1970-12-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table in both official languages the export restraint agreement covering certain Japanese exports to Canada during 1970, and texts of letters exchanged between Ambassador Hondo of Japan and myself dated December 7 and 11, 1970, confirming the arrangement.



FUNDY POWER AUTHORITY


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills:
December 11, 1970-Mr. Nowlan-Bill intituled: "An Act to establish the Fundy Power Authority".
Mr. Speaker:: Before putting the motion I think I should mention to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley that the bill which is proposed for consideration by the House has caused me some misgivings. In many ways it is more akin to a private bill than to a public bill. I am sure the hon. member himself will have recognized that. At the same time, I am fully aware of the financial obligations entailed by the presentation of a private bill, and the nature of the propositions included in the proposed bill perhaps could not require that the hon. member should personally be saddled with these responsibilities.
In many ways this bill is perhaps a cross between a private bill and a public bill, or what has been called a hybrid bill. Unfortunately, our Standing Orders do not make provision for the presentation of a hybrid bill. There is no such-I was tempted to say "animal" but that would be highly unparliamentary. I would say that our Standing Orders do not provide for the presentation of such a bill. I would rather consider it a public bill and allow the hon. member, with a caveat, the right to present his bill.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-210, to establish the Fundy Power Authority.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I fully appreciate your caveat. I followed the precedent of the Newfoundland Tunnel Authority and a few other bills.
The purpose of this bill is to establish a hybrid body to be known as the Fundy Power Authority, involving the three Maritime governments, the federal government and associated agencies, to promote the multipurpose development of Fundy tidal power, potentially the greatest feasible single undeveloped power source on this continent.


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

[Stage Direction]
POSSIBLE TARIFF WAR-SUGGESTED GATT CONFERENCE______

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce a question relating to trade. Arising out of the suggestion of members of the government that there ought to be a further round of GATT with a view to considering possible reductions of tariffs to avoid the possibility of a tariff war, particularly between the United States and the Common Market, can the minister tell the House whether this has just been a suggestion or whether he or some other member of the government has actually canvassed the members of GATT with a view to launching such a conference?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this is more than a view on our part. To make things very clear, let me say that we have suggested two things. We have suggested that a number of elements which are presently being studied in GATT in Geneva should be extracted from the preparatory work and should be the object of international negotiation. These would be subjects that would not create major difficulty in the negotiations for enlargement going on at the same time.
Second, we have suggested that before the transitional period is over there should be a "mondialisation" of the results of EEC enlargement. These are the two things we have suggested, and efforts are being made now to convince others that this is the proper approach. Mr. Olivier Long, the Director General of GATT, is familiar with these ideas. I believe he shares some of them and is trying to work toward the same objective.

December 15, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Do I gather that the impression that is abroad that the government has suggested another GATT round is not well based, is not correct?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well, Mr. Speaker, our views were clearly expressed in the report I made recently in the House on the EEC enlargement. So I presume they are well known in Europe now. These are not new ideas on the part of the Canadian government. I spoke that way to political leaders when I was in the U.K. and Europe, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs has done the same. Whether these ideas will ever be elevated to Kennedy Round status I do not know, but we are working toward the objectives indicated.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is the minister in a position to tell the House what the attitude is of the administrations of the two major trading units concerned, that of the United States and that of the Common Market, toward this suggestion? Has the minister received any response? Can he indicate very briefly what the response is?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, these views were obviously made known to the two parties the hon. member is talking about. Each one of them, I may say, has problems of its own. All of us know that at this moment the Europeans, dealing only with that group are so involved in the process of enlargement that they have only limited time they say to give to our suggestions with respect to a major negotiation in GATT. We have expressed the view that this would not be the proper approach and that it would be in their own long term interests, as well as ours, to devote some of their attention to the suggestions we have made.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Do I take it that the minister is not in a position to tell us that the initiative he has taken has received any positive response or endorsement or will receive any support in the immediate future from either the United States or the Common Market?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker, I could not use the word "endorsement" but we are still working very hard on it, and the ideas have supporters everywhere in the world.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of indications that the top economists in the government service have submitted a report claiming that one of the major causes of unemployment has been lay-offs by foreign-controlled corporations in this country and indicating that there is a strong suspicion that these lay-offs have been undertaken to protect jobs in the United States. Has the minister seen or received such a report from the top economists of the government?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Who are they?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker, and I think the premise is a natural NDP premise.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether any department of the government has received such a report or whether the Prime Minister himself has received such a report?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not heard of any such report being received by any department. I shall ask the ministers whether they have received such a report, but when I saw the news item I thought it looked like a bit of fantasy rather than reality.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether any study is being made of the indicated lay-off of over 5,000 persons by major United States concerns in this country? Is any inquiry being made into whether these lay-offs were necessary because of the situation in Canada, or because of the situation in the United States?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think this is all a dream of Stephen Lewis.


Mr. Lewis:: His dream is your nightmare.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
According to an article which appeared in an Eastern Townships newspaper, Quebec milk producers, and probably all producers in Canada, will not be subject to the overproduction tax of $1.25 per cent starting December 1.
Can the minister say whether the government's dairy policy has been altered and whether he has issued a statement in this regard?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there will be a very important change in the holdback on the subsidy support program as soon as the provinces,
particularly Ontario and Quebec, have a market-sharing program in place and functioning. We are hopeful that this will be very soon. As soon as it is there will be some important changes in the holdback.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Can the minister say whether the tax of $1.25 is to be repealed when these regulations come into force and, if so, whether this measure will apply retroactively from April 1, 1970.

December 15, 1970


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it will. 1 shall announce to the House what the changes in the holdback on the subsidy support program are as soon as I have confirmation from the provinces and the milk marketing boards in those provinces that a market-sharing program is in effect.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Is it true that, since December 1, the penalty on surplus production has been reduced from $1.25 to 26 cents?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not true in the way the hon. member put the matter. I think, as I said, that there will be a very important change, whether from $1.25 to 26 cents or to some other figure, as soon as the provinces have market-sharing quotas in effect.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence and welcome him back to the House after his trip to attend the NATO meetings and visit our forces in Europe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Smile, dear, smile. Could he advise the House of the reaction of the members of the NATO council to the gratuitous advice given to the council by the new boy regarding the future operations of NATO-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that the question cannot be asked in those terms. If he would like to ask the question in terms that are acceptable to the Chair, perhaps he could proceed.


George Harris Hees: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister advise the House as to what was the reaction of the NATO council to the advice which the minister gave the other members regarding the future operations of NATO, particularly in view of the fact that the government he represents has just withdrawn half of its forces which had been committed to that body?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that the comments which we made at that time about the A.D. 70's study, which is the context in which the remarks were made, were agreed to be just under the circumstances and were well taken.


George Harris Hees: Could the minister advise the House if the reaction of the members of the NATO council to the
Inquiries of the Ministry
minister's precocious pomposity was the same acute nausea which was experienced by this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Without using any expressions such as he has just heard-being devoid of expressions of that kind-may I ask him this question? What will the number of Canadian personnel in NATO be during the coming year? Will the number be 5,000, as it originally was, or 2,500, to which figure the force was reduced? I ask this question because, after reading what he said in Europe, there is considerable doubt as to what he meant.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I said in Europe that the force level would be 5,000. I say to the right hon. member that the force level will be 5,000, hence 5,000 means 5,000.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when was it that 5,000 became 5,000? When did the government of Canada change its attitude regarding the reduction of our forces to 2,500?


An hon. Member:: Never.


John George Diefenbaker: When was the conversion on the road to Damascus?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there was never any decision to reduce the forces to 2,500. There was a full force level proposed a little over a year ago, and after discussions with the NATO authorities it was equalized at a level of 5,000. That has been the position at least so long as I have been Minister of National Defence and for some time before that.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Did he send his special assistant, Dr. Ivan Head, to confer with President Nyerere of Tanzania and President Kaunda of Zambia? If so, was the question of the resumption of the sale of arms by Britain to South Africa one of the subjects that Dr. Head was required to discuss with the two African leaders?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The answer to both questions is yes.


David Lewis: May I ask the Prime Minister whether Dr. Head's instructions were to inform the two African leaders that the Canadian government remains firm in its opposition to the resumption of the sale of arms by Britain to South Africa or whether he was to negotiate some kind of accommodation?

December 15, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. The position Dr. Head adopted was that which was expressed to the British government in a letter from myself to Prime Minister Heath several months ago. The purpose of the trip was to explain that position and to indicate that we hope that some accommodation can be reached within the framework of the Commonwealth which would permit each country to have, of course, jurisdiction over its own internal affairs but to make sure that its decisions were compatible, in so far as possible, with the maintenance and subsistence of the Commonwealth.


David Lewis: Does the answer of the Prime Minister mean that, if some African members of the Commonwealth should so object to the British resumption of the sale of arms as to threaten to leave it, the Canadian government may change its position in the sale of arms to South Africa and find some compromise, or will we stand firm?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must point out to the hon. member that his question is hypothetical.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Your Honour knows that the Prime Ministers' conference will take place in January and the Prime Minister of Canada will be out of the House at that time. What I am really seeking is information on the position which the Prime Minister and the government will take at the Prime Ministers' conference, and these are the final days on which the Prime Minister can be asked that kind of question.


Mr. Speaker:: I realize that the matter is urgent and of national importance, but I was suggesting to the hon. member that his further supplementary appeared to be hypothetical. If I am wrong, perhaps the Prime Minister should be allowed to reply. I must point out to hon. members that the question period is moving along quickly, and if there are quite a few supplementaries at this time it will prevent hon. members on the back benches asking questions which they may want to ask later.


David Lewis: May I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. At the Prime Ministers' conference of Commonwealth leaders to be held in January, does the Canadian government intend to stand firm in its opposition to the sale of arms to South Africa, or will it seek some kind of compromise?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When I go into a meeting of any kind, Mr. Speaker, I generally know the kind of results I would like to issue from that meeting. But I would not go so far as to say that I would go into a meeting, even the Commonwealth meeting, with a closed mind and not prepared to listen to arguments from all sides.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If these arguments were to convince me that the position of the Canadian government was wrong, I hope I would have the courage to correct it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the position put forward by the Prime Minister's representative was taken after consultation with Mr. Arnold Smith, Secretary General of the Commonwealth, and whether the representations made by the Prime Minister's representative were fully consistent with the views of Mr. Smith?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government has not made any attempt to make sure that Mr. Smith has any kind of veto over our position. If our position should be inconsistent with his, I am sure the House would not object to our having the right to express it. But if the Leader of the Opposition is asking whether we are in contact with Mr. Smith and aware of his efforts to assure the good health of the Commonwealth, the answer is yes. I have seen Mr. Smith and so had Mr. Head in the weeks preceding Mr. Head's visit to Africa.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question in view of the rather unusual procedure regarding the letter written by the Prime Minister to the Right Hon. Edward Heath, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in connection with the problem in South Africa and the sale of arms. As this letter was leaked in Ottawa almost before it was received by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, will the Prime Minister ascertain from Mr. Heath when he is in Ottawa whether he has any objection to the tabling of that letter so that hon. members will know the exact stand taken by the Prime Minister of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the right hon. member would like to correct the erroneous statement that he made. If he checks the facts he will see that the letter was not leaked in Ottawa, as he stated, almost as soon as it was given to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.


John George Diefenbaker: When was it leaked?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Members of the opposition are applauding the right hon. gentleman because, when found at fault, he asks a question. I do not think there is anything particularly astute about this. I repeat that the facts as he stated them were wrong, and perhaps he would like to correct them.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not withdraw at all. The Prime Minister did something which he had no right to do in the interests of the Commonwealth; he sent a confidential communication.
December 15, 1970


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister rises on a question of privilege.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, but I think the House is entitled to know the facts when I am accused of having done something which I had no right to do. I assure the House that we did not leak any letter. It was not leaked in Ottawa, and the right hon. member should not make an accusation of that kind without being able to substantiate it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: May I remind the Prime Minister that this is not the first time he has forgotten something-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize a further supplementary by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, but I must bring to the attention of hon. members that time is going by quickly.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nofre-Dame-de-Grace):: The
Prime Minister stated he would go to the Commonwealth conference with a flexible position and listen to the arguments of Britain. Suppose countries such as Zambia, Tanzania and other Commonwealth nations put forward very strong arguments for taking an even tougher position against Britain; will Canada's position be flexible enough to tend to their side?


An hon. Member:: Make him a Parliamentary Secretary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Both suggestions I have just heard are hypothetical, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am counting the large number of members who are rising now, and I must warn many of them that they will not be called during this question period.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. I have given him notice. Can the minister tell us the results of his meeting with the Minister of National Revenue on behalf of farmers who are being reassessed for tax purposes after engaging in off-farm labour to augment their incomes?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have had a discussion about this matter with the Minister of National Revenue, although these farmers have the right to communicate directly with the Minister of National Revenue if they wish. I am advised that the minister is looking further into this matter. We would like to be given names so that we can identify the files concerned, but I can also assure the hon. member that
Inquiries of the Ministry
bona fide farmers are not being treated any differently now than they were in the past.



FINANCE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. During the recent conference between himself and the provincial treasurers did any discussion take place concerning whether or not the increases in the combined rates of taxation, provincially and federally, have jointly passed the point of diminishing returns?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Angus MacLean: Is it the intention of the Minister of Finance to suggest that discussion of this point should be on the agenda at the next such conference?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker, because I do not believe it to be the case.



POLLUTION


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the fact that the government of Manitoba has filed a statement of claim against two companies alleged to have contaminated waterways in Manitoba, can the minister assure us, in so far as the matter comes within his jurisdiction, that Dryden Chemicals Limited and Interprovincial Co-operatives have ceased to discharge wastes?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: They have ceased to discharge wastes to the extent of 95 per cent or better; I expect them both to be down in the order of 99 per cent in the next few weeks.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would the minister explain to the House the drastic decrease in Chinese immigration from 6,655 in the first nine months of 1969 to 4,232 in the first nine months of 1970?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is the kind of information which should be given to the House by way of a statement on motions.

December 15, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



ALLEGED IMPORTATION OE KOREAN TOBACCO

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister tell the House whether or not three million pounds of Korean tobacco were imparted into Canada during the last two months for use by Rothman's Tobacco Company?


Mr. Speaker:: This kind of question ought to be placed on the order paper. If there is urgency it may be discussed at ten o'clock.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a point of order, may I say that the tobacco auctions are in progress at the present time, and this is a matter of urgent importance to the industry in light of its marketing activities.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is urgency which is still not apparent to the Chair, perhaps the minister might reply quickly.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Do I understand that the hon. member has in mind imports of flue-cured tobacco from Korea?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Luc Pepin: If that is the case, I have checked with the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and I find there is no record of such imports in the first 11 months of the year. This is all the information that I have up to the present. Now that the hon. member provides me with further clues, I will be glad to try to procure any additional information I can.



FINANCE


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that government expenditures have risen by 58 per cent in the past four years while the economy grew by only 36 per cent, is the government making any plans to review its expenditures so as to keep them at least in line with the growth of the economy, thereby assisting in the control of inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will not allow the minister to reply to the question. The question should be placed on the order paper. In any event, it is not the kind of question which can be asked during the question period.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: have a question for the President of the Privy Council. Inasmuch as he has now had an opportunity to review
the petition placed before the House in connection with section 18 of Bill C-135, can the hon. gentleman indicate what his intentions are in this respect?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: The only aspect of the question I have been considering is the procedure by which the petition could be considered by the House or by a committee. There have been discussions with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and his Parliamentary Secretary, and with the chairman of the standing committee. It may be we can work out a method by which the petition can be considered by that committee. I believe there is a difficulty which hon. members can appreciate: if formal reference of the petition were made to the committee, similar petitions in future would have to be dealt with in the same way. This is a matter which has some consequence from the point of view of our over-all operations. Nevertheless, because of the special nature of the petition and especially its origin, I am particularly interested in having it considered in some place.


Donald MacInnis: Am I to understand that the government is reluctant to allow a well-established precedent to operate here?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think that this is argument. It would seem to me that perhaps what we should do is allow the hon. member and the President of the Privy Council to go into the matter together and try to find a solution, as suggested by the Chair originally.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I think my question of privilege is well established by the question of privilege with which the Prime Minister got away a few moments ago. When the petition was tabled I co-operated with the House and with the House Leader and gave him every opportunity to study the petition and the bill. With regard to sending it to the committee, it was my hope that the government would see fit to send it to the committee for study, and also that it would be sent to the justice and legal affairs committee, with the emphasis on the justice. We have before us-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not a point of order or a question of privilege. The hon. member's personal privileges have not been offended, to my way of thinking. I suggest to the hon. member that our chances of finding a solution to the important point that he raised the other day are much better than he may think. He will remember that when the question was raised before the House by way of a petition I asked whether there was unanimous consent of the House, and I gathered that we were pretty close to achieving that. I am hopeful that we may still be able to achieve this, but in view of the briefness of the question period I do not think we are helping the situation at this point by pursuing the matter as a question of privilege.


Donald MacInnis: Then may I once again ask the Chair for guidance. Where does one seek justice? I have discussed this matter with the minister and the minister is reluctant to send it to the committee to be dealt with. I have

December 15, 1970

no idea where I should turn in that this legislation has not been implemented. Where in this country do you get justice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Greenwood.



HOUSING


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the acting minister in charge of housing, who I believe is the Minister of National Revenue. In light of the statement made by the Secretary of State that the project for an expressway in Montreal would butcher several residential areas and demolish
2,000	houses and therefore should be replaced by an underground expressway, will the minister undertake to look into this matter and explore what action might be taken to discourage the one project in favour of the other?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague I would be glad to take note of the question.



FINANCE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
With a view to meeting the request made yesterday by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to the government, to remove the 3 per cent surtax, which would result in lower unemployment, does the government intend to reconsider its last decision and soon announce lower taxes, in view of the fact that taxes paralyze production and give free play to the escalation in the cost of living?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, any changes in taxation policy will be announced in the House of Commons in the normal way.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-APPLICATIONS FILED AFTER JULY 15, 1970

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the numerous representations made in recent weeks by producers who, through no fault of their own, did not file their applications under the Lift program before the deadline of July 15, 1970, can the minister inform the
Inquiries of the Ministry
House whether or not those representations have been considered and, if so, what has been the decision of the government?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been giving serious consideration to the representations that have been made. Certainly we do not want to deprive any farmer of his payments under the Lift program through an honest mistake on his part. Therefore I have instructed the appeal tribunal in Regina to give a little more latitude in respect of the dates when applications were received but not to change the date on which the physical changes may have been made-that is, up to and including July 15 but not since that date.



INVESTIGATION OF USE OF BAY OF FUNDY TIDES

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the minister in a position to report to the House the progress being made in his department on the harnessing of the power of the Bay of Fundy tides, and what future actions are planned in this regard? If he is not at the present time in that position, will he provide the House with an up to date report at the earliest possible opportunity?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minisier of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to add to the report I made at the time of tabling the study regarding the Bay of Fundy power project. I would be glad to look into the matter further to see whether the departmental study has come up with any further conclusions, and in this regard I will take the hon. member's question as notice.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I asked a question of the acting minister yesterday concerning improvement in the structure and procedures of the Immigration Appeal Board in order to deal with the backlog of some 14 months in appeals awaiting hearing. Has the minister had this question referred to him and, if so, has he an answer?


Hon. Ofio E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this question has in effect, been answered several times in the House, at which time it was indicated that the specific recommendations of the Sedgwick report and its conclusions and our own decision on them were considered to be of urgent importance, and that we hoped to be able to come forward with some proposals for the House before very long.

December 15, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to put a question to the Minister of Justice but in his absence, I shall direct it to the Prime Minister.
Will the government consider the opportunity of bringing forward legislation to prohibit in Canada the import, manufacturing and distribution of false firearms sold as toys, in view of the proliferation of such toy guns and the dangers they represent for our youth and the police forces in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know the matter of firearms has been raised in the past in the House and the Minister of Justice has said that he was examining it but, as I see it, if the question deals with toys, it should be put to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who, as we all know, has already taken steps to protect children against dangerous toys. I will make sure that the question is drawn to his attention.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, since he has agreed to answer my question.
Since during the Christmas season a considerable number of toy firearms appear on the market, could the government take immediate steps to prevent such proliferation at this time?



AIRPORTS


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention of the minister to phase out all federal government participation in servicing small airports by removing snow-clearing equipment and other DOT services in what is known as the Winnipeg region?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to have something a little more specific as to the region, but I can assure the hon. member that there is no such policy. There may be an airport or two where something is being done, but perhaps we can consult in this regard and the hon. member can give me more specific information.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Now that TransAir has discontinued its service between Winnipeg and Regina, win the minister review the regional air policy for this area so that adequate
regional air services may be provided and thereby maintain services at these airports?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is obviously not a supplementary question but the minister might be allowed to reply to it so we can save 30 seconds.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will take a look at this.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport when we can expect a full statement on regional air policy and the implications for regional airports so we can get a full measure of public reaction, hopefully in support of that policy?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, whether it be regional air policy or air policy generally, it tends to be an ongoing thing. I reaffirm the air policy stated about a year ago which added certain elements to it. There have been certain changes since that time. Perhaps the most appropriate place where we might be able to get full disclosure of the sort the hon. member wants is before one of the committees, and I would be happy to appear before such committee. However, I am not anticipating preparation or release of what might be described as a new regional air policy in total form in the foreseeable future.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Transport. I understand that the minister is considering four sites only for the second international airport near Toronto. In view of the fact that the minister has been considering this matter for over a year, can the minister give the House an indication of the target date for advising the House and the nation regarding these sites, having provided safeguards to prevent speculation, so that the Canadian people can have what has been called participatory democracy?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It is
precisely because we are anxious to have a maximum amount of participatory democracy that this problem has arisen. If we wish to make an arbitrary choice of a site and just lay it on the table as having been completed and done with, that is one thing. What we are seeking to do is to secure the maximum amount of co-operation and participation with the provinces and the municipalities, including metropolitan Toronto. In order to do this we have to give people choices and in order to make choices available we have to show alternative sites. The difficulty, as I have told the House on previous occasions, is to find a means by which we can prevent land speculation during this period of public participation. I am happy to say that I have the full co-operation of the government of Ontario and that our officials are meeting jointly this

December 15, 1970

week to see whether through the mechanisms that are available to both of us we can achieve that objective. The instant we have a means through which to ensure that there will be no land speculation the report will be released, and I hope that will be early in the new year.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister some other alternatives to offer rather than a Toronto auxiliary airport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I might offer you a slow boat to China.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am afraid I do not understand the portent of the question and it might take too long to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this matter might be pursued tomorrow. If the hon. member would bear with me I would like to see the hon. member for Crowfoot and then the hon. member for Mackenzie.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the Minister of Transport as long as a year ago advised the House that he would announce last September where the Toronto auxiliary airport would be. He has kept in suspense not only this House but all the people who are hanging on a limb as to where this airport will be. I asked the question not too long ago whether it would be north and west of Toronto and the minister said north, south, east and west of Toronto. I did not appreciate that answer but I said nothing at that time. Now we have asked the minister when he proposes to tell us the location of these sites and he offers me a slow boat to China. These people in this area want an answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member if I was flippant. I honestly did not mean it in any serious way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If I were going to put him on a boat, Mr. Speaker, it would be to a much more attractive location than China.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: But seriously-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously we are going nowhere fast.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the minister still speaking to the question of privilege? It was hardly a question
Inquiries of the Ministry
of privilege. It was more a point of debate, but the House
may wish to allow the minister to reply to the member's question.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I merely wanted to reiterate the point that this judgment we have made with regard to the phasing in terms of public disclosure has the full co-operation of the province of Ontario. If the hon. member or any others wish us to withdraw from our commitment to keep the people of the area informed on a proper basis, then we can go ahead and announce the site tomorrow, but until we have this assurance I think certainly the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee would not want me to be put in a position where perhaps the Auditor General might accuse me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I owe it to hon. members to bring to their attention that the question period expired three or four minutes ago. I realize this is an important point that was raised originally by the hon. member for Hamilton West. The hon. member for Crowfoot, the hon. member for MacKenzie and the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants have been trying to ask questions since the beginning of the question period. I will start with the hon. member for Crowfoot.
* * [DOT]



POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE IN HANDLING CHARGES

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Now that the Canada Grain Act has been passed, is it the government's intention to allow the Board of Grain Commissioners to increase the handling charges, which would be taken right out of the farmers' pockets if this should come about?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, that question does not arise because the decisions that are made by the Board of Grain Commissioners respecting handling and storage charges are decisions made by that body.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Did the start of icebreaking operations on the Great Lakes last week mean a cutting down of such services elsewhere in eastern Canada and, if so, where?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No,
Mr. Speaker. I do not believe the decision to carry out some experimental work in the Great Lakes wi" have any effect on icebreaking in other regions.
December 15, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



PRESENCE OF RUSTY BEETLE IN WHEAT SHIPMENTS

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. On November 17 he indicated to the House he would order a study of the whole question of contamination of wheat by the rusty beetle. Is he now in possession of this report and could he indicate to the House briefly what the situation is?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I did not say I would order a study. I said I would try to ascertain the facts. One of the facts that is important is that we have not had any claims in respect of contamination by the rusty beetle in grain shipments to our overseas customers.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, now that we have exchanged diplomats with the People's Republic of China, if he would make a statement on motions on what plans his department has for additional immigration officials on the mainland to provide opportunities for relatives of Canadian citizens to come to Canada from the mainland area?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look into the question of whether a statement on motions would be helpful some time in the near future.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Joliette raising a point of order?


Roch La Salle: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Since I have received this morning a telegram of which the Minister of Transport should also have a copy in hand, would the House allow me to ask him a question concerning a most urgent problem?


Mr. Speaker:: I have reminded hon. members that the question period has been over for six or seven minutes already. Should the House agree-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might perhaps ask his question tomorrow. I shall see to it that he is recognized at the very beginning of the question period.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Andre Foriin (Loibiniere) moved:: That this House condemns the government for having inspired false hopes among young people between the ages of 16 and 24 by assuring them that education pays, at a time when young people coming out of schools and universities find no outlet for their energies and no means of placing the knowledge they have acquired at the service of the people, because the government has been unable to introduce such financial devices as the compensated discount and the national dividend so as to enable the masses to benefit from the communal resource constituted by young people who are educated and better equipped than any previous generation to produce more efficiently, more abundantly and more economically, so as to assure the greater welfare of all Canadians.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise very briefly on a point of order to renew the caveat which was filed by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) some time ago when a non-confidence motion was moved on behalf of a representative of the New Democratic Party. I do not intend to make a formal argument, and I shall not object to this motion proceeding now, because we feel that with some substantial improvement we might be able to support it. I simply wish to make plain that in allowing the motion to proceed, it is without prejudice to the view of our party that when we are in the process of dealing with the granting of supply to Her Majesty's government, it is the traditional right of Her Majesty's Official Opposition to move motions of non-confidence. I know that objection will be taken to this position by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who is about to spring to his feet. I recognize that there is a very difficult problem here, and some day the hon. member, I, and other hon. members may have to place it before Your Honour.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
May I conclude by saying that I hope this might be one of the matters at which the Procedure Committee might look. Quite properly, we should try to limit the number of non-confidence motions, but surely with 25 motions on opposition days it should be quite plain that in the past there have been too many dessicated and anaemic discussions, not because the subject matter was not a good one or because the calibre of the debate was not high, but because there was no vote to be taken at the end of the discussion. It would seem to me that some arrangement might be found by which motions which are dealt with on opposition days might be the subject of a vote, so that members on the government side who could not vote against the government because it was a non-confidence motion, might be free to take a position when suggestions are made urging the government to do something or take a less critical position than is involved in a non-confidence motion. I hope that this is one of the issues which the House and the committee might well discuss later.
[Mr. Jamieson.)
December 15, 1970


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to join the hon. member lor Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) in entering, briefly, a caveat. As a matter of fact, it is because of the caveat that he has entered that I must do likewise.
The issue that is raised relates to the question of which hon. members have the right, under Standing Order 58, to file motions on non-confidence days. I might point out to Your Honour that in Standing Order 58(3) there is a reference to the fact that opposition motions may be moved only by members in opposition to the government, but there is no suggestion that those motions may be moved only by members of the official opposition. The hon. member for Peace River has just said that this is a traditional right. I am sure he would expect me to challenge that statement. As a matter of fact, over the years there have been many occasions when amendments to the motion to go into supply have been moved by members other than members of the offic.al opposition. It is true that under this new rule we have never sorted things out, but I do not think we have had it long enough for it to have become a tradition.
In the last session, however, when we were unable to reach agreement on whether someone else should have one of these non-confidence motions, we have found a way to propose one of them. The fact is that there are six in the year under the rule as it stands. We do not think the official opposition has any prior right to have all six of these motions. We think that at the very least the other parties should have one each, and that if we cannot reach an agreement among ourselves, it will have to be resolved by making appropriate motions and bringing the issue before the Chair.
What happened today was that this was the final motion in the current semester, and during that time only one has been a non-confidence motion. Therefore, by default, our friends of the Ralliement Creditiste will have a vote on their motion tonight. I am glad the default has been in their favour, but I suggest that when the time comes to argue it out, it should be clear that the official opposition does not have a prior claim to all six of the non-confidence motions and that there should be a ruling accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that both hon. members have decided not to argue the case. In view of this,
I will deliver a non-ruling. It may be that some day the rule will have to be clarified in some way, and I hope I will not be placed in the position of having to determine who has a non-confidence motion and who has not. I think that it would be preferable if this were done by the terms of the Standing Order but, as the hon. member for Peace River suggested, it may well be that the Procedure Committee could look at this difficulty in due course.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, in recent decades, the latest in particular, successive governments have based their economic policies on two broad principles. Even provincial governments have followed suit. Those principles are specialization and increased productivity.
Employment of Graduate Students
In their enthusiasm, because they thought they had found a magic solution, governments were hypnotized by the value of diplomas; they were forever speaking of "educat.on" and "specialization". We now know the price of that enthusiasm.
When our fathers were young, instead of fidgeting at their desks in the classroom, they rushed to the woods in order to earn some money on which to live. They were jacks-of-all-trades and the only diploma of which they could boast was one in resourcefulness.
Our fathers experienced hard times. Indeed, their generation went through a succession of economic crises and wars, which left them no respite.
Today, governments are again driving those people to the wall, telling them they must have education, diplomas or some special skill.
Our governments have therefore invested billions of dollars in the construction of schools, in comprehensive schools, school renovation, recruitment and training of teachers. That was the period of Parent reports, Operation 55 and many other projects of both provincial and federal governments. There, Mr. Speaker, the federal government did not take a back seat.
However, the movement should not have stopped there. Once our governments had found the soltuion, which was education, they should have applied it thoroughly. It had indeed been sorely lacking.
That is why the federal government is in turn taking the lead and setting up adult education programs through its Manpower Training Centres.
Fathers and mothers as well who as children only got distant glimpses and dreams of school, are now being paid the equivalent of a salary by the government to make up for lost time. They are being offered an elementary course, then a secondary course and finally, to crown it all, vocational training. However, after that, there is no job.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
This is tremendous for our puppet governments. In fact, those who otherwise would live in poverty are now living on hope. They are getting paid and, in any case, they would probably be getting welfare. Furthermore, these programs suit the government because it is normal to do everything so that these people may have the chance to get an education.
It is a political play to get votes.
Finally, while they are studying these people are not looked on as unemployed. So they are not adding to the already frighten ng unemployment figures which are further evidence of the government's ineffic.ency. This is what counts most for the latter.
The situation is quickly outlined, Mr. Speaker: everybody in school! The slogan is the following: Education will save you. It is the solution to our problems of poverty, economic injustice and wealth distribution, that is production distribution.
2356&-59

December 15, 1970
Employment of Graduate Students
I think that there is no over-all solution to our economic and social problems. However, let us not put all our eggs in the same basket because when we drop it, we shall have quite an omelet. This is what is taking place today.
On Friday, December 11, 1970, on the front page of the newspaper he Nouvelliste, of Trois-Rivieres, there was the following heading: "476,000 unemployed in Canada and Quebec holds the record for unemployment in this country". Let me quote part of this article quite descriptive of our situation:
The number of unemployed in Canada has increased by 57,000 and reached 476,000 in November last, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics disclosed Thursday in a joint statement.
This increase in the number of unemployed raised the gross unemployment rate to 5.7 per cent, from 5 per cent in October.
As for the labour situation, it is stated that it may vary from October to November. However, the number of employed workers stood at 7,924,000 in November, a drop of 69,000 from October.
And this is not happening only in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, the same problem is just as acute in every province. This is-and I want to say it straight out-the total failure of this government's economic policy.
That is why I move, seconded by my colleagues of the Ralliement creditiste, the following motion:
That this House condemns the government for having Inspired false hopes among young people between the ages of 16 and 24 by assuring them that education pays, at a time when young people coming out of schools and universities find no outlet for their energies and no means of placing the knowledge they have acquired at the service of the people, because-
And this is where we find, Mr. Speaker, the incompetence of the old parties in economic matters.
-because the government has been unable to introduce such financial devices as the compensated discount and the national dividend so as to enable the masses to benefit from the communal resource constituted by young people who are educated and better equipped than any previous generation to produce more efficiently, more abundantly and more economically, so as to assure the greater welfare of all Canadians.
Indeed the number of unemployed has increased by
44.000	in Ontario, by 28,000 in British Columbia, by
25.000	in Quebec and by 23,000 in the Prairie provinces. It is not merely a problem concerning Quebec; it is a national problem.
The rate of unemployment has increased in Quebec from 6.8 per cent to 1.2 per cent. It cannot be said that the government of Quebec ignores that problem. Indeed this shadow government has as a matter of fact won the election by promising 100,000 jobs. Up to now this plan has been a failure. Indeed in its last annual report the Economic Council of Canada estimated that only 3,000 jobs would be created this year in Quebec, which would not be much of a success.
But today 168,000 jobs would be needed to regain control of the situation. Through its anti-inflation policy the federal government has directly contributed to the increase of unemployment all across Canada. The economic policy followed by the government under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has led to complete failure.
To show the shortcomings of this economic policy of the Liberals, one merely has to point out that while graduates were being produced, a matching number of opportunities should have been created, and this the government has failed to do.
Mr. Speaker, the specialized magazine Supply and Demand indicates that the number of employment opportunities for university graduates has increased by a mere 3.4 per cent since 1969 whereas the number of graduates has gone up by 10 per cent during the same period, increasing at a rate twice as fast-if not more-as the number of job openings.
And for the province of Quebec, the Minister of Labour about a month ago predicted that next year
48,000	CEGEP graduates will not be able to find jobs corresponding to their educational levels.
This situation is serious, not to say upsetting, when one considers that its victims are the same young people who were promised a happy society where they would find freedom and security since their degrees, they were told, would secure a stable job for them. But today, what do these degrees secure for them? Idleness, disappointment and despair. Why? Because the present government simply does not have a monetary policy.
And our governments are directly responsible for this situation, which they literally created.

The greatest myth of the post-war years, Mr. Speaker, has been that of "more jobs, and better jobs through more education." We have already examined the results with respect to the young people who innocently believed this myth. More jobs, Mr. Speaker? Better jobs? They don't have any jobs at all! But even worse for the country is the fact that governments believed the myth, and so every government from Newfoundland to British Columbia poured money into education. And Ottawa was right out there in front, paying 50 per cent of the operating costs of Canadian universities, as well as financing the Canadian student loan program.
The Economic Council of Canada tells us that education is the biggest expense of governments in this country. Already public and private financing of education runs to over $5 billion. And what is the result? Young people coming out of universities with their degrees can't find jobs. It costs $40,000 to educate a man to the point where he receives a Ph.D. degree, and yet Dr. Frank Kelly, Science Adviser for the Science Council of Canada, last month said that half the Ph.D. candidates getting their degrees next year will not be able to find employment.
Somewhere, Mr. Speaker, somebody has made a horrible mistake. Billions of dollars are spent on education,

December 15, 1970

and now students cannot find jobs. Mr. Speaker, the government has failed those students. And worse, far worse, it has failed the many unemployed people in this country because, in spending those millions and billions of dollars on education, it has deprived the poor and the uneducated of jobs and of a decent life that could have been created if the money had been spent on them.

We might understand why so much was spent on education if at least we had managed to give the poor, the underprivileged and rural citizens a chance to enhance their standard of living. But how can they benefit from it? How can the poor afford to attend university when tuition fees exceed $500?
There are 476,000 unemployed in Canada, including
212,000	under 25. Are those young people entitled to benefits under the current unemployment insurance program? Let us briefly examine the situation. They are not eligible because they are too young. This is preposterous indeed! To be eligible for unemployment benefits, a chap must have worked 30 weeks during the two previous years, including at least 24 weeks during the last year.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
How many young people who just left school and cannot find employment fulfill this condition? Even if they could, they would receive approximately $40 a week. What happens if they take a federal government sponsored retraining course? They get an average of $65 a week. The government spends over $500 million to finance these courses, but can a young unemployed worker be eligible for one? It is very difficult, if not impossible. To do so, he should have completed his studies one year before or have been working for three years.
In fact, only 31 per cent of those who took these courses last year were unemployed workers. The others had provisionally left their position and intended to resume it as soon as the course was over. There is thus no hope for our young people.
What was the reaction of the right hon. Prime Minister in the face of that serious situation? He merely replied, woefully, as usual, and I quote:
Through our fiscal and monetary policies, we can hardly propose to be discriminatory towards the old in order to favour the young.
That reply is shameful and unacceptable, especially coming from a Prime Minister who is a young "little old bachelor".
I urge that students be paid a salary so they will no longer be penalized for being students.
I urge that the government revise its investment policy, that it cease to use it as a marvelous tool for patronage and use it instead to stimulate the economy in particularly underdeveloped areas.
I urge that the liberal government quit wasting our natural resources through inaction and that it set up development programs for areas until now overlooked or neglected, such as Northern Canada for instance.
Employment of Graduate Students
The young people of this country are ready and willing to work; they went to school in order to get the required training. Let the government give them now the opportunity to do something.
The young people are available. The task of building a country appeals to them. But the government should wake up and develop those vast natural resources, thus providing our youth opportunities for the future and allowing Canadians to take advantage of those natural resources.
I urge the government to give equal considerations to the student and the father, and to stop causing discrimination.
I urge the government to stop burying its head in the sand with its economic policy deliberately twisted to hide the real problems, and finally to acquire monetary and financial modern instruments in order to give each human being, whether he is educated or not, a graduate or not, without any regard to his age, sex, the thickness of his wallet or his social rank, economic security while respecting his freedom.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, what have this government and the previous one been doing? They have said to the people during the election campaigns: Go back to school to increase productivity. In fact, they have created a myth out of nothing, deluding the people, making fun of them, creating conditions which they wanted to be temporary while hoping that it would give a semblance of prosperity.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the awakening is brutal. The figures which I quoted earlier clearly show the direct result of the government's economic policy which has done nothing but create unemployment.
I remember that during the federal election campaign, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce appeared on television and radio in Yictoriaville and Drummond-ville and repeated with his usual smile, that the Liberal government was the best tool to fight unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, the people believed that. The Liberal government said: "Give us a strong majority, in order that we may act." This government has no valid reason to remain idle. However, 42 per cent of the unemployed in Quebec are less than 25 years of age. There is the result.
Young people had been told: Go back to school, be brave, we shall build schools for you and provide you with teachers, in short, nothing will be missing. Go back to school so that we shall have peace while you are there. So, the young people went and studied, but once the course was over, they could not find a job. This problem is so serious, especially in Quebec, that a so-called competent manager succeeded in getting elected, thanks to a simple slogan: "100,000 jobs". Yet, the individual is not thinking of "100,000 jobs", he would be satisfied with only one.
All that the present government has been able to do is to get into trouble.
What do old party governments do? Instead of trying to get at the root of the evil, they take one particular
2356ft-59i

December 15, 1970
Employment of Graduate Students aspect of the economic problem, inject all the money they can into one sector, make maximum investments, putting all their eggs in the same basket. Then they make an all out effort orchestrated by radio and television publicity emphasizing electoral programs of all kinds.
After people have been fooled for two, three or four years, it is realized that something went wrong, that the program was a flop.
As a matter of fact, in the last decade, the government has said: Education will be our salvation; we lack education and specialization. The government invested millions of dollars in education, but we have not made any progress.
Education in itself is not bad, Mr. Speaker, but it is not the cause of our problem. That is why no solution has yet been found. The problem is more serious today because people have a greater awareness of it than before.
At the same time, the government has said: To have prosperity, to do away with poverty, productivity must be increased. Let us produce! We do not know why, but let us produce!
The government has invested more millions and said: Let us produce! And so doing, the government has failed to remember that people were also consumers; it has ignored the problem of consumption in an economic system. "Consumption" is a word which does not exist for the government. It is concerned with foreign policy because such policy is paying. It is not interested in finding a solution to the problem judging from its administration. This is why the government is solely responsible for the situation.
Farmers and other citizens would be most happy to work. Manpower is not scarce neither are the schools. There is education. What is lacking then? A little common sense, a little logic, that is balance in our economic system.
As for myself, I would rather be a Creditiste than a government member. If Liberals find the Creditiste solution funny I see nothing funny about the present situation. That is why I think that we must tackle the basic problem.
We do not ask that Social Credit be implemented tomorrow morning, Mr. Speaker, but simply that it be considered. We ask our colleagues to do like us when the government compels us to adopt its policies with the help of its majority in Parliament while it does not even respect the views of its own members.
As for us, we study the government policies and the white papers and in the light of the situation, we form our own opinion quite sincerely and honestly. We advocate some solutions in order to act efficiently. Besides, my colleagues will make positive speeches in order to set out these solutions.
Mr. Speaker, we will then see the reaction of the hon. members opposite. They are already beginning to laugh. They find the Creditiste solutions funny.
I see the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) and that reminds me that I have received a letter from one of his
constituents who would like his representative to stop laughing and start working. Mr. Speaker, I could show this letter to the hon. member for Levis.
This is a typical example of those who find our suggestions funny. This member sends circular letters in my constituency to say to the farmers that the government will solve their problem of milk production. He tells the same thing to the young workers. Perhaps it is because he does not feel at home, I don't know. In any case, it would be better for him to mind his own affairs and take part in the business of the House.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
What people want is to see their members at work, not just joking around.
The least we ask the government is to consider the economic policy advocated by the Creditistes. Probably there are good things in the NDP the Liberal and the Progressive Conservative parties, but there surely are in the Creditiste party and we would ask our hon. colleagues to adopt with respect to us an attitude similar to the one we adopt with respect to them.
Today, we blame the government for having caused unemployment. There is certainly a cause to this problem and the government cannot blame it on the lack of education and qualifications on the part of our workers.
It is true that there is unemployment. But even when
we have succeeded in creating jobs, we will not succeed in solving the problem of poverty unless we ensure every citizen his share of our production.
In other words, the problem in government for the past 20-odd years has been that our policies have put too much emphasis on the productive aspect of our economy and of the individual, and not enough on the fact that as our industries become increasingly automated the individual feels more and more left out.
Mr. Speaker, we are clearly heading for a leisure society, where the workweek grows ever shorter and where jobs are increasingly scarce.
That is why I do not believe in full employment, because we are actually moving towards a leisure civilization. Labour unions try to shorten the working week. In fact, one can no longer require a worker to assume the same workload as a score ago.
Mr. Speaker, the economic system must be adapted to meet changing circumstances. We must once and for all recognize the consumption role of the individual and new policies must be developed to enable him to fulfill that role.
This is precisely where Creditistes step in to ensure respect of the human being, as well as his freedom and security.
Mr. Speaker, when one reckons social welfare recipients, senior citizens, unemployed workers, mothers and children, we see that a tremendous number of Canadians do not participate in production, while being consumers. That is the role we would like the government to

December 15, 1970

acknowledge, not by granting measly monthly allowances, but by following a really efficient policy so that these people may indeed take part in the economic life of our country. These people-be they disabled or able-bodied, old or young, graduates or children-all want to take part in the economic life of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, they are not dead wood to be carried with difficulty, but they are an asset in society in so far as society is willing to give them a chance. And to that effect it is necessary to acknowledge the role of consumption.
Therefore we blame the government in our motion because, and I quote:
-has been unable to introduce such financial devices as the compensated discount and the national dividend so as to enable the masses to benefit from the communal resource constituted by young people who are educated and better equipped.
Mr. Speaker, in order that the masses may participate in economic life, policies must be adopted which permit the individual to purchase products, so that new ones may be produced.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of production is not producing for the sake of production, which would be as ridiculous as being elected to do nothing, like the hon. member for Levis-


Mr. Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Is the hon. member for Levis rising on a question of privilege?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Even though the Creditistes think they have a solution to all problems, it is my opinion that the member for Lotbiniere should take care of his riding. As for me, I am able to take care of mine. I have proved it until today Mr. Speaker and I think that his groundless charges-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It is hard for the Chair to admit the reasons for this question of privilege. It is rather a matter of debate and arguments. In my opinion the best solution would be to allow the hon. member for Lotbiniere to complete his remarks and let him know that he has about 30 seconds to do so.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Levis had been in the House when I started my remarks, I could repeat my statements since I cannot accept what he has just said. There is no overall solution to our economical and social problems. However, we should not put all our eggs into the same basket because if we ever drop it we will have a fine omelet.
When the people of Levis will drop their member there will be a fine omelet!
Mr. Speaker, in closing my remarks, I urge my hon. colleagues to at least study and not shrug off our proposals on compensated discount and national dividend. The
Employment of Graduate Students
government may call this as they like but let them respect our request or at least let them study it so as to permit each Canadian to fully play his role not only as a producer but also as a consumer so that they may all enjoy the production now lying on store shelves.


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member for Montmorency rising to ask a question?


Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Speaker, I intended to ask the hon. member for Lotbiniere whether he would answer a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Since the time of the hon. member for Lotbiniere bas now expired, it would be necessary to secure the unanimous consent of the House in order to allow him to answer the question.
Does the House agree to allow the hon. member for Lotbiniere to answer a question from the hon. member from Montmorency?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ovide Laflamme: Having listened to the speech of the hon. member for Lotbiniere, I noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member talked about distribution of dividends. First of all I would like him to tell the House if this dividend is really the payment by the federal treasury of a sum of money to each individual?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and I commend him for it. He shows a positive approach and I am pleased with that.
The answer is both complex and simple. It would be new credits issued by the Bank of Canada, according to the economic situation. Indeed, if production were greater than the purchasing power, the first role of the Bank of Canada, according to the British North America Act, would be to control the issue of money and credit. We want that bank to fill perfectly that role and that it be used to achieve balance between production and consumption.
It would therefore be new credits which would not be burdened with debts and which could be given to each Canadian in order that each may play completely his role as a consumer.
This is certainly not a tax.


Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Speaker, I put this question to the hon. member because I am seeking to understand him, since he has asked us to try to do so. According to what he has just said, the new credits to be distributed would be provided by the Bank of Canada. Then, how could these new credits differ from a simple issue of money to be distributed among the Canadian people?

December 15, 1970
Employment of Graduate Students


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I shall answer this question by giving an example. When the Canadian government provides interest-free loans to foreign countries, it does so by means of new credits.
Mr. Speaker, we want the government to do the same thing in favour of the Canadian people. The question is not to resort to a "dollar machine" according to an old parody on Social Credit. At the time, it was done to win at the polls. I put the blame on no one. This was part of an election campaign. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there is no question of a "dollar machine" to be activated whether we have gas to feed it or not.
The National Monetary Commission, the creation of which we are calling for, is the driving agency that will enable the Bank of Canada, to set after consultation the necessary amount of currency. That does not necessarily means new credits. This is the compensated discount. As a matter of fact, this is not money we give to individuals. It is a discount the government grants to dealers so as to establish a balance between what a person has in his pockets and the price and value of the products in the store.
The object of that is to enable the sale of products. There is no question of minting money without rhyme or reason.
I believe the hon. member understands what I mean. A compensated discount means to give the dealer and the individual the means of establishing an economic balance, so that the consumer may play his consumer's part fully as regards production.
In short, the National Monetary Commission would be neither more nor less than a consulting agent to the Bank of Canada and the Bank would act as a driving agency to maintain a proper balance in the economic system so as to preserve us from inflation or deflation so that consumers may play their part fully.
Does the hon. member believe that answers his question?


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I commend the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) for bringing this important and urgent matter before the House this afternoon. The subject matter of the motion, which concerns the alarming increase in unemployment among our young, is one which ought to be considered most urgently. At a time when we are encouraging our young people to acquire more education, when we are encouraging them to invest in their future by acquiring new skills and abilities and when we are encouraging them to invest a greater equity in their education, we find this country caught in the web of the gravest man-made crisis that has ever been perpetrated deliberately on any country in modern times. I believe that the question of adequate job opportunities affects not only our young people but affects equally all Canadians as well.
The statistics reveal a most disturbing aspect of our unemployment picture. Apart from the magnitude of the
number of the unemployed, it is clear that unemployment is greatest in that group Which is 24 years of age and younger. The seasonally adjusted rate for this group is an alarming 11.2 per cent, almost double that of their senior counterparts. That this should happen in a country like Canada which has an increasingly youthful labour force is, in my opinion, an outright shame. One of the most important resources in our country is people. The young people of Canada are certainly a viable and important resource. Therefore, the development of these people, combined with the harnessing of their energies, abilities and talents is important. The current hardships, disappointments and the frustrations facing our young people in search of employment will have far reaching effects and long lasting implications on the social fabric of our society. These detrimental effects will be prolonged and adverse to the future progress of our country. I submit these effects can be very ill afforded at this time.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
If Canada is to survive in the post industrial era, it must develop its skills and technologies. In order to develop these skills, it must provide the educational means. It must also provide adequate employment opportunities in order to utlilize those skills and achievements. If we compare the areas of science and industry in the United States with those of other countries, we find that the leadership in the technological and industrial sector of that country is largely the result of the pre-eminence of education and the employment opportunities in that country. The technological gap that is accruing between the United States and other industrial societies is largely because of the lack of education and job opportunities in other countries, particularly in the fields of research and development. Statistics bear out very clearly that the strength of the economy of any country is in direct proportion to the degree of enrolment in colleges and universities. If the opportunity to utilize skills is not available, in a matter of time people will be discouraged from attaining higher degrees of education. This situation is developing in many European countries today, particularly in Britain.
Of the total population in the United States between the ages of 20 and 24, 43 per cent are enrolled in postsecondary education courses. The enrollment in Russia is 24 per cent; France, 16 per cent; Germany, 7.5 per cent and Britain, 7 per cent. Canada has maintained a percentage of approximately 22 per cent, certainly above the average of European countries. However, this situation is now being threatened because of the uncertainty of adequate job opportunities. If this condition is allowed to continue, it will prompt the export of our talents at a very great loss to Canada, not only in terms of investment, but in skills and resourcefulness. The end result will be that Canada will become nothing more than a country of technological colonialism.
As pointed out by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), those with Ph.D's are having a problem. I understand almost half of the graduates will be unable to obtain suitable employment. At a reported cost of $150,000 per student, this becomes a very wasteful and inhu-

December 15, 1970

man exercise. Developing our human capabilities is our ultimate goal. Harnessing those capabilities through science, technology and managerial infrastructure will become increasingly important. Without these ingredients, progress will become substituted for imbalance, backwardness and economic retrogression.
Many parents have deliberately placed themselves under very severe hardship and strenuous obligation so that their sons and daughters may acquire an education. The need for educational facilities also creates hardships and sacrifice for the average taxpayer. Today a vast number of these young people are unable to secure employment of any kind. I remind Your Honour that, as in many areas, the government had ample warning and an abundance of time to react to the current situation. It has again shown its arrogance and contempt for people and has elected to deliberately perpetuate the crises. When the government finally gets around to dealing with this acute situation, a fractional improvement in the rate of employment will be heralded as a great achievement.
The government is now engaged in retraining programs which are supposed to be a cure-all, but it is overlooking one very fundamental aspect, job availability. Why are jobs not available? I suggest there are many reasons. The primary reason is the monetary and fiscal policies upon which the government has embarked. Second, I believe that the uncertainty created by the white paper proposals on tax reform has affected industries, primary industries as well as resource industries. I had the privilege of serving on the committee which studied the proposals. In almost every instance, the implications of the white paper had a detrimental effect on the development in fundamental sectors of our industrial community, particularly the mining industry.
Another factor is the detrimental effect of the unpegging of the Canadian dollar. This has affected the competitiveness of Canadian industry on international markets, particularly the primary industries, all of which has aroused an industrial slowdown and has further aggravated the unemployment situation.
The retraining programs which I mentioned are naturally welcome. However, they will not solve the problem of job acquisition at a time when jobs are not available. If a student cannot return to the classroom, he will be forced into idleness, eventually becoming a burden to the nation, surviving only on the sustenance of the welfare dole. Similarly, increases in unemployment benefits will be of little value because the majority of those with whom we are concerned are job seeking for the first time and hence will be unable to qualify.
The people of this nation with whom we are dealing are not self-styled radicals, revolutionaries or computer smashers. They are average red-blooded Canadian citizens who wish to fend for themselves, their families and communities and to hopefully take their rightful place in society. They do not want anything more than the opportunity of being steadily employed, with the prospect of advancement, promotion and improved rewards commensurate with their abilities and initiative.
Employment of Graduate Students
Our youth engaged diligently in studies and training because they were assured of growing opportunities and the ultimate achievement of their rightful share of Canadian benevolence. However, these opportunities do not exist today. They are today nothing but a distant ideal. Senator Fulbright said:
One of life's injustices is that young men must fight the wars that older men begin. To a great extent, the lives and hopes of the present student generation turn on the wisdom and judgment of the men of an older generation to whom the people have entrusted political power.
I am sure many young people today will analyse this statement with a great degree of thoroughness. In particular, they will question the wisdom of entrusting their future to a government headed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whom they accepted as one who would be responsible for the future of their precious ideals.
We hear from many quarters that young people are simply lazy and do not care to acquire gainful employment. A survey was conducted by the University of Saskatchewan Students' Union recently in Saskatoon. The minister is present, and I am sure he would be interested in the results of that survey. The results showed that 84 per cent of all students were actively looking for work last Summer. Only 39.2 per cent of them found jobs. The largest number of these, 31.3 per cent, found work as labourers; 20.5 per cent claimed they found jobs in technical areas, and 12.2 per cent of those who found employment listed their employment as being in a service area.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
It appears that "who you know" is still important when it comes to finding a job, since 48.7 per cent of the students who found employment did so through personal contacts. A further 32.5 per cent found jobs as a result of direct application, while only a meagre, and I repeat meagre, 8.1 per cent were placed through Canada Manpower centres.
One of the most appalling statistics uncovered by the survey was that 81.5 per cent of all students who failed to get jobs indicated that they needed jobs to finance their next year at university. If even a fraction of this group, it was said, could not return to university in the fall because of financial reasons, the university would face an enrolment crisis.
Lack of student employment opportunities gives rise to a number of other serious difficulties. Last week the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) questioned the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) on the subject of student loan repayment. The Minister of Finance gave a frivolous answer, suggesting that special concessions could be made in cases where the hon. member would furnish details; he would be pleased to take up the matter with the banks, he added. No mention was made of who was to bear the cost of additional interest. The minister suggested the period of repayment could be extended up to ten years if a special application were made. This is all well and good. But

December 15, 1970
Employment of Graduate Students who is responsible for the situation which has been created? I submit that it is the government, and that the government has a distinct responsibility to produce a policy to remove the pressure from students who are finding difficulties today in discharging their obligations.
The government continues to improvise last minute measures to deal with crisis situations which have deeply imbedded root causes, causes which are mostly of its own making, and unless the approach of hon. gentlemen opposite to the basic task of restoring faith in the Canadian economy changes, there is little hope for the future generation. Something must be done to end this serious situation and the resources of the government must be called upon, since the state of affairs I have described is a product of its own making. First of all, hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches opposite must take immediate and effective action to stimulate the economy, since unemployment among the young is only part of the larger problem of chronic unemployment which has existed throughout the tenure of the present administration. If we agree that tomorrow's leaders are today's students, we must give these students an opportunity to find ways of earning their education; we must provide productive means by which they can utilize their talents and abilities.
The government should also consider using tax incentives as a means of inducing companies to employ students, and, possibly, young people taking on their first job. These provisions could be administered in a number of ways but the most useful, in my view, would be one which provided for a program of permanently available work. It is my understanding that such a program is presently under consideration by a committee of ministers of education, and I believe the government would be wise to pursue such a course. Possibly a shorter working week might be considered. If those who are presently working are to be asked to support the chronically unemployed, it appears to be reasonable to consider the advantages of a shorter working week in certain areas.
We all know that the serious summer employment issue which existed among students earlier this year will continue to cause difficulties and hardship among students until a permanent system of utilizing student manpower is adopted. I think it is realistic to envisage a semi-permanent work force among this group, a work force which would contribute to society and to industry while at the same time imparting a sense of responsibility and challenge among our young people. I believe work is certainly necessary. It is an integral part of achieving a wholesome and invigorating life. Accordingly, the provision of work should be considered a priority. I am sure that today many of our young people are bewildered when they recall the pronouncements made by the Prime Minister some two and a half years ago. They responded to the call "Come, work with me"; they responded to his appeal to help build a just society. Today they are told that the just society is but a distant ideal, they are told we live in an age of clash and confrontation. To a vast number of young Canadians, the just society they were promised turns out to be a society which, for them, holds little future, little promise, little challenge and little

opportunity. They stand on the threshold of a greatness which for them will probably never become a reality but merely remain a distant ideal.
I,	therefore, propose the following amendment, seconded by my hon. friend from Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan):
By deleting all the words after the word "Government" on line eight and adding thereto the following:
"has not adopted such fiscal and economic policies as would stimulate the economy and allow young people to better contribute to national growth."


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity provided by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) to debate the issue before us today.
The government's policy of deliberately creating unemployment, and of increasing unemployment as a method of fighting inflation, is in my view the most cold-hearted and callous policy that the administration has adopted during the past two and a half years of its existence. It has done immeasurable damage to individuals, to the Canadian economy and to society as a whole. Today, as a result of this policy, some 476,000 people are unemployed. This represents 6.5 per cent of our work force on a seasonally adjusted basis. It is the highest rate of unemployment in any industrialized nation of the world. This is not a very proud record for a government which was supposed to introduce us to the new politics in the 20th Century. Moreover, the result of this policy has been little improvement in terms of the fight against inflation. We find that it has had only a negligible effect and has but marginally decreased prices in Canada.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The policy of creating unemployment to fight inflation is essentially a farce. The cure is worse than the disease itself, though the disease is nowhere near the point of cure. This cold hearted approach on the part of the government may look good on paper to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) and a few other ministers, but it certainly does not look good to the half million or so Canadians who are unemployed in Canada today, and particularly to their families.
There are many by-products of a policy such as this, one of which is that it is the young people of Canada who essentially are taking the brunt of the government's policy to fight inflation. Evidence to this effect can be found in the unemployment statistics for November. According to these figures, approximately 45 per cent of the unemployed of Canada are under the age of 25. The number of young people who are unemployed has increased drastically this year over last year. In 1969,
148,000	young people under the age of 25 were unemployed, whereas last month this figure had risen to 212,000. These young people are to be found in every city in Canada, and as I say they are taking the brunt of the government's policy of creating unemployment to fight inflation. Indeed, over 10 per cent of our young people in Canada today are unemployed.
December 15, 1970

206V
I suggest also that statistics on unemployment do not necessarily tell the whole story; there is a lot of hidden unemployment. I know of a number of people who have dropped out of school but have not registered for employment for one reason or another. Some of them have been looking for employment and have given up. The same can be said of many young women and housewives who either need work or want to work but have been unable to find employment. I am sure the minister is aware that in my own province of Saskatchewan many of the young people usually leave the farms to find employment in the cities, but this year they have been unable to find work and have been forced to remain on the farms. Many of these people are not included in the unemployment statistics. There are also many other partially employed people, such as servicemen and repairmen, who have some work but not enough to make an adequate income.
Who are the unemployed of Canada today? They range from the unskilled worker to the university graduate. Earlier today, the House was told how many people with doctorate degrees from our universities cannot find work. The other day I was reading a British Columbia university magazine which contained the statistic that 52 per cent of the graduates from Simon Fraser University last year were unable to find adequate employment in Canada this year.
Most of our unemployed, of course, are not university students or graduates, since only a small proportion of our young people are able to attend university in Canada. Most of the young people who are unemployed do not have a skill; or if they do have a skill they are unable to find a job where they can use the little training they do have.
What does the future hold for these young people who are unemployed? Economists, both within the government and without, predict that by February and March the unemployment rate in Canada may go as high as
750,000	or 800,000 people. In May and June over half a million students,-pretty well 700,000 of them-will be coming on to the labour market and trying to find work. Many do so because they have no other means to earn sufficient money to enable them to return to university.
I would ask the government what it is going to do for all these extra people who will be seeking work. What answers does the government give to our questions, Mr. Speaker, and what proposals does it make? Today a member of my party asked a question concerning reports that 5,000 people were unemployed because foreign companies had made the decision to lay oft its Canadian subsidiary's employees. The government was asked whether or not it had received reports to this effect, but again the government, with its same lackadaisical approach, replied that this was just a dream on the part of Stephen Lewis. The government shrugged the matter off; it fails to take questions about the unemployed seriously. The government lives in its little ivory towar somewhere up in the clouds and does not come down to earth.
Employment of Graduate Students
I think the Prime Minister sees the unemployed simply as statistics on a piece of paper. He says: "Perhaps it is unfortunate that these statistics are there, but they have to be there if we are going to fight inflation". I ask, fight inflation for whom, and with what results? I suggest that what is happening is completely unforgiveable and that the government has to take full responsibility for its arrogant and cold-hearted approach not only to our young people but to the elderly and people living on fixed incomes. The government's approach is off-hand and ad hoc.
Many times, Mr. Speaker, I sit in my seat and wonder how many of the people who make the decisions in government really know what is happening in Canada today. How many of these people have ever worked on assembly lines, in a warehouse or industrial plant? Even further, how many of them have tried to apply for unemployment insurance or have tried walking to the welfare office to collect welfare payments? I suggest that government policymakers are so far removed from reality that they do not understand the problem. They are completely insensitive to the needs of thousands of people in Canada today. If these people are not careful, pretty soon the accusations they are making about our party dreaming will turn into a nightmare for the government, and worst of all for this country. It is about time the government did something positive and constructive.
In Canada, as in most countries of the western world, young people are taught to grow up with high expectations for the future when they leave the educational system. This feeling is perpetuated not only in our educational system but through the whole socialization process our young people pass through. We tell them that if they are diligent and hard working, they will be rewarded by making lots of money and living a very secure life.
A lot of people today believe that this is no longer true. Young people step from schools and universities only to find that at the end of the path there is no secure job for them that is rewarding and fulfilling. Instead, they find a job that does not offer any challenge to them; or worse, they find there is no job at all. Naturally this leads to frustration and to alienation in Canadian society. I cannot understand why some people are unable to recognize what is happening. As we look around us, we see many more young people dropping out of school, giving up on Canadian society, simply because they discover that what they were told for so long is not reality. Yet, as they look around them they see affluence and abundance. They see people with all kinds of money. They see governments with money to spend on unnecessary items.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Before the last war we experienced similar economic policies. Suddenly, when war broke out the government had thousands of dollars to spend on each and every young person. The government put them in uniform, trained them and sent them overseas. Our young people
2068

December 15, 1970
Employment of Graduate Students are asking us most sincerely today why we do not do something constructive tor them and give them the opportunity to work. These young people are not asking for a handout. I have met very few who want to accept welfare or are willing to live in that way. Because of this we are provoking despair and anger among these young people. We are encouraging young people all over our country to rebel. We have led them down the golden path. We have violence among the young people not only in the universities but outside as well.
Many middle-aged and older politicians stand up and denounce these restless students. They ask why these young people are so lazy. They call them bums, smear them with the big red brush and call them revolutionaries. They say they are trying to destroy the country and the society in which we live. It strikes me that they forget to ask some pretty fundamental questions. They never ask why there is so much despair at this time among the young people. They forget to ask what type of a system led to this despair, and motivated these young people to rebel and challenge the system.
As I stand here in this Parliament, I see our parliamentarians going further and further away from the people, becoming less and less relevant to many people in Canada. We stand around here every day and debate many problems that are important. Many politicians often speak in a patronizing way about these poor young people who cannot find work, but all of a sudden we close our books and forget about them. We do not do anything. It is this approach which is making this Parliament a much more irrelevant institution than it should be. At times we are a mere polite debating society in which we pat each other on the back; we are completely isolated from the world. I cannot tolerate that and I do not think the young people of Canada will tolerate it much longer.
In 1968 we had a new Prime Minister who spoke of a new approach to politics. He gave many young people a new grasp on hope. The young people went for him. The young people of Canada were behind this man; they worked for him and elected him Prime Minister. Now, two years later what do they have? They have a 19th century conservative who has only a little of the modern touch when it comes to style and dress. They have a man who has not changed anything that in a fundamental way would help the people of the country. I suggest that this man has broken faith with the tens of thousands of young people who supported him two years ago and who held high hopes for him and his government. Dozens of these people have come to me over the last few months. They ask why he does not help them. They say they thought he would be good and that he would change the system but that he did not do it. They ask why he does not listen to them and they ask why he has changed.
We can change the system, Mr. Speaker, we can make the system one in which people have work regardless of their age, their racial origin or where they live in Canada. I think a debate like this, if the government listens to it, can provide some positive alternatives. At this time I wish to move an amendment to the amendment that was submitted by the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski). I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That the amendment be amended by changing the period to a comma and by adding the following words thereto:
"and, in particular, has failed
(1)	to pursue policies of full employment, and
(2)	to amend the regulations governing manpower training and allowances so as to enable young Canadians leaving school and those who have been on the labour market for less than three years to receive a training allowance and training necessary to fit them for useful occupations.
Mr. Speaker, I have about four or five minutes left in which I should like to outline a few of my reasons for moving this amendment to the amendment moved by the member of the Conservative party. First of all, if we are to solve the problems of unemployment in respect of our young people, we will have to tackle the unemployment problem in general in Canada. Recently, while I was in Europe, many Europeans asked me in complete surprise why we had so many unemployed in Canada. This astounded them. I suggest that it astounds most Canadians that we should have so much unemployment. There is unemployment because the government has created it. I suggest that if we are to reverse this trend we must begin immediately to introduce programs and projects to stimulate our economy and produce work for Canadians.
Second, I suggest that if in the long run we are to solve the problems of unemployment, regional disparity and poverty, we will have to do something about regaining control of the Canadian economy. Once again today during the question period this problem was raised. We have a branch plant economy. We have a country which is basically an exporter of raw materials and an importer of finished goods. Thus, we export our jobs to the United States and to other countries. If we are to tackle problems such as unemployment, we must reverse the trend of continentalism in Canada and initiate a positive type of nationalism in which we can control and direct our own economy. Then, all Canadians will have jobs and will be able to enjoy a decent life like all people in this House today.
The other point I want to make is that the government should seriously consider amending the manpower retraining program because, as it is now, we find that a young person must be out of school for one year and must have been in the work force for one year before he become eligible for retraining. He must have been in the work force for three years if he is to be eligible for a grant. If a young person is unemployed and is eligible because he has been in the work force for one year he probably requires a grant. Many young people who are unemployed do not qualify for retraining. Because they do not qualify for retraining under the Department of Manpower and Immigration, these young people have become the front line troops in the government's war on inflation. They are the shock troops. They suffer the worst effects of the war on inflation. No effort is made by this government to help these people by amending the program so they might receive some assistance. We seem content to sit back and let these people go on welfare.
[Mr. Nystrom.i
December 15, 1970

This government places the responsibility on the local municipality. This is not good enough.
We cannot keep on shrugging off these problems in the hope that they will disappear because they will not. I suggest we should have an immediate crash program in an effort to retrain these young people now so that they will not be roaming around unemployed. This would not only help the individuals concerned but would help our economy in general. Economists have said that we lose billions of dollars each and every year because people in Canada are unemployed. Why do we not put some of the unemployed university students to work teaching other unemployed young people skills so that they can make a contribution to Canada, to themselves and to their families.
In conclusion, I suggest that the government begin a new program to create jobs in Canada. This should include a program to regain control of the Canadian economy. In addition, the manpower regulations should be amended so that people with less than three years on the labour market could qualify for retraining and assistance. Finally, I suggest the government should begin immediately to institute policies that would make university education and other post-secondary education more universally accessible to all, regardless of one's financial background. If we do these things we are on the road to some progress in this country. If we do not, let us ask why our young people in Canada rebel and challenge the system. They challenge the system because your system has failed. They know you have failed them.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before the Chair puts the subamendment before the House, may I ask whether any hon. members have representations which they may wish to make to the Chair with respect to the procedural correctness of the subamendment?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like to do so. If I may speak simply on the procedural correctness of the subamendment, I certainly have no particular objection to any number of amendments of a different form and kind coming before the House in a debate such as this, but it does seem to me that it is worth pointing out that the thrust of the most recent amendment is, in part at least, directly inconsistent with the thrust of the original motion. As I read it, the original motion indicates the feeling of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) that we have too much education, that it is a bad thing that we have so much education, and the amendment would suggest in effect that there should be facilities for providing more of it to a wider group of people. That inconsistency should be pointed out to Your Honour.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) was once a law professor. I hope he taught his students a little more logically than he is trying to teach the members of this House. The original motion by the hon. member for 23568-60J
Employment of Graduate Students Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) does not state that there is too much education. It suggests that those who are getting education are being misled by hopes for full employment so that their services could be used. He does not say that there should not be any more education or that there is too much.
Second, the subamendment moved by my friend, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), does not deal with education. It deals with training under the minister. He does not refer to university education but rather to training and allowances under the minister's department. The minister may want to run away from his responsibility to deal with the question posed by the subamendment, but he cannot suggest that the subamendment is out of order. It clearly follows the amendment before the House, and I agree with what it says, that the government has not adopted fiscal and economic policies to stimulate the economy. The subamendment goes on to say in particular that the government does not follow policies of full employment and has not amended the regulations under the minister's jurisdiction. I cannot for the life of me see what basis the minister has for his objection to the procedural propriety of the subamendment.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make one short comment. I think the minister is merely nit-picking. I believe that the amendment points out that there is a lack of co-ordination between the educationl process and the ability to receive jobs, and the subamendment suggests that measures should be instituted to prepare people for useful occupation. After all, that is the content and purport of the motion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The contention of the minister that the original motion advances the theory there is too much education certainly does not indicate that the minister has read the motion.


An hon. Member:: No, but he listened to the speech.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
motion indicates that young people coming out of schools and universities find no outlets for their energies and no means of placing the knowledge they have acquired at the service of the people. It then goes on to advance the particular monetary theories which the Ralliement Credi-tiste hold. The criticism in the motion is that young people coming out of educational institutions are unable to find employment. The latter part of the motion indicates why they are unable to find employment. If the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is out of order, then so is the amendment which indicates that the reason these young people are unable to find jobs is that the government has not adopted such fiscal and economic policies as would stimulate the economy and allow young people to better contribute to national growth. I agree with that amendment.

December 15, 1970
Employment of Graduate Students
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has simply gone on to cite another area in which the government has failed. We contend that both the amendment and the subamendment follow logically upon the main thrust of the motion moved by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. The main motion says that young people coming out of educational institutions cannot find jobs. The amendment says that is because of the government's economic and fiscal policies. The subamendment which we have moved says it is also because they have failed to carry out full employment policies and to establish a proper manpower program. It seems to me that both of these amendments follow in logical sequence from the main motion.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, there is a point I wish to clear up first very briefly. The hon. minister is putting words in my mouth; I never said that I was opposed to a higher education and the hon. members for York South (Mr. Lewis) and for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) pointed out that I actually never said so; I urge the minister to follow the debate more attentively. I simply said that the government had not created a number of jobs proportionate to the number of university graduates.
Now, as to the point you are raising, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I do so to indicate to him that the House is now considering, for the assistance of the Chair, the point of order raised by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang). I think the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) could assist the Chair in that respect, but I would ask him please to direct his remarks to the point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we feel this is rather a difficult problem for the Chair to settle. Indeed, it is never advisable to kill initiatives coming from either side of the House. A ruling on the opportunity of moving a subamendment on an allotted day, with regard to supply, is even less so. Every party has the opportunity of moving a censure motion followed by a vote on a topic it feels is fundamental.
That question makes the day allotted to the study of a Creditiste motion absolutely meaningless. We would be happy if your ruling helped to encourage parliamentary initiatives during supply. However, we wish to point out that we would not like this day to be anything but a Creditiste day. We want to take advantage of it to offer a Creditiste solution to problems which concern the House of Commons, but if the day is gnawed at by each and every party, it will defeat its purpose.
That is why I say that we will readily accept your decision. We will submit to it respectfully and we ask you to consider both sides of the problem. If each opposition party seizes the opportunity to gnaw at those allot-

ted days to make them into Conservative or NDP days, we might as well do away with them.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) has indicated his views, and I concede immediately that, in my opinion he has made a very good point. I can understand the concern of the hon. member and those in his party, that by the process of moving amendments and subamendments the points of argument that they wish to direct for the consideration of the House may be narrowed down.
I have listened to hon. members and I wish to thank them for their assistance to the Chair on the point of order raised by the minister. It seems to me, however, that the motion moved by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, as the words that have been used in arguing the point of order indicate, has as its main thrust unemployment of young people and the steps the government might take in that regard.
That was followed by the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), which was accepted by the Chair. It followed, I think therefore, that it was consistent with the motion of the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
I have some difficulty, I must say with great respect, in accepting the argument that the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is inconsistent in any respect that would give me any concern in relation to the motion and the amendment to that motion.
It seems to the Chair that hon. members in the House may have varying remedies, if I may use that word, and varying suggestions they may want to make to the government to correct a particular problem, and the thread of the problem is followed throughout, having been established in the main motion, and continued in the amendment and the subamendment.
So, having recognized the concern of the hon. member for Lotbiniere, I would feel that speakers from his party would still have within the rather broad outlines that have been established, because the main thrust of the motion is of course the unemployment of youth and the various remedies that may be accepted, ample opportunity to deal with the subject of their motion.
Having said that, I do feel the amendment is in order, and if I may put it in a formal way now, it is moved by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That the amendment be amended by changing the period to a comma and by adding the following words thereto:
"and, in particular, has failed
(1)	to pursue policies of full employment, and
(2)	to amend the regulations governing manpower training and allowances so as to enable young Canadians leaving school and those who have been on the labour market for less than three years to receive a training allowance and training necessary to fit them for useful occupations."
December 15, 1970


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I said when I rose on the technical point, I am pleased to have any amendments before the House on a day like this but from the procedural point of view I thought the technical point should be brought to your attention.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) did not of course have the opportunity during the early part of the debate to hear all of the words of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) or he might have been a little embarrassed at joining in what was a genuine attack on the purpose and the value of education in this country.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was in the House when the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) started his speech. I was here throughout his entire speech, and have been in the House since the debate started.


Otto Emil Lang: Well, Mr. Speaker, of course in that case I will be very happy if the hon. member rereads the speech and pays some attention to it in the translated version, because he obviously missed the original text.
The point I am making is that really, in the reading of a motion as the government has to do when it is put before the House by the members opposite, the government has to try to find what the thrust of the motion may be. It certainly seemed to me in reading the motion that the thrust was in some specific suggestion which the hon. member was going to make about monetary and fiscal policy, about a new version of standard Social Credit theory which has now been retranslated as a non-issuing of credit. Some other form of cranking the wheels has been devised which is meant to accomplish the same thing, but without the hazards of having to bear the reputation of all the past theories and the discredit they received.
This gave the government some difficulty in knowing how best to answer such a motion because we could review once again our basic view, the central view of how one must balance fiscal and monetary policies on the one hand in order to encourage growth, and how one must have a very careful hand on this throttle in order to ensure that inflation does not destroy the very soundness and viability of the economy in the process. This, as I say, seemed to be the thrust, and some other of my colleagues might well-


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the minister stated that in my speech I introduced a new version of Social Credit theory. I wish to tell him in all fairness that those are the
Employment of Graduate Students
same proposals as before. If he wishes to run them down, he is free to do so-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! The hon. member cannot rise on a point of order in an attempt to correct the minister's statement. The minister should be able to continue his speech without interruption.


Otto Emil Lang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, although 1 must say I am pleased to have the qualification, because I seem to have the same trouble with the translation as does the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, and I will read the text with some care.
The point I was making was that another of my colleagues might indeed have attempted to deal with this motion in view of that being the main thrust. However, on the other hand, the motion in those terms really needs no further serious treatment, since there is some increased understanding in the country about the inability to simply crank out money. The balanced monetary and fiscal policies which the government is pursuing in the attempt to promote both a reasonable amount of growth and control inflation are indeed sound, and the exact technical issue which has to be put before hon. members interested in this is the extent to which that growth should be allowed to take place.
One approach could have been the difficult economic argument concerning at what point you have in fact created too large a money supply so that inflation may go forward again, at what point you have created enough money supply to begin to take up the slack in the economy, counting in the balance sheet that new upturn in the economy which can take place when growth factors themselves go to work and produce additional growth and revenue for the treasury. However, in view of the fact that there is much understanding about this, it did not seem to be a serious point to pick up at that stage and in that way.
On the other hand, within the motion the hon. member included some words which touched me very closely, not in my present capacities so much as in my recent ones. I think I may have been the Member of Parliament most recently engaged in a full-time way in the education of our young people, the people who are putting themselves in a better position to contribute to our society, to obtain better jobs. It seemed an opportunity for me to take up these rather odd words in the motion, that there was an inspiring of false hopes, if I may select words which I read as key words, "false hopes... that education pays." Of course, when you listened to the hon. member for Lotbiniere there was no doubt this was a good part of the theme of his speech, that education itself is a doubtful thing. He was critical of our program to expand vocational training and felt that we had spent far too much money on this. The facts are, however, that when other governments launched these programs to build vocational and technical schools in this country, we were seriously short of people with skills in the vocational and technical fields so the training facilities were needed.

December 15, 1970
Employment of Graduate Students [DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Hon. members opposite did not always share the theme of his speech and at least one or two of them did not share it today. I say "at least one or two of them" because of course the hon. member for Vegreville did seem to join in this view. He criticized our training programs as a "cure all". This seems to me to be completely inconsistent with the approach taken by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) in his subsequent subamendment. I am indeed pleased for the hon. member for Vegreville that some of his colleagues from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, his Tory friends, were not in the House to listen to him criticize this program-


John Howard Lundrigan: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate, on a point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: Is it within the rules for the minister to continue to perpetuate this kind of deliberate, unadulterated arrogance across the floor of this House? I wonder when the minister will get around to telling us what he is going to do about this problem. I have listened for ten minutes and I have never heard such arrogance in this House because-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is known as "ragging the puck".


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if wasting any more of the time allotted by this House to the consideration of this important resolution will get us anywhere. I suggest that the minister proceed with his remarks.

I cannot suggest to the minister that he was not dealing with the motion; I assume that he was. If he was not he might want listen to the suggestions made for his guidance by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the minister once again. This time, it is the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Fortin) who is rising on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the minister would certainly help keep the debate moving if he stopped putting in our mouths words that we never said.
I would ask him, once again, to consider what is being said in this House. So as to ensure the effectiveness of this debate, let him stop snaking around trying to turn the situation to his advantage, which is dishonest.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think I can assure you that I have been dealing with the words and suggestions of hon.
members opposite, and I will be content to have the record show the nature of this debate. I recognize from the response of hon. members opposite that they are sensitive to the references to their remarks, and to a demonstration of the inconsistencies in which they so often engage when dealing with this subject and many another.
I said that it is the basic position of the government on the main thrust of the motion, and indeed on the amendment itself, that there must be a balanced approach to expansion of the money supply and the use of monetary and fiscal policies. I also said that at the same time we must try to inspire growth in the economy. The policies which have been announced recently have been exactly in that direction of trying to move the economy forward. It seemed possible and consistent with our fight against inflation that we could expand the monetary supply and use fiscal policies in the direction of an expansionary economy.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville made light of our success in the fight against inflation, seeming to ignore the fact that we have been making very substantial progress in this area.


Mr. Orlikow:: Tell us about unemployment.


Otto Emil Lang: As a result, we have found it possible to move in favour of additional fiscal and monetary measures to bring growth back to the economy.


David Orlikow: Tell us about the 500,000 unemployed!


Otto Emil Lang: As long as we have forces calling for higher wages and higher returns for themselves-rigid forces like big labour and big business and the professions with the strength to demand more than they should be getting-we will have this delicate dilemma of balancing the growth in the economy and the control of inflation.
A consequence of attempting this balancing is of course that there are some pressures on the side of unemployment. This fact has been recognized by this government and frequently distorted by hon. members opposite both inside and outside this House. To use the words of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, it is distorted as a "deliberate creation of unemployment".


An hon. Member:: Isn't it? Of course, it is.


Otto Emil Lang: That is a distortion of the situation.


An hon. Member:: Ask the Prime Minister. He says we will have 6 per cent unemployment.


Otto Emil Lang: Coming from Saskatchewan as I do, where we know the NDP well, I am not surprised that one of the first lessons taught by them to their members is the art of distortion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 15, 1970


Otto Emil Lang: This is easily learned by those in the NDP ranks who come from Saskatchewan.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville rises on a question of privilege.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The minister said that I am distorting the facts; I suggest that I am not. The Prime Minister said that we had to tolerate 6 per cent unemployment and I suggest that the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is debate; this is not privilege. Hon. members should know the difference between privilege and debate. I suggest to the hon. member with respect, that if he wishes to continue the point I can allow him to continue in just a moment, but it is not in order to seek the floor on an alleged question of privilege when the only thing he wants to do is to try to correct what he considers statements of facts. Perhaps the hon. member might have an occasion later on that would be procedurally correct to deal with what he considers to be a misstatement.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of privilege, I suggest that the minister is imputing motives. I have taken part in the debate-


Mr. Speaker:: It is not my understanding of imputing motives. I do not suggest that the hon. member does not have the right to be dissatisfied with what has been suggested by the minister. That is his right, but it is part of the debate. I would think that the hon. member might have an opportunity later, either by himself or through one of his colleagues, to try to rectify anything that he thinks was not stated correctly.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly understand the hon. member being unhappy with my remarks as I was unhappy with his. We will solve the whole problem if he corrects the practice of misstating the views and statements which have been made on this subject by the government.


An hon. Member:: Tell us what the Prime Minister said.


Otto Emil Lang: Economists everywhere understand that trying to achieve this balance is a very difficult issue. One of the reasons I wanted to enter this debate was the suggestion that education was misplaced in this country or that it was wrong to have further education for our youth as set out in the motion and the speech of the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the
minister not going to discuss unemployment at all?


Otto Emil Lang: It is extremely important to have the faith which I and so many other people in this country have that education, training and upgrading are important and valuable, and that they will lead to better jobs, better conditions and higher productivity. The hon. member for
Employment of Graduate Students Yorkton-Melville recognizes this in his subamendment. He recognizes the advantages of our training and upgrading programs. Many members have recognized these advantages in recent days by asking about the possibility of more programs. With the additions that have been made we will be spending $300 million for training and upgrading programs, a vast increase over last year. This is a program of great magnitude which is relatively young in this country and is using the very important facilities already in existence. This has come about as a result of a program of grants and assistance on the part of the federal government which has made the necessary technical training places available to our young people.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Considering the kinds of monetary and fiscal policies being followed in this country and the optimism we share for the future of this country, our proper role is one that will help to continue to train our young people and that will urge them to acquire an education so that they may undertake those jobs through which they will make a greater and better contribution to the life of this country. We shall continue these programs and we shall continue them because we are optimistic that the economy is essentially sound and that the unemployment figures, which now are a source of regret to all of us, will decline as the balance of our policies begin to work.
It has been said many times in this House, and repeated not too long ago, that the problem of inflation is serious. It has brought to bear pressures on prices, profits and wages in particular areas and on particular groups. May I say to hon. members, and I know that hon. members of the New Democratic Party will applaud, that I am not one to shrink from a policy of wage and price controls, if that should become necessary. I will say immediately that one ought to recognize the difficulties inherent in such a policy. One would ordinarily want to move to selective policies in this area rather than to general policies, because otherwise there would be difficulties. That course should be embarked on if it becomes necessary as a result of the failure of other measures which may be less restrictive and less confining, and which would not exert such a degree of dictatorial guidance on the economy as would be the case if outright controls were implemented. It is of course our unwillingness to accept readily that dictatorial guidance which leads us to hesitate longer than our friends opposite would hesitate in the introduction of such policies.
It is clearly the hope of this government that our policies of monetary and fiscal expansion will, together with a gradual realization on the part of those with power that certain restraints are necessary, lead to the growth in the country that is required. We hope that lower unemployment levels will result. In the booming economy which we shall again see, there will be a shortage as opposed to a surplus of those with education and with skills and training.
The hon. member for Vegreville, in a speech that was somewhat inconsistent with some of the other speeches which have been made, was worried about the outflow

December 15, 1970
Employment of Graduate Students from this country of people with higher training. His remarks were somewhat inconsistent in that other hon. members have blamed the government for allowing into this country people with higher skills, people with Ph.D's and other, higher training. Indeed, he suggested that we were becoming some kind of colonial land from a technological point of view because of this export of our expertise. The truth is otherwise. We are receiving more people with higher training, higher skills and higher education than ever before. I, for one, say that not only do we need more of our people to be trained so that we may carry on our development in the future, but that we should use these trained people who have come to this land from other countries as well.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question. He mentioned $300 million which is being spent for manpower training in this country. Could he tell the House what numbers are now in training and what will be the maximum figure that the minister expects we shall reach during this fiscal year?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member the figures for the last few years. One hundred and eighty-four thousand trained in 1967-68; 301,000 trained in 196869 and 300,000 trained in 1969-70. The figure for those who trained in the current year may be in the same order of magnitude as that for last year. Of course, the exact number trained depends a great deal on the actual mix of training, having regard to the budget amount that is available.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister one more question. What are the numbers in training at present, and what slack is there in capacity? How many more could the minister's department take on if he were to amend the regulations as we have suggested and take on some of those who under the present regulations are excluded.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to obtain some information on that figure for the hon. member. Of course, it is also important to consider in this area budgetary limitations. That question raises the problem of the amount of monetary and fiscal expansion which is possible at present, as a result of the budget that is available. The problem with the subamendment of the hon. member is that it would adjust our priorities within the amount of money that is given to us, unless one were to abandon one's basic view as to the amount of fiscal and monetary expansion which is possible at the present time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We
could find the money if we needed to.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, to judge the value of the motion moved by the Ralliement Credi-tiste, more specifically by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), one only has to witness the stirring in the House due to the amendments moved by the other two
opposition parties as well as by the words of the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang).
This proves that the proposed motion deals with a real problem, I would say the real problem, that of having failed to establish the necessary financial devices.
We understand that this may at times anger the government but, Mr. Speaker, we are doing our duty and the Creditistes are not to blame if everyone knows that this is the real issue today.
And as it is in line with our philosophy to deal with this very problem, we are that much freer to emphasize it in a debate on such a motion as the one now before the House.
This motion of non confidence in the government takes its full meaning in these difficult times when young Canadians are at grips with a great number of problems from indifference to active and even passionate dissent.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Let us read our proposal once again:
That this House condemns the Government for having inspired false hopes among young people between the ages of 16 and 24 by assuring them that education pays, at a time when young people coming out of schools and universities find no outlet for their energies and no means of placing the knowledge they have acquired at the service of the people, because the Government has been unable to introduce such financial devices as the compensated discount and the national dividend so as to enable the masses to benefit from the communal resource constituted by young people who are educated and better equipped than any previous generation to produce more efficiently, more abundantly and more economically, so as to assure the greater welfare of all Canadians.
If we look at this motion, sentence by sentence, we are compelled to admit, Mr. Speaker, that the government has "inspired false hopes". Is such a remark justified? Unfortunately yes and in every respect. What high standard have we tried to instil in our youth?
Let us talk about the example given by elders who, let us be frank, are sometimes more or less honest not to say really backward and even old-fashioned. The behaviour of older people has never been very exciting for the young. Between an out-of-date conservatism and a timid evolution, such paralyzing and depressing behaviour deceives and disillusions the younger generation willing to put its overflowing dynamism at the country's service.
So it is all the more vexatious for them when, having been lured with bright prospects, they always end up in front of nothing. This is false hope.
When a great many of our young people, especially in Quebec, were dropping out of school early, the reason given for unemployment was this factor of academic disqualification represented by these famous "uneducated" people as they have been described by a former liberal premier in Quebec. And from everywhere, we have heard bombastic and ambiguous slogans: "He who gets into debts gets richer". "Education is money". "Qualifications are needed". "Future belongs to youth". Our young people did believe for a while-until they got out of our schools and universities only to realize that they had been misled. Yesterday they were uneducated

December 15, 1970

and unemployed, today they are educated but still unemployed. This is to prove, Mr. Speaker, that what was wrong, the real problem was perhaps less a question of education and ability than a matter of financial machinery that we failed to develop.
The necessity of studying and implementing new concepts and new formulas will never be emphasized enough. Those now applied are proof enough. The inextricable labyrinth to which they have lead us is there for all to see. From the highest director to the humblest taxpayer, the conclusion is the same: there is never enough capital and money, it is impossible to develop our resources for profit. Yet, Mr. Speaker, everything lies there: immense natural resources and abundant manpower that might even be insufficient if we applied, even a little, a creditiste economic policy.
Lastly, we also have the ability. All these young graduates from our institutions of learning are not asking anything else but to work as hard as they can to assure better production and better distribution and, finally, greater welfare for all Canadians. Educated and better equipped young people could make an open and honest contribution to the emancipation and fulfilment of the population as a whole. The difficult period we are going through holds a danger of irremediably engulfing generations of Canadians in the stormy, perturbing seas of violent dissent.
To be sure, most of our young people have an excellent mentality, but the longer we delay adoption of real solutions, the more the number of the violently dissenting increases. It is therefore high time that, putting aside all political partisanship or useless pride, we all get together, first to find out what is preventing our young people from reaching their full potential, then what are the adequate steps to be taken.
Now the matter of the adequate steps to be taken is what we are dealing with at present, and that is why our motion gets to the heart of the problem. That is why once again we emphasize the need to have money brought back to its proper role which is to serve people, and not the opposite where people are made to serve money.
Furthermore, if we wish our young people to go on living a dynamic, and active life and to really take part in the development of the entire country, then it is of the utmost importance that they be offered an alternative to the status quo which some people think is immovable, I mean the status quo within a system which is not to be changed for reasons we do not understand, then this is a proof that this system leads into blind alleys, that this system leads to nowhere and above all, as far as this particular motion is concerned, to conditions which dishearten our young people.
Hence, if we are to try and find solutions to all the problems now facing us, it is therefore more than important that we have money play its true role. The fact that certain principles are applied, such as the compensated discount and the national dividend, could not but add to the purchasing power which lies in the hands of each and every taxpayer and so, to better stimulate the entire
Employment of Graduate Students economy. By doing this, we could further in a tremendous way the contribution which our youth can make to our country. We must give our young people a country to build.
Another political party in Quebec once used the slogan,
A country to build". Let us ask ourselves in this House whether we are really offering our young people a country to build.
Our immense resources, our immense wealth are there. Everybody sees them, everybody realizes this, and we are not providing our young people with an opportunity to set for themselves an ideal, to get really excited over the cause of their country, the cause of poverty, the cause, in fact, of everything that makes up our problems.
But before that can be done, it is absolutely necessary first to free what has become clogged. We understand that this may annoy the government, as we constantly come forward with the same solutions, and as we insist so much that we always seem to be told that miracles do not happen. But they are even more unlikely when the minister who answered a few moments ago simply says: "We are going to find solutions", while we say: "We have solutions". I think that after all we are more positive, more conscious, since it means that a solution will be found and one even dares to say: there is a certain improvement, but we must wait, we must not hurry! Mr. Speaker, since we have young people who are in such a hurry I am sure that we cannot ask them to be patient and therefore we must urgently find real solutions to the problems we are facing. The failure to do so would spell trouble eventually, or would mean idleness at the very least, and we know that when young people are idle, especially after spending years in school trying to acquire the necessary skills in order to be more effective, they become somewhat discouraged and will not tolerate the situation very long.
As I say, this is why we should together really seek solutions at the outset. Let us at least recognize the advantage of considering them and let us not reject them off-hand since we have evidence that whatever is done within our present system leads to nothing. Let us at least be decent about it and say that we will examine whether there is something in our proposal which could be implemented fortwith. When you see that, by increasing the purchasing power, all the problems are solved in part, then you can pass judgment. If it turns out to be a failure, we will be the first to say that the solution does not lie there.
Mr. Speaker, before passing judgment, let us at least have the decency of studying certain things seriously and trying them out to see what the results are.
Not so long ago, inflation was checked in some parts of the U.S.A. by increasing the purchasing power. This proved so effective that at one point the president of the United States even considered extending the practice throughout the States. But, unfortunately, some elements still seem to be stronger than the government; and they impose their financial laws; finally, the matter was dropped.
Let us therefore take the lead and provide our young people with the opportunity of pursuing a true ideal by

December 15, 1970
Employment of Graduate Students
giving them the necessary tools to develop Canada, so that we may take advantage of the vast resources of such a wealthy country and help the entire world to enjoy a better standard of living. Indeed, if we succeed in controlling poverty, we would thus have rendered a very great service to the entire world.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) would remain in the House for the entirety of this debate to hear the constructive statements of members of the opposition who, in the opinions of most Canadians, are still an integral part of the democratic process in this country.
The statement the minister has just made will come as a grave disappointment to tens of thousands of young people across this nation. We did not come to this chamber expecting the hon. gentleman to acknowledge that government economic policy was wrong, or that we were facing chronic unemployment among our young people. That would not be the place of a government spokesman. Neither would it be the place of the opposition to laud the government for achievement on all fronts. But at least we did expect the minister to present us with a positive statement and outline a policy which, while recognizing the difficulties confronting the government, was designed to get the economy out of its slump to the advantage of all the unemployed and, in particular, of the young people of this nation.
The minister spoke as a person who, to use a phrase suggested by one of my hon. friends, must have fallen in love with himself at a very early age. This, at least, was his attitude-the impression which hon. members gained. I was bitterly disappointed. I should like to see members of this House copy the minister's statement and have tens of thousands of copies printed and distributed so that the young people could be aware of the contemptuous attitude taken toward their problem, and the arrogance with which they were treated. I do not know where this arrogance came from, but I imagine a number of hon. members can guess. But this was the response to a serious discussion by the opposition of the critical unemployment issue. I shall get around to dealing in more detail with the minister's statement later. His pious pomposities will not go unchallenged by members of the opposition or, I hope, by some supporters of his own party. I did not expect him to remain in the House to listen to remarks from this side of the chamber, because I guess he does not want to hear the truth told in any unsophisticated way.
We have heard the motion proposed by an hon. member of the Creditiste party, the amendment put forward by the NDP, and the amendment offered by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). My hon. friend from Vegreville quoted a statistic which is indeed alarming, namely, that in November, 1970, the number of unemployed people under the age of 25 has increased by 43 per cent. A large proportion of these will be young family people, most of them, I imagine, between the ages
of 20 and 25, who are raising families, eager to get homes and, in many cases, faced with financial liabilities as they seek to pay off debts and acquire at least a minimum of personal belongings. Some of them have perhaps not reached the stage of bearing matrimonial responsibilities; they are seeking to further their education or to make their way in the labour market. Some of them are well educated in the professional sense; others have only the basic requirements of an education. These are the Canadians we are talking about when we say there has been a 43 per cent increase among those unemployed in the age bracket below 25 during the month of November as compared with November, 1969. We are not talking about an adjusted rate; we are not thinking in terms of a sophisticated statistic concocted by the Bureau of Statistics for use by statisticians. I do not think these people are much concerned about whether they are part of an adjusted unemployment rate or not. The fact is, they are unemployed.
I do not believe we can overstate the seriousness of this problem. To hon. members who have taken part in the debate this afternoon, I want to say that we might not agree with the latter part of the motion put forward on behalf of the Creditistes. Our own contribution has been the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Vegreville-a substantial amendment which satisfies the party to which I belong. It is consistent with the position we have always taken, I am told. In this respect I believe the Minister of Manpower and Immigration must have a short memory, because apparently he does not recall the situation which arose in 1962, I believe, when the party to which he belongs, out of expediency, decided to support the policy advanced by the Creditistes in their motion. I feel sure he would wish to correct the record when he realizes that his party did move in that direction.
The implications of the present unemployment situation were clearly set out by my hon. friend. The first implication is that far too many young families today find themselves without money, and, for the most part, not provided for adequately by welfare and social assistance programs. Even when they are eligible, this shortterm assistance is inadequate. The second consequence is that the total educational position of manpower in Canada this winter will take a beating. We cannot continue to expand our total human resource potential-I think that is the phrase educators use today; I do not know what the minister would call it-during a period when so many of our young people are unemployed; when they are, without choice and without alternatives, a drag on the economy. The total impact of this on Canadian society will be felt in years to come. Not only are these young people unable to support themselves, but in many cases they are a drag on their families. The adult parents of these young people have to dig down into their pockets to assist them to keep going during the winter. Again, in many of the families with which I am familiar, the patriarch of the family, the father, is unemployed as well. I have in mind those who, through no fault of their own, failed to acquire a satisfactory education. Fathers are caught up in exactly the same circum-

December 15, 1970

stances as their sons. They are forced to seek labouring work, and when the economy slows down the first jobs to be chopped are those in the labour field.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Another implication is that young people are not able to afford their own homes. They are being forced to live in rented basements, rented apartments in slum areas, areas that would normally be condemned if we had a healthy housing policy. The consequence is that few of our young people will ever be able to own a home and raise a family with some decency.
Another aspect that is more critical than dollars or education is the attitude of our young Canadians. How can they have confidence in a government, in a church, in a school system, in our economic policies, our whole way of life, our social institutions, our political setup when they have no opportunities? They have come up through school year after year having been told about the benefits of education. They have been told that education pays; that it is everyone's business to learn to live with change, to acquire an education, with dollar signs after the word "education". Then they leave school and go into a society where there is not a tinker's chance of their securing a job; as someone said, they have as much chance as a snowball in hell. There is nowhere they can look for a job. Welfare payments for them are either inadequate or inaccessible to them. What a tremendous amount of disillusionment must be felt by those young Canadians who are now facing one of the bleakest winters in the history of this nation.
Imagine the impact of this situation on the attitude of our young people. One case was brought to my personal attention involving an individual who, according to his own parents' admission, was actually forced to rob, to commit a crime, for which he received a serious sentence, mainly because he had not had a job for many months. This 18-year old was expected to occupy some kind of position with his peers, with his 18-year old friends, in a society that expects him at least to have the opportunity to have a dollar in his pocket, perhaps attend a movie and to have some status in the group. Hon. members are aware of the importance to an individual to be a member of the group, be he at any age in the teens.
For example, with the attitude of our young people toward free enterprise and toward personal initiative, how can we expect them to face society after a number of years' disillusionment with society, a society that has given them no opportunity to take a positive, buoyant outlook toward a young Canadian nation that has almost boundless resources? How can we expect them to have the same kind of outlook our forefathers must have had when they came to Canada to develop this great country?
To a certain extent, I am frightened by this business of attitude. The sort of social unrest existing across Canada today is in no small measure attributable to the economic dilemma being faced by young Canadians. As the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) said, we are not talking about draft dodgers or computer smashers or bomb throwers or people who are members of radical
Employment of Graduate Students wings and extremist groups. We are talking about the masses of young Canadians in all provinces who are facing a bleak outlook, 43 per cent more of whom were unemployed in November 1970 than in November 1969.
What did this arrogant minister who has been exported from a western province have to say about this? I understand from some remarks made by Premier Thatcher, quoted in the Globe and Mail of last week, that he will not be exported after the next election, which would be a great advantage to young Canadians because they do not want this type of representation in the House. I do not know what our young Canadians would say today if they were present in the House to hear this bold, arrogant minister who sat in his place taking a very smug, snittish attitude. Political blimpery, pious pomposity-I cannot think of sufficient phrases to describe the blown-up, snobbish, complacent attitude which he exemplifies. A lot of young red bloods who I know would possibly give him a good kick where it hurts the most. Excuse my bluntness, Mr. Speaker.
What concerns me most, Mr. Speaker, is not only the minister's attitude but the fact that his attitude reflects the total attitude of the government. They have everything in their mitts. They are controlling the economy. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has referred to the government's mechanistic approach to the economy. They put the screws to it, tighten up all the bolts, and fight inflation by creating a severe unemployment situation. They will then move in with the big guns, unleash their economic power, solve the problem and become the political heroes of the nation. Perhaps that is the government's plan. Perhaps human misery, suffering and disillusionment have no relationship to the government's plan, no meaning in the scheme of things. Perhaps this is what is happening, I do not know. I am watching the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), but I have never seen such smugness, a total attitude that displays such arrogance. They have no respect for the opposition. They do not think members of the opposition have any mentality; they feel they have a superior intellect, that they have all the answers. We cannot even get these people to face the fact that we have a critical unemployment problem, especially among our young people.
To be honest with you, Mr. Speaker, I do not thinV that at the moment we can solve the unemployment problem. I do not think we could bring in a program today that would solve the unemployment problem facing this nation, particularly as far as our young and elderly people are concerned. However, I would have thought that the government would realize over the past two years why we have been pointing out the danger of a policy that creates unemployment. The words the Prime Minister himself used were "creation of unemployment". We pointed to the pitfalls and thought that at least the government would hold in reserve some emergency programs that would enable a problem brought on by then-own policies to be tackled. But we were wrong.
The other day I moved a motion in this House which basically was along the lines of the amendment moved by

December 15, 1970
Employment of Graduate Students
the hon. member for Vegreville. I was trying to demonstrate the need for an immediate debate on this urgent problem. After the House rose, I was interviewed by a newsman and asked what could be done about the problem. I replied that very little could be done in the immediate future to solve the situation, but I did make one suggestion, and that was concerning manpower policies.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration left the House, went before a microphone and deliberately and calculatedly misrepresented every single word I said. He picked phrases out of the air, twisted words, added on "isms", modified all kinds of adjectives and sent out across the nation a terrible response to what was a fairly responsible statement. He has done the same thing today, and I am very disappointed in his attitude.
Many suggestions have been made with regard to mear sures that might be taken to help remedy the situation. We hoped that the minister would be in the House to act as a catcher to field these suggestions. I should like to place them on record in the vain hope that one of these days one of the members below the ministerial level will pick them up and react accordingly.
For example, as the Deader of the Opposition said, no solution would be as beneficial as a total revamping of our economic policies in order to buoy up the economy and have appreciable effect on the unemployment situation. This, of course, is a long-term proposition. One member in the House mentioned a few days ago relaxing government requirements regarding student loans that are outstanding and which are being assumed by a lot of our young people.
Another suggestion was made with regard to extending our manpower programs. Many young people are involved in manpower programs. As everybody knows, there is only a 52-week upgrading program. This means that after that period these people are forced out on the street. This situation adds to the 43 per cent increase which was referred to. Another suggestion was that we should relax the regulations in respect of manpower training which require that a person must have been in the labour force for one year. I believe there is a clearcut case here for relaxing the regulations. I do not know whether the suggestion made is a good one, but it seems plausible to me and I should like a responsible minister to explore it.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Another suggestion was made by my colleague the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) concerning militia training. What a time in Canadian history this would be to have many of our young people brought into a militia training program to bolster their moral fibre! I do not advocate military conscription but, rather, a militia training program which would help strengthen the disciplinary fibre of the young people.


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


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: If the hon. member seeks unanimous consent of the House to complete his remarks, I would ask whether hon. members agree to allow the hon. member to complete his point.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Howard Lundrigan: I appreciate the courtesy, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say that this is a prime time for us to investigate the possibility of mobilizing our teaching professionals in the Canadian nation. We should have a program in which total use is made of our educational facilities, not only manpower facilities, in an effort to work sensibly toward the upgrading of young Canadians, perhaps just academically. The alternative is welfare, total unemployment and deprivation. Neither alternative is a good one, welfare and deprivation on the one hand or just a crash program in manpower upgrading on the other. Although neither is a good alternative, I think the latter is preferable.
I think there is a good opportunity to bring many young people into upgrading programs. There is not much advantage in having young Canadians in educational programs if they have nothing to do afterward, but I do not think we should give up in this respect. I believe that in the long run we will reap great benefits. There is not an economist in North America who would deny that we would reap great benefits from having manpower programs for young people even if today the graduates become disillusioned because of the difficulty in obtaining employment.
The other day the minister indicated that our manpower institutions are already overcrowded. He asked what we would have him do. He asked whether we wished him to turn out all those people over age 25 and bring in people under 25. That is ridiculous: no one ever suggested that. The suggestion was based on the fact that the minister had average intelligence and could see the possibility of utilizing other facilities such as churches, auditoriums and classrooms in day schools so that these people could be provided with a shot in the arm in this respect. Perhaps the minister would like to see these people on the dole for the winter. I am sorry he is not here because I wanted to make some personal observations. The minister might think he is the greatest fellow ever, but many Canadians do not think so.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I too am disappointed that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) is not here. However, I am not too disappointed because the great eminence of the Liberal government is sitting right behind the curtain and I hope that somehow my ideas will filter over to him.
The motion states that the government has inspired false hopes among young people between the ages of 16 and 24 by assuring them that education pays. Of course education pays. If one had listened to the young people three or four years ago one would realize that the last
December 15, 1970

thing they wanted was payment in material terms. They wanted payment in aesthetic terms. They have that now. But I think what every young person really wants is the ability and the opportunity to express himself in his career. The suggestion in the motion and the presumption made today is that this is an immediate problem, it just happened because of the government's restrictive programs and it will go away as soon as things get better. This is a fallacious presumption; it will not happen.
If hon. members would review history they would find that as any community has become more sophisticated, the first group to experience problems has been the group between 16 and 25 years of age. Why is that? It is because with sophistication in any type of culture or economic enterprise there is a vested interest in those who have power. Let me put it in very clear and unmistakable terms. We are now at the stage of economic enterprise when a young person does not automatically learn to take a car apart and put it together again. He may have a great interest in cars and he may be very adept at mechanics, but that is as far as he will get because he will have to be an apprentice, a journeyman, and eventually he will have to join a tight little union or organization established to protect those with vested rights. So he will in time obtain part-time work, and if he is very persistent he will obtain more work. Then after seven or eight years, at age 26, 27 or 28 he will become a fully-fledged member of that tight little organization. Every society has its tight little cliques.
A few years ago it was not difficult to become a lawyer. All that was necessary was for one to become a clerk in a law office and after a period of time he would be called to the bar. Today one must be A-plus in every course established by a law society even before he can receive any training. One cannot be a doctor by apprenticing to a barber's shop, and so on. All these structures we have built up in our society are limited to those with vested rights, and it takes a long time to get these vested rights. Automation comes in and eliminates opportunities for young people to immediately take a position. This is where the frustration begins. What are they to do? Of course there is training and further training. This is one way in which we have postponed dealing completely with this problem. Further training puts young people in a position of not killing time but of making use of time until the economy finds room for them. The presumption is that if we get out of the immediate, urgent problem vistas will open up for all the young people. It will not happen because each industrial innovation, each trade and each industry becomes more and more sophisticated, with an increasingly smaller requirement for labour.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Therefore, we will have a tough time keeping people employed, even those with vested interests. When I say vested interests, I do not use it as a capitalistic term but with regard to a position, a job or a calling. People are having the same problem because there is pressure upon them to retire much earlier although they are capable of working longer. There is pressure applied at both ends of their working lives. Between the ages of 16 and 25 the
Employment of Graduate Students situation becomes more and more difficult. What, then, shall we do? Historically, the answer has always been to fill the vacuum or void with the most urgent problem. In other words, over a period of many centuries and even milleniums the main problem has been in respect of military defence, and into this these groups were fitted. First it was an agrarian economy which then became a commercial economy and eventually an industrial economy, all of which faced this problem; and the military was always the answer.
This is what we heard from the hon. member who preceded me. Historically, defence has been the most pressing problem. In other words, the most pressing problem has been the expenditure of money to maintain this group. The question then is whether this will be justified today. There might be a saving grace in this connection. A report recently issued by the department of economics of the United Stp+es indicates that over 63 per cent of Americans are employed in non-productive work, that is to say, in service-connected industry. By that they mean managerial, promotional or sales jobs as well as architectural and engineering work. From the balance, which is 37 per cent, you take away the unemployed, which is 7 per cent, and if you consider the agricultural element you have a still lower percentage of people engaged in manufacturing and industrial work. The reason they have reached this very satisfactory situation is that they have looked upon other countries as hewers of wood and drawers of water.
We Canadians are filling this void for the Americans. In other words, we no longer merely dig for raw materials; we go a step further and we do the processing: we even do the manufacturing. But we leave it to the more sophisticated sections of the U.S. economy to do the managerial work. At the moment we are all happy because with the automotive pact we are kept busy. However, that will not employ all our young people, nor will it solve the problem. I suggest to the grey eminence, to the government, that if we are to solve the problem we must take a long-range point of view and the historical example, but instead switch to the most pressing need today. Defence does not enter the picture so far as Canada is concerned. Under no circumstances can we say we will build a military establishment to defend this country realistically. We are by agreement or by force of circumstance already committed to a joint defence program under the umbrella of the U.S. This is a fact, and wishful thinking or nationalism will not change it.
However, we could change the military structure to suit the most current and pressing problem that faces us, namely, pollution. This is a problem which now replaces what was once the problem of military defence. If one were to ask the average Canadian citizen what is the most pressing problem before us, whether it is defence of the nation or pollution, I am sure you would find that most people would say it is pollution. Why not, then, change our whole military structure and adapt it to solve this problem? We now have many vacant military establishments and a decreasing cadre of military people. We are stressing the importance of a change in emphasis. We gave the Emergency Measures Organization a trial run,

December 15, 1970
Employment of Graduate Students
but in order to do an effective job we should incorporate into our military establishment such concepts as pollution control, CUSO, the CYC, and even forestry-programs which are now given second place.
I do not mean that we should continue these programs under strict military control but, rather, that we should do so by changing the Department of Defence, by reconstruction, absorption and by varying the duties of many of these organizations which now use up the energy and the interest of the young people. Thus, we could do this job eventually, Whether it be in five, six or ten years. A great amount of money and energy will have to be spent if we are to get the most committed people. The hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) says I am stealing his speech. I hope I am not. I hope he will be able to follow me with many ideas which I know he has.
Let me get back to this vast problem, because I know there will be a problem. You cannot just go to a general and say, "You will change the traditional military role of the army and take over the work of the CYC, CUSO, control of pollution," and so on. To that, Colonel Blimp would say, "My goodness; you cannot do that, we are soldiers". However, we now have a brand new, young Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) who is not exactly enchanted with the whole idea of the thin red line, of cannons all over the place and of the charge of the Light Brigade.
I think the Prime Minister has indicated that his concept of defence is not as narrow as that of former prime ministers. Be that as it may, we have within the military establishment a cadre of disciplined people who will be needed to perform those tasks. If we introduce there the concept of pollution control, it does not mean we must wait a year before doing so, because if that concept is accepted everyone will realize that the quicker this is done, the better. In the meantime there is no reason why these people should not be gathered together and trained. This work cannot be done without trained people. We have ten vacant army camps in perfect condition. They can be filled, and money can be obtained. The whole structure of the present military establishment can be given this dual or triple role.
Such work will need much manual labour. No machines are made now to perform this type of work. Problems arise daily and work should be started almost immediately. If the government were to advance this idea, much of the uneasiness which exists in the economic community would be relieved. That in itself would be a great incentive to hire more people and it would be a solution to what is now considered an insoluble problem. CUSO, which is part of our external aid, should be incorporated in such a program. At the moment this organization is completely independent, but there is no reason why it should not be included. The same is true of the CYC. You do not have to say to all young people that they must undertake pollution control work, because they may not all be interested in that kind of work. But they may be interested in external aid, teaching, welfare work or other advanced programs, all of which can be offered within this program. There is no reason in the world why it cannot work. Having said that, the question is, do I
think the government will take up the challenge? I am not sure that it will.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Some six years ago, on September 24, 1964, I made a speech in this House. We were discussing the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. I am not diverging from the subject matter of the debate, Mr. Speaker; I am just indicating why I have my doubts that the government will take this reform step. On that occasion I said:
I have seen factory ships the like of which most members would never believe. These foreign vessels have on board office equipment that would compare favourably with that in an insurance company office. They have freezing plants, drying plants and canning plants. I even saw one ship that contained a factory to make the cans right on board. These factory ships sweep our seas like giant vacuum cleaners, taking everything there is. What do we do?
I put that to the then minister who is now a member of the other place. As I say, that was six years ago. His first reaction was that he had never heard of a factory ship, and then he was quite convinced they would never endanger Canadian fisheries. Now, in 1970, we are faced with the problem of factory ships and it is supposed to be a brand new problem. We had six years in which to do something. Mind you, now it is a different government.


An hon. Member:: But the same old gang.


Mr.   Olio@: It is not the same old gang. From the speeches I heard today the consensus seems to be that we have an immediate problem, that we want an immediate solution and that somehow this problem of young people will disappear immediately. Mr. Speaker, it will not. Therefore I would urge the minister and the government to consider such an approach but not on the basis that the solution will be achieved overnight. I would ask the government to forget the concept that the problem of young people will disappear with economic activity. This is a growing problem. Next year it will be worse, and the year after that still worse again. If we are to put the military idea to work, I warn that you cannot expect the young people to parade on the parade square; there is no purpose to it. It will absorb some energy but it will not provide an acceptable, workable scheme.
It is up to the government to decide whether it will go from day to day, emergency to emergency, or will plan for the future realizing this is a problem that will grow. The problem is not the result of our nor the opposition's doing. It is the result of the sophistication of a civilized community.
I regret that the minister has not been here, Mr. Speaker, and I regret that the grey eminence to whom I have referred has not been listening. However, I hope they will read this speech in Hansard. I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will finally come to the conclusion that he was elected to institute reforms in giant steps. Canadians will not tolerate very slow, gradual, tortoise-like moves. This government has the absolute support of all Canadians to make these changes, right or wrong. If we are wrong, we will be forgiven; if we are

December 15, 1970

right, we will be right. But if we do not make these moves we will have neither the support, the acclaim of the people nor the prestige that a government should have.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues are asking that I call it six o'clock. If you are agreeable, I shall begin my speech after the dinner-hour adjournment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski).


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fortin:
That this House condemns the government for having inspired false hopes among young people between the ages of 16 to 24 by assuring them that education pays, at a time when young people coming out of schools and universities find no outlet for their energies and no means of placing the knowledge they have acquired at the service of the people, because the government has been unable to introduce such financial devices as the compensated discount and the national dividend so as to enable the masses to benefit from the communal resource constituted by young people who are educated and better equipped than any previous generation to produce more efficiently, more abundantly and more economically, so as to assure the greater welfare of all Canadians.
And the amendment thereto of Mr. Mazankowski, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Nystrom.
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I do not feel as encouraged as I thought I would a little earlier today. This is because of the ideas and attitude expressed by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) in his speech. We
Employment of Graduate Students in the opposition feel it is our duty to offer proposals to the government as alternatives, but we expect the government also to put forward positive suggestions. I am sorry to say that the minister did not. His remarks were devoted to an attempt to smear the opposition and to impute motives to us. One of his own party, the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto), made a few positive suggestions but admitted that he did not think the government would pay any attention to them. That is the way we feel on this side of the House.
On speaking to the motion which we are debating, I have to admit that I agree with parts of it but there is one part with which I do not agree. For instance, the motion suggests that the government has inspired false hopes amongst young people. I am of the opinion that the government has never inspired anybody by their policies.


Mr. Ricard:: Not even themselves.


Paul Yewchuk: When one observes the effects of this government's policies it is easy to conclude that their policies are certainly uninspiring and uninspired. I think for the first time in Canada's history we are faced with a situation where even university graduates, including Ph.D.s, are unable to find employment when at the same time we are handing out many Ph.D. jobs to foreigners. This is a most shameful and unacceptable situation. It indicates the government is devoid of new ideas and is unable to cope with the problem of administering this country. The only thing that is keeping this government afloat at the present time is the ability of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to perform on television and the flashy image that he has on that medium. I do not think anybody here could say that this government's policies are keeping it in power. That is a great shame, because while the Prime Minister performs on television Canadians from coast to coast are in despair. While he wears all kinds of funny clothes-


Mr. Bell:: And funny hats.


Paul Yewchuk: -some Canadians cannot afford to buy clothes at all. When one analyses what has happened in this country in the past couple of years it becomes obvious that the economy is becoming more and more stagnant. Without question, the economy is even more below its potential now than it has been for two or three decades. The gross national product is not rising sufficiently to bring about a satisfactory output. Unemployment is reaching drastic proportions. But the government sits back in smugness and does virtually nothing, as was indicated in the recent budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).
In the past five years or so, the youth of Canada have expressed ever-growing disenchantment with the establishment. Many of the adult population of this country sit back and wander why. They wonder why in a country as affluent as ours, with what is considered to be one of the most democratic types of government in the world, the youth are turning against the system in large numbers and are becoming disenchanted with society.

December 15, 1970
Employment of Graduate Students
When we look at the unemployment figures amongst the youth, the reason becomes very obvious. In the group aged 14 to 19 years unemployment is higher than in any other group. This is more evident in Quebec and the Maritimes. When we look at the unemployment rate tor the next group, those aged 20 to 24, we find the second highest ratio of unemployment compared with the rest of the labour force. I suggest that the reason may be that our educational system and general economic planning have not been adequate to cope with changing conditions. In the past, tremendous stress has been placed on students going through university. This has been done to such an extent that anybody who has not gone to university has been virtually written off as a drop-out and regarded as a non-productive individual. That is very wrong, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Great progress in the area of vocational training was initiated by the former Conservative government a decade ago. These institutions are now overcrowded and graduates from them are finding difficulty obtaining employment. In addition, a large segment of our youth still has not attended any institution of higher learning. Yet these young people also need to earn a living. Secondly, many adults have not had the advantage of university of vocational training and they are being discriminated against as a result of the increase in unemployment.
I should like to make a few comments about this situation and refer particularly to northern parts of the country. I think it is fair to say that in the north, particularly among the population of native ancestry, unemployment is higher than among any other group in Canada, including groups in Quebec or the Maritimes. There has been a complete and dismal failure on the part of the government to take any effective action in this particular area. From personal knowledge gained through living among and near native peoples, Indians and Metis, unemployment among them is probably higher than 50 per cent. As a matter of fact, at times it comes close to 90 per cent and even 100 per cent in some communities. These figures are not reflected in the statistics of the Department of Manpower; many of these people have reached the point where they do not bother applying to manpower offices because such applications have repeatedly led nowhere. On many occasions they certainly have not led to employment for native peoples.
There is another problem in the area of preparing these people for jobs which are created. A good example is northeastern Alberta, where unemployment among the native peoples is probably higher than 50 per cent. Within the past five years a huge oil refinery was established in the geographic centre of my riding and this created hundreds of jobs. While it was being established, many of the local residents, particularly the natives, literally jumped with joy at the prospect that finally jobs would be available to them.
The plant is now operating but unemployment among the native population remains at the same level. People were brought in from outside to fill the jobs which were
created. The basis for this action was that local residents were not trained or equipped to handle most of the jobs that were considered to be technical. Even though there were some vocational training facilities in the area, the preparation of the local population was found to be inadequate. As a result, the local population was virtually bypassed by the job opportunities which had been created. These remarks are not meant in any way to express dissatisfaction with the people who came in and took the jobs. They are all extremely good, useful and productive citizens and we are all very happy to have them.
The development of the north is creating one of the greatest possibilities for employment. However, so long as the government fails to recognize the needs of the local people, and fails to institute a vocational training program for them when employment opportunities are developing, unemployment among them will continue forever. When massive unemployment among any group of the population exists, it is accompanied by all the horrors and tragedies associated with chronic, widespread poverty among adults and chronic despair and pessimism among the youth.
If I may change the subject for a moment, in recent years, as a result of this government's policies, we have witnessed another phenomenon, that of the abandonment of hundreds and hundreds of small farms, particularly throughout the Prairies. This situation has released thousands of people from a vocation to which they have been accustomed, onto a labour market which does not have sufficient jobs even for those who were not in fanning and already are part of the labour force. There is no specific plan of action to assist people leaving the farm and attempting to seek another way of life in urban areas. This is probably one of the greatest errors the government is making.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: It coldly sits back and says, "This farm is not economical; let us wipe it out", forgetting completely the tragedies which will befall the farm family when it is forced off the farm as a result of poor economic policies. When it gets to the city, it will find that conditions are no better. These families will find a shortage of housing as well as a shortage of jobs.
What are the possible solutions to these problems? First, the direction of education must be reassessed. Our attitude toward education must be reassessed. Students must be made to feel that this country needs them whether or not they go to university. The best way we can do this is to make sure they can obtain jobs and are able to make a living. Young people must be made to feel that taking vocational training is also desirable and respectable. Those who do not take either university or vocational training must be made to feel they are useful human beings and that this country has a need for them. It is therefore necessary to aim education in the direction that will not only broaden one's horizons but will make sure that whatever education a person obtains will enable him to earn a living in any area of Canada. This,

December 15, 1970

in particular, should apply to those who choose not to go to university.
In certain areas of the north where there is industrial development we have witnessed large turnovers in the white population. White people go north, work for a while and then go back south. Most of them do not stay for any period of time. Yet the local people continue to live off welfare or in abject poverty. We must design vocational training programs in conjunction, in co-operation and in consultation with potential industrial development. We must keep the local population in mind and make sure people are ready for jobs when they become available. We must ensure that the local population is not trained for jobs that never will be available in the area. That sort of thing has happened to quite a large extent.
Hon. members have spoken about possibilities that might be considered. For instance, one suggestion was that the youth who are now idle ought to be engaged in militia training where that is practicable. Another member suggested that we should let our young people participate in the fight against pollution. Those were good suggestions. I wish to make an additional suggestion. We must remember that Canada for a long time has been, and still is, primarily an exporter of primary products or raw materials. Because of poor government policies or lack of government policies, we have been robbing our people of thousands of jobs.
We are sending our raw materials to the United States, Japan and other countries. We are creating jobs for the people of those countries. They produce the finished product and sell it back to us at a very handsome profit. We ought to take a serious look at this process. If we had proper government planning and proper policies there would be no reason in the world why manufacturing processes involving industrial complexes should not be carried out in our own country. This would bring benefits from two points of view; first, in creating many jobs and, second, since we would be the ones manufacturing the finished product we would ultimately reap the greatest profit.
The considerations also apply to policies dealing with agriculture. It is fine, theoretically, to say that a small farm does not have the right to exist if it cannot pay its own way. Nevertheless, we must remember the human element involved. I am of the opinion that at least on a short-term basis it would be far better to subsidize some agricultural products in order to keep people on the small farm and allow them to make a living, rather than moving them to cities where they would subsist completely on welfare. On welfare they would be subsidized to the extent of 100 per cent. Secondly, while these people are being temporarily subsidized, long-term planning will have to be carried out from two points of view: first, to find ways and means by which they can improve their ability to make a living off their land without getting so deep into debt that they can never get out; second, in offering vocational training and creating job opportunities in the area before abandonment of the farm is encouraged. Then if they decide to leave the farm, they will do so with the knowledge that they will
Employment of Graduate Students find a job and will have the vocational ability to ensure that they hold it. It may be that before this can be done, a change of government will be required. Obviously, the logical alternative is my party.
9 (8:20 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: The same old gang!


Paul Yewchuk: As a matter of fact, when this gang was in power, things were pretty good.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: I said that the Prime Minister is a good television performer. I like to watch him over television. That is why I suggest he should do this on a full-time basis: I am sure the CBC could use him somewhere. As far as the administration of this country is concerned, I am afraid it is just too much for the Prime Minister and this government. This country needs a government with administrative ability, the ability to develop new ideas, new directives and special policies in keeping with the special needs of areas and individuals. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve an opportunity to emancipate themselves from the economic strait-jacket in which the government has placed the country.


Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, I deem it my duty to take part in this debate on the motion proposed by the Ralliement creditiste to improve the present situation of young people in Canada. The problem facing us is twofold since we must take steps to make up for past carelessness and at the same time provide for the future.
During the last five years I met hundreds of students and their distress as regards their future is disturbing. Their attitude as to the necessary action reflects great confusion.
Nevertheless nobody is assuming the responsibilty of helping our youth to put all their talents at the service of the Canadian people. They are aware that the Canadian economy is more and more unable to absorb the mass of skilled people entering the labour market.
In the case of those young people, short term forecasts are most pessimistic and according to experts, job opportunities for new graduates will be almost non-existent next spring.
A recent edition of the specialized magazine Supply and Demand points out that the jobs intended for young university students have increased by only 3.4 per cent since 1969, while the number of graduates showed an increase of 10 per cent during the same period.
Thus the gap is widening and experts forecast no improvement in the near future.
In the arts field, the drop in available employment shows fluctuations ranging from 15 to 30 per cent.

December 15, 1970
Employment of Graduate Students
As far as the graduates with an MA. are concerned, their share of the labour market shows a 20 per cent drop this year.
Finally, graduates with a Ph.D. who are entering the labour market have seen their chances decrease by 25 per cent during the last 12 months.
It seems that in spite of the billions of dollars invested in education during the last decades, the improvements we were expecting are not for the near future.
In this day and age, economic dictatorship of a few men protected by the government in power has imposed the prevalance of money over all values and man is nothing but a commodity subject to the law of supply and demand.
As for those who are hungry and those who are without work, society does not even offer them the surplus milk and wheat which it allows to be produced.
Since millions of people, too many Canadians live in poverty in our affluent society, young people are asking questions. They are skeptical of the words, the promises and the renewal programs which never materialize.
They mistrust politicians who do not govern for the people. They say that the government is not that of the people, and I know that they are right.
They do not fancy at all the role of slaves, which has been that of their parents in the present system, and they wonder what we have to offer them.
I believe that it is urgent to give an answer, because thousands of young people will not accept to join the ranks of people on welfare or of the unemployed.
In today's changing conditions, the government should take steps to make students and young unemployed party to the development of Canada. It is necessary to be able to discover the citizen and to give him social tasks the execution of which becomes a contribution to the common welfare.
The imagination and enthusiasm of young people can create and produce wothwhile initiatives. That responsibility which would be given to them would constitute an outstanding preparation for life.
If we wish to stop from growing the feeling of disgust that this generation has in view of the poor results of this administration, it is more than time in my opinion to take the necessary action in order to create the just society so often talked about.
One wonders whether the just society has been proposed simply for fun.
Frankly, we wonder whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) knew what he was saying when he promised the establishment of a just society. Did he really know what he was committing himself to or was it merely an election promise?
We are led to think so by the increase in unemployment. This situation is extremely costly because the losses in salaries are considerable.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The goods which are not produced or the services which are not rendered make our society all the more poorer. The worker must then pay higher taxes to offset smaller tax returns and quite rapidly additional social allowances are required to compensate for the salary losses.
Keeping able-bodied people idle is demoralizing and downgrading for them. Keeping 500,000 people unemployed in Canada weakens community life, increases consumer prices and, for people still working, adds to the tax burden since it does cost something to provide the unemployed with even bare essentials.
The unemployed must make do with a bare minimum while the working man must tighten his belt because part of his pay is taken away to give a minimum to the unemployed.
Both are penalized since the working man who has just enough for himself is obliged to share his pay with his unemployed fellow citizen who has nothing at all.
But, most ridiculous of all, some people in their sixties, tired and spent, are still working and paying out to help provide for their neighbours 18 to 25 years of age who are in perfect health and awaiting their turn to be hired.
Not only is there nothing to be offered the young but they are in the way.
When those young people have less than Grade 10, their applications are simply thrown into the wastepaper basket. If they do have a diploma, their names are put on the lists of industry, business or those of the civil service, federal as well as provincial, at the Canada Manpower Centres.
Mr. Speaker, we won the war thanks to fellows who had only three or four years of schooling. To fight against the bad Germans, guys who could neither read nor write were even enlisted.
Today, in times of peace, those who wish to live normally have to wait. Even when he is registered as unemployed, he must prove he has experience, and as the youth is just coming out of school, it is pretty hard for him to prove that.
For instance, as the Public Service Commission wanted them to while the time away, they were asked to sit for examinations. I have here a letter which was written this summer to a voter in the Quebec area. A young man had applied for a radio operator job on April 17, 1970. To keep him busy, the Public Service Commission each month asked him to sit for an examination. At the end of the summer, on September 11 to be precise he was written the following letter:
Dear Sir:
This letter refers to your application for employment as a radio operator and to our acknowledgment of July 16, 1970.
In connection with this competition, we intended to invite you to sit for a written examination at the end of the month of August, but the examination had to be cancelled because of the postal strike. In the meantime, the Department of Transport has informed us that all places available for the next course are already filled.

December 15, 1970

Moreover, considering the number of successful candidates already on our lists, we have to inform you that the need for further examinations to be held is most unlikely.
Mr. Speaker, if war broke out tomorrow morning, everybody would be working. But, in peace time, the young people are being kept on lists of "successful candidates".
Again I quote the letter:
-considering the number of successful candidates already on our lists-
Fantastic, Mr. Speaker!
In business, accumulation of overdue accounts or too large an inventory often leads to bankruptcy. I wonder just how far we can go with our labour inventories, so well drawn up by our staffing officers in the Public Service Commission.
Mr. Speaker, I know of a young man who was an outstanding student and 95 per cent bilingual. Following a discreet inquiry which I dared conduct, I was simply told that this young man was not proficient enough in the English language.
Yet to fight against the bad Germans the government did enlist men who could neither read nor write. However, in peace time, they have to be 101 per cent bilingual.
At the present time, any reason is good enough to get rid of young people no matter in what department they apply for a job.
For those who are not eligible, there is not even a Kardex system; their names are simply removed from the list.
Then, our man is on the loose and ready to accept whatever occupation is offered to him.
If he is laid-off after three months with too small a contribution to be entitled to unemployment benefits, he can still go to the local Welfare office. There, he will be entitled to respect only if he has spent every cent of every pay cheque. If he has saved some money, he will be told: Spend it, man; come back when it is all gone. Then, he works for three months and remains unemployed for six. It is automatic; the guy is always broke and there is no way out.
In December 1964, the Economic Council of Canada stated in its first annual review, at page 38, and I quote:
In the light of careful studies, we have concluded that a 97 per cent rate of employment, or a 3 per cent rate of unemployment, of the labour force would constitute a realistic objective to be aimed at over the balance of the 1960's, and that economic policies should be actively directed towards the achievement of this target. We recognize that this target has important implications for other basic economic objectives-such as the maintenance of reasonable price stability and a viable balance of payments position-
Further, on the same page, we find the following:
-we are satisfied that, given favourable domestic and world economic conditions and appropriate economic policies, it is a practicable objective.
Employment of Graduate Students
Mr. Speaker, according to experts, the objective was practicable in 1964. However, the July 1970 monthly bulletin of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics indicated that the number of unemployed stood at 529,000, that is
6.1 p. 100.
Mr. Speaker, the government has also neglected several points. And if, in spite of thorough studies, it has utterly failed, it is because it has neglected the economic aspect. It has lagged once again and has continued to meet the requirements of those who create money and credit, that is the chartered banks to which it has yielded its powers.
The government has also failed, because it does no longer take into account the fact that in several sectors of national production, the machine is displacing man.
At page 13 of the first annual review of the Economic Council of Canada, the following can be read:
[DOT]-from 1946 through 1963:
-total real output has approximately doubled;
-real output per capita has increased by about 30 per cent;
-real output per person employed has risen by close to 50 per cent;
-real production per man-hour has increased by almost 70 per cent.
From 1946 to 1963 Canadian production doubled but we know that it trebled from 1954 to 1970 since from $25 billion in 1954 it is expected to reach $80 billion in 1970.
Instead of paying 500,000 people for doing nothing, for not producing, why not use new credits to fight unemployment?
Why not design a plan for paying people to work?
In the various regions of Canada would it not be possible to carry out urgent and useful work which could be done immediately by people who are presently unemployed?
Is it impossible to imagine in various regions the unemployed being put to work creating industries commensurate with the areas, with the areas' resources and which would provide employment once the building stage is over?
In a certain city, could we not undertake collective projects that would create, at short range, a predictable industrial development?
In a region where slum tenements are plentiful, are we incapable of developing a cooperative housing projet, to the achievement of which the badly accomodated unemployed would be most eager to work?
In my opinion, if we voted new credits to put the unemployed to work, these serious problems which we are facing would quickly disappear. Thus we would get rid of this most serious social disease which afflicts Canada.
There is another step that I would suggest. Since there are few relations between education and industry, this government might consider and implement the integration of students into industry while they are still taking courses.

December 15, 1970
Employment of Graduate Students
Students could spend part of their time in college, and another part at work. This training could last for a year or two if necessary.
And as this is all about preparing the generation which will replace us, I can very well see a salary for students, whatever their studies and the profession they wish to practise. This would be a salary paid by the government out of new funds.
This salary for students is a remedy which can be applied at once. The present Prime Minister stated that in 1954 in Cite libre. If I may quote some extracts from this publication, he said for instance on page 34, and I quote:
The problem remains to know whether there is no other limit to unemployment than dire poverty.
And there is something else on page 35:
Fortunately there exists a remedy that can be applied at once-, it is to stimulate purchasing by delivering more money into consumers' hands. Benefits of all kinds must be widely and determinedly distributed by the state-
Hence, Mr. Speaker, the state should pay out all sorts of benefits. The Prime Minister has said so.
In my opinion, student-salary is the best investment the government can make. Now then, since the Prime Minister is holding the reins of power and is backed by a strong government, why does he not put into practice what he was advocating in 1954?
The challenge is tremendous and if there is no possibility of dialogue, many young people will see their talents go to waste. Our collective prosperity will be seriously jeopardized whereas it is of the utmost importance that our young people be associated with the development of our country.
They must discover for themselves the tasks which they can undertake. Self-help, daring, imagination and eagerness in our young people must work for Canada. If the Prime Minister is not a candle-snuffer, then let him prove it by giving our young people an opportunity to put their energy to work for the promotion of our population and the development of our country.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, to say the least, the speech the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) made this afternoon was interesting because he ignored almost completely the main point of the motion brought forward by the Social Credit Party, the amendment moved by the spokesman for the official opposition and the subamendment moved on behalf of our party by the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville (Mr. Nystrom).
The minister chose deliberately to spend most of his time making jest of the economic theories of the Social Credit Party. I do not agree with those theories, but it seems to me the minister might well have taken the opportunity to deal with the important questions which
concern the people of this country and which are being written about every day in the newspapers, including Liberal newspapers, of Canada. These questions include the fact that we have more unemployment in Canada than we have had for a dozen or more years, the fact that our young people make up almost half of the unemployed, and the fact that a number of people in the large cities, including Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, who have no work and no unemployment insurance protection are forced to try to obtain emergency welfare assistance because they do not qualify, on the basis of residence, for regular welfare.
All these are problems the minister ignored almost completely. He was proud of the fact that in 1970 we have had such a small increase in the cost of living. The minister did not draw from this fact the obvious conclusion that the government's policies of restraint and of not going ahead with necessary programs to a large extent have led to the unemployment we now face.
The minister attempted to chastise my colleague, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, because he said the government had deliberately created unemployment. The fact is that on more than one occasion the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said publicly both inside and outside the House that he was prepared to be tough in dealing with inflation, and that even if Canada had a 6 per cent unemployment rate he would not be daunted in his program of restraint and restrictions in order to try to stop the increasing cost of living. The Prime Minister and the government have succeeded brilliantly! The fact is that Canada has a higher rate of unemployment than any other industrialized country in the western world.
Last year, according to OECD reports, average unemployment in the major countries of the western world was as follows. In Germany it was half of one per cent; in Sweden it was 1.9 per cent; in the United Kingdom it was 2.2 per cent; in Italy it was 3.1 per cent; in Belgium it was 3.3 per cent; and in the United States of America, our neighbour to the south, it was 4.1 per cent. In Canada it was 4.6 per cent. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration may be proud of the economic miracle they have created in their moves to slow down and stop inflation, but the unemployment we have, which is the largest of any country in the western world, is a direct result of their policies.
Canada's average unemployment figure of 4.6 per cent for last year is much lower than it will be this year. This year's average will be over 6 per cent. Last month in this country almost 500,000 people were unemployed. A very conservative estimate I have seen-which I am sure is not very different from the estimate prepared for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the Prime Minister by government economists-indicates that for February and March of 1971 we will have close to 800,000 people unemployed. In fact, I have seen an estimate by a very responsible and respected economic research organization which indicates that the average for the whole of next year will be over 6 per cent.
What is particularly disturbing is that included in the figure of 476,000 unemployed for next year, 212,000 or 45

December 15, 1970

per cent are young people between the ages of 14 and 24. For the month of November, 1970, the unemployment figure in respect of young people between the ages of 14 and 24 was 10.2 per cent, an increase of 1.2 per cent over the 9 per cent for October.
If one considers Canada by regions, one sees how serious this situation is. Not only the poor, have-not provinces are in trouble, although as one might expect they are in the greatest trouble: it is estimated that this winter in the Atlantic provinces 14 per cent of the entire work force will be unemployed. I do not need to tell this to members of the House, because we have among us members from the Atlantic provinces and from Newfoundland who I am sure can tell hon. members better than I can that in some regions the unemployment figure will be 20 per cent or more. It is estimated that in Quebec 13 per cent of the labour force will be unemployed at some points during this winter. I do not know of a better way to recruit the people of Quebec into separatism than confronting them with an unemployment figure of 13 per cent. This is the result of the policies of a government with a Prime Minister who was elected to create a united Canada.
In prosperous Ontario the unemployment rate will be 7 per cent. In the Prairie provinces it will be 8 per cent. Eight per cent in fact is not an honest figure because excluded from it are farmers who are in serious economic difficulty and would like to work during the winter months. Also excluded from that 8 per cent figure are Indians and Metis who have been unable to obtain work in earlier years. With those exclusions, 8 per cent of the Prairies work force will be unemployed.
In prosperous British Columbia 12 per cent of the people will be unemployed. Is it any wonder the people of this country, and in particular the younger people, are having difficulty and are discontent? Questions have been asked of the Prime Minister concerning whether the government is prepared to adopt emergency programs so that over the next few difficult months the young people who are unemployed, who are not going to school, who are not in manpower training programs and who are not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits may be helped. I listened with dismay, and that is putting it mildly, to the flippant answers received from the Prime Minister and the non-answers received from the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I suggest to members of the House that they read any one of the newspapers published in the city of Toronto. The Toronto Star, which is Liberal, the Toronto Telegram, which is Conservative, and the Globe and Mail, which sometimes supports one party and at other times the other, have all in the last couple of weeks printed lengthy articles about the difficulties encountered by young people who have drifted into Toronto, as they have drifted into other cities, from small towns and communities outside Toronto, who have no work and who are besieging in the hundreds and thousands the manpower offices, the welfare departments and the private
Employment of Graduate Students charitable organizations which are trying to help them. The stories are of a kind which I have not heard since the depression of the 1930s.
It is a disgrace that in this day and age young people meet the attitude of indifference which is portrayed so vividly in the articles to which I have referred in all three of the newspapers published in Toronto. I am sure that similar articles have appeared in newspapers throughout the country, because the situation is not peculiar to Toronto. It is worse in Montreal and certainly worse in cities in the Atlantic provinces.
What do the resolution and amendments proposed today call on the government to do? First of all, to adopt policies which would achieve full employment in this country. I do not think I have the time, and this is not the occasion, to list the things which can be done, the necessary social projects which are required and which could put to work every person in Canada who wants a job. We need homes, we need schools, we need hospitals, we need recreation centres, we need manpower training centres, and so on.
The government has turned its back on such proposals because of its false idea of holding the line on inflationary pressures, something with which they have not been successful and which, as I have said, has created increasing unemployment.
The second aspect of the requests which are being made to the government is that the manpower training programs which have been created and have done a great deal to upgrade the skills, the education and the working habits of the people of Canada, be geared to meet the new dimensions of the problems. What did the minister say today, and what was said all last week or so when he was asked about these points? He said, "Well, if we find places for the young people we will have to exclude some of the older people". He also said, "We have used up all the money which has been appropriated", and, "We are doing more than we have done in other years". It may be that we are doing more than we have done in other years, but compared with the needs of the winter of 1970-1971 what we are doing is completely inadequate. I say to the minister and to the government that the government should not refuse to act simply because it does not have the money to expand manpower training programs. I do not think any member of this House, of any party, would object to or vote against a proposal by the government to increase the appropriations for manpower training programs and for living allowances for those who are taking manpower training courses.
We have also been urging the government and this minister-not just in the last two weeks but in fact, ever since the manpower training program was begun-to take out of the legislation and the regulations some of the provisions which have prevented deserving, needy people of all ages who want to participate in a manpower training program to upgrade their skills so they can get the better jobs which will be available.
Some of the regulations and policies adopted by the government have prevented people from taking part in

December 15, 1970
Employment of Graduate Students
manpower training programs. Let me list some of them very briefly. There is the regulation which provides that a person must be out of school for a year before he can qualify for a course. There is the regulation that a person must be in the work force for three years before he can qualify for a living allowance, even if he is accepted in a manpower training course. What do these regulations do? They say to the young person: You simply cannot take the training even though you want to, even though there may be a need for the kind of skill which you wish to acquire, because you do not qualify.
We have said from the beginning that these rules are not only unjust but they are stupid. What is the point of saying to a young man of 18 or 19 who has finished high school and wants to take a course in a particular trade or profession for which there is a course available at one of our manpower training centres, a young man who in all likelihood is single and living at home, "You cannot take a course now because you have not qualified yet"? In all likelihood that young man has left high school and obtained an unskilled job. When he is 23, 24, 25 and sees that he cannot get a good, permanent and well paid job because he does not have the necessary skill, we say to him, "We will let you take a course and we will pay you a living allowance while you are taking the course". By that time the young man is probably married and living in his own home and it is costly to give him the manpower training course.
I am not objecting to encouraging married men with families to take the course, but I think it is obvious that we should not discourage a person from taking the course when he is young and single, when his living allowance would be much less. The government has been adamant in its refusal to consider this change although it has been recommended by people who work in the manpower training centres and have close contact with those who are taking courses and those who want to take courses. This suggestion has been made by such organizations as Frontier College, which has a brilliant record over many years of helping young people who do not have much formal education to upgrade their educational standard. Representatives of Frontier College appeared before the Senate Committee on Poverty and made such a proposal. The minister and the government know this is the kind of thing Frontier College has been proposing, yet time and again we get an absolute refusal from the minister to make this simple change.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The regulations provide that a person can receive a living allowance while taking a course of not more than 52 weeks, yet many courses offered in manpower training centres extend over two or three years. I wish to give one illustration with respect to one of my constituents who wanted to take a course in hotel management. People who travel across Canada, as do Members of Parliament on occasion, know how necessary it is that the training of people working in service industries such as hotels should be upgraded. So the manpower training centres offer a course in hotel management. We say to people,
"You should take this course; it is a good course." Then we say to them, "But we are not going to give you the necessary allowance so you can spend two years on the course."
Surely it is time we stopped the policy under which the left hand does not care what the right hand is doing. Surely it is time we adopted a policy based on simple, ordinary common sense so that we can help people in this country, a large percentage of whom do not have the formal education required in the seventies to do the kind of jobs which, hopefully, will be open for them. Frontier College has estimated that 43 per cent of adult Canadians have less than a complete elementary education. Mr. Speaker, the 43 per cent do not even qualify for most of the manpower training programs offered by the government. We ought to be dealing with that problem, but we are not.
The government has to face up to the fact that in the winter of 1970 we have the largest unemployment probably since the end of World War II, and that a disturbingly high percentage of our unemployed are young people who have been led to believe that this is a country which can give a job to every person who wants to work, an expectation which the winter of 1970-71 is rapidly proving to be false.We have to face up to the fact that our manpower training programs, which have made tremendous strides since the former Conservative government introduced the technical vocational training grants-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: That was a very good beginning, Mr. Speaker. I do not mind giving credit where credit is due. These programs have been improved, although there are glaring errors and omissions in some of the programs devised by the Liberal government. However, there has been very rapid expansion in these programs. Canada has moved from the time in the 1950s when we had probably the poorest record in the western world, in terms of manpower training, to a time where we are probably in a middle position in that respect. But if one thing is obvious, it is that in this period of major unemployment our manpower training programs, which were devised for a time when we had much more full-time employment than we have today, are simply not doing the job. Therefore, I call on the government to give serious consideration to sharply increasing the programs which are adopted so that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired unless the House gives unanimous consent for him to continue. Does the House agree to allow the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say that the government needs to recast all its manpower training programs, not in light of the problems of the 1950s and

December 15, 1970

1960s but in light of the problems of 1970-71, in light of an unemployment rate of 6 per cent for the year and a winter unemployment rate which in Quebec, the Maritime provinces and even in the wealthy province of British Columbia will be substantially more than 12 per cent, a figure which none of us ought to accept.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, the previous speakers have extolled the merits of education for young people. In fact, those who have remained longer in schools or universities should enjoy much greater advantages than others.
This is indeed the tune played by the government and para-governmental agencies such as the Unemployment Insurance Commission, the Canada Manpower Centre and the Economic Council of Canada.
The annual reports of the Economic Council of Canada have first praised the merits of education, as evidenced by the following statement recorded on page 71 of the Second Annual Report of this agency:
It has been long recognized that education possesses intrinsic value as a factor enhancing the quality and enjoyment of life of individuals, as well as the quality and energy of a whole society.
But the report goes further in recognizing that education also has economic aspects, the nature and dimensions of which are just beginning to make their importance felt.
According to the Economic Council of Canada, the establishment and maintenance of a high rate of economic growth is one of the primary objectives of all indus-tralized countries.
In its first report, the Economic Council of Canada states that, to have a high rate of economic growth, all productive resources, both physical and human, must be used and that the growth of the Canadian economy is dependent upon the quantity and the quality of the resources used, that is, first of all, labour, both quanta-tively and qualitatively, and, finally, a rational use of available capital.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
In its second annual review, the Economic Council of Canada noted the progress made in the 1950-60 decade with regard to the productivity and growth of the Canadian economy. We may read on page 71 the following:
Among the factors contributing substantially to the rate of growth of real income per capita over this period have been: Labour Input-There has been a substantial improvement in the quality of labour associated with a rising level of formal education.
Further, at page 68 of this review, progress realized in Canada in the field of education is compared with progress made in the United States and it is thought that this will be in favour of Canadians.
Employment of Graduate Students
Here is how this reads:
A rising level of educational attainment is, therefore, likely to be a much more important factor in economic growth in Canada over the next two decades than over the past two decades. Moreover, there may well be some narrowing of the gap in educational levels between Canada and the United States during the coming decade.
And further, the review points out that the real average income of Canadians in 1961, compared with 1911, was higher by a quarter from what it would have been had not the level of education increased.
In the review, a statement made by the late President Kennedy is quoted in support of the argument that education affects the income level of the people. The extract from President Kennedy's message to Congress on January 29, 1963, reads as follows:
This nation is committed to greater investments in economic growth; and recent research has shown that one of the most beneficial of all such investments is education, accounting for some 40 per cent of the nation's growth in productivity... It is an investment which yields a substantial return in the higher wages and purchasing power of trained workers, in the new products and techniques which come from skilled minds, and in the constant expansion of this nation's storehouse of useful knowledge.
Those are words that every Canadian politician would have liked to have uttered if present experience did not demonstrate that the increase in the number of skilled workers and the level of education has had practically no effect on the vitality of Canada's economy which readily does without the qualifications and the will to work of new graduates since it does not hire them, and finally that the increase in the number of educated workers is not reflected by an improvement in the general standard of living of Canadians.
In this regard, Dr. Arthur J. Smith, President of the Economic Council of Canada, in the course of a lecture he delivered in Montreal to representatives of the North American Society for Corporate Planning, stated that the rate of growth must not only be continuous and quantitatively high, but also of a quality appropriate to the country's needs. According to Dr. Smith, some four billion dollars are being wasted in Canada, which are not reflected by new products. We are not progressing as we should because a large number of our young people are not now employed in production.
According to the Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada there is a gap between the possibilities and the present growth rate of the economy.
The immediate result is an increase in unemployment. On the other hand there is a reduction in the growth rate of productivity, in the average working hours of employed people, a decrease in the rhythm of creation of jobs with respect to the increasing number of people who enter the labour market. There is a decrease in the production rhythm in various industries with respect to their capacity.
Now, Mr. Speaker, those figures give us food for thought. Those are the hopes which were given to young

December 15, 1970
Employment of Graduate Students people, to young Canadians who made sacrifices to get educated. But reality is quite different.
On December 10, 1970, figures were published by the Dominion Bureau ol Statistics on the unemployment situation in Canada during the month of November, on the current number of unemployed workers and in particular on the number of younger workers of the 18-24 age group at present unemployed. According to those figures, the unemployment rate at the end of November had jumped to 5.7 per cent from its 5 per cent position at the end of October. The total number of unemployed in Canada had increased by 57,000 in November. This increase is especially noticeable in the 18-24 age group, taking into account the fact that by the end of November 1970, there were 66,000 more young workers unemployed in Canada as compared with November 1969.
I have in hand a more comprehensive study of the unemployment situation of our younger workers as published in the DBS monthly bulletin. Let me quote the statistics for the third quarter of 1970, compared with the corresponding quarter of 1969:


[Stage Direction]
1970	1969	Rate14-19	131,000	93,000	5.3	3.820-24	99,000	61,000	12.5	9.2
So these are significant increases if we compare the two corresponding quarters of 1969 and 1970. And if we go further in this study, we see that unemployment is higher among young people from 14 to 24 years of age than for all other groups of workers.
Here are other statistics showing that this problem is not restricted to the third quarters of the years 1969 and 1970. Here are the figures for one particular week, that of June 22, for the years 1968, 1969 and 1970, among young people aged 14 to 19:
Number of Unemployed Ages 14 to 19 June 22, 1968 June 22, 1969 June 20, 1970
Rate of Unemployment
153.000	15.6%
144.000	14.6%
180.000	17.7%
Mr. Speaker, whether educated or not, our youth is doomed to unemployment. Such are the conclusions from the statistics I have just cited and which were mentioned in the specialized magazine Supply and Demand, and I quote:
Short-term forecasts are most pessimistic. Even though federal authorities refuse to make any comment on the situation, experts assert that the labour market for new graduates will be practically non-existent m the spring.
Here is another excerpt from a recent issue of the same magazine:
-that the number of openings for young graduates has Increased by only 3.4 per cent since 1969 while the number of graduates has increased by 10 per cent during the same period. Thus the gap is widening and experts do not forecast any improvement in the foreseeable future.
In Quebec, the situation is hardly any better than in Canada as a whole. In this regard, the Economic Council of Canada
thinks that la Belle Province will have created only 3,000 new jobs in 1970 while universities and junior colleges will inundate the labour market with over 16,000 graduates in 1971, up 22 per cent from last year-[DOT]
According to the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, a short term solution would be to increase by 5 per cent the rate of economic growth in Canada.
It seems that it is in the field of pure sciences that the most serious problems exist. This year, the demand for scientists in every branch decreased by 22 per cent. Interest in scientific research must be encouraged without delay in the private sector if the situation is to improve.
In the field of arts, we also note a decline that varies between 15 and 30 per cent. The market for holders of master's degrees has also gone down by about 20 per cent. Finally, students entering the labour market with doctor's degrees have seen their job opportunities drop by 25 per cent in the last twelve months.
Some experts even say that the university students who are pursuing advanced studies in literature, social sciences and psychology made hopeless options, having regard to future needs.
Engineering students are those who are the least affected by the lack of skilled jobs, although there are also disparities in that area. Job opportunities in engineering have increased by 12 per cent in 1970 and the number of graduates by 15.4 per cent in the same period.
That is the way things are, Mr. Speaker. Those are the conditions experienced by the young people between 18 and 24 who are graduating from colleges and universities. That is the dead-end awaiting the young Canadians who made the necessary sacrifices to obtain a sound training and who cannot find any outlet for their energies, their talent and their knowledge, which would be so useful to the country to help all people enjoy a higher standard of living, to the extent of our material and human resources.
But such is not the case. Thousands of Canadian families are deprived of the bare minimum, while stores and warehouses are glutted with all kinds of goods that could satisfy the essential needs of all Canadian families.
Mills are closing down or are operating below capacity while Canadians, especially young people between 18 and 24, who are ready to devote their efforts and skills to the Canadian community, so that it may take advantage of their knowledge, are compelled to remain idle, unproductive and even in certain cases, to live at the expense of the State.
However, Mr. Speaker, there remains so much to be done in this country. I feel that we should do the utmost to enable those young people to put their talents to good use.
We need housing, schools and universities. Many ridings and small towns are not yet equipped with community centres or homes for retired people.
In certain areas, improved transportation would be required to move goods to larger centres. We also need community centres, libraries, and God knows what.

December 15, 1970
[Stage Direction]
A great deal of energy is wasted every year because our young people from 18 to 24, who have had more schooling than earlier generations, are unemployed and do not produce. If the present production system was soundly and realistically financed, it would be possible to achieve all these objectives.
To further production and provide more well-being to all Canadians, the government should agree to the motion introduced by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), in order to support total demand through increased purchasing power, especially in the hands of the people who need it more in our society.
During this debate, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) praised the programs now in operation. He said that we must have faith in the future.
We do have faith in the future, but the programs in force up to now have failed to provide our young people with work which would allow them to earn a living and have the country benefit from their capabilities and their education, which we gave them at the cost of many sacrifices.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this allotted day on the subject of youth unemployment. Subject to certain reservations, I congratulate the Creditiste party for bringing this subject before the House for the attention of all Canadians. Although everyone in this House realizes the seriousness of the situation with regard to youth unemployment, it is my intention to make a few remarks on the subject of youth development in this nation of ours which, if it showed serious concern, would overcome the unemployment disease with which we are faced.
This government of ours keeps repeating, with obvious pomposity, that the opposition has been weak in providing alternatives to some of the programs of the government. They have been asking us to provide some ideas to be used in their consideration of policy for the betterment of our nation. But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, again the government uses meaningless words for political gain, instead of upholding their stand on utilizing Parliament in order to reach the objectives involving the common good of the 22 million citizens, both old and young, of our nation.
On two occasions in the past month I stood in this House and offered common sense ideas which would overcome the unemployment situation with regard to our youth. One one occasion I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) if he would consider the reintroduction of special militia training programs similar to the ones introduced in 1961 by the Progressive Conservative government of the day. At that time a series of militia training programs were initiated to overcome the unemployment situation in Canada and, at the same time, to afford a cross-section of our young citizens a training program to assist in the civil defence program which
Employment of Graduate Students
held a priority in the thinking of our military minds of the day.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the minister couldn't have cared less and discounted the suggestion which I had offered respectfully and earnestly. All I did was prove the attitude of this government toward the parliamentary system and toward recognizing worth-while ideas or suggestions that happened to come from the official opposition.
In my speech in reply to the Speech from the Throne I suggested the creation of a ministry of youth development which, to my mind and to the minds of many Canadians in this nation, should be treated as a priority. It is so obvious that over the years we have neglected the youth of our country to whom we look for our future leaders. This neglect has brought about our experiencing hostility and rebellion. Instead of that, we could have been achieving a participation and an involvement which in the end would have accomplished the goals of producing a better Canadian nation through the leadership of our youth.
The example of where our Canadian leaders have come from has escaped the attention of our supposed leaders. I refer to the remote areas of our country which continue to be neglected in favour of professorial thinking to the effect that the object of the exercise is to take all people from the remote areas of Canada and throw them into the Montreals, Torontos and Vancouvers. It is strange, to my way of thinking that at the drop of a hat this government can find the moneys that will allow a few of our better athletes to compete in order that a few medals may be won by a few, while the many thousands in the i emote areas of Canada who require a few pennies to develop their bodies are left unrecognized. Why do we look for gold medals for a few, when for the same cost we can realize the development of the majority who can contribute to the betterment of our citizens of the future.
Sooner or later, Mr. Speaker, we must realize that the Canadian nation must recognize the value of all our youth. Instead of concentrating in our "one-rut mind" on the idea that those in the more affluent cities can produce the championships that we are looking for, we ought to recognize the value of over-all youth development. Instead of Information Canada, let us establish a "Youth Development Canada". I say, let us not waste the potential of our young people in the remote areas of Canada just because they do not happen to have the advantage of living in the more affluent provinces.
We have had examples of hostility and rebellion in the province of Quebec. We have seen the results of hostility and rebellion; the results were the murder of those who are dedicated to the preservation of our nation. Yet we fail to recognize what we who are Members of Parliament have strived for, the importance of the preservation of our society no matter whether we be French or English or from any other ethnic group of our society.
The majority of Canadians have supported this government in its decisions on the preservation of our federal society. The future of our nation is in our youth. Let us contribute some of the bulk of our affluence to the pre-
2092

December 15, 1970
Employment of Graduate Students servation of our youth, for the better future of our Canadian nation. Not too long ago I suggested to the Minister of National Defence that he, together with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) should give serious consideration to preserving our society by introducing a program to involve the youth of our country through special militia training programs. That would alleviate the unemployment situation which exists in our country. Such a program should provide, for the initiative of our youth, a contribution to training under leadership. Our society should be preserved through programs which assist in the support of civil law and order. It should provide a sense of participation. Our youth should be allowed to contribute to the security of our nation. Such a program would create an involvement of our youth to acquire leadership qualities and a sense of purpose in the future of our nation.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I followed up my sincere contribution to the government in a "late show" debate in this House. As is usual, I received a lip service answer about what the government is doing to provide for the youth of the country. The government is only providing for a few, Mr. Speaker. At the drop of a hat the government will provide hundreds of thousands of dollars to help a hockey team try to win a medal or championship in Europe. I have asked the government many times to provide funds for the thousands of our youth who cannot provide for themselves because of lack of community participation or government contributions. This would help them become better citizens. The answers are not too quick in coming forward.
I sincerely ask the government to provide a base for developing our nation through the youth of our country. At this time when new ministries and portfolios are being created, I plead with the government to make a most important contribution to our nation-the establishment of a department of youth development. If such a department were established, the experts in our defence department and other experts could ensure a proper, progressive development of the youth, our future leaders. We must be sincere when we say we want our youth to participate and become involved. We must provide in our budget for the educational, sociological and leadership qualities to ensure the preservation of our future. There must be a steady, progressive approach so that Canada will be as great a country as we want it to be.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, during the few minutes still at our disposal on this memorable opposition day, that was in fact organized by the Rallie-ment creditiste, I shall try to be as brief as possible, in order to allow the House to grasp properly the most important point of our motion, and to co-operate with the government to improve the situation of our young Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time since I have been in the House that a non-confidence motion draws so much
interest. I am proud and quite happy that the mover is a member of the Ralliement creditiste, a very young man whose name I need not give, the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Fortin).
The remarks made this afternoon by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang), who said the hon. member for Lotbiniere was against education, were inaccurate. It is normal that as a father of 12 children, I should take part in this interesting debate to say how I am in favour of even more education for our young people.
Our motion is not at all against a higher degree of education, but is against the fact that the government failed to take the necessary steps to provide employment to the thousands of students coming out of school every year.
It is true that we have put all our eggs in one basket. All governments did the same anyway. But while earmarking millions of dollars for education, the government should have used as great an amount to promote the development of our natural resources and industrial development, so as to create more jobs for graduates at all levels.
A while ago the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue) pointed out the number of graduates entering the labour market each year. That was no exaggeration on his part. I have here the November 24, 1970, edition of the newspaper La Presse from Montreal. It is not a Creditiste newspaper as far as I know. One can read the following:
The number of university graduates is increasing twice as fast as the number of available jobs.
That means that there is something wrong in our economic system, something that really prevents production from serving its purpose, so as to enable our industries to keep on operating, to improve in order to provide employment for those entering the labour market, to work towards new discoveries, to attempt to have the people benefit from the riches they are entitled to.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the first proposal of the Ralliement creditiste, often stated by Major Douglas, is that the people's purchasing power should be equal to the collective price to be paid for the consumer goods on sale.
It is a matter of achieving a purchasing power perfectly balanced between prices that consumers must pay and the money they have in their hands. In other words, the proposition of Major Douglas providing for the compensated discount is no more and no less than a regulator like the one used formerly to regulate steam-powered engines. It was a kind of contraption operated by centrifugal force and whose role was to make the engine turn faster when the energy demand was greater, and slower when demand decreased.
It was the regulator which kept a constant balance between the energy required and the reserve kept under pressure in the boiler.

December 15, 1970

Same thing in economics. We need a regulator which will always take into account the productive possibilities and the needs of the whole nation in order to ensure a constant balance between that possibility of production and the needs of the consumers. The regulator in the Creditiste system is the compensated discount.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we are sometimes asked to elaborate on what we mean by the issue of credit to increase the purchasing power in order that there would be continuity in production, and that this production may reach consumption. This is a dividend. What is a dividend? This is no Creditiste invention. Certain ministers receive dividends from companies where they are shareholders. Do they refuse these dividends? Absolutely not. What are their dividends? They are the profits distributed to the shareholders who have put capital into companies. And they are called capital dividends.
It is the same within a cooperative when several persons get associated for some kind of business and if there is a surplus at the end of the year it is distributed among members.
And since in our society we are getting associated to live better, to share our work, our intellectual and human resources, it is quite normal that at the end of the year we draft the balance sheet of our operations. If we have a surplus it should be distributed to the community.
Fairweather
Flemming
Forrestall
Gundlock
Hales
Harding
Hees
Howe
Knowles (Winnipeg
North Centre)
Knowles (Norfolk-
Haldimand)
Lambert
(Edmonton West)
La Salle Lewis Lundrigan MacEwan Maclnnis (Cape
Breton-East Richmond) MacLean Macquarrie McCleave McCutcheon McGrath McIntosh McKinley McQuaid Marshall Mazankowski Monteith Moore
This is why it is called a dividend. Its purpose is to have the whole of society benefit from surpluses accumulated for generations and from the work of those who permitted these surpluses to be useful to someone and to keep our economic system running for all to enjoy. Nothing scandalous about that.
Mr. Speaker, when I am asked: "But have you got any other proposals?" I reply by simply reading the conclusion of a conference given in Ottawa in 1936 by the Dean of the Economics and Political Science Faculty of Laval University, and I quote:
[DOT]	(9:40 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section 10 of Standing Order 58, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I declare
ment to the amendment lost.


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. !	
ocu cuai y vjx uiai-c xui	x	

 -
tinues to abuse the voting procedure in this House by walking in and out of the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the rules are quite clear on this. No member, including the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The
Chair is quite aware of the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) but I must bring to his attention that in the opinion of the Chair nobody came into the chamber while the vote was being taken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: This gives the Chair a good opportunity to bring to the attention of hon. members that the rule provides that no one should enter the chamber while a vote is being taken, but this rule does not prevent hon. members from coming in between votes.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-
(10:10 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Does the hon. member wish to express a further opinion?


An hon. Member:: I hope so. (The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald MacInnis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if the bums and idiots will be quiet now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair has another responsibility, which is to maintain and ensure decorum in this House. The Chair would appreciate it if the hon. member would make his point clearly.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the case: Your Honour has to look after the decorum of the House and when a member walks in, no matter whether he holds office in the cabinet or not, he is violating the rules of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I must remind the hon. member that the decision has been made on that point. If the hon. member does not mind, the House will carry on with the voting.
The question is on the amendment to the main motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I declare the motion lost.
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A) and (B), 1970-71


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That the Supplementary Estimates (A) and (B) of the sums required for the service of Canada for the year ending on the 31st March 1971, placed before the House on November 17th and December 4th, 1970, respectively, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-211, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1971, be read the first time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-211, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1971, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
On clause 2-$465,312,758 granted for 1970-71.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule A agreed to.
Schedule B agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, so there may be no misunderstanding, I should like the leader of the House to indicate the business for tomorrow and the next day.
o (10:30 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall begin with the bill respecting statistics of Canada, followed by the bill respecting packaging and labelling, the bill respecting weights and measures, the omnibus loans bill, the bill respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company, the anti-dumping bill and the bill in respect of Deuterium of Canada Limited. If we succeed in passing those bills, we shall take the bill respecting the Old Age Security Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 10.33 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, December 16, 1970