-January, 1969. Completion building construction, July 1971. Start of operation, April, 1972. Completion of installation, October, 1972.
3.	The contract for management/contractor services for construction of Phase II, excluding supply and installation of equipment, required and received approval of Treasury Board and Privy Council (Order in Council P.C. 1968-25/2278 dated December 17, 1968).
4.	There was no undue delay in obtaining approval. The normal time was required for processing the request for authority, study by Treasury Board and final approval by Order in Council.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK TERMS OF REFERENCE
Mr. Salfsman: Is the Government of Canada considering the expansion of the terms of reference of the I.D.B., and the cancellation of the Department of Industry loan programs?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the departments of Finance and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: No.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LOAN PROGRAMS
Mr. Saltsman: What are the terms and conditions of financing of the loan programs under the Industrial Development Bank?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Section 15(1) of the Industrial Development Bank Act states that the Bank may make a loan where credit or other financial resources would not otherwise be available on reasonable terms and conditions, and where the amount invested or to be invested in the industrial enterprise by persons other than the Bank, and the character of that investment,
January 29, 1969

are such as to afford the Bank reasonable protection.
The President of the IDB stated in his annual report for 1968 that as larger term loans appear to be more readily obtainable elsewhere than smaller loans, the IDB's rates of interest are graduated upwards with the size of the loan; this helps to screen out applicants who might be expected to have access to funds elsewhere on reasonable terms and conditions. Terms and conditions of loans vary from borrower to borrower depending on the circumstances.


AGREEMENTS WITH ST. PIERRE AND MIQUELON
Mr. Robinson: Does Canada have any direct agreements with the island group of St. Pierre and Miquelon in the fields of (a) trade and commerce (b) fishing industry (c) agriculture (d) defence?


Mitchell William Sharp: No. The islands of St. Pierre-Miquelon are a part of the overseas territories of the French Republic and treaties concluded with respect to these islands would not be concluded direct with St. Pierre-Miquelon but with France.


MILITARY PERSONNEL FROM FRANCE IN CANADA
Mr. Scott: 1.	Are there any military personnel from the Republic of France now instructing Canadian Forces?
2.	For what purpose were they engaged?
3.	How many are there at the present time?
4.	Where are they located?
5.	When were they engaged?
6.	How long is their anticipated stay?
7.	What remuneration do they receive and from whom do they receive it?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	They were posted to Canada as part of an exchange officer program.
3.	Two air force officers.
4.	One is at the Canadian Forces Base, Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, the other at the Air Navigational School, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
5.	The officer at Moose Jaw came in February 1967, and the one at Winnipeg in August 1968.
Questions
6.	Two years from date of arrival in Canada.
7.	These officers receive military salaries from the French government.


PATRICK ASSELIN-EMPLOYMENT IN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Is Mr. Patrick Asselin in the employ of the Minister or of the Department of Agriculture?
2.	If so, what position does he hold?
3.	What is his yearly and monthly salary?
4.	What are his exact duties?
5.	Are parts of his salary exempted from tax?
6.	Are his expenses paid?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	Mr. Asselin is a member of the staff of the Minister of Agriculture.
2.	Administrative assistant.
3.	$7,529 yearly; $627.41 monthly.
4.	Administrative duties, dealing with correspondence and policy matters with particular responsibility for liaison with producers and producer organizations in the province of Quebec; other related duties.
5.	No.
6.	Yes, when incurred on government business or on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture.


HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS BOARD DIRECTOR
Mr. Moore: 1.	What is the name of the present Director of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	What was his position previous to this appointment?
4.	What is his present salary?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. The
Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada does not have a director. However, the Chairman of the Board is Mr. Allan Turner, member of the board for the province of Saskatchewan.
2.	First appointed to the board in 1964, he was named chairman in May 1968.
3.	Mr. Turner was, and still is, Provincial Archivist for the province of Saskatchewan.
4.	Neither the members of the board nor the chairman receive salaries for serving thereon. For each day spent on board business they receive a per diem allowance, presently set at $20, plus living and travelling expenses while on board business.

January 29, 1969
Questions


THANSACTIONS UNDER GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES ACT
Mr. Caouetle: 1.	When did the Government Annuities Act come into force officially?
2.	What is the purpose of this Act?
3.	How many annuities were in force on January I, 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968?
4.	What was the maximum annuity which could be purchased in 1968?
5.	Does the government intend to increase the maximum for an annuity?


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: 1. September 1, 1908.
2. To promote habits of thrift and to encourage and aid Canadians to make provision for old age.
Fiscal	Annuities Under	Annuities that have not	Year	Payment	reached maturity	Individual	Group	Total1965	93,342	90,340	205,332	389,0141966	96,350	88,254	200,498	385,1021967	99,305	84,766	188,248	372,3191968	101,987	81,067	181,864	364,9184.	$1,200.00.5.	No.
Note: Contracts in force at March 31 are given rather than January 1 as statistics are maintained on a fiscal year basis.
SUFFIELD, ALTA.; CHEMICAL WARFARE TESTS


Mr. Lewis: 1.	Is the Canadian Government co-operating with United States and Britain in conducting secret chemical warfare tests at Suffleld, Alberta?
2.	If so, what does this co-operation consist of?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes.
2. Examination of many defensive aspects of chemical operations which are of common interest.


TARIFF ON ACRYLIC PLASTIC SHEETS
Mr. Lewis: Is the government now considering a tariff on Acrylic Plastic Sheets which is currently manufactured by only one United States owned company in Canada?


Edgar John Benson: The Budget Resolutions proposing amendments to the Customs Tariff which were tabled in the House of Commons on October 22 included a provision for a 10 per cent British Preferential and Most-Favoured-Nation rate of duty on acrylic sheets (tariff item 93902-83) as recommended by the Tariff

Board in its report on chemicals under Reference 120. Bill C-131 which implemented these resolutions was passed by Parliament. The 10 per cent duty on acrylic sheets came into effect on January 1 of this year.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many Social Workers are employed by the federal government (a) in each department (b) in each Province of Canada?
2.	How many Social Workers employed are qualified as follows (a) Diploma in Social Work
(b)	Bachelor of Social Work (c) Master of Social Work (d) extension courses (e) on job training (f) other qualifications?
3.	How many Social Workers are engaged in (a) medical social work (b) psychiatric social work
(c)	community organization?
4.	How many Social Workers employed by the government are qualified as (a) case workers (b) group workers (c) community organization workers?
Return tabled.


GOVERNMENT AID TO HOSPITALS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What is the present government policy on providing financial support to hospitals in Canada?
2.	How much money has the federal government paid to provinces and/or municipalities for hospital (a) construction (b) facilities (c) research (d) teaching during the years 1960-1968 inclusive?
January 29. 1969	COMMONS
3.	What, if any are the present financial commitments of the federal government for hospitals in Canada for (a) construction (b) facilities (c) research (d) teaching, and what are the names of each hospital and, where are they located?
4.	Does the federal government provide any grants to university medical faculties for (a) construction (b) facilities (c) research (d) teaching and, if so, how much and to which universities were amounts paid for the years 1960-68 inclusive?
Return tabled.


RETURNS ON INVESTMENT FROM CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What was the annual return on investment over the last seven years for each of the proprietary Crown corporations?
2.	What steps has each corporation taken, or will it take, to increase its return in cases where it was less than 7%?
Return tabled.


CANADIAN OIL INDUSTRY, INVESTMENT AND CONTROL
Mr. Harding: 1.	What was the total capital investment in the oil and gas industry in Canada, by province, for the years 1961 to 1967 inclusive?
2.	What percentage of our total Canadian oil industry is (a) foreign-controlled (b) Canadian-controlled, as of the latest available date?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notice of Motion No. 66 for production of papers is acceptable to the government.
Mr. Speaker, would you kindly call notice of motion No. 62?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT CROSSINGENGINEERING FEASIBILITY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 62-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all surveys, reports and enquiries respecting costs and benefits and engineering feasibility of the Northumberland Strait Crossing project received by the Government of Canada since September 1. 1967.
DEBATES	4891
Inquiries of the Ministry
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, previously the hon. member had agreed to drop this motion if the Stanford Research Institute report was tabled. This report and its supplements will be tabled with the return for the Motion for Production of Papers No. 61. Therefore I would request that the hon. member for Egmont withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion, subject to the conditions and reservations referred to by the minister, or is it to be dropped? Agreed?
Motion withdrawn and order discharged.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. In view of the recommendations contained in the report of the task force I should like to ask the minister whether it is his intention to bring legislation before the house reducing or eliminating the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials used in housing construction?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, anything that the Minister of Transport proposes I will study with care. I have no present intention to do what the hon. member is suggesting.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that the recommendations of the task force included some relating to provincial taxation, has the minister any intention of discussing provincial taxation on building materials with the appropriate provincial authorities?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that this report will be studied very carefully by the government.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and is based on the release made today by the Canadian Welfare Council of its document
January 29, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry entitled "Social Policies for Canada". In view of the fact that some of the best social legislation that we have ever had came out of a parliamentary committee-and I refer to the old age security committee of 1950-would the government consider referring the whole question of its review of social welfare policies, old age pensions and other matters to a special committee so that we might all become involved in any proposals in regard to changes in this field?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be premature at this time to give any indication that this would be the course of government action, but I would be pleased to take the suggestion of the hon. member under consideration later on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether in considering this matter the government will take note not only of the document released today by the Canadian Welfare Council but also the new proposals regarding old age security which have been put forth in Britain?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question arising out of the report. Will the government undertake the implementation of the recommendation of the report that a study be made of appropriate methods to implement a guaranteed income?


John Carr Munro: I believe this concept, along with all other ideas and concepts in the whole social welfare field are under review and I believe that has been indicated to the house previously.



ASSISTANCE TO NATIONAL SKI TEAM

André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare or to his parliamentary secretary.
Last week I asked a question about a federal grant to the national ski team. Would either one be in a position to answer this question today?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the Fitness

and Amateur Sports Council has approved, and I have approved, the grant of some $198,000 from their fund for the Ski Association and I am informed that this represents approximately 45 per cent of their budget.



HOUSING


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. In view of the growing concern of several municipalities which have commenced urban renewal projects because of the possibility of cut-backs in the federal commitment, can the minister assure this house, the nation and particularly the municipalities that there will be no cut-backs so far as those urban renewal programs which have already been started?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give blanket assurance at this stage, but I can assure my hon. friend this is one of the matters which I will refer to the government for consideration and decision at an early date. There are inevitably certain projects which must continue. I think if one were looking at the priorities involved he might conclude a certain postponement would be in the national interest until we can provide adequate housing for all our Canadian citizens. I think the best thing to do is take a look at the subject immediately, and then be in a position to reply definitively in each existing case.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the minister to enter into a dialogue with either provincial or municipal authorities before reaching any definite conclusion in this regard?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There certainly will be adequate opportunity for discussion. I think informal talks will be held with provincial ministers some time later. I know the Canadian Association of Mayors and Reeves are studying the report very carefully, and will be putting forward some representations with respect to it. Naturally all representations received will be given thoughtful consideration.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Si. George's-St. Bar be):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the priorities he mentioned, can he tell the house when he intends to make the announcement of a proposed $36 million housing project in Corner Brook, Newfoundland?
January 29, 1969



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easi):: My
question is to the Minister of Finance, and I know Your Honour will immediately recognize my reason for seeking co-operation. Could the hon. minister advise the house in general, and in particular the members from British Columbia, when a decision, favourable we hope, can be expected on the issuance of a commemorative coin to mark the 100th anniversary of the addition of British Columbia to our great Confederation?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether this is a question which can be asked verbally. It seems the type of question that normally should be put on the order paper.


Harold Edward Winch: I ask the question because of the time involved. The Numismatic Society advises me an early decision is required, if it is going into effect.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest an early decision could be made in writing.



EDUCATION


Mr.   Gaetan-J. Serre@Nickel Belt: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Could he tell the house if he has examined the recommendations of the Franco-Ontarian Committee on cultural life which were presented to the Ontario Minister of Education last Monday?
If so, does he intend to answer favourably their request that the C.B.C. establish French radio (AM and FM) and television stations wherever there is a sufficient number of French-speaking people in Ontario?
Mr. Speaker, such a service is necessary, not only for the French-speaking people of Ontario but also for the increasing number of English-speaking people who wish to get a better knowledge of the French culture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Inquiries of the Ministry



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Barry Maiher (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Postmaster General. Having in mind the publication today of the Survey which states that a large number of trade union papers are discontinuing publication, due to the very heavy postal rate increase, could consideration be given to a review of the situation in which those non-profit papers find themselves?


Mr. Speaker:: The first part of the question may be placed on the order paper. However if there is immediate urgency the matter might be discussed at the time of adjournment.


Barry Mather: Ten o'clock.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the government planning a merger between Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines? I ask this question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the recent suggestions by Air Canada advocating such a proposal.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the government is studying the whole question related to air policy, and the future corporate structure of Air Canada, in a general sense. I think I indicated some weeks or months ago in answer to a question that this suggestion which has been made is not a matter of urgent study. It is not the subject of a specific task force or anything of that nature. Nevertheless I think one has to look in a methodical way at the future of Air Canada and its corporate structure, financing and all related aspects, and then in due course perhaps to make some conclusions or recommendations which could be considered by the government. The chairman of Air Canada was stating a personal view I understand; he was not flying a kite for the government. This is one point of view. If the President of Canadian Pacific Airlines had been speaking he might have put forth a different view.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question. Can the minister tell us if any directors of
January 29, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry Canadian Pacific Airlines, either present or past, have been consulted by himself or the government in connection with this merger possibility?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have had informal discussions with numerous people as to what merit if any they think the idea might have. I am sure the Minister without Portfolio has as well. These have been informal conversations of the type I might have had with my hon. friend or any other hon. member on the same subject.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a question regarding this task force, the chairman of which is the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Richardson) from Manitoba. In view of the fact that, during the election campaign this minister came out in favour of the amalgamation of Canadian Pacific Airlines and Air Canada, does the minister think that hon. gentleman will be able to look at this problem objectively-free from prejudice?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Richardson) is not only one of the most thorough but one of the most objective people I have met in many years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Also, if I may so, he is one of the most selfless, public spirited citizens I know of in Canadian public life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Baldwin:: No commercials.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sure that when he approaches this problem he will approach it with only the interests of the Canadian people in mind.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Now that the minister has placed a halo about the Minister without Portfolio, will he answer the question? What possible objectivity can there be in one who took such a strong stand? That is what I want to know.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suspect the right hon. gentleman would agree with me that this question as asked is argumentative.


John George Diefenbaker: Not argumentative, factual.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Souih Shore):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Transport. During the Minister's review of air policy, will he be taking into consideration the question of the expansion of housing developments adjacent to our airports, such as that which necessitated the change in policy for Toronto, and which may cause a change in location of the air terminal?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I can assure my hon. friend that, as a result of the experience in Toronto and Montreal, I have asked for a full report as to what the consequences of this kind of development might be in the future in respect to our other airports in the other cities. Now is the time to look at it, before the encroachment has reached a stage where it, too, would have to be moved or limited, as far as that expansion is concerned.
We are trying to learn from our experience and project into the future as best we can the information now available to us, so that, where we can, we will protect existing facilities through co-operation with the provinces, or through some other method. We want to see that this is done before it is too late.
[ Translation]



HOUSING


Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Since the minister has tabled his report, could he now tell the house whether he intends to suggest technological improvements in the field of public housing, in order to meet the urgent needs of this industry?


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the hon. member that his question is too general. The information he is asking for should normally be given by the minister on motions.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Roberi Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External
January 29, 1969

Affairs. It arises out of a statement yesterday by Mr. McCloskey, the White House press representative, which no doubt has been brought to the minister's attention. Has the International Control Commission, on which Canada is represented, been requested at any time in the past six months to investigate allegations of North Vietnamese massive infiltration into Laotian territory and, if so, what were the results?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take notice of that question.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR RENEWED SALES EFFORT

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the attention of the minister been called to the fact that there has been a large wheat sale by Australia to China, worth $137 million? Will the government now persuade the Canadian Wheat Board to renew its efforts to make other sales to China and other countries, and will the government give some assurance of the fact that, aided by constructive proposals from this side of the house, the problems with regard to storage and transport will indeed be solved?



GRAIN-RESTRUCTURING OF MARKETING POLICY

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement made in Quebec by the Minister of Agriculture that a chairman has been appointed for a National Grains Council, does this indicate a restructuring of government policy with regard to the marketing of western Canadian grain?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. The National Grains Council is a council that we had talked about a great deal during the election, and this is the fulfilment of the promise we had made.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, would the government at an early date give the house some information on the terms of reference and the financing of this council?


Mr. Trudeau:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe the Minister of Agriculture will want to make public some information on this subject.
29180-310J
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION



MICHAEL SPENCER-ENTITLEMENT OF PARLIAMENT TO INFORMATION

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Is the minister aware of the position of Michael Spencer, acting secretary of the Canadian Film Development Corporation, that parliament is not entitled to information about the way this agency is spending money? Will my question on the order paper, No. 1,188 be answered in due course?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the second question might be answered by the Secretary of State.


Gérard Pelletier: In due course, certainly, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Is the minister aware of arrangements made between the French government and the Quebec government concerning the Sym-phonie satellite. In the affirmative, could he tell us if he has approved them?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, a similar question was asked on our last sitting day. I said we had been furnished with copies of the letters that were exchanged between the government of Quebec and the government of France. These are now under study in the department and I expect I will either make a statement or answer questions after the study has been completed.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Having in mind the problems which appear to crop up concerning the satellite project, would the Prime Minister be in favour of a tripartite agreement between Quebec, Ottawa and France to work things out?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that we have

January 29, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry reached the stage of a tripartite agreement yet. An umbrella agreement has been concluded by the French and the Canadian governments allowing the provinces to do certain things. In the light of international law, the minister, as he said, is now in the process of establishing whether the letters that were exchanged in Paris fall under that agreement.
For my part, I am surprised that the province should have enough money to concern itself with things that do not fall within its jurisdiction. If it has millions of dollars to invest in the field of satellites, I am convinced that the Minister of Finance will be pleased to hear about it.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
I did not ask the Prime Minister whether the stage had been reached for a tripartite agreement, but whether he would favour the idea?


Mr. Speaker:: The question then becomes hypothetical.


ESTATE TAX ACT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance when he is going to present to this house the often promised and long dreaded legislation on taxation?
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this first-rate legislation with regard to estate taxes will be presented to the house tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


TRANSPORT
Mr. W. C. Scott (Vicioria-Haliburlon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is it still the department's intention to pursue its program with respect to water lot leasing on the Trent and Rideau canal systems?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps this question might be placed on the order paper.


William C. Scott: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
IMr. Trudeau.)


HIGHWAY SAFETY
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the government giving any consideration to providing regulations for the operation of snowmobiles owing to the fact that they have been responsible for the death of quite a number of people and have now become a menace to pedestrians and other traffic?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This would be a matter strictly within provincial jurisdiction, unless or until these machines become engaged in interprovincial or international traffic.


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, this is the same answer I got when I raised the problem of highway safety in this house. I think the minister and the government will still have to look after it.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Can he advise the house whether the negotiations by the C.B.C. for the acquisition of a television outlet in Saskatchewan have been completed? Can he make an announcement now, or when will he make an announcement as to where these facilities will be located?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question three or four days ago and I have nothing to add to the reply I gave then.




Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that Quebec had millions of dollars to spend for the Sym-phonie satellite. Is he not aware of the fact that France is giving it free of charge?
January 29, 1969


RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the parliamentary secretary to the minister for rural development. On January 15 I asked the minister regarding the possibility of making public the ARDA task force report on the nine northern counties of Nova Scotia. The minister at that time said that he would take the question under consideration and answer later. Would the parliamentary secretary look into the matter and give an answer tomorrow or the day after?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, the minister was here earlier. I will bring the question to his attention.


AIRPORTS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question asked by my colleague the hon. member for South Shore of the Minister of Transport. I am not sure whether my question should be addressed to the Minister of Transport or to the minister who is responsible for the National Capital Commission. My question is whether any minister of the cabinet or any cabinet committee is looking into the matter of the condition of the road from the airport to the city of Ottawa. Is any work being done on this with the proper civic authorities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question should be placed on the order paper.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I quite appreciate that during this question period questions must be of national importance and urgency. Unless something is done pretty soon we will not be able to drive from the airport to the city because of the potholes which are showing up in the road at a rate that would not even be usual in the Yukon Territory.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not a question: it is a grievance.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE


NATO AND NORAD-REQUEST FOR POSITION OF MINISTERS ON POLICY
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince
Albert): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence, who is in charge of the defences of the nation. When he made the statement giving his full and undivided support to NATO and its continuance, was he speaking for the government and, if so, would he post a letter to the Postmaster General to remind him of that fact.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that a question relating to statements made outside the house can only be directed to the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall ask it without referring to anything outside the house. Is the minister taking a stand on behalf of the government, a most statesmanlike stand too, that NATO shall be preserved for the defence of this nation? Can't the minister answer?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I was stating my personal conviction. Of course I can.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister stating current government defence policy when he says that the present policy is that laid down by the white paper of 1964?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I do not believe I said that, Mr. Speaker.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I will rephrase my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question asked by the hon. member and the question asked by the right hon. member for Prince Albert point up the difficulty in asking a minister about statements made outside the house. The rule is quite clear that the only reference that can be made to such statements is by way of a question to the Prime Minister, asking whether such a declaration represents government policy.


John (Jack) McIntosh: May I rephrase my question. Is current Canadian defence policy the same as that set out in the white paper of 1964?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is asking the minister to give a statement on policy. I have the impression that this kind of statement should be made on

January 29, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry motions. But if hon. members want to allow the minister to reply, I have no objection.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Within the limitations placed by Your Honour on the questioning of ministers within their own competence, I will address my question to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is aware of what was said by the Minister of National Defence. Does that reflect present government policy with regard to NATO and NORAD?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I answered the question on Monday. I read from the statement of the minister wherein he said that present policy was under review and he was not stating his conclusions as to what the result of the review would be. This is a matter for the government to decide. I realize there is quite a bit of distress in the opposition ranks about our policy, but if it will reassure them I can tell them that we are pursuing our review and will come to a policy which all cabinet ministers will support wholeheartedly.


An hon. Member:: Or else they won't be there.


IMPOSITION OF CONTROLS ON AMPHETAMINE TYPE STIMULANTS
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday I asked a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding drugs. Perhaps the ruling that this question should have been placed on the order paper may have been given because you, Mr. Speaker, did not understand the question, since it is reported incorrectly in Hansard.
The question should be: For what reason did Canada refuse to support the efforts of Sweden-not of students-to impose strict controls, through the United Nations narcotics commission, on amphetamine type stimulants.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the revised question is more acceptable than the first one, but I am afraid that even with the change I must rule that it should be placed on the order paper. If there is a matter of urgency, it could be discussed at the time of adjournment.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address this question to the Minister

of Justice. In view of the large number of requests I have received, as I am sure other members of this house have, regarding extra copies of the bill to amend the Criminal Code, Bill C-150, would the minister use his good offices to make more copies available to members.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: That is a good idea, Mr. Speaker.


FISHERIES
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the tremendous uncertainty regarding the economic feasibility of prosecuting the 1969 fishery operation, could the minister give some definite indication of when and what type of governmental program will prevail in this coming 1969 season?


Mr. Speaker:: I am wondering whether perhaps the hon. member is asking for a statement which should be made on motions. This is the impression I have.


John Howard Lundrigan: Then perhaps I might ask at what definite date we might expect an indication of the nature of the government's program to be announced for the coming season.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: The answer very briefly is that this matter is under active discussion with the representatives of the fishermen and with the companies at the present time.


John Howard Lundrigan: A number of hon. members have received a tremendous number of inquiries from people who plan literally to quit the fishing operation altogether. We have heard this same answer on a number of occasions. I would like a more definite indication.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary, directed to the Minister of Fisheries. On January 21 the minister announced, in reply to my question, that he would be announcing the policy in this regard within the month. Does that still stand, and when can we expect an announcement, since January now is just about over?


John (Jack) Davis: Certainly before February 21, Mr. Speaker.
January 29, 1969


ESTATE TAX ACT
Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister provided confidential information concerning changes in proposed estate tax laws to government members of this house for transmission to their friends?


Mr. Speaker:: Need I suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked is either a charge or an accusation, and therefore cannot be accepted, phrased in that way.


DISCLOSURES BY HON. MEMBER FOR PORTAGE AND HON. MEMBER FOR PROVENCHER RESPECTING LEGISLATION
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he can advise the house as to any confidential information which may have been given to any member of this house regarding the proposed estate tax legislation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the resolution and a full explanation of it was given to the whole house and to the country. Since the resolution was introduced in the house, I have had discussions with members of my own caucus and members of the opposition in respect of their ideas about what should happen to estate tax law. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition has said I should withdraw the legislation entirely and not benefit the women of the country. Apparently he is against women.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question simply was, has any confidential information been given to any members of the house in respect of the estate tax proposals or changes?


Edgar John Benson: I do not really know what my friend means by "confidential information", but-


An hon. Member:: Oh, yes you do.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, among the great amount of mail the Minister of Finance has received concerning changes to the estate tax laws did he receive a petition from the Liberal association of the Wellington riding asking him to withdraw it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this type of question cannot be asked at this time. This would open the door to many similar questions.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would it not be easier for the minister to table all the letters of criticism that he has received, although not here in the house because they would fill this chamber?


Edgar John Benson: I would be glad to table the compliments I have received, and they are very numerous.


Thomas Miller Bell: You will get more letters when the people hear about that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, would the minister advise the house whether he authorized the hon. member for Portage and the hon. member for Provencher to disclose that he was going to make certain changes and would bow to some of the opposition to the bill?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is the
minister then saying that the disclosures made by those hon. members were incorrect?


Edgar John Benson: I have not seen them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in view of the increasing opposition to the proposed change in respect of estate taxes, of which I am sure the minister is aware, can he now state that he is prepared to change this measure in order to make it more realistic for Canadians who want to work and save in the future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is argumentative. I suggest to the hon. member that this type of question should be asked during the course of his speech when we are considering the legislation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: May I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker? In view of the many representations which have been made to the minister through letters, and statements this afternoon, can he now state that he is prepared to change the estate tax bill?


Edgar John Benson: The legislation will be introduced tomorrow and my hon. friend will see exactly what is in the bill then.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I remind the house that other members would like to ask questions. There have been quite a number of supplementary questions on this subject, but I will allow another by the hon. member for Edmonton Mest.

January 29, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, will the changes about which discussions have taken place include a change in the date when the estate tax bill comes into force, an increase in the ceiling exemption and the allowance of a period of five years over which the estate tax may be paid under the new provisions?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong on most of his queries.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


HOUSING
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, this question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. It is in respect of a matter concerning which I had thought a question would have been asked before this. Did the minister make available advance copies of the housing task force report to the press gallery, on orders they keep silent about its contents until the two o'clock deadline.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Miller Bell: Did this apply to Time magazine?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They might have had one this morning, Mr. Speaker. They did not have one earlier. If you read their report carefully you will realize that they could not possibly have had the report.


Thomas Miller Bell: Do I understand the minister to say this did apply to Time magazine?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Maybe for next week's edition, not for last.


Thomas Miller Bell: Did they have access in any way to information on the housing task force report?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: To the best of my knowledge, they did not have a copy of the report. The task force reports were all locked up at the Queen's Printer until Monday night, after Time had gone to press.
They might very easily have had access to someone who had knowledge of what was in the task force report. That is the only explanation I have for the two direct quotations they have. I can make inquiries as to what

happened and provide an answer for my hon. friend.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister make inquiries along this line, to make certain that nobody in his department had any contact with Time magazine on this subject, in advance?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: My department is so large, Mr. Speaker, that would require a big inquiry.


SHIPPING
Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister of Transport. In view of the many protests by shipowners, grain and ore shippers and lock users, with regard to the high toll rates on the St. Lawrence Seaway, would the minister say whether he is considering a reduction of these rates in order to make water transportation more economical?


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the hon. member's question tends to be too general. The hon. member asked the minister to make a statement with regard to the general policy of his department or the government and I think that such a statement should be made on motions.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government house leader whether, as a result of yesterday's experience with committee meetings, especially the meeting of the fisheries committee, he can confirm that explicit orders were given to his colleagues to vote against all constructive amendments moved by members of opposition parties?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


HOUSING
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether the recommendations of the task force to remove the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials was taken from the Conservative election platforms of 1965 or 1968?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was in spite of that.
January 29, 1969	COMMONS


WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Waller C. Carter (SI. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether he can inform the house about what steps are being taken to investigate evidence of a serious pollution problem in the waters around Long Harbour, Newfoundland, where a quantity of dead fish have been found floating near the beaches?


Mr. Speaker:: It is difficult to decide from here how urgent this question is. I would think perhaps it might wait until the hour of adjournment.


Walter C. Carter: It is very important to the fish, Mr. Speaker.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: Before calling orders of the day, I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-25, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, to which the concurrence of this house is desired.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
FIRST ALLOTTED	DAY-NON-CONFIDENCE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That this house regrets that the government is not presenting programs to achieve a rate of economic growth which will reduce unemployment and also ensure that the economy will be able to absorb the large number of new entrants into the labour force this year.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Leader of the Opposition is allowed to proceed with his motion, may I mention that I have had the opportunity, with the co-operation of the hon. gentleman, to consider the proposed motion. I should like now to make the following comments for the assistance of hon. members. Let me draw the attention of the house to the wording of this proposed motion in view of previous decisions of the house during the current session.
DEBATES	4901
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment
I specifically refer to a subamendment moved by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) during the address in reply to the speech from the throne, which motion was decided in the negative on December 17, 1968.
Hon. members will recall that on that occasion the Leader of the Opposition had moved an amendment to the effect that the government had refused to recognize or respond to Canada's current and urgent economic and social problems and had failed to provide parliament with an agenda of priorities to define and implement the just society. Thereupon, the hon. member for York South proposed a subamendment to include the question of housing, urban development, unemployment and poverty.
There is a similarity between what is being proposed today and what was decided on September 17, 1968, I merely draw this to the attention of the house, not with the intention of refusing the motion proposed today but in order to caution hon. members that a problem does exist which perhaps they may wish to reflect upon when occasions arise to move motions of non-confidence and set forth grievances under our new rules.
Supply motions should relate to specific matters and should not be an effort to cover a multitude of subjects in one motion. Amendments, of course, should be strictly relevant to the main motion, and when the main motion is drawn in general terms it becomes exceedingly difficult to limit amendments that may be proposed.
I should point out to hon. members that in the course of an ordinary session about 40 days will be provided for the moving of nonconfidence motions or the raising of grievances against the government by opposition members, according to the new rules of the house. I need not expand on that except to say that as this session progresses it will become very difficult to draft motions which will not violate the well established rule to which I have referred.
Having drawn this problem to the attention of hon. members, I will now put the motion to the house. Mr. Stanfield, seconded by Mr. MacEwan, moved:
That this house regrets that the government is not presenting programs to achieve a rate of economic growth which will reduce unemployment and also ensure that the economy will be able to absorb the large number of new entrants into the labour force this year.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, this is the first of the so-called opposition days provided un-
4902	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment der the new rules. Opposition days give us an opportunity to honour one of the most important obligations of a parliamentary opposition, that of focussing a public spotlight on problems which the government would otherwise avoid discussing. That is certainly the case with our immediate and even longer term economic problems, because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has proposed, save only for some unforeseen emergency- and of course we are getting used to unforeseen emergencies developing-not to discuss economic problems or economic policy in any coherent context, which is to say in the context of a budgetary statement from the government, until the spring of 1970.


Edgar John Benson: Who said that?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Opposition days provide an opportunity for parliament to draw public attention to problems which the government is failing to meet. In the case of the present government at this stage of its mandate, the obligation upon the opposition is, I suggest, especially important because, for better or worse, we will have this government with us in Canada for another three and a half years or so in the normal course of events. It would be tragic for Canada if the present uncertainty in economic policy continued; tragic if the parliamentary opposition allowed the government to get away very much longer with the sort of bland, complacent, almost indifferent attitude toward government responsibility for economic progress. So, this motion on this opposition day will have performed a very useful public service if we succeed only in shaking the government out of some of its complacency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What did the Canadian
economy accomplish in 1968? It was a tremendous year for exports, and I gladly acknowledge it. More than 86 per cent of the increase in exports was accounted for by exports to the United States. The copper strike there and the threatened strikes in the iron and steel industry played a significant part in increasing our exports to that country. So, the increase has to be seen in that context. Nevertheless, the total increase in exports during 1968 was outstanding. It was much higher than anticipated, something of the order of 18 per cent or more. I think the increase was 18.7 per cent for the first 11 months of 1968 as compared with the first 11 months of 1967.

DEBATES	January 29, 1969
Canadians are of course delighted with this increase. However, our total exports depend on one market, that of the United States. Over 66 per cent of all our exports went there last year. This fact does raise serious questions about our dependence upon one trading partner, but that is a subject for another day and another discussion. The increase in exports is important in two respects to the case that I want to establish this afternoon. First, I do not think even the most optimistic forecaster would predict that our increase in exports in 1969 will make nearly as important an over-all contribution to our economy as it did in 1968. Second-and I suggest this is very significant-the fact is that despite this almost phenomenal increase in exports in 1968, Canada's rate of economic growth still fell short of the target for growth set for Canada by the Economic Council of Canada. That council has made it clear that Canada requires an average annual rate of real economic growth of something like 5| per cent if we are to create enough jobs to absorb the new entrants into our labour force each year.
Canada has failed, and failed conspicuously, to attain that minimum objective. In 1968 the rate of real economic growth was estimated to have been in the order of from 4 to 4| per cent, well short of the target minimum set by the Economic Council of Canada. The record for the year 1968 has to be viewed against the poor performance of the year 1967, when we achieved a rate of economic growth of 2.8 per cent. I do not want to belabour this point because our relatively poor showing in terms of employment and economic growth, and also in terms of inflation during the last couple of years, has been conceded in the white paper tabled before Christmas by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford). But the cumulative effect of this failure to attain the minimum potential in economic growth for three years running is now staring us right in the face this winter.
All the while we have suffered from this extraordinary combination of lagging rate of growth plus unacceptably high inflation. Again, and this has an important bearing on our problems relating to employment and growth, the Economic Council suggested that we could tolerate a rate of annual increase in prices of between 1.4 per cent to 2 per cent per annum, whereas in fact in 1966 the actual rate of increase in prices was 3.7 per cent. In 1967 it was 3.5 per cent, and in 1968, the year
January 29, 1969	COMMONS
of the great war against inflation by this government, the increase was 4.2 per cent.
Price increases in some years have been more than twice as high as the maximum tolerable. Unemployment in some years has been as much as twice as high as the maximum suggested by the Economic Council as tolerable. The rate of growth in some years has been less than half the target set by the Economic Council.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Employment and unemployment figures for January will not be published for another few weeks or so. Perhaps the January figures will belatedly shake the government out of some of its complacency. In the middle of December, when one would expect the stepped up activity in the consumer sector of the economy to be reflected in employment figures, the labour force itself has declined by some 75,000 persons in a single month. Unemployment has increased by some 35,000 persons, and this is in addition to the shrinkage in the labour force. In the middle of December, 373,000 Canadians were unemployed, some 4.7 per cent of the labour force, and the situation will be worse when the January figures are published in some two weeks time.
These figures show a failure in policy. The present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) spoke about inflation almost three years ago when he was minister of finance. There is no point in detailing his shameful record of performance in this connection. We all remember the phoney war against inflation, and the way the government tried to cook the books to show spending cuts that were never in fact made. The present Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), when he was president of the treasury board, was the instrument of that deception. He was the instrument of that false and misleading forecast about the monetary situation less than a year ago. As the former minister of finance put it, they let a little slack into the economy to try to fight inflation; they cut back on job producing programs. These policies have failed to accomplish their purpose. The evidence is before us. Inflation has not been brought under control. Unemployment is still unacceptably high and rising as a result of a deliberate government policy to fight inflation by deliberately inducing a little slack in the economy.
There is no point in detailing the faults of the government in the past few years except to plead with them to try to learn something 29180-311J
DEBATES	4903
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment from their failures in policy. We also plead with the government to realize how crucial is the factor of confidence in Canada's economy and confidence in the government's management of this economy. We have a policy of deliberate unemployment and deliberate slack because of the failure to cope with inflation by other means.
What is the government doing about inflation since the policy of slack has failed, failed by the admission of the government's own white paper? It has recognized the failure of its existing program. For more than a year, the government has been saying that the existing methods for fighting inflation are inadequate. Having recognized its failure, what is the government doing to take the slack out of the economy without unnecessarily increasing inflationary pressures?
It said it was going to appoint a continuing royal commission, an independent study group, to produce solutions, perhaps some years hence. In the meantime, is the Canadian nation doomed to limp along for years suffering excessive inflation and excessive unemployment, suffering the risk of a loss of its competitive position in the world markets. Are we to rim the risk of renewed currency difficulties, all the while suffer from the lack of opportunities for all our people? Is this the government that not many months ago was trying to give the people the impression that it would never settle for anything but the best, and yet is now accepting apparently excessive inflation and excessive unemployment as a policy? I say certainly the government should continue the studies which it wants to undertake, but in the meantime it should also take positive steps to reinforce voluntary programs of restraint.
I notice that an advisory group to President Johnson in the United States recently recommended to him a guideline policy for the consideration of both management and labour. The government should try to establish such a policy so that normal expansion can proceed and so that the government can abandon its policy of deliberate slackness in the economy and thereby avoid condemning our country to severe unemployment and inflation.
When is Canada going to start catching up? When do we begin to make up for the cumulative failure to achieve our economic potential, much less attain that minimum potential in any one year? The results of the government's policies are staring us in the face this winter, and unless the economy is
January 29, 1969
4904	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment put in order, unless the government acts decisively to restore confidence in the economy, the situation may well get worse before it gets better.
Where will the economy be next spring? So far as we can now tell, the rate of economic growth will still be below the minimum acceptable rate, inflation will still be unacceptably high, and unemployment will still be high. So far as we can judge from many of the things the Minister of Finance has said, a year from now we will still be waiting for some kind of budgetary statement from him giving us an idea of where the country stands. All this against the background of the preceding three or four years when the performance has been far short of the potential of our country.
The December unemployment figures are bad enough on the national average when compared with the figures for the previous month. But when you have a 7.1 per cent unemployment rate in the Atlantic provinces and a 6.8 per cent unemployment rate in Quebec, surely that adds to the seriousness of the problem. I am well aware that unemployment rates in the Atlantic provinces have been traditionally high, but surely it is intolerable for the government to temporize any longer with the policies promised now for seven or eight months in the field of regional development.
The Prime Minister and his associates were glib enough about regional disparity during the election campaign. There were promises -of a Marshall plan for the slow growth areas. Where are these policies? When we ask straightforward questions about regional disparity in this house and about the high level of unemployment in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, we are told by the minister responsible that he will deal with these matters when he brings in his bill establishing the new department. I say to my hon. friends: Bring it in now. What is the government waiting for? This house has dealt with a wide variety of legislation, some of it important, some of it rather routine and less urgent in terms of the impact upon the suffering of thousands of Canadians. If there are policies that this government has to help overcome regional disparity and to fight the particularly high unemployment rates in some parts of the country, we are entitled to see these policies, and the government is obliged to implement them without further delay.
So far, we have heard rumours that the Atlantic Development Board is to be dismantled and turned into some kind of anaemic


advisory board. It is time that the minister and the government put an end to the speculation and gave an honest statement of their intentions. The views of this party, its program with regard to regional development, are well known, and I would be happy to elaborate on them at any time for my hon. friends.
There are other regional problems in the country. There are the acute problems of western agriculture and they affect employment in that part of the country and in the country as a whole as the problem backs up. The agricultural community in western Canada does not yet believe the government is even concerned about their problems. Consequently, confidence in the future of agriculture is wanting. I simply say today that in terms of the economy of the whole country, as well as in terms of that part in Canada, it is important that the government act to restore confidence. This requires an end to the uncertainties surrounding the economic policies of the government. I hope this motion carries with it clearly the implication that confidence in Canada's economy, confidence in the competence of the government to manage the economy, is very much at stake at the present time.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
This motion demands the disclosure of the economic policies of the government. It demands to know how the government proposes to go about the urgent task of getting the country into a position where we can attain our reasonable potential for growth this year and in the years ahead, as well as making up some of the ground lost in the last few years. The country neither expects nor requires a flawless and detailed blueprint for economic success, but surely it is entitled to know the main outlines of the government's economic policy after nine months in office of this so-called new regime.
Surely, it is not enough to abandon existing programs, whether in connection with winter works or in the fisheries field or in science, citing their shortcomings which everybody knew about, and then begin to look for new programs. Surely, it erodes confidence to talk about restraint and then to produce an accounting in which the deficit is higher by hundreds of millions of dollars than had been expected. Surely, in this vital area of economic policy, involving the question of confidence which is so closely related to growth, it is foolhardy to try to get by with bland statements that trade policy is under review that
January 29, 1969

regional development programs are under review, and so on.
Especially is this so when the country has come so dangerously close to a crisis of confidence as has been the case in the past couple of years. In our economy, growth and employment require sound leadership and decisions by the federal government. Active and progressive participation by the provinces is also needed. They must have the confidence and the ability to play an active part. Resourceful private citizens, groups of citizens and private corporations, must fulfil their dynamic role in the area of private entreprise. And we must not overlook the importance of the provinces in developing employment and growth throughout the country.
This government, far from meeting the provinces, settling priorities and working out a co-operative program to develop the country, has declared financial warfare on the provinces. Instead of co-operation and resulting confidence, we find uncertainty on the part of the provinces as to their future. This, of course, affects their ability to plan in a forward way and their ability to play their full part in developing the economy and in increasing employment.
Their activities are, of course, affected, too, by the bond market. Despite high interest rates, an inflationary psychology has developed which makes more and more Canadians reluctant to invest in long term bonds. There is a lack of interest in bonds. I know there has been some recent improvement in the prices of some bonds in Canada but this does not reflect very much. The market has not been tested. The feeling today is that the market remains very uncertain and that most borrowers would receive an uncertain welcome in terms of medium or long range issues. This restricts the ability of the provinces to play one of their essential roles.
It is important that the government change its policy toward the provinces and, by means of the active anti-infiationary role which I have suggested, help to bring stability to the financial efforts of the provincial governments. The ability of private enterprise to do its forward planning in terms of development is similarly affected with regard to making specific arrangements on the bond market. We ought not to be fooled by the upward surge in certain parts of the stock market because this, too, reflects in substantial measure an inflationary psychology.
DEBATES	4905
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment
These matters are of urgent importance to the government and there are other uncertainties which this government has created for private citizens and private companies whether they are engaged in fishing, farming, mining or manufacturing. There is the alarming possibility of an insipient tax war between this government and the provinces, the possibility of a tax jungle developing. Does this not tend to create confusion and lack of confidence?
The Minister of Finance himself generates uncertainty about the government's policy on tax reform by indicating that when he does bring in his proposals they will be published by way of draft legislation rather than by way of a white paper as the Liberal government originally promised. How does that sound to the people, to the investment community which is already only too wary about the tendency of this government to lay down the law with little discussion and little regard for the problems and complications which may result? What will this attitude do to confidence in Canada, necessary as such confidence is to the creation of adequate employment? What is the country to think of a Minister of Finance who announces changes in the estate tax law in October but who still has not produced any legislation at the end of January? We have not yet seen the legislation, although it is true we have now been given a promise that we shall see it tomorrow. I hope we shall. But what does this do to confidence?
I could talk, Mr. Speaker, about the need for international monetary reform and how disappointed I am about the negative attitude taken by the Minister of Finance; about his tendency to treat the crisis relating to the franc, for example, as a strictly European problem when this country should be taking the lead. In terms of employment or future development no country has a greater reason for taking the lead in monetary reform than has Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In the face of all this uncertainty, in the face of growing unemployment and rising prices, in the face of the challenges which have to be met this year and in the light of the blow to confidence resulting from the incredible nature of last October's budgetary accounting, the Minister of Finance now has the audacity to inform the country, in a statement made outside this house, that he might not bring in another budget until the
January 29, 1969
4906	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment spring of 1970. Yet in the face of all this, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) airily assures Canadians that government policies are working well and that everything is going as he had planned.
Throughout Canada one responsible press commentator after another and one editorial writer after another is wondering about the competence of this government in terms of economic policy. They are wondering in terms that have grown from uncertainty to alarm.
I am not going to quote all of these editorials because I do not want to embarrass the Minister of Finance unnecessarily.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


David Lewis: Why not?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should just like to quote one, and it is the last one that I read. It says things about the minister that I would not quite put that way myself. This editorial appeared in the Financial Times for January 13 and relates to the minister's speech about the bond market. It also refers to the speech made at the annual meeting of the banks, and reads:
Mr. Benson sounded last week like a mystified child-


Edgar John Benson: Did you start to say "Senator Benson"?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not want to create any more confusion; there is far too much now. I am referring to "Mr." Benson. The article continues:
-like a mystified child groping through a grownup world-
I admit that sometimes the minister has me confused.
-Mr. Benson has been incredible ever since his October budget, but last week's talk about the bond market was astounding in its bland unawareness. Before, he had lost credibility but was presumed to retain some perverted hold on reality. After the performance in Toronto, he seemed to be living in some cloud-cuckoo-land.
Prime Minister Trudeau has a lot of important plans and problems on his plate. But none of them is as immediate as the crisis in public finance ... this deserves his very first attention. If he cannot recover some of the lost financial confidence, he might as well kiss good-by to his other cherished goals.
That is one of the tie-ups between the questions of confidence, growth and employment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. gentleman to bring to his attention and also to the attention of the house that according to the provisions of standing order 58(13) the hon. gentleman's time has expired, unless he has consent of hon. members to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I
might just sum up what I am saying. In addition to adopting an aggressive policy against inflation, I suggest that the government invite business, industry, labour and other governments to co-operate in preparing guidelines which will lead to a policy of general expansion. Unless the government stops its warfare with the provinces and co-operates in determining priorities so that the provinces can plan and play their full roles; unless it restores the confidence of investors and entrepreneurs in the bond market; unless the minister indicates his willingness to bring in a budget and have a proper discussion of the financial affairs of the country as they relate to the economy; unless he is prepared to bring in a white paper on taxation reform which can be properly discussed before the country is committed; unless the government is prepared to proceed with its program of fighting economic disparity and restoring confidence in Canada, the outlook is for additional failure, for continuing unemployment.
The purpose of the resolution is to call upon the government, in the name of the people of Canada, to produce policies that will provide this country with the rate of growth that it requires, provide the employment that is necessary for the oncoming work force and reduce the unnecessarily high unemployment that exists. It is for this purpose that I present this motion to the house at this time.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, you will no doubt recall that some days ago I attempted to place before the house a motion to adjourn the business of the house under standing order 26, a motion that you found unacceptable under the rules. Therefore, I do not have to emphasize the fact that my colleagues and I fully approve of and support the motion that has been put before this house.
During the early part of his remarks the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) emphasized at one point, I seem to recall, that one of the criticisms he had to make was that the present rise in unemployment was
January 29, 1969

the result of deliberate policy by the government. I agree with that, and it is on that basis that I propose at the end of my remarks to move an amendment to this motion, adding words to it that will underline the responsibility of the government for the unemployment situation. I suggest it is not the result merely of something that is beyond the control of the government; it is the result of the government's deliberate intentions and of policies that have been pursued over the past few years.
Sitting in this august chamber it is easy to forget what the Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures in connection with the frightening rise in unemployment really mean, and to look at them merely as figures. Forgive me if I remind hon. members of this house-not that I think they need reminding, but in order to place our discussion in the proper context- that what we are talking about are hundreds of thousands of human beings. We are talking not only about people who themselves are unemployed but also about people who depend on employment. These unemployment figures represent human tragedy on a large scale. They represent fear, want, hopes dashed and confidence undermined. That is what we are really talking about today. We are not talking merely about a rate of growth that is one percentage figure or another percentage figure. We are not talking about mere figures of 300,000 or 400,000. We are speaking about the immense and continuing suffering, deprivation and spiritual degradation of hundreds of thousands of people as a result of deliberate government policy.
This is why I cannot discuss this subject with any equanimity. This is v/hy I agree entirely that a government, or anybody else for that matter, that is complacent about this kind of situation is guilty of shameful insensitivity. Any member of a group that is responsible for such unconcern who speaks to me today about the just society appears to me to be about as great a hypocrite as I could ever hear or read about.
During the election the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) said that the employment outlook was good. He said that if we were to get high unemployment, he believed that the government would have to prime the economy, but that that would not be appropriate at that time. How high is high, Mr. Speaker? How high does unemployment have to climb before the Minister of Finance considers it serious enough to take action?
DEBATES	4907
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment
I should like to draw the attention of the house to a recent report in the Toronto Star for December 30, a time, we must remember, when unemployment across the country was already 4.6 or 4.7 per cent, seasonally adjusted. The Minister of Finance is reported as having said that unemployment in Canada was then higher than he would like to see it-how kind of him to say that-but that it was not intolerably high.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
On behalf of my colleagues and myself, and I am certain I can speak on behalf of every thinking and feeling person in Canada, I say that an unemployment rate that is almost at 5 per cent seasonally adjusted is intolerably high, and that no excuse can be made for it. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Economic Council of Canada has indicated that 3 per cent should be the ceiling for the unemployment rate in Canada. A figure that is almost twice that is surely catastrophic enough to move even the present Minister of Finance. I read a speech of his, Mr. Speaker, and I cite this not because it presents a solution but as an example of the muddy and incomprehensible thinking of a very important Minister of the Crown. I read the text of a speech of the Minister of Finance to the Canadian Club in Toronto. In this speech the minister said, "While unemployment has been higher than we would like, it can now be seen more clearly as a reflection of the rapid growth of the labour force rather than as a result of slow rate of job creation." What in heaven's name does the minister mean by that? Job creation must be related to the size of the labour force. If the size of the labour force increases more jobs have to be created. When this is not done it is a reflection of a low rate of job creation. This is the kind of thinking which has caused our present very serious difficulty.
This government has deliberately pursued policies to increase unemployment and has pursued these policies on the basis of an outdated and false concept; that is, in order to avoid inflation if you increase unemployment, you will accomplish your objective.
We in this corner of the house have said on many occasions that this is a false theory; that in effect prices are no longer subject to the ordinary rules of the market. You cannot control prices in the country by increasing unemployment and hope that a decrease of aggregate demand will serve the purpose of lowering prices. This is simply not relevant to a modem economy and that is why this country now has the worst of both worlds. It has
January 29, 19S9
4908	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment an unacceptably high rate of unemployment and an unacceptably high rate of inflation, both at the same time and both as a result of the same policies. I say the government has deliberately brought about these conditions, Let me indicate just a few points which support this proposition.
As has been pointed out, there was a cancellation of the winter works program on the ground that the program was abused. To my knowledge the program was not studied by a committee of this house. No report was published, no evidence given and no information was supplied to this house, to the municipalities, or to the people of Canada. We have no knowledge that in fact it was abused, the extent or ways in which it was abused. There was no information whatever given to parliament, the country or even to the municipalities involved. Suddenly one day an announcement was made that the program was cancelled because it was abused, with no alternative program presented.
I do not know of any other action which demonstrates the total lack of concern and appreciation of the problem of unemployment during the winter months than that action by the government. I would like to know to what extent the program has been abused. I can think of one or two ways it may have been abused to some extent. However, I have seen no evidence, nor has this house or anyone else in Canada, that this program was abused or that the government was justified in increasing unemployment in the urban centres of this country by the total and complete cancellation of that program.
We have been told that the alternative for the winter works program would be action by the Department of Manpower and Immigration. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) is in the chamber and I challenge him to rise in his place during this debate and tell this house what his department has done, even one little thing, to deal with the increasing rate of unemployment in Canada. I say, Mr. Speaker, his department has done nothing to deal with the situation! As a matter of fact, according to a recent story in one of the newspapers, the grants for vocational and manpower training have recently been cut by millions of dollars or have been brought down to a low figure. No program of training can deal with the unemployment situation in Canada.
There is a substantial proportion of unemployed people who do not have the education or skill required to take advantage of the


An hon. Member:: And have had for 100
years.


David Lewis: We have had, as one of my colleagues mentions, 100 years of them, and we have always had this kind of situation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Tell us about Saskatchewan.


David Lewis: Unemployment goes up and prices continue to go up as well. The reason for that, and I suggest that hon. members consider my proposition seriously, is that the corporate power in this country at the present time controls the market, controls the prices, and through undistributed profits, retained earnings, controls the largest part of the investment pool of this country. The result of this is that there is no allocation of investment, that there is no direction of the investment that takes place.
I put this proposition to hon. members of the Conservative party who represent constituencies in the Atlantic provinces, that the problems of regional disparity will never be solved in those provinces until all of us are prepared to accept a massive role by government in direct public investment, in public investment joined with private investment if that is desirable, in order that there be some priority to investments in this country. We have to accept a massive role by government in order that we do not have large office buildings going up while housing stands still, or the building of service stations across the country which are totally unnecessary or duplications of services already existing while other construction does not take place. These things occur at a time when it is still possible for a company to come to this House of Commons asking for an increase in its capitalization of hundreds of thousands or of millions of dollars, and members of the two
January 29, 1969
4910	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment established parties are prepared to let them have this added capital.
Where would this added capital come from is a question that has been asked in this house. It would come from the same market in which the government has to raise its capital. Everybody in the Conservative party and in the Liberal party thinks there is nothing wrong with private insurance companies and private loan companies getting more capitalization. There are companies whose services are not indispensable to the people of Canada, whose services really result in strait jacketing more people into a long and binding debt position from which they will never emerge. But when you say to the government and other hon. members of this house that it is necessary for the government of Canada directly to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in order to build factories, in order to build secondary industries, in order to build tertiary industry to provide employment for the people of the Atlantic provinces, you are a raving mad socialist. Well, if that makes me one I am glad that I am one.
In my opinion you cannot control inflation in this country unless you are prepared to have the courage and the imagination to take some direct action, subject to the problems of the constitution which of course I know about, to say to the large corporations which increase their prices to no purpose that they must invest for social purposes also.
There is not a single corporation of any importance in Canada at which I have looked whose profits have not been immense in 1968, large in 1967, too large in 1966, and whose profits will probably be just as large in 1969. From where does this profit come if it does not come out of unjustifiably increased prices?
I am sure that my injunction is not going to stop anyone in this house rising in his seat to say that this was the hon. member for York South spouting the old cliches of the socialists.
I say they are not old cliches. I say they are as valid today as they have ever been. Indeed, the need for public responsibility, for public investment and public involvement to meet problems of unemployment and problems of regional disparity is greater than it has ever been before. There is no other way in which these problems can be solved.
I do not want to give the impression, because I do not intend to, that I would be able to solve all these problems by waving a wand and in 24 hours implementing some of the policies I have sketchily outlined, or that


then the economy of the country would fall into place. This of course would be totally irresponsible. I appreciate that the development of these policies would require time but I am struck by the fact-and this is my final point before I move the amendment I said I would move-for example that there is one agency which the Liberal party has suggested to the country is necessary. I may say, too, Mr. Speaker, this is an agency that the N.D.P. proposed at its founding convention in 1961. The one agency which the Liberal party has suggested to the country is necessary in order to garner savings and in order to promote proper investment, namely, the Canada Development Corporation, was first proposed in 1963, if I remember correctly and correct me if I am wrong. The reference to this agency has appeared in every throne speech that successive Liberal governments have presented since 1963. We have again been promised such an agency this session, but we have not seen it yet.
The point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that one of the major ways in which it would be possible for the government to meet the problem of unemployment and to meet the problem of regional disparity over a period of time would be to set up some kind of organism through which the government would garner the savings of the people. Then, through that agency if necessary, the government could compel existing lending and investing institutions to invest some portions of their available funds in that agency so that the government would have at its disposal a large pool of investment capital to do the things that need to be done for the people of Canada.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
This is characteristic of the Liberal party and its government. The new government has made no change so far. One of the most important policies it had to present to the people of Canada is still on the shelf. I suggest it is on the shelf because the implementation of that policy would mean a challenge to the seats of economic power in Canada and this Prime Minister's government is no more ready to challenge those seats of power than was the preceding prime minister's government.
In conclusion, I should like to say that I think the unemployment situation in Canada can be explained only by the insensitive unconcern of this government. I say it is the result directly of the government's policy and that the government has deliberately planned
January 29, 1969	COMMONS
it. No words of mine or anyone else's can adequately condemn the government for this sort of thing.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the motion be amended by adding at the end thereof the following words: "and that, instead, the government has slowed down public investment and has pursued fiscal and monetary policies deliberately designed to increase unemployment''.


Mr.   G.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to avail myself of this opportunity to say a few words on the amendment moved by the Progressive Conservative party, which reads as follows:
That this house regrets that the government Is not presenting programs to achieve a rate of economic growth which will reduce unemployment and also ensure that the economy will be able to absorb the large number of new entrants into the labour force this year.
That motion, Mr. Speaker, deals with two specific matters: reduce unemployment and absorb the new entrants into the labour force this year.
I am pleased, Mr. Speaker-and I wish to emphasize it-to see that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) is here, as there is something we have wanted to tell him for a long time.
We could write to him but it seems to me that when he is in the house, when he appears in public to the knowledge of everyone, it has a different effect not only on the minister himself but also on the whole staff of his department. I believe it prompts officials to find more realistic solutions, for if I have any critics to make this afternoon, I should like them to be most constructive. Indeed, I should like to offer suggestions, not only critics. I should like especially to suggest to the minister and to the department a few solutions to certain cases.
I intend to speak mainly about my riding because they are mainly cases I come across during the Christmas holidays. All hon. members probably had the same experience. There are many unemployed in my area as well as in the whole a Quebec. Well, as a matter of fact, I hardly took a day's rest during my vacation. The rest of the time, I spent in my office, even on Sundays, seeing people out of work.
They were all lining up in quest of information, inquiring about this or that form. I
DEBATES	4911
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment could not help thinking that, if the government fails to take action, hon. members should have in their own office a full time representative to act as an agent of the unemployment insurance people.
Unemployment is growing and, to provide it, I will read a few excerpts from an article published on January 24, 1969, under this heading: Unemployment. It was written by a chap who is very well known in the House. I quote:
160,000 unemployed in Quebec.
That is an impressive figure indeed.
Out of six million inhabitants. Don't you think it is too much? It comes close to being the highest total in industrialized countries.
There was a time when we had winter works but they went down the drain.
There was a time when we had $500 allowances to build houses in winter, but they went down the drain.
There was a time when we had premiums for hiring unemployed people over 45, but they went down the drain.
The only thing that didn't come down is the number of unemployed. No wonder: our governments are much too busy elsewhere.
Yes, indeed, we have two governments, one in Ottawa and one in Quebec. They are so busy fighting each other, quarelling, bickering, that they just don't have the time to think about the unemployed. We have two Ministers of Labour, two Ministers of Public Works, two Ministers of Manpower, one in Ottawa and one in Quebec, with the result that there is nobody left to bother about the unemployed. Besides, how could they find the time? They are too busy tearing each other apart.
It is indeed a mad game, that game of two governments.
If only they complemented each other, but no, they destroy each other.
Mr. Speaker, I have no time to read the whole article but that gives you an idea of the climate in which the workers in Quebec live. I think that reflects faithfully the opinion of the workers in Quebec, in general.
Mr. Speaker, there are many unemployed people in my constituency. I think that if we do not break the record it is because the Maritimes are still in a worse position than we are. In my constituency, the percentage of unemployed people is very high. The government often says, when we talk about the high percentage of unemployed, that it is the result of the newcomers on the labour market.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to deal with two distinct subjects: unemployment and the labour force.
January 29, 1969
4912	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment [DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The fact is that in my riding as in other parts of the province of Quebec and throughout Canada, there are three categories of unemployed: those who are registered, those who are waiting to be registered and those who are not registered.
The official statistics on the percentage of unemployed take into consideration only those who are registered for unemployment benefits. That is the reason why I strongly dispute the accuracy of these reports, because an unemployed worker who is waiting for permission to receive benefits is unemployed as much as the one already in receipt of them. Furthermore, the one who has not enough stamps in his book, not being registered, is more truly unemployed than the first two.
That is why, when speaking about unemployment, we must always include the three above-mentioned groups in order to assess accurately the increase of unemployment in a given area.
When registered unemployed have met the statutory requirements, everything is all right. However, those who are waiting-and it is on that point that I draw the attention of the minister-have registered with the regional office by letter. Now a letter may take two or three days to reach Chicoutimi; we must apply to the Chicoutimi office; because all unemployment insurance offices have been closed in our communities. The officials at that office have to get in touch with the head office in Montreal, and that may take a few days more. When the answer comes, sometimes a small detail is missing and everything must start again from the beginning.
During the Christmas season, I have seen- and I am not speaking through my hat-people who had to wait five or six weeks before being advised whether they qualified or not for unemployment benefits. I think a change is imperative.
The government thought that general centralization in Chicoutimi was the right answer. When previously we had Unemployment Insurance offices in Dolbeau, Roberval and Saint-Felicien, now everything is centralized in Chicoutimi. When the case is too complicated, the unemployed are told: "Come and see us." They must then travel 125 miles, in order to find out whether they will be given $35 or $36. This is not funny for the poor guy who has not earned a cent for the last five or

six weeks. He has to go either by taxi- because he has no car-or by bus, in order to see those people and explain his case to them. Incidentally, I wish to point out that the people in charge, in these offices can not be blamed. I have met all these people during the Christmas season I have even contacted the authorities in the Employment offices. They are all full of goodwill. However, there is something wrong with the system. They say so themselves. It is imperative that the system be improved because distances are too large and communications too slow. And so, the unemployed worker feels cheated for two, three, four or even six weeks, and thinks of his family which must be fed.
Mr. Speaker, wonderful suggestions have been made to me, especially at the Employment Offices level, because in our areas we still have three Employment Offices, and I have passed on those suggestions to the hon. minister.
I think that the best suggestion made to me was that the minister consider the possibility of posting someone in each of the employment offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, an employee whose office would be located in that of the Department of Manpower and who could each day get in touch with the head office.
It would not require the rental of offices nor additional expenses. One or two employees of Chicoutimi could visit once, twice or three or four times per week the offices of Dolbeau, St. Felicien or Roberval and that would considerably improve relations with the unemployed.
I have spoken about the matter with the representatives of Chicoutimi and those of the Department of Manpower whose offices are now vacant. There are three in Dolbeau with telephones and all required means of communication. Now, they are only used on certain occasions to receive people from Chicoutimi who come two or three times. It would take at least five or six months to correct that situation which I feel is now quite bad. Indeed, as soon as I arrive in my constituency, my home fills up so that on a single Sunday afternoon, I had to deal with 52 complaints.
Mr. Speaker, it shows the extent of the work which must be done in those unemployment insurance offices of our areas. I like to welcome people and to help them, but I would rather not perform the work of civil servants. I know that this is the job of public employees and I am sure it has been brought
January 29, 1969	COMMONS
to the attention of the hon. minister, because he has received letters in that regard, I have also received protests. I shall read only this one here, so that I do not take too much time.
Not long ago, the municipal authorities of St-Francois-de-Sales sent me the following resolution in protest against the situation:
I am writing personally because the situation has become alarming in my riding of Roberval.
The copy of the resolution of the Municipal Corporation of St-Frangois-de-Sales, enclosed, expresses the feeling of all workers in Roberval riding, since the unemployment insurance office was moved to Chicoutimi.
Please note that I do not blame the employees, who have done all they could to eliminate the delays which affect the unemployed.
I raise the matter for one reason only; to find a way of improving the service of that office.
In that respect, may I submit a suggestion made to me by the officials of the manpower centres of Dolbeau and Roberval, that is to have an official of the unemployment insurance office-
The municipal authorities of Felicien have sent me a copy of a resolution passed at a meeting of the municipal board. I quote:
Considering that many citizens of St-Felicien have complained of considerable delays in the reception of their unemployment insurance benefits;
Considering that since the closing of unemployment insurance offices in Dolbeau and Roberval, they have no means of accelerating the reception of those benefits;
Whereas the St-Felicien City Council was under the impression that those offices had been closed down with a view to improving the efficiency of that service;
Whereas the council members now wonder whether or not the closing of those offices really gives the expected results;
As far as efficiency is concerned, I am not ready to disapprove the objectives set by the minister and his department because I believe some concentration is necessary in an area so that all information may be gathered and all unemployment insurance books collected. But I believe that their present suggestion to appoint a representative in every manpower office is logical.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I am convinced that the minister, judging by the replies he gave me, will seriously consider the matter, and I would not be surprised if he complied with the recommendations of the office heads who have been in charge for a fairly long period of time and who know which reforms are more likely to increase the efficiency in their area.
I should now like, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the second part of the motion concerning the absorption of new entrants into the labour force. What steps did the government take in
DEBATES	4913
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment an attempt to absorb those new entrants? It is up to us to prepare the way for these young people who have sacrificed everything, who are getting an aducation and who have spent several years of their life acquiring more skills.
What does the government do at the primary and secondary levels of industry? I believe they are, at the present time, the only two markets to which the government should give full support in order to guarantee jobs to the hosts of young people who will join the labour force tomorrow.
At the primary level, there is still much to be done in Quebec. As far as the secondary level is concerned, everything remains to be done, I think. First of all, the government should stop emptying the pockets of small industrialists in order to give them a chance to expand their industries. I often hear departmental officials and the minister himself say one must invest. As far as savings are concerned, Canadians must invest. Yes, under the present system, we are not through stressing that need because all the time the governments are urging people to invest, they are emptying the pockets of those who should invest.
Mr. Speaker, how can you expect that an individual will invest $2,000, $3,000, $10,000 or $20,000 in a new industry when he pays that much a year in taxes? When one has deducted his taxes-I know what I am talking about, since I have been a merchant for thirty years-there is nothing left. After that, how can one invest? We are urged to invest. Well, the government ought to stop emptying the pockets of the eventual investors.
I believe that if we fail to develop our secondary industries, there is no point in having our children attend technical schools. Their education only leads them across the border.
Mr. Speaker, that is where the problem lies. In my opinion, the government has qualified technicians in that field to make a complete study. I will add that if the government takes the trouble and if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) stops bleeding the people and gives them a chance to help one another, the problem will disappear.
There was talk of foreign aid; that is all very well and I am for it, but charity begins at home. I do not know if once and for all we can put that into our heads. Our government should start by strengthening our industry, helping secondary industry, developping it as much as primary industry, in order to give
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment work to the people who will soon be on the labour market. In my opinion, that would be very beneficial to our country. We must not only think of taxation.
Mr. Speaker, when I meet workers, farmers or wage earners who make just enough to live, I find it difficult to understand how it is possible to tax them. The necessaries of life are being taxed. The taxing of luxuries is immaterial but now even the necessaries of life are taxed. And those poor people are told: "You do not invest, that is why we are not getting anywhere".
Well, there is a great deal of unrest, and not in the lower layers of society. It prevails at higher levels and the ministers know it very well. If the Minister of Finance wanted to be frank, he would tell us to what extent he is the servant of those trusts which are crushing our population today. He knows it, but he cannot talk. People today tend to rebel, especially the younger ones, because our generation is less rebellious since they are used to be pushed around. But the young people today are more aware of the problem. They are more revolutionary than we are because they are more reluctant to live like outcasts in an affluent country. I think the government has something to do and must seriously consider the matter. It must stop dealing adversely with the economy. I have been told that the economy should always promote the welfare of the population, rather than the interests of the trusts of the country. When we decide to achieve the proper goal of the economy, especially as far as the human being is concerned, we shall then be able to say that we have a democratic government and that we can at last live in a better society.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, faced with an amendment to the motion, I would like to say just a few words on the amendment. I think I speak not only for myself but for all members of the Liberal party when I say that this government at no time in its fiscal and monetary policy has deliberately set out to increase unemployment as a solution to the problems that face this nation. I think there is nobody in this house, let alone in this party, who appreciates unemployment. It exists. It is something with which we are occupied. It is a problem about which we are determined to do something. It is such a grave and serious problem that we are determined to have the 
January 29, 1969
courage to introduce permanent solutions to unemployment rather than ad hoc solutions that are designed more to alleviate the plight of the unemployed, to provide them temporarily with financial assistance. I will have a little more to say on that point, Mr. Speaker. But I think I should make it very clear that nobody in this government has any objective in mind other than to reduce the incidence of unemployment.
A great deal has been said today by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the official spokesman for the New Democratic party about unemployment. If you were a newcomer to the house and were sitting in the gallery, you might have been left with the impression that unemployment was something we had deliberately created, or that had never before existed in the economy of the country. So, this afternoon I took the trouble to look at the relevant unemployment figures. I found to my amazement that 1963, the very best year when the Conservative party was in power, was worse than the worst year under a Liberal regime since 1963.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I have here facts and figures to substantiate this statement. I dislike statistics, but they have been used in quantity today so I will put these figures on the record.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
In 1958 the rate of unemployment in Canada was 7 per cent; in 1959, 6 per cent; in 1960, 7 per cent; in 1961, 7.1 per cent; in 1962, 5.9 per cent. In 1963, we reduced those figures to 5.5 per cent; in 1964, to 4.7 per cent; in 1965, to 3.9 per cent; in 1966, to 3.6 per cent; in 1967, to 4.1 per cent; in 1968, to 4.8 per cent. These are the figures of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and I think they speak for themselves. I must emphasize that the lowest figure between 1958 and 1962 was 5.9 per cent.
We came to office in 1963 face with that challenge. The Liberal party having successfully rectified the situation then is quite capable of doing it again under the dynamic leadership of the present Prime Minister of Canada.
Allusions have been made today, with a great degree of validity, to the plight of the maritimes. I have a tie with the maritimes; it is not a strange land to me. However, I would like to read the record of unemployment in the Atlantic regions between 1958 and 1962. I

January 29, 1969	COMMONS
know the Leader of the Opposition was very familiar with the problem of unemployment in the maritimes during those years. In 1958 the rate of unemployment was 12.3 per cent; in 1959, 10.9 per cent; in 1960, 10.5 per cent; in 1961, 11.2 per cent; in 1962, 10.7 per cent. When the Liberal party, under Mr. Pearson, came to office, we reduced unemployment in 1963 to 9.5 per cent; in 1964, to 7.8 per cent; in 1965, to 7.4 per cent; in 1966, to 6.4 per cent; in 1967, to 6.6 per cent; and in 1968 it went up half a point to 7.3 per cent. Let me point out again that in 1968 it was 7.3 per cent as compared, for instance, to 10.7 per cent when we took office in 1962 and to a high of 12.3 per cent in 1958. Again, this speaks well for the ability of the Liberal party to cope with the intolerable problem of unemployment.
Nobody is happy with unemployment. No one in this party says that 2, 3 or 4 per cent of unemployment is acceptable. Nobody that I know is quite that callous. But if we are going to be blamed for unemployment-and that is fair game because this is a debating arena, which is as it should be-if we are going to be accused of not providing enough jobs, then by the same token we should be given credit for the jobs that have been provided. Here I have some specific statistics which I am sure hon. members will wish to peruse at their leisure. In 1962, the total labour force totalled 6,615,000. In 1968 there were 7,919,000, a total increase of 1,304,000 people in Canada. We were able to find 1,312,000 jobs, thus reducing the rate of unemployment by almost 50 per cent of 1962. If we are to be blamed for not finding enough jobs, then I think we should be commended for finding over 1,300,000 jobs to look after the ever growing labour population of this country.
How were these jobs generated? There is no use for the Opposition or the New Democratic party saying that it was an accident and that these jobs would have become available by themselves. If we are going to use that argument, and it is said you cannot control the fabrication of jobs, then we cannot be accused of not providing sufficient jobs. We cannot have it both ways, as the New Democratic party seems to want.
If time permits I may point out that between 1963 and 1968 we did a lot of things in this party to create jobs. We are faced with the fact that Canada's problem is unique in the western world if only because of its vast size, the geographical problem of the Atlantic region and the western areas. The fact that
DEBATES	4915
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment we are underpopulated is a fact of life. So is the fact that we thus cannot generate a large domestic market and thus we must compete at a growing pace for exports, despite the fact that we have the tremendous problem of transportation in a country of this dimension.
We set up the Economic Council, to which everyone in the house alludes as to a bible. It is a source of reference probably for most of the speeches that have been made or will be made in this debate. It was the foresight of the former prime minister, Mr. Pearson, to establish this council and to name the responsible people which form it. Then, we were able to set up the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce which, for instance, had enough foresight to establish the auto pact which in turn generated directly almost 50,000 jobs and God knows how many jobs indirectly in this country. Yet the New Democratic party and other members of the house accuse us of having no vision and of not planning for tomorrow or for the next day. We put some money into the Atlantic Development Board which had not been done before, in fact $100 million more than had been made available. We activated the FRED program, and we gave ARDA new dimensions and a new scope. We took an exceptionally fine idea and we applied it to regional programs. All these things have resulted in one million and three hundred new jobs. But we have done more than that. We have analysed the reasons for unemployment. This is very important. I have some statistics which would be useful to members of the house who are objective about the problem of unemployment. We set up the Department of Manpower as distinct from the Department of Labour and we did this for a good reason. It was very obvious to those people who studied the problem of the chronic unemployed and who realized the geographical problems of this country that to a tremendous degree, Canada was suffering from a lack of money in the field of education during the depression days and this has affected, more than people realize, those who are out of work today in the 50 and 55 age bracket. These people were not able to continue their education during the depression. They then served the country in the war years and now are faced with the uncertainties of technological change and the insecurity of jobs disappearing overnight.
Those people are not armed with the basic education needed to adjust to the new industries that spring up as a result of those same technological changes. Realizing the needs and complexities of this country and realizing
January 29, 1969
4916	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment that unemployment is, to a great degree, a geographical problem, or at least that geography adds so much to it, we promised in the election campaign-and we are carrying out that promise-to set up a department of forestry and urban redevelopment primarily to deal with the particular and unique problems of people who because of the size of this country are so far away from the main stream of industry and from the central provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Their problems require special attention. If I may pay a compliment to a particular colleague, I may say that I know of no minister better suited for this particular job than is Jean Marchand because of his labour background and because of his ability.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I could go on and on, but most members are aware of all these programs and it would be a very partisan member indeed who would not care to admit that the foresight in setting up the Department of Industry and the Department of Manpower, the foresight of entering into the auto pact-though the move was widely questioned at the time-has been abundantly justified in terms of jobs for the workers of this country.
The Economic Council has again drawn attention to some of our problems. I do not wish to keep repeating them, but as I pointed out earlier we must continue to export and we are meeting increased competition from other industrial nations of the world, such as Japan, Sweden, and from Britain with its devalued pound. What has been our record in this field? It is all very well for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to talk as he does. He is an astute politician. I recognize some of his ploys; I have used them myself on occasions. Ke has noted our activities in the field of trade and commerce; he has said that next year might not be such a good year.
I have looked carefully over the record for the six years during which this government has been in office. In fact, I went back to 1961, because in all fairness I think the momentum may have begun then. In 1961-62 there was an increase of 8.2 per cent in the value of our exports. In the following year, the increase amounted to 10.3 per cent. In 1963-64 it was 16.1 per cent, in 1964-65 it was 6.5 per cent. In 1965-66 the total value of our exports increased by 16.5 per cent, and in 1966-67, by 12.3 per cent. The indication at the end of the first nine months of 1967-68 is that the value of our exports was almost 14 per cent higher than in the comparable period


of the preceding year. So, here again we have not only met the objective set by the Economic Council but we are surpassing it.
I say to prophets of gloom and doom that this is one psychological weapon we can do without for the next few months. There is an old saying about figures that is there are statistics, statiticians and liars, in that order. We can look at statistics and become very optimistic, if we want to. We can look at the same statistics and be pessimistic. In recent months some newspapers, perhaps using statistics of the dominion bureau, have printed somewhat pessimistic headlines.
For my part, I do not think I can be blamed if my attention was attracted to an article written by a young lady-I assume the author is a young lady-called Judith McMahon. She used the same statistics but instead of publishing the figures of the labour force without analysing them she went to the trouble of analysing the monthly statements of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. She analysed unemployment weighing regional factors and seasonal factors-students going back to their studies, fishermen who are normally laid off in winter-and wrote an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on December 13 under the heading: "Boom is Opening Up Jobs". I was attracted by this headline. I got hold of the same sources of reference and studied them. I suggest that all hon. members should do so, because I do not think I could do justice to this article if I were to try to read a lot of statistics into the record. The author did draw attention to something of distinct importance. She wrote:
A general rise in economic activity has opened up thousands of new jobs in trade, services, manufacturing and public administration. Some of the laid-off workers who frequently do not work all winter were able to find jobs in these industries.
If one takes the trouble to look at the statistics on a regional basis, this is precisely the fact. True, the overall picture is not as bright because of increased unemployment in certain other areas. I thought, then, that since we are at the beginning of a new year and since there are some fairly accurate year end figures now available I should, as Minister of Labour and as a member of the cabinet, ascertain where the problems are most acute in order that we might perhaps do something about them. I found, for instance, that the number of unemployed in the Atlantic region increased during the whole year by only 3,000. That is an optimistic way of putting it; it
January 29, 1969	COMMONS
is no consolation to the 3,000 people concerned. But it does represent an almost stable situation.
In Ontario, despite the fact that the labour force grew by 99,000, we were able to absorb not only the 99,000 but 4,000 of the unemployed. On the prairies, significantly, there was no change at all. Sixty thousand entered the labour force and 60,000 found jobs. In British Columbia, 38,000 entered the labour force and 43,000 found jobs. In Canada generally, 243,000 people entered the labour force in 1968 and 223,000 found jobs. I have left out one province, but I shall refer to that later. In other words we were short by about 20,000 jobs. That is not really a bad record when one considers that in 1968 was a "catch up" year after the centennial, after the flurry of EXPO and the boom in the construction industry in the greater Montreal area.
Now we come to the one really black mark.
I am not going to draw any conclusion as a Quebecer; let others do that. But in the Province of Quebec, 51,000 people entered the work force for the first time and we were able to find in that province only 25,000 jobs. In other words, 26,000 more people were unemployed in the Province of Quebec than at the beginning of the year, though there were only 20,000 more unemployed across the whole of Canada.
It goes without saying that had we been able to balance the figures in Quebec we would have reduced unemployment across the whole of Canada. What are the factors which have generated such a degree of unemployment in my own province? Some people would write it off by saying "separatism". I do not believe it is separatism; I believe international corporations are too callous to be concerned about domestic problems. But uncertainty is one of the factors-lack of leadership, lack of strong statements by Quebec leaders both Liberal and belonging to the Union Nationale. Either they intend to stay in confederation or they intend to get to hell out of it. Unless they know the situation investors are not going to spend money in the province when they can spend it in other parts of Canada where the economic climate and the political situation is more stable. As a Quebecer I would have no hesitation, if I had a million dollars to invest, about investing it in Quebec because I think the results of the last election show without a shadow of a doubt that the overwhelming majority of the people of that province, both French speaking and English speaking, intend and wish to remain in confederation.
DEBATES	4917
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment
Capital, however, is a very flighty thing. It fears socialims. It fears the uncertainty of the situation in Quebec just as much. So I suspect that when the uncertainty in Quebec has disappeared, perhaps as a result of some strong statements by the political leaders of that province-and I have confidence in their integrity and in their loyalty to this country- the climate of uncertainty will disappear and the capital needed to generate more jobs will be provided in increasing abundance. If that is not the explanation of the situation in Quebec, I am not prepared to say what is. The facts are there and hon. members can read into them precisely what they will.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
There was an increase in the total labour force of 51,000 in Quebec. In spite of 25,000 jobs being found, unemployment increased by 26,000. This is a disastrous situation and, as somebody in this debate said, it weakens confederation. Unemployment generates dissension, resentment, lack of morale, frustration, fear and uncertainty. These things warp our good sense of judgment. They are things that make the labour force of Quebec susceptible to separatism or other ridiculous philosophies.
We all have a stake in the province of Quebec, not only the Quebeckers. We should all be interested in keeping the country together and in seeing to it that money goes into the province. When we vote moneys for capital expenditures in the Quebec regions, as we will have to do, I will look upon them as an investment in the future of this country.
As usual I wandered away from my notes but I do want to put on the record some statistics in which I think everyone should be interested. I have before me a breakdown of unemployed groups by occupation. Needless to say, not every group is below 5 per cent. The office and professional class represents 1.7 of the unemployed; the transportation, service and recreation, primary and craftsman, production and related workers are all around 5 per cent. The craftsman group is 5.4 per cent. However, the labourers represent. 13.2 per cent of the unemployed.
I should like to couple with this the age groups of these people who are unemployed. We find that 9.1 per cent are between the ages of 14 and 19. That, I think, is a pretty sad commentary not only on the federal government, but on the provincial governments, the municipalities and civic authorities, all of whom should realize that people between the
4918	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment ages of 14 and 19, people facing the problems of technological change and attainment of the skills required for the future, should be at school instead of seeking work.
Those between the ages of 20 and 24, people who are presumably just leaving high school, represent 6.1 per cent of the unemployed. Those between the ages of 25 and 34 represent 3.7 per cent; those between the ages of 35 and 44, 3.6 per cent; between the ages of 45 and 54, 3.5 per cent; between the ages of 55 and 64, 4.6 per cent. Finally, those over 65, people who consider themselves employable and want to continue working, represent 5.9 per cent of the unemployed. This balances out to around 4.7 per cent.
I should like to make a point made often by the Economic Council. The word "productivity" seems to dominate each one of the five issues. Productivity is supposed to solve all our unemployment problems. I agree that the word is very important in today's context, because without increased productivity we cannot meet growing competition from countries that do have a greater productivity than we. It is not that our workers are less capable or less skilled; on the contrary, everything being equal, they have shown their ability to produce quality and numbers as well as any other country.
As a result of technological change and automation it is possible to reduce a work force from 100 to 10 and double or even triple productivity in certain highly automated industries. Whether or not we like it, the age of cybernation is not too far away and we have got to start thinking about it. Those who are somewhat more reactionary than others should not get too excited if sooner or later workers in these highly automated industries start talking about shorter hours, a shorter work week. This will not be the end of the world because ironically, and perhaps fortunately, this does create new industries, industries that in the final analysis may be the solution to the problems of people in certain parts of this country and in the United States where geography plays such a big role in unemployment. A shorter work week would create more leisure time, which in turn would create new industries. For example, I think of snowmobiles, outboard motors, tourism-hon. members know them all.
The biggest mistake we could make in this country would be to ruin some of the beauty spots in this great country of ours by forcing industry into areas which cannot support it under normal circumstances. Perhaps in five,

DEBATES	January 29, 1969
10, 15 or 20 years' time these unspoilt areas of Canada will be our greatest investment and source of wealth, the basis of a tourist industry that invites Canadians to travel and discover their own land.
In conclusion, as a member of the cabinet I view the unemployment figures with concern. Tomorrow the minister of manpower will be dealing with them and with some of the progressive steps that he has taken to alleviate seme of the problems I have outlined, such as education, vocational schools and retraining. The minister of forestry and his department are looking after the particular problem of regional development. But the one thing that none of us wants is a doom and gloom philosophy, because psychologically that is not good for the economy. We will not solve our problems by whistling in the dark. Neither will we solve them by being continuously pessimistic about our ability to work ourselves out of the problem of unemployment. In 1963 we faced the same problem and solved it. We are facing it now and in a comparatively short time will solve it once more.
I listened to the speech of the hon. member from the New Democratic party and I did have a lot of wonderful notes to refer to but will not bother because I realize I have spoken long enough. He said nothing that was very significant. I do not say that in an abrasive fashion. However, I was rather pleased to see a subtle change in his approach when he suggested a shift from socialism to a more liberalized economy. After telling the Liberals and Conservatives that we did not have the answers, the hon. member went on to say that what we required was government capital and planning mixed with amounts of private capital.
I do not think that this approach is any different from the approach we have taken for some years. Certainly this was the formula that led to the great petroleum boom in the north and is a philosophy that both major parties have endorsed for many years. If our good friends in the New Democratic party are finally coming round to the more enlightened philosophies of the Conservatives and the Liberals, then I am very pleased to see it. However, if they are not-as I rather suspect is the case-then I hope they will not suggest that we adopt a pattern that is now being proposed to solve current problems in England.
The Labour party in England has had a wonderful opportunity to do something for a
January 29, 1969

country that has been in bad financial straits. The editorial that appeared the other day in the Toronto Star is an indication of what the Labour government intends to do to labour in England. The article to which I refer is headed "Labour government cracks down on labour". It points out that there will now be a "cooling off period" of 28 days and refers to other curtailing factors which the N.D.P. would no doubt consider anti-labour. Although the philosophy of the major parties may not be the best in the world, it is still much better than that of the New Democratic party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I must inform the house that the minister's time has just expired. Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: hope there is time for one short question. I realize that the minister has been dealing mainly with figures and percentages that are rather large. But I wonder if, before he resumes his seat, he would comment on the situation which still faces people who come under his responsibility, namely those in the Unemployment Insurance Commission who have been told they are going to lose their jobs. In particular, will the minister explain why it is that if there are only 50 to be laid off across Canada there are 14 of them in Manitoba? We don't usually share that well.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The unemployment figures in the west are considerably better now than in the days when Tommy Douglas led the Socialists in Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There is now less need for unemployment insurance offices in that part of the country. However, that is not the full answer. I wish it were.


Stanley Howard Knowles: trust the minister has an answer to the question.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, it is long and detailed. I have been anticipating the question and I can read the answer if you wish. We are proud of the fact that a potential lay-off of 800 people will be reduced to less than 50. I
DEBATES	4919
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment am not aware of the location in Manitoba of the 14 people who are to be laid off and I am not sure the hon. member is either. However, I am sure he obtained his information in good faith.
I have been advised by the Unemployment Insurance Commission the people who will be laid off will be notified officially as of February 28, which is still a month hence. It is difficult to say just where these people are located. People employed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission who are to be laid off will be given six months' notice, whereas a public servant receives only three months' notice. This is what will happen.
The Unemployment Insurance Commission has decided to issue six months' notice as of February 28, 1969 to all redundant staff who would have been merit listed according to the Public Service Employment Act and were not placed in alternative employment by that date. The hon. member will understand this gives a particular person, or persons, an added opportunity to find work once they are so classified. I, personally, hope that in the six month interval alternate work is obtained for all of the 35. I am sure the employment market during the next six months will be buoyant enough to absorb these people.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When a person has been a civil servant for 25 or 30 years, is it any easier to accept unemployment after a six month notice than after a three month notice?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We can debate this all day. If the hon. member would give me a specific example of a person working for the Unemployment Insurance Commission for 25 years who is to be laid off, I will personally see it does not happen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: shall do so.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: It is my
purpose today-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister.


An hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) would like to put a question, but I wish to
January 29, 19G9
4920	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment point cut to him as well as to the other members that the time of the minister has already been up for several minutes.
If the house agrees-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Henry P. Latulippe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister indicated that an increase in productivity in Canada would solve the problem. Now, we have had increases in production since-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The house authorized the hon. member to put a question, but not to make a speech.


Henry P. Latulippe: I do wish to put a question, Mr. Speaker.
I am going to refer to the statistics for 1968. Canadian production was valued at $68 billion. We have-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. Would the hon. member put his question?


Henry P. Latulippe: Here is my question, Mr. Speaker. One must use certain words to put a question.
Our production was valued at $68 billion and consumption at $40 billion. Who got the $28 billion difference? That is what I would like to know.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member received an indemnity of $18,000, which, of course, is paid out of the citizens taxes and, just like me, he benefited from that amount. Moreover, he is a business man, he operates several businesses, and he no doubt benefited from the prosperity in his riding.


Cliff Downey: It is my
purpose today, Mr. Speaker, to bring to the attention of the house and the country the tragic gap between performance and practice of which this government has been guilty. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) has given some statistics on unemployment, both past and present. In view of the continually changing circumstances in this country, Mr. Speaker, if the minister derives any comfort from these statistics then he deserves less credit than members of the opposition give to him.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) stated that neither the Liberal or Conservative parties, did much to alleviate unemployment. Under the hon. member's concept of democracy, the government would become
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]

the prime employer. It would seem the government is rapidly trying to become a prime employer when you look at the increase in departmental staffs. I would ask the people of the nation to judge for themselves if this is the best way. We all have to acknowledge the fact that there are countries with very little employment, but how many people in Canada would trade places with the average person in China?
I recall, as we all do, the bright, sparkling days of kissing and high-diving, of grappling with the nation's problems which characterized the first few months of the present regime-


Some hon. Members:: Those were the days.


Cliff Downey: -to the point where the incompetence of the Pearson government was almost forgotten. Except for a few changes, the governments boasts the same personnel as the previous government and I might add is still committing the same blunders.
We are in the degrading position where in the midst of a drifting economy, sky high taxes, falling grain sales, confusion about priorities, rapidly increasing unemployment, unconscionable interest rates, the only matter which seems to impinge upon the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) euphoria is the way in which the Prime Minister's private life is covered in the press. This is hardly a matter of national concern, nor will its resolution do much to assist Canadians.
Does the Prime Minister know that in this country there is a growing number without work? Does he know that there are Canadians ill-fed, badly housed and improperly cared for? Does he have any concern about the pensioner and the aged, whose paltry income is eaten away by government-created inflation? Does he care about the small businessman or the farmer whose modest competence now becomes a prey for the tax gatherers, as a result of the most iniquitous legislation ever presented in a legislative asembly? I refer to the succession duty tax.
The private life of the Prime Minister, however fascinating to the pundits, however agonizing to their perpetrator, is of no concern to the Canadian who is trying to make ends meet.
I am asking this government to come back to reality, to stop treating this nation and its problems as a stage for one man's artistic performance; to deal with real problems, rather than the fringe benefits of social misfits, such as we have been having.
January 29, 1969	COMMONS
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
In view of the government's promises and propaganda, its failure to deal with the problems is a sad betrayal of the confidence of the people. We have a government which will not look after the plain, elementary housekeeping, and therefore we have an economy gathering dust like a machine somebody forgot to oil, and unemployment is growing steadily every month.
The way in which the government has mismanaged the wheat situation is almost incredible. Members of the government sat on their hands all summer while a strike dragged on. They made no move to allocate box cars with the result that millions of dollars were taken out of western farmers' pockets by the tie up in Vancouver. When the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) placed the matter before the Canadian people, the government woke up and box cars moved. But why were they not moving before?
Our trade department has allowed a complete breakdown in the movement of grain. Demurrage charges alone on the vessels sitting in Vancouver harbour are costing the people of this nation almost $1 million every 18 days.
Unless there is a complete change in the government's attitude towards agriculture we will never solve our agricultural problems. Canadian agriculture is one of the leading consumers of manufactured goods. If the state of agriculture is allowed to depreciate, if it is allowed to continue on its present path, if its strength is sapped by further taxes, then I submit we will not have an increase in jobs in this country. Unemployment is far more closely related to the state of agriculture than most people, including a great many enlightened people, would suppose.
In the west we have no market for our wheat. The prospects are for lower beef prices in the spring, increased taxes, higher machinery prices and narrower profit margins. In order to stay in business farmers and ranchers are working 16 to 18 hours a day, resulting in a loss of jobs for other people. Thousands of extra people could be employed on the farms if profit margins were sufficiently high to allow farmers to stay in business and still work normal hours.
As a result of the inaction last summer, damp grain has become a major problem. It will have to be fed to cattle this winter, or at least a large portion of it, and I think we can look for a drop in beef prices in the spring- possibly, in the prices of all meat products.
DEBATES	4921
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment That is another thing for which the western farmers, and the economy in general, can thank the government.
Where is our national policy? Stimulation of the oil industry would have created employment and expansion. Instead of policy we have a vacuum of indecision. Instead of western oil being delivered to eastern Canada, we have Venezuelan oil coming in there. Is it any wonder we have regional disparity and growing unemployment when we have artificial barriers maintained between parts of Canada as a result of government lethargy?
Instead of dealing with real problems we spend our time dwelling on the miscues of society and the new code of personal conduct handed to us by the new Solon, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who goes his merry way regardless of the problems affecting Canadians.
The leader of this party has shown in his statement that unemployment is a serious and growing evil, and at the present rate will soon be uncontrollable. Yet the government has produced no remedy; it has offered no encouragement; it has shown no awareness. How long can a government go on living in a cacoon of indifference to national problems?
One of the most serious problems in the nation today is housing. It has been treated with disdain and disregard, the object of a publicity seeking barnstorming tour by the responsible minister-at least we hope he is a responsible minister. This problem is now being dealt with in a hastily thrown together report which is simply a cry of defeat on the part of the federal government. Was it really necessary to spend a million dollars to produce a report which comes out not with a bang but with a whimper, and which does nothing to deal with the basic problems, the high cost of housing and the unavailability of low interest mortgage money? This report is simply a piece of window dressing. It is an admission by the government that the problem it faces is beyond its resources.
What is needed is an effort on a mass scale to produce reasonably priced, utilitarian housing blocks at a unit cost that Canadians can afford to meet, possibly by the entry of the government housing corporation into the housing field. There is no real reason why, with drastically new construction methods, advances in building components, a revamping of our building codes and union regulations, better and cheaper housing cannot be provided, with resultant increases in jobs.
January 29, 1969
4922	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment
We all remember the bright days of promises and pride when Trudeaumania was going to be the cure for all our problems. It hasn't quite worked that way. Whatever happened to the Marshall plan for the maritimes? What about the promised plans and programs for eastern Ontario agriculture? They seem to be still on the drawing board. These, and numerous other policies, if implemented would have assisted in wiping out regional disparities and stimulating the economy.
Far from stimulating the economy, the government has allowed it to run down. In Newfoundland the fishing industry is being quietly allowed to die, and in the maritimes the shipbuilding industry is slowly suffocating. I might interject that on a recent trip through the maritimes, vacant farms were much in evidence. But the Prime Minister appears on the list of best dressed men. This may be satisfying to him, but it does little to alleviate the uncertainty and fear that are brought on by economic hardship.
One recalls the general disappointment across the nation at the throne speech which opened the new parliament. It is now apparent that it was an accurate reflection of the government's inability to recognize or deal with the basic problems of economic growth and full employment. The government's legislative program is one of the skimpiest in years. We have had no sign from the government that it is prepared to act to deal with the problems of housing, taxation and interest rates, and the growing gap between the well-to-do and the depressed as outlined by the Economic Council in its last report.
It is not because the government has not had the benefit of good ideas and suggestions that there has been an almost total dearth of activity.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
One recalls the suggestion last March by the then secretary of state for external affairs, who has now been moved to the other place, which called for a national conference to co-ordinate economic development and combat regional disparity. Mr. Martin's suggestions were never acted upon. Along with dozens of others, they were cast aside by this rather curious government. But the throne speech, weak and uninspired as it was, was still more glittering than the actual performance has been. It is safe to say that the government has done nothing to deal with unemployment, to stimulate expansion, increase growth, deal with disparity, bring down interest rates, build homes or deal with 
any of the thousand and one urgent problems that are pressing in on us at this time.
As an example, last September's throne speech promised a prices and costs review board. Where is it? Surely, this would have been a simple and routine matter to implement. Why was it not done? Where is the policy for regional development? We have had theories, reports, task forces by the dozen in the areas of agriculture, housing, transportation and taxation, but nothing concrete has been done. I say let us have fewer task forces and more positive policies. Let us have fewer reports and greater implementation of the reports we have. Let us have at least the shadow of an attempt to bring the power and resources of the government to bear on the problems that affect Canadians from coast to coast. Among them is unemployment which is rapidly becoming serious and endemic.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion which is before us. At the outset, I might say that I propose to relate my remarks to those people who form one of the largest groups of unemployed. I refer to those between the ages of 14 and 19 and 20 and 24; namely, the students, graduates, undergraduates and those who are looked upon as drop-outs.
Before proceeding with my main remarks, may I say that although I consider myself to be a very non-partisan member of this house I cannot sit here and let the statements of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) go unchallenged. He told this house that the per-percentage of those unemployed continued to decrease the minute the Liberals took office. Other members of this house know that when the Liberal party took over from the Conservative party they received built-in programs which they were able to keep in force. They were able to govern by using the same programs.
I might ask who instituted some of these programs in those recession days when we took over. Who brought in the great housing program, the vocational training program and the great shipbuilding program? Consider what is going on today since this government let that shipbuilding program lapse. What about the great sales of wheat that the Conservative party made and the great trade crusade that was launched by the then minister of trade and commerce, the hon. George Hees? What about the roads to resources program and the Bladen report which was the
January 29, 1969	COMMONS
forerunner of the automotive pact? What about the Atlantic provinces adjustment grant? Ask the people in the maritimes who introduced that adjustment program and what it did for the Atlantic region? Therefore, I say it is not right for the minister to rise in his place and say that the Liberal party was entirely responsible for reducing the percentage of unemployment. I bring this to the attention of members of this house so that there will be no misgivings about this point.
The Minister of Labour spoke about the introduction and setting up of the department of industry and what a great thing it was. It only lasted for about five years and they dismantled it. They blasted it apart. Although they started off with a nominal staff they ended up with over 1,000 employees. Talk about employment! That was one of the greatest ways to employ people-build up an empire in the department of industry.
When I listened to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), and others speak about this motion I was struck by that empty and barren thing, the just society, of which we have heard so much. Here it is, the first month of a new year and we face the prospect of seeing more than half a million Canadians out of work and with little prospect of things improving except seasonally. One of the most unpleasant aspects of a very unpleasant subject is that the unemployment figures serve to emphasize the regional disparity under which we suffer in this country. The correction of this regional disparity, we were led to believe, was to have been one of the chief concerns of this government. Nothing has been done.
It is almost six months since this parliament met. We have had dialogues ad nauseam, task forces too many to count, promises galore and even international fashion shows,
DEBATES	4923
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment but no government action. I do not believe the figures on regional unemployment have been entirely placed on the record although I believe the figures for the Atlantic region were given. The figures of regional unemployment are as follows: 7.1 per cent in the Atlantic provinces; 6.8 per cent in the province of Quebec; 3 per cent in Ontario; 3.4 per cent in the prairies and 5.4 per cent in British Columbia. These certainly bear out the lopsided nature of our national economy.
No one likes unemployment. We all realize the seriousness of unemployment. Today, with this fire of inflation which is spreading and engulfing everybody, this government in spite of the war on poverty keeps throwing log after log on the fire of inflation. Unemployment becomes more and more important. The cost of living has gone out of the reach of millions of Canadians. When one is out of work the cost of living becomes even more and more important. The saddest thing that could happen to any family is to see the breadwinner unemployed.
This government must face up to the problem. It must look ahead and plan. Members of the government can fool nobody by postponing their actions. We had some programs that were of great benefit to the country. There was the winter works program. Where has it gone? There is nothing to substitute for it. The municipal loan fund was a great help to the municipalities. Where has that gone? Where have the subsidies in respect of winter housebuilding gone? Then there was the public works program. That has been discontinued. Has there been a replacement? No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock the house stands adjourned until Thursday at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, January 30, 1969