1970-04-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that the government of Canada has decided to make available assistance involving some $41.4 million to the province of Nova Scotia to help in the rehabilitation of the Deuterium heavy water plant at Glace Bay.
I have advised the premier of Nova Scotia that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has been authorized to negotiate an agreement with the province formulating the details of two of the three forms of assistance which the government of Canada is prepared to provide.

Assistance to Heavy Water Plant this plant and bring it into production in accordance with the study made by DuPont.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the heavy water plant at Glace Bay has an important part to play in the development of Canada's nuclear reactor program, in fact in the development of Canada itself. The increasing problems caused by other forms of power generation in Canada through pollution, through shortage of hydroelectric sources and many other matters, including the sales of nuclear reactors outside Canada, made us heavily dependent upon development of a Canadian heavy water power capability. Therefore we welcome the announcement just made by the Prime Minister and sincerely hope that the engineering problems at this plant can be satisfactorily overcome.
From time to time we have heard in the House rather snide remarks or references to the difficulties that this plant has encountered. I am glad it has been recognized that these difficulties are engineering problems, that they have been such from the beginning and were not commercial or political difficulties.
I think that the government has approached these problems in the proper manner. We would also concur with the Prime Minister's words at the bottom of page 3 of his statement, namely, that the burden was one "which the province has stated would be very great indeed if it had to proceed without this assistance on the part of the government of Canada." We say no more than that we hope that, with the assistance that has been offered by the federal government, the province will be able to proceed with the development of the heavy water plant that is so necessary to the development of Canada's great resources.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the story of the Deuterium heavy water plant at Glace Bay is not a very happy one. When the House first discussed the construction of a heavy water plant in Canada, it will be recalled that I raised the question of the process that was going to be used. This was interpreted in some quarters as a criticism of the location of the plant in Glace Bay. I had no preference as to where the plant should be located, but I was concerned because I knew that the process in question had been looked at by several governments in various parts of the world. Consequently, I was most anxious that some information be secured, either through the 
building of a pilot project or through further investigations, as to the feasibility of the process itself.
Unfortunately there have been difficulties. Whether these relate to the process or to construction or engineering operations I do not know, but this plant was supposed to be in production by 1966. It is still in difficulty. I see no value in crying over spilled milk. The government has taken the only action it could take. In view of the amount of money that has been spent the Canadian government certainly had to give financial assistance in the hope that this plant can successfully produce heavy water at a competitive price.
The Canadian atomic reactor program is most vital to our future industrial development, and if we are going to sell atomic reactors around the world we must be able to guarantee a supply of heavy water when these customers demand that service. Consequently it is very important that this project be successful.
By making this additional offer of $41,400,000 I think the government will give the project a chance to succeed. I am sure that members in all parts of the House are hopeful that the project will succeed, that this plant will be able to produce heavy water and that it will be of great assistance to Canada's atomic reactor program.
The experience with this plant ought to be a warning that in future, before large sums of public money are invested, the processes involved should be thoroughly and carefully investigated. I do not know whether my information is correct, but I am under the impression that Atomic Energy Limited of Canada never approved this process. Having invested this money we all hope that the results will be beneficial and that this project will be brought to a successful conclusion.


Mr. Real Caoueiie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is a good thing for the government to get involved directly in the problem of the heavy water plant at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia.
Despite the difficulties experienced in the last five or six years and more particularly in the last four years, I believe it was urgent for the federal government to take position in the matter.
Reorganizing and bringing the plant into production will naturally entail expenses, but it will do a great deal to promote economic expansion in Nova Scotia and hence in the whole country.
April 10, 1970

Nova Scotia needs this plant and, as I said before, despite the difficulties which we had to face, I believe it is wise on the part of the government to take this decision so as to encourage as much as possible the reorganization and operation of this plant. Needless to say that this program will inject new vigour into the economy of Nova Scotia and that of Canada as a whole.



PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION


Mr. Paul Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of introducing the Prices and Incomes Commission's report on tinplate, in both official languages.



FISHERIES ACT


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (for the Minister of Fisheries) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-204, to amend the Fisheries Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. It is based on the darkening prospects for western agriculture and the complaint that the government in Ottawa does not appreciate the real problems there. Will the minister not reverse the decision he has made and, on the basis of the government's undoubted jurisdiction, direct the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act administration to provide assistance to, or provide arrangements for, those farmers to meet their obligations as they fall due so that they will not be subject to foreclosure and debt action?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, without in any way, shape or form accepting the preamble to the question, I 22218-16
Inquiries of the Ministry should like to advise the hon. member again that if the revisions he has asked for under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act were in fact put in place they would be of no benefit to the farmers unless the interest decreased substantially. Whether or not this will happen in the marketplace very soon is something neither the hon. member nor I can predict with accuracy.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I say to the minister that obviously he did not understand the question. I am not referring, of course, to interest rates. I am referring to general relief against debt foreclosure. Does the government intend to do anything for the farmers of western Canada in respect of this problem?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have recited in this House many times what we are doing. A number of farmers have advised me that this is really helpful.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister and other government spokesmen from time to time have referred to the fact that the government intends to announce basic adjustment programs, can the minister indicate to the House when he will be in a position to announce these basic adjustment programs? Also, in respect of the question asked by the hon. member for Peace River, would he advise whether he might give consideration to a program enabling debt consolidation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, so far as basic adjustment programs are concerned I think hon. members opposite will appreciate that a number of the things we are doing in fact are basic adjustment programs. There are some people who do not agree with all of them, but that does not change the fact that they are sincerely designed to deal with these problems. So far as a debt adjustment program is concerned, I am sure the hon. member realizes this really falls more within the provincial jurisdiction than the federal jurisdiction.


Gerald William Baldwin: Nonsense!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In so far as we are capable under the provisions of the Farm Credit Act and other acts that the federal government does in fact administer, we have been very helpful in this difficult situation.


Gerald William Baldwin: Just like an undertaker.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister without Portfolio has

April 10, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry made quite clear that the program he announced recently is a crash program and would be supplemented by basic adjustment programs, would the minister not agree there is a difference between the wheat acreage reduction program and the basic adjustment programs which are being requested by the farmers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary question is posed in the form of an argument. It is not acceptable in this sense.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether or not the government has considered reinstating the debt legislation originally enacted in 1934 to make it apply at this time of emergency in 1970?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, a number of acts were introduced at that time but, as I said, the interpretation that the hon. member for Peace River puts on this act is completely inaccurate.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated that debt relief arrangements would be under the jurisdiction of the provinces. Has he not heard of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act which is a federal statute?



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-UTILIZATION OF UNUSED FUNDS TO ASSIST WESTERN FARMERS

Mr. Don Mazankowslci (Vegreville):: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, which I wish to direct to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that evidence now clearly indicates that the LIFT program will not be applied by as many farmers as was originally predicted, for reasons beyond their control such as previous voluntary reduction in acreage and soil erosion, and since the $100 million that was originally earmarked for the program will only be partially utilized, could the minister indicate whether any consideration is being given to a supplementary program to assist those who are unable to apply operation LIFT? I say this in the light of the critical cash shortage that exists in the western provinces, and furthermore it now appears that the LIFT program will-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked the question.


Hon. Oilo E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: The hon. member's question is of course based on a hypothesis. He asserts there is evidence for what he says. At this stage it is very difficult to know to what extent there will be participation in the program. The figures are very difficult to arrive at at this stage. Certainly farmers without surpluses are likely to continue growing about the same amount of crop as they had in previous years. This is what we anticipated in thinking of programs to help them, particularly by keeping other farmers, the ones with wheat surpluses, out of the non-wheat crops. I am still optimistic that with a growing understanding in the regions where surpluses exist of the advantages to the producers of taking land out of production there will indeed be a very substantial participation in the program.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In light of the minister's answer, I wonder if he will give consideration to removing the penalizing effect which the cancellation of the unit quota system will have on those small farmers in the small mixed farming areas?


Otto Emil Lang: The question about the unit quota is one that stands rather separately on its own and would take more time than is available to me at this stage to answer properly. The quota committee did recommend that the unit quota be abolished and gave some of the reasons for this action.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question with respect to the fact that the wheat acreage reduction program, according to him, was designed not only to reduce the amount of land seeded to wheat but also as a means of injecting purchasing power into the western economy. If present indications continue and it is found that the full $100 million which the House has approved is not utilized, can the minister assure the House that any money which is not required for that program will be used to provide other assistance to western farmers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question fairly fully earlier when I indicated it was completely hypothetical, and that I would be waiting until I see how far the program utilizes the $100 million which has been granted as a budget item for it.
April 10, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry
APPLICATION OF ACREAGE REDUCTION PRO-	WHEAT-INCREASE IN DELIVERY QUOTAS
GRAM TO VETERANS LAND ACT FARMERS	PRIOR TO SEEDING


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: I have a supplementary question with regard to the Veterans Land Act. I wonder whether the minister has consulted his colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, with a view to changing the present Veterans Land Act in regard to those who have entered into agreements with the government on a cropsharing basis so that the veterans who are farming can participate in the benefits under the minister's new program?


Otto Emil Lang: I will be glad to give consideration to that comment.



WHEAT-ACCEPTANCE OF ALL GRADES UNDER EIGHT BUSHEL QUOTA-DELIVERY TO ADDITIONAL POINTS

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: May I
ask the minister whether he is in a position to guarantee that all grades of grain will be taken in on the eight bushel quota in the next crop year?


Otto Emil Lang: Present indications are for significant markets for the whole range of grains which are available in the prairie region. Some people are concerned about the lower grades, but of course these are very much in demand by some of our best customers.


Stanley James Korchinski: In view of the fact that at the present time many of the elevators are refusing acceptance of lower grade grains, despite the fact that there may be a market for them, and are only taking dry No. 2 and better quality, will the farmers be given the opportunity to deliver to other points, not only one additional point but three or four if need be, in order that they can make deliveries where space is available?


Otto Emil Lang: The quota committee did recommend alternative delivery privileges to at least a second point, and consideration will be given to this. However, I think hon. members should appreciate the fact that there may be different action than in the past on the part of elevators at the present time with the block system in effect and with the advance notice which elevators receive about the kinds of grains which will be taken in the next shipping series.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the quota system is causing a great deal of the trouble in those areas where farmers have a one bushel or two bushel quota, is the minister in a position to express any hope for these hopeless people that there will be a reasonable increase in their quotas between now and the beginning of seeding?


Otto Emil Lang: In some areas, Mr. Speaker, of course seeding is not very far away, but the transportation committee not long ago outlined the delivery program through Thunder Bay for the balance of the crop year with what are really record unloadings of cars within that period, so that we will be seeing a fairly rapid movement of grain from the prairie region.


John George Diefenbaker: That does not happen to answer the question I asked. With respect to those areas where there are one or two bushel quotas the Saskatchewan Pool reports that there are 492 on a one bushel quota and 340 on a two bushel quota. Will the minister advise whether or not in these areas there will be action taken to increase these very unjust and very discriminatory quotas that prevents these farmers from being able to secure even a modicum of what they should be able to secure?


Otto Emil Lang: I think it should be obvious to the right hon. gentleman that as the grain moves to the Lakehead these quotas will in fact open.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister whether there is going to be an increase in the quota. It not being obvious as to what may happen, is there going to be an increase in the one or two bushel per acre quotas? That is what I asked.


Otto Emil Lang: Well, of course, Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board has indicated that there will be an equalized four bushel quota throughout the region by the end of the crop year, and the quotas will open in the individual areas just as soon as movement of the grain can be handled.


John George Diefenbaker: No wonder the farmers call it the "WARP-ed" program.

April 10, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



SUPPLY OF BOXCARS FOR MOVEMENT OF WHEAT-PRIORITY TO LOW QUOTA POINTS

['Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this to be customary, but we, on the government side of the House, have made arrangements, in case some hon. members should be absent on that day in order to remain in Quebec, not to feel their absence too much.']
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: In
view of the fact that the minister on previous occasions in debate in this House has given commitments and assurances that record volumes of grain will move in the period between last February and the end of July, and in view of the fact that farm marketings last week were one million bushels less than in the same week last year, what efforts are being made to have the railways increase the number of cars in grain movement, and what official date has been set for the opening of navigation at the Lakehead? Further, will priority be given to places still on one bushel or unit quotas in terms of increased quotas?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there are many considerations involved in the selection of the points and the blocks from which grain is moved in order to meet the requirements of the marketplace. I believe that navigation is opening on Monday, although I do not have official word on that. The drop in deliveries has resulted from the fact that the space available at the Lakehead was filled prior to opening of navigation. The railroads as well as the terminals have met with the Transportation Committee, in fact they are part of the Transportation Committee, in laying out the program for the movement of grain required for the shipping season.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre for a last supplementary, but we should really go on to the next subject.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the replies from the minister, the commitments given and the fact that July 31 is the day of reckoning for him, I wish him luck.



Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the recent trials in Greece of a number of opponents of the military regime in that country. I gave the Prime Minister notice of this matter through Dr. Head, his legislative assistant.
According to information I received last night, the prosecution asked for the death
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
sentence in the case of Dionyssios Karageor-gas, a professor of economics, and he has been convicted and sentenced to death. Will the Prime Minister consider favourably and urgently making an official appeal to the government of Greece for the commutation of this inhuman sentence?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given notice of this question; it permitted me to make inquiries. The information I have from External Affairs, who are following very carefully this case of Dionyssios Karageorgas is to the effect that although the death sentence has been requested by the prosecution there has been as yet no conviction and sentence.


David Lewis: I hope the Prime Minister is right, Mr. Speaker, but may I ask him whether he would instruct our ambassador in Greece to watch developments carefully and instruct him that, if the death sentence is imposed on this gentleman, he immediately convey the Canadian government's request for clemency?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The first part of the suggestion is already being carried out, Mr. Speaker, and the second part is a hypothetical question.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Has the government received any complaint from Greece with regard to those people who are on a ship off the shores of that country broadcasting news into Greece to try to overthrow the military government, some of these people aboard the ship being Canadians representing a party in this House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no such information but I will ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to check into the matter.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, in case he is not aware that there will be a general election in Quebec on April 29 next.
April 10, 1970

In view of the importance of this general election, would he consider an adjournment of the House on April 29 so that hon. members and federal employees living in Quebec may carry out their duty as citizens?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this to be customary, but we, on the government side of the House, have made arrangements, in case some hon. members should be absent on that day in order to remain in Quebec, not to feel their absence too much.



NATIONAL ART GALLERY


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question will be for the Prime Minister. In view of the incredibly offensive language used on the galvanized iron wall plaques now on display on the main floor of the National Art Gallery, will the Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State to use his best efforts to have the Twenty-four Hourly Notes of the works of Greg Curnoe removed from display immediately?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question would be for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but as he is not here and because the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has a peripheral interest I shall direct it to him. In light of the announcement by the Ahiminum Company of Canada of their intention to advance prices on the export market for several aluminum products and that they are considering the price structure in Canada, would the minister advise whether officials of his department or that of his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, are discussing this matter with the Aluminum Company of Canada so that there will not have to be a post facto movement to get any price increases rescinded?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, my officers were in touch with Alcan this morning
Inquiries of the Ministry and were informed that Alcan was only studying at this time the possibility of increasing or attempting to increase the price of their commodity in Canada, so this is only in a state of being studied.



ALLEGED DUMPING OF CANADIAN SULPHUR IN U.S. MARKET

['Yes, Mr. Speaker. That was the point of my question yesterday, the export from Canada of medical supplies manufactured in the United States. The minister has confirmed the reasons for my question and therefore I was perfectly correct in my information.']
Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I might confirm the answer I gave yesterday to the member for Edmonton West having to do with a possible protest by the United States authorities against alleged dumping of Canadian sulphur on the United States market. The government has received no protest from the United States government on that subject.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the minister's reply regarding sulphur. He says there has been no official communication or protest from the United States authorities, but is the minister aware of protests within the United States against the alleged dumping of Canadian sulphur and, if so, does he agree that the pattern is similar to that preceding the situation with regard to potash and that the extraordinary solution arrived at in that case should not be repeated in the case of sulphur?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the reported dissatisfaction of some American companies has not even been brought to the attention of the United States government, so it would be difficult for us to protest against a protest that has not been made.



Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I might also try to answer a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre having to do with the refusal of permits for the export of medical supplies to North Viet Nam. I was then under the impression that the hon. member was badly informed. I am now in a position to confirm that the facts are that export permits have been granted to the Canadian Unitarian Medical Aid Committee and other organizations that furnish medical

April 10, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry supplies to North Viet Nam. Antibiotics, drugs and medicinal preparations in dosage form, and dental and surgical apparatus, if they are goods that originate in Canada, may be exported to North Viet Nam under a general permit. In the case of goods of United States origin, however, it is not the intention of the government to grant re-export permits that will authorize the evasion of the United States export control regulations.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member is rising on a question of privilege.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That was the point of my question yesterday, the export from Canada of medical supplies manufactured in the United States. The minister has confirmed the reasons for my question and therefore I was perfectly correct in my information.



VITAL STATISTICS


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I wonder if the minister would give consideration or is consideration now being given to amendments to the Vital Statistics Act so that answers to surveys conducted by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics in many cases can be on a voluntary basis and not compulsory with persons subject to heavy fines for failure to comply, as is the case at present?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression that there is no legal obligation to answer questions on vital statistics, for obvious reasons at times.


An hon. Member:: What is her name?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The difficulty we have had in recent times for example with respect to a previous question raised by the hon. member for Oxford, if I recall correctly, was that on some occasions the investigator happened to be a neighbour or a person very closely associated in some way with the person being questioned. In these instances there are possibilities, for example, of appealing to the regional officer of DBS or to the Member of Parliament who could in these circumstances bring it to the attention of DBS or the minister. Remedies are usually found but I shall
IMr. Pepin.]
investigate further in the particular case the hon. member will certainly want to bring to my attention.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The minister has confirmed that the advice I gave yesterday not to answer some of the questions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.



POLLUTION


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry but in his absence I shall direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. In view of continuing concern over mercury pollution in various Canadian waters, is the government developing a system of compensation by way of grants, advances or loans to persons who suffer because of government action in closing down their means of livelihood?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say that we do not hope to be developing assistance but we do hope that the action of governments, provincial and federal, will clean up this pollution problem without costing this government any money. We organized in Ontario a system of advances to fishermen to carry them over this unpleasant time. We are optimistic that the polluters will take care of the cost and stop polluting. This is our main concern, and concentrated efforts are being made in this area right now.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in connection with my previous question concerning grants to persons suffering from the loss of their livelihood. Is a system being developed which will apply generally, not just to fishermen but to others who suffer from the loss of their livelihood as a result of government action in preventing pollution?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any general system being evolved with the exception of the precedents at Placentia Bay and Lake St. Clair. On the current problem with regard to mercury pollution, a joint federal-provincial committee of officials
April 10, 1970

has been formed, and persons who have suffered injury as a result of the closing of the fisheries are making representations to that committee on which will be based some form of aid until they can recover damages from the polluters.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question. Will the system being considered now apply generally throughout Canada or is it just in connection with the Lake St. Clair fishermen?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, strictly speaking this comes under the Department of Fisheries and the loans made in Placentia Bay were under the authority of the Department of Fisheries. I think this is what is being done at Lake St. Clair, but I do not believe there is any broad policy going into effect in other areas at the present time. If there is some wider policy applicable to all Canada, I am sure it would be announced in the House in the normal manner or by legislation.



NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON TREATY RESPECTING CONTROL

Mr. James A. McGrath (SI. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the government or the minister entered into negotiations with the United States government with a view to entering into a treaty or agreement with that country in the general area of continental pollution and pollution control?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have made representations in regard to the banning of phosphates to my counterpart in the United States, the Secretary of the Interior, but nothing has come to date of that initiative. I think the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has stated that there was a protest sent to the Department of State in regard to pollution in Lake Erie caused from American sources in regard to mercury spillage, but I do not think there has been any formal initiative on a broader basis leading to a treaty arrangement in regard to general pollution measures.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the government's policy to seek a treaty with the United States? Otherwise our pollution legislation will have no effect without similar legislation by that country.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any government decision in that regard yet. I think it is quite clear that if our measures are to be efficacious on joint waters, particularly on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence, there will have to be some formal arrangement with the United States or with the boundary states which probably would be most effectively implemented in a treaty so that antipollution measures are co-ordinated and that we can work together with the United States in order to achieve a better quality of boundary waters.



SASKATCHEWAN RIVER-PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION BY POLLUTER

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a supplementary for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry with regard to his statement that the government was hopeful that the industries polluting our streams with mercury would co-operate. In view of the statement made by the minister on Wednesday to the executive council of the Canadian Manufacturers Association in which he emphasized the fact that the polluter must pay, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if negotiations have been entered into by the government or if arrangements have been completed for payment of compensation by the Inter provincial Co-operative Chlor-alkali plant at Saskatoon which the minister stated earlier this year was the main, if not the sole, source of mercury pollution in the Saskatchewan River?


Eugene Whelan: Discussions have taken place, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think they are finalized at this stage.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that there are just a few minutes left in the question period. We have covered only two subjects. Hon. members must realize that if we spend 20 minutes on two subjects many hon. members will be left on the sidelines at the end of the question period. I urge that we go on to another subject.



POST OFFICE


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board.
April 10. 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry
Further to yesterday evening's meeting with representatives of employees of G. Lapalme Inc., could the minister tell us what is the present status of negotiations?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, last night we reiterated explanations about the government's offer. It was agreed to clarify the matter of seniority which is being done today.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary.
Could the minister indicate to the House whether the government is prepared to recognize the CNTTJ as the bargaining agent for the employees of G. Lapalme Inc., once the latter have been incorporated into the public service?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the law provides that, as far as government employees are concerned, the choice of the bargaining agent is for them to make contingent on the decision of the Public Service Staff Relations Board.



URANIUM


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises out of an announcement by the Gulf Mineral Resources Company, a subsidiary of the Gulf Oil Company of Pittsburgh, that it has found sufficient uranium in Saskatchewan to warrant the establishment of a mine and mill, provided the problem of foreign ownership can be resolved. Since this company and many other foreign-owned companies are exploring for uranium, what steps does the government intend to take to see that these developments can be proceeded with but at the same time adhering to the announcement he made that foreign ownership would be restricted to 33 per cent?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that in the statement I made announcing the government's policy in this regard there is an exception with respect to ore bodies established prior to the date of the Prime Minister's announcement. I believe the right hon. member for Prince Albert asked me about that at that time. That exception was put in specifically so that where an ore body has been found and where in the normal 
course they would be permitted to go ahead, the decision will not have a retroactive effect which would prevent them from proceeding. It is believed that the Gulf development in Saskatchewan falls within these guidelines. I will be seeing the president of that company on Monday when he will be presenting his plans.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the event this turns out to be a very large operation, which we all hope it will, does this mean that the 40 per cent of the uranium industry now controlled by Canadians will decline and that the percentage of Canadian control of the uranium industry is likely now to drop below the 40 per cent level which was in effect at the time the Prime Minister made his announcement?


John James Greene: That is a hypothetical question to some degree because we do not really know what this new mine represents or what its ore resources are. It was believed at the time of the announcement that it would be very unfair to make the rules have a retroactive effect. It was felt that this company, although not a Canadian company, which had brought this mine to the virtual stage of development should have the same privileges as existing companies and that it would only be in the event of sale that the new regulations would come into effect. If this is a very large mine, it might have the effect to which the hon. member referred. However, it was felt that this would be the only fair way because of prior development.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are three minutes remaining in the question period. I urge hon. members to co-operate with the Chair and give me an opportunity to recognize three or four members before the end of the question period. Perhaps the very important matter raised by the hon. member might be continued on Monday.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have one short question. Are the regulations which I understand are to be issued under the Atomic Energy Control Act ready and will they be tabled fairly soon?


John James Greene: They are not ready, Mr. Speaker. However, we are giving them critical appraisal and moving ahead with them as quickly as possible. I hope they will be ready shortly.
April 10, 1970



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: have an urgent question for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that flying training is being conducted at various airports in Canada by operators who have not applied for or received an air transport licence? They are in direct competition with duly licensed flying schools operating under existing stringent rules as prescribed by the Department of Transport and the Canadian Transport Commission.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it has been called to my attention that there have been allegations of the nature outlined by the hon. member. I have asked the Canadian Transport Commission to investigate. I will report as soon as I have an answer from them.


M. Ervin Pringle: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid there is not time for supplementaries.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, I have an urgent question for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister use his good offices over the weekend to come to the aid of expelled John Lennon and thus prevent a break-up of the Beatles?



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: wish to ask a follow-up question to one I asked yesterday. The Prime Minister said in reply to my question:
I do not see in here any denial of the substance of what the hon. member has just mentioned-
In view of the apparent conflict that now seems to exist between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and Mr. Robert McCloskey with reference to this matter, has the Canadian government received any official formal protestation from the United States with respect to the Arctic legislation presented to the House and with reference to Canada's position on sovereignty in the north?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I know of no such formal protestation having been made. I can repeat the same thing this morning. I have not been in contact with the minister. I undoubtedly would have been told if there had been a formal protestation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask a supplementary?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize the fact that I disallowed a supplementary by the previous speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is an important
matter. I waited 30 minutes to put it before the House. It is going to be debated on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member if there is unanimous consent of the House when we have completed the question period.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. It relates to the advisory committee on the pay and conditions of employment of public servants excluded from collective bargaining. The committee, under the chairmanship of the Hon. Mr. Clyne, was appointed some time ago by the government in response to a recommendation by a joint parliamentary committee. Can the President of the Treasury Board say whether the government expects a second report from the Clyne committee at an early date? If I were permitted to ask a supplementary question, I would ask if the minister will expedite this matter?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Clyne and his committee have been asked to make a further review to bring up to date their recommendations. I am not sure of the date by which we expect to receive the results of such a review but I assure the hon. member the committee is being pressed to complete their work.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton-Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on December 12, 1969, as report-

April 10. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry ed on page 1901 of Hansard, I directed a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I should like to direct it now to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It reads:
In view of the intensified Arctic research by the Soviet and American governments through the use of drift stations, will the minister take an early opportunity to inform the House what Canada is doing in this area?


John James Greene: As the hon. member has indicated, this concerns a matter which is largely within the jurisdiction of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. However, I would be glad to draw the attention of the minister to the question the hon. member has posed and provide the information for him.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary question or, if it is not supplementary, a related question. Most of us have read in the newspapers that people from the minister's department-and there was reference to his Parliamentary Secretary-were in Venezuela or in the Caribbean looking at currents-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As was suggested earlier, perhaps the hon. member for Calgary North might be allowed to ask a supplementary question now concerning a matter which is obviously of importance.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of the answer given to my question, in which the Prime Minister said he was aware of no firm or formal protest by the United States, would the right hon. gentleman, in his official capacity as Prime Minister of Canada, determine whether the United States has made a formal objection with reference to the position we have taken with regard to the Arctic and the legislation which is to come before the House on Monday? I ask this having in mind the fact that Robert McCloskey says there has been no consultation, while the Secretary of State for External Affairs says there has been.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There has been consultation. There has been a fair amount of discussion with United States officials on this question. As to whether

there will be a protest, or whether there has been a formal protest, let me say I am sure that if one is made I will hear about it sooner or later.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



AIR TRANSPORT


M. Ervin Pringle: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with respect, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to ask a supplementary question which I deem to be most important to the success of the smaller companies which are encountering a great deal of difficulty.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


M. Ervin Pringle: In view of the fact that properly licensed flying training schools are required to invest heavily in order to qualify for air transport licences, can the minister assure the House that the regulations will be revised to plug existing loopholes before properly licensed operators are forced out of business?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am delighted to reassure the hon. member, in view of his legitimate concern over this matter, that either amendments or new regulations will be introduced as soon as possible to correct the situation he describes.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby) moved:: April 10, 1970
5724	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies is an abundance of goods. But we have people out of work who cannot purchase them. I suggest a parallel between now and the early 1950's simply is not valid.
Another indicator that one would assume an intelligent man would look for to see if we were significantly threatened by inflation would be the export figures. The evidence, however, is encouraging. For example, I checked the figures for one month ago and found that our exports are up 16 per cent over the same period a year ago. So that our exports are not diminishing.
The third example of the intellectual incompetence and moral dishonesty of the government on the question of inflation is the refusal to state openly to the Canadian people that the overwhelming cause of our inflation is the almost virtual integration of our economy with that of the United States. When the United States is undergoing inflationary pressure, we get it too as an inevitable byproduct, and it is time that the government said so honestly.
If the government wanted to do something about inflation, the first move in a serious, long-run strategy would be to take measures to create an independent economy, or an economy as independent as one can have in a modern world. The hen. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) and my other colleague from Regina East (Mr. Burton) recently issued a statement on the subject of inflation and dealt with this problem at some length. I am not going to repeat their cogent arguments, but I urge any member of the House and anyone who is interested to check with that source to see how we may begin in a serious way to get a more independent economy. If we are to concern ourselves with inflation, then this is an essential first step.
There are, of course, other matters to be dealt with. One is not arguing that there should be no concern with inflation, or that one should not be concerned with people who are confronted with its results. Those on fixed incomes need to be protected by a law that provides for permanent escalator clauses in private and public pensions. We require better trade union legislation in the provinces that will provide for increases in trade union memberships so that workers are in a better position to get higher wages through the process of collective bargaining, thus enabling them to deal with an essentially rigged market structure. There are other measures
[Mr. Broadbent.l
too that could be taken to protect those people who are now most seriously affected by inflation.
However, the point that I wish to emphasize is that inflation is not our major problem. It is not or should not be our major social concern:	this should be maintaining full
employment. It is time that this government woke up to this fact and began to deal with the real question that affects the vast majority of the people of this country, namely the lack of jobs. In view of the two-year time period, and because of the minister's prime responsibility in this area, I say in all seriousness that the government should demand now the resignation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). It is absurd for this country to continue with that man heading the finance department, given the results that the department has produced for this country.
I want now to leave that area and say something about our manpower retraining programs. Before I do so, I should like to point out that a sensible economic policy for this country is one that constitutes a coherent whole. We must not only have the government committed to a plan of full employment as a matter of general economic policy; we must also have a government that seeks to establish manpower retraining programs that mesh carefully with that policy. Instead, of course, we have a government that is not concerned with full employment at all, and which produces a hodge-podge of manpower retraining programs.
The present minister of manpower has indicated that the manpower retraining programs are, to quote him, "dedicated to helping Canadians get better jobs". The minister has said that retraining programs "are designed to fill the gap between capacity and skill". I take that quotation from a press release dated December 5, 1969.
In introducing the Adult Occupational Training Act on March 3, 1967 the present Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) said the following, as reported at page 13738 of Hansard:
We want to provide a second chance to the people who need it most. These are the men and women who missed the chance to acquire a skill during their youth-
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
In terms of the stated objectives on the part of two present ministers, the manpower program has been a disastrous failure, a failure largely I would suggest still unnoticed by the majority of Canadians. Why do I say this?
April 10, 1970	COMMONS
First of all, those who need the training most are either ineligible or not permitted to take the training for a long enough period of time.
For example, all those men and women with less than grade eight education who, by the way, constitute some 43 per cent of our labour force-a shocking statistic and the worst record of any advanced industrial nation in the world-find themselves in difficulty. This group of Canadians are crucially important if we feel we want to do something about improving conditions in our country.
Let us consider those with less than grade eight education in conjunction with the regulations in respect of this program. We immediately see the bind in which these unfortunate people find themselves. According to departmental regulations a man can take only 52 weeks of academic training plus 52 weeks of training in a skilled trade. However, and this is the catch, to take training in a skilled trade one must have a grade ten level of education. What does a man do if he starts with a grade seven, six, five or even a grade four level of education? It is impossible for such a man or woman to attain a grade ten level in 52 weeks. If the individual is lucky he may attain a grade nine level of education, but most do not get even that far.
What does happen to the few who begin our manpower retraining courses with that kind of low level of education? We find that at the end of the year we have unemployed people with a grade nine level of education instead of unemployed people with a grade six level of education. Is this any way to treat that part of our population which I suggested at the outset should be of prime concern to a democratic government? What is needed is a change in the regulations which would permit such men and women to go beyond the 52 weeks if an extended time period is required for them to attain the grade ten level. At that time the individuals would be able to take one of our trade courses.
The favourable statistics provided by the government about these courses are misleading. The fact is that only people with higher levels of education tend to take the courses because they know they can complete them. The others know that unless they have almost a grade ten level they do not have a chance to take a trade course. So, the trotting out of a lot of statistics regarding the ability to get jobs as a result of taking these courses is a profoundly misleading thing. We have to consider the thousands of Canadians with less than a grade eight education who do not take
DEBATES	5725
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies these courses because they sensibly realize they would reach a dead end. The time period of the courses must be extended to enable these people to be re-educated and eventually obtain better jobs.
One important category of people excluded from this training program is the young working group. This group is effectively excluded by the requirement that to receive training with allowances an applicant must have been a member of the labour force for three years. How could a young boy or girl aged 17 or 18, out of school and no longer a dependent, qualify for such training? Obviously such an individual could not qualify. This is one of the reasons I suggest this category of unemployed people between the ages of 16 and 19 is increasing and represents a vivid unemployment statistic. These people are out of jobs and are ineligible for our retraining program. This situation must be changed immediately.
This same regulation effectively excludes the majority of Eskimos, Indians and Metis who have never been members of the labour force. These native people represent a fair percentage of the population of this country. They are Canadians and should have the same rights as the people in my constituency. How can they have the same rights when the requirement is that one must have been a member of the labour force for three years before being eligible for financial assistance when taking these courses? Our native people, in short, are effectively excluded from this program.
Another failure of the manpower program is to be found in the level of allowances provided. In 1969 the average level of allowances paid to a recipient with three children was $71 per week. This is below the poverty level in this country for a family, according to the Economic Council of Canada. We say to a man we will retrain him but he must keep in mind that he will have to live below the poverty level while he is being trained!
Furthermore, according to the Economic Council of Canada in its fifth report, the average family living at the poverty level has four children. The requirements of the manpower retraining scheme prohibit allowances for more than two dependants. This provision excludes the average family man who we might feel in statistical terms should be eligible. Those who are most in need of manpower training, poor large families, are effectively excluded from meaningful financial sup-
April 10, 1970
5726	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies
port because the level of allowances does not provide for the support of all their children.
The point is that the manpower retraining program would be excellent for a middle class family but very few of the people in this category need such training! For this reason, we need the following changes. Allowances must be brought up at least to the poverty level for any family, whatever its size, a member of which is taking part in this manpower retraining scheme.
The third failure of the manpower retraining program is the result of it being operated in what I can only describe as a context of administrative chaos. This point is well documented in the report of the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario dated December 1, 1969. Let me quote from that report as follows:
The Canada manpower centre and the local educational facility operate, as had been said, in administrative vacuums, with little or no constructive consultation at either the policy formulation level, or in the day-to-day administrative routine. Apparently the federal department feels its prerogatives are better protected with things this way, making the erroneous assumption-we would presume-that education and retraining can be purchased in the same perfunctory way the housewife buys her weekly groceries.
That quotation does not come from a partisan source, but rather from a serious group of teachers and administrators. It represents an objective assessment of the manpower retraining program. Further on in the same report it is clearly demonstrated that there is absolutely no attempt made to co-ordinate the planning of programs of the federal manpower department, which is the ultimate executive and financial authority, with those of Ontario manpower authorities who provide the educational facilities. This is a serious economic matter. Quite apart from other shortcomings, there is no adequate long term forecast in respect of manpower needs. I emphasize the word "adequate" because there are of course long term forecasts.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
The point made in this study is that there is a complete failure on the part of provincial and federal authorities to integrate then-planning so that the real manpower needs of Canada are met. The inevitable result of course is that countless Canadians are being trained for jobs which do not exist, and that there are jobs presently available on the market for which there are not trained men.
Another failure of the manpower department is the colossal lack of leadership in
IMr. Broadbent.]
respect of the retraining programs. It has failed to encourage new approaches or help those imaginative efforts which have existed outside governmental departments.
I should like to refer to the particular case of Frontier College. This college is a private institution dating back to 1899. By an act of Parliament of 1922, this college was given a charter and special recognition by the government. The purpose of Frontier College is to serve that category of people to which I referred a few minutes ago, namely those who live on the outskirts of the central core of our economy such as the Eskimos, the Indians, workers on the railways in outlying districts, loggers, and so on. This college has had a highly successful program for bringing education to these people and for bringing them community programs.
Frontier College is widely respected by every authority in the field throughout the country. I see that time does not permit me to give some detailed examples of the work done by this college. I only mention that they have done exceptional work in the Northwest Territories, Newfoundland and other parts of the country. When the administrators of this college requested this government for a mere $50,000 to carry on this work, the manpower department refused their request and gave them a piddling $5,000. Another $5,000 I understand came from the Department of Labour. Here, we have an effective group of young people, in the main graduates, who give up a substantial income amounting to thousands of dollars, to work with the people whom they are teaching. They work as labourers during the day and teach at night. There are always considerable numbers of young people who apply for these positions. These people have been callously treated by this government. They have been performing a function which should be performed by the Department of Manpower in these areas, and yet they are not receiving the recognition and encouragement they should receive. Instead they have received indifference and discouragement.
I have tried to suggest that the manpower department has failed in four areas. It has failed to train those people who are most in need of training. It is not providing adequate allowances and there is administrative planning chaos. Finally, it lacks any kind of imaginative approach and leadership in respect of getting to the people in the outlying districts. Before leaving this area, I should like to mention something which should be,
April 10, 1970

but unfortunately is not, obvious to all. An intelligent manpower training program does not constitute a long-range cost to Canadians. The contrary is the case. Quite apart from the benefits it could provide directly to the people involved in this program, it has been estimated that for every dollar spent on occupational retraining $3 in economic growth for the country would result. The conclusion then, is that such training programs are both beneficial to the people involved and to the economy of the country.
I should like now to say something briefly about the government's attitude toward its employees. So far I have attempted to show that it has been indifferent in respect of the working force outside the government sector.
I have attempted to show that its manpower training programs are grotesquely inadequate in terms of meeting the needs of the country and the needs of the people who require training. Now, I wish to demonstrate the lack of concern on the part of the government, and its misdirection, in respect of its own working force. Recently a survey was made among the employees of the government. What has this survey turned up? I have time merely to cite a few examples. The first is a common one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired unless he has leave of the House to continue beyond his allocated time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The first example may appear to involve a trivial point. Nevertheless, it is something which affects almost every civil servant in this country. There are reports that there have been significant delays in providing back pay. According to the regulations, back pay should be provided within a period of 90 days. Reports have been received in the last few days to the effect that many civil servants in this country have waited as long as 10 months to receive their back pay, money which is legitimately owed them by the government. This is a single point, but it does suggest something concerning the attitude of this government toward its employees.
Consider also the postal workers. I shall say nothing about the Montreal situation.
Recently a union official in my area pointed out to me the present situation in respect of current negotiations with the government. First of all, the government does not wish to provide job security for elected union offi-
DEBATES	5727
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies cials. This, of course, is essential. If a union officer is to do his important job for the men whom he represents, I suggest it is necessary that he have job security so that if at some time in the future he should not be re-elected to his union position he could return to his employment. Most good employers in the private sector provide this as an automatic right. The federal government, in the postal sector at least, seems to be quite callous on this point. Second, the Post Office Department has recently gone over the heads of the negotiating team in respect of its own employees. This is a typical example of the bad management practices which undermine serious constructive collective bargaining. The Prime Minister referred to this in a negative way in respect of another matter some days ago. He should have a look at the Post Office.
Another example is that of the Customs Department. There are 700 outstanding grievances in this department. Many of these are of a routine nature, but some are not. The point is that in this department every grievance goes the full route. Normally, there are four steps through which any grievance may go, but it need not go through all these steps. If the grievance is not settled in step one, then it goes to step two. This department, however, has insisted that every grievance go the full route. There were actually some 1,400 grievances in that department but believe it or not the department lost about 700 of them and there is no longer, therefore, any record. One might ask what this indicates in the way of attitude toward, and respect for, people.
The Public Service Staff Relations Act is deficient in a very significant way. At the present time government workers can have arbitration on three or four matters only- rates of pay, hours of work and leave entitlement. There is omitted from that act important items which currently concern working people. These are retraining, technological change, work conditions, job security, and job reclassification. This act needs to be changed to include these matters within the arbitration category and needs to be changed soon.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
The last department to which I wish to refer is the Department of National Defence. There are many within the department who believe that the government now has a five year plan, a phasing out operation throughout this country. The government knows when they are going to close down station X or station Y, but they are not telling the work-
5728	COMMONS DEBATES	April 10, 1970
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies ers. This means that if a station is closed down, a worker can be transferred to another station, and within another two years that one can be closed down, too. The point at issue is the very important matter of the right of the working man in this country, regardless of whether he is a government employee or a private worker, to know something about his future. The point at issue is the government's refusal, even when it has information available to itself, to tell its employees what its management plans are.
Why, I ask, can the government not tell in advance the employees of the Department of National Defence at different stations across the country that the station will be closed down? Sure, there will be some political reactions, but let us face them. Let us have a discussion of whether a station should or should not be closed down. What we cannot do, and what the government should not tolerate, is the kind of practice which leaves the working man, so dependent on the power of others, uninformed about his future. Those of us who perhaps on the whole have superior education, and are in superior income positions, are not involved in this kind of threat to our future. We are in a position to better control it. We are lucky. The government however has an obligation to make its plans known in advance to these in less fortunate positions and it is failing to do so.
The last point I want to make about the government's attitude toward its own employees concerns its austerity program. Clear evidence is provided by a number of departments that what the government has done has been to force reclassification on people. In some cases it forces people to go down to a lower category or, if it wants to raise the incomes of certain officials, it effects lay-offs of others. The point is that this austerity program enforced by the government is implemented in a unilateral way by the departments, thus affecting very unjustly the employees involved. The question of reclassification is not negotiable. It is unilaterally imposed and it is the workers who suffer at the hands of officials who are given such arbitrary power by a government which is not basically concerned with what should be regarded as the ordinary rights of citizens and of working people everywhere.
I thank the House for giving me this extra time, and I will not go into more detailed comments on other government departments. Other members from this party will pick that up later in the debate. I hope I have said enough to make it clear that the government

itself, instead of being an outstanding example of what an employer should be in this country, is setting a lamentably low standard.
This government, as I said at the outset, is led by a man who many of us thought had both moral and intellectual gifts of a high order. What I hope to have made clear is that if we consider the well-being of the average or poor Canadian, if we look at the government's general economic policy and at its manpower training programs, if we look at its attitude toward its own employees, we must conclude that we have a collection of men running this country who are committed simply to bureaucratic efficiency at whatever the cost, a collection of men quite indifferent to the legitimate aspirations of the vast majority of our people. I say therefore that the Prime Minister deserves to be condemned by all of those in our country who have any sense of moral justice.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: I want to speak briefly on the motion introduced by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). The motion reads:
That this House condemns the government (a) for its failure to provide a program of full employment,
And indeed, they should be condemned.
(b) for its discriminatory and ineffective manpower policies,
Here again, for the reasons outlined by the previous speaker, they should be condemned, and (c) for its destructive labour relations with its own employees.
I do not plan to go into detail in respect of all the different departments. Some of them have been mentioned by the previous speaker. If anyone had any doubts as to the relationship between the government and the employees of the government, all he has to do is think about the man who has great persuasive powers and who is always so friendly, courteous and kind to everyone, including the workers. I refer to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Muir: hear applause from a displaced person across the way. Undoubtedly, he misunderstood my words. They were said with complete sarcasm and meant exactly the opposite. He does not have sense enough to understand it.


Mr. McBride:: But you are never sarcastic.
April 10. 1970


Robert Muir: The
displaced parson across the way does not seem to understand English.


Murray Arndell McBride: You are a nice fellow at heart.


Robert Muir: He
will continue to emit sounds while seated and then get up a little later to try to deliver a sermon, something which he did not seem to do so successfully in past years. In any event, in reply to the member from somewhere- McBride is the name but one sees him so rarely here that it is difficult to know where he is from-


Murray Arndell McBride: I am here every day.


Robert Muir: In
any event, I will say to him in reply that a fellow by the name of Eisenhower, a great man, once said that in politics one should take everything seriously except oneself. I commend that to him because later he will have an opportunity to speak if he wishes and we will be very glad to listen to one of his crazy sermons.


Murray Arndell McBride: I have been trying to be nice to you.


Robert Muir: As
someone once said in this House: When you are going after big game you are not dissuaded by rabbit tracks, which seem to be appearing across the way. Mr. Speaker smiles and nods his head, so 1 am sure he feels the way I do.


David Lewis: You cannot drag in the Speaker; that is very improper.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


Robert Muir: May
I say, in rising to say a few words on this motion, that we find the economy to be in great trouble, although I am sure that members across the way will not agree with us on that. We have, to put it mildly, serious inflation. We have a growing balance of payments problem. Taxes have increased to the point where Canadians are paying the highest they have ever paid in peacetime. Then, of course, we are paying farmers not to grow wheat, and this again creates great unemployment. We are paying them not to grow wheat, despite the fact that there is so much starvation in the world today.
We are confronted with news headlines like, "Rising Jobless Find Government No Help," in the Ottawa Citizen and "Unemploy-
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies ment Starts to Mount"; "Jobless Highest Since 1964."


Mr. Comeau:: And "Cosmos Closing Down."


Robert Muir: 
Murray Arndell McBride: Oh, oh.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, would gladly yield the floor if this supercillious creature across the way, the disjointed parson, has something to say. Perhaps he will say it a little later. If we are going to listen to his interjections, I call on Your Honour to ensure order in the House. It would appear he likes to remain seated on whatever little brains he has, and yak at the same time. There is nothing comes out of the uppermost part of him, so it would appear it is all coming from the other direction. So, Mr. Speaker, if I could prevail on you, would you try to straighten out this poor individual? Of course, he is an expert. He has been here for a long period of time, and he knows the rules so well.


Louis-Roland Comeau: He is a Liberal as well.


Robert Muir: That explains it.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I would think that the government, in view of what we see transpiring from day to day, have such a disregard for our long-cherished parliamentary process that they may well be wondering why the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) would have such gall as to bring in a motion condemning them for their failure to bring in a program to provide full employment. For once, I might be tempted to agree with the government because, while we engage in this debate here, we know that the government already stand condemned of this charge by the people of Canada. All members of this House meet people everyday who are complaining about, condemning and damning the actions of this government.
On the one hand, the government has virtually put a plan into force to create unemployment in order to combat inflation. I do not
5730	COMMONS
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies know if all the economists agree with this position, but certainly it seems a weird, strange idea to induce unemployment in order to combat inflation. There surely must be some other method. We can quote endless statistics in this debate showing how the government have brought misery into the lives of countless thousands of Canadian citizens. However, 1 do not think that is the answer because the government have a well-trained habit of hiding behind and, if necessary, of distorting statistics-as mentioned by the previous speaker.
We must look beyond the statistical data related to this scandalous issue and so must the government. While the government may attempt to hide behind the statistics, I wonder how long and how well they can hide behind the stares of the unemployed searching vainly for work, behind the misery of the young, who are finding quickly that opportunity is virtually non-existent today. People who are coming out of university cannot find jobs and students cannot find summer jobs. The government cannot hide behind the questions of the man thrown out of work in the prime of his life who has been told, with the old shrugging, "Well, it's necessary so that we can give you a better life."
What is this better life to a man who cannot find a job? What is this better life, this just society? Well, maybe I am not supposed to mention that. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) recently said at Carleton University that he thought we should bury that phrase now. It served its purpose of getting him into power, so, we should quietly put it away. Yes, the government is already condemned, and condemned by its very arrogance in its approach to this problem. On its own admission, it stands guilty of the charge. Hasn't it admitted that it must create unemployment to defeat inflation, and hasn't it defended this plan? Well, we still have inflation, and the highest unemployment rates for six years.
How far does the government intend to go in boosting unemployment in this land of ours? Is it to continue? Is unemployment to go higher. The Prime Minister, in a pre-Christmas statement before he went skin-diving, or doing some skiing, or taking some other vacation of the many that he has had in the period of a year-


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is cheap, Bob.


Robert Muir: The
Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce should not comment.

DEBATES	April 10, 1970


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was nothing very cheap about it.


Louis-Roland Comeau: They are expensive trips.


Robert Muir: Yes, they are not cheap. However, the Minister knows we are telling the truth and that is why he resorts to the statement, "That is cheap, Bob." He does not mean that. Smiling Jack is always smiling, and he does not really mean that. He knows it is unfortunate that we have a Prime Minister who is so happy and so willing to go on so many vacations. But when there are problems, great problems, surely he should not be always out of the country or going on these many trips.
I say that in all sincerity. I think he should stay around here and try to solve these problems with his great expertise, his great knowledge, and that amazing staff which he has. One wonders how he finds time to speak to the 75 members of the staff that he has in his office. I suppose they speak to each other, and one asks, "What are you doing". Then the other asks, "What are you doing"? and they really do not know.
The Prime Minister says he could live with 6 per cent unemployment. We are already beyond 6 per cent unemployment. He said it would not worry him. I ask what rate of unemployment is the government prepared to set as a safety limit so far as it is concerned? There is no safe limit so far as the unemployed are concerned. What is the acceptable unemployment rate now in the eyes of the government? What is the cut-off figure, a figure that might be used as a gauge by the government itself to know when the limit has been reached and that it had better think again instead of monkeying with the lives of so many Canadian citizens?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, just prior to the luncheon adjournment I was posing a number of questions to the government with reference to unemploy-
April 10, 1970	COMMONS
ment. One was, what is the acceptable unemployment level in the eyes of the government? What is the cutoff figure that might be used as a gauge by the government itself to know that the limit has been reached and that it had better take action instead of monkeying with the lives of many Canadian citizens. I am sure we do not want smart alec answers like those received from the Prime Minister who, when questioned on the subject, replied, when did you stop beating your wife? We want to know how far down the road to recession the government is leading the country by using these peculiar methods to control the situation.
The unemployment situation in Canada has reached frightening proportions and to my mind it has done so as a result of misguided and muddled thinking of the first order. We know that the government can live with 6 per cent unemployment but those who think that a man can live on $30 a week should get out on the streets and talk to the men and women who are feeling the whiplash of these academic exercises that went out the window years ago. I suggest the government get out and speak with the people because it is obviously not getting the message. However, the message is being carried now in the Toronto Globe and Mail. A series of articles in that paper carried these headlines: "Rising unemployment appears to be an unhappy byproduct of the fight against inflation. Here is how it has affected three of the 526,000 Canadians without work." I am referring, of course, to the latest in this series which appeared in the Globe and Mail this week.
In the lead story, we read that the roles of father and mother will be reversed shortly in the family of Gordon and Patricia Rehel, unless Mr. Rehel, an unemployed factory worker, somehow finds a job. The story reads:
Since December they have been living with their three children on unemployment insurance of $48 a week in their 1J story home on Natal Avenue, Scarborough.
It is said that Mrs. Rehel will go out to get work while her husband stays home looking after the children. Let me continue to quote from this story:
Gordon blames the federal government's methods of fighting inflation for the fact he can't get a job. People are being told not to buy, so less goods are produced, so jobs disappear.
Whatever else Pierre Trudeau may be, he is no friend of the working man, he said.
We find it impossible to understand how they think they can better the country by putting people out of work, said Patricia (his wife).
DEBATES	5731
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies
In the second story we read that Fred Leveley is already the homemaker while his wife goes out to work as a carhop at $1.35 an hour. Says Mr. Leveley:
I don't mind cooking. But sometimes there isn't much to cook-spaghetti, hamburger, things like that. We can't afford chickens or roasts and eat spaghetti two or three times a week.
These extracts were from the Globe and Mail. If we look at the Toronto Star, we find this story:
What is acceptable to Prime Minister Trudeau is not acceptable to us. We will not hold still for an unemployment figure of 6 per cent.
Not even in the sacred cause of fighting inflation should it be tolerated. Canada must find better ways to straighten out the economy than to let unemployment grow into a monster.
A figure of 6 per cent, translated into people, means that 480,000 men and women cannot find jobs. If one allots them only one dependant each, that still means that almost 1,000,000 Canadians have been plunged into hard times.
The maximum benefit a man with children can draw from the Unemployment Insurance Commission is $53 a week for 52 weeks. That works out to $2,756 for the year before a man has to go onto welfare.
This is well below the poverty line for a family in Canada.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
The monster of unemployment is with us. There are many, many people living below the poverty line in Canada today. Does this government really care?
In recent months there have been massive lay-offs in private industry. I referred earlier to some of these. We have had delegations of unemployed workers here from Dunlop Tire Company and, as we all know, there have been demonstrations outside this building because of blatant government attempts to smash unions which over the years have fought for the rights of workers. I am referring to the Lapalme workers and the CNTU. If hon. members have any doubts about this, I suggest they look at the Montreal postal situation. In a year when the government can unveil Information Canada to improve information services, it throws the basic communication service of Montreal into complete utter chaos. Anyone in Montreal can tell you about the problem with the mail service. Yet the government is having to pay more money to bail itself out of the mess than it would have had to pay in its Scrooge-like approach to the mail truck drivers and their union.
I wish to deal now with the manpower policies. Just how effective are these policies?
5732	COMMONS
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies I could again quote statistics, but I prefer to go beyond that. A report prepared recently by United Community Services of the Greater Vancouver area indicates the result of their examination of Canada manpower and other employment programs. Page 22 of this report reads:
How does the consumer feel about the efficacy of manpower services? During the past months, United Community Services has interviewed numbers of those receiving social assistance in regard to "hang-up" in the welfare system; their comment about manpower have been devastatingly critical. These criticisms are not without support, indeed, one social service administrator bitterly stated; "It is as if they had the brand of Cain on their forehead when manpower finds out they are on welfare." The Director of the John Howard Society states "Our referrals are quickly categorized by manpower as untrainable, and therefore not adaptable to their procedures."
In the basic conflict within the Manpower Department between their two "clients", the employer and the employee, the B.C. regional office has opted to serve the employer. This philosophy was expressed by a manpower representative on an openline show on December 2, 1969; he repeatedly told critical callers: "We have no responsibility to you; our responsibility is to the labour market."
The report prepared by United Community Services of the Greater Vancouver area mentions retraining programs. Here again we find evidence of discrimination.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. Does the House give unanimous consent to the hon. member continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Muir: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank the members for their kindness. I will not be very long. This Part of the report of the United Community Services of the Greater Vancouver area reads:
Perhaps the most alarming statistic in this study is that of 27 per cent of registrants in the age group up to and including 19 who "want and could use upgrading" only 5 per cent were given manpower training courses. Present manpower regulations militate against this age group. Only those who have been out of school at least one year are eligible for enrolment in training courses, and three years must elapse before they can qualify for maintenance while training.
The member who introduced this motion today mentioned that the government had now increased to three years the time that an individual must be on the labour market before he or she can receive training. It is often the case, particularly with young peo-

DEBATES	April 10, 1970
pie, that they must just walk the streets for three years with nothing to do. They sometimes lose their ambition in that period while waiting to receive training. The report continues:
The absurdity of these regulations is illustrated by a Vancouver woman given an academic upgrading course by the social welfare department to help her on the road to independence; she found herself disqualified for manpower training allowances for the next three years.
Of all the applicants for occupational training courses, only one in ten is accepted. It is obvious that since the primary object is to satisfy the employer, training is almost unavailable to those whose skills are least and whose income is most likely to be well below the poverty level.
In the Atlantic provinces, the unemployment rate is almost twice the rate for the rest of Canada. In certain regions, particularly in Newfoundland, it ranges as high as 20 to 22 per cent unemployment. This is not good, Mr. Speaker. It is a very sad situation. This situation is not helped by the government's policies with regard to freight rates in the Atlantic provinces. As a result of this freight rate policy prices are rising in the Atlantic provinces and, in many cases, industry is being driven out of the area because it cannot cope with the increased rates. Questions have been directed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) regarding this situation. He is always most co-operative and in my opinion works well with all members. I hope he will prevail upon the CNR to roll back these increases in order to assist the economy of the Atlantic provinces.
I completely agree with the motion that has been put forward. In fact I go a little farther than that. I would like to add a few words to the final line of the motion moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) that the motion of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby be amended by adding thereto the following:
-and particularly the failure of the government to provide freight rate subsidization in the Atlantic provinces, where unemployment rates are twice the national average, in order to relieve against the hardship of high prices and unemployment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Mr. Muir, (Cape Breton-The Sydneys), seconded by Mr. McCleave, moves that the motion be amended as follows:
-and particularly the failure of the government to provide freight rate subsidization in the Atlantic provinces, where unemployment rates are twice the national average, in order to relieve against the hardship of high prices of unemployment.
April 10, 1970


Mr. McCleave:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The motion was seconded by the hon. member for Saint Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard). I would have been very pleased to have been identified with it, he is the seconder.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
record will be changed accordingly.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to start my remarks by reading the motion under consideration:
That this House condemns the Government (a) for its failure to provide a program of full employment, (b) for its discriminatory and ineffective manpower policies, and (c) for its destructive labour relations with its own employees.
Mr. Speaker, in the light of existing conditions, I believe it would have been difficult to find a more appropriate motion than this one which is complemented by the amendment moved by my friend from Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir).
Mr. Speaker, in 1965, three new men arrived on the federal political scene to join the Liberals. Until they took their final decision, these three doves, as they are called, were not known for their unflinching faith in the ideas of the Liberal party. They were identified rather with the CCF party or the NDP.


An hon. Member:: Or with the Progressive Conservative party.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Considering the past of these three newcomers, the workers could have rightly expected that their problems would be rapidly solved in the future.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), for one, played a very active role, as everybody knows, in the famous strike of the asbestos miners. He identified himself at the time with the interests of the workers and once arrived here, as Prime Minister, the workers would have had the right to expect from him that he would take care of them in a very special manner. As far as the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) is concerned, he also is recognized as an old trade-unionist because of the part he took in the CBC strike. And the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) made his first appearance in public life with the CNTU and achieved an enviable reputation which is recognized by everyone.
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies
Those three newcomers on the federal scene held important positions with the unions. They therefore owe much to the working class. It is surprising, Mr. Speaker, to note that in 1970, the three doves, as some took pleasure in calling them, instead of helping the working class which had supported them, so to speak, for so many years, should have decided to turn their backs on them. Is it any wonder then, Mr. Speaker, that the reputation of those three gentlemen, each of whom holds a very important post within the Canadian government, should deteriorate constantly. Most of the workers are sorry they trusted those three gentlemen. Several of them even see treachery in the present attitude of one of them in particular, namely the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
I am sorry he is not here in the House now, because I have a message to convey to him on behalf of the workers of my riding which is going through a depression such as it has never known before. The words I will use might be a bit harsh. However, this must be made known, and I would not change them if he were here. I am even sorry he is not in the House, because it would give me some pleasure in saying them in his presence. Because of the roster system which has been adopted, this is not one of his days to be in the House. But I must not, because of that, be deprived of making my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to dwell for a few moments on the present situation of the working class. The most recent statistics, as published by the Federal Bureau of Statistics on February 21 last, reveal that there were at that time 526,000 unemployed Canadians. In the province of Quebec alone, there are 195,000 unemployed at the present time, which represents 8.7 per cent of the Quebec labour force. The unemployment rate for Canada as a whole is 6.5 per cent.
According to an inquiry made by the JOC (Young Catholic Workers' Association) among the young workers in the province of Quebec, there are 57,000 unemployed young people. Which means that one young Quebecer out of ten is unemployed at the present time and that young people represent 42 per cent of the unemployed in Quebec. What will happen in a few months from now? Students will begin their holidays and will also invade the labour market, looking for a job so as to be able to pay a part of their fees. It is just too bad, but many of those 640,000 new job seekers
April 10, 1970
5734	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies throughout Canada will not be able to achieve their goal which is to pay much of their tuition.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
The only ones responsible for that are those who sit at the present time on the treasury benches. And just to emphasize their responsibility, I just have to go through the 1965 Index of the debates of the House to see that those who were then in the opposition blamed unemployment on the ministers of that time, on the Progressive Conservative government.
I will simply mention four speakers from the Liberal party: the hon. Chevrier, Martin, Pearson and Pickersgill. You will notice at a glance that during the third session of the 23rd Parliament, the hon. Chevrier made 38 contributions about unemployment, blaming the government for not providing the necessary jobs for the Canadians who were able to work.
The hon. Paul Martin, whom I need not present, made 123 contributions here in the House to condemn the government headed by Right Hon. Mr. Diefenbaker for not taking the necessary steps to check unemployment.
I remember the Right Hon. Mr. Pearson, the Leader of the Opposition at that time, who on 34 occasions, took part in the debates of the House to upbraid the Progressive Conservative members for not providing the Canadian workers with jobs. He was supported by the hon. Pickersgill who took the floor on 34 occasions also to blame the government for the ills that plagued the Canadian workers because of lack of jobs.
I shall not mention the remarks made by other members. I was here at that time and unemployment was the curse of the day then. Today, we are witnessing a situation which is strangely similar to that which prevailed when the Liberals were on this side of the House. What answer do they suggest?
What is the Cabinet doing now to fight unemployment? Nothing at all. They leave to their own devices heads of families who lose their jobs because the government is failing in its duty.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes to deal more particularly with the sorry plight of our workers. I do not want to overdo it, but I shall simply relate the facts as they are.
At Saint-Hyacinthe, in my riding, conditions are so serious that people attending
[Mr. Ricard.l
church services last Sunday were urged to pray so that unemployment will end and that our leaders will be successful in their fight against it.
Furthermore, I want to put into the record a letter signed by the highest religious authority in the Saint-Hyacinthe diocese, his Excellency Bishop Sanschagrin and sent to the hon. Jean Marchand, Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The letter reads as follows:
The priests of the Saint-Hyacinthe area deplore the stagnation which affects the workers of the area. As shown in the briefs submitted by the Confederation of National Trade Unions and the Goodyear retraining committee, 20 per cent of the labour force is unemployed and therefore up against a situation of poverty detrimental to the workers themselves, their families and their community.
We believe it is most urgent for us to make representations to your department so that measures are taken to remedy the situation. We join the two bodies mentioned above, as well as municipal authorities and intermediary bodies in asking that the economic subdivision of Saint-Hyacinthe be designed as a special area or in any other way, or that other effective steps be taken to cope with that serious problem which can only deteriorate if nothing is done.
And we have signed,
The signatures follow.
Up to 1954, the conditions in the city and area of Saint-Hyacinthe had always been rather satisfactory, and the area was known for its prosperity. But since 1964, things have gone from bad to worse.
I have tried as often as possible to draw the government's attention to that problem, but I must admit that it was apparently to no avail. Nobody heeded my warnings, and yet they were only made in the best interests of my fellow-citizens.
In 1964, there were 6,059 jobs in the Saint-Hyacinthe area. In March 1970, there were only 4,944. What happened to those people who lost their jobs? They joined the increasing number of unemployed; they often had to leave their own country. In some cases, they had to put up for sale the house they had built with the help of members of their family. To sum up, for many families, the worsening of unemployment in the Saint-Hyacinthe area as a result of the lack of planning on the part of our governments has spread panic and want everywhere.
I have here the report of a study prepared by University of Montreal students. It has been published in the Wednesday, March 18, 1970 issue of Le Clairon, and here is what it reveals:
April 10, 1970	COMMONS
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
A staggering document
-Unemployment: 20 per cent-employment reduced by 18 per cent-
-the lowest salaries-brain drain -1,000 people have left the Saint-Hyacinthe area -serious anemia
If a city or a region is to experience continued prosperity, it is necessary for new industries to come and settle there.
I have on hand a table of the industries that went into operation and folded up in the period from 1964 to March 1970. A total of nine new industries settled in Saint-Hyacinthe and they created 153 new jobs. During the same period, nine industries closed shop depriving the area of 484 jobs. We are therefore short of a great number of jobs.
From 1945 to 1970, the number of jobs at the Goodyear Tire Co. went down from 1,250 to 400. According to my information, this number will be further reduced. At Yamaska Shirt, there were 300 employees in 1945; today there are only 75. Penman's had 700 employees in 1959; it has 325 today.
Just a few weeks ago, 30 workers were laid off at the Volcano Ltd. plant. Last week, Penman's laid off 50. Casavant Freres also laid off some workers. Goodyear Tire has, I believe, fired 147 workers recently.
If that is not a sufficiently sad picture of what is happening in the town of Saint-Hyacinthe and the adjacent area, I wonder what is needed to stir up the ministers whose responsibility it is to do something to solve the problem.
I have made representations to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) which were, I repeat, supported by the bishop of Saint-Hyacinthe, by intermediary agencies by municipal authorities, but all to no avail.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate to see a minister who owes everything to the labour force turn his back on those who made him. I am anxious to have him take note of my representations which have been forwarded to me to be brought to the minister's attention.
Mr. Speaker, those people, when they belonged to the opposition, when their political "fathers" belonged to the opposition, always managed to blame the then Conservative government for the ills that existed-
DEBATES	5735
Alleged. Failure of Employment Policies


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired and unless he has the unanimous consent of the House, he will not be allowed to continue his remarks. Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I only have a few words to say before I am through.
As I was saying, their "political fathers", who were here a few years ago, blamed the Conservative government who had inherited an unemployment problem from the previous administration, and they should try to take a few minutes every day to advise the government, as they used to do in the past when they were in the opposition. They should make a point of urging the ministers to take their responsibilities and to do something for our workers who deserve better than to see their ministers turn their backs on those who "made" them.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board: Mr. Speaker, I have to speak in English, because I did not have time to prepare my speech in English and even less in French. I intend to discuss the main part of the motion introduced by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent)

-the central portion dealing with discriminatory authority and policies of the government.
These are, of course, big words, that are dropped now and again against a background of a biblical wrath that one fails to relate to modern language and to our modern society.
When one speaks of discriminatory policies one would also have to understand what is meant by that. It was unfortunate I was not able to be here in the morning to listen to the speech made by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). I wonder whether he considers it a discriminatory policy for manpower officials to go into federal penitentiaries and set up a training program for convicts to prepare them for the time when they will be released. There is an outstanding example of this program, at Kingston penitentiary, for instance where training is being provided in computer and business machine services. Is it discriminatory then, to provide this kind of service? Is it discriminatory to provide services for the
5736	COMMONS DEBATES	April 10, 1970
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies thousands of immigrants every year who come here to settle? Is it discriminatory to offer them training for a period of six months to enable them to learn one of the two official languages of the country, thus providing them with an opportunity to better understand the new society? This policy has been devised by the department of manpower. Is it discriminatory to work out arrangements with our Indian people, in spite of all the difficulties resulting from arrangements made by other departments which perhaps do not permit such a quick approach to that type of training as one might wish, particularly in view of the weaknesses the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby indicated this morning? I think there is no question about that.
When it comes to the manpower policy of any nation, we are speaking of the philosophy underlying the approach to the development of human relations in a nation. Therefore, it provides a background against which dialogue and debate will take place as to priorities and techniques. Of course, because of this, this is one of those policies which lends itself to criticism no matter what approach you are going to take. There will never be sufficient resources in the minds of politicians when it comes to the allocation of funds for the development of the human resources of a nation.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I understand that $250 million was spent last year for the development of human resources in our country. This is three times the amount spent during the last year of the previous program, and has permitted thousands of people to be brought into a scheme of retraining. The program has increased the average earnings of trainees in one year by $16 a week over the amount they earned prior to receiving training. According to statistics, almost 85 per cent of those retrained were able to find employment right after receiving their training. Whereas 55 per cent of the trainees previously were unemployed, after training only 15 per cent could be considered to be still unemployable. So, this program has brought about a sharp decrease in the percentage of those unemployed. Is this inefficiency, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby? Would an increase of $16 a week in the earning capacity of the trainees and a reduction in the unemployment figure from 55 per cent down to 15 per cent, be the result of an inefficient approach to manpower training?
What is the meaning of the big words used by the hon. member? These words should be
[Mr. Caccia.l
accompanied, of course, by some selective explanations. In every system of such a broad scope there will be built-in weaknesses and there will be certain examples of problems and inaccuracies on the part of the administrative arm. But this is no reason to totally condemn the program. The criticism, of course, becomes useful when it helps the administrative arm detect and rectify the weaknesses. I presume that in his cricitism of ineffective manpower policies the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby included a lack of imagination. If so, then this should be corroborated by facts. Our experience has been to the contrary. We have seen instances in which the manpower policies have been adopted with a substantial degree of flexibility and imagination. I might cite the following examples.
In winter time there usually is a greater number of men belonging to labourers unions who are unemployed. A year ago representatives of a labourers' union approached manpower people and asked what could be done during the idle winter period to retrain some of their members. A scheme was devised whereby over a period of 12 or 16 weeks-I am not sure of the exact period- these men were upgraded within their own trades from a totally unskilled level to what one might describe as a semi-skilled or higher level. The scheme not only was successful but was repeated this winter. I would agree with the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby if he means-as I did not understand him to mean-that perhaps our manpower policies should be aimed more intensively at training people who are already employed in order to bring them to their full potential. In this way vacancies would be created at the lower unskilled and semi-skilled levels in which there are large numbers of unemployed people and members of our labour force would be moved up as their potential permitted. If this were the hon. member's suggestion, personally, I would agree with him. This is a highly desirable objective in respect of Canadian policy or the policy of any nation.
There is the question of whether the resources of the manpower department should be devoted to this end or merely to the retraining of unemployed people or divided between the two programs. I presume that would be a difficult decision for any department or any minister to make. This, however, is not what the hon. member suggested. He condemned the whole system and described it as discriminatory and ineffective. If one takes
April 10, 1970	COMMONS
a look at the ads in the newspapers, it becomes obvious that there is developing in our country a chronic shortage of skilled people. I refer to those who have the ability to meet the increasing demands of industry and commerce. These ads continue to appear. We do not seem to be able to meet this type of demand. For the total expense of 10 cents one can carry out a survey in this respect by looking at these daily ads. It is a costly process to upgrade the training of those who are already employed in order to enable them to fulfil their potential and thus reduce the pressure on those who are most vulnerable at times of economic recession, those who become unemployed at the first signal.
Had the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby referred to the necessity for a stronger policy in respect of training handicapped people, I would have agreed with him wholeheartedly. Our agreement with the provinces in this regard requires not only close attention but also a very thorough review. In Canada there are several hundred thousand people who might be described as handicapped. These people are unable to contribute to society to their full potential because we have not yet been able to develop a comprehensive policy, federally and provincially, to bring these people into the mainstream of productive society.
I agree in some respects with the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby concerning the three-year clause. The restrictive effect of this clause can be seen in some areas, but it has very great merit in others. This is the reason,
I presume, the matter stands where it has stood for some time. There certainly is great merit in leaving it as it is now in order not to encourage school drop-outs. This, however, has a negative effect in respect of our immigration policy if it is our intention, as it is, to try to attract to Canada young immigrants who have just graduated from technical schools. If upon arrival here these young immigrants could receive some type of adaptation training, they would benefit tremendously. Such training is not available at the present time, and this is one area in which perhaps this clause has a negative effect.
o (3:00 p.m.)
I would suspect that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) could not resist the temptation of pointing at Sweden as the country whose example is so legendary that everyone has to look to it for inspiration and guidance. But I wonder whether in so 22218-17
DEBATES	5737
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies doing the hon. member took the trouble to look at the inflation index in Sweden in the last 10 to 15 years during the process of economic planning which they have introduced.
It is very true that the Swedes have been quite successful in achieving a very high rate of employment, but they have done so at the expense of those who are living on fixed incomes and of those who have suffered and still do-I saw this last year when I was over there for a short visit-from an inflationary trend which is by far the highest of any western nation. All I am saying is that when we praise another system, although it is highly desirable that we look at other nations we should take the trouble to put forward all the facts.


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


Mr. Caccia:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, at the end of my speech. I do not know whether the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby took the trouble-I hope he did-to mention the necessity of a manpower policy aimed at older workers. This area deserves attention in our society which makes obsolete people who do not have the benefit of certain training.
We also see in some segments of the industry a pattern, which seems to be repeating itself, whereby certain industries are not able to remain competitive and have to close down and put out of work a high percentage of older employees. I believe this area requires our attention if only to ensure that we do at least the minimum in helping those who have not been able to secure employment so far because of limited education and a modest technical background.
In conclusion, one can only assume that the motion put forward by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is based on isolated cases. That may be quite legitimate, but it does not give the total picture of the effect the manpower policy has on the development of the human resources of our nation. In this respect, altnough no politician would ever be able to say that $250 million a year is enough or will ever be sufficient, with the resources available and within the limitations that exist I think the record of the Canadian nation in the field of manpower training is pretty outstanding.


John Edward Broadbent: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker, because other members wish to speak. The hon. member referred to the rate of inflation in Sweden. He may find in his notes which someone picked up this morning
5738	COMMONS DEBATES	April 10, 1970
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies for him that this is precisely the issue about which I was talking. You have to choose between inflation on the one hand and stable prices and unemployment on the other. I admit that if you are to have an economy geared to full employment there will be some inflation.


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


John Edward Broadbent: My question is: Would the hon. member not agree that it is better to have some inflation and 1J per cent unemployment than an economy that is geared to beat inflation and 6 per cent to 10 per cent unemployed?


Charles L. Caccia: The answer cannot be as short as the question, but it would seem to me the question is based on the assumption that one policy excludes the other and that therefore we have a choice between one or the other. I do not believe it is a choice between black and white many other factors have to be taken into consideration.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, while we are wondering whether it is better to have inflation when there are fewer unemployed, or to have inflation with more unemployment, the unemployed are still without work.
Meanwhile, economic conditions are unchanged. As we talk, entire families are deprived of the necessary commodities, not only in a given region but throughout Canada.
Earlier, I heard the member for Saint-Hya-cinthe (Mr. Ricard) relate facts such as, for example, the aggressivity of Liberal members against certain ministers when the Progressive Conservative party was in office in Ottawa about the number of unemployed in Canada. Indeed, there were nearly 1 million people out of work in 1961-62 under a Progressive Conservative administration. It is true that at that time the former ministers or members were putting questions to the ministers and defying them to find jobs and pass legislation that would ensure full employment in Canada.
Today these same Liberals are in power. The Progessive Conservative members now question the Liberals who have become Cabinet members. They blame the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand), the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), all
[Mr. Broadbent.l
the ministers, and say: There are as many unemployed in the country as there were under our administration. Problems are as numerous. This shows therefore that the two parties are exactly alike. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe proved it a short while ago when he stated that the government had problems in 1961. It is just as true that the government has problems in 1970. These two governments do not want to solve their problems. They do not want to do anything against a system which is responsible for the situation. Within that system nothing would be changed even if the New Democratic Party came into power. Even if the Creditistes were in power, we would be in the same dead-lock.
Some think of financing production instead of consumption. People are told to produce more, but they are also told to tighten their belts.
To increase the standard of living it is necessary to increase productivity and in a trice the wheat producers are told: We will pay you if you do not produce wheat. As far as the Quebec milk producers are concerned, they are told: we will punish you if you produce too much milk. The corn producers in Ontario are told the same thing.
And in the face of such penalties and such stagnation, our friends from the New Democratic party are presenting a motion. I forgive them however for failing to supply me with a French text, as my N.D.P. friends are not used to the French language. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) could very well have translated it as she knows French very well, but it seems that her colleague did not ask her to do it.
But here is the wording of the English motion, since English is one of the official languages in Canada.
[English~\
That this House condemns the government (a) for its failure to provide a program of full employment, (b) for its discriminatory and ineffective manpower policies, and (c) for its destructive labour relations with its own employees.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker, I will deal with part (a) since I am not so much concerned about part (b) which says:
-ineffective manpower policies-
Part (b) is linked to the first. But the first part says: The government's failure to estab-
April 10, 1970

lish or provide a program of full employment in Canada. Talk about full employment in Canada! I was told that certain members and even the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) asked the government to assist western farmers who have to cope with a wheat surplus. The solution proposed is to pay the wheat producers for not producing wheat, as there is too much of it already.
So, they are told: Sit quietly at home and we shall give you $6 per acre left idle, up to a maximum of 1,000 acres. That means $6,000 so that they will not produce any wheat. On the other hand, the members of the New Democratic Party suggest a full-employment policy.
On the one hand, assistance is requested in the form of grants so that some people will not produce and, on the other hand, full employment is advocated. Workers have jobs but we have too many products in all fields.
In the automobile industry, for instance, thousands of workers are being laid off because there are too many automobiles.
The problem is the same in the clothing and food industries: There is surplus production. Yet, at the same time, there are some who would introduce a motion to create more jobs, who would call for more production. But why produce so much? We cannot even now keep up the production in our plants because of excess goods. Yet some clamour for full employment.
Mr. Speaker, whoever advocates full employment is bluffing. It cannot be achieved if we accept automation. The only way we can achieve full employment is by setting aside science, progress, machines, development and going back to the days of the ox, small ploughs and oil lamps. Let us turn the clock 75 years back; and then perhaps, in view of our needs, we can achieve full employment. But with the use of machines, never.
That reminds me of a story I used to tell a few years ago. Some people wanted full employment and intended to fight the machine. For instance, we have seen under certain winter works projects, some municipalities keep machines and mechanical ploughs stowed away in their garages and warehouses in order to be able to give work to the unemployed in winter. The streets were cleared of snow with small shovels. Man was not smart enough to use the machine to improve the lot of man. The machine was stored and men were put to work like beasts of burden. And that was supposed to be reasona-22218-17J
DEBATES	5739
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies ble. There will still be some in Quebec, on April 29, who will vote for the Liberals or the Union Nationale. That is good enough for them.
There was once two men around a gravel pit watching a crane loading trucks. The trucks then drove away to unload this gravel which was used for road construction. One of the two unemployed, who were both carrying their own small shovels, said to the other: "Well, joe, without big crane, you and I might get a job as well as 50 guys like us. The machine punishes us."
The other one, who was far from stupid, answered: "Well, if it is only a matter of providing employment, instead of two guys like you and me, or even 50 guys each with a small shovel, why not hire 250 men with teaspoons? They would do just the same amount of work, and everybody would get a job."
As for me, I suggest that motions or resolutions such as the one now before us are just about as sensible as the reasoning of the man who wanted to replace the machine with teaspoons.
Mr. Speaker, the machine was devised to serve man and not to punish him. There is only one answer to the problem: it is to give to those replaced by machines enough purchasing power to enable them to buy the products made by the machine. It is as simple as that. However, people do not understand yet.
In the House, they talk about increasing productivity. As concerns the unemployed, we have not determined yet how many of them there are. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacin-the (Mr. Ricard) said a while ago that there were 540,000 unemployed, whereas I read in yesterday's newspaper that they number 653,000, while some civil servants say 438,000. Anyway, we know that there are people out of work and that, on the other hand, there are too many products; nevertheless, some would like to find jobs for the unemployed in order to increase production. That is contrary to common sense.
In 1970, our national production will be worth $72 or $75 billion. Yet Canada's national income will total only $52 or $55 billion. This means a discrepancy of $20 billion between our national income and our national production. The goods are there, but not the money.
And whenever we say that a dividend must be distributed to everybody to allow them to purchase such goods-which would allow industries to manufacture other goods,
April 10. 1970
5740	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies because those they had already manufactured had been sold-we are told that this would bring about inflation. However, quite the contrary would be true, and everybody knows that.
Mr. Speaker, if you go into some store to buy something and you pay cash, any merchant will grant you a discount of 15 to 20 per cent. If I buy $1,000 worth of furniture and can pay cash, I shall certainly get a discount of 20 per cent. This means that I would pay $800 for goods marked $1,000. On the other hand, if I have no purchasing power and cannot pay cash, instead of getting a 20 per cent discount, I will have to pay a 20 per cent charge, representing $200 in interest. This means that I would pay $1,200, instead of $800 for the same merchandise or a difference of $400 according to the purchasing power I have or do not have. That is called inflation.
a (3:20 p.m.)
We are not asking the government to grant a national dividend so that everyone will be rolling in money, but for a dividend based on the difference between what we produce and what we earn.
Some fear that people will become lazy. However, the unemployed who actually receive $40 a week although they have a family, or those who get welfare allowances of $125, $130 or $135 a month to support their wife and children, cannot make ends meet. They merely exist, they do not live, at a time when goods are available because stores are full of goods of all kinds.
In Montreal, Ottawa, Hull, Rouyn-Noranda, Val d'Or, Winnipeg, stores are over stocked. Nobody is afraid of not finding tomorrow something he needs. There are all kinds of things, but the only solution to the problem does not lie in production, but in consumption. Indeed, it is not a matter of producing more. Instead of insisting on full employment, why not insist on full spending, that is, on what we spend to buy what we produce. To achieve full spending, we must plan the purchasing power accordingly.
Let us not take anything away from the wage-earner, but let us pay him a dividend. The standard of living of the individual with only his dividend will naturally not be as high as that of the wage-earner, and that is normal. Indeed, if I earn $100 a week and get ;a $50 dividend, I will have $150, while the unemployed will only have $50. fMr. Caouette.]
The national dividend would be in itself an incentive to work. No citizen would refuse to earn $100 a week because he would receive a $50 dividend. And this is so true, Mr. Speaker, that the experiment should be tried. After all, if those on welfare or who receive unemployment insurance benefits up to $53 a week were told: a job has been found for you which will allow you to earn $45 a week, but if you accept it, you will no longer get your allowances or your benefits, I believe that most of them would refuse it. On the other hand, however, if they were told that they could still draw their $53 benefit and a salary of $45, totalling $98 a week, they would not refuse to work. Everyone of them without exception would be willing to work, even for less than $45 a week, were they to receive on top of that their unemployment insurance benefits.
Now this is not what is happening. If an unemployed person who is drawing benefits finds some casual work for two or three days, and tries to keep it a secret, he runs the risk, if caught, of losing his unemployment insurance benefits, in order to earn $18 or $20. Then, Mr. Speaker, he is punished. And so the man says: they won't catch me again. Before losing my unemployment insurance benefits, I will make sure I have a paying job. The Canadian legislation is to blame rather than the worker.
To come back to the point I was making, the national dividend would not encourage laziness, but would be an incentive to work. In fact, it would allow the individual to develop a creative mind. But we are afraid of that type of dividend. We are thinking all the time of production. Let us finance production! Let us finance production! And this when the consumer is unable to buy that production.
And what is the result of this? The great number of bankruptcies taking place in Canada at the present time. It also brings about economic stagnation and chaos such as we are now experiencing, as well as worries and hatred between employer and employed.
It also breeds hatred between labour unions and governments, as was seen yesterday on Parliament Hill where Marcel Pepin, Char-trand and others gathered. Are we to believe that the boys from G. Lapalme Inc. of Montreal came here for fun?
Obviously, these people do not like to do what they did yesterday. What do they want: the right to a decent and safe life. Yesterday's demonstrators all know that production of goods is abundant in Canada. Everyone
April 10, 1970	COMMONS
knows it. Purchasing power is not great enough. Is not every dispute between management and labour essentially a question of money? As a matter of fact, discussions cover vacation leave, leave without pay, sick leave, bereavement leave, maternity leave, etc. When things are no longer going right, there is always a financial problem.
All the time, a $1 raise is asked for in order to get 25 cents, or a $3 raise to get 75 cents. More is asked in order to obtain the largest amount possible. That is what labour disputes are all about. Hatred and destruction are becoming prevalent. People no longer get along. Property is damaged, no one is safe. This is not surprising.
Meanwhile, legislation is introduced to create full employment. The demonstrators yesterday were not asking for full employment but for security and freedom. In my opinion, we can only assure security and freedom by granting citizens sufficient purchasing power to buy what they need, consumer goods, houses, cars, clothes or services, including drugs.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. Does the House agree to let the hon. member finish his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Temiscamingue.


David Réal Caouette: I only need two more
minutes, Mr. Speaker. I thank my colleagues for allowing me this extra time. I was on the point of closing my remarks by saying that we do not suggest anything just for the pleasure of doing it.
Liberals accuse us of playing politics, of being partisans, of making irresponsible promises-


An hon. Member:: We never said that.


David Réal Caouette: I see the hon. member for Huntingdon-Laprairie-


Mr. Corbin:: I don't know him.


David Réal Caouette: He never said it, but someone said it for him in his riding.


An hon. Member:: In the Madawaska-Vic-toria riding.


David Réal Caouette: Ah! Madawaska. Someone said it in his riding.
DEBATES	5741
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies
Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to play politics, we are merely suggesting a way to solve the problem.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), presently in his seat, knows very well that our suggestions are logical.
I took part in a debate with the Hon. Lionel Chevrier, at the University of Ottawa. The moderator was the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. At that time, he liked Social Credit very much.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Its leader.


David Réal Caouette: However, on that evening, the minister told me that he was contemplated seriously the possibility of giving courses on Social Credit to his students at the University of Ottawa.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was also teaching marxism, socialism, capitalism, communism and other "isms".


David Réal Caouette: But at that time the minister told me that Social Credit seemed to him clearly above all these other theories.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Above communism only.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: That evening, the minister came to see me after the debate. We talked at length without making it an issue of electoral policy. But he and I were looking for solutions to the existing problems. There was no question of fighting in Parliament or elsewhere. Therefore I sincerely believe that the government should consider with a constructive mind the Creditiste proposals whereby production will be financed through the consumers. Let us settle the case of the consumer and, by the same token, we shall settle that of production. That is quite clear.
I know that certain banks will not agree with this, although we are not suggesting at all that banks be nationalized. We know that if interest-free loans are granted to municipalities, school boards and provinces, they will eventually award contracts for the construction of hospitals, roads and public buildings to private enterprise. The contractors will be paid either by the municipality, the school board or the provincial government, but they will not keep the money in their pockets. They will go and deposit it in chartered banks. The chartered banks in turn will continue to grant loans to private enterprise,
April 10, 1970
5742	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies they will have more liquidity to promote the development of private enterprise, whereas the public sector will be financed direct by the Bank of Canada. It seems to me that you don't have to be able to set the Thames on fire to understand that. The hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Pilon), who is a former bank manager, has grasped this long ago.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the solution we are proposing is sensible. We are given this afternoon an opportunity to express our views. The motion of my good friend, the member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), makes it possible for us to propose our solution. His own proposal is worthless because it is impracticable. If we are to use machines, science and progress, we will never achieve full employment. But we can, however, arrange for full spending by organizing the purchasing power so as to enable us to buy the goods, thus creating new employment, because factories will resume production. Then we shall achieve full employment through full spending. Consumption would be perfectly balanced with production and, consequently, so would be the Canadian economy.
That is what we hoped for. In my opinion, the present government can do it. I sincerely believe that the government members should take the trouble to look fully into this problem, perhaps not in the House, but in caucus or at the Cabinet meetings, because it is high time it were done. Let us not wait until it is too late. Indeed, let us not wait until bombs are placed under our seats in order to blow up the whole economic or administrative structure of Canada. Let us act while it is still time and if we assume our responsabilities right now, we will avoid the worse. I actually predict that in five years, the situation will be disastrous.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister has been in the chamber for part of this debate. I am not going to give the whole picture, which was presented so well this morning by my colleague the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), but there are certain aspects of it that are especially important and which I should emphasize. I think it is important that we have people from different parts of the country to deal with this important matter.
In spite of the expectations of the people that great things would be done by this government, they are beginning to realize that in

the important things the bread and butter issues, this government is showing a deplorable lack of efficiency. If there is one matter on which this government prides itself, it is the fact that it is efficient. It feels that although it may be lacking with respect to some less important points, it is impossible to find points where it is not at the height of efficiency.
However, many Canadians are coming to the conclusion that Canada simply cannot afford to continue the government's policies of creating unemployment through lay offs of public servants, cutting down public services, appeals for restraint to private industry and measures of compulsion in respect of persons with low income. All this has a tendency to create the psychology of recession-a psychology which is ill-suited to the country in which we are living. Canada has such good resources that we still have emigrants coming from other countries. Other nations still look upon us as one of the greatest treasure houses of the world.
These government policies of creating unemployment are far too costly even for a country with our resources. Throughout Canada the relief rolls are increasing. Taxpayers are becoming more and more alarmed as they see their money being used to keep people idle, people who should be working and, more important, people who want to be working and can find no opportunity to do so. In my own province of British Columbia the number of individuals and families receiving public assistance has almost doubled in the past 8 years. As the years go on, the rate increases. Today the number of people on the relief rolls is frightening, and this number is continuing to rise at an alarming rate.
The worst thing about relief is that once it is necessary for a family to accept it, the tendency is for the family to stay on relief. This applies not only to the family presently on relief but to generations which follow. In some cases we see that the third and fourth generations born into relief situations are unable to get out of that trap of poverty. The young people have no chance to escape. It is too costly to continue in this manner, not only for the taxpayers who are paying money unnecessarily and the people who want to be working, but the economic loss in productivity to our economy is staggering.
The Economic Council of Canada estimates that the loss to our economy of unused human resources is between $2 billion and $4 billion every year. Because we do not use the
April 10, 1970	COMMONS
human resources at our disposal we are allowing this great amount of hard cash to be drained away. I do not understand how a government can claim to be managing the affairs of this country efficiently in the face of those two situations, the completely unnecessary heavy drain on taxpayers and the country having to sustain an economic loss of between $2 billion and $4 billion yearly.
The situation is even more costly from a human standpoint. Lives are being wasted on a very large scale. There is a great loss of human wealth. People are not able to use their abilities to serve their community in the way they should. What I am saying is not fantastic or unrealistic; it is a sober statement. Canada has gone to much trouble in the past to bring great human wealth and capacities from other countries to our shores. We have tried to develop good conditions for our own people. However, because of the mismanagement policies of this government in deliberately creating unemployment, these good results are being lost.
There is much talk about the need to educate people for increased leisure time. People need and have a right to leisure, but they also have a right to work. We are in danger of losing sight of this human right: it is being lost on a very large scale. People need to work; in fact, they want to work, no matter how many fancy words are used in saying that people now can live in a state where the Puritan ethic of work no longer applies.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I do not care how many fancy words are used about the development of a state approaching paradise, where no one has to work and where we can all sit around playing harps and wearing crowns, or their modern equivalent of guitars and beads. The world is not like that. Indeed, we ought not to wish for a world of that kind because it is only through work, through one's occupation, that it is possible to grow and develop. Work is one of the most valuable things there is.
Today, machines have taken away many of the more disagreeable tasks. It is up to the government to give the lead in developing other forms of work which will give people an opportunity to serve their fellow human beings in various ways. In removing the need for a great many kinds of work, machines have led to a need for new kinds of work- work in the service occupations, the human occupations such as teaching, working in libraries, in travel fields, in recreation. These
DEBATES	5743
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies new jobs need to be pioneered. This is what the government should be doing instead of firing civil servants and cutting down employment. If private business cannot do the pioneering work in providing these jobs, the government should be giving a lead.
A new approach is required. We need to create new skills and the jobs that go with them. I turn, now, to the necessity for a fresh approach to manpower policies. At present the emphasis is focused on the needs of existing employers; people are trained to fill empty slots in the existing employment picture. I am sorry the minister has disappeared at this critical moment. Perhaps he is just behind the curtain: if so, 1 wish he would let me know he is there because I should like to address these words specially to him.
We ought to place the emphasis in manpower training on the placement of the unemployed and the underemployed. Private employment agencies are increasingly taking over the job of finding recruits for private business. This is the case in my own province and I believe it to be the case across Canada. Our new policies ought to be built, not around industries but around people and their needs. We should be using the development incentive legislation in such a way as to assist necessary industries which can best provide jobs for people. I am glad to see the minister back in his place. I intend to repeat that sentence because he may not have heard it all. I believe we should be using the development incentive legislation in such a way as to assist the necessary industries which can best provide job opportunities on a wide scale. This is the type of industry we should encourage-new industries which will provide jobs increasingly, especially in service occupations.
In this regard I wish to make two or three comments upon shortcomings of the Adult Occupational Training Act. There is scarcely need to do more than underline what has been stated before the Senate Committee on Poverty in the course of many able and important briefs. My hon. friend from Oshawa-Whitby has mentioned one of these briefs in particular, the Frontier College brief. One from the Adult Education Association was also outstanding. There were many others briefs deserving of notice.
One of the organizations whose representatives appeared before the committee was the Unemployed Citizens Welfare Group Council from my own city of Vancouver. I want to refer to them because they drew attention to
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies a remark which had been made by the new minister of welfare in British Columbia-it is a remark which ought to be enshrined in the records of this House as it will be enshrined in the memories of the unemployed in British Columbia. The minister said on one occasion recently that he plans to categorize all adults on welfare "so that they can be treated as human resources and kept in storage." Could anything better illustrate the typical old-fashioned approach to manpower training?
How many human beings do we keep in storage? One of the earlier speakers referred to some who are kept there in penitentiaries. Others are kept there on welfare rolls. When we keep human beings in storage we prevent them from developing, from growing, from living. I believe our manpower policies ought to be changed so that human beings are taken out of cold storage and allowed to become people with blood coursing through their veins and ideas coursing through their heads. This is impossible for far too many people under the present system.
There are three or four things in the Adult Occupational Training Act which need to be changed, as has been pointed in a number of the briefs submitted to the Senate committee. First of all, the provision that no training program can exceed 52 weeks in artificial and stultifying: it should be discarded. In effect, it cuts out everyone whose educational level is lower than grade eight, and most people whose level is lower than grade ten. I recall one hon. member raising the case of a busload of young Indian people who had been taken to a manpower training centre and who had to be sent back to their scattered homes because it was found that their basic schooling was insufficient for them to enroll. If the program were not limited to a period of 52 weeks I am sure we could begin to deal with the problems of those whose earlier training had failed to fit them for enrolment in manpower courses. As it stands, this provision discriminates against poor people, against people who have had little or no schooling. It discriminates against minorities.
The second thing to be changed in the manpower legislation is the section which lays down that a student must have definite vocational goals before he can enroll. University students coming from comfortable, middle-class homes often do not have the faintest idea of what they are preparing for in life even after two years of study. If young people from homes which provide them with all kinds of opportunities cannot decide ahead of time on a fixed goal, how can we expect [Mrs. Maclnnis.l
April 10, 1970
people from underprivileged homes to have a firm goal before they enter these training centres? I cannot understand how this provision got into the manpower legislation.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I want to see it made possible under the manpower act for women to be considered as human beings in the full sense of the word. I want to see a provision in the act to provide that when a woman has been engaged in the domestic services of her home for three years, she shall be considered a person who has been in the labour force and is eligible for full manpower training and the vocational allowances that go with it. I am sick and tired of hearing people take it for granted that only the woman who goes out to sell ships, shoes and sealing-wax is working. The woman within the four walls of the family home looking after her husband, her children, and sometimes aged parents is working within the full meaning of the word and should be brought under the provisions of the act. This has been the objective of my bill, to bring women within the full meaning of this act.
I want to give one or two instances of just what this unamended act means in everyday life. Of many dozens of letters I have received I have picked out one that came to me a few days ago from Ottawa. You can see, Mr. Speaker, that my constituency is very much broader than Vancouver-Kingsway. This woman writes:
I am a married woman with two young children, recently separated and with a necessity to return to work. After a 7-year absence and returning to the work force as a secretary, I find that I am categorized as a beginner (I am 38 years old). The maximum salary I could earn, even at the top of the scale, would not be enough to support myself and my family. I do not have the experience or the training to compete for a higher category position.
I do, however, have the desire to learn and. I believe, the capacity, for something more challenging and less dead-end than secretarial work. However, on applying to Manpower for retraining, I was told that I must be back in the labour force for at least three years before I could be eligible (what a waste of time) and, secondly, that there are no programs offering better scope than secretarial training.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member, but I have to interrupt her because her time has expired. She may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since I would have been the only one today

April 10, 1970

who had been refused, I am glad I was not. This woman concludes by saying that she considers this situation most discouraging and wasteful, and so do I, and I know the minister will too. Let him admit women to the labour market, which has been far too much confined for far too long to men. I am referring to the official labour market; I know there is plenty of labour outside the official labour market. I think it is high time this situation was recognized.
I should like to refer to some statements made by the executive director of the Visiting Homemakers' Association, who was speaking in Ottawa the other day. She was addressing a meeting of homemakers which was also attended by the Children's Aid Society, the Catholic Family Service and the Family Service Centre of Ottawa. At the meeting Mrs. Pincock expressed concern about Canada manpower legislation which restricts potential homemakers from receiving a training allowance if they have not been in the labour market for three years. She went on to say:
Women who have raised their own families and who are now ready to embark on a second career are in this category, which is probably our best source of supply.
And so I believe. I believe that in neglecting the source of supply of labour that women can provide, we are cutting down our source of national production and services in a most unnecessary and alarming way. I want now to read a letter that came to me from an administrator of the manpower retraining program. Obviously I am not going to identify him or his city. The letter is dated April 2 and reads:
Thank you so much for your persistent interest and awareness of the Adult Occupational Training Act, with special emphasis on your recent amendment, Bill C-199.
Since 1967, thousands of women have been discriminated against because of the narrow interpretation of this aspect of the act.
As an administrator of Retraining Programs, I am appalled, shocked, and angered at the manner in which Canada Manpower officials apply the numerous rigid regulations to the citizens of Canada.
OTA students are considered less than welfare cases when it comes to medicare, compensation, pregnancy, eye glasses, nursing care, and practically all forms of medical attention.
Candidates are continually forced into courses supposedly to meet the demands of the labour market which no one really knows, least of all, manpower officials.
Do not forget, Mr. Speaker, that this letter was written by an administrator of manpower retraining programs.
Students are forced off courses prior to completion because time has run out on them.
5745
Alleged. Failure of Employment Policies
Surely in 1970, we should be big enough to admit that skill training is secondary and only education for living is the essential ingredient for personal success. Our people need new goals, broader horizons, enriched attitudes, they need to stand taller and feel personal worth and success.
While we train welders, industry gears up for laser; electronics is constantly changing, and secondary skills become obsolete almost daily.
Anything dedicated legislators can do to improve social and economic conditions for so many needy Canadians is greatly appreciated by those of us at the grass roots.
I hope the minister will be impressed by how one of his own administrators feels at the grass-roots level. I should like to conclude by saying that the motion before the House today condemns the government for policies that push people out of jobs and into poverty and then close the door to any possible escape in the form of training them for the new service jobs that are essential in today's world. I hope the minister will open that door at least a crack before this debate is finished.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it might be in order to commence my remarks by making an observation that is only less serious than the terms of the motion itself, and that is that on a topic as important as the unemployment situation in Canada, which I would have thought was the most chronic problem facing the nation at this moment, there has been at times this afternoon less than a quorum in the House and at the present time there is barely a quorum. 1 feel hon. members should note this fact because it reflects what is perhaps a lack of concern among Members of Parliament from all parties for the serious problems in question. Indeed, this lack of concern continues from day to day.
I was disappointed that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Caccia) saw fit to speak for 15 or 18 minutes and then quickly disappear. I was hoping to have an opportunity of reacting to his very pointed but narrow remarks in interpreting the motion before the House. The motion before us makes reference to the serious unemployment problem, the government's discriminatory and ineffective manpower policies and the destructive labour relations that exist in government departments.
The parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Davenport, chose to speak almost solely about that part of the motion that referred to ineffective manpower policies. He made no mention of unemployment or the psychological depression that is taking place in the Canadian nation today. Listening to
April 10, 1970
5746	COMMONS
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies other members gives me cause to wonder whether many Members of Parliament, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), top level civil servants, bureaucrats and those who make decisions on how to spend the government's $13 billion are really aware of the serious unemployment situation and the day to day problems faced by unemployed men and their families. As a matter of fact, yesterday I moved a motion to the effect that the serious unemployment situation in Canada today be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration for discussion. Again, of course, we did not receive unanimous consent.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I wonder how many of the 20 members out of 264 who prefer to sit in the House on Friday afternoon to debate a motion such as this when most of the members are heading toward their constituencies or have been there all week, understand what unemployment is all about and what effect it has on a family.


An hon. Member:: What about 1962?


John Howard Lundrigan: How many understood in 1962, asks the hon. member for Renfrew. Is it Renfrew? How many members know what unemployment is all about or what it feels like to be unemployed? Let me ask members from the interlake area around Winnipeg, from the northern areas, from British Columbia, from the slow-growth areas of Ontario, the whole of the Quebec nation- province, rather-and the east coast of Canada, when they stand up in the House and talk about employment and the effect it is having on our population, how many of them actually appreciate what this means?
When I refer to the fact that in my own province 22 per cent of the population is unemployed, 1 wonder how many members actually understand what that means. We have two types of people, those who are unemployed and those who are in fear of becoming unemployed. We have people who are almost ashamed that they have jobs because they are living next door to men who do not have a job, whose children are not as well dressed, fed or schooled as theirs. They are living in homes where the whole standard of living is low. Everything in relation to their standard of living is low, including the food they purchase at the corner store-at the little shops, as we call them. How many people actually understand what that means?


I sincerely feel it is a total waste of my time to stand here in the House of Commons talking about unemployment. I am talking to about 40 people. Perhaps a couple of them will take into consideration what I say. Perhaps one or two will remember a word or two of the speech of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). Perhaps another one or two will take into account a word or two of the speech of the hon member for Davenport. Perhaps one or two will remember a few words said by the Minister remember a few words said by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen)?
I am sure only half a dozen members here have been paying attention to the business of the nation. That would be the total number of members who know what has been said in the House of Commons. I think this debate is a waste of time. If I knew of any House rule that would allow me to move the adjournment of the House so that we could just go home and call it a day, I would so move. If I knew of an appropriate motion I would move it, because I think this debate is a waste of time.


Some hon. Members:: Move the motion.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, a lot of my colleagues are urging me to move that motion. If it is in order, I would move that the House do adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that a motion cannot be made in the House without a seconder.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I so move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken).


Mr. Speaker:: There is another rule the hon. member has overlooked. The motion has to be in writing.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, if the House will approve, I will put it in writing. Perhaps it is more important that I have drawn attention to this fact than that the motion be accepted. I want to use the 15 minutes which I have left. I am sure I have drawn attention to the fact that perhaps by and large it is a waste of time to be talking on this motion because there are very few ears of the Canadian nation listening.
The fact that we have a Department of Regional Economic Expansion and a Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who undoubtedly is very concerned and is making an
April 10. 1970

effort, is the only saving grace in respect of what appears to be bad policy on the part of the government. A previous speaker said that the government has actually launched a program of creating unemployment. That hon. member was not coining a new phrase; as a matter of fact he was referring to a statement made by ministers of the Crown, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), and the Prime Minister himself. Obviously, they have not felt any of the effects of the anti-inflationary policy of the government, in their departments or personally. The fact is that the government itself admits that this is a means it is using in an effort to cure or offset the inflationary trends in this nation.
This is the government's policy, and the only saving grace is that we have a Department of Regional Economic Expansion and a Department of Manpower and Immigration with limited funds trying to put a little bit of molasses on a dry slice of bread. This is a policy of push-me-pull-you. We have a government deciding to go in one direction, and in order to take the sting out we have a couple of departments trying their best to offset the over-all impact.
These government departments are perhaps to be commended for the work they are attempting to do on a limited budget. I would be dishonest if I did not say that in my opinion Canadian Manpower offices have done a commendable job with a limited budget in attempting to bring the supply of and demand for labour together. Unfortunately, this effort and the manpower retraining scheme are totally ineffective in overcoming the devastating effects of unemployment. This is unbelievable, and most Canadians will not accept it. If I could speak to our 22 million Canadians today they would call me a liar if I told them 20 persons out of every 100 in my province are unemployed at this time.
As a matter of fact, I looked at the statistics for the days referred to by members from across Canada as the dirty thirties, and found that in 1935 in the country of Newfoundland-it was then the country of Newfoundland; it was not a province

16 per cent of the population was dependent upon some form of government assistance or welfare: sixteen per cent of the people were forced to accept government assistance in the form of welfare or dole. In 1970, 35 years later, after 21 years of Confederation, we have 20 per cent of the population unemployed. We have 87,000 people who depend upon some form of social assistance. This is the most chronic period of our history since 1949.
22218-18J
DEBATES	5747
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies
I guess I am wasting my time by relating these facts to the House of Commons. I have talked to many groups across Canada, in Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Ontario and most other provinces in the last couple of years. I talked to them as far back as 1965 when I spent two years in the very affluent province of Alberta. It is not as affluent today, I might add. These people continually asked me questions such as: "What do you want? We have been giving you this, we have been giving you that, and we have been giving you something else. What is it you want?" I almost began to develop the feeling as a Canadian-not as a Newfoundlander-that there was something second-class or wrong about our getting equalization payments and benefits from the federal government in order to help overcome our disadvantaged position of 1949.
Today I think I can look at the rest of Canada, if I classify myself first as a Newfoundlander, and say that it owes us a tremendous debt because we, along with people in other slow-growth areas, are now paying the full price of the anti-inflationary measures imposed across this dominion. I challenge any member of this House to stand up right now and refute those remarks. Newfoundland, with a population of 500,000, is paying a higher price as a result of the government's anti-inflationary policy than any other part of Canada.
The Minister of Finance stands up in this House, when he is here-almost once a month-and says that the government has launched an anti-inflationary policy and is laying off postmistresses and postmasters of little post offices all along the coast. He says the government has closed post offices all across Canada, that it is not going to build any more wharfs even though they are justified, it is not going to create any more manpower centres, particularly on the east coast of Canada, and it is going to lay off people in all government departments across Canada.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The minister says we are doing these things to help the people on fixed and low incomes and the seasonally unemployed. Often in this House I have said those on fixed and low incomes, as well as the seasonally unemployed are the people who are carrying the full load of the government's anti-inflationary policy. I stand here and I tell the Prime Minister that I am wasting my time. I tell the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that
April 10, 1970
5748	COMMONS
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies I think he understands the situation but the cabinet is dictated to by three or four big cheeses who make decisions on a theoretical, book approach they have been working on for 20 years and which they now find they are in a position to implement. This, of course, has an impact on the Canadian nation.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Davenport spoke for 10 or 15 minutes and then left the House. He asked how we can implement manpower policies with the resources we have in order to offset the government's policies. Well, the Committee on Regional Development last year went on a junket out west-that is about all it was. We did not receive any evidence, but we toured the countryside and observed a number of projects. We observed the ARDA project in northern Alberta and in Edson. We looked at the beautiful New Start program in Lac-la-Biche and in Prince Albert. We visited the neglected interlake area of Manitoba which under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion had a great plan which has not materialized.
As an educator and as a person involved in a good deal of research before coming to the House of Commons, perhaps unfortunately, I was most impressed by the work done under the New Start program. This was an experimental program in which the government was looking at ways in which people at the bottom of the scale in terms of employability, training and education could be upgraded, retrained and perhaps given an injection of new hope and a change of attitude.
Many of the people involved in this program were deserving people. I remember well the Lac-la-Biche and Prince Albert experiments. After several months in this program the people involved were tremendously different. It was planned that this experimental program would be taken from the experimental stage after the research and technocratic approach and would be applied across the nation. This would have been a major program.
I would have thought, if the government were to launch the program it has now of creating unemployment, it would at the same time have tried to involve the people in a comprehensive program of retraining and upgrading so that those who are forced out of work and are on unemployment insurance and social assistance could receive a little bit of assistance from the government. If they were brought into a program of retraining, perhaps they would be in a position to fill the


void in the labour market because there are many opportunities which people cannot accept due to lack of training. Such a program would have improved the over-all potential of this nation. But this was not done.
The minister will probably get up after I have finished and say I have rocks in my head and am unrealistic. I am sure, however, that the minister is unhappy with the budget he has in order to do the massive job he must do. There is not a prosperous nation in the free world in which money spent on education, retraining and upgrading has not produced great dividends. The minister knows this. There is not a single economist in North America who would disagree when I say that money put into these programs does pay dividends. When a nation can give priority to this type of program, it is an indication that it is a prosperous nation.
Mr. Speaker, I am trying to make suggestions and to be constructive. I have sufficient material that I could continue for many hours. I should like to see Parliament-not any particular minister-not announce great flowery programs but take the matter of unemployment in Canada very seriously and set up some kind of special committee aside from the committees which from time to time travel around the countryside listening to briefs and then return and spend many days listening to more briefs.
I should like to see Parliament set up a special committee to look at the unemployment picture in a very deep manner in order to obtain a clear picture of the situation. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics gives a diluted, watered-down version of the situation. They talk about an unemployment figure of 13 per cent in respect of Atlantic Canada while it is really closer to 20 per cent. People who are not on welfare or the unemployment insurance books find they are not included in many of the sophisticated statistics published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
If a special committee were set up for this purpose, I would be willing to spend many hours as a member of that committee looking at the unemployment situation so that Parliament could have an appreciation of how devastating is this kind of situation on families and on people. It is totally unacceptable that part of Canada today-almost all of Canada-should be involved in a desperate unemployment situation and that one area should have an unemployment figure of 20 per cent. Even if I were to stand up today
April 10, 1970

and become totally irresponsible in drawing attention to this matter, I would consider that to be worth while.
There is another matter on which I should like to touch. It concerns a situation that is not at all parochial. It shows the effect on the over-all economic problems when the Canadian economy is slowed down. When I was a very young Canadian, most of the people from my community and the surrounding communities would leave in the spring of the year to go to Toronto. They became expert in the construction field. They obtained seasonal employment. Many of these people became expert in lathing, steelwork and other construction activities. Over a period of time they picked up great knowledge and experience.
These people were well rewarded. They received the large salaries that were received by the people in central Canada. They would leave their small communities on the east coast to travel to the more affluent and advanced parts of Canada. Today the people in these parts of Canada cannot provide employment for their own dependants. Consequently, when employment slows down in slow-growth areas the people in those areas have to stay at home. No matter how affluent the people are, they have to tolerate the devastating effects of the unemployment situation. I want to emphasize this because it shows that what we have today is certainly not a provincial but a national problem.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not wish to say that the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundri-gan) has rocks in his head, as he suggested I might. I found his comments to be constructive and I thank him for the well-deserved reference to the members of the Canada Manpower centres in Newfoundland and the other provinces who are working at the grass-roots, and not in a theoretical or speculative way, with the problems of the people in all the communities of Canada.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I appreciate his comments about the problems of the Atlantic provinces because it is obvious to all of us that the economies of certain parts of Canada, including the Atlantic provinces, have not created inflation. But as the battle against inflation is waged, the Atlantic provinces are bound to be affected, and because they are weak areas of the country they are bound to be affected more
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies adversely. It seems to me that the moral of the debate is that all of us have a definite interest in the success of the battle against inflation in Canada. Our long-term objective is to maintain and accelerate economic growth in the country, and no part of the country has a greater stake in long-term economic growth than the less developed parts. The long-term growth of Canada is threatened at present by inflation, and unless we succeed as a country in licking the problem, the consequences to which my hon. friend has referred will be even more apparent and more difficult.
I regret that I was unable to hear the hon. member for Broadbent-


An hon. Member:: Oshawa-Whitby.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -the hon. member for Waterloo.


Some hon. Members:: Oshawa-Whitby.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sorry-the hon.
member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). I know him by his ability and his intelligence, not by his name or his constituency. Anyway, I regret not having heard his speech. I would have stayed in Ottawa had I not arranged a meeting this morning with the Premier of Nova Scotia to convey to him the official response of the government of Canada to his request for assistance in the rehabilitation of the heavy water plant at Glace Bay. That was an important decision in terms of the development of Nova Scotia and the Atlantic provinces. The amount of federal assistance in various forms is in excess of $40 million. This certainly is an indication of the interest of the federal government in supporting the provinces, and especially the weaker provinces.
The question put to the House is that the manpower policies are ineffective and discriminatory. I want to deal with the expression "ineffective and discriminatory" later, but in addition to that charge there is the general suggestion that the economic and development policies of the government as a whole are ineffective. It may be the weakness of the motion that it overstates the case. So often in the House of Commons a case is lost because it is overstated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
minister should know that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is certainly an
instance where an attack has been launched against one of the most effective and best
5750	COMMONS DEBATES	April 10, 1970
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies programs in Canada, the Canada manpower training program. By implication the suggestion is made that this program along with others is not working effectively in the interests of Canada. Recently we have had several example of how this department responds in order to help the workers involved in the case of a lay-off or a technological change.
There are also training courses which go unmentioned and unsung until an error is made at a local office by an official who may have misinterpreted the directive, and then all hell breaks loose and people forget the day-to-day contributions that are being made to the people of Canada under this program.
We know of several recent examples, but let me take one or two from Nova Scotia because I started the day in the capital city of the province talking about development with the Premier. I want to mention the threatened closure of an important industry in the prov,-ince, Fairey Aviation in Halifax. As hon. members recall an announcement had been made by the company that the plant would close at the end of March. Questions were asked in the House, but several departments of this government and of the provincial government had been working quietly in order to rescue that plant. The result of that quiet and effective work is that the plant has been rescued and a new operator has been secured, not by accident, not just by somebody wishing it, not by a question in the House but by the effective collaboration of three departments of the federal government. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion will provide a substantial incentive grant, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will provide a substantial development grant, and the Department of Supply and Services will renegotiate the contract that had been in existence with the former company.
The result is that Fairey Aviation has been transferred to a new owner and there will be the possibility now of a new technology in the Atlantic provinces, a new technology centre in Nova Scotia. There will be minimum disruption in employment levels and there will be a new element in the transportation industry of Canada. That is a success story.
There is another about EMI Electronics which had decided to give up and close down. Through the efforts of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, through the efforts of my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), and those of the provincial government, that plant is also saved and will continue to operate. We 
hope it will be an even better source of employment to the people of that area.
We had the illustration in Toronto of the closing of the Dunlop plant. It is simple to ask questions in the House about an issue of that kind and it is relatively easy to give the answers. Fourteen manpower counsellors specially assigned to Dunlop registered all the unemployed workers. They listed their skills, they are seeking out jobs, they are examining training possibilities. They have that case well in hand. I regret it was not possible to have had the kind of economic analysis and examination for the benefit of workers that I advocated. At least we will have contributed some real input to the solution of this problem for the benefit of the workers.
o (4:30 p.m.)
I welcome this discussion of the Canada Manpower Department. We do not claim perfection, but we do claim we are making a businesslike, effective contribution with the resources available to us, to the manpower development of Canada. I will not go into the whole variety of programs that we administer in the placement field, in agricultural manpower, in student manpower, and in immigrant settlement. I will not go into manpower adjustment and manpower mobility, but I would like to talk about the Canada Manpower Program and the contribution it makes to the manpower development of the country.
In my department this year we will be spending a total of $273 million to train adult workers in Canada. I want to tell the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate that we got $25 million more for the budget this year than we did last year. We would have liked to have had more, but we were competing with other government departments for the available resources. We will be looking for more money next year, and if we have $25 million or $50 million more we could do more and train more.


John Howard Lundrigan: Are you expecting more unemployment next year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not expecting more unemployment. The job we are doing is a necessary job in a period of unemployment. It is equally necessary in a period of economic expansion when jobs are opening up, and we have a responsibility to train adult Canadians for these jobs rather than take in people from abroad, as we do now in many cases. I think it is a good idea to encourage immigration. I simply indicate that we do take many people
April 10, 1970

in from abroad to All skilled jobs opening up in the country for which we do not have the skilled manpower. We are doing the best we can. We have increased our budget. Last year we put into courses 320,000 adult Canadians. The budget for Canadian manpower training has increased quite substantially; it has been one of the fastest growing budgets in the government over a three-year period.
The hon. lady talked about occupational goals. I do not know fully what she meant and it would require more discussion to ascertain, but we do insist that clients who come to manpower centres for expensive training and allowances, should have objectives that are related to the labour market. We want to help them get jobs and increased incomes. Unless there is a chance that they will get jobs and increased incomes we are limited in our help because our purpose is economically oriented. We are not in the field of general education. It is essential that we don't accept people because they like culture or they want to study music.
Cultural activity is fine, but our program is economically oriented and there has to be a connection between the labour market, the income prospects and the training we provide.
I am sure the hon. lady will agree that that is sound philosophy.
Are we training the right people? The hon. member who opened the debate made the point that we are not training the right people. What is the test? We must train people for jobs that are available in the labour market. We do our best to assess the availability of jobs and to match the training to available jobs. That is essential. Basically, we train people who are underemployed and who are unemployed, and whose prospects for increased earnings will be enhanced. I also want to make the point that while it is basically an economic program, it has very important social and anti-poverty objectives.
In Canada we are engaged in a war against poverty, and in my judgment one of the most effective tools in waging that war is an effective manpower program which reduces dependency and which enables individuals to compete successfully on the labour market. So, Mr. Speaker, it is an anti-poverty device. What kind of people are we training? I know that in 1968 we spent about $100 million on the training of people who were poor or under the poverty line. So, we are attacking that very important element of the problem.
DEBATES	5751
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies Then, Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point that our training is concentrated in areas where unemployment is highest. For example, we spent $55 per capita of the labour force in the Atlantic provinces in 196970; we spent $37 per capita in Quebec; $24 per capita in Ontario; $24 per capita in the Prairies and $20 per capita in British Columbia. As part of our deliberate policy we tilt the training to the parts of the country where unemployment is greatest. An examination of our allocation of resources will indicate that we have achieved that objective also.
In addition to the regional distribution of the funds, we attempt to spend the money in the seasonal period of high unemployment. We know that the Canadian economy is subject to seasonal lay-offs regardless of the buoyancy of the economy. We have a considerable seasonal problem and we undertake training in that period. Hon. members are worried about the extent of unemployment in the country today. They would be more worried if it were not for the large numbers in training which are four or five times greater in January, February and March than they would be in other months of the year. We think this is good business.
The hon. member may be reassured that we train mostly people who are unemployed, and it seems to me there is not a better basis upon which to make the choice if at all possible. Some 55 per cent of our trainees are unemployed when they start training. Surely one of the most important criteria for providing trainees is employment status.
The suggestion has been made that we are not getting at the really disadvantaged. We are always conscious of getting to people who are on the border of the labour market. I am not saying for one moment that we have at the present time the specialized services that will enable us to get at and service this disadvantaged group in the manner that we would like to. We have under consideration additional programs of a specialized character that we will put into place when we have the resources, but in the meantime we are making a substantial contribution to the disadvantaged, to the poor. As I say, some $100 million was spent in 1968-69 on training the poor, and proportionately there are now more people under the poverty line in training.
Are you training the poor? That question was asked. I reply, yes, we are training proportionately more of that group than of any other group in the economy. What are you
April 10, 1970
5752	COMMONS
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies doing about the lack of education classes? That is another question which was asked. I wish to tell hon. members that 43 per cent of our trainees have grade eight or less at enrolment time.


John Edward Broadbent: Forty-three per cent of the labour force?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Forty-three per cent of our trainees have grade eight or less when they enter the courses, yet the hon. lady said we did nothing in this field, or words to that effect. We are aware that there are people in the labour force who, to use the current expression, may be functionally illiterate- they cannot read or write; they cannot perform the elementary functions that are required to learn a trade or indeed even to get a job. We do our best and we recognize and are exploring this field more and more. We are penetrating it. We cannot fully replace the general educational system in the long term. We try to supplement it in the short term.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret I have to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not have 30 minutes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I thank the House for giving me a chance to finish my remarks. I will try to complete them as quickly as possible. We do attempt to get into the least schooled portion of the population.


John Edward Broadbent: Will the minister permit a question? It is a factual point on which he has made a mistake. I heard the minister say that 43 per cent of the Canadians taking departmental courses have grade eight education or less. Should that statistic not be 43 per cent of the Canadian labour force over the age of 17 have grade eight education or less?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. If I must correct the statistic I will do so later, but my understanding about the course is that 43 per cent of our trainees have grade eight education or less on enrolment. In 1968-69, for


example, we trained approximately 22,000 workers who have less than grade six education. About three weeks ago a young man in his twenties came to see me. Although he was employed as a cook, he could not read nor write. He told me how he managed to follow recipes and develop new ones. It was rather interesting, but laborious. He wants to be upgraded. This is a big problem for the federal and provincial governments. We are trying to get into this area even more than we are at the present time.
I wish to make the point, Mr. Speaker, that we do not want these training courses to become welfare schools. It is a temptation for individuals in low-income areas to take the training because of the allowance. This is not a long-term solution to their problems. Nothing will do more to discredit this program than if it is understood that it is a substitute for welfare or if it happens that trainees who complete these courses do not take jobs or improve their incomes.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, as there are only 15 minutes left in today's sitting, I wonder if the minister will permit a question at this time. I have been sitting here listening to him for half an hour. I am sure when the minister reads his speech he will be impressed to learn how long he can speak without getting down to the nitty-gritties. Can the minister indicate what new initiatives are being taken by his department in view of the fact that we have a chronic unemployment situation and that right now we have university students by the thousand? In view of the fact that his budget has been increased, is his department going to take new initiatives or will we be having a little more of the same? I would like the minister to get around to this point.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not need any help from the hon. member in making my speech because I know his help is not well-intentioned. His question is based on the fact that he is impressed with the rather important contribution the department is making. If he thought I was wasting time, he would not want me to change the nature of my speech.
This year my department is spending $273 million, a good deal of it in the Atlantic provinces. There will be hundreds of thousands of trainees. Surely it is a matter of important debate in this House to know whether this money is being spent effectively. I know perfectly well if we do not do a good job and relate these efforts to the economy, earnings
April 10, 1970	COMMONS
and job possibilities, this program will collapse. It will not be maintained by the government, Parliament or public opinion as a welfare program. As the hon. member has said, it must have credibility. We have done two things in appraising the results of the program and we are not finished yet.
We cannot yet give the final answer. We have tried to determine whether this program is putting as much into the economy as it is taking out by way of taxes. We have run the best possible cost-benefit analysis that we could devise in co-operation with the best research agencies in treasury board. Hon. members will be glad to know there is a very positive cost-benefit result from the program. The benefit received is greater than the outlay: it is three to one. It would be better if it were ten to one or one hundred to one, but there is a very favourable cost-benefit ratio.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister permit a question? Is he willing to table a copy of that cost-benefit study?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think someone has asked for that. There are a lot of print-outs. We will do everything we can to put this before the House in any reasonable way. I will consider that. We have made this cost-benefit analysis and we are continuing to improve it technically. We have also had a follow-up survey of our OTA graduates. The survey was conducted three months after they completed the course to see how these students had done. We have the preliminary results of this survey. They show that nearly 80 per cent of 8,000 students from the Canada Manpower Training Program were employed when surveyed three months after completing the course. Only 41 per cent were employed before the training. We will continue with further surveys to validate this information. The survey shows that the training has had a very positive result in getting these people into the employment market. What we are after is getting jobs for people.
We also wanted to determine by this survey whether their productivity and earnings improved as a result of training courses. The preliminary results show that income increased by 15 per cent, approximately $55 a month, within three months of graduation. If these courses help to get jobs for these people, keep them employed, increase their earnings and improve their situation, we can have confidence in the effectiveness of the courses. I say without any oratorical flourish but in cold truth that there is no program in
DEBATES	5753
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies the government of Canada that has been more rigorously examined from the point of view of cost-benefit analysis to determine its effectiveness. We do not think we can get more money for this expanding program unless we can demonstrate that it is effective. We cannot maintain the confidence of Parliament and the public unless it is effective. We know there will be complaints. Of course, there will be complaints in individual cases about procedure and so on. We know there are ways in which we can improve the program. We are examining this aspect all the time.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Might I turn for a moment to an important proposal for a change in the program? It is related to the so-called three-year rule. In order to qualify for allowances there has to be a three-year waiting period. At first glance, one might ask why the department does not allow a person to undertake training and receive an allowance immediately he leaves school. He would learn good habits and receive good orientation while still young. This idea has a certain appeal. But given the fact that there is a budget of $273 million this year, we have to decide as a department and as a government how the money available can be spent to best advantage. The more people we bring in, the less intensive the coverage becomes. The program was conceived as a means of helping those workers who obtained their education many years ago and who now find it insufficient and obsolete.
My colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) said the purpose of the program was to give people a second chance. We know that in Canada today there are people in their twenties, their thirties and their forties who have missed out. We know that the level of scholarship in Canada is not as high as it is in the United States. We realize that if these people are to get into the mainstream of society and compete successfully on the labour market they must receive training. We realize, too, that a heavy proportion of public funds is being spent on young people.
Some hon. members advocate removing the three-year rule. If this were done, there would undoubtedly be a heavy demand from young people for training and allowances and ultimately we should have to cut down the training available to older people. This is one of the issues which arise in terms of the allocation of resources within the system.
5754	COMMONS
Alleged Failure of Employment Policies There are other issues concerning the relationship of the scheme to the regular educational system and to the support we give to the post-secondary education structure.
Nevertheless, I want to assure hon. members that I do not take a casual attitude toward this question. We realize in the department that whatever decisions are made will affect the pattern of training available to all members of the labour force, especially the older workers who require it most. We want to be sure we make a right decision; we do not want to shoot from the hip. At the present time a research program is going on in collaboration with the provinces on this very problem. The question has also been referred for advice to the national Canada Manpower and Immigration Council. Last June I asked the council to take a careful look at the occupational training of adults to determine whether the provisions of the program, including allowances, should be extended to groups not presently eligible. I went on to say to them:
X would like you to do this, bearing in mind the need to maintain the present intensity of coverage of groups now included in the training program and the nature of the federal government's role in adult training.
With the help of the research program undertaken with the provinces, and advice from the national council, we shall be able to arrive at a policy on bringing additional groups into the training program, bearing in mind our wish to do the best job we can within the budget now available.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) mentioned the 52-week period. We have this matter under consideration now. We are working toward making it more flexible; our desire is to do more by way of upgrading, to go beyond the 52 weeks. This is very much in our minds and we hope
DEBATES	April 10, 1970
to reach some decision on it. We have made some changes in our commuting allowances-


Winona Grace MacInnis: May I ask the minister whether he intends to do something about removing discrimination against women?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member puts the question in a way which I do not accept. She is speaking of a rule which is applicable to all persons, men and women, in relation to their attachment to the labour force. What she is really asking is whether we would remove discrimination-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not mind the word "discrimination" here, because when you make a distinction of any kind it amounts to an exercise in discrimination. In this case it is not a discrimination against women because it relates to all members of the labour force.


Winona Grace MacInnis: May I put my question more clearly? Is the minister considering declaring that women who have been engaged for three years in the labour of their homes shall be counted as members of the labour force for the purposes of the act?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That would imply a major policy change. Obviously, we shall consider it. The hon. lady has a private members' bill on the Order Paper in her name and she has made her case today. We shall consider it. May I conclude by thanking hon. members for raising this subject and for giving me an opportunity to expose the splendid Canada Manpower Training Program.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
have certainly exposed it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Indecent exposure!
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday. April 13, 1970