1969-01-30

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege at this time which I think affects in a very substantial way the privileges, rights and prerogatives of all hon. members of this house. I have given notice, of course, in accordance with the appropriate standing order.
My question of privilege deals with a paper tabled yesterday by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) which purports to be presented and given on the records of this house under standing order 41(2), a new rule which has just come into effect this year. The document in question is simply headed "The Commissionaire Affair." It has no other heading and is not signed.
This document of course deals with a question which has been a very controversial one. I assure Your Honour it is not my intention to recapitulate the details of that, other than to say there is no question about the fact that the issue was the subject of very considerable questioning in this house and controversy in and out of the house. It touches not only the individuals concerned, but a very important issue which involves the people of this country. For this reason, it is no light matter which was discussed. The document in effect purports to be an explanation, I would assume by the Secretary of State, of his side of the argument on the controversy which took place.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
It is my submission that the document should not have been tabled under the circumstances it was tabled yesterday. It might well be said that I should have dealt with this matter on a point of order yesterday but it was utterly impossible to do so because the document was tabled and no previous notice was given. It is only after documents have 29180-312
been tabled that hon. members are in a position to obtain copies and come to a conclusion as to whether the document in question is one which a minister or a parliamentary secretary is entitled to table under the terms of the pertinent standing order.
I have looked at this matter very carefully, sir, and it is a very important matter which involves a new rule. Your Honour will no doubt come to a decision in this regard, and probably lend your name to a leading case, as you will no doubt do during a number of situations as these new rules develop. For this reason I am going to take a little time to outline the matter in detail, and my reason for rising on this question of privilege.
Standing order 41(1) replaces standing order 40 and provides that a return, record or other paper required to be filed by statute or a regulation may in fact be filed by being tabled in this house. That is a prerogative right which is given to ministers of the Crown. The practice has also grown over the years whereby documents which do not fall within this description, but of an official nature, have been tabled by consent or leave of the house. There is a very sound reason for this.
On one or two occasions before the Christmas recess, and I am dealing with this chronologically, attempts were made by ministers of the Crown to obtain the leave of the house, under the guise of that particular practice to table what were in fact press releases. At that time I suggested it was an iniquitous practice and should not be allowed. Of course leave was not given.
This matter came up for discussion during the course of meetings of the procedure committee. A proposal was made, which was subsequently reduced to writing and became standing order 41(2), to the effect that with the leave of the house a minister or parliamentary secretary would be entitled to table the document or to use the exact wording, "any report or other paper". There was no condition precedent requiring the consent or leave of the house.
It is my submission there are very definite limitations to that right. Certainly when this matter was considered in the committee I made my opinions quite clear. I believe this

January 30, 1969
Tabling of Documents opinion is shared by others and is the general consensus of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The idea that any minister should table press releases, or statements that are self-serving or exculpatory through the medium of this rule, should absolutely not be considered. If this were allowed our procedure would degenerate to the level of that followed in other countries, particularly that followed in the United States-and I will not deal with the situation there-where documentation may be placed on the record without being the subject of a speech. Certainly it was never the intention of this house or the procedure committee that this should be done.
The question for Your Honour to consider involves an interpretation of the rules. Under these conditions it is my submission that standing order 40 provides for the tabling of a document which is required by statute. When we come to the new standing order the words "return, report or other paper" must be considered in the same light; that is a document of an official character which, while not being required to be tabled by statute, is a subject for which a good case can be made for tabling in the house.
But if we let the rule go beyond this, where do we stop? Any document or any speech could be included: the Postmaster General could table in this house the speeches he has made.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no!


Gerald William Baldwin: Papers of any kind at all could be included within the provisions of this rule. If we adopted the interpretation which would be called for in order to uphold the legality of what was done yesterday, the words "other paper" could be given the widest possible meaning. I am sure this would not be a desirable practice in the house, and I therefore ask Your Honour to consider this question and come to some decision on it.
It may well be that, because the question has been raised for the first time, Your Honour might like to reserve your position on it. I say this because if Your Honour does come to a decision that the words "other paper" could include the right of a cabinet minister or parliamentary secretary to table any document, any paper at all, self-serving or argumentation, without in any sense its being an official document published under the authority of a government department, this house might well want to review the position it took on the rule and revise it.

If on the other hand Your Honour comes to the decision, as I hope you will and as the facts and precedents justify, that the words "other paper" must have a restrictive interpretation placed upon them, I think the government will have to review its position. I suggest it might well have to consider giving to hon. members of the opposition parties and Your Honour, well in advance of the time they intend to table the document, the document itself so that a decision may be arrived at as to whether it does or does not in fact conform to the rule.
I therefore ask Your Honour to give this matter most careful consideration, because I think what happened yesterday could degenerate into an iniquitous practice which would be most restrictive of the rights and privileges of members of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all agree that, for the most part, our new rules are working very well. I think we will grow in our appreciation of them as time goes on. Even so, if any apparent infraction has taken place in connection with one of the new rules, I agree with the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that it should be looked at by Your Honour without delay.
Like the hon. member for Peace River, I realize that this is a point you may want to look at and on which you may wish to reserve your judgment. But I would like to support the contention of my hon. friend that the change in the rules that we made did not contemplate the kind of document which the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) asked permission to table yesterday. I accept the correction of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who has just said that the Secretary of State did not seek permission, because under the new standing order, if the document fits the wording of the order he does not have to ask permission. That is the whole point.
As Your Honour must be aware, the new rules have put many more responsibilities on you than existed heretofore. We were quite deliberate in the recommendation that there be what is now known as standing order 41 (2), which reads as follows:
A minister of the Crown, or a parliamentary secretary acting on behalf of a minister, may, in his place in the house, state that he proposes to lay upon the table of the house, any report or other paper dealing with a matter coming within
January 30. 1969


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must Interrupt the hon. minister at this time to suggest that the statement he is delivering must normally be made on motions, unless all hon. members are willing to hear the hon. minister's statement as a reply to a question. I do not think the hon. minister is entitled to continue any further.
Then there was a supplementary question by my parliamentary leader, and the Secretary of State made a reply at the end of which he said:
So many questions have been asked on that subject that I will not, so to speak, make any statement but rather reply in turn to the several questions that have been put to me and that have piled up.
Surely that was a commitment on the part of the Secretary of State, who realized that the questions he had to answer in a normal way could not be answered by a speech but could be briefly answered one by one; and there was your instruction, Sir, that it would be better if it were done on motions.
The Secretary of State sought yesterday to do indirectly what he was not permitted to do directly. He sought to bring into the official records of the house, by having it tabled, a lengthy document which consisted of answers to questions which Your Honour would not let him make during the question period but which Your Honour said he should make on motions.
If I am speaking rather critically, I do not mean it in that vein, but I am concerned about this procedure, because I can see that if this is allowed, all kinds of things will be tabled, not only the speeches that the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) is making around the country, but any kind of document; and what could be a real abuse of this rule would be for ministers to file statements that are argumentative on behalf of a certain piece of legislation before it is debated, or at a stage when it cannot be debated. So the rules of the house could be circumvented in this way.
I therefore feel very strongly that this is something that Your Honour will have to study. I say again that I do not want us to go back to the old practice of requiring unanimous consent for the tabling of any document, but precisely because we have done away with that requirement, the responsibility rests upon a minister to make sure that it is a proper paper that he is tabling. If there is any doubt about it, it is up to Your Honour to decide, and of course it is still

January 30, 1969
Tabling of Documents a matter for a point of order. Therefore, as I say, I welcome the improvements we have made in the rules and I think this was a good one, but I plead that it be not abused.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: do not want to take the time of the house at any great length to belabour the point. I think everyone here will recognize that the rules were drawn up with the idea, in principle, of fairness to both sides of the house and to all hon. members. It is axiomatic that they should be used fairly. I need not go on to say that they should be interpreted fairly, because that is a matter of course. What I wish to emphasize is that they should be used fairly. I would point out that if this practice were to grow it would become commonplace for a minister merely to rise and table a document which touches upon the administrative responsibility of his department, and it would be admitted. It could be a contentious document. It could be a mendacious document. It could be any kind of document. No member of this house would be able to comment upon it. Yet it would be a matter of record. I would point out also that the document is not tabled at that very moment; the minister merely states he will be tabling it at some time. Then hon. members have to go and get a copy.
I would suggest to Your Honour that procedures are about to be initiated under which debate will not take place on certain stages of legislation. The practice to which I have referred would give an opportunity to a minister or his parliamentary secretary to put in a full statement or a full argument, which in effect would be his statement at that stage of debate, thereby gaining an unfair advantage over those in the house who cannot reply.
This is the only point I wish to make. Certainly, I agree with my hon. friend from Peace River and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that the spirit of the amendment was to eliminate unnecessary requests for leave to table a document, and that it should not be used as a general door for the funnelling on to the record of parliament by the ministry of any and all papers, at the discretion of ministers. I submit, therefore, that this rule must be interpreted narrowly, to the extent which has been indicated this afternoon.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: I should like to deal with this point, since this is the first occasion the amendment to standing order 41(2) has come

before parliament. I might say it would have been useful-and perhaps the hon. member for Peace River might bear this in mind in future-if, when questions of privilege of this kind are raised for the first time, notice could be given, so that I might have an opportunity to look at the authorities-particularly, in this case, at the minutes of the Special Committee on Procedure.


Gerald William Baldwin: I will table the next one.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Since the hon. member has not given me notice I shall have to proceed on the basis of my recollection, subject to confirmation after examining the minutes of the Special Committee on Procedure. I do recall quite definitely the question put to me by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as to whether or not this encompassed press releases, and I indicated that in my opinion it did. I will do the hon. member the justice of saying that I do not recall what his response was, but I think he will agree he knew precisely the position we took. Perhaps other members of the committee can confirm this, but I cannot recall that the hon. member for Peace River said anything about it at that time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Nonsense. On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I deny categorically-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is
already one question of privilege before the house.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Rather than
burden Your Honour with this we shall leave it to the record of the committee as to whether the hon. member did or did not; but I think you might dispel from your mind any suggestion that there has been some kind of trickery involved here. This is exactly the type of thing we had in contemplation when we brought about the change in the rule.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
While standing order 41(1) is really quite precise as to the documents referred to, standing order 41(2) is in the broadest possible terms. It permits a minister or a parliamentary secretary to lay on the table of the house any report or other paper dealing with a matter coming within the administrative responsibilities of the government. I believe that the Chair should give the widest interpretation to those words. I also believe that it is in the interests of the house generally to have these documents, which deal with the
January 30, 1969

administrative responsibilities of the government, laid on the table and made available to members.
The hon. member for Edmonton West suggested that the answers could be contentious or that they might be mendacious, and that hon. members would not have an opportunity to respond. If that were the case, then they could respond by way of a question of privilege. I should like to point out that the answers here would be in no different category from a return that is made in response to an order of the house which had resulted from a question. Certainly there would be no immediate opportunity to reply in that case. In addition, I think that the Chair would acknowledge the fact that it would not be desirable to have a lot of mini-debates on all these questions.
The final observation that I would make is that if this new restrictive interpretation is to be given to the word "papers", as is suggested by the hon. member for Peace River, then I think Your Honour would also have to consider whether, in the same way, papers that are subject to tabling under a notice of motion for production of papers brought by hon. members opposite should not equally be given a restrictive interpretation. Therefore, if the word "papers" as it appears in the Standing Orders is to be severely cut down in its meaning, then it would similarly be restrictive of members on the other side of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa West.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present the second report of the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to present to the house my comments on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peace River.
May I thank hon. members for their advice as to the interpretation that ought to be placed by the Chair on standing order 41(1) and standing order 41(2). I will study the matter as closely as I can and take into account the views that have been expressed by hon. members who have taken part in the discussion. In view of the fact that there may be occasions, either today or later on, when ministers will seek the right to table similar documents, I will try to bring this decision down as quickly as possible.
Ways and Means COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Second report of standing committee on
veterans affairs-Mr. Francis.

Sixth report of standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, in French and English-Mr. Clermont.

Second report of standing committee on justice and legal affairs-Mr. Tolmie.
Fourth report of standing committee on fisheries and forestry-Mr. Crossman.
[Editor's note: For reports above referred to, see Votes and Proceedings.]



WAYS AND MEANS


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, on October 22, 1968, I gave notices of four motions relating to taxation and customs duties, which I proposed to move in Committee of Ways and Means. Two of these have been dealt with by the house, but under the new Standing Orders it will not be necessary to consider the remaining two motions in Committee of Ways and Means. I therefore wish to inform the house how I propose that we should proceed.
In accordance with the new rules, I propose to give notices of new motions under the provisions of standing order 60 (1). Because the gift tax and the estate tax proposals are closely interrelated, consideration of these proposals would be greatly facilitated if they were placed before the house in one bill. Therefore, I now propose to table a notice of motion to amend the Income Tax Act and the Estate Tax Act. The portion of the motion concerning the Income Tax Act will refer only to gift tax amendments. If the motion is adopted by the house, one composite bill to amend the Income Tax Act and the Estate Tax Act will be introduced based on the motion.
I propose on a later date to table a further notice of motion to amend the Income Tax Act to deal with the remainder of the income tax proposals announced in October. The preparation of these income tax amendments has been delayed, while some very complicated problems related to the taxation of life

January 30, 1969
Ways and Means
insurance companies and their policy holders have been under discussion with the companies concerned.
The motion of which I now propose to give notice will be based on the October announcement, but it will incorporate some changes of a kind that under the previous house rules would have been announced and explained by moving an amendment in Committee of Ways and Means. Since the new rules do not permit a speech to be made at the time of giving notice of a ways and means motion, or on moving adoption of such a motion, any explanation of these changes will have to be made by providing written material to the members and to others, rather than by a statement in the house. As soon as I table the notice of motion to amend the Income Tax Act and the Estate Tax Act, I plan, pursuant to standing order 41 (2), to lay upon the table of the house a paper explaining the motion and giving some illustrations of the consequent changes in taxes.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 60 (1) I lay on the table of the house notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act and the Estate Tax Act in English and in French; and pursuant to standing order 41 (2) I lay on the table of the house a paper explaining the motion and giving some illustrations of the consequent changes in taxes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I might have to enter a caveat in relation to the nature of the statement that the minister is tabling under standing order 41 (2). If this is an explanatory notice of motion, then personally at the present time I would have no objection to it. On the other hand, if it is a general denial, or argument, or criticism of either of the proposals along the lines of those appearing in the press or some other arena, then I would immediately enter a caveat. In effect, as I said in another speech, this is happening at a time when a speech is not allowed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on the caveat or point of order that has been raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West. The minister says that he is operating under standing order 60 (1) and under standing order 41 (2). Standing order 60 (1) reads as follows:
A notice of a Ways and Means motion may be laid upon the table of the house at any time during a sitting by a minister of the Crown-

That is what the minister has just done. It continues:
-but such a motion may not be proposed in the same sitting.
In other words, the minister cannot move it today, unless of course he were given unanimous consent to do so.
If you go further, Mr. Speaker, and look at paragraph (10) of standing order 60, you will note that it reads:
When an order of the day is read for the consideration of any motion of which notice has been given in accordance with section (1) of this order-
That is what has been done here.
-a motion to concur in the same shall be forthwith decided without debate or amendment-
In other words, we have made it a clear rule that at the resolution stage of a tax bill, as separate from a full dress budget debate, there is to be no debate on the proposed resolution.
The minister says that under standing order 41 (2) he is tabling a document. Like the hon. member for Edmonton West, I have not seen it. If it is only a matter of explanation, then I will not press an objection. But if-


Mr. Lewis:: -it is a debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: as my colleague says, putting into my mouth the words I was going to use, the minister is tabling a debate that he has put in writing, then I suggest that this combination of the use of two rules is not the kind of thing that should be allowed.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
It is very clear we have done away with debate on the resolution stage of tax bills, yet the minister proposes to get around this by producing his side of a debate in the form of a document. That is, instead of debate he produces a document. Then he cites standing order 41(2) as his authority for tabling a document he should not have presented to the house at all. If he wants to send a memorandum to members of the house through the mail, telling us what this document is all about, well and good. Perhaps he wants to hold a press conference, and no one can stop him from doing that. But for him to try to circumvent the rules of the house in this way is I submit quite unfair.
January 30, 1969

I have not seen the document; I see the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has a copy, as has my leader. He has handed it to me and from what I see I am convinced that what I have said is correct. It is debate. We have a rule saying there shall be no debate in the house at the resolution stage of a tax measure, and I do not think the minister can be allowed to break this rule in the present manner. It is good that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) raised his point of privilege today. We should not have debate from one side when it is not allowed at all.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need say too much, except that we are not circumventing any of the rules. The rules are there and are being given effect to. Really, the hon. member is inventing new restrictions. The rules speak for themselves and I think Your Honour can summarily reject the hon. member's objection.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I suggest the tabling of the document by the Minister of Finance in this way is improper, and that that tabling ought to be withheld until Your Honour has ruled on the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Unless hon. members wish to present further argument, I wish to say now that I agree with the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition. Because of the very serious point of privilege raised earlier by the hon. member for Peace River, the Chair indicated that the matter would be taken under advisement. I do not think it would be proper for the Chair to allow the tabling of the document at this time. With the agreement of all hon. members I will simply hold the document-I am not sure whether it will be held on the minister's desk, on the table, or in between, but it will not be considered as having been accepted for tabling at the present time.


Edgar John Benson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since this is an important matter, perhaps there will be unanimous consent to giving the bill first reading at this time, or taking a vote on first reading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has
the government not circumvented enough rules already, for one day?


Some hon. Members:: Do it tomorrow.
DEBATES	4931
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act PRAIRIE GRAIN ADVANCE PAYMENTS ACT


AMENDMENT PROVIDING EMERGENCY PAYMENTS TO MEET DRYING COSTS
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, last week the house debated at length the question of assistance to western farmers with respect to appropriate measures to be taken to assist them with tough and damp grain. As my colleagues indicated, the government intends to present a measure to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. I think there is agreement to what I am about to propose from all sides of the house; at least, up until about one hour ago there was agreement. I request leave of the house to waive the provisions of standing order 42(1) with respect to 48 hours notice for the introduction of a bill, so the bill may be given first reading at this time and then proceeded with at the first possible opportunity which will be tomorrow. We wish to give every assistance possible to our prairie farmers.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to waive the rules, as we always are for good cause when we can help our fellow citizens in the country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
have already agreed to this, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, we have also agreed to postpone till tomorrow the debate on the wheat problem, and
whenever a similar problem arises some day for the Eastern farmer, we trust we will be given the same co-operation.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-162, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the house might allow the Chair to report to a bill introduced a moment ago by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. My understanding is that the royal recommendation has not yet been filed with the Clerk of the House in this regard. I take the liberty to

January 30, 1969
Health and Welfare
remind the minister responsible for the proceedings on this bill that this is a requirement for the consideration of the bill, since the purpose of the bill is to provide for emergency advance payments.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is the government going to waive the B.N.A. Act next?


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Kenneth Robinson (Lakeshore) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-163, to restrict the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, for some time now it has been established that there is a connection between tobacco users and deaths caused by cancer, due to the tar and nicotine contained in cigarettes. A table was recently issued under the authority of the Minister of National Health and Welfare setting forth the tar and nicotine level in most of the cigarettes used in Canada.
The purpose of this bill is to enact that the tar and nicotine level in cigarettes manufactured and sold in Canada shall not exceed lowest level to have been found as set forth in the table, namely 8 milligrams of tar and 0.5 milligrams of nicotine.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)

William Kenneth Robinson: for leave to introduce Bill C-164, respecting tobacco as a health hazard.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make certain that tobacco and cigarette users are aware at all times that their use constitutes a health hazard. It is therefore proposed that a written and graphic warning be placed on all packages of tobacco and cigarettes. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether this bill could also be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Jean-Luc Pepin: the first reading of Bill S-25, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   EXHIBITIONS   MAN AND HIS WORLD-DECISION TO DISCONTINUE-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 26
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I ask, seconded by the member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Dumont) leave to move the adjournment of the house, under standing order 26, to discuss an urgent matter of national importance, namely the decision of the Montreal Executive Council to cancel the operation of "Man and His World" because of the financial risk. It was announced last night that the Exhibition Island and St. Helen Island would be closed down.
That is to say that all the capital invested in achieving Expo 67 will be, so to speak, a total loss. Because of the magnitude of such a gigantic undertaking as "Man and His World", because of the generous financial participation of the federal government towards its realization, because of the disastrous consequences of such a decision for the prestige of Canada throughout the world, it is imperative that a debate be launched today in this house to study that matter of national importance and find a solution to it.
The closing of Expo 67 is a national disgrace. The city of Montreal is hard-pressed for money.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must remind the hon. member that he must limit his remarks to the statement made to the Chair, and that he is not allowed to make a speech.
The hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), as I just indicated, has given the Chair the notice required under standing order 26(2). According to the hon. member's statement, the matter he is moving for discussion is based on the decision taken by the executive committee of the City of Montreal, to
January 30, 1969

discontinue operation of "Man and His World".
In deciding whether a matter should have urgent consideration, the Speaker must consider the extent to which the matter comes within the administrative responsibilities of the government. The hon. member should read standing order 26(5) about this point.
In my opinion, the motion of the hon. member for Shefford does not meet this requirement since the subject matter as proposed clearly does not come under the administrative jurisdiction of the federal government. I regret, but I must come to the conclusion that this motion may not be allowed in the house.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister arising from the encouragement given by him to public debate between cabinet ministers on defence policy. Is it his intention to encourage public debate between the ministers in his government on other matters of policy still in the process of being determined as, for example, economic policy generally, and particularly the report of the task force on housing that was tabled in the house yesterday?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to public debate on the subject of economic progress of the country or the way in which ministers think it could be improved. There is no provision in our government against such debate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may we expect that debate will be encouraged between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport on the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, in view of the fact that the recommendation of the task force, of which the Minister of Transport was chairman, is in favour of removal and the indication is that the Minister of Finance is opposed to such action? May we look forward to such a debate?
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):
Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to make something clear. I am never against the reduction of taxes in Canada. I simply said we cannot afford it at the present time.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasi-ings):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in line with the Prime Minister's wish to generate debate within the cabinet, within the house and within the country in order to decide what government policy should be, is it the government's plan to adopt the tactic used by the late Mackenzie King of ascertaining which gate the sheep intended to use in order to leave the pasture and then leading them through it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The rules do not allow the hon. member to encourage debate in the house in this way.


Gerald William Baldwin: As a
further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is it the Prime Minister's intention to arrange for Canada to become a two-policy nation?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Like your two-leader
party?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Some time ago he said he would table the bill to establish an Indian claims commission before the end of this month. Since today is the 30th of January, is he now ready to table it and, if not, can he tell us when he will be ready to do so?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I said I hoped, but, unfortunately, my hope has not been fulfilled yet.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, could the minister indicate when his hope may be realized and whether he has met obstacles to presenting the bill in the form of advice as to its constitutionality? If so, can he tell us what he is doing about it?
4934

January 30, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, after introducing the resolution concerning the establishment of an Indian claims commission, I received representations from some organizations. Some remarks were also made to me in the course of subsequent discussions I had with Indians in Canada. Therefore, I consider it desirable to make a thorough study of such representations before I announce definitely the government policy.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the minister has still not answered part of my last question. He has been giving us vague dates progressively later throughout this entire proceeding. Can he indicate now when we can expect that bill?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.



EXHIBITIONS


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Prime Minister.
Since he is aware that the closing of Man and His World was announced yesterday, could the right hon. gentleman tell us whether he intends to consult with the provincial and municipal authorities in order to find a solution to this serious problem as quickly as possible?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, there have already been consultations, which went on for several months, at the request of the City of Montreal, with the federal government and also, I think, with the provincial government. Following those talks, the City of Montreal has reached a decision that comes under its jurisdiction. We have nothing else to say.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Like the authorities of the City of Montreal, whose decision we heard about last night, does the federal government propose to do something to save Man and His World?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, Man and His World does not come under our authority; we cannot do anything on our own initiative. I repeat that we have discussed the matter with the officials of the City of Montreal every time they requested it.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question about the closing of "Man and His World".
Could the Prime Minister tell us if his government would take part in a tripartite commission: federal, provincial and municipal, in order to take over the financial matter of "Man and His World" and to allow the general public to benefit from it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question is rather an hypothetical one. The City of Montreal would first of all have to think about setting up such a commission. The house knows that the World Exhibition ended almost a year and a half ago and that it is the City of Montreal that assumed the responsibility of continuing its operation. It became a thing which was amenable to it and not any more to us. On the contrary, for a long time the government has been considering solutions to liquidate its commitments with regard to the Expo 67, that is to liquidate the company which, I think, is called the Canadian Corporation for the World Exhibition. The solution is not our concern any more. It is up to the city of Montreal to judge whether or not it wants to continue the operation of that municipal exhibition and, if it wishes to call on other financing sources, to propose what it would like.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question. The Prime Minister said that my question was hypothetical, but the financing of the World Exhibition is also hypothetical at the present time. Does he want to say that the federal government is trying to settle the matter? Does that mean that it would not be ready to buy "Man and His World" or the Corporation involved?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question has never been put to us. We have not been asked to buy "Man and His World". If the city of Montreal makes an offer, we will consider it, but if the hon. member wants to have the government say that we think we must devote a substantial part of the federal budget to recreate "Man and His World" or to operate it, I will say to him the we have unfortunately, to deal with other priorities and that, according to us, that one is not the first.
January 30, 1969



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the very perilous condition of affairs in the Middle East and the serious potential threat to world peace, action is needed. The minister stated that a message was being submitted by the Canadian ambassador to the government of Iraq protesting against the terrible series of virtual atrocities which occurred in that country recently. What was the reaction of the government of Iraq and what generally is the government of Canada doing to bring about conditions whereby the serious situation in the Middle East will be to some extent diminished?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet had a response from the government of Iraq to the representations we made yesterday. On the second part of the question, our main effort has been directed to supporting the efforts of Ambassador Jarring who is acting for the Secretary General of the United Nations to bring about a settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I think it only fair that he should have the opportunity of explaining whether or not there is any basis in fact to a report in The Christian Science Monitor for Thursday, January 9, to the effect that the Prime Minister advised Foreign Minister Riyad of Egypt that "Israel is clearly an expansionist country" and that the western world must wake up to this before the Middle East blows up again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman knows the question should be asked directly rather than by way of confirmation of an article.


John George Diefenbaker: Knowing now what the article and John Cooley's report says, I am sure the Prime Minister would welcome the earliest opportunity to deny such a preposterous conclusion.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. gentleman is doing exactly that, denying such a preposterous conclusion. I do not know where the 29180-3131
Inquiries of the Ministry blame should lie, whether it should be with The Christian Science Monitor, with its reporter or with second or third hand information, but I never said anything closely resembling that. My thoughts are not at all along those lines.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


FINANCE
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Finance. In view of persistent rumours today in the financial markets that the government is contemplating the introduction of a capital gains tax in the near future, I am sure the minister would like the opportunity of denying what I hope is a preposterous rumour.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, as a former creator of rumours, knows that no one should pay any attention to them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: I am very glad to know that this rumour is not nearly as well founded as those I used to create.


ESTATE TAX ACT
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has he now increased the basic exemption under the estate tax from $20,000 to $50,000 and have the rates been modified since he disclosed the change in his budget?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On January 24 I was promised an answer to a question I had asked about an Indian girl who was incarcerated in the Don

January 30, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
Jail in Toronto. Is the minister now in a [English]
position to reply?	STUDENT LOANS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am now in a position to answer the question directed to me by the hon. member the other day, with respect to the holding of an Indian girl in jail.
That Indian girl left her reserve in British Columbia and travelled across Canada. Unfortunately, she was put in jail on a theft charge and was held there for some time. She did not inform the department and did not ask for assistance. We learned about her incarceration in the press.
We have services available to Indians who get into situations such as that one but we have to be informed before taking action. Unfortunately, the departmental officials were not aware of the plight of that poor girl.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Would the minister, together with the appropriate departments of justice, set up some procedures that would take care of such situations?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for us to know the whereabouts of every Indian in the country, even if he is incarcerated. In this case, the person concerned was a girl of full legal age who had changed her name. Unfortunately, we were not informed of her sad situation.
The department has services available to Indians who find themselves in such desperate situations but, unfortunately, the girl in question did not consider it necessary to resort to them.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Did the minister ascertain during his investigation whether or not the girl in question was made aware of her rights and given an opportunity to get in touch with him or his department?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think that this question should be asked of the people in charge of the administration of justice within their province.



CURTAILMENT OF GRANTS TO FOREIGN STUDENTS ENGAGED IN DISORDERLY ACTS

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government is giving consideration to the curtailment of grants to foreign students attending Canadian universities under government auspices who engage in activities involving breaches of the peace, bloodshed and other acts of disorder?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the question is of a general nature. If the hon. member feels there is urgency he may wish to have it discussed at the time of adjournment.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I might add that I have reference particularly to the unfortunate events which took place this morning at Sir George Williams University in the city of Montreal.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. If he will come forward I will ask it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While the minister proceeds forward, the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Huron.



ESTATE TAX ACT


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance
whether he can now say he intends leaving the estate tax exemption at $50,000 instead of changing it to $20,000?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, that is not the case at all. I tried to table the explanation but hon. members opposite did not want it.


John George Diefenbaker: You tried to confuse the issue.


Edgar John Benson: I should like to point out also that copies of this explanation will be available in the members' lobby as soon as they leave the house. What has happened is that estates under $50,000 will not be subject to estates tax, but there has been no change in the high exemptions. The high exemptions that were in the estate tax provisions are still there, that is, $20,000 plus $10,000 for every-
January 30, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this
kind of detailed discussion is the type which should take place when the bill is before the house and is not now in order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's answer, and I know he did not intend to mislead the house, is it basically correct that estates under $50,000 will not be taxed and that the old rate which existed prior to October is being restored?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Let me suggest to hon. members that this is precisely the debate which I assume will take place when the bill is before the house. I do not see why exceptions should be made to the general rule in respect of something which has obviously been made an order of the house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the greatest respect to Your Honour, I think there may be a misunderstanding as a result of the minister's terminology in answering the question. He left a rather ambiguous impression in answer to the question, "would it not be correct...?" I think he appreciates that fact and I hope Your Honour will, with your great wisdom, give the minister an opportunity to make a correction.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is difficult to resist such a plea.


Edgar John Benson: If I may speak to the point of order, I believe my answer was quite correct. The exemptions have not been raised and estates under $50,000 will not be reduced because of estate tax. This is similar to the situation which existed before. Under the new system the high exemptions have not been changed. If someone has four children, for example, there may be a $100,000 exemption plus anything left to the wife, which is also exempt.



VANCOUVER, B.C.-EMPTY SHIPS LEAVING PORT

Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether he can indicate to the house that the reports of grain ships leaving Vancouver harbour empty are accurate?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question on an earlier day when I confirmed that indeed two ships had left or were about to leave. In one case arrangements were made for the ship to return later to pick up the grain.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, does the minister expect that he will soon be in a position to announce a new sale of Canadian wheat to red China in proportion to the recent sale by Australia amounting to $137,500,000 for 2,250,000 tons?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the sale by Australia proves that there is a constant demand for wheat in China. The Wheat Board will be continuing its effort to get a fair share of that market. I should point out "en passant", as Sir John A. Macdonald used to say, that under the agreement with China I announced a few months ago, Canada is selling seven million bushels a month to China compared with 6,600,000 sold by Australia. This also demonstrates that China believes in a two-source system.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, could the minister advise the house when his explanations and rosy promises will be replaced by new wheat contracts?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The supplementary question is argumentative.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


Mr. Oza  Telrauli@Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Finance indicate what municipalities in the constituency of Villeneuve received subventions in 1967, and the amount of these subventions, in respect of buildings owned by the Crown, erected on lands covered by 99-year lease arrangements-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Oza  Telrauli@Villeneuve: -accorded by private companies as well as for Crown-owned buildings-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Oza  Telrauli@Villeneuve: -erected on lands belonging to the Crown?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question should be placed on the order paper.

January 30, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



SECURITIES COMMISSION-ISSUING OF TREASURY SHARES

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, last October the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and his officials had meetings with provincial authorities concerning a national securities commission. He indicated that a decision in respect of legislation would be forthcoming. Has a decision been made and will the legislation cover the issuing of treasury shares without the protection provided by a prospectus?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the meeting to which the hon. member has referred we agreed to bilateral discussions with the provinces. As I announced, we are preparing a securities measure for discussion with the provinces and presentation by this government. I think it would be quite inappropriate for me at this point to suggest what may or may not be in the bill or covered by this measure.



WINTER WORKS


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In his consideration of the brief from the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities did the minister decide what action his department will take on the reform program mentioned in that brief to replace the winter works program?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is not intended to introduce a new program at this time.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, will the
minister indicate whether this information has been communicated to that body, that is, that the government is not acceding to the recommendations and proposals contained in the brief?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into this point and see that this body is advised.



RESEARCH


Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting

Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources what answer the minister is prepared to give to the universities of western Canada which recently requested an opportunity to take over the Mount Kobau observatory?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this subject-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that the matter is of immediate urgency. The hon. member might want to discuss the question at the time of adjournment.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the circumstances under which Hal Banks received a form of absolution from the secretary of state of the previous United States administration, and the fact that I am informed this matter is now being considered in the United States Senate, particularly having regard to the $100,000 paid to the Democratic party campaign funds immediately after the order, will the government now give consideration to asking the present United States administration to review the order made by the previous administration so that Hal Banks will be given the opportunity to secure justice in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure, again, whether this is a question of immediate urgency, but I hesitate to ask the right hon. gentleman to return at ten o'clock tonight. Perhaps it might be easier to allow the right hon. Prime Minister to reply.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I plan to be here at ten o'clock anyway; there is going to be a vote. But perhaps it is just as well to get this over with. Our position on this matter was stated to the previous administration. We are taking the view that the government of the United States, in spite of the fact that there has been an election, is still the government of the United States, and decisions taken by the previous administration will continue to be respected by us. Of course, if the present government of the United States wants to do things on its own initiative we will be anxious to co-operate, as the right hon. gentleman says, to ensure that justice be done.
January 30. 1963



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the fact that the United States government has recently made four Globemasters available to the churches' relief operations from Sao Tome to Biafra, will the government consider doing likewise so that the massive starvation in that country may be relieved?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has no such intention at the present time. As the hon. gentleman knows, our relief efforts are being centred on the International Committee for the Red Cross. That continues to be government policy.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government given consideration to making Hercules aircraft available to the newly organized Red Cross airlift from Dahomey into Biafra?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it would be helpful all around if the Biafran authorities would agree to daylight flights. Then a great deal more food could be provided, and the Hercules aircraft provided by the Canadian government would be available.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, there seemed to be some confusion the other day about the actual disposition of the food supplies at present being loaded for Nigeria and Biafra. Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs clarify where the shipments will be deposited for eventual unloading in Biafra? Will it be Fernando Po, Dahomey, or where will these food supplies be going?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the International Committee for the Red Cross have given up any further efforts, at least temporarily, to make use of the equatorial Guinea airport. They have now obtained the approval of the Dahomey government to use an airport there, which is about the same distance as Sao Tome from the needy areas. I am sure they will rearrange their food supplies so as to be able to deliver them.
Inquiries of the Ministry WOMEN



INFORMATION RESPECTING PRESENTATION OF REPORT

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamillon West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State related to the question I asked him on January 20 regarding the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Has the minister now had an opportunity to look into the matter, and, if so, can he advise the house when he expects to have a report from this commission?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I am not better informed about when the report will be submitted than I was when the question was first put to me.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister looked into the matter? The way he has answered my question leaves me in some doubt in that regard.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the hon. member should have any doubt.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will discuss with his colleague, the Solicitor General, the possibility of enlarging the inquiry which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is making into the leakage of documents from the B. and B. commission to cover the leakage of documents filed by the task force on housing, and also seconding the Minister of Transport in order to facilitate any inquiries which may be made?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, if this is a formal demand by the opposition I would be very glad to consider investigating it.



RESEARCH


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Recently, in answer to a question I put on the

January 30, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry order paper, the minister indicated that he is considering changing the provisions and terms of reference of the PAIT civil development program. Would he consider making a statement on motions in the near future regarding when we may expect changes in this research and development program?
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry,
Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, may I suggest, with respect, that this might be a good subject for discussion when the bill relating to the reorganization of the department is introduced, or at ten o'clock.


David Lewis: When will that bill be introduced?


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister care to indicate when we may expect that development?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Soon, Mr. Speaker.



HOCKEY-GAME BETWEEN RUSSIAN TEAM AND MONTREAL CANADIENS

Mr. Sleven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's well known interest in sport and the fact that the Russian national hockey team is playing the Canadian national team in Ottawa tonight, will the Prime Minister use his good offices to arrange an exhibition game between the Russian team and the Montreal Canadiens before the Russian team returns to Moscow?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that I am more interested in football than in hockey.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, of which I have given notice. In view of the urgent representations with regard to the suspension of operations in the proposed national park in the Bonne Bay area of Newfoundland, can the minister give me the reasons for this shutdown and can he also disclose whether work on the park will restart this year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether this is the type of question that should be answered now. However, the minister seems very anxious to reply and perhaps hon. members would agree that he might do so.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question.
The discovery of silica deposits in a particularly important area of the projected park incited provincial authorities to launch an intensified mining exploration program. Until the exploration work is completed, the staff of the national parks branch has stopped working in that area and has undertaken other tasks.
As soon as the provincial authorities have completed their assessment of the region's possibilities and decided what area can be put aside for a national park, that is to say late in 1969 according to their forecasts, the Historic Sites and Monuments Branch will study the project in the light of information given by the province.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Lome Nysirom (Yorkfon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Could the minister tell us why the C.B.C. television program "Festival" was suddenly cancelled last night shortly before it was scheduled to be shown on the air?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this question should be placed on the order paper.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and is based on the announcement that Manitoba will enter into the medicare plan on April 1. The minister was here but in his absence perhaps I could ask the question and his parliamentary secretary will take note of it. In view of the report that the cost to Manitoba
January 30, 1969

Business of the House
for the first year-the figure has been given	BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
in the report-includes coverage of optome-	

trie and chiropractic services which are to be
covered by the established premiums, could Mr. Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I be per-the minister confirm whether the federal gov- mitted to ask the President of the Privy ernment has agreed to this, and at the same Council what the order of business for the time could he comment further on my ques- remainder of this week and for next week tion of Monday, January 27?	will be.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this question as notice and the minister will no doubt be able to reply to it Monday.



SHIPPING


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport or to whoever is acting for him today. There is an element of urgency in the question because an interim injunction relating to the matter in question expires either today or tomorrow. Does the minister plan to take any action to ensure that the Lachine Canal is not closed off and filled in?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, perhaps in the absence of an answer I could address a supplementary question to the government house leader. In view of the fact that no one appears to be available who has any responsibility in the field of transport, would the minister take whatever steps he has at his disposal to see that this matter is referred to an appropriate committee for a thorough examination?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think I can reply to that question, Mr. Speaker.
In fact, steps have been taken to terminate projects which had already been discussed in connection with the Lachine Canal and, according to my information, nothing will be done to change the present situation during the next few months.

In other words the proposed changes are being delayed for reassessment.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we propose to call a vote on the estate tax resolution which was presented today. Then we will call second reading of the bill to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, and further stages if possible. When that is disposed of we will deal with the bill to amend the Customs Act, which is under the direction of the Minister of National Revenue. On Monday next we will call the report stage of the bill to amend the Aeronautics Act, to be followed by the report stage of the bill to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act. On Tuesday we will call second reading of the bill to amend the Estate Tax Act, and we contemplate calling that measure on Wednesday and Thursday if that is necessary in order to dispose of all stages of the bill. If we find we are making better progress, I will make a statement later in the week.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question. The President of the Privy Council, in answer to questions regarding when we might expect the government reorganization bill or bills, has said more than once that he would be able to tell the house today, I think, about that legislation, which is obviously of tremendous importance and to which ministers continue to refer. Can we have word on when that bill or bills may be expected?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am very hopeful of having it in the house within two weeks.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which is supplementary to the question I put earlier to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Would the Prime Minister care to make a statement now or in the near future on whether the government intends to establish a ministry of science?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of our establishing a ministry of science.
January 30, 19B9

Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, January 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Stanfield (p. 4901) and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lewis (p. 4911).
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A survey taken by the Financial Post last fall disclosed that this year the increase in available jobs would run well behind the output of graduates. To make matters worse, potential employers are becoming very selective. The demand has narrowed to three or four faculties such as business administration, computer science, geology, mining engineering and the like. Student graduates in general arts and social sciences, civil, mechanical and electrical engineering face narrowing prospects.
What does the government propose to do about this situation? Should there not have been greater co-operation between the universities and the government? I suggest the government should have asked the universities to tailor their courses to meet the employment demand. However, little seems to have been done in this direction. Mr. V. C. Martell, manager of the Canada Manpower Centre at Dalhousie University, is reported as having said:
It looks as though the general arts students, particularly the girls, are the ones who will suffer most. And we are producing more of them than anything else.
What we should like to hear from the government right now is evidence that hon. gentlemen opposite have a plan to meet this situation. We want positive action, a crash program. For goodness sake don't tell us that another task force is to be set up. We have had enough of them. We want action. Jobs for students cannot be regarded as a form of aid. Jobs for students represent an investment in Canada.
The Economic Council of Canada has brought this question sharply into focus by saying it is imperative to educate our young people and then put that education to the fullest possible use. This is as important to us as are the calls of national defence. Last
January 30, 1969
4944	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment
year the government was the principal user of Canadian graduates, hiring some 650. What will the number be this year? The forecast is that only 250 students will be hired all over Canada. Why is there this reduction at the very time we should be going all out to find jobs for as many Canadian students as possible? I hope we shall not be told that there is no money available for this purpose. If the government had not been so careless with some of the money it has dissipated, money would have been available to provide these jobs.
Consider one or two examples: First, the National Arts Centre in Ottawa, estimated to cost $10 million but now to cost $50 million, $40 million more than had been estimated. If we gave students jobs, say at $1,000 for this season, which would be like pennies from Heaven for them, $40 million would create
40,000	student jobs. Just think of it! What about the cost of operating the Prime Minister's office which has increased by some $200,000-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired, unless he has leave to continue beyond his allotted time. Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Thank you. This subject is dear to my heart and I should like to expound on it further for a minute or so. I was about to say that had the increase in the cost of running the Prime Minister's office been applied to providing jobs for students it would have given employment to 200 students at $1,000 each.
Industrial employers also are not hiring as many students as formerly. The reason is partly to be found in changes in techniques, in products manufactured and in the structure of many industries, particularly those concerned with service. But these are changes of which the authorities have been aware for some time. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) have known about them for a long while and should have been taking steps to solve the difficulties which are now confronting us.
Our young people are faced this year with a situation in which fewer firms are hiring fewer people. It is as simple as that. The government has failed lamentably to meet the challenge presented by our eager young people. It has filled the air with inconsequential

issues, with dialogues and promises. Its members have had new offices built for them, have buttressed themselves with large staffs made up of defeated candidates and have given handsome salary boosts to their key officials. And this at a time when young people will be looking for jobs this summer, positions which they are entitled to find.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
In the meantime we have watched our fishing industry sink into ruin. The once great flow of Canadian export wheat has slowed to a trickle, and struggling family farms and businesses are now threatened with extinction by taxation. The tabling today of the proposed changes in the Estate Tax Act may help the situation, but this tabling has been brought about by the pressure applied by the opposition, the press and the public generally. Incidentally, I am pleased to see that the Minister of Finance is present in the chamber.
Although there are practical difficulties, if the right thinking is applied I am sure they will be overcome. However, many of our young people have been promised so much by Liberal governments but have received so little. For example, about six years ago the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Mr. Pearson, stated that all students in Canada would be given an opportunity to benefit from 10,000 scholarships of $1,000 apiece. This promise was made in each subsequent election campaign. Surely some of that money can be used in overcoming the problem of summer unemployment.
In conclusion, I urge the house to start thinking about people as human beings for once and to stop trying to shuffle them around and regiment them as though they were only figures in a ledger. I suggest a good place to start would be with our young people. A practical and effective program for the young Canadian job seeker would be the best way of starting. I will have no hesitation in supporting the motion of non-confidence which is before the house at the present time.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on the motion and the amendment thereto because it gives me an opportunity to discuss in depth the housing policies that this government has failed to present, as well as those policies that are conducive to a climate of full employment and economic growth.
January 30, 1969

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I made some remarks about the task force on housing and raised the hackles of some government members when I suggested that the report was a colossal fraud on the Canadian public and an outrageous expenditure of time, effort and money to underline for Canadians something they already knew, namely, that we have a housing crisis in Canada and that the federal government should take the role of leadership in attempting to solve it. The disappointing feature of the report of the task force on housing and urban development is that it constituted a position of "stand-patism" by the government. It retained old methods of financing and fixing interest rates and continued to ignore the groups that need help the most, namely, our senior citizens and those in the lower income brackets.
The recommendations in the report to the effect that public housing would be held up in order to conduct research into economic, social and psychological issues and that no further projects would be undertaken until the study was completed and, further, that urban renewal would be stopped until housing starts increased, came as shocking news not only to the members of this party but to all interested and concerned groups across the country. When we heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), in reply to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), say that he would study, and that was all, the recommendation regarding abatement of the sales tax, it reinforced our thinking that little or nothing would be done in this session to solve the housing crisis.
When one reads the report of the task force on housing and its declaration of principle that every Canadian should be entitled to clean, warm shelter as basic human right, certainly one is touched. When one reads the statement of the Canadian Welfare Council declaring that all Canadians have the right to be adequately housed whether or not they can afford it, again this principle is underlined. We in the New Democratic party state that housing is a basic necessity of life similar to education and medical services, and that all Canadians are entitled to decent housing, whether they can afford it or not. It would appear that most Canadians are in agreement with these general basic rights, and this brings up the question: Why the shortage of housing today?
I am going to enumerate very shortly five reasons which I put before hon. members for
DEBATES	4945
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment their consideration. First of all, the housing shortage, I submit, is due to the failure of the government to accept the leadership role in housing. In the past the government has played the role of the friendly banker only and has sheltered under the umbrella of the constitutional defence in order to take little or no action in this important field.
Second, the government has failed to assess our national housing needs and to ensure adequate financing. It appears quite obvious that the minister was far more successful in twisting the arms of the military in regard to integration than he has been in twisting the arms of the financial community in regard to adequate housing.
The third reason is the failure of the government and its policies to control interest rates. Yesterday I heard the Leader of the Opposition urge the government not to lift the ceiling on interest rates, which does appear to be the attitude and aim of the government, and I am wondering just how high interest rates can go. At the present time the government rate is 9| per cent and conventional rates range between 9J and 10 per cent.
My fourth reason is the failure of the initiatives, incentives and policies of the government in regard to public housing, urban renewal, senior citizens housing, co-op housing, and special housing projects for our Eskimos and Indians. The failure of the government to enunciate its policies in this connection was underlined at the federal-provincial conference last year, and in the meatime the government has taken little or no further action.
My fifth reason is the failure of the government to develop a social conscience toward the need for adequate housing. The government's selfish and limited view that housing should be regarded only as an economic regulator or as a private profit-making industry has caused some stress and shortage in the housing field. These, Mr. Speaker, are the five main reasons for the failure of the housing policies of the government in Canada today.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The report makes many recommendations, most of which will have to be implemented by municipal and provincial governments. However, some of them could form the basis of a federal housing policy, and the government ought to act on those immediately.
January 30, 1963
4946	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment
One may ask what the New Democratic party would do to solve housing problems if it were in a position to do so, and I shall tell hon. members some of the steps we would take. Hon. members will recall that the report of the task force on housing says that the housing needs of most Canadians ought to be met through the private market. The past performance of the private market shows that it can only meet the needs of about two-thirds of our people. The other third cannot buy homes because of high land costs, high material costs and high interest rates. They are left to the four winds of heaven when it comes to housing. Roughly one-third of our population cannot afford houses. We in the New Democratic party say that all Canadians ought to be entitled to houses as a matter of right. Housing is a basic human right, and whether or not a man can afford a house he is entitled to be housed.
We submit that 250,000 new homes ought to be built in 1969 if we are to take care of present needs and the housing shortage which has accumulated throughout previous years. The Economic Council of Canada said in its report that we ought to build 200,000 homes a year, that we need 190,000 homes a year to take care of present needs and 10,000 to replace older homes which need to be torn down. Yet the record of this government in the housing field has not been too good. In 1966 about 134,000 homes were built, in 1967 the figure was 164,000, and in 1968 it was
196.000.	It is obvious that Canada has a shortage of approximately 150,000 homes. That is why our target for new homes for this year is
250.000.
The New Democratic party would ensure, through legislative measures if necessary, that a steady flow of money from financial institutions is made available to meet our housing needs. Many financial institutions have not been investing in mortgages but in other fields. The housing report indicates that insurance companies invest 50 per cent of their funds in mortgages, trust and loan companies 60 per cent, banks 3.3 per cent, and pension funds 9 per cent.
Recent statements by insurance companies show they are reluctant and hesitant to invest in mortgages. There is no assurance that they will in fact invest in the mortgage field. We ought to make certain that an adequate proportion of the funds available from financial investment portfolios is applied to the mortgage field. Financial institutions ought to invest more of their funds in mortgages. At


present 42 per cent of the moneys needed for
community investment in housing comes from private financial institutions. Forty per cent of housing costs are met through down payments and other means of private financing, with the government meeting the other 18 per cent. We feel that the contribution of 18 per cent by the government ought to be increased to at least 25 per cent.
The report indicates that the government is satisfied with the 42 per cent supplied by private financial institutions. We are not satisfied with that figure and we do not think that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), by exerting gentle persuasion on the financial institutions, can ensure a steady flow of moneys into the mortgage market. I say that because of past performances we have witnessed. The minister invited representatives from a number of private financial institutions to Ottawa not long ago, the idea being to persuade them to invest more money in housing. He did not persuade them and in September had to obtain $170 million from the Canadian people to invest in housing. Our performance in housebuilding has not resulted from the performance of our financial institutions; it has resulted from government initiative in this field.
The New Democratic party also feels that churches, trade unions and other social organizations should be asked to harness their financial resources to help our nation's human needs. The National Housing Act has performed poorly in supplying homes for our senior citizens. Too little housing falling within the limited dividend category has been built. I am disappointed with the record of the churches. Their contribution toward the financing of homes has been poor. I am also disappointed with the performance of our trade unions in this field. They have made too little money available for housing. All these organizations ought to take a far more active part in this field in the future than they have taken in the past.
Present-day interest rates are nothing less than usurious. Interest rates are determined, apparently, by what the market can bear and not by the supply of money. I recall attending a symposium in Toronto set up by the former minister of labour, Mr. Nicholson. We heard Mr. David Mansen, one-time president of C.M.H.C., say that in this country mortgage money has never been in short supply. He said Canadian financial institutions have money flowing out of their ears. High interest rates have tended to limit borrowing. Many
January 30. 1969

of our institutions have priced themselves out of the market by asking for too much interest on loans. In short, people are just not buying.
The New Democratic party says that no Canadian ought to pay more than 5 per cent or 6 per cent interest on any mortgage loan. If any Canadian must pay more than 5 or 6 per cent on his mortgage we submit the government ought to subsidize the home owner by an amount equal to 50 per cent of the extra interest the home owner has to pay. Such a provision ought to apply to homes up to $25,000 in value. If a man had to pay 10 per cent on a first mortgage the government would pay half the difference between 6 per cent and 10 per cent, or 2 per cent. Economists say that such a program would cost the government only $50 million to $60 million a year, an insignificant amount when we consider the $1.5 billion we spend on defence every year.
Of course, our high interest rates are in part also caused by our fixed rate of exchange. It is said that high interest rates attract foreign capital to this country. Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that very little foreign capital entering Canada is applied to the housing field at the present time. I think it will be conceded by some that we ought to have a floating exchange rate. At any rate, that is our party's position on the question of interest rates.
High land costs have been and still are a significant factor in housing costs in Canada. The policies of this government have encouraged land speculation. At the same time the government ignored the recommendations of the Carter commission with regard to taxing capital gains. When I heard a Conservative member ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) this afternoon about the possibility of the government introducing a capital gains tax, and say that this was a preposterous idea, I wondered whether he was expressing the opinion of some of the members from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia where there are areas of great poverty. How do those members feel about a capital gains tax? We in the New Democratic party feel it is necessary to propose such a tax in order to cut down on land speculation.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
We in the New Democratic party also feel that a land bank is necessary. The government should use huge amounts of money to acquire land and make it available to cities and other municipalities which, in co-operation with their planning departments, would
DEBATES	4947
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment be able to establish regular building schemes to take care of their particular needs.
Our party's insistence on the setting up a Crown building corporation is one of the striking features that separates us from the other parties. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that during the debate on the drug bill one of our main planks was the setting up of a corporation to manufacture a certain number of drugs in order to stimulate a competitive price situation in which Canadians could get drugs at a reasonable cost.
We feel that a Crown building corporation should be established to specialize in senior citizens housing, public housing and research. Very little or no research is being done in the building field at present. We must take government action to set up a research department to incorporate all the new building techniques and materials into a building scheme. Private builders have neither the time, the money nor the inclination to develop this field. To say the least, their attitude with regard to public housing and senior citizens housing has been discouraging. This is why there is a shortage of housing for our low income groups and senior citizens. We propose the immediate establishement of a Crown building corporation to take care of these needs. We do so because it will require a large corporation to assume this responsibility and to get away from the row upon row of strawberry boxes that some builders erect nowadays.
When I read the recommendations of the task force on housing with regard to urban renewal and public housing it made me feel sad to think that a group of people could travel across the country, spend a few days in various cities, and come up with such recommendations. The task force recommended that no public housing projects should be continued until a full study is made of the social, economic and psychological factors involved in public housing. This totally ignores the successful public housing projects that have been undertaken in Great Britain and other European countries.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has
expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
January 30, 1969
4948	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment Mr. Gilbert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I shall take only about two minutes to conclude. The government's attitude to public housing is disappointing, to say the least. It is directly contrary to the trends that prevail in Great Britain and other European countries, and directly contrary to the policies enunciated by the United States.
The task force described public housing developments as ghettos. I say that was a wrong conclusion for it to reach. I have here a statement issued by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities which says:
[DOT]-the Federation wishes to make clear that:
-sweeping generalizations to the effect that public housing is a ghetto (in Canada) and that the majority of public housing residents are unhappy and dissatisfied with this form of housing assistance are without foundation;
-to deplore the high cost (per unit) of public housing projects and to conclude from this that less costly public housing only should be approved and financed by the public purse (through elimination of "trimmings", by providing fewer complementary amenities, etc.) is to move in the reverse direction to that which should and must be followed if public housing is to continue to exist in our arsenal of housing policies;
The task force's recommendation that urban renewal projects not be continued until an increase in the housing stock is available is also discouraging. It gives the impression that any urban renewal scheme involves the bulldozer approach, that a bulldozer goes in and knocks down all the homes in the area. This is not so. In fact, in my riding only part of an urban renewal area was treated in this way and loans were made available to the remaining home owners so they could improve their homes. To give the false impression that the bulldozer approach has always been applied and has produced bad results is again disgusting and disappointing.
I have had only a short time to set forth some of my criticisms of the report made by the task force and some of the policies that we in the New Democratic party would put into effect. I have not covered them all and I hope that shortly I will be able to spell them out more fully.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, all my life I have been interested in the unemployment problems, at first as a union man, then as Minister of Manpower and Immigration and now as minister designate of regional development.


I have studied unemployment problems affecting not only Canada, but other countries such as England, France, Holland, Germany and Italy. I have tried to find out how various governments attempted to deal with this plight afflicting our economic systems, especially our free economies and even those which are somewhat less free.
Like everyone else, I realized that, among the many types of government, whether they be socialist, liberal, conservative or even coalition, the only people offering an effective solution to the unemployment problem are those who are not in power, that is the opposition. This is true not only here in Canada, but in every other country. The opposition has adequate solutions. But naturally, once in office, they are faced with the same difficulties and, understandably, the solutions prove to be more difficult. In fact, I can very well understand the position of the opposition and I know what I would say if I were sitting across from here.
Ever since Confederation, the unemployment situation has been a continuous problem in Canada. The different governments have tried various methods to solve it. Attempts have been made to provide equal employment opportunities from Halifax to Vancouver and in Newfoundland, since it joined the Confederation. Mr. Speaker, the first step taken was to build railroads to join the eastern and western parts of the country in the hope of eliminating regional disparities and of creating new jobs. This was intended to achieve full employment.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
We came to realize that this very generous and even brilliant idea of the Fathers of Confederation did not allow them to achieve the purposes they had intended. Then came the 1929 recession combined with unemployment which lasted from 1930 to 1940. In short it was only the war which made it possible to solve the chronic unemployment problem in Canada. An attempt was then made to discover new ways.
Following the report of the Rowell-Sirois commission, it was advanced that through a better distribution of the tax basis, and a larger share of the revenues to the provinces, we would no doubt restore that balance which was inexistent in our country and which was responsible for the development of certain areas and lack of it in others.
After a few years, we came to realize that even that formula was not satisfactory. It is
January 30, 1969

then that the governments-Conservative as well as Liberal-tried to set up special programs.
An attempt was made to create bodies which would enable us to restore the much sought after balance, which would reduce unemployment and which would mainly eliminate seasonal unemployment. All sorts of programs were developed, ARDA, FRED, PFRA in Western Canada and, special programs for the Maritimes. We endeavoured with all sorts of programs to alleviate regional disparities and seasonal unemployment, even to create a state of nearly full employment. After all these experiments, all these efforts, we realize that we have not yet struck at the root of evil since it still persists.
The situation is not perhaps as desperate as it was described. Of course, when one person who wants to work is unemployed it is a tragedy, but when 300,000 persons are involved it is a greater tragedy yet. However, if we admit that in an economy such as ours, a 3 per cent unemployment rate is acceptable, then a 4.7 per cent unemployment rate is not a tragedy for the country as a whole, in view of the excessive unemployment which prevails in the Maritimes and in the province of Quebec.
The tragedy exists in the Maritimes and in the Quebec area, below Trois-Rivieres. A real human tragedy exists there and I agree with the opposition on that point. But I do not believe all the alarming statements made yesterday in this house are well-founded as regards the rest of Canada, where there is of course unemployment and underemployment, but where the situation has not yet reached the proportions of a crisis.
The efforts made have not proved satisfactory. The establishment of the Atlantic Devel-lopment Board has undoubtedly been of great assistance, but that agency was also unable to solve the problem in the Maritimes.
It was therefore essential to find something else and that is what we have been striving at since the government asked us to look after regional development. And I say "us", as I was not the only one concerned, since efforts were made by the whole department. This is not simply a matter of creating a department with a reference to regional development in its name, but mainly of considering the passing of new legislation, of a new policy, in order to solve the problems that have proved until now unsolvable in spite of the willingness shown by the various governments that dealt with them.
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment
There have been fragmentary efforts, such as the creation of DEVCO, to cope with underemployment and unemployment in a particular area of this country. There was the DOSCO experience, with the co-operation of the government of Nova Scotia, to prevent the situation from deteriorating, and the experience was a worthy one. But in spite of all those efforts, of unequal value, unemployment still exists in Canada.
I tried to go through the laws we are now administering. There is for instance the industrial development legislation, enabling us to promote industrial development in certain designated areas.
This law has been useful in the past but everybody realizes today its defects and its shortcomings.
For example, some cities that are relatively prosperous are located in a designated area and can get grants from the federal government.
The reverse situation is also possible. Indeed cities that suffer from economic depression cannot get grants from the federal government, because the area in which they are located cannot be designated.
We know that several millions were wasted in some areas of the country because our policies were inadequate. It was an experiment and if we had to do the whole thing over again, we would certainly not make the same mistakes. And here, I am referring to all the governments, because such attempts were sincere. When some hon. members state dramatically in this house that the government never did anything to fight unemployment, that it was not concerned about the jobless, they are indulging somewhat in demagogy. If they tell us, however, that it is not perfect, that the instruments are not sufficient and that the effort is not big enough, this I will concede immediately. This is what we shall attempt to do.
If the government is accused of doing absolutely nothing about unemployment and the unemployed, this looks more like demagogy than like serious argumentation.
No doubt remains when one studies the progress of social security in Canada and when one examines our whole social legislation. All this is intended to protect the workers against the possibility of unemployment, of disease and against the risks of life, in general. All the same, the situation in 1969 is different from what it was 25, 30 or 50 years ago.
January 30, 1969
4950	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment
Governments have passed a great number of laws, and labour is no doubt better protected today than it used to be. However, things are still far from perfect and will probably never be. I therefore share the fears of the opposition.
I do admit it might be possible, now, to improve the situation. So, how are we going to tackle this new regional development? I think our attitude is going to be slightly different from that of the federal government, so far, whether Conservative or Liberal.
Our efforts will probably aim-I am not referring to the possible content of a bill, but to some ideas that sometimes come into my mind-at developing centres of growth rather than expanding our resources in a huge area, at the risk of losing them. We should indeed try to concentrate our resources so as to provide each and every area, with poles of growth towards which those who seek employment would normally be attracted.
For instance, I find it absolutely unbelievable that almost all the Maritimes should be designated areas, except Halifax and a few other centres such as Dartmouth-Halifax and St. John, which had a normal trend toward development. Those cities were the only ones to be denied government grants for industrial development.
The same thing is happening in the province of Quebec. One of the most important human communities in the Quebec area, I mean the city of Quebec, is not developing though it is the natural center of a huge area that extends as far as the Lower St. Lawrence region. But the city of Quebec cannot benefit from the subsidies granted by the federal government.
The situation is the same for several other cities in the Maritimes, and in Newfoundland, of course. That explains the delay. We are seeking a new philosophy, to see if there may not be new ways of putting an end to unemployment in Canada or, at least, of reducing it, and seeing to it that its impact on human beings is not as severe as it has been in the past. I doubt that these will be magic measures.
I read the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in which he says: At last, we have the formula. I know the Progressive Conservative program, and I admit it has some good points. However, I feel that the Leader of the Opposition is being very optimistic when he is so sure that those measures will produce the results he


mentions. If it were possible, I would put him in office for three months to try out his formulas, after which time we might be able to have a more objective discussion. But, in any event, we will not run that risk. If that is the result of progressive-conservative party thinking, so much the better. I am even willing to use as a source of inspiration the good ideas suggested by the opposition. But, I doubt that anyone has found the magic formula, especially in Canada, which is a huge country, and very difficult to govern.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Some claim that a speedier or stronger intervention on the part of the State could put an end to unemployment. I should like to ask Mr. Wilson, the Prime Minister of England, how he managed to solve the unemployment problem in the United Kingdom, because, at the time of the monetary crisis he was forced, no less, to create systematic unemployment in England. I do not blame him. He was forced to do it and I suppose any other responsible government would have had to take similar steps. However, we know that Mr. Wilson's speeches, when he was a member of the opposition and told the government how to put an end to unemployment in England, and those he delivers now as head of the government, are different. It is the same man, undoubtedly as honest and as intelligent in both cases, but he is now faced with difficulties, and he does what he can.
One can accuse the government of not having found the magic formula and, I think, rightly, because we have not found it. But we cannot be accused of not making the necessary efforts to solve that problem.
I do not intend to speak of considerable economic planning, or to establish far-reaching programs which would apply from Halifax to Vancouver, to create in our country prosperity and growth on a permanent basis. However, I intend, when the department is created, to introduce in the house new measures which will enable us to grapple more realistically with that crucial and fundamental problem which has not yet been solved.
Partial attempts were made when I was Minister of Manpower. We amended the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act so as to be able to look after a new type of unemployed, the technological unemployed laid off because there are no more jobs for them. Not only that, but their trades are no longer useful in a modern economy.
January 30, 1969

So the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act was amended in such a way as to make it a lot more generous than the previous one. The new act enables a worker to be retrained, but as the honourable member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said, a single piece of legislation is not enough to check unemployment. It is true that the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act does not systematically fight unemployment. It is rather aimed at fighting one type of unemployment and, even within that type, a given category of unemployed, namely those who can be retrained or rehabilitated.
It is a partial solution. We have never suggested that we could put an end to unemployment through this measure, but it has enabled us to rehabilitate thousands of Canadian workers who would have been not only unemployed but also unskilled. If we have succeeded through that legislation, Mr. Speaker, in giving new hope to 25,000, 30,000 or 50,000 Canadian workers, that legislation will have achieved its aim. I feel that instead of trying to downgrade it, we should endeavour to improve it and make it more efficient, in order that it may achieve its object. But once again, such legislation was never meant to put an end to unemployment in Canada. Whoever makes such a statement has never read it.
To my knowledge, no hon. member on this side of the house has suggested-


John Edward Broadbent: Would the minister permit a question? Do I understand the minister is suggesting that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) was attempting to pull down the manpower retraining program when he suggested it was inadequate to deal with the broader problem of unemployment?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I only
say that the hon. member for York South has been very hard on this legislation and on the former Manpower Department which, he says, has not succeeded in eliminating unemployment in Canada. I cannot refer precisely to his text, but that is what I can remember from it.
Not even the Manpower Department is intended to fight general unemployment in Canada.
My new department will have a much greater opportunity to achieve that end. The Department of Manpower has employment
DEBATES	4951
Alleged. Failure to Reduce Unemployment and rehabilitation services. The only program which really grappled with seasonal employment, was the winter works program. The other branches of the department are not at all engaged or trying to remedy the situation -it is not their function nor their purpose. However, the necessary instruments to fight that particular type of unemployment and to rehabilitate the workers are available to the department.
An attack against that legislation or the department once again would be of no avail because we have to consider unemployment as it is. If we want to fight it, not only one measure but a series of measures have to be introduced. First of all there is the kind of unemployment which is due to a lack of general growth in the country and which can be, I confess, the result of the general policy of the government, of its financial, fiscal or public expenditures policy. This is the unemployment phenomenon which, at a given time, appears all accross the country.
I believe the problems to be real at that level but I do not think that the situation could be described as a tragedy. The tragedy lies in the field of seasonal and regional unemployment which prevails especially the Maritimes, in eastern Quebec, in northern Ontario, in the northern part of the western provinces. These areas are really confronted with serious problems. We are trying to come up with and develop formulas which might alleviate this kind of pernicious unemployment, which will not go away in spite of all our efforts, and which of course is a source of tremendous problems for those who are affected by it.
What we will try to do with this new department is to think in new terms the whole philosophy of regional development in our country.
I cannot promise the house we are going to work wonders, but I can give it the assurance that we shall make serious efforts. In fact, we shall bring radical changes, for certain laws, well thought out at the outset, are no longer effective and some of them were even detrimental in some way to the workers.
For instance, the industrial development legislation, or ARDA, has often been used to bring about excessive development in some industrial fields, the result of which was to saturate the market and create an unemployment problem that we cannot solve anymore. There are therefore defects to be corrected and we are aware of that.

Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment
I hope that within two weeks, as was mentioned by the house leader, we shall be able to introduce in this house the new legislation concerning rural development. I also hope that, before next spring, we shall have a more precise, more adequate legislation, so as to be able to abolish regional disparities especially and provide all the citizens of this country with equal employment opportunities and almost equal opportunities to increase their income. Such is the goal we set ourselves and are efficiently trying to reach, I hope, and we even count on the support of the opposition, if they really want to help the workers, as they say they do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolietie):: Mr. Speaker, the motion now before the house is not intended, as some hon. members might think, to express the opinions of the opposition only or for the sake of opposition. It is recognized that a serious problem exists both by us and the government members. With this thought in mind, I think that our joint consideration of this situation should be adequate proof for all members that, as members of the opposition, we realize the extent of our responsibilities and I hope that we will be able to participate efficiently in the administration of the country.
As I listened to the remarks of the minister, I felt that once this new department is established, we will be in a position to improve the present situation in a remarkable way. We will be glad to welcome this new minister and I think that yesterday the leader of the opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was asking for the establishment of this department as soon as possible. We all agree that if this legislation were presented within the next few days, we would gladly approve it as we feel that it would prove most beneficial to the workers.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I heard the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) say, that we will not achieve anything through lamentations and complaints. I quite agree with him, but since we have certain measures to propose and are in favour, the implementation of some projects, I think it would be improper to keep silent and to ignore the present difficult circumstances.
The arguments of the minister were somewhat weak. Indeed, he simply gave me the impression that he was pleased with the present situation, in view of the particularly difficult years we are now going through.

DEBATES	January 30, 1969
To my mind, the motion for a debate on this urgent problem leads us to recognizing the existence of a need and of a danger.
As for the argument of the Minister of Labour yesterday, to the effect that we have known more difficult times, I take the liberty of questioning that. Of course we have known more difficult times, but is that any reason for getting used to this intolerable situation? He gave us figures on unemployment, but as they seem to apply more to years past than to the present, I feel that we were justified in asking for a debate.
Indeed, this debate has a double object, that of recognizing not only that the situation is difficult, but also of finding solutions to unemployment, for in December there were 373,000 unemployed, that is 20,000 more than at the same time last year.
In January 1968, there were 464,000 unemployed and at the present rate of increase there will be about 500,000 unemployed this month. And the worst thing is that 164,000 married men are now without work, that is
18.000	more than last year. In the category of the most productive workers, that is the workers between 20 and 60 years of age, the number of unemployed reaches 300,000. As for those who have been unemployed for over three months, there are 100,000 of them.
In Ontario, unemployment decreased by
4.000	while it has increased by 26,000 in Quebec. The rate of unemployment in the Atlantic provinces was 7 per cent, compared to 6.8 per cent in Quebec and 3 per cent in Ontario. The increase in the number of persons employed in Ontario was 103,000, in the Prairies,
60.000	and in British Columbia, 43,000.
The government must recognize that the rate of unemployment in the province of Quebec remains at a higher level than elsewhere. Several workers in that province will continue to feel the effects of economic discrimination. It is obvious that the students of that province who could not find work had reasons to protest by organizing demonstrations.
This is a national problem, in Quebec as well as in the Atlantic provinces; and as long as the federal government does not show any concern about it, the parties which suggest sensible answers will have a better chance of winning the support of the people.
The situation in Quebec the plight of the Atlantic farmers, rural poverty and manpower retraining, such are the problems which deserve a priority they have certainly
January 30, 1969	COMMONS
been denied under the present government however serious these problems may be.
In the province of Quebec, a huge amount of the provincial revenue is allocated to the reform of the school system. That makes sense as long as enough jobs are provided to keep up with the growing labour force. The effort toward education reduces the funds available to meet the needs of agriculture and to fight rural poverty.
That is the reason why the federal government should acknowledge the serious situation in which a great number of Canadians living in Quebec and in the Maritimes find themselves.
Perhaps the situation could have been improved if some commitments had been respected to a certain extent.
Were we told the truth, three or four months ago, when the public was made to believe that the economic situation was sound and when there was talk about a very urgent need to stabilize the budget and about cooperative federalism.
As for co-operative federalism, we are indeed obliged today to reproach the present government with having neglected to cooperate with the provinces.
It was decided, for example, to cancel the winter works program, but today, the increase in unemployment during the winter months shows clearly that putting an end to that program increases considerably the number of unemployed, particularly in the province of Quebec. Indeed, in a brief that was sent to all hon. members, the Canadian Federation of Mayors admits openly that the cancellation of the winter program creates a very thorny problem for several municipalities.
I remember asking the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if the provinces had been consulted, and I was told simply that the provinces should have expected it. But, in fact, the provinces were not ready, because the municipalities had not been consulted. It was quite well known that the budgets had been prepared on the basis of these subsidies and all of a sudden the municipalities are deprived of every hope, because a lot of works are cancelled by this very fact.
I admit with the present government that this winter works program was not perfect, because it would have been necessary, I think, to select these works properly by accepting only those that were absolutely
DEBATES	49S3
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment needed, such as the construction of municipal buildings and certain public utility works But to go as far as refusing all these works' that was another matter. We must recognize', if we are objective, that the cancellation of this program increased the rate of unemployment, particularly in our province and in the rest of Canada.
I should like also to say a word about housing, mainly about the report which was tabled yesterday. It is all very well to talk about home building in Canada, but it must be kept in mind that under the existing legislation, the interest rate charged by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation represents a very serious problem for the people who have an irregular or average income.
The new legislation on housing provides for bigger loans and for an extension of payments over a longer period. This is not, in my opinion, the kind of measure likely to help the citizen with an average income. Let us be objective, let us recognize that it is absolutely necessary to abolish the 11 per cent tax on building materials so as to make the building costs of a house a little more acceptable. If wage-earners with an average income are not assured of a suitable interest rate, they will be unable to secure loans. In fact, anyone who earns $6,000, $7,000, $8,000 or $9,000 cannot borrow at more than 5 or 6 per cent and I think that the government would benefit by giving him a rebate proportionate, of course, to his income.
This is one way of doing it. I am sure there are many others because I am suggesting one at the moment. In this way we could get the economy going again in the housing field and check any adverse effects which might be felt in the forthcoming year.
As to the report which was tabled yesterday by the minister, it simply reflects the recommendations of the Canada Economic Council. This report was already discussed today in some editorials which recognize that the suggested solutions are not terribly new. However I am thinking of that very important rebate and of that 11 per cent tax which should be abolished. These are concrete measures which might promote housing. When we refer to housing in Canada, we know that many things are connected with that field which has a tremendous effect on our Canadian economy.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Those are suggestions. I do not want to take up the time of the house by merely
4954	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment criticizing and accusing the governments that have done nothing. I am not among those who think governments do nothing, but I believe that all together we can do more and do better.
I already dealt with the possibility of enabling the farmers to benefit from cheaper labour through the help of Unemployment Insurance offices. At the present time we are paying people to do nothing on account of our unemployment insurance system and the farmer needs workers of one kind during certain periods of the year and of another kind during the whole year.
That would enable him, I believe, to get cheaper labour, while the government would not have to pay a cent more. Whenever one requests something of the government, he can always be answered in the following way: who is going to pay?
We know of working people earning $50 per week while some others who are not working are paid weekly benefits of $50. It is important to make our population and our unemployed people productive. I thought farmers could pay a sum equal to the unemployment insurance benefits, thereby helping someone willing to work for a reasonable salary. As a matter of fact, a worker would get double what he is getting unemployment insurance benefits without the government paying a single cent. Thus, the producer's or the farmer's production costs would be lower and the consumer would benefit by it.
Another idea comes to my mind that I should like to offer as a suggestion to the government in order to have them adopt helpful measures for the population.
Unemployment Insurance offices were centralized, which to my mind does not lead, at least in my constituency, to the expected results and complaints were made as to that. Reasons of economy were given and perhaps justifiably so. As for the service given, it is obvious that it is very poor at the present time. Actually, how can you expect unemployed people to make long distance telephone calls or to travel 25 or 30 miles in order to collect their benefits?
I will give you some facts. In my riding, people are now compelled to go to St. Jerome. On the other hand, Sorel residents, though not residing in my riding, have to travel to Longueuil.
In my opinion, these regulations are not very impressive, but they would be very useful to the unemployed. This policy should be

DEBATES	January 30, 1969
re-examined in order to assist the unemployed who are eligible to benefits and the employers who are often in need of information.
In spite of all, let us hope Canadians will not become disenchanted. They could easily lose faith because, in the course of an election campaign, the bright prospect of a just society was held out to them, but today's reality is a far cry in relation to what they had hoped for.
There have been talks of a department of regional development and it is still a current topic. Such a department was to bring about important advantages for the people.
There were discussions about an economic situation that was seemingly quite healthy but it was immediately realized that there were some problems to be solved.
Three or four months ago, it was felt that things were not quite right. Our friends would not admit it then, but now the Minister is finding out that problems do exist. He also agrees that solutions are not always easy to come by and that the members of the opposition seem to know what should be done.
We do not propose to offer magic solutions or to have all the answers to the present problems, far from it! However, we acknowledged the problem, four months ago, though the government members denied it. That is why the people are disappointed. The fleeting dream is becoming more and more of a nightmare. They cannot help feeling that way, for, no later than yesterday night, we were told about the closing, in Montreal, of "Terre des Hommes" because of growing difficulties. This decision, made by the responsible authorities, will probably cause more unemployment for the city of Montreal.
Will the federal government do something about it? The question was asked this afternoon. The right honourable Prime Minister's view seems to be that this does not fall under federal jurisdiction. But why should not the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) invite those concerned to discuss some kind of master plan to try to find an answer that would be acceptable to the federal and provincial governments and to the city of Montreal.
After all, we must admit that the city of Montreal has some bearing on the economy of Canada.
As a matter of fact, there are over 56 members from Quebec in the government and a good number of them represent the city of
January 30, 1969

Montreal. I appeal to all hon. members from Quebec to take a look at this increase of
26,000	unemployed they have now in their province. All the government members from Quebec should consider the situation and I would be only too glad to co-operate the best I can. The province of Quebec is entitled to be adequately represented and the federal members should do everything in their power to compel the party in power to give special consideration to their province.
It has often been said that the situation of Quebec is different, but it is hard to have it recognized in practice. Unemployment, however, is acknowledged as a special problem. In my opinion, the federal members from Quebec have every right to tackle this very serious matter.
Yesterday, for instance, I was listening to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) when he said that were the opportunity given to him of investing a million dollars in Quebec, he would be glad to do so, since the last elections have proved beyond any doubt that the overwhelming majority of the French and English-speaking people of the province of Quebec wanted to stay in Confederration.
I was very glad to hear the Minister of Labour express that view. However, we should co-operate through a better representation and by passing laws which will affect not only the province of Quebec but Canada as a whole. Better legislative measures should be adopted in order to satisfy a province which surely has needs just like every other one.
Mr. Speaker, allow me, in closing, to recall the words-with which I fully agree-of the Leader of the Opposition when he said that the motion before us was meant to prove to the government members that we also recognize the difficulties, that our interventions were designed to solve a situation which cannot be allowed to last.
This proposal asks the government, on behalf of the Canadian people, to adopt legislative measures which will guarantee the country the rates of growth required to give labour the necessary employment in the future and to reduce the unduly high rate of unemployment.
This was the object of the motion moved yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, and as far as I am concerned I support it. To the Minister of Labour who said: "We are determined to act," I say we are ready to act, to do more and to do better.
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate on economic matters. It has been a good debate up to this point. Several hon. members have attempted to paint a black picture of the economy of Canada. I take exception to many of their comments along this line.
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) that we cannot treat unemployment callously; we cannot talk of unemployment simply in terms of figures. I agree that there is a human element involved. I also agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and with the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey) that there are serious problems affecting western agriculture. I am equally in agreement with what is said by hon. members from the Atlantic provinces when they outline in the house the serious difficulties faced by the people in that part of the country. I can agree also with the point of view expressed by hon. members from Quebec, though I am in accord, too, with what was said by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) in his sound analysis yesterday of the situation in that province.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke of the economic problems of Canada and of rural development practically in the same breath. I am somewhat concerned that more and more members should be speaking increasingly of rural development in terms almost synonymous with mass government welfare assistance. The Leader of the Opposition also talked about unemployment in the west and related it to the difficulties in agriculture. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition was revealing his ignorance of the west while at the same time seeking excessive consideration for that part of the country from which he comes. I hope this is not the case but the facts point to this conclusion.
The western part of Canada is not dependent simply upon agriculture although in most parts of that region agriculture is the major element in the economy. Let me draw attention to a few facts to set the record straight. The rate of unemployment on the prairies on December 14, according to the latest available figures, was 3.4 per cent. This was second only to Ontario. In Alberta, I am pleased to say, unemployment was the lowest in Canada at 2.9 per cent. Perhaps some of the hon.
January 30, 1969
4956	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment members from that province would inform the Leader of the Opposition of this fact.
The Leader of the Opposition was critical of the government with regard to the rate of growth of our exports, and the volume of exports going to the United States compared with the volume going to other countries. I should like to point out that in my constituency alone within the last few weeks contracts have been signed for the export of more than $1 billion worth of coal to Japan.
How is this correlated with rural development? It is obvious that in Canada there are certain growth areas. It is equally obvious that there are areas where serious economic problems exist. I submit that the concept of rural development must take account not only of current unemployment statistics but of economic potential. Rural development means looking at our areas of strength, not only at our areas of weakness. It may mean moving people into areas of economic strength from areas of economic depression.
If I may go back into history I should like to point out that this is not a new concept to Canadians. While civilization in this country was started by people who were willing to move, willing to travel over distances which were in those days unimaginable in order to start a new economy in another part of the world. The western regions of this country were built up by people who, similarly, were willing to move.
Despite the fact that we are living in a day and age when our population should be more mobile, it is in fact becoming more static. I submit that the government is on the right track when it brings in programs of retraining, programs of adult education, programs which will make our population more mobile. It is a provable fact that a person with less education is less likely to move to areas of greater economic opportunity.
I have touched on the solutions. One of them is the mobility of the labour force. Another is the retraining of the labour force, and a third is the education of our people to higher levels. Perhaps the last two requirements are prerequisite to the first. A fourth solution, and one which I believe this government is following, is the introduction of a system of regional development based on economic potential. It does not make sense to jump ill-prepared into programs which it is hoped will produce long term benefits. I suggest that programs undertaken without sufficient thought fail to produce benefits of this type.

Various programs have been undertaken in this country in an effort to bring economic benefits to particular regions. We have resorted to programs which were not sufficiently well thought out, ad hoc programs which failed to produce the long term benefits intended. Most of the programs that we have seen implemented to date in this country have been of minimal lasting benefit. I am pleased that the government is now giving a great deal of thought to methods to correct economic disparity.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The fifth solution to our economic problems, I submit, is to develop the proper attitude and mentality among the people of Canada. I deplore those who erode the confidence of Canadians, those who plant the seeds of doubt, who ask for excessive assistance and who paint a gloomy picture of the present and future of this country. I suggest that these people do a disservice to Canada. If that is what the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to do by moving his motion yesterday, then I congratulate the people of Canada for not voting for him in greater numbers at the polls last June 25.
I have faith in the economic future of this country. I have confidence that the government is contemplating at the present time a reasoned and logical program for regional and economical development, and I am pleased to say that I shall have to vote against the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, as seconder of the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) I have what I consider to be some pointed remarks to make on the motion which is to be tested by this house tonight.
I listened with interest to the speech of the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Marchand). His speeches are always interesting and his oratorical style always fiery. But what he said seemed to take me back to the days when I sat in this house with some of those who once sat across the way, including the former member for Bona-vista-Twillingate, though I was not here when Mr. Howe was in the house. I thought that with a new government and with a just society the minister, especially in view of his labour background, would have had more to say about what could be done in regard to unemployment in this country. I thought he might have dealt with that part of the motion
January 30, 1969

referring to university students entering the labour market. This subject was dealt with by my colleague this afternoon and should definitely have been dealt with by the government.
Another matter that I understand is close to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development and which certainly involves areas of the country such as the Atlantic provinces and the west coast is shipbuilding and unemployment in our shipyards today. I believe that today a cabinet committee, composed of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), and I think the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Jamieson), is meeting the Canadian Shipbuilding Association, and I hope that as a result some policies will be brought forward to arrest the very heavy unemployment existing at present in our shipyards.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has suggested from time to time that our shipyards should be rationalized. I think they have been to as great an extent as possible. I recall that in previous debates in the house I put forward suggestions to assist in formulating a policy to create employment in our shipyards. For example, I suggested that the subsidy on steel trawlers, which has been cut back from 50 to 35 per cent, should be reinstated in the case of fishing companies that are attempting to replace obsolete equipment. Another suggestion concerned something that is done in other countries by way of long term financing and depreciation allowances, and also investment allowances which I believe are made in the United Kingdom. I think the minister might have dealt with these questions, but nevertheless I hope that some policy will be forthcoming at an early date in connection with our shipyards and also the establishment of a merchant marine in this country.
Before I deal with other points, one other mattter that was dealt with by my colleague, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), was the submission put forward by the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities. I will not go into this question fully in view of the short time I have, but I think the submissions they made, as outlined in their release of December, 1968, bear repetition.
The federation pointed out that the winter works program was discontinued without prior notice to the municipalities. As the brief 29180-314
DEBATES	4957
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment states, the cancellation was announced without warning 60 days before the commencement of the expected 1968-69 program. The federation points out that it believes a replacement program should be brought forward by the government to deal with, for example, the installation of water mains and other major waterworks projects, the installation of trunk sewers and other sewage collection projects and, third, storm sewer installations. In their brief they suggest that these projects could be implemented by amending the National Housing Act. They further point out that these projects will provide winter employment and that these services are essential in housing construction.
The figures for unemployment in Canada have been related by a number of speakers in this debate. I listened to the speech of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) who put a lot of statistics on the record. I do not intend to duplicate them, but I do think he should have dealt with certain matters and certainly have admitted that there is a serious unemployment problem. I think that the minister of rural development was quite fair in his remarks in this regard.
The minister of rural development should also have seized upon the opportunity today to give the house and especially people in the Atlantic area some idea when his new department will be set up. I know this is subject to the business before the house, but I hope it will be soon because there is a lot of uneasiness in the Atlantic provinces, especially in regard to the Atlantic Development Board. Although we hear stories and rumours about it, I hope that the board will remain a separate entity, that it will continue to do necessary work in our area and not become a sort of advisory board to the minister. What 1 am afraid of is that the board, which was set up by the previous Conservative government and carried on by the succeeding Liberal government and until this date by the present government, will be lumped together with other boards or with some other branch of the ministry of rural development and in some way become lost. I hope this will not be the case.
The Minister of Labour pointed out that the government, through the offices of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, is going to introduce vocational training for Canadians. I believe in this in the long run, but I think that the remedies that have been proposed should have included assistance for
January 30, 1969
4958	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment workers in our shipyards during this especially tough winter season. The vocational training schools program introduced by the government which I had the honour to support was very successful. The government paid 75 per cent of the construction costs of such schools in my constituency and the schools have been a godsend. The schools are doing good work in helping to train our youngsters who are leaving high school and our adults who have been working for some time. The government of that day did not introduce that program as a mere housekeeping measure. It introduced it in order to help in the fight against unemployment.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
To emphasize the seriousness of the present situation I wish to quote the words of a serious and thoughtful Canadian spoken in 1959 when I was sitting in the seats now occupied by the uneasy. I refer to hon. Paul Martin, who played no small part in the policies of the Liberal party. His remarks are reported on page 2135 of Hansard for March 23, 1959. He was raising his voice on behalf of the unemployed and said:
X submit there is no problem of greater emergency in our country at this time than the fact that we have almost half a million people out of work. This problem persists in spite of government policy and in spite of government assurances of amelioration.
The difference between the government of that day and the present government is simple. That government had a policy in this field. Today we have no government policy and we have no assurance that the situation will be improved. We have asked the Prime Minister, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the Minister of Labour to indicate what programs this government has to deal with unemployment. So far we have had no indication that any program whatever is to be instituted.
To emphasize once more the seriousness and gravity of the situation I wish to turn once more to the words of that tribune of this nation, hon. Paul Martin, who has recently been elevated to the other place. These words are reported at page 646 of Hansard for February 2, 1960, and are as follows:
When we talk about this matter-
Unemployment.
-we should recognize that the statistics on unemployment are not made up only of figures; they consist of men and women on whom many others depend for their maintenance and welfare.


That statement was made when the Liberal party had a heart. If the statistics of that day covered men and women, they cover men and women today to no less an extent. They are the same types of men and women who have similar responsibilities. If unemployment was undesirable and a national emergency then, it still is now. Senator Martin recently said:
Unemployment makes a man seem useless, not wanted, without a country; it makes a man live in fear and from fear springs hate.
Those words apply forcefully today and lead to this question. At what point did widespread unemployment cease to concern members of the party opposite? That question has been asked before, and I ask it again now. The former minister of finance has said on a number of occasions that we can tolerate a certain amount of unemployment as an antidote to inflation. But now we have both unemployment and inflation. We have unemployment because the government has siphoned off too large a portion of the national income from the private sector. The construction industry, which in normal years employs one million Canadians, has been starved by the government because the tax on building materials has put housing beyond the reach of middle-income Canadians.
Right now a tug of war is taking place between the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance. It is the public that will suffer or benefit from the result. We shall have to wait and see whether the Minister of Transport and his boys can persuade the cabinet to come over on their side. Although I have never taken sides as between these ministers, I hope the Minister of Transport wins.
The government's policies have produced unemployment. Its incentive destroying taxes have placed enterprise in a strait-jacket.
I share a problem with many other hon. members in that there are homes in my riding where the doors have been darkened by the spectre of unemployment since this government took office. Across the less-favoured regions of this vast nation gallop the twin spectres of unemployment and inflation. They are two horsemen of the Apocalypse and are hotly pursued by the third horseman, the former secretary of state who has written a book. I apologize; I should have said horsewoman. Her work is a valuable addition to the library of Liberal literature. We had Walter Gordon's contribution, "Troubled Canada", and now we have the postscript describing the cabinet as a gilded cage. But the present cabinet is a cage without gilding.
January 30, 1969
In this country unemployment is higher than last year; 20,000 more people are unemployed than at the same time last year. At present 164,000 married men are without work, 18,000 more than last year. This is serious. Those in their most productive years, between 20 and 60, form one of our largest groups of unemployed. In that group 300,000 people are unemployed. That is serious. Those who have been unemployed for more than three months now number almost 100,000. That is very serious.
I wish to talk about the Atlantic provinces now. The labour force in the Atlantic provinces declined by about 5 per cent, yet unemployment has risen by 3,000. That represents a total loss of 8,000 jobs over last year. Figures for Ontario, Quebec, and other parts of Canada have already been quoted. It is clear that the policies of the present government have not succeeded in removing regional disparities. Instead, they have accentuated them. Many of us recall the bright words of hope uttered by the Prime Minister in the Atlantic provinces during the election campaign. He promised us a Marshall plan. We do not know what that plan is. I suppose we shall have to wait until the minister responsible for regional development tells us about it. We wish to see policies introduced that will bring our employment levels up to those enjoyed by the rest of Canada and our income levels up to those enjoyed by provinces like Ontario, British Columbia and some others.
I have already dealt with subsidies for vessels. Since the subsidy for the construction of wooden fishing vessels was discontinued the Atlantic region has suffered from greatly increasing unemployment. The government should have maintained subsidies of between 35 and 50 per cent on the cost of constructing wooden fishing vessels. The government's action has serious crippled our maritime shipping industry. I hope the government will implement policies that will help shipbuilding in Canada generally and in the Atlantic region in particular. I think the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) probably would agree that such subsidies are a good idea and would help the fishing industry. It could well be said that this government has presided over the liquidation of the Atlantic fishing industry. Certainly the closing of the Newfoundland outports has been a serious blow leading to the liquidation of a way of life going back 300 years.
Another point I wish to raise, which was dealt with by the hon. member for Joliette
4959
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment (Mr. La Salle), is that the government has adopted policies which have led to eastern Canadian farmers being driven off their lands and into the welfare offices of the cities. Although the government has been told repeatedly of the plight of our farmers its reaction has been that there is no problem. The government's actions in this field have led to large-scale unemployment.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has se;t up regional desks to deal with regional problems and to keep him fully informed. Not long ago a Toronto member was reported as saying, with reference to these regional desks, that Liberal members of parliament now might as well stay home, smoke their cigarettes-unless these have been banned in the meantime by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro)-put their feet up on their desks and draw their salaries because these people manning the regional desks would be telling the Prime Minister what to do in the various areas. One can only conclude that it is time to clear out some of these desks because apparently the people behind them are not telling the Prime Minister the facts, or he is not interested.
The government is cannibalizing the Canadian economy to further abstract schemes which have failed to produce any benefits whatsoever. The government, by its vast, unco-ordinated expenditures is battening on the economy like a giant parasite, taking far more out than it is putting in. Where are the programs of national development? Where is the blueprint for expanding our efforts in the north?
We have been presented with minor programs and projects which cannot even be dignified by the name of policy. Other than that we have had an attitude of hands-off aloofness, a kind of non-policy, a sort of political Fen, which allows the nation to drift while the Prime Minister and his colleagues drift and dream. Drifting and dreaming is their theme song.
A government which in six months has failed to acknowledge much less deal with high interest rates, high taxes, growing inflation and increasing unemployment, cannot be said to have a grasp of the country's problems. As I see it the whole situation can be put in a nutshell. This government, on matters of domestic interest and domestic necessity, just has not done its homework. It has given agriculture no hope. It has given the

4360	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment fisherman no encouragement. It has given industry no incentive. It is a government which has been sleep-walking since June.
During the election campaign we were told that so much would be done. It has not been done yet. We saw pictures of the Prime Minister diving into a pool. I think it is time he and the cabinet came to the surface and acquainted themselves with the real issues of this nation. Canadians are concerned about jobs; they are concerned about paying bills; they are concerned about educating their children; they are concerned about a future holding a hope of security and progress. They are not concerned about slogans, meaningless schemes and headline hunting gestures. That is why this motion has been put forward and why I naturally support it.
In conclusion, sir, may I refer to Hansard for November 21 last year. At that time I referred to a question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) of the Prime Minister. He asked about the rate of unemployment and what steps the government intended to take to combat unemployment in this country. This is the quotation directly from Hansard of the Prime Minister's reply:
Mr. Speaker, we had quite lengthy statements on this matter during the budget debate, and we will have a chance to make others on the estimates next week. As you prophesy, I could make a lengthy answer to this question to indicate that this increase in labour force unemployment is due to many factors-
Then he went on to say:
Actually, Mr. Speaker, I have a lengthy answer here.
I am asking today that the Prime Minister follow up what he said in November last year. Let him dig out his statement and bring it before the House of Commons. Let us hear from the Prime Minister before this debate is concluded.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I should like, for a few minutes, to make a contribution to this debate which has been going on for a few hours.
First, I feel the motion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), is a good one because it enables us to discuss a problem which certainly concerns the government. I support it, I would even vote for it if only the seven following words were changed,

DEBATES	January 30, 1969
and I quote the English version of the said motion:

That this house regrets that the government is not presenting-
I suggest that if those words were taken away and replaced with the following:
That this house invites the government to present 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-
I would go for that any time.
[Translation1
I know, Mr. Speaker, that this mania which consists in blaming the government for all the evils of mankind is part of the democratic game, but there are still some cases where it lessens the value of an otherwise constructive suggestion.
Mr. Speaker, I think that economic development concerns not only the federal government, but also every level of government. It is a field where those three levels of government should try to co-ordinate their efforts.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister and the house that such a movement has been started in my area, and I am glad to hear the minister say that our area, from Trois-Rivieres on, suffered from regional disparities and needed the help of the governments. That is correct.
The mayors of the area I represent as well as those of some surrounding constituencies set up a regional organization a few months ago and developed a common program in order to help the provincial and federal governments fight unemployment and stimulate the economy. That organization, the conference of the mayors of the St. Maurice valley, includes some 85 mayors of the ridings of Trois-Rivieres, Champlain, St. Maurice and of part of the riding of Berthier. Some even come from Joliette and from part of the riding of Richelieu, which was in the riding of Nicolet before the new redistribution.
These mayors met and set up a program to create first of all a regional economic development agency or board comprising of course full time experts and which would have sufficient credits to hire the necessary personnel to take efficient and constructive action.
January 30. 1969

This regional economic development board would require a budget beyond the potential of the municipalities. So, they are about to ask the provincial and federal governments to participate in the preparation of this budget, the proportion of their contribution to be determined later on. The experts suggest, for instance, that the federal government, should provide 40 per cent of the funds, the provincial government 40 per cent also, and the participating municipalities 20 per cent.
That economic development board would, for example, help existing industries. We have noted that some firms were do ng badly and, sometimes, had to close their doors. Very often, it was a situation which could have been adjusted if we had been aware that the federal and provincial governments could offer certain services. In fact, some manufacturers might have profited by the assistance of people conversant with those matters.
The board would find additional markets for existing industry. That would apply especially to small industries, which have not always the means to find new markets.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
That economic development board intends also to set up a sort of industrial fund, through public subscription. I like the attitude of our mayors who are not always counting on the government for everything, while doing nothing. They are ready to make the first move and to prove that they have confidence in the future of their area. A regional industrial fund, made up through public subscription, would help existing and future businesses. It would be administered by competent people. This clearly shows that they have no wish to remain inactive in a given situation but intend rather to use all the means likely to boost their regional economy.
That regional economic development board would also have the task of promoting intelligently industrial, business and touristic opportunities in our area. It would specifically promote tourist industry, organize recreational centres, sports centres, tourist centres, in an area rich in possibilities, and would then publicize its achievements in areas, other provinces, other countries, in order to get the most out of them.
Such a board would of course help new ventures as much as possible and might even serve as a referee in cases where the life of a firm is jeopardized by disagreement between
DEBATES	4961
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment labour and management or problems of a different nature.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is expedient to give such an example, because I am one of those who believe that the federal government alone will never be able to check unemployment in a reasonable proportion, no more than the provincial government could. Every citizen, each town and each region will have to make up its mind and take the matter in its own hands and establish a regional economic development body.
I presume, without knowing the details of the legislation mentioned this afternoon by the hon. minister that its purpose will be to help these organizations of regional economic development which will have given evidence of being serious in their work and have shown that they have competent people in their service.
To the minister who spoke this afternoon, I submit the request of the mayors in my area -the members of the Mauricie Mayors Conference-who wish to be able to expect assistance from the federal government. They have also requested aid from the provincial government and they are expecting a definite reply within a few weeks. I believe that this reply may arrive at about the same time the federal legislation comes into force.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress that blaming the government for an unemployment situation about which we are all concerned, even if it is not as serious as it has been in the past, is not enough. We should rather propose constructive measures and for my part I would suggest that we try to synchronize the efforts made by the federal, provincial and municipal governments.
I know that the Canadian Federation of Mayors, of which I was a member, has been concerned for several years about that problem and has been suggesting for quite a long time that the municipalities should be invited, when the federal and provincial governments meet to discuss problems dealing with municipalities. But in certain circles, some objections have always been raised, because the municipalities are deemed to be the instruments of the provincial government. Nevertheless, I think that the municipal governments, through the mayors, should be called at least as observers to know exactly what happens. I know that in many cases they would have suggestions to make which would help to complete the efforts of the federal and provincial governments in order to cope with unemployment.
January 30, 1969
4962	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment
I could perhaps make very briefly another suggestion. It concerns all Canadians, who should buy Canadian. It would already be a way of revitalizing the Canadian economy.
I have already acquired the habit, Mr. Speaker, of looking where the products which pass through my hands are manufactured and I am astonished to note how many products sold in Canada are manufactured in Hong Kong, Japan, Formosa or Czechoslovakia. I feel that there is too much indifference among a great number of Canadians who buy those products manufactured elsewhere, when we could find the same products here. When the fact is mentioned, we are told: "Yes, but the are less expensive." It is true that they are less expensive but afterwards we have to pay for increasing unemployment, social welfare for the unemployed, because in certain sectors our economy is threatened by some sort of dumping from abroad.
I would like to make another suggestion, Mr. Speaker, for the economic development of the country, to prevent our firms-


John Edward Broadbent: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Mongrain:: Yes, with pleasure.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the member also suggest that all those countries to whom we sell goods adopt the same policy of buying only in their country?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: My honourable colleague is evidently a real perfectionist. He would like to force this government to improve all the other governments in the world. I know that international trade must exist and that charity begins at home. Surely, there are cases where we must import but we have in Canada industries which manufacture products that are just as good. Canadians should remember that charity begins at home.
This seems fundamental to me. We are not here to support other countries unless they are underdeveloped.
Here is my last suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I think that in order to keep Canadian industry strong, union leaders should be convinced to accept a kind of truce in those endless disputes that cause the ruin of some businesses,


push employers towards automation and consequently staff reductions, and in certain cases force businesses to close down.
In my region, a business is in danger of closing on account of a strike that I find unjustified and unjustifiable and that has been going on for months.
So, I think we should ask the union leaders who are conscious of their responsibilities to try and bring a respite in labour-management disputes to give all levels of government concerned the time they need to enforce the measures they consider essential to improve the economy and reduce regional disparities.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister of the co-operation of 85 mayors in my region, who are members of the Mauricie Mayors Conference. They are looking forward to his complete legislative program and they will be in a position then to come and discuss with him how it meets the needs of the region I represent.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member who has just sat down. Since the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) is all in favour of Canadians buying Canadian products, can he promise to vote against bill C-102, that is a bill providing for larger imports of pharmaceutical products?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I have not seen anything in the bill, Mr. Speaker, that says we must have larger imports of drugs. I think this is a gratuitous assumption on the part of my hon. friend.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and one hon. member opposite.


An hon. Member:: A lot more than on that side.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak specifically to the amendment to the motion which is before the house. This amendment asserts that the government has slowed down public investment and has pursued fiscal and monetary policies deliberately designed to increase unemployment. Other spokesmen for the New Democratic party
January 30, 1969	COMMONS
have suggested earlier in this debate what perhaps could and should be done about the early alleviation of unemployment. I wish to say something about the reason the government has pursued the kind of policy it has, and why we request a different approach. More specifically still, I wish to suggest why we need a significant expansion of public enterprise and a change in our current monetary policy.
To begin with, however, it is perhaps worth noting that the extent of unemployment levels in this country is beyond dispute. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) in his speech yesterday acknowledged that we have severe unemployment and that the severity increases significantly in certain regions of Canada, particularly in our Atlantic provinces and in Quebec where it reaches levels between 7 per cent and 10 per cent. It is also acknowledged that this situation is not new in Canada. For the past decade we have had levels of unemployment which exceeded those of any advanced industrial nation in western Europe for example.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Using the Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures, I have come to the conclusion that the average level of unemployment in Canada for the past decade has been almost 5 per cent. This means that while the rest of us have been enjoying unprecedented material well being, thousands of Canadians have been experiencing material and, therefore, spiritual deprivation.
Why is this, Mr. Speaker? The Liberal government does not consists of malicious men. Other things being equal they would certainly prefer that all Canadians be employed. The point is, of course, that things are not equal. Successive Liberal governments have had to make choices. As we all know, any government, no matter which party is in power, must make political and economic choices, and this involves deciding between having either one of two or more desirable things or one of two or more evils.
In broad terms, recent governments in this country have had to decide between having price stability or full employment. No economist that I know of believes that you can have both. Our Liberal governments, and our Conservative predecessors, have favoured programs aimed at achieving price stability and, as one of my colleagues has pointed out, they have failed even in that regard. In a recent article John Deutsch, former chairman
DEBATES	4963
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment of the Economic Council of Canada, contrasted the economic performance of western European countries with that of Canada and the United States. The former, he pointed out, "have been highly sensitive to unemployment, and they have used monetary and fiscal policies very actively to keep the unemployment rates at low levels". In this article which appeared last year John Deutsch said:
Over the past ten years ... they have generally succeeded in keeping the unemployment rate within a range of 1 to 2J per cent of the labour force.
He noted that in Sweden, unemployment in the past decade has rarely exceeded 1J per cent. He stated that during the same ten year period our level of unemployment was three or four times that level, or an average of about 4 per cent or 5 per cent.
What is important to note in this context is that governments choose policies quite deliberately with the foreknowledge that the results will be more or less employment. Therefore, contrary to what the Minister of Labour said yesterday, I reafirm the truth of the New Democratic Party's amendment to the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). The present government, like its predecessors, is deliberately pursuing a deflationary policy; it is deliberately creating unemployment and doing so with the stated objective of achieving price stability. The evidence of this is overwhelming. The policy adopted is aimed at achieving price stability rather than full employment.
This situation was to be seen in last December's white paper entitled "price stability". Why do we not have a white paper entitled "policies for full employment"? I think the absence of such a paper is indicative. Most countries in western Europe have produced such a document. This same attitude was to be found in last fall's lamentable budget presentation by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). Then, as yesterday in his assertion that he did not favour abandoning the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, the minister took the approach that public expenditures must be curtailed. He also felt that taxes must be kept at high levels in order to balance the budget and therefore restrict consumer demand. The effect of these measures, he hopes, will be to check rising prices. However, he did not state, or failed to point out yesterday, that one certain effect of these measures, as every economist in this country and indeed in the western world knows, is that they are an encouragement to unemployment.
4964	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment
It is now universally agreed that the high levels of unemployment during the period when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was Prime Minister were primarily due to the lack of aggregate demands in the economy. There was, of course, near the end of that era, a revolt by Canada's economists who made a determined effort to have the then governor of the Bank of Canada removed. The present government,
I would suggest, is making the same basic mistake that was made during that period. Instead of encouraging expansion and increasing public demand, expenditures are being restricted. In doing this, the government is promoting unemployment.
Even with this policy decision a further bias on the part of the government is revealed. The government is restricting the expansion of government services and projects which have, in the main, a direct consequence on the well being of the citizen as a non-consumer. These expenditures are primarily in areas like buildings, hospitals, schools, parks, museums and perhaps even a film industry. Expenditures in these areas are being curtailed to achieve price stability. At the same time the government allows private corporations which, under the kind of economic structure we have, understandably have as their prime motive the recreation and maintenance of man as an infinite consumer, to have unrestricted access to available supplies of capital with an unrestricted right to expand.
The New Democratic Party does not believe that price stability is the main economic problem at the present time. We believe the main problem is unemployment. However, our method of dealing with price stability would be quite different from that of the existing government, and I should like to say something about this matter.
If we regarded it to be an economic necessity to cut back on investment, then we would apply the same restrictions to the private sector of the economy as we applied to the public. This is nothing new. This is a very common principle adopted by governments in western Europe. We would say to the private sector, including petroleum companies, insurance companies and others, that they should not expand in a given year because public needs and requirements were greater. We would then take a greater share of the available capital to provide for greater social needs.
DEBATES	January 30, 1969
Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not saying my party believes in a negative attitude at this time toward business. In this mixed economy we say that when we restrict capital investment a serious decision must be made in respect of a set of priorities. At certain times a decision should be made that the consumer industry should be discouraged and the public sector encouraged. We would make decisions affecting capital flows to bring that about.
My point is that the present government, as preceding governments, is bound by the old ideological framework which suggests that when we cut back expenditure we must always do so in respect of the public sector. I suggest that we should tell certain companies who are spending millions of dollars on expansion in Montreal to cut back on expenses for a year or two because we need the capital that is available on the market. This government will not do that.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in addition to establishing directing guide lines on investment policy both in the private and public sectors, the New Democratic party would establish a prices and incomes review board which would have the power to authorize or prohibit price increases proposed by companies in a monopolistic or oligopolistic position in our economy. Members of both the old parties have frequently been amused by referring to what they call "socialist myths". All of these I would like at some time to debate with them, but this opportunity will present itself on another occasion. However, I would like to point out to them that they, too, have their myths. The most notorious of these myths is that we live in what they like to regard as a free enterprise economy. The truth is that we live in an oligopolistically dominated economy.
Hon. members, of course, do not need to take the word of a socialist for this; they just need to read the work of almost any contemporary economist. Perhaps they should begin

January 30. 1969	COMMONS
with that expatriate Canadian liberal, Galbraith, and read his work "The New Indus-rial State".
Given the fact that we live in an oligopolis-tically dominated economy, even those committed to a predominantly privately-owned, market economy must honestly face the economic consequences of this fact. These consequences are that the leading firms in the major oligopolistic industries, steel, automobiles and chemicals, for example, can and do charge what they wish in our economy without fear of competition. The consequence of this, in turn, is that all other industries which depend upon their products are affected by their pricing policies and, of course, in this context, by their price increases. They in turn must raise prices. The cumulative effect is that the consumer in our society must pay.
It is quite accurate to say that today big corporations are in the position of virtually being able to tax the population at their will.
I suggest that the absence of any market check on the pricing policies of these large concerns is one of the principal causes of increased prices today. Again, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) need not take my word for this; I suspect that some of his advisers have told him the same thing. If they have not, there are a number of economists in the country who would be only too pleased to point it out. We require, then, a public body with real power to provide the kind of checks which at least in some respects were provided by the conventional capitalist marketplace.
Another important cause of high prices is the high cost of money itself; that is, high interest rates. The government, because of its policies, is caught in a vicious circle in this regard. We in Canada have now an established fixed rate of exchange vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar. Also, we have a branch-plant economy whose industrial core is substantially owned by United States corporations. These corporations, in the main, refuse to sell their shares on the Canadian market. This means that although Canada has one of the highest per capita rates of saving in the world, a very large amount of our capital is in fact invested abroad; and a high percentage of that is invested in the United States. The consequence is that in order to maintain the level of our dollar vis-a-vis its U.S. equivalent, we are constantly and increasingly in need of attracting investment from the United States.
DEBATES	4965
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
In order to do this, the Canadian government must always ensure that interest rates in Canada are at a higher level than those which prevail south of the border. Thus our interest rate is ultimately dependent upon the U.S. interest rate. We have in effect lost control of one of the main aspects of monetary policy. In order to regain control we require two interlocked policies: The first is to abandon our fixed exchange rate. The second and related requirement is to extricate ourselves over a period of years from our overwhelming dependence upon the U.S. economy. Time does not permit me in this speech to suggest how this can be done. My party does have programs which aim in this direction, and if implemented over a number of years, even within the framework of a mixed economy, we could have the desired degree of economic independence. What is required is the political will to make this a reality.
What I have attempted to suggest here, however briefly, is that the government, through both its monetary and fiscal policies, is responsible for existing levels of unemployment. It is pursuing policies which require change. If it wants a significant improvement, dabbling will not work. The government must break out of its own self-created vicious circle. Perhaps, in financial affairs as well as in foreign policy, the government could begin by listening to the speeches of its own Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans).


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I think that all of us have wondered during the past twelve months or so why it should be necessary in a prosperous country such as this to have, month in and month out on a seasonally adjusted basis, unemployment amounting to about 5 per cent of the work force. What worries us even more is the realization that, the way the indicators all point at the present time, this unemployment is going to increase during the present twelve months. I think all of us who have studied these matters have come to the conclusion that 3 per cent unemployment is an acceptable figure with which we can live. Naturally, we would like to have every single person in the country who wants to work able to have a job. However, when you consider the practical realities of the situation, it becomes apparent that when 3 per cent of the work force is unemployed that looks after those who are changing jobs, those who are retiring and those who are sick or are temporarily unable to fill a job. Therefore, a 3
4966	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment per cent figure is acceptable. But we would also all agree that the present 5 per cent level of unemployment is unacceptable.
The question we must ask ourselves is: What can we do about it? First of all, it is necessary to examine the industrial indices. When you examine the figures showing, first, the early growth of industrial production which is, as we know, by far the greatest employer of labour; second, the work force, and third, unemployment, we see that there is a definite relationship between these three factors year by year. After this examination we find that if we are going to be able to keep unemployment at a figure no higher than the acceptable 3 per cent of the work force, industrial production must increase each year by about 8J per cent a year. Last year industrial production increased by only 4.8 per cent, or about half of the necessary increase over the preceding year to keep unemployment at a reasonable and manageable level. To bring unemployment down to this reasonable level of 3 per cent from the present 5 per cent which we are experiencing, we must find out how to increase industrial production by about 8J per cent this year over the previous year or find some way to have it increase during 1969 at about double the rate of the preceding year.
How are we going to do it? It is obvious that to produce more, first of all, we must be able to sell more. If we are to sell more, we must be able to convince more customers in Canada and abroad that Canadian products are a better buy than the other products that are offered to them on that particular market. This requires an improvement in three things: Design, quality and price. First of all,
I am going to deal with what I believe must be done to improve quality and design. Improved quality and design are the product of industrial research, and we should ask ourselves at this point: Has Canada been doing enough industrial research during the past to ensure that our products are of the best design that we can devise and of the best quality? Are we producing enough new products year by year to attract new customers? There are two people who, I believe, are in the best position in this country to answer the question whether Canada is doing enough in this regard. The first is the president of the National Research Council. The second is the man who for five years held the position of minister of industry and who had the prime responsibility for improving design in this country. He also had responsibility for seeing
[Mr. Hees.l
DEBATES	January 36, 1969
to it that industrial research is being carried out at a satisfactory level to provide the increases in production necessary to provide jobs for those who enter the work force each year.
The minister who held this responsibility for five years is at present President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). The president of the National Research Council said, in a speech which he made last September, that Canada is far behind her principal competitors in industrial design. As recently as two days ago, he said that Canada's research programs are too modest and too restricted. That is his opinion of the industrial research program that we in this country are carrying out.
Now, let us turn to the President of the Treasury Board who, as I said, until six months ago had the responsibility for five years for our progress in industrial research. Let us see what he said about this subject. In a speech which he made in Montreal last September 24 he said the following:
Canada must more than triple its expenditure on research to become a really scientifically advanced nation.
Then, he went on to say this to the group to whom he was speaking, a three nation chemical engineering conference at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel at Montreal:
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
More than ever, co-ordinated research and development by Canadian governments, Canadian universities and Canadian Industry on a vastly increased scale is mandatory if we even hope to keep pace relatively with the acknowledged leader in technological innovation, the United States.
At that time the present Minister of Industry asked the following question:
Are the present tax incentives which the government is offering sufficiently powerful to induce the amount of research this country needs?
I believe the statement which I quoted to the effect that vastly increased research is mandatory, answers the question which I have just put on record. Indeed, there can only be one answer and that, of course, is a resounding no.
It is obvious that the government's incentive program falls far short of what is needed to provide the research which must take place in this country if we are to achieve improved quality, improved design and the new products which a country has to produce year by year in order to attract a sufficiently increased number of new customers on the basis of which sales can increase, production
January 30, 1969
can increase and increased opportunities can be provided for the employment of the additional Canadians who are entering the work force year by year.
As we know from the figures, our work force is increasing by about 3J per cent each year. In the light of the increased unemployment figures which I quoted in the first part of my remarks, it is obvious we are not getting even close to employing these new entrants into the work force. The two authorities I have quoted are not members of industry. They are not members of the opposition. They are people closely connected with the present government, people who should know most about whether or not we are doing all that should be done to achieve the amount of research this country needs. I refer, of course, to the President of the National Research Council and to the President of the Treasury Board who for five years has had responsibility in this field.
I should like to deal, now, with the question of what we must do to bring down our costs, and hence our prices, so as to place our products in a better position in competition with other industrial nations. The most important factor in controlling costs is, as you know, productivity, which is production per man hour or per dollar. During the 20 years between 1945-1965, due to the introduction of new machines and new techniques, industrial productivity increased by an average rate year by year of 3.4 per cent. However, during the past three years the increase has been dropping slowly until today it is increasing over the previous year at about half the rate I mentioned a few moments ago. This is the principal reason for the failure of our sales to achieve the volume necessary to stimulate additional production sufficient to absorb the new entrants into the work force.
Those who control industry, the employers of this country, need to be offered an incentive sufficiently attractive to make it worth their while to invest in the new machines and production systems which will make it possible to reduce costs to a point at which they can markedly reduce prices and attract additional customers. The government refuses to offer these incentives. It offers no program to induce the producers of this country to make these changes which would result in the increased productivity we obviously require. I say that such tax incentives would not cost the government anything in the long run. In fact, they would be the best investment it could make. Increased productivity, and 29180-3151
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment increased sales, would provide more income tax because more people would be employed and become liable for income tax instead of receiving unemployment insurance. More revenue would be received from commodity taxes because more articles would be sold subject to sales tax. More corporation taxes would be paid because there would be more profits for the government to tax. No doubt, in the first year there would be a temporary tax loss, but this would be regained many times over in the longer run.
I have mentioned two steps which would materially increase sales and, in turn, make possible the employment of a larger number of people. These are things which could be done. These are things which must be done. But these are things which are not being done by the government at the present time although it must be obvious that action along these lines is needed, particularly since the chairman of the National Research Council and the former minister of industry (Mr. Drury) have both indicated that our research program is not sufficient to keep this country competitive. It is obvious that our productivity is falling year by year, that it is not increasing at the rate necessary to pave the way for the employment of new entrants to our work force.
This government is showing a mixture of arrogance and complacency. Hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches opposite feel they are in office for four or five years and refuse to listen to any suggestion made by anyone but themselves. They answer questions about their policy in this field by saying that everything is in a satisfactory condition and that all the country has to do is to put its hand into the hand of the government and have confidence. It would be fine if we could do so, but we cannot, because it is obvious that unemployment is increasing, that productivity is decreasing and that the men best able in this country to know about the condition of our industrial research believe we are not doing nearly enough to keep abreast of our competitors.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
This government was elected on June 25 to do a job for this country, and this job they promised to do. I say to them once more; snap out of your complacency, lose your arrogance-if you can-and get on with the job that you were elected to do.


Mr. Mark Smerchanski (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, some members of the opposition

Atomic Energy of Canada has worked out
one of the most impressive, imaginative and vital trans-continental links in the dominion of Canada. The western system has enabled us to nave a direct power hook-up with Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The western system is shortly to be tied in with that of Quebec Hydro, and in this manner, through the efforts of Atomic Energy of Canada in conjunction with every provincial hydro commission, we will be assured of no more blackouts in Canada. In addition, Atomic Energy of Canada has made a further breakthrough in one of the most advanced and exciting fields of endeavour in the world.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mark G. Smerchanski: After I am through. Atomic Energy of Canada, jointly with Manitoba Hydro, are engineering a project that will transmit power from the northern parts of Manitoba to Winnipeg under direct current transmission instead of the usual alternating current transmission that has been in use in Canada. This system for the transmission of direct power is the only known use of this type of operation in the world. The additional power that will come into the southern parts of Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan will create more jobs and industries.
The Nelson River development in northern Manitoba will provide isolated areas in northern Manitoba and northern Ontario with a microwave network which will enable the residents of these areas to enjoy television service. It will also enable the Manitoba Hydro to operate hydro power installations by microwave, and will enable the transmission, distribution and operation of the entire hydro-electric complex to be controlled remotely.
In addition, I forgot to mention one other important feature. Atomic Energy of Canada, jointly with Quebec Hydro, have been able to establish the first power research laboratory in the province of Quebec. This particular research institute is located at Varennes, Quebec, and cost $28 million. It is the only establishment of its kind on this continent that is able to undertake electrical power research on such a large scale. People from all over the United States come to the institute to learn methods of electrical transmission. I think this augurs well for the aggressive approach the government is taking to the development of research and industry.
January 30. 1969

[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
A tremendous development of coal mines is taking place in the foothills of Alberta. Judging by what has happened in the last six months, approximately 2,000 additional coal miners will be needed to work the new mines. Apparently there are too many coal workers in Cape Breton. It is only natural that we should shift those coal miners to another part of Canada where they are needed, and that this being done under the manpower mobility program. As a result, I can see no foundation for the arguments hon. members of the opposition have raised to the effect this government is doing nothing to help our workers.


Howard Russell MacEwan: You just want to move us all out.


Mark G. Smerchanski: As reported on page 4908
of Hansard for January 29, the parliamentary leader of the New Democratic Party asked a member of the government to name even one little thing the government has done to deal with the increasing rate of unemployment in Canada. His remarks implied that the government is doing almost nothing to solve Canada's unemployment problems. Those remarks are tommyrot. For instance, at Thompson, Manitoba, new mines are being developed at a tremendous rate; the number of operating mines may soon double. The International Nickel Company will require 2,000 additional employees for those mines. In addition, the company is laying 48 miles of new railway line.
All these activities are developing Canada and are creating new jobs in Canada. I wonder how many hon. members of the opposition are aware that 48 miles of brand new railway line are being laid in northern Manitoba. I doubt if any of them know about this. Some may, but only very few. If we have surplus labour in Newfoundland, I suggest that these workers could find gainful employment with the International Nickel Company at Thompson, Manitoba.
Many other new developments are taking place in Canada as a result of this government's foresight and imagination. We have the Panarctic oil development which has excited and stimulated the imaginations of scientists and engineers of Canada as well as many other parts of the world. Therefore, I say that the opposition charge that this government's attitude toward labour problems is arrogant is not true.
DEBATES	4969
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment
I also wish to mention the fantastic, gigantic development taking place in and around the port of Vancouver. From Port Moody, New Westminster, North Vancouver and Roberts Bank, not less than 25 million tons of concentrate will be shipped by 1975. Present shipments of minerals from those places amount to approximately 6 million tons. The principal items of export from Roberts Bank will be potash from Saskatchewan, coal and sulphur from Alberta and from the interior of British Columbia as well as large quantities of copper concentrate, molybdenum concentrate and nickel concentrate. These products will go to foreign markets. All this will mean the creation of new industries and new jobs. New jobs will be created directly, and each job that is created directly will create three or four other indirectly. Every time one man becomes employed in primary industry several other men become gainfully employed in ancillary industries. This kind of development is taking place today in Canada. It is development of which we can be proud. Nevertheless, a gloomy view prevails among hon. members of the opposition.
What are traffic trends on the west coast, Mr. Speaker? The potential development of traffic on the west coast is tremendous and almost beyond the bounds of the imagination. Japan is constantly seeking more of our coal. We have seen a spectacular increase in potash exports from Saskatchewan, and our sulphur exports are increasing at a fantastic rate every year. For instance, in 1961 the total exports of sulphur amounted to 21,000 tons. In 1967 this figure had reached 2 million tons and is increasing at approximately 500,000 tons per annum. The movement of all this potash requires a great deal of planning because the tonnage exported is doubling about every four years. Those exports are leaving the country through the port of Vancouver. All this development, of course, has been made possible as a result of the foresight of the officials of our present Department of Transport and of our Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer). The government has been able to plan the development of Roberts Bank and make all this development possible.
I have been speaking about real developments, real changes which this government has introduced. These are the kinds of development which will create new jobs, new industry and new sources of taxes for the government of Canada and the provinces. As I said, the four major developments on the west coast have been made possible through the foresight of the government. They are the
January 30, 1969
4970	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment realization of a dream of the Minister of Transport and officials of his department.
Perhaps there have been some errors; yet our accomplishments far outweigh any errors that may have been committed in planning or designing. Hon. members of the opposition keep telling us that Canadian manufacturers need government help to design and improve their products. That is simply not true. Manufacturers merely want the government to create an atmosphere conducive to industrial development. Industry can take care of itself and will build up this country. Our industrialists will employ increasing amounts of labour. After all, the creation of jobs is a fimction of industry.
I should like to go on and say something about mining and exploration in Canada, but time does not permit. May I bring to your attention, sir, the accomplishments of our geological scientists who, under the auspices of the present government, are doing tremendous work. No doubt some hon. members are acquainted with the developments in mining taking place in Rouyn and in the Noranda area.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Let me bring to your attention very briefly, Mr. Speaker, the fact that this area has been prospected since 1927. So many drill holes have been spotted in that area in the quest for ore that it resembles Swiss cheese. Yet more recently, with modern geophysical tools-


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the house give unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mark G. Smerchanski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. More recently an anomaly was investigated and our Canadian engineers discovered and developed what is known as the Delbridge ore body. One of the most interesting parts about this discovery program is that it was headed by an engineer, Julian Boldy of Ireland, who came to this country in 1966.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Hurrah for the Irish!


Mark G. Smerchanski: This engineer wanted to contribute to the development of Canada and


discovered several million tons of copper ore approximately two miles northeast of the Noranda operation. This discovery will enhance the development of that area by some $20 million. Much of the money will be used to purchase materials for the development of the mine. Work opportunities in the area will be provided and indirect benefits to industry will be created because additional machinery and mining equipment will be required to develop the project.
At present, mining activity in Canada is at its highest peak. Never in the history of Canada has mining experienced the type of development that is taking place today. A large part of this development is due to the foresight and planning of the government. I say that it is this imaginative, aggressive type of program that will create more jobs, more industry, and a larger source of tax dollars for the Canadian government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mark G. Smerchanski: Certainly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member's time has expired, unless there is unanimous consent for this question. The hon. member for Hamilton West.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this motion the Opposition has put forward for debate deals primarily with, and is concerned about, the equality of life of people in this great land of ours, and also with the equality of our economic development. But, Mr. Speaker, we have to come back to the basics, and that is people. People are the greatest asset that we have and because of this all our attention, our energies and our resourcefulness should be primarily concerned with them. We must continually keep our ears receptive to the legitimate aspirations of people. If the Canadian people are concerned in any area, government should be concerned. If people demand action, government should give them action, and if people express the need for leadership the government should give them leadership. This is what participatory democracy is supposed to be about.
Just a short time ago I heard an hon. member state that the Opposition thinks the government has to solve all the problems. We don't want them to solve all the problems, just let them solve some of them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
January 30, 1969


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This is what their mandate is about, Mr. Speaker. We cannot tolerate an indifferent or complacent attitude to the disparities in the quality of life being experienced by individuals, which are unquestionably obvious, nor can such an attitude be accepted as a philosophy of life. It is senseless and useless to express great theories for national unity if within this country there are some 4 million people on the poverty line, and yet we still remain indifferent. These are the have-nots, Mr. Speaker, and their potential strength as one voice is indeed a force to be reckoned with.
The aptness of the motion now under debate is not only demonstrated by the frightening figures on national unemployment, by the bad state of many of our primary industries and the dangerous condition of our commodity exports but, even more clearly, by the lethargic approach of the government to these problems and the futility of what little action it has taken to solve them.
The government's chief fault, in my view, is its consistent refusal to tackle the gut issues that face Canada and which, every day, weigh upon the minds and purses of ordinary citizens. After almost six months in office, the government has totally failed to come to grips with the real issues of concern to the average Canadian citizen. We have yet to learn of any legislation designed to widen and improve the employment prospects of thousands of young Canadians who will be coming into the labour market. There has been nothing suggested to assist workers already in the labour force to adjust to the changed conditions of that market. I have heard members of the opposition continually ask the government to state their policies, ideas and intentions, and members of the government continually state "This is under review" and "That is under review." This is a time for action, Mr. Speaker.
The latest figures on unemployment prove that the government has been able to do nothing to arrest the perennial economic scourge of unemployment, let alone cure it. We cannot allow an accumulation of grievances to grow in the fields of unemployment, poverty, slum conditions, rural poverty, urban waste, inflation and higher taxes. Grievances, if allowed to smolder and simmer over long periods of time, can have disastrous results.
When one thinks that by 1991 the province of Ontario alone is going to have some 10 million people in it then, I would respectfully
DEBATES	4971
Alleged. Failure to Reduce Unemployment submit that we have to be concerned, and this government must give leadership. When one thinks that 80 per cent of our population will be living in urban areas by 1981, we have to be extremely concerned. I believe that these fundamental problems existing in Canada appear to have escaped the imagination and attention of our government.
Prior to June 25 last the government promised little, and to date has delivered less.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Members of the government promised not only to govern, but to create. They were going to create a new Canadian society, the just society, in which we all would have hope, in which we all would have a life of decent quality. But in my view, Mr. Speaker, any society, just or otherwise, can only develop on a foundation of healthy economic growth. Healthy economic growth means job opportunities, decent annual incomes, steady demand and steady production and, last but not least, equality of opportunity to share in national development and national prosperity.
No society can be termed just that contains within it the regional disparities that we find in Canada. No society can be truly just that can callously write off, for the sake of convenience, primary industries that happen to have fallen on evil days and whole sections of the population who happen, through no fault of theirs, to be forced to share this condition. I am thinking of the fishing industry, of the farming industry and of the steel industry which, incidentally, is claiming that the antidumping legislation is too little and too late. People in the steel industry are concerned about whether the government is prepared to advise the people of Canada to buy Canadian, because this seems to be their only hope.
But this government is obsessed with abstract things. It has no time or inclination to tackle unpleasant emergencies such as exist in the Atlantic provinces among fishermen, in eastern Canada in the agricultural industry and across the wheat producing prairies. The government has less inclination to tackle the urban problems and the transportation problems that are coupled with these other problems. We are asked to treat as urgent, and this is what concerns me, such problems as constitutional reform, amendments to various acts covering social behaviour, language rights and the reform of parliament. All these may have a place of importance, but I tell this government there are
January 30, 1969
4972	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment other areas in this country which ought to have greater priority and which require their immediate attention. The title ol the latest report of the Economic Council of Canada is "The Challenge of Growth and Change". This is a challenge that has been ducked by this government, just as it has ducked the recommendations of that body. In reading the reports of the Council for recent years one is struck by the number of times the expression "full employment" crops up. Invariably, this phrase is coupled with a strong affirmation that it is one of the principal keys to Canada's future.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I suppose everyone has read the latest report of Canada's Bureau of Statistics on Canada's labour force. I read it and I was appalled by what I read. Here we are, a nation spending close to $11 bilhon a year on our central government and taking in well over $10 billion in revenue, with an export trade reckoned in the multi-billions. This Country is the envy of many underdeveloped nations and not a few industrialized nations. It has a high standard of living, is supposedly possessed of space, uncounted natural and human resources and a merciful detachment from the problems created by unfriendly neighbours. Yet with all these advantages, with all our achievements, our affluence and our potential, we must admit to an inability to gainfully employ close to 5 per cent of our people who are able and willing to work. This is what we must be concerned about. In spite of all these advantages, we are still in trouble. Surely, the solution of this problem presents sufficient challenge for the most imaginative and dynamic government, which this government says it is.
This figure of close to 5 per cent unemployed, 4.7 per cent to be exact, is bad enough in itself. But what is worse is the regional breakdown. Here, we find a rate of 7.1 per cent for the Atlantic provinces; 6.8 per cent for Quebec; 3 per cent for Ontario; 3.4 per cent on the prairies and 5.4 per cent in British Columbia. The Economic Council of Canada states that the level of unemployment in the Atlantic provinces, and to a lesser degree in Quebec, is persistently higher than the national average at all times. The Council further points out that when the national level of unemployment falls, the level of unemployment in these regions also falls but their share of total unemployment tends to rise. Should we not be concerned about the


apathy and complacency? Such a condition points to the need for flexible policies applicable in differing degrees to regional needs rather than blanket policies which take no regard for regional needs and only accentuate regional disparity.
Everyone will remember that one of the promises of this government was to tackle and overcome this problem of regional disparity. The only regional action taken by it so far has been the setting up of regional desks in the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). This is hardly action calculated to equalize economic and social opportunities across Canada. The people know about this situation and want to know why we are not solving these problems rather than proceeding in the pussy-footing way in which this government seems to have become so very adept. You may wonder, Mr. Speaker, why, representing an urban Ontario constituency as I do, I should be concerned with farmers and fishermen in the maritimes or wheat producers on the prairies. The answer is quite simple. I believe this is a united country, one country, and that what will benefit a Canadian in one region will benefit Canadians in all regions; what weakens one region of Canada is bound to weaken the whole national structure.
My chief concern right now is that we are not doing adequately the things that should be done to provide the most employment. Figures are available in abundance to show that our universities, technical and vocational schools and other specialized training establishments have not been able to keep their output of employable Canadians in gear with the rapidly changing demands of the job market. Nor do I believe that our present policies covering labour mobility, retraining and placement, are in step with the tremendous changes that have taken place and are still taking place at an accelerated rate in the demand of the Canadian economy for workers. I believe our most pressing need is for priority government action that would coordinate support of the labour force and those seeking employment to ensure maximum efficiency in the future use of Canada's labour force.
The situation today is that we are turning out too many people who are skilled in areas where demand for their services is falling off and are not turning out enough in areas where demand is growing rapidly. This is a major problem which faces the 88,000 young
January 30, 1969	COMMONS
Canadians who will graduate from universities this year. The same holds true in the case of craftsmen and skilled workers in the manufacturing, construction and processing sector of industry. We are trailing change in our efforts to help those who want to give work and those who want to find work. We must ensure that our national labour force is equipped to meet changes in the demand for their services.
Something of this problem may be seen in the figures supplied in the 1968 report of the Economic Council of Canada. There it is stated that in 1946, 60 per cent of the workers were employed in goods producing industries and 40 per cent were employed in service industries. Twenty years later, in 1966, these figures had been reversed. Forty per cent were employed in industries producing goods and 60 per cent in service industries. This is the problem which I hope the government will be able to appreciate and in respect of which I hope it will be able to come forward with the necessary solutions. In the same period, the old reliable primary industries accounted for a smaller and smaller percentage of the labour force. Agriculture went down from 24.8 per cent to 7.4 per cent and forestry and fishing went down from 2.3 per cent to 1.4 per cent. This is the key to our problem.
This acceleration of employment in service industries is an international experience, but is far more pronounced in Canada than elsewhere. Also, it is more significant because in Canada the labour force is growing at a rate far ahead of that of any other western nation and will continue to do so beyond 1980. I am concerned about the effect this will have in terms of the population in the 1980's. This is why we must all be concerned. We need policies, we need direction and we need leadership. This must come from that side of the house which was given that great mandate, and which they think is the be-all and the end-all. If they do not take advantage of this mandate in terms of solving the basic problems, then I believe they know what the answer will be. I notice that the minister looks at you, Mr. Speaker, with some concern. This is the name of the game; if you do not produce you are out.


Edgar John Benson: You fellows have had a lot of experience.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I shall not take too much more time, but in conclusion I should like to say that these are basic national problems. I
DEBATES	4973
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment wish to emphasize the desperate need for government action not only to overcome unemployment but to ensure future employment. We have been told in the past 15 minutes or so that this is the most pressing of the national tasks facing this government. Let us hope that within the very near future we will see some sign that the government appreciates this situation and intends to act. I do not mean "soon" in the sense the government uses that word. I mean tomorrow, if they have that ability. I hope the government appreciates the situation. I do not want to be nasty, but I am concerned. Let us have some policies from this government. Let us have some intentions and then I can truthfully perhaps believe in the just society. If we do not have some of these things, Mr. Speaker, we are lost.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, when I read the wording of the motion "That this house regrets that the government is not presenting programs to achieve a rate of economic growth which will reduce unemployment and also insure that the economy will be able to absorb the large number of new entrants into the labour force this year", and the wording of the amendment which added the words "and that, instead, the government has slowed down public investment and has pursued fiscal and monetary policies deliberately designed to increase unemployment", I found them both interesting and provocative. They led me to think that the opposition benches would put forward a serious discussion of the basic economic issues facing the country, and especially some ideas of alternative policies which would clarify their real position. I regret, and I am disappointed, that nothing like this has been forthcoming in this debate.
Instead, all we have had has been a catalogue of platitudes from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), which does nothing more than establish that he is for economic as well as moral virtue. One could never have any doubt about the hon. member in respect of the latter, but it is also good to have reassurance that he also stands for the former, even if he is lacking in new ideas and proposals in spite of his vastly expanded staff. On the other hand, from the far right, and I speak politically when I talk about the right corner of this house, the routine folklore of the economic bogeyman hiding under everyone's bed has come forth; the familiar economic superstition which haunts every
January 30, 1969
4974	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment speech oi the N.D.P., namely, the suggestion that we spend our way out of inflation.
It is amazing that the opposition speeches show an almost complete lack of awareness of the potential conflict between full employment and price stability; the so-called trade off problem which has dominated the economic literature of the past decade and which was thoroughly researched and documented in Canadian terms by the Economic Council of Canada. However, even if the opposition is so patently lacking in knowledge and understanding ideas or proposals, this debate provides an opportunity to put forth an up to date appraisal of the performance of the Canadian economy, and this is what should have happened. It provides an opportunity to take a further look at developing trends and proposals for 1969, and to review and confirm the broad policy posture of the government.
Before turning to an appraisal of the current situation and prospects for 1969, I think it is important and instructive to put the question of the growth of the economy in its true perspective. The fact is that throughout almost the whole of the 1960's the Canadian economy has been enjoying the longest and most substantial period of growth in modern history. The economic expansion that began early in the decade has continued for an unprecedented span of years. Although the pace of growth slowed in 1967-68, and the rapid rate of new job creation eased up to some degree, this period of adjustment was so short and so mild that even the worst pessimists, including the Leader of the Opposition, have been unable to call it a recession. The period of expansion has been so strong and so extensive that most Canadians now seem to take for granted that we can sustain a widespread, general prosperity and an unflagging growth in employment, as well as a rapid gain in living standards.
It is this very success that has given rise to new aspirations and new expectations among all Canadians. There seems to be a widespread notion that the economy can do anything it is asked to do. It is this very success and the explosion of expectations, however, that is in danger of creating entirely new problems and the need for sober, practical appraisal of alternative objectives. The cost of these alternative objectives is very great. Neither idle prattle about economic platitudes nor doctrinaire tilting at windmills is very useful in dealing with the present state of the Canadian economy.
[Mr. Benson.J

Looking back over the most recent five
year period, we can get a real measure of the progress achieved since 1963 when the Liberal party formed the government after five years of Tory rule, and which underlies the heightening of our goals and aspirations.
Between 1963 and 1968 total output of the economy in real goods and services, without considering any increases in prices, increased by some 30 per cent; that is, by an average of 6 per cent per year in real terms. It thus overshot the target originally suggested by the economic council back in 1964. In 1967, therefore, the council lowered its target rate of growth to 5 per cent annually over the remaining years to 1970, a fact of which the Leader of the Opposition seemed to be unaware in his speech.
In terms of employment, we added 1,134,000 new jobs between 1963 and 1968. This was an average of 227,000 new jobs every year, again well over the target rate of job creation suggested by the economic council in 1964. The overall gain in real production meant that on a per capita basis real living standards rose by 18J per cent, not far short of 4 per cent annually over the five year period.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell
us about old age pensions.


Edgar John Benson: They have gone up by an even larger percentage. This rate of real growth was almost twice as great as that achieved during the preceding five year period from 1958 to 1963. That unfortunate period, of course, is well remembered as one of economic stagnation and frustration in Canada when unemployment averaged 6.4 per cent per year, some 50 per cent higher than the average rate of the past five years during Liberal government.
This look backwards over the recent past gives us a perspective to judge where we are at present, and where we are likely to go in 1969. Everything that has developed and come to light since the budget message of last October helps to confirm the accuracy and soundness of the economic analysis and the broad fiscal policy proposed in that budget. It is apparent that the temporary easing in expansion experienced in 1967 had ended by the end of that year and that since then the economy has re-established a strong forward momentum which it is expected will continue. The most recent data suggests an acceleration of growth in the final quarter of 1968 which will be reported soon.
January 30, 1969	COMMONS
In the October budget, I forecast a gain in the gross national product of about 8 per cent. It now appears that the growth rate will surpass 8 per cent and push the G.N.P. for 1968 to an all-time high level, well over the $67 billion level. Further, as my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) mentioned, and it was also mentioned yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, the latest monthly figures on unemployment have fallen below 5 per cent. They help to confirm a declining trend in unemployment since last mid-summer.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
It is also clear that productivity rose significantly, and our ability to compete in our main foreign markets, far from deteriorating as alleged by several speakers opposite, actually improved during the past year. This is attested to by the remarkable upsurge in exports, which even the Leader of the Opposition has had to acknowledge in some sort of unhappy and sad way. The result has been a highly favourable trade balance for Canada in the past year, which coupled with the continued inflow of investment capital has reinforced the basic strength of the Canadian dollar. As hon. members know, our dollar has been trading at or close to its upper limit for many months now.
Further, since the government successfully renegotiated the arrangements with the United States, we continue to enjoy preferred access to United States capital markets without the limitations of any numerical target on our foreign exchange reserves. We have undertaken not to borrow from the United States for the purpose of increasing our foreign exchange reserves. However, our reserves are free to move in accordance with the needs of our domestic economy, and we have secured greater potential flexibility and freedom in the operation of monetary policy in this country. In recent months our reserves have increased and are, I should point out to hon. members, in an extremely healthy position. All this reflects the high degree of confidence in Canada and its economy to be found in the outside world.
It is remarkable that among investors outside Canada, those who can stand back and observe our performance and prospects in a straightforward, objective	manner-those
who are not subject to the neurotic fear of impending doom which seems to infect the opposition benches-there is nothing but the strongest degree of confidence in Canada and the Canadian economy-
DEBATES	4975
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is that why they are cashing in their bonds?


Edgar John Benson: -and an appreciation of the soundness of its economic policies.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: We heard the same speech ten years ago.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, an hon. member said that he heard the same speech ten years ago.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: And written by the same people right up there in the gallery.


Edgar John Benson: But I assure the hon. member that he did not hear it seven years ago, when he was a member of the party in power in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edgar John Benson: Needless to say-


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister went out of his way to make an observation concerning myself. That is fine; but on a question of privilege I should bring to Your Honour's attention that a few moments ago the minister made a point of saying that the great boom and prosperity started in the 1960's.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. Minister of Finance.


Edgar John Benson: I was simply stating the facts, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: That is quite a change.


Edgar John Benson: I would like to look forward to what I think will happen in 1969. Needless to say, I share the confidence and optimism of these detached, outside observers who have confidence in the Canadian economy, rather than the gloom and fear of members of the opposition who really have not any faith in this country of ours and the opportunities that lie within it.


Mr. McIntosh:: We have no faith in the Minister of Finance.


Edgar John Benson: You do not even have any confidence in the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Russell MacEwan: When do you intend to balance the budget? Give us a rundown of that.
January 30. 1963
4976	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment


Edgar John Benson: I can confirm now the prospect suggested in the October budget that 1969 should be a year of strong and better balanced growth. All the indications at present point in this direction. One of the most important is the expectation of a vigorous upturn in business capital investment. This is likely to be in the order of 8 or 9 per cent. This will be a strong element in the expansion of demand in 1969, and I think answers the question put by the Leader of the Opposition regarding what offset was in prospect to make up for a return to a more normal rate of growth in exports during the forthcoming year. This upturn in investment is also particularly important in its relationship to the creation of new job opportunities in Canada, not only in construction and the capital goods industries but to the continuous rise in production and service employment.
In this connection, it is important to note that the growth in investment was foreshadowed by the strong recovery in business profits in 1968, which was abhorred by members of the New Democratic party. This recovery was of course necessary and was related to the squeeze on profits in the period preceding 1968, when they fell below their historically normal level as a percentage of the national economy. It is important that a reasonable level of profits be earned to sustain the high level of investment necessary to provide the rapid rate of new employment creation in industries of high productivity in Canada.
All the other elements of demand in the economy, personal consumption, housing, which will continue at record levels, government and exports, remain strong. This very strength of demand in fact underlies the main problem in economic policy over the year ahead, the need to restrain demand and combat continued inflation. I have spoken before on the problem of inflation.


An hon. Member:: You certainly have.


Edgar John Benson: I dealt with this at some length in the budget of last October. But the evidence of accelerating strength in the economy lends increasing importance to the balanced range of policies we are now following, I think to good effect.
As I said in my budget, "the most urgent need now is to check further the continuing increases in prices and living costs." I noted at that time that the burden of inflation falls with greatest weight on those lacking the bargaining power to protect themselves against inflation; that inflation undermines the whole

basis of an efficient competitive economy and disrupts the smooth flow of savings and investment through capital markets in our country.
A resolute fight against inflation does not mean that we are ignoring the basic goals of full employment and rapid job creation. On the contrary, our policy is to look forward to a substantially larger increase in jobs in 1969 than was the case in 1968. Even a high rate of job creation, however, may not lower unemployment to the minimum levels we would all like to see. I am sure that all of us would like to see this country achieve the position where everybody who wanted a job could find one, and indeed this will continue to be Liberal policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edgar John Benson: However, it must be remembered that we are in the midst of an unprecedented boom in the growth of the labour force. Our rate of increase is easily the highest of any western industrialized country, and as the Economic Council has pointed out, is much larger than the entire labour force growth being experienced in Britain, West Germany and Italy all put together. Further, as the regional statistics referred to in yesterday's debate make clear, the problem of structural unemployment is probably growing more severe and does not lend itself to solution by fiscal stimulus. There is, of course, a real problem of short-term conflict between our goals of full employment and price stability.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
But as I said in my budget speech, and repeat again today:
We should not delude ourselves into thinking the choice is between either policies of fiscal ease to counter unemployment or policies of fiscal restraint to fight inflation. In our present circumstances, unchecked inflation would precipitate the kind of economic disruption in which unemployment would surely increase and we would end up with more of both of these evils.
In summary, the growth of the economy is accelerating and the prospect for 1969 is for a further period of strong expansion in the Canadian economy. The main danger is that the forces of demand may set off a new round of inflationary price and cost behaviour, which sooner rather than later would result in severe economic disruption and hardship to the people of our country.
January 30, 1969	COMMONS
The government is seeking in its policy to find the right balance in supporting the forward thrust of the economy, in maintaining high employment, and in striking hard at inflationary forces. Briefly stated this means that we intend, first, to put first priority upon a relatively balanced budget in 1969-70; second, to hold down aggregate spending-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I
regret, but I have to interrupt the minister.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we are perfectly willing to allow the minister to complete his speech. After 20 minutes of platitudes, we will allow him one more minute in which to give us some facts.


Edgar John Benson: I thank the Opposition house leader very much and may I tell him that after listening to two days of platitudes I am sure he could stand 20 minutes during which I expressed what is happening in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the cost of living.


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


Gilbert F. Rondeau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to point out to you that we have no objection if, with the unanimous consent of the house, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) wishes to go on with his speech, but I should like him to leave us at least a few minutes since one of our members would like to make a few comments.


Edgar John Benson: I will finish in two or three minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
finished before you started.


Edgar John Benson: You fellows in the N.D.P. were finished 20 years ago, and the sad fact is you are beginning to realize it. Let me continue, Mr. Speaker.
Briefly stated, this means that we intend to put first priority upon a relatively balanced budget in 1969-70; to hold down aggregate spending, but deploy the direction and location of expenditure as much as possible to reduce regional unemployment; to continue strong support for the wide range of supply oriented measures which increase the mobility, training and efficiency of the labour force; to support the central bank in a firm but flexible monetary policy in support of orderly
DEBATES	4977
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment economic expansion; and, finally, to provide adequate resources to the Prices and Incomes Commission in its work of research, education and exposure of inflationary price and cost pressures.
With these policies I am convinced that Canada will move forward in 1969 and that despite the relative lack of interest in this economic debate in the last couple of days, which may indicate that most hon. members are satisfied with what is happening, I can assure all hon. members that we on this side of the house will not be satisfied until the economic goals of relatively full employment in an economy where inflation is limited and price and cost increases are limited, are finally achieved.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wonder if the minister would permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The time allotted to the minister has expired, unless there is unanimous consent of the house to allow him to speak further.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he would not agree that the white paper tabled by his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford), states that the policies of the government have not successfully curbed inflation or reconciled a sufficient price stability with an adequate rate of employment, and that none of these policies has led to that end.


An hon. Member:: Put the question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This is my question. I am asking whether he would not agree that whenever adequate levels of employment have been reached, government policies have led to excessive inflation. I am asking the Minister of Finance whether he is putting forward any additional policies which would offset this finding.


Gerald William Baldwin: Another cabinet split.


Edgar John Benson: What is happening in the Canadian economy is that since the Liberal government first came into power in 1963 there has been a tremendous expansion and such a wonderful spirit of optimism that most Canadians have come to feel that there is no limit to what can be done by our economy. We must all learn, as Canadians, that we cannot take more out of this economy through increased personal incomes or
January 30, 1969
4978	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Reduce Unemployment increased business profits-with which my hon. friend is familiar-than we put into it through increased productivity, or else prices are going to increase.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Mr. Oza  Telraull@Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to say a few words on the unemployment which prevails in Canada, in the province of Quebec, and more particularly in the constituency of Villeneuve which I have had the honour to represent here since the 25 th of June last.
Mr. Speaker, like several hon. members I have lived through the economic crisis of the 30s, and I think that what was to blame at that time was the monetary system. For almost 25 years the Ralliement Creditiste has been trying to make that clear to the old political parties of Canada.
At that time, people knew nothing whatever about the machinery of national and international finance. It was a young country and, like today, everything had to be built. However, at that time, like today, we did not apply the necessary measures to finance the projects in question, which would have given work to the unemployed, which would have contributed to build a Canada where it is good to live.
Mr. Speaker, people rebel against a system as inhuman as ours, and they are right. Everybody knows that Canada can feed 100 million people, without too much effort. Labour is not scarce, thanks to modern technology which makes it possible to produce a lot.
We could easily give to each and everyone a decent living and moreover, help the developing countries.
Mr. Speaker, recently, while visiting a small town in my riding, I met unemployed people who were unable to purchase the bare necessities of life.
I even visited a family where the father has a heart condition. He can no longer work and provide for the needs of his family. He is reduced to living miserably in a small house. His ten children sleep in beds without mattresses and without blankets. They are cold and they cough. How can these people believe that they live in a rich and beautiful country like Canada.
How can we feel fortunate to be living in Canada.

Today, in 1969, Mr. Speaker, unemployment in Canada is so serious that two persons out of five are ill-fed, badly housed and badly clothed. Undoubtedly, as many people know, 80 per cent of the world's wealth is controlled by 18 per cent of the population. If war broke out today or to-morrow, the Minister of Finance, who said a little while ago that the opposition had no solution to offer, would find a solution quite rapidly.
This afternoon, the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Marchand) said that the opposition had magic solutions. I do not believe that the two ministers are in agreement, because the Minister of Finance told us that the opposition has no solution to offer.
We in the Ralliement Creditiste party, have been repeating over and over again for a long time, the solution is to use the Bank of Canada, which is controlled by the government and could easily finance its projects, as well as those of the municipalities and provincial governments. However nobody seems to listen to us. We are supported by economists who have thoroughly studied the question. Person-nally, I have been in the Ralliement Creditiste for 25 years and I sincerely believe that the government should make use of the Bank of Canada to help our population.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to all kinds of speeches this afternoon. People were wondering whether there was enough credit available in Canada, enough machinery, enough building materials to speed up construction and give work to the unemployed. Let us consider the case of Val-d'Or, for instance, where there is one hospital which has outgrown the city's needs. There is sufficient land to build two hospitals such as the existing one but patients are waiting in line to be admitted. Doctors have great difficulties to practice medicine. They say there is no money to build a hospital. What they do not ask themselves is whether there are bricks mortar, manpower, machinery. It is still the powerful dollar which is controlling the world as it has been doing for the last 100 years.
Today, it is still the same old story: the two old parties are passing the buck to one another. In my view they are acting in the same way. As a matter of fact, I myself have lived with the Progressive Conservative party and with the Liberal party, and the more things change, the more they stay the same. Today the party in power is-


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
[Mr. Benson.l
January 30, 1969

Division


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a point of order but I remind him that this is the hon. member's maiden speech and according to the tradition of the house, he should not be interrupted.


Marcel-Claude Roy: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, deals with the definition of old political parties. I think that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Villeneuve.


Mr. Oza  Telraull@Villeneuve: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
shall continue my remarks to try to bring solutions to the problem of unemployment in Canada, and I believe that the only solution, as I said a moment ago, is to tackle our monetary system. It is the source of all injustices in Canada.
The Bank of Canada is serving the whole population and I believe it would be wise on the part of the federal government to consider the advisability of using it to finance our works.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 9.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section (9) of standing order 58, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the proceeding concerning the motion
McKinley	Paproski
McQuaid	Peters
Marshall	Ritchie
Mather	Rodrigue
Mazankowski	Rondeau
Monteith	Rynard
Moore (Wetaskiwin)	Saltsman
Moores (Bona vista -	Schreyer
Trinity-Conception)	Scott
Muir (Cape Breton -	Skoreyko
The Sydneys)	Stanfield
Muir (Lisgar)	Stewart (Marquette)
Nesbitt	Tetrault
Noble	Valade
Nowlan	Winch
Ny strom	Woolliams-74.
 NAYS Messrs:
Badanai	Leblanc (Laurier)
Barrett	LeBlanc (Rimouski)
Basford	Lefebvre
Bechard	Legault
Beer	Lessard
Benson
Blair
Boulanger
Breau
Brown
Caccia
Cadieux (Labelle)
Cafik
Cantin
Chappell
Chretien
Clermont
Cobbe
(Lac-Saint-Jean) Loiselle
Macdonald (Rosedale)
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mcllraith
McNulty
Major
Marceau
Marchand (Langelier) Mongrain Morison Murphy
now before the house.		Comtois	Noel
		Corbin	Olson
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)		Cote (Richelieu)	Osier
		Crossman	Ouellet
[English]	Danson	PelletierThe house	divided on the amendment (Mr.	Davis	PennerLewis) which was negatived on the following	Douglas Dube	Pepin Perraultdivision:	Emard	PilonYEAS	Forest	PringleForget	Prud'hommeMessrs:	Foster	ReidAlexander	Hales	Francis	RichardAlkenbrack	Harding	Gendron	RichardsonBaldwin	Harkness	Gibson	RobertsBell	Hees	Gillespie	RobinsonBenjamin	Howard (Skeena)	Goyer	RochonBrewin	Howe	Gray	RockBroadbent	Knowles (Norfolk -	Guay	Roy (Timmins)Carter	Haldimand)	(Saint-Bonif ace)	Roy (Laval)Coates	Knowles (Winnipeg-	Guay (Levis)	RyanCode	North-Centre)	Guilbault	SerreComeau	Lambert (Bellechasse)	Haidasz	SharpCrouse	Lambert (Edmonton	Hogarth	SmerchanskiDanforth	West)	Honey	Smith (Northumberland-Dionne	La Salle	Hopkins	Miramichi)Downey	Lewis	Howard (Okanagan	StanburyDumont	Lundrigan	Boundary)	Stewart (Cochrane)Fairweather	MacDonald (Egmont)	Hymmen	Stewart (Okanagan -Forrestall	MacEwan	Jamieson	Kootenay)Fortin	Maclnnis (Mrs.)	Jerome	SulatyckyGauthier	(Vancouver-Kingsway)	Lachance Laflamme	Sullivan Thomas (Maisonneuve)Gilbert	MacLean	Lang (Saskatoon-	TolmieGleave	MacRae	Humboldt)	TrudeauGodin	McGrath	Langlois	TrudelGrills	McIntosh	Laniel	Turner (London East)
January 30* 1969
Division
Whelan	NAYS
Whiting 108.	Messrs:
Wahn
Weatherhead


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Amendment negatived.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that we proceed with the vote on the main motion without a calling of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.