1970-04-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will have noticed the motion in my name on page 7 of today's Order Paper. There have been certain discussions among representatives of the parties along the line that it would assist in planning Thursday's business if that motion could be dealt with by the House now. Could there be agreement to bring the motion forward at this time and, if the House is agreeable, make it an order of the House?


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the few motions in the name of the hon. gentleman that we can say we agree with.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, we are unanimous.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That on Thursday, April 30, 1970, immediately after the disposition of the Oral Question Period, the House shall stand adjourned until 11.00 o'clock a.m., Friday, May 1, 1970.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Postmaster General. Am I correct in assuming that is the President of the Treasury Board?


Mr. Trudeau:: Yes.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the apparent or at least reported failure of the Post Office to come to terms with both the letter carriers and the inside workers on a new contract to replace the one that expired on September 30, can the minister state briefly to the House what positive steps he is now taking to avoid a national postal strike which is reported to be imminent? I ask this question at this time in view of the great concern that has surrounded and continues to surround the operations of the Post Office.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the Leader of the Opposition in the difficult negotiations we are having with the Council of Postal Unions. I think he is probably aware that these negotiations have passed from the direct bargaining stage to the appointment and the functioning of a conciliation board to endeavour to find a solution to the dispute. The conciliation board is now at work and is expected to report shortly. Until such time as it does render its report, I think it would be inadvisable for me to make any comments.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is also reported that the minister responsible for the Post Office has refused to renew the working conditions that were incorporated in the last agreement. Is it correct that the Postmaster General or his officials are denying the postal workers assurances with regard to the working conditions that were incorporated in the last agreement?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As I indicated, representations by both sides to the dispute are being made to the conciliation board, and I do not think it would be helpful to analyse publicly the respective positions being taken before the board.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have one further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think the time has gone by, if I may suggest, when the country can merely be given bland assurances about what may happen to the postal service, and I wish to ask whether the minister can assure the House that this matter will not be treated with the same sort of approach that resulted in a serious strike in 1968 and a postal tie-up in Montreal which still denies
6344	COMMONS DEBATES	April 28, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry Montrealers and other Canadians adequate postal services despite the intervention of a good many ministers of the Crown?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Perhaps I should only say that even if hon. gentlemen opposite do not have faith in our conciliation machinery, I do.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he could, without divulging any of the details of the government's position in the current negotiations, tell the House if there is any hope that the government's attitude in regard to the working conditions of postal employees will be somewhat easier than it was a year ago when the minister's insistence on the unilateral imposition of rule changes led to a strike?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think the Postmaster General himself has indicated on a number of occasions that he is interested in improving substantially the working conditions of Post Office employees. Indeed, during the course of this year he has directed considerable efforts to this end and in these efforts he is supported by the government.



MONTREAL POSTAL DISPUTE-FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH UNION

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: have a question for the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker. Has the President of the Treasury Board had any recent discussions with representatives of the CNTU with reference to the continuing Montreal troubles, and is he able to point to any amelioration of this serious situation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had a meeting a short time ago with the president of the CNTU at which he indicated the intention of the members of the union in question to persist in their stand and asked me whether there was a likelihood of any modification of the position of the government in adopting and implementing the report of Dr. Goldberg. I told him that unless he had some better suggestions than had occurred to me, I did not see any prospect of the government changing its course.


Gerald William Baldwin: What else is new?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether, as this is the third week that the Postmaster General has not
[Mr. Stanfield.)
been on roster duty, the minister has left the country or, even worse, left the cabinet and, if so, who is his replacement?


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister regarding the Post Office. Would he confirm that Mr. Carl Goldenberg is at present warming up on the sidelines and is expected to take the field in a government uniform at any time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member knows that he cannot ask the Prime Minister to confirm or deny a rumour.



WHEAT-SUGGESTED WITHDRAWAL OR ALTERATION OF ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: In view of the fact that the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Wheat Board is absent, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the likely fate of operation LIFT, will the minister give an undertaking to the House that he will immediately initiate negotiations with the representatives of bona fide farmers' groups for the purpose of substantially altering or totally abandoning the program?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the premise upon which that question is based and therefore I cannot reply.


Douglas Charles Rowland: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister then give an undertaking to the House that he will rapidly develop a program of assistance for areas like Manitoba's Interlake region for which operation LIFT has absolutely no application?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there already are a number of federal programs particularly applicable to that region. However, they are not administered by this department. So far as operation LIFT is concerned and the complexities of dealing with such a program, again I cannot agree that there are no provisions that will enhance the situation for grain producers in that area if operation LIFT is, in fact, successful.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question Mr. Speaker. Would the minister not at least take this under advisement with his department, having in mind
April 28. 1970	COMMONS
that the usual gestation period for ideas to help western Canada with this government is at least two years?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there are a
number of considerations to be taken into account. One is in response to the request of farmers from western Canada, and indeed occasionally from members across the way, that we should finalize the regulations and administrative details with respect to operation LIFT so that farmers can make plans dependent upon those regulations.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, no farmers in the opposition have requested the continuation of this program.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, regarding the Post Office.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has a supplementary to this question.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-REINSTATEMENT OF UNIT QUOTA SYSTEM

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: In
view of the difficulties facing many small farmers in regard to operation LIFT, will the government give consideration to reinstating the unit quota system?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am not responsible for that particular aspect but the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt has given many explanations of the reasons for removing the quota system and I believe the reasons are still valid.



INDUSTRY


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. When will the minister be making a statement which will result in action to protect the textile and synthetic fibre industries of Canada from unfair dumping and unreasonable competition from Oriental countries?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, last week I said "soon"; today I will say "in the near future".
2221s-55
DEBATES	6345
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since the Premier of Saskatchewan has entered the Quebec election campaign by his recent announcement that Quebec entrepreneurs have been making inquiries in Saskatchewan, can the minister state whether his department has been inundated by requests from Quebec-based firms to locate in Saskatchewan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not in order.



FINANCE


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Prime Minister.
On television last night, we heard a serious charge made by the leader of the National Union to the effect that a certain propaganda sheet distributed in Quebec has apparently been paid for directly from federal public funds. Would the Prime Minister confirm or deny this news?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of commenting on a similar charge made by the leader of the National Union and I replied that the publication "What's New" had no connection whatsoever with the federal government and that it had been issued by the Quebec branch of the Liberal Federation of Canada.



TARIFF ADJUSTMENTS TO OFFSET FOREIGN COMPETITION WITH CERTAIN INDUSTRIES

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will the government give serious reconsideration to its tariff policies applying to the importation of footwear, textiles and electrical goods, particularly those which come from Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong and other low wage countries whose wages make it impossible for Canadian industries to compete and are thus causing very serious lay-offs by these industries?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Well, Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend would spend more time in the House he would find
April 28, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry that we have stated that these matters are under review. In addition, just about two and a half minutes ago the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce indicated that he would be making a statement very soon on this matter.


George Harris Hees: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I will bet any amount of money that I have spent twice as much time in the House this session as the minister has.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: You should issue a white paper on that one, Ben.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for the purpose of asking a supplementary question.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. All bets are off.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is: As it is the Department of Finance that controls tariff policies, and as the minister has said that he is not interested in these matters, would he mind telling the House where he buys his blinkers with which he keeps out any views that are not acceptable?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would not think that question is acceptable from a procedural standpoint.


George Harris Hees: Sit down, Ben! Take it easy! You are getting high blood pressure. Relax!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Could the minister tell us if the blinkers referred to earlier are worn on the end of the horse personified by the member for Prince Edward-Hastings?


George Harris Hees: Oh, go back to grade 3!



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of 
statements made by the Premier of Quebec concerning the employment situation in Quebec, is the Prime Minister still insisting that the unemployment rate in Quebec is the result of provincial policy rather than his own anti-inflation policy?


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



POLLUTION


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister say what, if any, has been the role of mercurial dust used in the treating of seed grain in western Canada in contributing to the mercury content of western rivers and lakes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that this type of information ought normally to be given by way of a general statement. I am not sure whether the minister can find some way to reply to the question briefly. Perhaps he might be given an opportunity to attempt that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the experts who are examining the situation have not been able to determine this, yet. It seems to me that more time is required so that we can obtain a consensus on whether or not this is a major contributing factor.



TAXATION


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the proposals contained in the white paper on tax reform still stand as the proposals of the government for the consideration of the country?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say yes. In further answer to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings-


George Harris Hees: Wind it up, Ben. You have not got the picture.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: -I apologize for suggesting that he was not in the House. He may have been
April 28, 1970

in the House but just could not understand what was going on.


George Harris Hees: Wind it up, Ben.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question following the minister's red herring?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the minister why, following the several months of debate and discussion in the country of the white paper proposals, the government has not seen fit to change even one of those proposals?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the position is that the white paper is before the House of Commons Committee and the Senate Committee. I believe in the committees of the House of Commons and the Senate, and I wish my hon. friend would, too.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: The
minister can say that because there is a Liberal majority on the committees.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the Leader of the Opposition in a moment. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat? It seems to me that we are now entering into a debate and I respectfully suggest there is not much point in pursuing this line of questioning.


Robert Muir: Let
us hear what the minister has to say.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary. I will recognize him.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister has great respect for Parliament and the committee system when it suits his convenience but really, since many thousands of people in the country are giving serious study to these proposals, would it not be proper for the minister to indicate to the country at large what changes, if any, the minister has decided upon following the discussions that have already taken place?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the Minister of Finance and to the Leader of the Opposition that if this kind of statement is to be made it should not be during the question period. It should be made by way of a state-22218-551
Inquiries of the Ministry ment on motions. I do not think the minister would be in order if he attempted to make that kind of statement.



POLLUTION


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the orders which have been made curtailing commercial fishing in Lake Winnipeg and parts of the Saskatchewan River and in view of the fact that sports fishing is going to be permitted in this area, is the minister willing to make a full statement in the House with regard to the findings of his officials as to the mercury content in these fish with relation to human consumption?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We will soon be able to give an analysis of the situation. I met yesterday in Manitoba with the Hon. Sidney Green to discuss this subject. We expect to reach an understanding shortly.



LAKE WINNIPEG-COMPENSATION TO FISHERMEN-SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION

David Orlikow: In
line with the answers the Minister of Fisheries gave last week, has he reached an agreement, about which he can now give some details, with regard to compensation to the fishermen of Lake Winnipeg and the other areas of Manitoba which have been affected by Mercury pollution?


John (Jack) Davis: We have an understanding with the government of Manitoba and jointly we will be negotiating with the fishermen to arrive at a formula, which I will wish to put to my colleagues concerning financial compensation on the Prairie.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. When the minister makes his statement on this matter, will he also report to the House the results of any discussions that have gone on with the authorities in the United States concerning the source of the mercury pollution of the Red River and Lake Winnipeg?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
April 28, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry SASKATCHEWAN RIVEB-NEGOTIATIONS WITH INDUSTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR MERCURY CONTAMINATION


Robert Simpson: Will the minister also be prepared to report to tire House on negotiations with the industry the minister has said is responsible for the mercury pollution in the Saskatchewan River?


John (Jack) Davis: We are meeting with the industries which are responsible for the pollution with a view not only to making sure that they recycle all their effluent within their own premises but also clean up the rivers downstream and from plants themselves.



INDUSTRY


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whit-by):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will the minister be able to make a statement to the House before the end of this week on the state of negotiations between the governments of Canada and the United States on the Canada-United States auto pact?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not think so, Mr. Speaker, but I will speak to the hon. member on the subject.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question. Can the minister inform the House whether the cabinet has made a decision on the extension of the period for which auto workers may obtain TAB benefits?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No decision has been made on that subject.



REDUCTION OF PRICES OF AUTOMOBILES MADE IN CANADA

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: In view of the great amount of unemployment in the car industry and the low sales of cars, has the minister or any member of his department recently contacted the car manufacturers suggesting that the prices of cars made in Canada be brought in line with the prices of the same cars sold in the United States?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, "unemployment" might have been replaced by "lay-

offs" in the question. No, Mr. Speaker, we have not done that. In consultation with the presidents of these companies it has been rather well established, however, that the gap has been declining progressively in recent years and that it might not be wise to expect that the gap will be eliminated totally in the future in view of the different circumstances in the two countries. I do not have the time to go into the differences.



APPLICATION FOR BUILDING OF PIPELINE FROM PRUDHOE BAY TO EDMONTON

Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Has the federal government received an application from a consortium of oil companies to construct a pipeline for the carriage of Prudhoe Bay oil through the Mackenzie Basin to Edmonton?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will check with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


An hon. Member:: He is here now.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Perhaps I might address the question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It had been my intention to direct it to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but I would appreciate a reply from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if he heard the question.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minisier of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I believe the hon. member asked whether there had been an application in connection with the building of a line. Such an application would go to the National Energy Board, and to the best of my knowledge none has yet been filed.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: In his reply to the question I asked a few moments ago the minister said an application had not yet been made with regard to the oil pipeline I mentioned. Is the minister aware of any negotiations which may be under way in connection with the construction of such a pipeline?


John James Greene: I do not know about negotiations, but research is being done by the Mackenzie river pipeline group with respect to oil pipelines and by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and other pipeline companies with respect to gas pipelines. I do not believe any
April 28, 1970	COMMONS
of these research groups has yet reached the stage of finalizing their arrangements and making an application to the National Energy Board.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. W. B. Nesbilt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, Mr. Speaker. In view of the long record of Mr. Stokely Carmichael as a promoter of violence and race hatred, was a special permit issued to enable Mr. Stokely Carmichael to enter Canada in the last few days?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minisier of Manpower and Immigration):: I would have to check. I have no information that he has come to Canada but it may be possible that he has been admitted under existing policy.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: When the minister is investigating the matter would he also inquire whether the purpose of Mr. Carmichael's visit is to take part in the Quebec election?



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON CANADA'S POLICY VIS-A-VIS UNITED STATES

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises out of a comment he made recently in the city of Washington, D.C., indicating that Canada-United States discussions would begin fairly soon at an official level in the hope that there might be discussions at cabinet level in June. I want to ask the minister whether, prior to those discussions, he would be prepared to make a statement on motions setting out Canada's energy policy vis-a-vis the United States?


John James Greene: I believe Canada's energy policy is very clear. It has not been altered for some years. If the hon. gentleman wants references which would clearly indicate to him the statutory authority for Canada's energy policy I would be very glad to get them for him.


Gerald William Baldwin: Send him your speeches.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the minister said in Washing-
DEBATES	6349
Inquiries of the Ministry ton that the sale of water is not negotiable, I am sure the House would be interested to know what items are negotiable. Does the minister not consider that the making of a statement would clarify the position of the Canadian government and allay many fears which have arisen in the minds of the Canadian people?


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, I suggest to the hon. member and to the minister that a statement of the kind proposed ought to be made on motions. I wonder whether that is the suggestion now being put forward by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is exactly what I was asking. I was asking the minister whether he would be prepared to make such a statement on motions before these negotiations begin.


John James Greene: I do not think a statement on motions could fully cover the wide ambit of Canada's energy policy as affected by numerous statutes which include the National Energy Board Act, the legislation covering the sale of natural gas, and a wide variety of other statutory and historical authorities, which in total sum up Canada's national energy policy. But I will be glad to consider the hon. member's suggestion. Maybe a speech of mine would enlighten him in this regard.


George Harris Hees: Anything but that.



BILL OF RIGHTS


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: In the
absence of the Minister of Justice my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council. Having in mind the action taken by the provincial government of Ontario to unseat Dr. Richard Potter from the health committee because of his criticisms of the government's policy, would the President of the Privy Council consider whether some action could be taken on the ground that his removal constitutes a violation of the terms of the Canadian Bill of Rights?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That merits serious study, Mr. Speaker.
6350	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gerald William Baldwin: Was that question directed to the President of the Privy Council because of his attitude toward the Auditor General?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I had some doubts as to the validity of the original question by the hon. member for Ontario.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieite):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
I have here a copy of a resolution of the Union of Industrial Milk Producers of Jo-liette county that was sent to the Minister of Agriculture and in which they recommend that representatives of producers in Canada-
I wonder why they added "and in Quebec"- should meet with the minister as soon as possible in order to discuss further the unfortunate dairy policy that is detrimental to Canadian dairy producers.
May I ask the minister if he will give an affirmative answer and give the assurance that the meeting will be held in the interest of milk producers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Certainly we would welcome a meeting of this kind. I have to disagree with the premise contained in the question that some of these policies are affecting certain producers more than others. What I suggest is that we would welcome a meeting attended not only by the producers from that particular county but by representatives of producers from all over Quebec as well as by the responsible provincial authorities in order that we might work out these problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Has the minister decided to give back the $10 million subsidy to milk producers which they need so badly and which the government so unjustifiably took away from them?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.

DEBATES	April 28, 1970



MANPOWER


Mr. W. C. Scoff (Vicforia-Haliburion):: Mr. Speaker, on April 23 I directed a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I asked whether he was aware that some students worked in excess of 80 hours per week for federal departments last year and whether this would still be the policy of federal departments this year. The minister said he would check into this situation and report back to the House. Is he now in a position to answer my question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have checked the information which the hon. member was good enough to provide but I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the minister concerned. I shall do so as soon as he is in Ottawa.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouih-Halifax East):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure us, in light of confirmation during the latter part of last week by the Commander, Maritime Command, of the presence of submarines in our Arctic waters-


An hon. Member:: Whether they are causing pollution?


J. Michael Forrestall: That is a good question, too-whether or not the presence of foreign submarines poses any danger or threat to our own activities in the north or to the country as a whole?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: This is a difficult question. Generally we approach these questions in a prudent fashion. I have no particular information leading me to suspect the presence of enemy submarines in the Arctic.


An hon. Member:: Are we at war, then?


J. Michael Forrestall: Is the minister not aware of the public statements which have been made by Admiral O'Brien about the presence of foreign submarines in these waters? If he is not aware of them, perhaps in the interest of the country I should send him some files so that he will know what is going on.
April 28. 1970	COMMONS
Mr. Cadieux (Labelled: When we speak of files in a matter like this we may be exaggerating somewhat. I have not seen the statement of Admiral O'Brien but I am sure there must have been some qualifications in what he said.



RENTAL INCREASE FOR PERMANENT MARRIED QUARTERS

George Harris Hees: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of National Defence. Has he protested very strongly to his colleague the President of the Treasury Board about the extremely unjust and unfair increase of $15 a month in the rent for married quarters on military bases across Canada? If so, what was the result?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that that question was asked previously.



POLLUTION


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence concerning a reported oil spill off Alaska which may affect Canadian waters and may be the result of a spill from a submarine. Is the minister aware of this oil spill, and are investigations under way to see whether it came from a submarine?
Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence!: Mr. Speaker, I have to confess that I am not aware of this, but obviously if such a spill did take place the appropriate department, which is the Department of Transport, would be investigating the matter, though the spill may not necessarily be in our waters. However, I will check on the report.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of housing and relates to the statement he made yesterday. Is the $56 million of the $200 million in experimental funds for housing going exclusively to private builders, or are other organizations such as co-ops, trade unions and churches included in this housing program?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, within the $56 mil-
DEBATES	6351
Inquiries of the Ministry lion, if my memory serves me correctly, there are co-operative sponsors. So far as the whole $200 million is concerned, we would welcome proposals from all legitimate sponsoring groups as defined by the National Housing Act, which includes churches and the other organizations mentioned by the hon. member.


John Gilbert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House whether he has completed negotiations with the provinces with regard to new public housing guidelines? If so, when will they take effect?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we have not completed negotiations in the sense that each province has indicated in precise terms that it will follow the guidelines that we have suggested or, particularly, the exact date on which they will implement them, but from the initial reactions, as I said the other day, we have been encouraged to think that this matter will proceed smoothly and quickly.



USE OF PORTION OF EXPERIMENTAL FUND FOR URBAN RENEWAL

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In light of the fact that the $200 million was primarily to be used for experimental projects in connection with low-income housing, and in view of the fact that urban renewal affects low-income housing, is the minister contemplating using any of the $200 million for urban renewal projects this year?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is no. I would say that urban renewal does affect low-income housing, but unfortunately in Canada to date it has affected it adversely.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A further supplementary question. I understood the minister to say that urban renewal has affected certain areas adversely. I respectfully submit that there are some areas in this country that have now presented further urban renewal plans to the minister, particularly the city of Hamilton. Is the minister prepared to receive favourably an application from the city of Hamilton for $1,500,000?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it is doubtful. I have discussed this matter with the mayor and a delegation from the city of Hamilton. However, we are examining their proposals and I will be communicating my decision to them very shortly.
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



ATLANTIC SALMON-REVIEW OF CUTBACK IN NUMBER OF RIVER GUARDIANS

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Si. George's-Sle. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In addition to the positive action taken by the minister to conserve our stocks of Atlantic salmon, would the minister be prepared to review the cutback in the number of river guardians made last year on the basis of austerity measures and increase the number of wardens in order to afford better protection of our rivers?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing that program at the present time.



ATLANTIC SALMON-PRESENTATION OF CANADIAN POSITION TO DANISH MINISTER

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillin-gaie):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the attitude taken by Denmark in regard to the harvesting of Atlantic salmon on the high seas and its recent threatened withdrawal from the North Atlantic Fisheries Commission, can the minister say whether he has approached the Danish Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Norrman, and made the Canadian position clear in regard to high-seas harvesting?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have made our position relative to the harvesting of salmon on the high seas very clear to Denmark in the various meetings that have been held by the North Atlantic countries involved in ICNAF. As the hon. member knows, we will obviously have to follow this matter up, as other countries have done, through other channels.


John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are running short of time and the hon. member has asked one supplementary. I may return to him in a moment.



IMMIGRATION


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Further to my question yesterday in regard to an inmate at 
April 28, 1970
the Prince Albert penitentiary being urgently in need of assistance at this time, could the Minister indicate to the House whether or not he has removed this man from the penitentiary and, if he has, to where has he been moved?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge no action has been taken to remove this man from the penitentiary. As my hon. friend may know, he is the subject of a deportation order which will be effected just as soon as it is possible to arrange for the reception of this person in the United States. I am advised that the psychiatrist or the doctor in charge of the psychiatric ward at the penitentiary has advised that there seems to be no advantage, from the health point of view, in transferring this person from the psychiatric ward to the hospital at North Battleford.


John Leroy Skoberg: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the presence of this inmate is well known to all inmates in the penitentiary, and in view of the fact that there is insufficient staff at the penitentiary to care for this individual, would the minister immediately remove this man to some other institution in Canada where he could receive proper care and be treated like a human being?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on this point I prefer to take the advice of the doctors who are on the scene rather than the advice of my hon. friend.



POST OFFICE


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Postmaster General in the continuing absence of the Postmaster General, whom I miss profoundly. Can the minister tell us when he now expects mail delivery service in Montreal to return to normal? I ask this question particularly since I have received a letter sent first class mail from Montreal 15 days after it left that city.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman would give me a copy of the envelope I would be glad to inquire why it went wrong.


Mr. Bell:: Because it went through
Westmount.

April 28, 1970



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of National Defence. Does his department have plans that would necessarily result in the dismissal of civilian employees at the Meaford tank range?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the fate of the Meaford Range is being considered now. As a matter of fact, I have just signed a letter to the hon. member to whom I want to talk about it. The usual procedures in the case of a closure would, of course, provide for six months' notice for the civilian employees concerned. We would also try to put in motion the procedure that we have developed over the years of co-operating with other departments of government in finding- alternative employment.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That this House condemns the government's arrogant acceptance of recession-level unemployment in slow-growth areas of Canada and cost-of-living hardships generally while dogmatically continuing discredited policies that have failed to put the national economy on a non-inflationary upward course.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it was recognized in the government white paper concerning inflation, tabled I think late in 1968, that the policies that had been pursued by the government to attain the objectives of stable prices and satisfactory employment had not worked. Following this, the Prices and Incomes Commission was established, and while the emphasis of the chairman of that commission has been pretty steadily upon the importance of pursuing the fight against inflation without creating excessive unemployment the government has gone on creating more. The policies of the government have been to cause the main burden to be carried by those Canadian citizens who are least able to protect themselves 22216-56
Anti-Inflation Policies
and are most subject to unemployment, such as the aged and those Canadians with low incomes who are still required to pay income tax.
I do not believe that we must ask the older people of this country to suffer a deterioration in the purchasing power of government pensions, particularly older people in need. Surely, we have not reached such a state of desperation in this country that we must limit the adjustment of guaranteed income supplements to a maximum of 2 per cent regardless of what change takes place in the cost of living during the year. We know that during the past four years our older people have fallen farther and farther behind the increase in the cost of living, and this is something that we cannot justify.
There is also the low income taxpayer with a shrinking real income, a shrinking purchasing power as a result of inflation, who faces a rise in the cost of living. Here again we have given him no relief but in effect have increased his taxes. This is inexcusable. I propose that we should be prepared this year to take off the income tax rolls those who are below the poverty line. Even if the government has to persuade itself that it cannot go that far, surely in the light of the inflation that has been going on something should be done. Surely there is no need to hold up this kind of relief until agreement can be reached on a total package of tax reform. So what we have had for the last couple of years at least, and indeed longer, is not an alleviation of poverty in the country but rather a deepening of poverty.
As a result of the policies of the government, we have excessive unemployment across the country. There is a very real question as to whether this unemployment is really attacking the sources of the inflationary psychology that exists. None of us has any doubt that, in time, we can defeat inflation by creating a recession of sufficient depth. As has been pointed out, we can do this, but at what price to the individuals who are suffering loss and what strain upon the fabric of this country? How far is this policy going to be pursued?
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suggested the other day that the government was prepared to pursue this course until there has been an absolute elimination of all inflation in the country, something we have not seen in this country or indeed in any western country since the war. Surely, the Prime Minister

April 28, 1970
Anti-Inflation Policies
could not be serious when he made that statement. This is the third time in three months that the opposition parties have dedicated opposition days to matters related to the stubborn insistence of the government upon economic policies which are inappropriate and wrong. We have also devoted time to putting forward resolutions against the determination of the architects of the just society to put Canadians out of work.
There are, of course, other great issues in the country. There are other areas where the government is failing and deserves to be censured. But at the root of most of these other problems is the single fact that the government is so preoccupied with its own plans that it does not respond to the realities of the hardships in this country, and it gives the continuing impression that it does not care about them.
Under this government Ottawa has become a sort of separate principality, cut off from the real problems Canadians face and increasingly incapable of finding a solution to these problems. There is no better symbol of that detachment from reality than the cold and brutal insistence of this government on creating unemployment. If one needs a symbol of the differences between the parties in this House, that symbol is to be found in the stone-cold response of this government to the human problems of fear, misery and self-contempt that come with unemployment.
I suggest it would be instructive to have the Prime Minister trade places for a day with the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan). Certainly, it would be refreshing for the country to be presided over, even for a day, by the hon. member for ,Gander-Twillingate. But the real test would be to see whether the Prime Minister, with the roles reversed, could remain so insensitive to the human side of unemployment if he had to answer for a day directly to the unemployed of Gander-Twillingate or to the unemployed of any other region where the hardship of this government's harsh policies is concentrated. Perhaps under those circumstances the Prime Minister could explain to them the importance of their contribution as "regrettable side effects" of high national policy. That is the latest euphemism. If you are out of work you are "a regrettable side effect".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: According to the last DBS figures, we have now in Canada some 542,000 "regrettable side effects", and as usual un-
employment is most acute in the areas least able to stand it, the areas of slow growth. Across the country there are more unemployed than a year ago, but the number of employed in Ontario, British Columbia and, by a small margin, in the Prairies, was a little higher than a year ago, although the number of unemployed was greater. However, in the Atlantic provinces for two successive months the number of employed has been actually less than a year ago. That is true in Quebec as well, at least according to the last report.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
The only reason the unemployment figure is not substantially higher in the Atlantic provinces than a year ago as a result of the even lower number of people employed is that the work force, according to DBS, has shrunk, indicating that a large number of people in the Atlantic provinces has actually given up hope. They are no longer applying for work. No doubt the government will come up with some ingenious explanation of these figures, some way to show that they aren't really there, perhaps by a comparison with the unemployment situation in Bombay or Calcutta. Perhaps the government will try to play games with the unemployment figures, as the Prime Minister did the other day, using some seasonally adjusted manipulation with respect to October when he tried to show that the employment situation was better in the Atlantic provinces, and consequently that the government's anti-inflation policies could not be having the detrimental effect in areas of slow growth that members of the opposition had been saying they were having. It is this kind of manipulation that has put statistical discussions into disrepute.
You must remember, Mr. Speaker, that this government has had a difficult time with figures. The most recent manipulation of figures under the auspices of the government party was so misleading that even the leader of the Liberal party in Quebec dismissed it as "inopportune, awkward and unjustified." Some of his associates were even less restrained. One aide is quoted as saying "The Feds are maniacs". Of course, everyone in this House can remember the earlier difficulties this government had with simple figures. Of all the troubles the government has had, one of the most basic seems to be that it just cannot count. Some of us would argue that a more serious problem is its refusal to recognize that these unemployment figures stand for people and
April 28, 1970

not just numbers, people who are out of work, out of hope, and who are running out of patience.
When the Prime Minister is told that more than one half million Canadians are out of work, he has the curious view that it is an adequate answer to say there were more out of work sometime in the past. Mr. Speaker, this is certainly the first time in our history that a Government of Canada has deliberately tried to create unemployment, and that sets this government apart from any government in the past. But what the Prime Minister does not seem to care about is that many of the people who are out of work today are the same people who were out of work in the days past of which he spoke, and in some of the areas of chronic unemployment they are the sons and the daughters of people whose unemployment a decade ago the Prime Minister is so prone to refer to today. The Prime Minister and his ministers should stop these debating tricks, and recognize that these are human lives they are dealing with and which, in some cases, their policies are deliberately destroying.
The government offers a ritual defence of its policy of deliberately creating unemployment. It suggests that it is necessary to fight inflation and that we must choose between inflation and unemployment. That is a false choice. It is an old trick, to reduce every problem to two contradictory extremes. The suggestion that we can fight inflation only by creating unemployment is a deliberate attempt to mislead and to polarize Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The alternatives, in fact, are not as singular or as stark as the Prime Minister and his colleagues suggest. Their argument, that we cannot fight unemployment and inflation together, directly contradicts the views expressed by the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission as well as the view of many other economists. By posing these false and stark alternatives, the government not only perpetuates unemployment but it impedes the discussion or development of alternative means to fight inflation, which would not lay so heavy and so unjust a burden on the weak, the poor and the unemployed.
I would remind the House that the policy of the government not only deliberately creates unemployment, but that the government is also deliberately encouraging the view among the well-to-do in Canada that 22218-56J
Anti-Inflation Policies
unemployment does not really matter; that it is a necessary evil and that, in the words of the Prime Minister, it is a regrettable side effect; that the government in fact is pursuing a bold initiative in which someone has to suffer and it might as well be the poor. It is important to remember that this policy, this willingness to relegate the unemployed to the status of "a regrettable side effect," is all being done in the name of a just society. It is not a just society at all. Instead, these things are calculated to create a society that is as cynical, selfish and as callous as the government itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would not often make this kind of judgment in a debate, but, Sir, this is an immoral policy. The government has no moral right to throw half a million Canadians out of work and to suggest to the comfortable majority who have jobs that this kind of callousness is somehow acceptable. The basic premise of the government's policy is that the weak should suffer so that the strong can prosper. That is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. That is uncivilized.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If we do nothing else in this debate we must force the government to see unemployment in its proper context in this country, not as a cruel weapon in a hesitant campaign to achieve other goals but as a cause of human misery and regional depression, and possibly as a source of serious social disorder.
A figure of more than half a million unemployed is bad enough as it stands, but the crisis of unemployment extends well beyond the people it affects directly. It creates fear among hundreds of thousands of other Canadians who are not certain that their jobs will continue, who fear that they will be the next victims of the government's determination to put more slack into the economy. This policy affects families, Mr. Speaker, and the planning of all those Canadians, whether they are out of work already or whether they fear they will be put out of work soon, and that means hundreds of thousands more Canadians. Probably millions of Canadians are made more insecure and miserable by the fact that unemployment is high, and that the Government of Canada, their government, has stated-and it is hard to believe, Sir-that it is prepared to push the unemployment figure higher.

April 28, 1970
Anti-Inflation Policies
The government can dismiss this as soft talk if it wishes. It can make the claim that it is really being tough. It can make the claim that the current level of unemployment really helps the unemployed. It can make the claim that the unemployed Canadians, and members of the opposition, just are not smart enough to understand that the government is working in the interest of the unemployed. That kind of argument might wash in some boardrooms, but not too many I think; it might even wash in the caucus room of the government party, although I am not even sure of that; but it won't convince anybody else in Canada.
Unemployment is more than being out of work. Unemployment kills the will not only of individuals but of the communities where it is concentrated. That is why it has such a harsh and unfair effect upon the areas which traditionally have been areas of slow growth. If there is to be renewal of these areas, if they are to achieve economic equality or anything like it, one fundamental ingredient must be the desire of the people who live there to move up and the belief that they can. No amount of money from Ottawa can help an area whose spirit of self-help has been strangled or killed. The government is trying to claim that its policies are in fact helping the slow-growth regions. That is not the kind of help they would choose. The D.B.S. figures, as I have mentioned, are quite clear and affect not only the Atlantic provinces but other parts of the country as well.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
It is difficult to know what effect, if any, the programs of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) are having. He is the most mysterious minister in the House, in terms of what his department is doing. We can, therefore, judge only by the effects the eye can see. On the record, the policies of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion have so far been a failure, and one of the reasons they are a failure is that the government is at the same time pursuing a deliberate policy of creating unemployment. Once again, the government is working at cross-purposes with itself. One minister is charged with building up the slow-growth regions, while the others are busy building up unemployment. You cannot have it both ways. If this government wanted to organize a hockey game, they would have one minister spend millions on new uniforms 
and ask another minister to go out and melt the ice. Then, they would boast about what it all cost.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion was speaking in Toronto the other night. He did not have a text so we cannot be sure of exactly what he said.


An hon. Member:: He doesn't know himself.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The report in the Toronto Globe and Mail reads as follows: "He (the Minister) said that the source of separatist feeling in Quebec was basically economic". The report goes on:
The largest number of nationalists and separatists are in the eastern parts of Montreal and the province, where unemployment is highest, many people are on social security and the average income for each person is about $1,000 per year.
I assume the message we are to receive from that-and the message the Prime Minister has also been implanting recently-is that current events in Quebec are the result of economic hardship. There is no reason for the government or Canadians to take any comfort from that. There might be some distinction in logic between the Canadian who supports a separatist party out of commitment, and the man who votes separatist out of desperation. But there is very little difference in effect. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion should be the last people to express satisfaction that protest votes are not against federalism per se but against federalism as it is practised by this government.
This country has enough natural divisions already. More than most federations, it needs a central government which is respected as an ally by every part of Canada, and particularly by the disadvantaged who have the strongest natural cause to question federalism. This government instead has gone out of its way to infuriate or alienate the people on the economic margins of the country. It has virtually ignored the crisis facing farmers in the west. It turns its back on the aged and on those Canadians who live below the poverty line. It creates economic conditions which mean that young Canadians cannot get work when they come out of school. It callously and deliberately creates new unemployment in the name of fighting inflation.
I do not intend to dwell on the issue which the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion raised. But surely it is clear to us all-and certainly it is proper for the Parliament of Canada to discuss-the fact that unemploy-
April 28, 1970

ment is creating or confirming instability and unrest in many parts of Canada. Unemployment is creating an explosive situation. Young people are out of school and out of work. One startling feature of the most recent unemployment statistics is that they reveal the degree to which younger Canadians are being forced to start what would normally be their working lives without jobs. Particularly when one considers the extent of social criticism and dissatisfaction among the young today, this unemployment for the young is an invitation to disorder. Consider the difficulty students are going to have finding summer employment under these conditions.
The same would be the case if unemployment were disproportionately high-as we must assume it is-among native people, and others who already feel they are the victims of prejudice. It is an unhappy fact of life that many of the native people of Canada live in areas where growth is slow and jobs are few. Since the effect of the government's policy to deliberately create unemployment is particularly harsh in regions of this kind, we must assume that the proportion of unemployed native people is higher than the proportion of unemployed Canadians generally.
Sometimes people accuse this government of a lack of respect for tradition but I think it sometimes shows too much respect for tradition. Indeed, in one area at least I think the Prime Minister is trying to recreate the past, unemployment and all. One hears of the possibility of the government creating a poverty council, the aim of which would be to spread poverty evenly across the country with special attention to areas of slow growth. If this were to be done the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) would be an appropriate adviser on theory.
This is a government policy which is cruel and inappropriate. It is not only harmful to the people who are unemployed today. It amounts to a serious attack upon the prospect of development in many of the slow growth regions of the country. It amounts to an invitation to the young and the dispossessed to protest, and the old to give up in frustration in whatever way is at hand. It is a policy destructive of human dignity, destructive of social order, destructive of national unity and development. It is a policy which suits the theorists in the East Block, and no one else. It is a policy which must be reversed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House draws attention to the recent level of
Anti-Inflation Policies
unemployment and to slow economic growth in Canada. I think it is significant that nearly all of the opposition days have been devoted to the lamentable condition of the Canadian economy. That is because when members in all parts of the House return to their constituencies they find this to be the number one issue. There can be no doubt that the Canadian economy is in serious trouble.
First of all, there are all the signs of an economic slow down. Even the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) predicted a one and a half to two per cent drop from the 4.8 per cent growth in 1969. This means that in this year, by the minister's own figure, we will probably have a reduced growth rate in real terms of 2.8 to 3 per cent. That contrasts very poorly with the recommendation of the Economic Council of Canada that we require a real growth rate of 5.5 per cent to 6.5 per cent if we are to maintain full employment in this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Athabasca on a point of order.


Paul Yewchuk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to point out to the House that when this very important issue is being discussed there are only four government members in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is hardly a point of order. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Robert Muir: There are no ministers.


John James Greene: I just sit back here so that I can have a better perspective.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Robert Muir: You
don't have any say, Joe.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is so, Joe.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The state of the economy is shown further by the fact that we now have an unemployment rate of 6.7 per cent, the highest we have had in Canada for some six years; and that is certainly the highest rate of any industrialized nation in the western world. Professor Seymour Friedland, Director of Capital Markets Research Program at York University, said this recently:
The question is no longer whether we are going to have a recession-we already have a recession- but how serious the recession will be.

April 28, 1970
Anti-Inflation Policies
It is because the parties in the opposition recognize that we are in a recession and are concerned about the government's lack of action that the matter is being discussed here at this time. As an hon. member pointed out a few minutes ago, significantly, the government's interest in this matter is demonstrated by the rows of empty seats on the government side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: There are rows and rows of empty seats.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Minister of Finance is the only cabinet minister present and he only came in a few minutes ago. I think there are four Liberal members in the House at this time, which shows how concerned they are about the present economic conditions of this country.


An hon. Member:: Only four Liberals are here.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The government's anti-inflation program is based on the wrong diagnosis and on wrong economic prescriptions. We agree that the government is justified in being concerned about inflation and rising prices. Any government has to be. Galloping inflation can destroy an economy and any government would be negligent in its duties if it did not cope with the problem of inflation and rising prices for the consumer. The government has got into trouble because it has made a mistaken diagnosis. It has mistaken the symptoms for the disease. The Government has accepted as a fact the mistaken notion that our inflation in Canada is the result of too much money chasing too few goods. Consequently, it has adopted the nineteenth century tools of blanket fiscal and monetary restraints. Senator Lamontagne, who formerly sat on the government side as a cabinet minister in the Liberal government, said this recently in the city of Toronto, as reported in the Globe and Mail of March 25:
Canada currently is suffering from cost-push inflation, rather than the demand-pull variety,-
The Senator went on to say:
This kind of inflation is structural, not cyclical in character, and it originates from the use of monopolistic controls in the supply side by both business and labour unions, not from excessive over-all demand. Thus it is quite possible to have at the same time cost-push inflation and deficient aggregate demand, rising prices and recession.

Senator Lamontagne said the government's anti-inflationary policy was the work of "decadent Keynesians", and he charged the government with "unconscious cynicism". There can be no doubt that the results of the government's ill-advised anti-inflation policies have been disastrous for Canada. We still have rising prices, and to that misfortune the government has added unemployment and an economic slow-down. The victims of this policy are the poor and the people who live in the least developed areas of Canada. The poor are hit twice: first, because the cost of living is still going up; and second, because many of them are thrown out of a job. When discussing these things in the question period, the Prime Minister keeps saying, "The Canadian people must exercise discipline" and "We have to break the inflationary psychology." Mr. Speaker, why is it always the people in the low income groups who have to learn discipline?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does anyone think that the government's anti-inflation policy will teach discipline to bank presidents, company managers, Members of Parliament and Senators? They will not be affected by the government's restrictive measures. It is the people who had nothing to do with inflation, the people who suffer most from inflation, who are now suffering most from the government's attempt to cure inflation. The same thing is true of the poorer regions of Canada. These are the regions that were not responsible for the cost-push inflation which we are experiencing; but they are suffering all the consequences of the economic recession which this government has imposed on Canada in an attempt to stop inflation. The work of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) is being nullified every day by the monetary and fiscal restraints imposed by the Minister of Finance.
The motion before us speaks of the government's arrogance. Nowhere is its arrogance shown more clearly than in its persistence in following an anti-inflation policy that has incurred the criticism of almost every reputable economist in Canada. The government's Economic Council, which contains some of the best economists in the country, told the government as far back as last September in its Sixth Annual Review that:
Further fiscal and monetary restraint could conceivably result simply in higher rates of unemploy-
April 28. 1970

ment and economic slack with no more than marginal effects on current rates of increase in prices and costs.
Before the Economic Council said that, many members in this House had said it, but the government has paid no heed to those warnings. It has gone on like a hippopotamus trampling through a field of tulips in persisting in this program, regardless of the results. I have in my hand a list of economists, including some of the best economists in Canada, who have tried to tell the government exactly what the Economic Council tried to tell it in its review. Professor Arthur Kruger of the University of Toronto called for reduced tariffs and a more vigorous antitrust policy. Professor Rotstein, also of the University of Toronto, urges the separation of Canadian and United States economic policy. Professor Jack C. Weldon of McGill University says government policy has led to a 12 per cent unemployment rate among Quebec's French-speaking males. He claimed Canada would be better off accepting some degree of inflation rather than fighting it with rising unemployment. Professor Rosalind Blauer of Brock University, St. Catharines, called for a fluctuating exchange rate rather than measures with a heavy social cost. Senator Lamon-tagne, to whom I have already referred, described the government's policy as "the worst theoretical aberration since the mistakes that preceded the depression of the 1930's."


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You could go back even farther than that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Just to make absolutely sure that the government got the message, the Quebec leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Robert Bou-rassa, said recently in Montreal that the Quebec Liberal Party does not accept the anti-inflation policies of the federal government. He went on to blast the federal government for allowing its fiscal policies to be dictated by "mandarins operating in a closed circuit". He said he would do everything in his power to bring about a reversal in federal policy if his party came to power in Quebec.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Just a few days ago the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities met with the government. One of the mayors, Mayor Sidney Buckwold, a former Liberal candidate, reminded the government that urban construction was grinding to a halt. The mayors told
Anti-Inflation Policies
the Prime Minister and the government that there is a serious unemployment situation in our cities. Is it not strange, Mr. Speaker, that the Economic Council of Canada, a former cabinet minister, the leader of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec, a whole battalion of outstanding economists and the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities are all telling the government of the disastrous consequences of their anti-inflationary policies? The government is satisfied to do nothing about it. It is like the old army joke, everybody is out of step but Pierre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The government is still trying to apply the policies of the Herbert Hoover era. The Prime Minister says that unemployment is a regrettable but necessary corollary of its anti-inflationary policy. What the government is really saying is that it is not possible in this country to have full employment and price stability. The government is saying that we have to choose between having galloping inflation or unemployment in this country. Any government that is not able to plan the economy of this country so as to establish a National high level of income and full employment and at the same time a degree of price stability have no right to continue sitting in the treasury benches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the government cannot manage the economy of this country, then they should resign. They did not tell the people of Canada two years ago that the price of trying to halt inflation would be to throw people out of work and slow the economy down to a halt.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: They promised a just
society.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They promised the just society. It is just so-so! Having failed to either stop the rising cost of living or to maintain relatively full employment, the government is now trying to find a scapegoat. Their program of voluntary restraints has been a colossal failure because prices are continuing to rise, despite all the commitments that were made at the conference on price stability. Price increases have even been made by some of the tycoons who attended the conference, and this has been done with the acquiescence of the government.

April 28, 1970
Anti-Inflation Policies
The government seeks to place blame on organized labour. The Prime Minister told members of the Canadian Labour Congress that their share of the national income had risen from 62 per cent in 1950 to 72.6 per cent in 1969. I want to point out how misleading those figures are. The onty fair way you can measure labour income is on the basis of the gross national product. Wages, salaries and supplementary labour income in 1950 was 48 per cent of the gross national product and by 1968, it had increased to 53.9 per cent. What the Prime Minister did not tell the people of Canada was that the figure of wages, salaries and supplementary labour income includes executive salaries and supplementary income which have grown faster than wages.
The government is asking the organized workers of this country to accept mandatory restraints based on collective bargaining agreements while only requiring corporations to give voluntary commitments which experience has shown to be worthless. As far as labour is concerned, there is no such thing as a voluntary restraint. When organized workers sign a collective bargaining agreement, that document is binding on them for the next two or three years. When a corporation makes a voluntary commitment not to raise prices, we can see how binding such a commitment is by some of the examples of the past few months.
The New Democratic Party has repeated in this House again and again what we consider to be an adequate program to deal realistically with the plight of our economy. I did this on October 24 in the Speech from the Throne debate at the beginning of this session. In the few moments I have left I wish to again mention some of the things this party thinks should be done.
First, we in this party think we must lessen the effects of United States inflation because undoubtedly some of our inflation comes from the United States where they have been spending $24 billion to $30 billion a year on the war in Viet Nam. Naturally, we are affected because of our economies being so closely interrelated. We suggest we should return to a floating exchange rate and set our interest rates in the light of our own domestic situation rather than in relation to American interest rates.
Second, we say there should be selective fiscal and monetary restraints for any areas of our economy that are overheated. We are not quarrelling with fiscal and monetary restraints. We are quarrelling with the fact that the government has adopted a buckshot
[Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) .1
approach. There are areas of the economy in which restraints could be advantageously applied.
Third, we suggest selective investment controls to direct available capital into socially desirable projects such as housing and infrastructure. If we have to keep down spending, then surely the outlays of available capital should be apportioned on the basis of social needs and not on the basis of the market. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has just released the figures of projected capital spending, public and private, for the year 1970. It is rather significant that commercial construction in trade, finance and commercial services will increase by 55 per cent in Ontario this year. It goes on to outline that much of this construction will be for hotels and prestige office buildings. However, in the same province where commercial investments are increasing by 55 per cent, housing expenditures are decreasing by 11 per cent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. Unless hon. members are disposed to allow him to continue-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wish to make one or two points before I conclude. I am not going into the details of this report of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce except to point out that in the areas where we need more capital investment, such as the Maritimes and the Prairies, capital investment is decreasing. The places that are already affected by unemployment are the areas of Canada where capital investment is decreasing. That is why we in this party say there has to be some allocation of financial and material resources in this country rather than the shotgun approach which the government has been using in trying to cope with inflation.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Fourth, we urge that there should be genuine tax reform designed to redistribute income and to increase purchasing power of those on lower incomes. There is not too much money for 40 or 50 per cent of the people of this country. Certainly, the people below the poverty line, those in a state of deprivation, do not have too much money. One of the ways in which the economy could be strengthened
April 28, 1970

would be to raise the income tax exemption and lower the taxes of people with low incomes so as to give them the purchasing power to buy goods.
The fifth thing we are suggesting is that there should be a mandatory prices and incomes policy to prevent unjustified price increases and to roll back some of the administered prices which are now being imposed by monopolist and multi-national corporations. The government has surely learned by this time that we shall not achieve price stability merely by relying on voluntary commitments by industry. About two-thirds of the economy of Canada is controlled by monopolies and quasi-monopolies. The prices of the commodities which they produce are administered prices, set not only to cover costs and a reasonable return to the shareholders, but designed to generate capital for future development. These corporations are in a position virtually to set their own prices and to demand whatever they wish from the consuming public. Unless the government is prepared to adopt a mandatory prices and incomes policy we shall completely fail to deal with the question of rising prices.
I say to the Minister of Finance and to the government, there is only one thing worse than making a mistake: it is the refusal to recognize a mistake once it has been made, refusal to reverse a program. The government started out to cure inflation. It adopted a program of blanket restraint, and the results have been catastrophic. If it continues, a vicious circle will develop; every person thrown out of work is a person whose purchasing power is sharply curtailed, and this leads to others being thrown out of work. As more people find themselves out of work, the cost of production increases and it becomes more difficult to compete in foreign markets. An economic recession can develop into an economic depression very rapidly. The Prime Minister should not then be worrying about breaking an inflationary psychology; he should be worried about breaking a depression psychology, something which can be deadly as anyone who lived through the great depression will testify.
I am urging the Minister of Finance, not that he give up any idea of controlling inflation but that he should recognize that to fight inflation requires much more sophisticated economic tools than the blunt ones he has been using. He should look into this question of selective controls, both monetary and fiscal, of selective investment policies and the man-
Anti-Inflation Policies
datory control of prices. It should be possible to do this in this age when we have computers and more knowledge of economic forces than ever in the history of mankind, it should be possible in a country like Canada, with its vast resources, to have relatively full employment, a high level of national income and, at the same time, a relatively even and stable price structure.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to take part in this debate on a motion of non-confidence against the government concerning its employment policy or rather its unemployment policy.
The Leader of the Progressive Conservative party has put a motion which reads as follows:
That this House condemns the government's arrogant acceptance of recession-level unemployment in slow-growth areas of Canada and cost-of-living hardships generally while dogmatically continuing discredited policies that have failed to put the national economy on a non-inflationary upward course.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the government led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had promised the establishment in Canada of a just society which seems to exist only for a few individuals. Indeed, the large number of people who must live with the insecurity that unemployment creates surely do not benefit from the just society that the present government has promised, and the Canadian people are not deriving any advantages from the country's resources, for instance its natural resources that must be developed to bring wealth.
We are told that the rate of unemployment in Canada has now reached 6.7 per cent.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Needless to say, that is the official figure, but one must not forget that, during the year, some individuals who become unemployed may later find work while others may, in turn, lose their jobs. On this subject, I had the following question placed on the order paper:
How many initial requests were made to the Unemployment Insurance Commission during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1968?
The answer I was given reads as follows:
1,389,366 initial claims were made through the Commission's offices during the fiscal year which ended March 31, 1968.
There is a gap between the unemployment figures mentioned above and the 6.7 per cent rate that is reported. As I explained a short while ago, an individual may not be without

April 28, 1970
Anti-Inflation Policies
work the year round, but rather for one, two, three or four months. Some sort of rotation takes place during the year. This means that approximately 1.25 million people are unemployed during a certain period of the year.
Everyone knows that forest workers, miners, construction and other workers must have a yearly income, otherwise they cannot make ends meet.
If a man goes back to work after having been unemployed during a certain period of the year, his financial problems are not over. When people are jobless bills pile up. Necessary clothing cannot be bought. People must therefore try to increase their earnings when they go back to work. In 1968 1,389,366 people were affected by unemployment.
Furthermore, we know that most of the time 40 to 45 per cent of the unemployed are to be found in Quebec, which is not a very enviable record. It is therefore not surprising to see signs of dissatisfaction among some people who get panicky when they think of the probable result of tomorrow's election in that province.
Some Progressive Conservative members have made representations to the government so that Quebec does not separate from the rest of Canada. I do not think that the citizens of Quebec have reached that stage but, nevertheless, it is true that discontent is general in Quebec because people are fed up with having to put up with a false, obsolete and outdated system.
The night the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) tabled the budget, newsmen interviewed the Prime Minister about unemployment and the fight against inflation. He answered then that the fight he had undertaken against inflation had not yet given any result and that he was carrying it on in this area. In short, we do not know where we are going but we are going anyway.
With a view to checking the steady increase in the cost of living, we are trying to create more and more unemployment, without showing the least concern for the Canadian workers and taxpayers. The cost of living must definitely be brought down. However, people do not realize that the methods resorted to could well lead to an economic recession, which would be just the opposite of the results that are being sought.
What we ask of the government is not an increase of the unemployment level, but the creation of more jobs while it is still time. 
There are many things that can and must be done but we do not want the battle against inflation to be fought at the expense of the workers.
Often enough I hear people say that we should promote full employment in every field. In the province of Quebec, the chief of one party recently announced that if his party gets into power he will see that 100,000 new jobs are created.
We are wondering how he will create these 100,000 new jobs.
What does he prefer? Certainly, if one looks at the various economic sectors, we find there is no problem in the production area. As a matter of fact, we are not short of consumer goods. This year, payments of about $100 million will be made to the western wheat producers to get them to reduce their production. Thus, we are granting subsidies and it is not because we are short of wheat.
However, dairy producers are penalized because they produce too much. They have to pay a fine of $1.50 if they produce milk in excess of the quota allowed to them by the government. It is not because we are short of milk, since Canadians produce more than they can consume. I am not saying they consume all the dairy products they should. Far from it. But the unemployed cannot afford to buy butter. They must be satisfied with margarine, and they cannot provide their families with all the fluid milk they would need. Sometimes, they have to make do with a pint of milk, whereas they should drink a gallon a day.
I do not say that there is overproduction of dairy products, but rather underconsumption in that field in particular-although there is an across-the-board underconsumption- because thousands of unemployed people cannot buy everything they need. What will happen to the 100,000 new jobs? What kind of products which are required at present could we produce when there is already enough production?
In his book "The American Challenge" Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber reports that the forecasts are such that in the U.S. and therefore, in Canada, its vassal, the average income will reach $7,500 in just 30 years and the work week will be made up of four 7-hour days, or 28 working hours. The year would be divided into 39 work weeks and 13 holiday weeks, which would give the workers 218 free days for 147 work days if one takes into account week-ends and holidays.
April 28, 1970

It is expected that this will happen in less than a generation.
The purpose of reducing continually the number of working hours is to enable the highest possible number of workers to find employment since it has been found that machines, automation and cybernetics make it ever easier to produce.
One will recall that barely a hundred years ago, at the time the internal combustion engine revolutionized industry, mechanical power replaced physical strength.
About 20 years ago, automation appeared and there was another industrial revolution greater than the previous one. Now today, cybernetics is at our disposal.
In 1964, Robert Cooney said the following about unemployment, and I quote:
While we urge young people to get degrees, technicians devise office machines that will make unemployed people out of those young graduates when they leave the university.
While the retraining of technicians displaced by the introduction of a machine doing their work is proceeded with, a new machine is being devised that will make the retraining as outmoded for those unfortunate people as the old techniques that had become useless to them.
-unemployed educated people are being added to unemployed uneducated people.
Mr. Speaker, that reminds me that in 196061-62, we were told that if there were so many unemployed people in Canada, it was because those people were uneducated.
Yet, on March 19 last, the JOC pointed out that in the Province of Quebec alone, out of a total of 200,000 unemployed Quebecers, 57,000 were in the 16 to 24 age group. Yet one cannot say, that those young people are uneducated. They all have to attend schools and universities but we realize that once they leave such institutions, there is no job for them. Therefore we are now confronted with educated unemployed. There is now another excerpt from Mr. Cooney's article and I quote:
We have now come to the point where the machine has become a substitute not only for man but also for the former, less sophisticated machine. Furthermore, the machine is now manufacturing other machines.
I cannot see any production problem in anything happening now. In his book "The American Challenge", at pages 93 and 94, Servan-Schreiber describes what is occurring now. This book was written three years ago but Servan-Schreiber was forecasting the things that would happen in 1980 and, which
Anti-Inflation Policies
in fact, are just beginning to happen. Here is what Servan-Schreiber has to say in his book:
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Well before 1980, computers will be small, powerful, and inexpensive. Computing power will be available to anyone who needs it, or wants it, or can use it.
In many cases the user will have a small personal console connected to a large, central computing facility where enormous electronic memories will store all aspects of knowledge. Corresponding developments in man-machine interaction will make it as easy to learn to use the new computers as to learn to drive a car.
The more exciting developments in information processing are based on "real-time" computer use. In these uses, the computer memory and processor are large enough to handle within seconds a variety of jobs, without needing to call for additional information from a non-computer store, such as punched cards. There is in these cases potential opportunity for the human operator to interact with the computer at a speed not too different from person-to-person conversation.
It is estimated that the entire store of information in the world's libraries amounts to 10ls (one quadrillion, or one million billion) bits. This information is stored in the form of books and other printed documents, and is doubling every 15 to 20 years.
A leading computer manufacturer has recently announced the commercial availability of a new type-
These predictions have now come true.
-of direct-access computer memory that will hold a thousand billion bits, or one thousandth of the world's recorded information. There appears the possibility that by 1980 a small number of computers will replace all the written documentation existing in the world, and that they will work in "real time"-replying to questions with information at the speed of human conversation.
Well, such are the advances of technology which make it possible to almost instantly disseminate information throughout the world. In the face of such development, I wonder where the problem of production comes in. If it has become so easy to exchange information and to produce, why do we try to solve the problem of production when it is non-existent?
Instead of subsidizing production at the executive level, the government should distribute more purchasing power to the people. While the Prime Minister suggests credit restraints in order to reduce prices, his colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) grants subsidies right and left in order to create new industries, thus contributing to increase production. Both approaches are contradictory.

April 23, 1970
Anti-Inflation Policies In my opinion, it is not advisable to subsidize industries which will produce goods for which we have little or no need, since in every field, Canadian industry is already able to meet all our needs. Indeed, industries close down in some areas because they fail to sell their production.
Therefore, instead of subsidizing production at the top, let us rather consider subsidizing consumption at the bottom. Let us subsidize the consumer so that he may ask industry for what he needs. He could also specify the standards he expects. Thereby, we shall help consumers as well as industries, which would still obtain subsidies, though indirectly. Industries will therefore be urged to produce what Canadian consumers want, instead of the government wants. It would then be a much more logical way of helping our people, who expect their governments to pass fair pieces of legislation.
My colleague, the hon. member for Port-neuf (Mr. Godin), last week put forward a guaranteed minimum income plan designed for all Canadians. I believe that the program of the New Democratic party includes a similar plan. I also believe that the Progressive Conservative party is considering the advisability of such a plan, and I know that in the United States, a universal guaranteed minimum income plan is being seriously considered.
I think that the methods of financing such a plan differ from one party to the other. This government should therefore consider establishing such a system in Canada in order to guarantee to all citizens a decent income, enabling them to control production. The same result might be achieved by increasing family allowances, old age security pensions and other welfare benefits across Canada, so that the recipients would not have to rely on employment. If full employment is clearly not possible, people should be able to enjoy just the same the goods produced by the machine which has replaced them.
If a system were established whereby citizens would have additional purchasing power,
I am convinced that this would eliminate certain worries, particularly those currently felt by Quebecers. By establishing such a system, Canadian families would be in a position to benefit from the resources available in Canada.


Edgar John Benson: Over the past several months there has been much debate both inside and outside the (Mr. Laprise.]
House about the most serious economic problem facing Canada today-that of inflation. The continuing debate about the policies adopted by the government involves fundamental economic issues of profound importance to us all. It is essential, therefore, that all Canadians should carefully weigh the consequences of the various alternative courses that have been urged upon us.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
As a nation, we are confronted with two basic choices-fighting inflation or ignoring it. Among those who believe there is no practical alternative to fighting inflation, there is broad disagreement about how vigorously the fight should be waged and with what weapons. There is an equal measure of disagreement among those who believe that the fight is not worth waging in the first place.
Consider the second and most beguiling option first, that of ignoring inflation. Many of those who press for the adoption of this course argue that the continuing inflationary spiral in Canada is largely the result of sharply rising costs and prices abroad. There is little that Canada can do to insulate itself from these foreign inflationary pressures, they argue, and as a result there is little advantage to be gained in adopting domestic economic restraints that may cause increased unemployment.
Instead, they contend, the nation should learn to live with inflation, if not to love it, by building an inflationary escalator into the economic system that would enable the incomes of all of us, pensioners and wage and salary earners alike, to keep pace with spiralling prices. That, Mr. Speaker, would be like administering tranquilizers to offset the effect of an economy on "speed".
It would be foolish to deny that the level of costs and prices in Canada may be substantially influenced by inflationary pressures from abroad, particularly from the United States. But it is equally foolish to ignore the fact that the inflationary spiral in Canada has received a sharp impetus from cost and price pressures originating with the Canadian economy.
It is admittedly unrealistic to expect that Canada can succeed in maintaining relative price stability at home in the face of swiftly rising prices south of the border. Conversely, however, it is entirely possible for Canada to do very much worse than the United States if
April 28. 1970

it does not adopt complementary policies to restrain its own inflationary pressures.
There is another allied school of thought which, while conceding that inflation is a serious problem, holds that our policies of restraint are misdirected because they will have little or no effect on the cost-push type of inflationary forces at work in the economy today. The use of fiscal and monetary policies to restrain economic growth are only appropriate, they insist, if inflation is being caused by an excessive demand on the part of Canadians for goods and services.
There is no doubt that cost-push inflation poses a particularly difficult and stubborn problem, one that is not readily cured by the policy instruments we have at hand. But there is equally no doubt that the problem would be compounded in a major way if we lifted our restraints and allowed the economy to rim at full throttle. When he spoke in Ottawa in February, Paul McCracken, Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers in the United States, put it this way:
If profits were lush and enlarging rapidly, would this be apt to influence the size of negotiated settlements? Would it affect pricing decisions? Obviously, the answers must be in the affirmative.
To opt for a decision to ignore inflation is to ignore the critical fact that Canada is a trading nation which is linked in an integral way to the economy of North America, to say nothing of that of many other countries around the world. Nor is inflation a static thing. There is no assurance whatever that in the absence of restraining measures the rise of costs and prices would maintain just the recent rate of increase. On the contrary, inflation feeds on itself if it is left unchecked, eventually gathering the kind of frightening momentum we have witnessed in a number of other countries. One could choose Brazil as an example, where inflation got up to the rate of 100 per cent per annum.
For Canada to adopt a deliberate, long-term policy of ignoring inflation is to invite economic disaster by exposing itself to ruinous foreign competition both at home and abroad. While the effect of such a development might be offset in part by a steady reduction in the exchange rate, the adverse consequences for Canadians as a whole would remain very severe.
I think there is little doubt that the vast majority of Canadians, including the vast majority of the members of this House, are deeply concerned about the impact of inflation and are convinced that we must break
Anti-Inflation Policies
the current spiral of costs and prices. There are, however, differences of opinion about the strategy we should adopt and the emphasis that should be placed on particular implementing policies.
In order to put the present problem in its proper perspective it should be remembered that Canada has just completed nine years of continued economic growth. For example, our gross national product has doubled since 1961, from $39 billion to $78 billion. This is an achievement without precedent in our country which, until the beginning of the last decade, had experienced a never-ending cycle of prosperity followed by recession. Clearly our goal must remain that of maintaining continued economic expansion in order to provide jobs for tens of thousands of young Canadians entering the labour force every year and to provide a rising standard of living for all of us.
To avert the danger posed by inflation, the federal government and the Bank of Canada for some time have employed fiscal and monetary policies aimed at moderating the growth of the economy in order to remove the pressures which set the existing inflationary spiral in motion. Although the government has introduced a number of measures to offset the adverse impact of these policies, particularly in the slow growth regions of Canada, there has inevitably been a moderate increase in unemployment.
I should point out that in the 1970-71 year, expenditures, loans and investments under the regional economic expansion program for the slow growth areas, areas of high unemployment, are estimated at $353.7 million, an increase of $120 million over last year's estimated program. Equalization grants are estimated at $755 million, an increase of $81 million over last year. For 1970-71 the manpower component, that is largely for retraining, in the Manpower and Immigration Department is estimated at $420 million. Other important programs are the farm credit program, the wheat inventory adjustment program, and various public works projects.
Without engaging in the kind of numbers game played by some members of the opposition in recent days, I would stress that the increase in unemployment has been moderate. I mentioned in this House last week that the February rates of unemployment were equalled or exceeded in eight of the past 13 years, and indeed in 1961 reached a record level of 11.2 per cent in the month of February.

April 28, 1970
Anti-Inflation Policies Most hon. members will be aware that the Toronto Star editorially has criticized us for not being sufficiently concerned about the number of Canadians without work. That makes all the more significant an observation by Jack McArthur, the Star's financial editor, in a column last week.
There are two things to keep firmly in mind. Most of our unemployment is not caused by Canadian policies related to inflation; and the increase in joblessness has not been large even though the increase in controversy has been.
Like the Star some members of the opposition have accused us of being overly concerned about inflation and insufficiently concerned about unemployment, as if we had a choice between the two. But inflation and unemployment are not two separate and unrelated problems, only two aspects of the central problem of maintaining strong and steady economic growth in Canada, with relatively full employment and without undue increases in the cost of living, all of which are our aims, and which the government, until the last couple of years, was reasonably successful in achieving over the period from 1961 forward. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in the House last week, "We are fighting inflation in order to prevent greater unemployment in the future."
In a recent speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto, the Governor of the Bank of Canada observed that in choosing the appropriate economic policies we must assess the direction in which the greatest risk lies. He said: Under present conditions, having regard in particular to the state of inflationary expectations and to the strength of the underlying demand factors-
I think these were indicated to some degree in the statistics for proposed capital expenditures brought out by the leader of the New Democratic Party.
-both in the private and public sector, I believe that there is no doubt that the most serious risks lie in allowing inflationary pressures to regain strength.
Perhaps no one has made this crucial point quite as clearly or quite as bluntly as the financial spokesman for the Progressive Conservative party. Speaking during a meeting of the Commons Finance Committee last November 4, the hon. member made clear his own deep concern about the problem of inflation. While he critically questioned some of the measures we had adopted to meet this problem, the hon. member for Edmonton 
West (Mr. Lambert) underlined the danger of failing to persist in our efforts. He said:
If the national effort results in an underkill on this score it will be far worse than the overkill; because if we have a national underkill in this fight against inflation we will have to start all over, and I think the square of zero is going to be much further back again.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Hon. members will recall that only last February this same Commons Finance Committee made a strong recommendation, and I quote:
-that there be no relaxation of current monetary and fiscal policy until it results in a distinct deceleration in the rate of increase in the elements of cost, particularly incomes, and in prices.
Even though there have been some encouraging signs of progress, we still have not reached the point where there has been a clear slowing down in the rise of costs and prices. Nevertheless, there are those who now urge us to reverse the thrust of our monetary and fiscal policies and to promote full-scale economic expansion-in other words, to abandon the fight against inflation. If we were to follow this course, there would undoubtedly be some temporary decrease in unemployment. But we would also court the extreme risk of unleashing new and stronger inflationary pressures that eventually would create havoc in our economy and result in far greater unemployment than that we are now experiencing.
There are those both inside and outside the House who have contended, however, that it is possible to have our cake and eat it too, who have contended it is possible to promote maximum economic growth while at the same time overcoming inflation. When we debated the issue in the House of Commons last February, for example, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) suggested that the problem would somehow be magically solved by the government laying down voluntary wage and price guidelines.
I seriously question whether anything would be accomplished, on balance, by the government proclaiming guidelines which it was quite unable to enforce in any comprehensive way, particularly if the present fiscal and monetary restraints were removed. Contrary to the inference of the Leader of the Opposition, the government has strongly supported the efforts of the Prices and Incomes Commission to develop national support for the exercise of voluntary restraint.
April 28, 1970

Another alternative that has been proposed by the New Democratic Party, and an hon. gentleman in the other place, is that the government go beyond present efforts to achieve voluntary restraint and instead impose sweeping price and income controls on the economy. Speaking in the House during the February debate, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) contended that, as he put it, "we are suffering from managed and administered prices in the most important areas of the economy and they no longer respond to the broad fiscal and monetary policy." Unlike the gentleman in the other place who spoke about the influence of market power in raising costs and prices, the member for York South made no reference to the strong market power exercised also by certain segments of organized labour.
There is little doubt that the lack of perfect competition in our economy and the degree of market power that can be exercised both by certain companies and certain unions aggravate the problem of bringing inflation under control. It should be noted, however, that the increase in prices in the durable goods industries has been significantly less than in other sectors of the economy, even though this is an area where there is a potential for the exercise of market power. Conversely, some of the greatest price increases have taken place in parts of the service sector where the potential for exercising market power is less evident.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Then why is the government introducing consumer credit controls?


Edgar John Benson: While the possibility of being forced to adopt temporary price and income controls under certain conditions cannot be ruled out, such controls would be disruptive to the economy and cause major aggravation to the Canadian people.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Surely, that is an argument against consumer credit controls.


Edgar John Benson: I was talking about price and wage controls.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I was saying that the minister's remarks were an argument against consumer credit controls.


Edgar John Benson: My hon. friend can argue against almost anything.


Robert Muir: At
least he can put up an argument, instead of talking the drivel the minister is talking.
Anti-Inflation Policies


Edgar John Benson: Furthermore, unless a host of other measures were also adopted, such controls would have only a limited effect in containing the inflationary forces in the economy generated from abroad. And certainly controls over prices, wages, salaries and other forms of income are not an adequte long-term solution to the ever-present threat of inflation that will face an economy expanding close to the limits of its growth potential. In addition, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the proposal for price and income controls urged on us by the New Democratic Party does not even have the backing of the Canadian Labour Congress.
In the brief which it presented to the Cabinet on March 23, the Congress observed that the Prices and Incomes Commission had indicated its intention, in the CLC's words, "In effect to exclude from its price reviews all business firms in Canada except a very tiny minority whom it would regard as being in a position to exercise major market power."
Commenting on the position of the Commission, the Congress brief asserted:
All of this is perfectly understandable. It would require a huge government bureaucracy, which would be politically unacceptable (except under wartime conditions), as well as physically impossible to set up in time to monitor a broad range of price increases in 1970.
For its own part, the Labour Congress expressed its concern over inflation, but offered no alternative means of resolving the problem other than through the dismal one of recession. "Wages and profits," the brief maintained, "are heavily influenced by the business cycle, with profits taking the lead and wages lagging behind when the economy emerges from a recession". "On the other hand," the CLC continued, "when the economy begins to turn downward, profits, again being a leading indicator, are the first to decline, followed shortly after by a decline in the rate of wage increases."
The hon. member for York South, Mr Speaker, has accused the government of being hidebound by doctrinaire orthodoxy. I wonder how he would describe the views of his friends in the labour movement about the inevitability of recessions and the necessity of relying on such a harsh cure for inflation. Over the last decade, one of our foremost objectives has been to break with this boom-and-bust pattern of the past and instead seek to maintain strong but stable economic growth. I may point out that this is the course that has been repeatedly recommended by the Economic Council of Canada in successive

April 28, 1970
Anti-Inflation Policies
reports signed by the representatives of organized labour who are members of that body.
In its last Annual Review published in September, 1969, the Council concluded that "fiscal policy in Canada has, for the most part, operated at a setting more consistently appropriate to underlying economic developments since the mid-1960s than has been the case in the United States." In this same context, the Council cautioned that under the circumstances existing at the time further fiscal and monetary restraint-and the operative word is 'further'-could conceivably result simply in higher rates of unemployment and economic slack with no more than a marginal effect on current rates of cost and price increases.
I would point out in this regard that not only has the government not increased the degree of restraint in the interval, but in fact moderately eased that restraint through the budget which I introduced in the House last month. Were we to allow the economy to fall into the kind of recession that the leaders of the Canadian Labour Congress appear to consider inevitable, it is probable that the inflationary spiral would be broken fairly quickly. But as a nation, we would pay dearly in terms of heavy unemployment and lost incomes. To follow the other course, that of seeking gradually to ease the inflationary pressures reverberating through the economy while continuing to maintain reasonable growth necessarily takes much more time and patience.
There are a few hopeful, if still only tentative, signs that these inflationary pressures may be easing. During the last two months the rise in consumer, wholesale and industrial prices appears to have levelled off. During March, the rise in consumer prices represented an increase at an annual rate of 2.4 per cent, compared to the year-to-year increase in the index during 1969 of 4.5 per cent. At the same time, some interest rates have declined significantly from the high levels reached at the turn of the year.
Against these developments must be set the fact that inflationary pressures apparently continue to remain strong in the United States. During March, the U.S. Consumer Price Index rose by half a percentage point and stood 6.1 per cent above the level a year earlier, compared to the year-to-year increase in Canada for the same month of 4.6 per cent.

[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In its brief to the cabinet, the Canadian Labour Congress maintained that the restraints imposed on the economy by the government would soon have an appreciable dampening effect on the rate of wage increases in Canada this year. But in his recent Toronto speech, the Governor of the Bank of Canada pointed out that the average pattern of recent collective bargaining settlements indicate we are continuing to build into the economy average annual wage increases of more than 8 per cent. "These rates of pay increases," he said, "are obviously far in excess of the average productivity growth in our economy and are not compatible with a movement towards price stability."
Because of these kinds of developments at home and abroad, it is obvious that no swift and dramatic results can be expected in our battle against inflation. Diverting the economy from its inflationary course and back to a path of stable growth will, as I said before, take time and patience. Although this policy is not dramatic, it represents a more innovative approach to dealing with the problem of inflation than we have ever followed before in Canada and one that over the long haul is in the best interests of all Canadians.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words about this motion sponsored by my leader. I quote part of the motion:
That this House condemns the government's arrogant acceptance of recession-level unemployment-
I think that is well worded. All we have to do is look across this House at "Trudeau baby". We see arrogance there all the time. As soon as someone asks a question concerning unemployment, the "old shrugger" shrugs his shoulders and either will not give an answer or gives a crazy answer. He will not come down to earth. I continue to quote the motion:
-in slow-growth areas of Canada and cost of living hardships-
Ask the housewives of Canada if they have a cost of living hardship. What is their dollar worth?
-while dogmatically continuing discredited policies-
Instead of the word "dogmatically", I would have used the words stubbornly and stupidly. -that have failed to put the national economy on a non-inflationary upward course.
April 28. 1970

I would have liked to say a few words with regard to the remarks of the previous speaker, but I have other comments to make. However, may I say to the previous speaker, through Your Honour: Ben, get down to earth. Get with the ordinary people. Get out of your ivory tower. Don't let yourself be swayed by academics, fuzzy-wuzzies and the professorial types who surround you. You think everything is fine. You think that all is well in God's heaven and on God's earth.


An hon. Member:: They even write his speeches.


Robert Muir: didn't say that. You have gained the impression that everything is great, that the increase in unemployment is only moderate.


An hon. Member:: You can live on $30 a week.


Robert Muir: Unfortunately, the minister still feels that anyone in Canada can live on $30 a week. I suggest he tell some of these stories to those unemployed people who cannot get a job and are finding it most difficult to support their families. Many members receive letters daily from the unemployed regarding their problems. I do not intend to go into great detail to reply to the drivel just spouted by the minister. There are others in our party and the NDP who will have no difficulty whatsoever refuting what the minister has said.
The degree of the heartlesness of this government is best exemplified by an article that appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald on Thursday, April 23 which contained unemployment figures, province by province, for the Atlantic region. The unemployment figure in Newfoundland stood at 15.3 per cent of the labour force. This would be a shocking rate of unemployment for an under developed nation. However it is the rate of unemployment in a province of Canada that has a Prime Minister who based his drive to the leadership of the Liberal party and the election campaign that followed, on regional economic disparity and the elimination of same. This indicates the degree of gross incompetence of the government in its handling of national affairs.
Last week the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) said in Toronto that regional economic disparity is the number one problem facing this nation. He finally wakened and found out what the
Anti-Inflation Policies
problem was. The Prime Minister told us that in 1968. Then, he undertook a campaign to create unemployment in all areas of this country, including those facing regional economic disparity. The end result is unemployment, hardship, misery and heartache, coupled with frustration for the people who live in the underprivileged areas of this nation. Now, roughly two years after the general election, the government has discovered that its heartlessness has neither solved the problem of inflation nor the gut problem of chronic unemployment. What we find instead of the elimination of regional economic disparity is a more severe degree of unemployment in certain areas of this nation than has ever been the case before.
This government has discovered its policies to be disastrous and devastatingly damaging to the labour force of this nation. There is no good news in Ottawa. There has been no good news in Ottawa for the working men of this country. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) grins and smiles. He had a lot of good things for the Lapalme employees and for the other union people of this country. This shows what he would do if he had full sway in this country as far as the working people and the unions are concerned. He sits and smiles. He sneers. He has probably never been unemployed and probably does not know what it is to pound the streets looking for employment.
The Prime Minister has proven himself to be a calloused, heartless and disinterested observer of the plight of the working man. No man holding the office of Prime Minister has been willing to say "no" to the working man as quickly and as often as this Prime Minister, the great friend of labour. Where is the just society? It has gone out the window. When speaking at Carleton University a few weeks ago he said, hush, hush, let's forget about it. Don't mention it again. It is to be put away until he finds a new slogan or cliche for another election. It has been long forgotten by this over-fifty swinger.
An unemployment rate of 15.3 per cent in Newfoundland means that some of the areas of that province must be suffering from a degree of unemployment that will exceed 25 per cent of the labour force. This is the Canada of today under this Prime Minister. This is the Canada two years after the just society became the hallmark of the Trudeau administration. This is the Canada of participatory democracy-the Prime Minister coined that phrase; actually he stole it from an

April 28, 1970
Anti-Inflation Policies
American election campaign-where you can participate in everything but gainful employment.
Unfortunately for the working man, the statistics for Newfoundland do not improve when you leave that province. Indeed, the labour force of New Brunswick discovered that 11.8 per cent of its members cannot find employment. In Prince Edward Island, 9.7 per cent of the labour force find themselves in the same position. Nova Scotia holds the lowest figure standing at 7.7 per cent. While unemployment in this country is a federal responsibility, I feel that the aggressive activities of the government of Nova Scotia have had something to do with the fact that their unemployment rate is the lowest of all the Atlantic provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Muir: In
the Atlantic region, 10.8 per cent of the labour force is unemployed. The President of the Treasury Board seems to be muttering and mumbling. If he has anything to say that is encouraging for the unemployed of this country, I will be glad to let him have the floor after I finish my speech. He can then state all the wonderful things he is offering to the unemployed of this country. Let's hope this great union lover comes out with a good story, an encompassing expose, stating what he and the government intend to do for the unemployed. I know he has a soft spot in that flintstone heart of his for the labour movement.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
It was once a cornerstone of Liberal manpower policy to assert that an unemployment rate of 5 per cent indicated the nation was feeling the severe effects of a recession. Today, the figure stands at 6.7 yet the government continues to tolerate and, indeed, to bring about rising unemployment as part of its policy to check inflation. It intends to continue this policy even if it means that every man in the country is out of work. It is placing the burden of the fight against inflation on the backs of the half million men and women who are unemployed. And, in my opinion, the figure of 542,000 which has been suggested is, in reality, closer to 600,000, because I do not believe we are getting a true picture of the actual number of the unemployed; so many have become disgusted after going so often to manpower offices and hearing there are no jobs available. The people who

staff the manpower offices cannot help the situation. They are willing to do their best, but there is no employment to offer.
The determination of the Trudeau administration to conquer inflation regardless of the unemployment statistics is exemplified by the stubbornness displayed by the Prime Minister daily in this House. He takes advice from no one but himself and the working man of this country has discovered that his adviser is a damn poor mentor.
Advice has been freely given by my leader as to the way in which inflation can be conquered without placing the burden on the shoulders of the unemployed. Advice has been given by all the candidates for premier, or, should I say, prime minister, in the province of Quebec, including Robert Bourassa, the Liberal leader. And this advice is significantly different from the policy presently being followed by this government. Advice has been offered by economists who have not reverted to the economic philosophy of the 1930's as to how both inflation and unemployment can be checked. But the government hears no one, sees no one and does nothing but create greater unemployment with each passing day.
Have we now arrived at the point at which the economy is out of control and out of the hands of the government manipulators? Are we heading into the worst recession this country has faced since the dirty thirties? These are questions which must be answered in the very near future by both the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), to say nothing of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) and the Minister of Manpower (Mr. MacEachen) who, with the President of Treasury Board are supposed to be the great friends of the working man. All we have received from the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Manpower are flowery words that put neither money in the pockets of the working man, nor bread in his lunch pail. Flower power has failed, but maybe if we listen to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) we will go to pot.
The only place in Canada where unemployment is not a problem is in the Prime Minister's office. Each day we pick up the paper and see the Prime Minister has added another manipulator to his staff, until we realise he has an army of personal procrastinators at an annual cost in excess of $800,000. I am sure that if he continues to get his way, this will be the only army Canada will have.
April 28, 1970

If the government, even at this late date, really believes that regional economic disparity is the number one problem facing the nation, which I believe to be a fact, then let it look at projects such as the Prince Edward Island causeway. They spent millions to have a candidate turn over a sod the day before the election, and I think the Auditor General had something to say about that. However, the government intends to fix him in some way, to put him out of a job.


An hon. Member:: One more unemployed.


Robert Muir: There is the Prince Edward Island causeway or the harnessing of the Bay of Fundy tides to provide power, the type of project which would immediately employ the labour force of the Atlantic region.
We live in an age when statistics are passed out by government agencies, defended when confronted by other statistics, checked by a computer lest a mistake has been made and our slip is showing. Then, they are filed and forgotten. Not only the statistics are filed and forgotten, but also the stories of human tragedy which lie behind those cold and seemingly meaningless statistics.
We talk of 6 per cent unemployment; we talk of 6.5 or 6.7 and we can quote statistics of up to 20 or 25 per cent. But does anyone on the government side stop to think and say: Twenty per cent unemployed? Why, that means one in every five is out of work. One in every five is walking the streets. One in five is facing problems the like of which few of us can comprehend during these days of affluence and plenty. It is the tragedy of Canada in 1970-in the so-called "Just Society". What is the government's attitude to this tragedy? It can be summed up, I think, in the remarks of a man who said, some years ago:
I have known people to stop and buy an apple on the comer and then walk away as if they had solved the whole unemployment problem.
Maybe the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene), though still youthful in appearance, can remember those days when people tried to earn a living by selling apples on street corners. Few of us can comprehend the thinking which has led to unemployment on its present scale in the era of the just society-


An hon. Member:: The age of Aquarius.


Robert Muir: Yes, the age of Aquarius. And the age of the rule of the millionaires in the cabinet of Canada.
Anti-Inflation Policies


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: How did I get into it?


Robert Muir: The
government does not give a damn about creating unemployment. Indeed, it is using unemployment as its chief weapon in the fight against inflation. We raise our hands in horror when we hear of troops herding innocent villagers before them to take the bullets of the enemy. This country should raise its hands in horror that the government of the day is herding innocent citizens before it to take the brunt of inflation. It is true these people will not die physically. But for many life will not longer have meaning. Their agonies will be the cries of their children who must be deprived of some of the very basic necessities of life when they are surrounded by plenty. Is this how the government has to fight inflation? No kidding, Mr. Speaker, there must be other ways.
The Prime Minister of Canada has said he can live with 6 per cent unemployment, and he will not worry. How much different is this statement by the Prime Minister from the voice of yesteryear, that old cliche that still applies, "Let them eat cake"? Do the Prime Minister and his colleagues, his "millionaires row", really know what it is like to walk the streets despairingly looking for work, knowing that all doors are closed; that you are possibly too old at 40; that "sloppy Joes" and spaghetti will be the nearest you will get to a sumptuous feast; that your kids will have to go without shoes even if the ones they have are pinching or full of holes; that those same kids will be denied the opportunity of improving their station in life because incentive dies in poverty? Do they really know these things?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Perhaps I am doing him an injustice. We know that the Prime Minister is prepared to sleep with a high rate of unemployment. We also know that unemployment is a painful side effect in the fight against inflation. The Prices and Incomes Commission has issued a pamphlet on this very issue. As the House knows, this Commission is headed up by the man who has received a tan from the television camera lights that are always shining on him; I am referring to Mr. Young.


Thomas Miller Bell: He is like the Minister of Justice.


Robert Muir: Yes, and he is just about as active as far as talking and doing nothing are concerned.

April 28, 1970
Anti-Inflation Policies


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired, unless he has unanimous consent to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir).


Robert Muir: wish to thank hon. members of the House for giving me a few moments; I shall not abuse that privilege. This pamphlet to which I was referring contains this paragraph:
In the meantime, however, it will be difficult to avoid temporary but painful side-effects-higher unemployment and a loss of production affecting every region of Canada.
That is a profound statement! I should know this character who heads up the Prices and Incomes Commission because I have seen him so often on television. He really has a job for himself. He is going to make up the Canadian content for television that Pierre Juneau is going to enforce before too long. Let us have some action from him. Let him do something as head of the Prices and Incomes Commission. I would appreciate it if this great wonder from the west would really do something apart from making these unrealistic speeches of his in which he damns labour. The government, of course, does the same thing. Every opportunity they get they damn labour and the unions. They have no time for either. The same policy is being followed by this Commission.
With regard to this statement by the Commission, I should like to ask to whom these side-effects are going to be painful. Are they going to be painful to Mr. Young, or to the Prime Minister, or to the cabinet ministers of this government? No, they are not. Higher unemployment will not affect them. I suppose the government wishes the unemployed to tell their children, when they ask for shoes and for the bare necessities of life, to adopt the motto of Mr. Young and company, which I suggest should be hung up on the wall so these children can see it when they are trying to get themselves a meal.
There is criticism throughout the country of this government's rigid policy which has brought many areas to the brink of recession. The Fredericton Daily Gleaner for April 20 had this to say:
In the Atlantic provinces, where the unemployment rate has for decades been greater than that of the rest of the nation, the policy of economic restraint is pushing unemployment to intolerable levels.

There are, moreover, increasing doubts that policies which tend to reduce production can really be the right remedy for inflation, which by definition is a condition in which demand exceeds supply or "too many dollars chasing too few goods." The flaw in the remedy is particularly obvious in areas like the Atlantic provinces where production standards and totals were already below rational or acceptable standards.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am a long way from being an economist, but I always felt that inflation could be defeated without creating massive unemployment. It would appear that economists throughout the country agree. The President of the Treasury Board smiles. He does not really seem to be upset about unemployment, and this is the traditional attitude of the government; they are not too excited about it. I would ask the President of the Treasury Board to consider the thinking of these economists who have stated that it is not necessary to have unemployment to fight inflation.
I make that appeal to the minister. I suppose my words will fall on deaf ears, but I am told that the minister has a lot of influence in the cabinet. Certainly, he must have some influence in crushing labour unions and working hardships on labour, so I presume he must have some influence among the seats of power in the government. Therefore, I appeal to the government to cease this headlong plunge into policies which I feel cannot but bring hardship to the unemployed of this country and their dependants.
Having started on this downward spiral, how are we going to stop it? I observe in the House this afternoon the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. Flemming) who, as the House knows, was formerly the premier of the province of New Brunswick. When a previous Liberal government instituted a tight money policy, one of their many infamous policies, he asked the then federal government with regard to the policies it was applying, if a man had 10 children-and we have ten provinces in Canada-and he had to apply a remedy to fight a case of constipation, would he give all of his children a dose of castor oil? Would he treat them all the same? This seems to be the remedy that the government is applying right across the country from Newfoundland to British Columbia. In some of the underprivileged areas of Canada, such as in the Atlantic provinces, portions of Quebec, parts of the west and Ontario, this remedy would not have any effect.
One is all right, of course, if one lives in that stretch between Windsor, Toronto and
April 28, 1970

Montreal, close to the United States border, where building is going on all the time and there appears to be plenty of jobs. But this is not the case in western Canada or in eastern Canada, so why does the government make all of the people across Canada suffer under these crude, cruel policies?


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the privilege or opportunity of listening to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) when he introduced this motion. Indeed, I can only assume that it was the Leader of the Opposition who introduced the motion since it is in his name. Unfortunately, I had to be out of the House at the time. I do not know what he said, but I feel that the wording of the motion is particularly unfortunate.
The hon. gentleman condemns this government's "arrogant acceptance of recession-level unemployment". There is nothing arrogant about the government accepting recession-level unemployment. As usual with this party across the way, the hon. gentleman confuses the central problem of unemployment with the fight against inflation. He ties the whole thing together and assumes that there is an arrogant acceptance of a dreadful situation. It is too bad because whenever you are dealing with people who are out of work you should not treat that situation lightly; it is something to consider as seriously as possible in order to try and find remedies. It always has been thus.
o (5:00 p.m.)
This government, like any other government, could certainly use intelligent guidance. So far, it has received none.


Robert Muir: You
can say that again.


Edmund Boyd Osler: So far it has received none this afternoon. That is only a minor qualification, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Miller Bell: How about the speech by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson)?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I heard that one. I thought it was a pretty fair speech anyway. Unfortunately, the problem of unemployment has been with us for too long, and it has nothing to do with inflation. What about 1938 and 1939, the figures for which were given in the House the other day in another exchange, when 18.6 per cent of the people were unemployed?
Anti-Inflation Policies


An hon. Member:: Under a Liberal
government.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It may have been a Liberal government but that was at a time of great world wide depression.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What about in 1873?


Edmund Boyd Osler: In 1961, the unemployment figure was 11 per cent, and it was not a Liberal government then. In 1968, it was 6.4 per cent, and in March of this year, 1969, it was 6.7 per cent. I would say that to mix the two problems, the fight against inflation and the very serious problem of nagging unemployment, is to do less than a service to the people of Canada in view of the figures I have quoted. In view of these figures, we have to say to ourselves that we have too much unemployment too often.
In 1966, before the fight against inflation had begun, the average annual rate of unemployment was 3.6 per cent, and in 1968 it was 4.8 per cent. It is somewhat more at the moment. Again, I would suggest that this tells us that the problem of inflation is separate from the problem of nagging unemployment, which is brought on either by a great depression like in the 1930's, which God knows we hope will not happen again, or by technological upgrading of the demands on people who are employed. Nowadays people require higher skills, and through no fault of their own the people who are unemployed to a great degree are under educated, at least a great percentage of them. I shall return to what can be done about that later.
There are other special circumstances such as the collapse of the grain market, which has affected Saskatchewan and has put its unemployment figure up 2J per cent higher this year than it was last year. Presumably lack of confidence in Quebec has put that province's figure up also, although by not nearly as great a percentage as in the case of Saskatchewan. However, inflation, which the government is making a valiant effort to fight, was also one of the causes of the plight in which the Saskatchewan farmer finds himself, and the government is attempting to do something so that he will not continue to be caught in the cost-price squeeze.
I would not like anybody to tell farmers that it is quite all right for the prices of everything they buy to keep on going up and up. The fact is that the poor old farmer has to produce two or three times as much to earn his living, and the result has been that he has

April 28. 1970
Anti-Inflation Policies
grown so much that all the produce cannot be sold. Inflation is not something to be bandied about. If we look at the figures for the past 13 years, Mr. Speaker, we see that since 1958, in Canada as a whole, unemployment in March has equalled or exceeded its present level-I am talking about the unadjusted figures because some people do not seem to understand the implications of the adjusted figures-eight times during those 13 years. In March 1961, it was 11.2 per cent, a lot worse than it is now.
In the Atlantic provinces as a whole, and I know Newfoundland has had the worst experience of all of them, in ten of the last 13 years the unemployment situation was worse than it is today. In the Atlantic provinces in March, 1958, the unemployment figure was 19.8 per cent. I am not bandying these figures around in order to get the government out from under its responsibilities, but I am trying to say it is dishonest to couple the fight against inflation with the fight against unemployment. These figures prove the exact reverse, that unemployment is a thing that has been here for a great deal longer than the fight against inflation has been in progress.
It does not appear that the fight against inflation has caused much unemployment in the areas that are most in trouble at the moment, but the figures do suggest that regional economic expansion and manpower retraining policies have been badly needed for a long time, and are still badly needed, and that they are appropriate to getting-


John Howard Lundrigan: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Edmund Boyd Osler: When I have finished my speech I shall be glad to accept a question from the hon. member. The policies that the government is trying to follow in the areas of manpower training and regional expansion are an honest attempt to get at the root causes that have been there for a long time, and which still persist today. It is perfectly fine for members of the opposition parties to say that the particular way in which the government is attacking these problems is something with which they disagree. That is their privilege and prerogative, but I resent their suggestion that there is something sinister, arrogant or what have you about what the government is doing, or that the government is doing nothing.
I would like to repeat what other people have said, that the choice is not between inflation and unemployment, it is between the

level of unemployment that we have now and the level that we will have if we do not fight inflation. The situation we have got now is bad and we have to improve it. We are trying to improve it. If we do not persist in the fight against inflation it will get a hundred times worse, and as we price ourselves out of world markets we will have nowhere to sell anything. We depend on world markets to a greater extent than many other countries.
The timing of the use of controls to fight inflation again is an area where people may have genuine differences of opinion. It is perfectly honest and honourable for someone to say, "Now is the time to take them off," or "Now is the time to put them on." As the Minister of Finance pointed out, the Conservative party financial critic last November was saying his worry was not about what the Minister of Finance was doing, but about what he might not do. He was advocating, "Don't underkill. Don't take off your restrictions. Don't stop this fight against inflation." That was only in November. He may feel differently today, I do not know; he has not said. But my point is that it is a matter of an honest difference of opinion between people who are frankly looking at the situation and trying to see what can be done about it. But again there is nothing arrogant, deceptive or dogmatic about the way this government is conducting this fight.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I know that people find it difficult to accept adjusted and unadjusted figures. If you compare things annually, there is no need to use adjusted figures, and I have not done so until this moment. If you compare things on a less than an annual basis, you have to use adjusted figures in order to get a fair comparison. This is perhaps open to question, but Mr. Braithwaite of the Globe and Mail in his "Report on Business" wrote on April 23-


Robert Muir: Why
don't you quote from a Wall Street journal?


Edmund Boyd Osler: -that of all the unemployed at present-which I agree is too high a figure and usually is too high-perhaps 12,000 are out of work because of the inflationary policy, and the rest are out of work because of regional problems, seasonal problems, etc. I suggest again that we do ourselves no service by sloughing over the regional and seasonal problems. In my own part of the world, all building used to come to an end in the winter time. I do not know where we got our know-
April 28, 1970

how, perhaps from visiting Russia where they have been doing it for years; but people have learned how to carry on building in the winter time so now there is a reasonable pace of construction in Winnipeg in winter. Construction workers are not laid off automatically as soon as winter arrives, like they used to be.
We have to conquer problems of that sort if we are ever to get away from this seasonally adjusted employment. Recently, at a meeting of the mayors of municipalities, the conclusion was reached that urban unemployment was caused by the fight against inflation. I look upon that conclusion with suspicion, unless they had later figures than have been available so far, because in their outlook for 1970 the Dominion Bureau of Statistics stated that the total capital spending intentions for the current year appear to be a 7 per cent increase to about $17.6 billion, which would include some price inflation. Thus, it seems to me that the statistics provide no evidence that the slowdown in capital investment has contributed to rising unemployment in urban areas generally.
The particular mayor who made that statement is the Mayor of Saskatoon. It is possible he has a very serious problem because of conditions in Saskatchewan; but again I say, le us not confuse his problem with the fight against inflation. Let us get to the root of the matter which is to secure world markets for the produce which western farmers have been growing in the expectation they could sell anything they could grow. This survey by DBS showed that the Atlantic provinces expected a 6 per cent increase in capital spending; Quebec, about 6 per cent; British Columbia, about 14 per cent; and the prairies about the same as before, no increase. So, it does not appear that inflation is the culprit here.
I think it was particularly tragic, in view of the association that the New Democratic Party has with labour movements, that Mr. Walter Reuther should have made such a blunt and critical attack upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at a recent meeting in the United States. In the first place, as a Canadian, I find it very annoying to hear a man, whether he is a labour union leader, a capitalist or a functionary in the government of a foreign country, make a personal attack on the Prime Minister of my country. If I were a member of another party, I would feel the same way. The Prime Minister of our country is our Prime Minister no matter of what
Anti-Inflation Policies
party he is a member, at present and I do not like to hear foreigners criticizing him.
I took the trouble to look up a few facts in relation to this attack and I find that whoever advised Mr. Reuther misinformed him. One of the allegations he made was that the Prime Minister deliberately attempted to cut down health and welfare programs and to somehow or other undermine provincial efforts in this direction. Again, the figures prove this not to be so. In this year's estimates we have $156 million new dollars going into fiscal transfers, $95 million new dollars into hospitals, $70 million into medicare, $49 million into post secondary education, $38 million into the Canada Assistance Plan; and there are increases in regular federal programs that are very close to health and welfare such as regional economic expansion, Indian affairs, and manpower development, which amount to $135 million or $140 million. So, the next time an important foreign labour leader-who has, I think, in many ways done a very fine job for his own people-starts sounding off about our Prime Minister, I hope he takes care that he gets better information.


Robert Muir: He
is telling the truth.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I do not know how one can bang this into some people's heads. I have made my point by giving figures, and yet I hear someone say that what the man said was true. It seems very difficult. However, the facts will be on the record.


Robert Muir: working man like you knows all about labour.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) has the floor.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I consider that some people work in some ways, other people work in other ways, and some people happen to be employed at the moment and others are not. The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys and I, luckily, both happen to be employed at present; so his remark was irrelevant if it was personal.


Robert Muir: I was
unemployed many times under the Grits.


Edmund Boyd Osler: You are having better luck this time.


Robert Muir: The
people see to that.

April 28, 1970
Anti-Inflation Policies


Edmund Boyd Osler: On manpower retraining, which I think is the long term guts of this situation-


Robert Muir: But
you ain't got it.


Edmund Boyd Osler: -there is a similar trend. In 1969, 320,000 people were retrained. One can assume that a large degree of unemployment is caused by the fact that people do not happen to be sufficiently competent to take the sophisticated jobs that they are required to take today. It is nobody's fault, it just happens that people are required to do more exacting tasks in this changing age than they used to do. Last year, thanks to manpower training programs, 320,000 people were retrained.
In the Atlantic provinces $55 per head of the labour force was spent and it diminishes to $20 in British Columbia. But right across Canada between $20 and $55-that is the scale-was spent on manpower training per head of the labour force last year. One can argue that this is insufficient and one can demand that the government spend more. This is a perfectly legitimate demand; but do not say that the government is not trying, because it is simply not true.
Some 55 per cent of the trainees were unemployed when they started their training. About $100,000 of the money that was spent was spent on those who were unemployed and living below the poverty line. About 43 per cent of the trainees had grade 8 or less education, and 22,000 had less than grade 6 education. How can one expect a man to gain a living wage if he has less than grade 6 education, unless he is a natural genius and there are not too many of them?
So manpower retraining is on the right track. This year the government will spend $273 million to train adult workers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but it appears that his time has expired. He can only continue with unanimous agreement.


Robert Muir: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think this great dissertation should be continued. I am sure we all agree on that. Maybe the hon. member will say something shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member appears to have some kind of agreement which will allow him to continue beyond his allotted time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Edmund Boyd Osler: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members for allowing me to continue. 1 shall be only a moment. Eighty per cent of the 8,000 students who were retrained under manpower retraining courses last year, and whose progress was followed, obtained jobs within three months after completing their courses, as against 41 per cent of the people who had not taken the course. The income of the retrained people had increased by approximately $55 a month within that three month period. So, I would say that the government is not being cynical and not being indifferent.


An hon. Member:: It is being incompetent.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Being composed of human
beings, any government may make mistakes. Any government does some things which are wrong. I have lived through times when governments that were not Liberal governed, and the country managed to survive. So, you cannot say this government is arrogant, callous, indifferent and does not give a damn.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Anyone would be stupid to say so. For heaven's sake, how does any politician hope to be re-elected if he makes no effort to help people and do things for people? The hon. member's arguments are specious and I was disappointed that they were the best arguments that could be raised on an allotted opposition day.
Manpower retraining is doing a good job. It ought to be accelerated; it may well have to be re-evaluated, changed and if possible made better. The government's regional economic program is only just beginning to roll in high gear and is only starting to have a meaningful effect. It will be some time before we can be sure we are on the right track this time.


Robert Muir: In
the meantime, we are starving to death.


Edmund Boyd Osler: We hope the program will bring about the desired results. Regional economic development must continue; there must be greater accent on regional economic expansion. Perhaps, since I come from a region that is relatively unfortunate when compared with certain areas of the central and western provinces, I may be excused for saying that perhaps we ought to look at the power structure itself. Perhaps we ought to look at constitu-
April 28, 1970

tional reform. I believe in this country from the bottom of my heart, but perhaps the constitution ought to be taken apart, examined closely and perhaps altered a bit. My part of the world could have been considered a colony 100 years ago, but now it is a viable economic entity of its own. The people there feel that the ground rules may well need to be changed somewhat in the second 100 years of their participation in confederation. Theirs are legitimate hopes and aspirations.
Knowing that the fight against inflation will take a long time, I was personally disappointed that the Minister of Finance could not see his way to adding something for our older people by way of old age supplements.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I still hope we can persuade him to do so. By saying that, I am not suggesting he is not genuinely attempting to fight inflation and that this government is not genuinely attempting to overcome the problems of regional disparity. I, therefore, suggest that it is too bad this motion was brought before the House in its present form, because it smacks of politics when dealing with a very serious matter that a lot of people are thinking about a lot of the time. They are thinking about it as seriously as they can.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member will permit a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question cannot be asked of the hon. member at the present time unless there is unanimous consent. The hon. member has gone beyond his time. Is there agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the hon. member and tried to discover something worth while in his speech. He mentioned something about unemployment. May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he thinks the government feels that unemployment is just a dirty rumour started by a lot of people who are out of work?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member asked that question, because it is obvious he did not pay much attention to me. I used facts and figures ad nauseam. I do not like using them but I used them ad nauseam to illustrate that we have a very serious unemployment situation that, to my mind, is 22218-57
Anti-Inflation Policies
unacceptable. We have had it for too many years and there must be great stress in cleaning up this unemployment permanently so that our people are not put into that position again. I was trying to say that our problems of lasting unemployment are not the same as the problems involved with the question of inflation. I felt it was somewhat naive to refer to the two matters together in one motion.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Before the next participant in the debate is recognized, may I take this opportunity to make an announcement to the House that, according to the Standing Orders, ought to have been made a little earlier. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Indian Affairs-discontinuance of school lunch program; the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Pollution-air-establishment of national scientific centre; the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Stafford)-Administration of justice-suggested salary increase for federally appointed judges.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the present debate, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) introduced the following motion: That this House condemns the government's arrogant acceptance of recession-level unemployment in slow-growth areas of Canada and cost-of-living hardships generally while dogmatically continuing discredited policies that have failed to put the national economy on a non-inflationary upward course.
Mr. Speaker, as the representative in the House of an area where unemployment exists on a permanent basis, partly because of the stubbornness of the Minister of Regional Eco-

April 28, 1970
Anti-Inflation Policies
nomic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) who refuses to be fair to the Saint-Hyacinthe area and because of the opposition to progress and lack of imagination of the ministers responsible for the situation we are now facing, it was a pleasure for me to second the motion. I wanted to make a few comments anyway and take part in the debate which aims at improving the situation for those who, momentarily and often permanently, are affected by unemployment.
Unemployment can eradicate understanding within a family as well as its well-being. It creates worry and fear for the future.
It affects not only heads of families but also young people. It is a source of concern and confusion for them. On the occasion of a study made by the JOC, the national president of that organization, Mr. Henri-Paul Labonte, granted an interview to the press during which he stated, and I quote:
"The naked truth is that young people have to wait to get married because there is no work in sight for them."
"The truth is that young people are broken after six months, a year out of work. There are the "disgusted ones" in Drummondville who have nothing better to do than to play pool, to go to the tavern. They no longer look for a job. They do not feel like it any more."
And here is how he concluded his interview:
"For us,.. .unemployment is a "bleeding hole" in our flesh, a leak draining the hope and wealth of 60,000 of us, a breach in our faith in the nation".
In my opinion, the government should take note of these remarks, which are certainly similar to those of a great number of young people, and use every possible means to stop unemployment before irreparable harm is done.
I regret the absence of several Liberal members who slip away from the House when a subject as important as unemployment is discussed here. There can be no doubt that what is going on in the province of Quebec explains why these Quebec members who should also be concerned with unemployment have chosen to go and help Mr. Bou-rassa who is seeking to become the Premier of Quebec. But I believe their efforts will fail, because I am confident people of Quebec will see through them.
The purpose of the present debate is not to examine the results of the election campaign being conducted in the province of Quebec, but to consider the problem of unemployment. It is a paradox, Mr. Speaker, to find that a political party which promised during

the 1968 compaign to create a "just society" throughout Canada should be the very same to take action liable to create unemployment. The people of Canada would have been justified in expecting another treatment from government members who seem to be implementing methods which can only result in depriving Canadian workers of the jobs they so badly need.
No wonder, therefore, that the Canadian people are disillusioned after being swept off their feet in the last election and for not having learned from past experience which, as the old saying goes, foreshadows the future.
Mr. Speaker, since the country needs to be developed, the government should set up programs likely to give a new impetus to the economy instead of implementing restrictive measures.
Has a government which really has the welfare of the people at heart, ever been seen to take steps with a view to slowing down development? Yet, this is what is doing in 1970 the Liberal government which has always claimed to be a saviour and a promoter of welfare, and promised heaven on earth. The present government does its best to check development. I find that very difficult to understand and I shall certainly never be able to convince government members to do something other than to follow the course they have set for themselves.
The government claims that people must be thrown out of work in order to stop inflation. That is also very difficult to understand. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who was often asked to say what rate of unemployment would enable the government to maintain its present administration, had wanted to give an answer, it might be possible to explain the attitude of the government. But whenever members of the opposition have tried to obtain information on the policy of the government as regards the rate of unemployment required to check inflation, they have come up against stubborn silence and unqualifiable arrogance, all this to the detriment of the general public.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
It might be interesting to know what some people have to say about the government's policy. I shall not borrow any evidence from the Conservatives, but I shall quote the words of someone who once was Secretary of State in the cabinet of the Right Hon. Lester B.
April 28, 1970

Pearson and who therefore was a colleague of several present ministers in the Trudeau government.
Here is what Hon. Maurice Lamontagne had to say, as reported in Montreal-Matin, on Friday April 3, 1970:
The lack of realism of Benson's last budget, Mr. Lamontagne said, the restraints imposed on credit especially on durable goods, will contribute to increase unemployment without curtailing price increases, or if the restraints work, it will be at an inhuman social cost.
That was uttered by a Liberal. The quotation goes on:
The net result of Benson's last budget, the Liberal senator said, will be that the poor will become so poor, and the weak so weak, that the rich and the powerful will no longer be able to exploit them any further by marking up their prices.
A little further Senator Lamontagne said:
I do not hesitate to say that to apply monetary and fiscal policies aiming at discouraging demand is a roundabout, awkward and ineffective method of fighting, as far as demand is concerned, an inflation due to permanent structural causes.
As reported on page 14 of its brief submitted last February, the C.N.T.U. had this to say:
The C.N.T.U. believes that the most serious problem now facing Canada is the problem of unemployment. of regional economic disparities and social inequities. The fight against unemployment and not inflation is the top priority, even though it is in the best interests of Canada to make every effort in order to keep price increases within limits compatible with its competitive position on the international markets.
Those two testimonies blame the government for taking an unrealistic attitude in establishing our national priorities.
I would also like to say a few words about the creation of 100,000 jobs as promised by Mr. Bourassa to Quebec electors. I would like to know where he will find the money to carry out that promise. When he claims that with a Liberal premier in Quebec, there would be no more unemployment, does Mr. Bourassa mean that the federal government is ready to co-operate with a Liberal provincial government, but not with another?
In my opinion, it is quite easy to answer that question.
Perhaps I should not elaborate further on this point as you may be trying to indicate from your frown that I am not in order.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?
22218-57J
Anti-Inflation Policies


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member for St. Boniface to reserve his question until I am through with my remarks and I will be pleased to answer it then.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, the reason-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for St. Hyacinthe has the floor just for another few minutes. I think that in all fairness he should be allowed to complete his remarks.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, the reason why I would like to put my question now is that my hon. friend seems to be venturing into politics-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I remind the hon. member that the member for Saint-Hyacinthe has the floor and suggest that he let him finish his comments.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I think the
remark of my hon. friend from St. Boniface is childish. He says that I am venturing into politics. It is difficult to do otherwise in the House. I believe every member is here because he got into politics and we must keep at it if we want to stay in Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, everyone wonders who is to blame for unemployment. Is it the provincial government or the federal government?
I well recall that, when our party was in power, from 1957 to 1963, the Liberals who were then sitting on this side of the House, had shown clearly and categorically that unemployment was the responsibility of the central government. It is therefore surprising to find today that the same people would like to convince the Canadian people, and particularly the people of Quebec, that it is not the central government but the provincial government that is responsible.
I admit that this may be quite fair for the Prime Minister's delegate, who is travelling through Quebec trying to get himself elected, and that it may also be quite fair for him to try and convince the people of Quebec that this is so, but the facts being what they are, one must recognize that the central government must bear a very large part of the responsibility when it comes to finding ways to prevent unemployment and jobs for those who wish to work.
In an article published on April 20, 1970, in he Devoir, Mr. Claude Lemelin asks the following question:
Who bears the responsibility for unemployment?

April 28, 1970
Anti-Inflation Policies
The article reads in part as follows, and I quote:
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Who is responsible for unemployment? Who can check it? Ottawa or Quebec?
Mr. Jean Pellerin stated last Friday that unemployment is "a continental phenomenon that no single effort can counteract to a worthwhile extent". According to the editorial writer of La Presse, nobody, so to speak, is to blame for the increased unemployment. This shows a somewhat surprising indulgence for the former members of Cite Libre- more especially as, according to the Minister of Finance himself, the central government expected its deflationary policies to curtail an increasing number of jobs.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must remind him that his time has expired. He can only continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and also the members opposite.
In conclusion, Mr. Lemelin said, and I quote:
After all, were Ottawa following at this time a policy of full employment, the rate of unemployment would probably reach 6 per cent at the most in the province of Quebec. Now, at mid-March, 9.2 per cent of the Quebec labour force were unemployed. It is, therefore, difficult not to blame the Trudeau government for the unemployment of approximately 90,000 Quebecers-namely 4.0 per cent of the labour force.
This is a tremendous figure. And, under the circumstances, this is equivalent to brinkmanship.
During this debate, several government members only criticized and found rather strange that the opposition took advantage of this day allocated to them to discuss the matter of unemployment and place the responsibility on the government.
According to the Liberal government, which takes the responsibility for unemployment, the opposition should do nothing that may incur blame. Now, it is the duty of any opposition which has the welfare of the Canadian people at heart to seize every opportunity to criticize the policy or lack of policy of the government. It is a mainly constructive criticism which, we hope, will shake the government a little out of the inertness in which it is wallowing at the moment, for the misfortune of the unemployed.
One has to know several families suffering from unemployment to realize to what extent the government must make every effort to bring forth solutions likely to provide jobs for those willing to work.

Talking with a mother who cannot clothe and feed her children and trying to comfort such a family is distressing. Even if it were to cost the Canadian people a few dollars to do away with that curse, I doubt that the government would be blamed by the people. But, on the contrary, if unemployment persists, it will harm not only the families concerned but national unity.
I urge the government to use every possible means to put an end to the curse of unemployment, so that those families that are now in dire straits can again live normally as they are entitled to.


Mr. Guay (Si. Boniface):: Before the
member for Saint-Hyacinthe closes his remarks, I should like to put the following question to him: What would you suggest to the government, what is your policy, and that of your party-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! The hon. member knows that he must speak to the Chair and that he cannot ask his questions directly to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe what he thinks, what is his policy and what solutions he has in mind in order, as he said himself, to curb inflation. I should like to point out to the House that the opposition never made any concrete proposals to us-


Mr. Speaker:: In that case, the hon. member cannot make a speech. He can ask a question only provided he has the unanimous consent of the House, since the time allowed the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe has expired. The question being asked, the hon. member could perhaps give a concise answer.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Yes, in a few minutes only, Mr. Speaker. As a quick solution, I should ask the hon. member for Saint-Boniface first to exert pressures on the Prime Minister so as to have him limit his own staff instead of expanding it, and reduce also the extravagant expenditures going on in some departments, for office furnishings for instance and finally to reconsider the establishment of Information Canada. That agency is getting ready to squander money and if the hon. member would only agree to exert such pressures, I believe the unemployed would be most grateful to him.
April 28, 1970


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate on the motion introduced by the official opposition, I can only start by saying that it is up to the people to decide whether we can live with inflation or unemployment. Having listened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) this afternoon and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who has spoken in the House on numerous occasions on this subject, it is clear to me that they believe it is for the people to choose either inflation or unemployment. The Prime Minister has stated so categorically. He has made it clear that the government is prepared to accept a high level of unemployment, and in fact appears to encourage it, in the interest of fighting inflation.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) admitted that unemployment is at the crisis level. Cornwall, Ontario, has been described as the most job-depressed city in Canada. Plant closures have resulted in an unemployment level of 30 per cent. It is little wonder that the opposition wanted to know what the government planned to do about the crisis in Cornwall. A question directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) seemed an appropriate place to start. The minister did not seem to think so. He wondered out loud why the opposition was so concerned about Cornwall. "If it is unemployment you are worried about", he said, "I can point to many other cities in Canada where unemployment is more serious". We have known this for some time, but this is the first time the government has admitted it.
This afternoon data was produced by members of the House concerning the level of unemployment across Canada. In fact, in Saskatchewan-excluding the farm situation -unemployment is in excess of 12 pier cent. This does not appear in DBS figures, but it is the situation that exists. As I listened to the Minister of Finance this afternoon and heard how the government plans to
Anti-Inflation Policies
help Canadians survive inflation, by causing unemployment, I was reminded of the story of a man who was training his horse to live without food. He had just succeeded when the horse died. I suggest to the House that this is exactly the attitude the government is taking. That is why the motion introduced by the official opposition is quite in order. We in this party have no hesitation in supporting it 100 per cent.
The Prime Minister is putting great stress on the position taken by the economists-a position which I find incredible. I think it is only right that one should look, for an example, to countries other than our own to support one's argument, particularly in view of the fact that economists have different points of view on how to combat inflation and cope with unemployment. I could think of no better place to look than in a publication put out by Loeb, Rhoades and Co., a member of the New York Stock Exchange, which certainly is not recognized as being left of centre. In it there are "Fables For Our Time," and I quote:
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
There had been no open season for many a year, and the deer had multiplied in profusion. In their search for food they had forayed into the fields surrounding the woods in ever increasing numbers and had become quite a nuisance to the farmers. So the villagers called a council and decided to organize a great hunt. They were an impressive, even frightening sight as they approached the woods in their resplendent outfits, armed with threatening weapons of varying sizes and exhorting each other loudly to mighty deeds of destruction. But, alas, years of inexperience in this specific pursuit had somewhat blunted the acuity of their vision and their aim, and the deer had become strong, stealthy and more fleet footed than ever. So when a temporary halt was called after quite a while for a tally, the hunters had nothing to show for their strenuous efforts but three dead cows and several maimed hunters. "This is quite a bag," proclaimed one of the villagers; "perhaps we had better call it a day." "But we have not even sighted our quarry," objected another.
That reminds me of the Prices and Incomes Commission.
"Silly boy," replied a third who was held in particular esteem by his fellow citizens for having attended the University of Chicago. "We have given those deer a terrible scare, and every fool knows that after a somewhat indeterminate time lag they will just lie down and die. As a matter of fact, considering how we have scared each other, we may have already overdone it. Perhaps we had better throw them some hay lest they become as extinct as common sense economics."
This fable is characteristic of the situation now being faced by the Canadian people. Is the government going to tell the people who

April 28, 1970
Anti-Inflation Policies
are without work, and the communities in slow-growth areas where unemployment is rife, where families without income are faced with daily increases in the cost of living, that all is right with the world? These are the people who really have to pay grocery bills, dry goods bills and all the other bills incurred by a household. I believe that in saying unemployment is not all that bad the government is doing a disservice to the country, to the people it is supposed to represent.
The forgotten people of this country are those on fixed incomes and those who have low pensions. But these people count, Mr. Speaker. However, the government has no communication with them and thus cannot find out what unemployment and inflation are all about. What is the point in proclaiming victory in the fight against inflation if all that has happened so far is that unemployment is up and prices are rising? The government looks upon poverty with no degree of concern whatsoever. When the government talks about poverty it is nothing but pious prattle. We must ask ourselves, what is poverty? What does it do to the people who experience it? What can those living in poverty do for themselves? What can we do about poverty? How can we see that something is done? Is living with unemployment the answer? Anybody with a sense of economics must know that the government cannot solve the problem by creating more unemployment.
I am sure the government will go down in history as the one that methodically and deliberately created a recession in 1970 as a means of solving the problem of inflation. This policy must be rejected. The motion before this House is quite valid in so far as it is a proper criticism of the government. As the CRLA brief to the government said-
Lest these unemployed become mere statistics in a publication, it should be pointed out that in the latter months of 1969, between a quarter and one-third of those unemployed have been without work for more than four months of the year, a serious indictment of the government's record in this area.
Again, if we look at the situation of the unemployed in the rubber plants, in the agricultural industry, the auto industry, the farm machinery industry and all other industries based on agricultural production generally, we can only come to the conclusion that the government is really not concerned. If one reads the letters that some of the main financial institutions have sent to their branch managers, dealing with farm improvement loans, one can see how these institutions are

using the government for their own purposes. I quote from one such letter sent to me:
I refer to your letter of March 10 in which you enquire as to the bank's policy regarding the interest rate applied to farm improvement loans which go into default and require to be extended-
As you know, last November the farm improvement loan regulations were amended with respect to the interest rate which may be charged when the terms of the loan require to be revised, and our branch managers are expected to keep this feature in mind when dealing with the individual situations where default has occurred.
Here is another reply I received:
Where it is thought that a revision of repayment terms will enable a farmer to meet his obligations, our managers are expected to arrange the revision.
Here is another letter:
Regarding your inquiry, in advising our branches of the recent changes in the farm improvement loans regulations, we instructed them to apply the current rate of interest when the original terms of a loan are revised.
Here is another:
-our branches have been advised of the amendment in the farm improvement loan regulations. This permits the lender to alter or revise the rate of interest at the time a revision of repayment terms is being considered, with a view to rescheduling the original terms so that the borrower can meet his obligations without defaulting the debt.
In granting such requests for a revision of terms it is our policy to do so at the rate of interest currently permissible-
Here is another letter:
It has always been the bank's policy to revise the terms of farm improvement loans when the borrower is in default and the manager considers that such revision will enable the borrower to meet the obligation and is appropriate in the light of the borrower's financial position. The rate of interest charged by the bank in such circumstances conforms to the farm improvement loan regulations.
Questions have been asked of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) about farm improvement loans, and invariably he has answered that the financial institutions are co-operating with the government. However, these letters give a clear indication of the intentions of these institutions, and they will not change their intentions unless the government, by regulation, forces them to remember that they are dealing with human beings. Finally, I wish to quote from a letter written by an individual who has been affected by the practices of these institutions. It reads in part:
Thank you for your concern in writing to the various major Canadian banks.
April 28. 1970

It is of little consolation to us as individuals when the government of Canada sees to it that its "hogs" are well fed at our expense.
I believe that puts the situation exactly and in very few words. It also indicates that the government is giving no consideration to people who are not in a position to meet their obligations. If the government had any concern whatsoever for the nation, it would put some ready cash into the pockets of the farmers. Any member on the government side who suggests that through the LIFT program the government is putting money in the pockets of individual farmers is not aware of the facts: he has not gone into the country to find out the real facts.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
We have heard from many people that Canada cannot sell its grain, but as recently as last night the Minister of Agriculture made it very clear that this government has no intention of trying to sell Canadian grain or to set up any type of machinery under the Canadian Wheat Board which would really help in selling Canadian produce. So far as I am concerned, the government is performing a disservice to the agricultural economy which members in all parts of this House represent.
At the same time we learned that Canada definitely could stand a merchant marine and shipbuilding industry. We had one at one time. What has the government done about this? Has it really tried to come up with a plan for a shipbuilding industry and a marine service that would mean something to Canadians generally? The answer is no. Absolutely nothing has been done about it. Yet we spend millions of dollars on frivolous matters which mean little to people who are trying to obtain employment. If we had a shipbuilding industry and marine service perhaps we would have better access to world markets. What we are doing now is supporting the so-called foreign flag service which operates in this country without regulation in so far as the Canadian government is concerned. Of course, it is pretty nice for these ships to be able to fly their flags and not be governed by our regulations, but this does not provide job opportunities for Canadians generally.
I am sure many members of the House are aware that this government intends to do very little in so far as an approach to the unemployment situation is concerned, at least in respect of the manner in which it ought to be approached. I am also sure, because of the
Anti-Inflation Policies
motion now before us, that the government is suspect in the eyes of the Canadian people. I am very sure that if this government was deserving of any type of respect or support it would go out in the country in an effort to meet the people engaged in whatever occupation it may be; it would see the unemployed and the cupboards that are bare in many cases, and it would try to do something about the situation. It is a disservice, to say the least, for members of the government to sit in the House of Commons and suggest all is well and that the responsibility lies with other people.
I noticed that when the Minister of Finance spoke today he spent a lot of time talking about the Canadian Labour Congress. He suggested that the Prices and Incomes Commission was urged on the government by my party, the New Democratic Party. I am proud that this commission may have been forced on the government by my party, but I should say at the same time that this party never said that any investigation should be conducted in this country without including a study of the profit motive behind the whole situation. Prices and incomes cannot be dealt with without including the third phase, profits. At no time has a government commission been set up to review prices, incomes and profits. I hope that at the committee meeting going on this evening the chairman suggests that the profits of corporations which affect the basic needs of this country be considered. Probably his terms of reference would exclude that train of thought.
I have a feeling that the Prices and Incomes Commission is another commission set up for the express purpose of getting the government off the hook and laying the blame at labour's feet. I suggest that if the government was sincere in this respect and would look into prices, incomes and profits, labour would co-operate. To this day, however, I have seen nothing in the efforts and investigations of the Prices and Incomes Commission which would indicate to the people of Canada that the government is sincere in this regard.
I started out by saying the choice between inflation and unemployment is up to the people. This afternoon the minister suggested that the increase in unemployment is really moderate. For those people who are not unemployed the increase is moderate, but for those people who are unemployed the increase is terrific. This is an important matter which we must consider.

April 28, 1970
Anti-Inflation Policies
One member who spoke before the supper hour did not appear to be really concerned about the unemployment picture. He tried to play with the figures and say that they were seasonally adjusted. He suggested that the figures really do not mean very much. The fact remains that the unemployment situation is of major concern to those people who are unemployed, to the communities which have an unemployment problem on their hands, and to those families where the breadwinner is unable to bring in the money in order to put something in the cupboard.
I suggest that the motion of the official opposition which condemns the government's arrogant acceptance of recession is quite in order. Anyone who suggests that the government is really concerned about unemployment and inflation is playing with words and being frivolous, to say the least. I believe there is no question that if this government were deserving of support it would come up with a program to assist the people who are unemployed. I close by saying the choice is still up to the people-inflation or unemployment. If this is the choice, then this government is suspect and always will be.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion to condemn the government. I am not sure I like the word "condemn"; it has a connotation of remaining in purgatory forever and ever. It requires a great deal of sin to be put into purgatory. I rue the day the government decided to adopt this policy. I disagree with it entirely.


An hon. Member:: Are you with or against us tonight?


Steven Otto: I am with the people of Canada. This is an unfortunate policy. I am really quite puzzled how this government could have become entangled in this antiquated solution to inflation. This will be the last restrictive measure ever accepted in Canada, because it just will not work. It never has worked. The thing that troubles me is that this government had the views and advice of Members of Parliament and the public in respect of various reforms. It introduced the Criminal Code amendments, the corporation amendments and the Arctic sovereignty policy. All these things took a great deal of guts and research, but the government went ahead.
Why did the government not introduce expansive rather than restrictive programs in respect of inflation? Sometimes I am inclined to believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)

has to be very cautious. When he was first elected leader of the party he suggested there was too much input by establishments, by civil servants and by the mandarins and not enough by the representatives of the public. He said he intended to be aware of this. He started out that way.
The establishment grew and his own establishment has grown also. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) referred to Machiavelli. If the Prime Minister were a student of Machiavelli he would have read the chapter which states that princes and leaders need to beware of subalterns and administrators. Theoretically, they are to advise the leader of those things he should hear. But as time goes on the administrator advises the leader of those things which the leader likes to hear. In every administration the same rule holds true, and there is probably no difference here in that respect.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Now I intend to examine the issue which is really the core of this debate. If, indeed, inflation has resulted because Canadians take more out of the economy than they put into it, the choice is this: shall we take less out, or put more in? There is a difference. Shall we restrict, or shall we institute those policies which will make the economy expand? Some time ago I was questioning Dr. Young on this theory and asking him to simplify it. I asked, "If in any plant where production has increased by 10 per cent you increase wages by 7 per cent, will that increase be inflationary?" He said no, it would not be inflationary so long as the increase in production exceeded the increase in cost. There you would have more efficient production, and of course we could live with wage increases in those circumstances. Having said that, though, he admitted that he must follow the conventional thinking when making recommendations to this government on how to cine inflation. The government is not determined to create unemployment-


An hon. Member:: What?


Steven Otto: It is not determined to do anything-


An hon. Member:: That's right.


Steven Otto: -in this regard. I hear hon. members making comments. Hon. gentlemen have always enjoyed making comments. The ministers are good fellows and will not breathe a word of what I say to the cabinet or
April 28, 1970

to the government. Indeed, not too long ago when speaking in the House on the matter of the Canada Development Corporation I indicated that there is a private Canadian company of that name. I said this just about three months ago merely to see if anyone in the government ever reads Hansard. Some time later I told the Minister without Portfolio who is looking after the matter of the Canada Development Corporation what I had said, and in a surprised voice he said, "No, is there really?" This proves my contention that what I say here is in absolute confidence, and I invite all my colleagues on this side of the House to stand up and say what they like. In this place they can speak absolutely freely.
Let us examine tight money policy, which is a restrictive policy imposed by the government. The supposition is that if you restrict the flow of money, entrepreneurs will not be able to get as much of it and thus will reduce their costs. When I asked Mr. Bryce how we reduce costs he said, "We make labour more productive; indeed, we offer labour less money." This man is terribly far out in his thinking in today's world. Can you imagine any entrepreneur saying to his men, "Well, fellows; I can't pay you $3.70 an hour, but all those who want to work for $2.50 an hour are invited to come back." That is just nonsense.
What does a businessman do in order to stay in business? He borrows money. Money is in great demand, so he pays not 8 per cent but 14 per cent. I have records in my office showing that businessmen in a productive capacity have paid as much as 37 per cent. They have to. They have made commitments far ahead, ordered machinery and equipment, and guaranteed deliveries. A firm or business cannot restrict its operations. The minute sales fall, confidence is lost. Creditors will not lend the entrepreneur money and the bank says, "Shoo; go away." To stay in business the businessmen must continue expanding. Therefore, the issue is not whether we can restrict our economy but how we can make business and labour more productive.
It is said that in Canada we must replace about 60 per cent of our capital equipment. That is how far behind we are. That takes money. Now, the less money you have, the less credit you can obtain from the banks. The less money there is, the less you will be able to afford new equipment, and you will not be able to compete with Japanese, German and United States concerns with your antiquated equipment. It is no wonder that the CNTU published a pamphlet, which 22218-58
Anti-Inflation Policies
all hon. members ought to read, indicating that Canadians, as producers on a per manhour basis, rank ninth in the world-below Italy, France, Greece and six other countries. The fault does not all lie with labour. The fault lies with management as well. I have also heard that we have one of the least efficient managerial cadres in the world. That is not surprising. After all, you cannot go to school and learn to be an executive; you learn by being an apprentice and, unfortunately, for the last 30 or 40 years those in a position to teach this skill to Canadians have been Americans. Therefore, we could not learn. I am glad the government is taking another tack on this question.
If the concept of tight money were examined today, it would be found to be absolutely unworkable. Why, therefore, was it introduced? It was introduced because Mr. Ras-minsky, Mr. Bryce and gentlemen like them who now count, were the young Turks in the 1930s and were imbued with the ideas of John Maynard Keynes. They wanted to bring about great reforms but they could only act in an advisory capacity. Now, 30 years later, they are in positions of power. But they have not learned anything since the 1930s and they are instituting policies today which could be applied only to the 1930s.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Steven Otto: That is the only reason we have some of these policies. I will not deal with unemployment at great length because other hon. gentlemen have dealt with this serious question. Unemployment now is not the same as it was 30 years ago because the Canadian people will not tolerate the conditions of old. Besides, when a person becomes unemployed he receives unemployment insurance and welfare. He lives because society today will not say to him, "Die." Society provides him with accommodation, clothing and welfare cheques. But the unemployed are not producing. Society becomes poorer because the country is producing less but is still maintaining for most of its people a standard of living which we consider decent and absolutely essential. How can anyone tell me then that unemployment is a cure to inflation? Unemployment means that there will be less production and, obviously, higher costs.
It is said that in 1969 our wages and costs increased by about 8.7 per cent. To offset that our gross national product, according to DBS, increased by 4.2 per cent, that figure being later reduced to 2.7 per cent. According to the

April 28, 1970
Anti-Inflation Policies
way United States authorities calculate increases in gross national product, we were down by .08 per cent. They do not calculate the gross national product by taking inflated sale prices and then deducting the percentage that is attributable to increases.
So perhaps our GNP increased by 2 per cent at the most, while wages and costs increased by about 8 per cent. It is all very fine to chastise the government for its lack of policy in this field, but what is the answer? I think one of the first things we must be aware of is that our production per man-hour is very poor. Tax benefits which would enable industry to junk old, antiquated equipment and to buy new equipment would be a correct sort of incentive. Perhaps the International Development Bank could be utilized and our banks could and should be forced to enter the field.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven Otto: The banks ought to do what they were originally meant to do. After all, we have given the banks the privilege of setting up a branch banking system and they have an obligation to fulfil. When they were before the committee hon. members will recall that they said, "Give us a free interest rate and we will invest the money in mortgages." Instead, they reduced consumer credit because that brings 38 per cent a year, which is not bad cookies these days. Those are the avenues that should be explored. They could still be included in legislation in order to increase our production capacity.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I now wish to deal with the subject of labour. There is no reason why salaries and wages should not be tied to the increase in production, whether it is industry by industry or nationwide. I am sure that most unions would accept a proposition that in their industry, plant by plant or any other way, if they increased production by 10 per cent they would be allowed to take 8 per cent. There is another factor. You cannot deal with labour off the cuff in this way. We have one of the great evils, the strike. When the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) spoke in Montreal about two years ago, he said it was time to put and end to this type of labour negotiation by stopping work. It was devised 100 years ago in the coal mines and has not been changed since.
Consider what happens when a strike is declared. Work is stopped. The man still has 
to live. He draws on his savings, union fund and receives unemployment insurance. When the strike is finally settled, it takes three years to make up the amount of money lost in wages. In the meantime, because the plants are closed there is lost production. In legislation dealing with	labour-management
negotiations, if there is no contract it would not be a bad idea if the government took the profit made during that time. There could be a 100 per cent tax on the profit made during the time there was no contract and should have been a strike. At least the men would be working and drawing wages, and the country would receive the benefit of the production. The same applies to union dues. Surely there must be another incentive than to say to the labour force, "You have to demand what you want and then quit working," because there is a further detrimental effect.
I have been in business over 22 years. I have dealt with employees and employers. I know that when a strike is settled an awful feeling of antagonism remains for months. Because labour has not received all it wanted, it does not feel it has been treated fairly. In addition, when these men look at their bank balance they see their savings are gone. This antagonism persists for months after the strike has been settled. It results in lost production. The employees have no will to return to work. They say, "Why should we produce when those fellows wine and dine it away on credit cards? Besides, they did us dirt." That is even more detrimental than the work stoppage.
We must introduce a system by which labour-management disputes will be solved without work stoppages. Indeed, this is possible under our jurisdiction. The federal government could introduce legislation, and the provinces would follow suit, stating that contracts settling labour-management disputes for an amount more than the increase in productivity would be void. I am sure no one would object to that. It is obvious that if production increases by 2 per cent and salaries increase by 8 per cent, we have 6 per cent unemployment no matter which philosophy you use. These are the things that can and should be done.
There is a need in Canada for managerial cadre. That means setting up schools, university courses and an apprenticeship system to train our young people to make good management decisions. It is acknowledged by people that I have talked to in Canada that there is a lack of training compared with our American
April 28, 1970



and German counterparts. They admit we are not good managers. If we have inefficient management, we cannot have good labour. A short time ago we were examining witnesses from a motor company. I asked the sales manager of the company what he thought of the idea of putting an end to work stoppages in order to increase productivity. He said yes, it would increase productivity, but managers are used to selling ten months' production. He said they would not want to be faced with having to sell 12 months' production. They have geared themselves to a nice, soft, easy life. Japan, Germany and the United States to some extent are selling 12 months' production. These are the factors with which we have to deal.
There is also the question of gearing prices to the inflationary cycle. Of course, the commission is continuing to advise the Prime Minister and the government that there must be a restrictive measure. Let us not be fooled. We cannot have price and wage controls today. We have somehow tried to merge our thinking with that of the war years when there was a feeling of patriotism. At that time we were not concerned with production because 50 per cent of the production was being exploded. We had a completely different situation. The depression was barely over. Price and wage controls were effective then, but not now. Canadians would not stand for it now. It would not help the situation.
Some of the suggestions I made should at least have been studied by the commission. I have just returned from a meeting with the commission. In the last couple of months that we have been examining this question they have not changed their stand. They are set on a restrictive course-cut, cut, cut. When I asked if they thought of expansion I was told no, that was not in their sphere of reference. I said it was, but as far as they are concerned it is not.
There is the tragedy which the Leader of the Opposition referred to as a comfortable majority. There is no comfortable majority. Even those who are now employed fear they may lose their jobs. They do not know who is going to be fixed next. There has been talk of a 6.7 per cent unemployment figure. I think it is closer to 7.2 per cent. However, we do not know which seven out of 100 are going to be hit and everyone feels uneasy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
22218-58J
Anti-Inflation Policies


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto).
I believe he is the spokesman for the silent majority in the government. I am very impressed with how he sits over there, thinks over here but votes over there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not intend to be mean this evening. I just want the hon. member to know I appreciate that very magnificent feat because not too many of us can do it. Some members cross right over. Of course, I expect him to do that one of these days.


Steven Otto: Don't hold your breath.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I come from an urban area and therefore feel compelled to take part in this debate. I have reviewed some of the material that is available. Hon. members know there are reams of material. We have heard a lot of statistics this evening. I do not intend to pursue that area to any great extent.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I am impressed by the fifth annual report of the Economic Council of Canada which was issued in September, 1968. It is entitled "A Challenge of Growth and Change". Considerable emphasis was placed on the value of our human resources. The Economic Council indicated that policy decisions that year-this was written in 1968-or the next year would in many cases have their major impact over a considerable period in the future. This is what concerns me, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding this is the year 1970, I believe that statement could well apply this evening.
I also notice that the Economic Council in its sixth report issued in September, 1969, reiterates its belief in the value of our human resources and states:
The greatest assets of a nation are its people... the most important resources of an economy are its human resources.
The Leader of the Opposition has a mandate to place on the Order Paper a motion drawing attention to the arrogance of this government and its dogmatic attitude, notwithstanding the fact that expertise has shown many times that it has been wrong in the policies it has pursued. I have had an opportunity of reading an important brief from the Social Planning Council of Hamilton and District, issued in March, 1970. This brief examines the area of poverty, one with which

April 28, 1970
Anti-Inflation Policies
all of us are extremely concerned. I was impressed by the first page of the introduction to this issue. Speaking about Hamilton, in particular, the council said:
In 1969, between 15,000 and 16,000 families in metropolitan Hamilton were in poverty. Metro Hamilton is an important urban concentration, the second largest metropolitan area in Ontario, the most populous province. The problems of the Hamilton area are worthy of consideration because in Hamilton we have a modem industrial economic base. This is the steel centre of Canada. It is an area of a high level of economic activity. And it is evidence that such a high level of activity, important as it is, is not by itself the total solution to the problems of poverty. Other areas suffer from a poverty related to economic underdevelopment, a poverty of the past. The poverty existing in Hamilton is the poverty of a modern industrial city, the kind of poverty we can expect in other areas that are in the process of beginning to industrialize. Unless appropriate measures are taken to end poverty, ours is the poverty of the future, the poverty of a developed region.
When we talk about 15,000 or 16,000 families, would I be wrong in relating such a figure to 45,000 people? So the policies of the government designed to fight inflation are reflected in the city of Hamilton in the situation in which 45,000 people find themselves. I was concerned about unemployment during the last election and I am concerned about it now. I am even more concerned than I was, because it seems to me no headway has been made in improving the quality of life experienced by many Canadians. Instead, the quality of life is deteriorating because of the callous, unsympathetic, complacent attitude which this government has constantly shown.
Recently I read in one of the national dailies something which is very significant because it is possibly an indication of the government's intentions. I read that employable welfare cases have increased by 40 per cent since March, 1969, in metropolitan Toronto. This is attributed to recent unemployment stemming from government antiinflationary policies. One can conclude that figures of this kind are applicable to municipalities, towns and villages across the country in proportion to their population. No wonder the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) wanted $1 billion in addition to the $3.5 billion he receives now. Perhaps he knows that the policy of the government in creating unemployment means it is saying: Line up at the welfare offices if there is room, and if there is no room there line up at the unemployment offices.


An hon. Member:: Or the soup kitchens.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Or the soup kitchens. Do we not realize that when people are spending their time at welfare offices and employment offices, receiving much less than ordinary endeavour and initiative would bring them, the environmental malaise, particularly in urban areas, is drastically increased? I am thinking about drug addiction, suicide, alcoholism, juvenile delinquency, marital discord and all the other social ills and problems which are complementary to the urban expansion. What concerns me is that the urban explosion in terms of increasing population is accelerating daily. Yet the government tells us the proper thing to do is create unemployment, although the administration is pursuing policies which, according to real experts, are unwarranted.
This reckless complacency on the part of the government adds to the frustration, the anxiety and the suffering of those who are at the bottom of the economic ladder. It appears to me that the policy of the government is designed to find out how best to confuse, how best to frustrate the people of Canada. Look at our first citizens, the Indians. They have no hope, they have no faith in this government. Look at the farmers. I am not a farmer, but surely the government is in trouble-


An hon. Member:: Both east and west.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -both east and west. As far as the fishermen are concerned, I can say the same thing. What about the old age pensioners, all those who are living on fixed incomes, those who because of a lack of wherewithal or the necessary training in an age of accelerated technological advance have been unable to keep pace? They are being strangled economically. Now there is a further group amounting to about 542,000 people, the unemployed, added to this list-another 6.7 per cent added to those who are already frustrated and who have no reason for liking this government. Mr. Speaker, it seems there can hardly be anyone left after I have run down that long list of areas and people.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
There is no concrete evidence to show these people that it is worth their while to continue to place their confidence in the government. There is nothing of great significance which would warrant showering the government with accolades and plugs. The cold fact is that these people are interested in the quality of life, but apparently the government is not. These people are experiencing a deteriorating
April 28, 1970

standard of living, and this makes everyone in Canada who is concerned for his fellow man very concerned. No wonder the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has given up his slogan of "the just society"; it does not mean anything any more, and as far as I am concerned it never did. It was just an election gimmick. After a year and a half he has come to the same conclusion that I have, that it is now necessary to have action, some commitment by way of deeds, instead of slogans.
The government seems to prefer to pollute our human resources and this will result inevitably in the destruction of our potential as a nation in terms both of human initiative and economic development. As a result of this attitude on the part of the government there is an increasing confrontation between adults and our youth, both of which groups are seeking work. There are some 500,000 people who are about ready to seek a place in the labour market, but as a result of the attitude taken by the government they discover a battle is going on between the adult, who requires work to bring home the necessary bread, money to pay the rent and to look after his family, and the student who desires work in order to pursue his education.
We have yet to learn of any legislation designed to widen and to improve employment prospects for those young Canadians who continuously flood the labour market. Little has been suggested to assist those already in the labour force to adjust to the changed conditions of the market resulting from technological advances, and this notwithstanding the manpower training program.
Let me again make reference to a statement made by the Economic Council of Canada. In its September, 1969, review the council states:
Looking to the future, employment would have to grow by at least 2.5 per cent a year over the next few years, compared with 2.1 per cent in 1938, merely to match the growth in the population of working age without any allowance for an increase in participation rates. Allowing for the participation rate increase incorporated in our potential output analysis, employment would have to grow by at least 3 per cent per year to avoid the additional unemployment and somewhat faster to reduce unemployment.
The Economic Council then goes on to note, as far as our young people are concerned, that notwithstanding youth, unemployment rates are substantially lower than they were in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when the
Anti-Inflation Policies
over-all rate of unemployment was very high. It goes on to emphasize:
Nevertheless the existing high rates of unemployment among young Canadians not only represents a waste of some of our most valuable human resources and a potential source of social instability, but also partly reflect a failure on the part of our society to bring young people quickly and effectively into active participation in the economic life of our country.
The council goes on to indicate that there is, therefore, a need to develop much more effective measures to bridge the present disturbing gaps between school enrolment and productive employment, especially with very large numbers of young people emerging from the educational system. No wonder there is a revolt among our youth! Our basic institutions, such as our churches, our schools and our government are being attacked because they do not seem, to use the language of youth, really to be "with it".
Reading reports of the council over the years, the term "full employment" is continually emphasized. This phrase is coupled with a strong affirmation that it is one of the principal keys to Canada's future. Here on the council is a group of men learned in many subjects and who have been directed to advise the government. Yet the government continues to ignore solutions to the many problems that the age of Aquarius has brought to this great land of ours.
Canada is still a comparatively young country, a young and lusty nation with a vast potential for providing the good life for her citizens and for many people beyond her borders. Most, if not all of our problems could be alleviated or banished for good if a determined national effort were carried on to develop this great potential. I suggest this is what the government should do. It should develop our potential instead of creating unemployment. Certainly this policy would be much sounder and more acceptable.
If a comprehensive policy of national development were given top priority in this country, we would have the assets and the tax base required to give us all the social amenities that are necessary to sustain the world's highest standard of living. This appears so obvious in a country such as ours as to need no emphasis whatever. Yet national development has been relegated to the bottom of the list of concerns of the federal government. The government is more concerned with abortion, homosexuality-


An hon. Member:: And marijuana.

April 28, 1970
Anti-Inflation Policies


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, and marijuana, but I do not want to get into that subject tonight. That is another area where there will be great confrontation. Instead, we have the dismal picture of rising taxes and curtailed services. We have all sorts of gimmicks to extort more tax revenue, but no sound program to develop larger or new sources of legitimate taxation. This nation is spending millions of dollars, collecting billions in revenue, and has an export trade which is the envy of the underdeveloped nations and not a few industrialized nations. We have a high standard of living, are possessed of space, our natural and human resources are uncounted, and we are mercifully detached from the problems created by unfriendly neighbours- that is, so far. Yet with all this, and with all our achievements, affluence and potential, we must admit to an inability gainfully to employ more than 6.7 per cent of those of our people able and willing to work. I say shame!
The Prime Minister is aware of this rate of 6.7 per cent and that it is gradually increasing as a result of the policies that he and his government have set. The nation has become alarmed at seeing these figures in print, yet the Prime Minister is prepared to let them go higher. What does all this mean in terms of rates? We talk of 6.7 per cent as being what we call the actual rate, if there is such a thing. There is 10.8 unemployment in the Atlantic provinces, though if the Atlantic provinces are broken down Newfoundland shows a rate of 15.3 per cent, New Brunswick 11.8 per cent, Prince Edward Island 9.7 per cent and Nova Scotia 7.7 per cent. Our slow-growth areas are in trouble most of the time and are seeking assistance. Yet they are subjected to the callous policies of this government.
With regard to Quebec, we are all waiting. I see the whip over there so I will not get into this subject tonight, but in Quebec there is 9.7 per cent unemployment. We know what Bou-rassa said about that. British Columbia has 7 per cent unemployment and Ontario has 4.6 per cent. It does not matter whether you call this rate of unemployment the seasonal rate, the actual rate or the adjusted rate. The fact is that 6.7 per cent of our employable labour force in Canada is unemployed, which in terms of people means 542,000. There is no argument about that figure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I was just getting started, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must confirm whether there is unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: May I thank my colleagues for accepting the preamble I have given them so far, and I am now about to come to the meat of my remarks. There is no point in talking about seasonally adjusted rates or actual rates when discussing the effect of the government's policies. Those people who are unemployed know that the situation is drastic, that it is critical, desperate. All they want is some leadership.
I was particularly interested in the meeting between the mayors of municipalities, the provincial governments and the Prime Minister. The Globe and Mail for April 21 last carried the headline, "Unemployment cripples cities". I do not think the government really cares about our cities, anyway. This newspaper also indicated that major urban construction was grinding to a halt, according to Mayor Sidney Buckwold of Saskatoon. There was a serious situation so far as employment opportunities in our cities was concerned.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The Globe and Mail of April 14 indicates that there are no funds in Ontario or any other province to combat unemployment on the scale that was created through the monetary and fiscal policy of Ottawa in trying to battle inflation. Ontario's urban centres such as Hamilton, Toronto, Windsor, London and Kingston are hard hit and will continue to be hard hit. Cornwall was also hard hit, yet I heard the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) say that if we think 20 per cent unemployment is high, he knows other areas with an even higher level.
The Prime Minister has stated that increased unemployment is a very regrettable side-effect of the government's fight against inflation. That is the understatement of the year, particularly when he finds it impossible to point out just what level is unacceptable. This is what the Canadian people want to know. As long as there are 542,000 unemployed, I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will understand that countless numbers of people are now hoping that the axe
April 28, 1970



will not tall on them. This is the crucial point we are discussing: what is the unacceptable level of unemployment?


Mr. Coates:: 6.7 per cent.


Edgar John Benson: The level was higher when the Tories were in power.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is interesting to note that leading economists have criticized the government's policy and have stated that rising unemployment, now at a six-year high, is too big a price to pay. That is a very simple statement and it comes from very learned men. They are not my words. Leading economists say that rising unemployment is too big a price to pay. The government's policies have brought about phrases such as "threat to stability", "very dangerous", "ridiculous plans". All these are being uttered by economists to indicate that Ottawa's policies have the effect not only of reducing employment but of curbing the development of our economy as well. The challenge of growth is ever present in our minds, yet this government ignores it completely.
I conclude by quoting a portion of an article in the Toronto Telegram of April 21, 1970, written by Peter Thomson. It reads in part:
While Mr. Trudeau has been criticized for the build up of his office staff and the Privy Council office he has not added the type of people who are highly qualified in the art of economic forecasting.
If a 6.7 per cent unemployment rate and a
128.9	consumer price index are any indication, the Trudeau dilemma may well become his Achilles heel.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the no-confidence motion put today by the Official Opposition is worded in an exaggerate and partisan way, but it deals with problems that concern all Canadians, and rightly so: unemployment, inflation and the rising cost of living. Besides, the federal government is well aware of those problems. As a matter of fact, it is almost the only one to have devised a policy and brought forward remedial programs, even though it is not the only one responsible for the unemployment now prevailing and so often referred to today.
Unemployment is eroding areas-and somebody mentioned the province of Quebec a moment ago-where the lack of investments is mostly due to today's unsteady political and social climate. Investments are the key to economic progress and for the most part they
Anti-Inflation Policies
must come from outside the province. Bomb threats, disorderly protest or expressions of separatist tendencies based on illusions or extreme, white-hot and blind nationalism will not attract them. They will return when the province is administered by a stable and strong government determined to stay within the Canadian Confederation which undoubtedly serves the interests of all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I listened attentively to the speech the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) gave to support his motion and I must confess that I was not much impressed. The Leader of the Opposition spoke only of the ill effects of unemployment and an increased cost of living for some categories of people. He confined himself to the role of a prophet of doom. In fact, he did not bring forward any solution capable of fighting inflation and reducing unemployment except that he made some general considerations on the need for closer cooperation among the federal, provincial and municipal governments.
Mr. Speaker, this shows that it is always easier to criticize and demand instantaneous cures for all economic difficulties than to suggest effective solutions to settle those problems which furthermore are not exclusive to Canada, but which more or less affect all the nations of the free world.
We are now obviously experiencing some economic problems, as are all other countries, but perhaps to a lesser degree. If all the economic sectors are willing to take pattern by the Canadian government and accept its suggestions, that is to cut prices and wages, I think that before long the conditions will be corrected and our country which has known for several years an unprecedented development, will again make headways. We will then be in a position to maintain the level of our exports, which have known an extraordinary growth during the past 10 years, totalling $14.5 billion in 1969, while maintaining competitive prices and a high productivity rate.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) also pointed out this afternoon, in a clear and concise manner, the dangers of inflation and the urgent need to fight the continuing increase in prices which threatens our economy. He also mentioned the links that do exist between inflation and the fight against unemployment.
The federal government is well aware of its responsibilities in this regard and is particularly worried about people on fixed incomes,


[Stage Direction]
April 28, 1970
Anti-Inflation Policies
that is pensioners, veterans and labourers, whose income cannot increase sufficiently to allow them to face the rise in the cost of living. The government is also concerned about the owners of bonds, which, for the most part have been issued by governments.
Mr. Speaker, inflation has no place in a just society, but there are no drastic, perfect and speedy measures available to control it. There will always be those who will claim that government measures to fight inflation are too harsh or unjust. Nothing is more unfair than yielding to the extravagant requests of privileged groups and then passing on the price increases to those who are least able to bear them.
After many years of economic expansion, we are now undergoing a period of stabilization which has produced some economic slowdown. The measure of success of government policies will determine how long this period will last. We hope they do succeed, so that the restrictions can be eased as soon as possible and the Canadian economy leap forward again.
It should be underlined, in connection with the fight against inflation, that there is no conflict between the theories of those who are concerned with individuals and worried by unemployment on the one hand, and on the other the arguments of those who have only monetary stability in mind, because the primary concern should be to maintain the value of the dollar at its present level, failing which there will be difficulties and suffering far in excess of the cost of the campaign to curb inflation.
The Prices and Incomes Commission set up by the government has been very successful until today. We should commend the members for their good work and encourage them in their fight against inflation. Incidentally, this Commission recently launched a nationwide advertising campaign on this subject. It also published a table showing that salary increases since 1965 represent a true gain much lower than the apparent one. Therefore, it is essentiel to follow the advice of economists and well-informed people who affirm rightly that keeping inflationary pressures in check must remain government's first priority.
However, while it is fighting inflation with the means at its disposal and within its jurisdiction, the federal government is also aware that we must fight unemployment in the slow-growth areas, while promoting spe-

cially the establishment of new businesses or the expanding of existing ones.
That is why the government has created the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which has, contrary to most others, an increased budget. And this program, which has up to now been quite successful will be even more so as the increase in production is felt. Mr. Speaker, my only regret is that the program will not be extended to my whole constituency. Despite the fears which it arouses, we hear, for instance, the opposition members complain because it is not applied in the regions they represent.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I trust that the textile policy which will be announced in a few days, as indicated this afternoon by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), following the representations we made about this industry, the survival of which is essential to the development of our regions, will result in rationalizing this industry and in ensuring its orderly development.
I hope that everybody will realize the seriousness of the present situation. If everyone will show good will and co-operate readily, the economic slowdown will be rapidly stopped. Moreover, if our country can remain united and strong-an essential condition-it will have a brilliant future, if we want it and if we use the means at our disposal to reach this aim.
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, today the leader of my party indicated to the unemployed of the nation this party's deep concern over the government's policies, or rather lack of policies, with respect to unemployment. It was unfortunate that the television cameras were not in the chamber so that the Canadian people could compare the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) with the words uttered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), who attempted to explain the government's academic philosophy in which there is no charity. It was an example, if one were needed, of the heartless approach of the government to the problems of the unemployed.


Edgar John Benson: What is the name of your book?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, who has just made an interjection,
April 28, 1970



apparently uses as a yardstick for the degree of unemployment that the government considers acceptable the recession that was inherited by the Diefenbaker administration when it took office in 1957. To me it is amazing that the Minister of Finance does not go back further and use as a yardstick for acceptable unemployment, at least so far as the government is concerned, the days of R. B. Bennett.


Edgar John Benson: You don't have to go back beyond 1961.


Robert Carman Coates: That is right, and what government was in office at that time? It was the Diefenbaker administration. Let me read some of the things that were written about the type of legacy it passed on to the Liberal administration in 1963. Time magazine said in 1962:
In the west, a fruitful half-billion bushel wheat crop was not only harvested but partly sold, and the Prairies again rejoiced in being the bread basket to a substantial part of the world.
That is a far different story from the one we hear today. In 1962 Canadian Business magazine had this to say:
A 12-nation comparison of retail price increases over the 12 months shows that Canada has been the most successful in keeping down the cost of living. The Canadian increase was just under one per cent.
That is something that could be recommended to the Minister of Finance-a cost of living increase of under 1 per cent.
The TJ.S. was only a shade more. Biggest increases were in France, Holland and the U.K. where the cost of living rose by over 5 per cent. In Germany and Sweden it rose by 4 per cent.
I am sure that today Canada must lead the world with respect to increases in the cost of living. Since the Minister of Finance likes to talk about the Diefenbaker administration, here is what the Ottawa Citizen, not usually known as a Conservative organ, reported on December 24, 1962:
During 1962, employment and labour income reached new highs.
That is a different story from the one we hear today about unemployment. In December, 1962, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce said:
Personal incomes have continued to expand in the wake of increased employment opportunities, higher rates of pay, and record levels of farm income.
That is a story far different from the one we hear today, but that was the legacy which the Diefenbaker administration passed on to the Liberal administration. The story we hear today is of a heartless government increasing
Anti-Inflation Policies
unemployment day in and day out, placing further loads on the backs of the underprivileged and the unemployed, yet it still cannot defeat inflation. The government continues to increase the hardship and the misery of the unemployed.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, this situation reminds me of Hollywood. We should no longer be in Ottawa. We should change the name of this institution. The government is changing everything else and it might as well change the name of this place and call it Hollywood Palace. The colours there are much better. We could have technicolour and cinemascope and we could have the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as the producer, director and main actor in the great scene. As we come into the chamber he would give us rose-coloured glasses. He and the Minister of Finance would stand up, and he would say, "Look around you, all 264 of you including the Speaker, and you will see that nobody is unemployed here". Everybody here is earning $18,000 a year, and the ministers get twice as much and more. The Prime Minister has a large staff and every day he adds one or two people to it. The number now is 75 or 80 and this costs the taxpayers $880,000 a year. Pretty soon we will be in trouble with the taxpayers, we will be in trouble in this institution, I will be in trouble in my office and there may be unemployment even in the civil service.
Mr. Speaker, it is an Alice in Wonderland world in which the government lives. It is a government which pays absolutely no attention to anyone except its own members. The Prime Minister looks in the mirror, like Alice, and talks to himself. He says, "Who is the fairest one of all", and the mirror says back to him, "You are, Trudy baby". Then he comes in the House, puts on his rose-coloured glasses and cannot understand why everybody in this chamber does not wear them too. There may not be any film in my camera, Mr. Speaker, but let me tell you that the Prime Minister sees that there is film in his camera. He even trips the light fantastic with Barbra Streisand. She is Funny Girl and he is funny boy. Let me tell you that it is not funny to the 500,000 or 600,000 unemployed people in this country.


Mr. Perraull:: You are speaking in the House of Commons and you should use the proper language.


Robert Carman Coates: The hon. member for Burnaby-
Seymoux (Mr. Perrault) is worried about lan-

April 28, 1970
Anti-Inflation Policies
guage. He should go to his constituency and talk to the 7 per cent who are unemployed there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member should address himself to the Chair.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to address myself to the Chair if the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour will do the same. I shall abide by the rules, but I do not intend to take orders from him. I have been in this House a lot longer than he, and at the rate he is going I will be here a lot longer still. If the government which he supports continues its policies, I tell him there will be a great many changes when the next election comes around and many colleagues of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour will not be back, including the Minister of Finance from Kingston.
The Minister of Finance will not have a problem because even under the old pension plan he had more than $30 a week and he says that anybody in Canada can get along on $30 a week. Of course, he also has four or five television sets and he could always sell one in order to buy groceries. The sad fact is that my constituents do not have four or five television sets and many of them do not have $30 a week to live on. The way this government is carrying on, I am afraid a great many more people will not have $30 a week to live on.
Propositions have been put forward to this government time and time again by opposition members in respect of ways and means to eliminate the problems of regional economic disparity and chronic unemployment. The Prince Edward Island causeway would have generated both employment and tremendous benefits for all the people of the Atlantic area. But what has happened? The answer has been "No" in respect of the Prince Edward Island causeway. That was the answer after many millions of dollars had been spent by this government.
The Bay of Fundy tides could have been harnessed. Projects of similar magnitude have been undertaken in other areas of this nation. But when it came to the proposition of undertaking this project in the Atlantic provinces the answer was "No" to the people of that area. This project would have produced lasting power. It would have produced a legacy for this nation and not just for the Atlantic provinces. There would have been employment and a better life for the people of the 
Atlantic provinces. However, this government and the Prime Minister said "No".
This government says "No" to everybody in this nation. Time and time again proposals have been put forward but the answer is always the same in respect of agriculture, shipbuilding and everything else. This government continues to say "No". It is the only word in its vocabulary. It is the only word Canadians hear, except for one thing-higher taxes. The government says "Yes" every time higher taxes are mentioned.
The government says to the people of Atlantic Canada that the economists who live in their ivory towers in Ottawa will produce special programs that are incapable of being carried out, such as the development program that has been proposed for the people of Prince Edward Island. The economy of Prince Edward Island just cannot undertake the type of program this government has proposed. Indeed, if it endeavoured to do so it would be so far in debt that it would be in a worse position than the government of Newfoundland, yet the government of that province continues to go forward.
Let us face the facts. We have a Liberal government in Newfoundland, we have a Liberal government in New Brunswick, we have a Liberal government in Prince Edward Island and we have a Conservative government in Nova Soctia. When we compare the unemployment figures of the four provinces we find that in Newfoundland it is 15 3 per cent of the labour force, in New Brunswick it is 11.8 per cent, in Prince Edward Island it is 9.7 per cent, and in Nova Scotia it is 7.7 per cent. This shows the difference between a concerned and capable government and three incompetent governments which have been in office too long. In a very short time there will be just two Liberal governments in the Atlantic provinces, because the people of Prince Edward Island will show this government what they think of the development program for that province. I do not live in Prince Edward Island but I do know that much. This government does not face up to the problems of unemployment. Indeed, I cannot see where it faces up to the problem of inflation, because while it is creating unemployment all over the nation inflation continues to spiral upward.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Now we have the worst of two worlds, and unfortunately for the people of Canada we will have to live with it for another two
April 28, 1970

years. We only hope that some day when the Prime Minister looks into the mirror he will see reflected the Leader of the Opposition. Then we shall hear some good advice and tread the right road to prosperity, a road we would be treading if the Leader of the Opposition were Prime Minister today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I
should indicate to hon. members that there is a slight difficulty as to whom the Chair should now recognize. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) stands, as does the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie). It is not easy to decide to whom shall be given the floor at this time. Since the motion has been moved by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), I think perhaps the hon. member for Dauphin should be given preference over the hon. member for Broadview. I do this with some hesitation because I know we shall be deprived of the fine contribution of the hon. member for Broadview. But all things being taken into account, I think the hon. member for Dauphin should be recognized at this time.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. I will do my utmost to permit the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) to say a few words. In rising to speak on this motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), it occurs to me that this is a most appropriate topic for us to deal with at this time. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reported that at the end of March, 6.7 per cent of our labour force was unemployed. This is the highest unemployment rate we have suffered in a long time. Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, this unnecessarily high rate of unemployment is having a disastrous effect on the country.
Mr. Jack C. Weldon, a highly regarded economist, is quoted as saying that in the province of Quebec 12 per cent of the male work force is unemployed. I quote from a statement by Mr. Weldon as reported in the Toronto Star of April 20, 1970:
It is very dangerous for this country when the numbers that are discontented are as large as they will be seen to be in two weeks.
The government has allowed its prestige to be tied to a goal that was irrelevant and could not be achieved destroying inflation.. .and it has abandoned its power to attain a very important goal; a reasonably high level of employment.
In questioning the government's handling of inflation problems a wave of misgiving and mistrust is sweeping the country. Throughout
Anti-Inflation Policies
the length and breadth of the country the people are seeing at first-hand that the government's anti-inflation policies are not having the effect we were led to expect. All across this troubled country, Mr. Speaker, people are seeing the real effects of the policies; they are watching their jobs disappear and they are watching the cost of living climb at a disastrous rate.
There may have been a time when the policies now being employed to combat inflation might have had the desired effect. But it is obvious that the time is not now; and it is equally obvious that the government has missed the boat. The government has waited too long to take effective measures to combat inflation and what we are witnessing today is not a war on inflation; we are watching the government wallowing in a sea of confusion and indecision. Mr. Speaker, we are in a panic situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Gordon Ritchie: The government is employing the measures today that it should have considered a few years ago when government policy was to allow banks and other financial institutions to expand the money supply like it was going out of style. Well, Mr. Speaker, it may be that the government was right on one point, at least: money is going out of style, all right, because it is worth less in buying power with every day that passes.
Picture the paradox of present-day Canada. Here we have a country rich in human and natural resources, we have a large and willing work force, we have a stable government-in the physical sense, that is-and we have a population comprised of energetic and forward-looking people. The only thing we lack is leadership. I would have to assume at this point in time that the people of the United States are enjoying a higher level of leadership than we in Canada are enjoying. In the U.S. inflation is declining while ours continues to rise. Interest rates are lower in the U.S. than in Canada, and their rate of unemployment is lower than ours. I am not suggesting that we should have a government that is different from the one we have, but I do suggest that we should have, and must have a higher quality of leadership.
One of the great causes of inflation, Mr. Speaker, and one that can be pinpointed with uncanny accuracy in our present dilemma is government spending of a non-productive nature. Mr. G. A. Hart, chairman and execu-

April 28, 1970
Anti-Inflation Policies
tive officer of the Bank of Montreal, said, as reported in the Toronto Star of April 20, 1970:
I don't buy the argument that we are importing inflation from the United States or any other country. The root cause of this is excessive non-productive government expenditures.
While not entirely in agreement that all government spending contributes to inflation, certainly I would have to point to the enormous expansion in the goal that we as a nation have set for ourselves in the fields of health, social welfare and education. We have set some lofty goals indeed in these areas. All such services are personal services to the individual, and with the expansion of services in these fields as a result of sociological and scientific advances the ultimate and infinite varieties of services that can logically result from runaway welfare programs can put a serious strain on the gross national product. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that all programs initiated in these fields should take into account the ability of the gross national product to absorb the enormous costs involved. There should, and must be logical and realistic limits to programs of this nature so as not to throw the national economy completely out of balance.
No government, and indeed no member of this Parliament, wants to place limitations on the dollar value of personal services that are made available to the individuals of this country. But it is of little solace to the individual when a government institutes welfare and other social programs with reckless abandon on the one hand and is forced at some later date to tell the country that the programs have pushed us to the brink of bankruptcy.
So much has been said in this House and around the country about the government's infamous white paper on tax reform that I will not dwell on it at length, but I would like to say that the government should scrap the white paper immediately and try to recover some measure of confidence on the part of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Gordon Ritchie: The extent to which the proposed reforms would alter our economic structure and the manner in which the reforms were presented have shaken the confidence of the Canadian people. Tax reforms should be introduced and implemented gradually only after considerable study and only after the full effect of such reforms on the 
national economy and on the position of the individual taxpayer can be ascertained. Tax reform should not be implemented with a vicious sweep of the axe. In this age of enlightenment, surely we as a people and as a Parliament can institute necessary reforms with more finesse.
We will soon have another white paper to deal with, a white paper on social services. Needless to say, even before it is introduced the proposed white paper on social services is being viewed with suspicion and distrust. It is evident even at this point that the proposed changes in our social services structure will further burden the strained economy of the country, and the government will not be providing equal stimulus to the industrial and economic expansion that will be required to offset the increased cost of the program.
Now, Mr. Speaker, is the time for the federal government to change its monetary policy. This will help to reduce unemployment in the country by stimulating business. Now is the time for the modest lowering of our interest rates and a modest increase in the money supply. It is perhaps significant that in 1969 Canadian investments abroad increased from $135 million to $250 million. This represents a sizeable increase of capital outflow and may well be a result of the proposals contained in the white paper.
The government ought to increase the mobility of labour in the various regions and help people engaged in labour to move from one part of the country to another. Further vocational training would also be useful, as would extensive government-sponsored research into questions of what makes areas grow and what helps both individuals and the economy. This sort of program was very successfully undertaken in West Germany, where an experiment was conducted after the war. Attention was focused on those areas that might have created general economic expansion.
I also feel that we could well look at the flexible rate of exchange, which I think would constitute a considerable improvement in our economic policy. Our present exchange policies have, I think, been detrimental to our economy. The main objection to a fixed exchange rate is that it requires a country to pursue domestic policies appropriate to this end and could involve a conflict between balance of payments and dollar stability on the one hand and domestic growth and full employment on the other.
April 28, 1970

I will cut short my remarks, Mr. Speaker, to allow the hon. member tor Broadview to speak.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I thank the previous speaker for his courtesy and co-operation in permitting me to participate in this debate. After listening to speeches by members of the Conservative party and the Liberal party, I am absolutely certain that the people of Canada are not concerned about whether the Conservatives had a higher rate of unemployment than the Liberals. They are concerned about the way our country is drifting at the moment. They are reminded of the slogan of the leader of the Conservative party in 1958-the great vision of the north which turned into a blackout.


An hon. Member:: You had no vision.


John Gilbert: In 1968 we heard the slogan ol the just society, which is turning into an unjust society. It is a good thing I did not have any vision or we would probably be as badly off as was the Conservative government in 1962. I think the people of Canada are concerned with the principles set forth by the Economic Council of Canada. The council said that for Canada to have any sizeable growth required three things: full employment, with unemployment never exceeding 3 per cent, full productivity and price stability.
I wish to deal briefly with1 the question of full employment. What do we find today? An absolute failure with regard to the methods employed by the government. When we translate the unemployment figure of 6.7 per cent, we find it involves 542,000 people. It involves not only the workmen but the families they support. I am not the least bit interested in hearing whether the province of Nova Scotia is better off than the provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland. I am not interested in hearing that because there is a Conservative government in Nova Scotia the unemployment rate is reduced in that province. We are all Canadians, Mr. Speaker.
As far as the members of the New Democratic Party are concerned, there is a 10 per cent rate of unemployment in the Maritimes, a 10 per cent rate of unemployment in Quebec and an over-all 6.7 per cent affecting all Canadians. When I think of the ineffective manpower and retraining policies of this government, when I take into consideration that
Anti-Inflation Policies
43 per cent of the labour force have less than a grade 8 education, and restrictions are imposed with regard to training these men such as the requirement of a grade 10 education to qualify for a technical course, or that young workers must be in the labour market for three years, or the absence of any training for Indians and Eskimos, the shortage of living allowances with regard to the retraining of these workers, the administrative chaos and the lack of imaginative approaches with regard to retraining in the Department of Manpower, I realize that the government is bankrupt socially and morally in this field.
I wish to direct my remarks to a particular situation in my riding. I refer to the lay-off of 600 employees at Dunlop Tire and the shutdown of that plant in my area. On March 6, which we call Black Friday, the company called the employees together and announced that they were going to shut down their plant. Prior to that, officials of the company met with provincial government officials at Queen's Park and federal government officials in Ottawa to advise them that they were closing down the plant. The members of those governments were sworn to secrecy with regard to the statement. On March 6 the employees, for the first time, received the news with stunned silence. On March 11 the employees demonstrated at Queen's Park. On March 12 they met with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen). Although they received a great deal of sympathy, they did not find a solution. They were told that this was a provincial problem and all the federal government could do was help them through unemployment insurance or manpower retraining.
All that the employees of Dunlop wanted was the provincial government to make a feasibility study as to whether this industry was dead or alive in Canada. They wanted economists and accountants to get together with government officials to determine the market potential, the price structure, and then determine whether the company should be shut down. Mr. Speaker, the company and the provincial government refused to do that. In fact, telegrams were sent to the Minister of Labour and the provincial minister of trade and development. To this date no reply has been received with regard to any co-operation the officials will give in undertaking a study of the feasibility of continuing this plant.
6398	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion This is not an isolated experience. We have experience with regard to the shutdown of a textile plant in Cornwall, and with regard to Canadian General Electric. It appears to be a weekly occurrence. Surely the time has come when we should incorporate the principle set forth in the Freedman report whereby if a company decides to make a major change in its operations, this is a negotiable principle. The company and union officials should get together to determine whether the company should continue, and adequate notice should be given if it is not. Surely the time has come to do this. I hope the Minister of Labour will stop swinging his shillelagh at women and start thinking about the workers in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 58(11) the proceedings on the motion are considered to have expired.


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on April 15 I directed the following question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien):
Is It the policy of his department that all school lunch assistance, including lunches in public schools, milk, lunch tickets, and lunches prepared by lunch committees be discontinued as part of the government's austerity program?
Mr. Speaker ruled that my question was not in proper form. Because it is an important matter, I put it down for debate at this hour. My question arises as a result of a letter written by the district school superintendent of education in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Gerald V. Closs. The letter is dated Manitowaning, January 26, 1970. It is addressed to the parents of children attending schools on Manitoulin Island. I quote from the letter as follows:
All school lunch assistance will be discontinued. This includes lunches in the federal schools, milk, lunch tickets or money for high school students, and lunches prepared by lunch committees.

DEBATES	April 28, 1970
High school students on educational assistance will no longer receive travel warrants, personal or clothing assistance. Although this may create a hardship for a few people, parents will have to assist students with their family allowance cheques, if we are to have sufficient money to pay for their room and board and tuition. Parents should also know that most students away from home have more money than they really need according to the reports of our counsellors.
We must realize, Mr. Speaker, that we are here dealing with a group of people who to a large extent are on welfare a large part of the year. It is not proper to suggest that children away from home have more money than they need. To suggest that Indian parents on Manitoulin Island should begin to pay for these basic services is an indication of the social philosophy of this government.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The idea of a just society has collided with the measures which the government believes must be implemented to restrain spending. The people who will be most adversely affected by this policy of restraint are precisely those who can afford it the least, in this case the Indian people of Manitoulin Island. It may be we shall be told that this is not the general policy of the government. I hope we will. But even if this is true only of the Indian children living on Manitoulin Island, I think the situation is a disgrace. I quote from a press release issued March 4, 1970, by a group who call themselves The Voice of Manitoulin Women. It reads in part:
The Voice of Manitoulin Women has also discovered that the elementary schools on the Manitoulin Island Indian Reserve are understaffed, and there are no remedial teachers available. There are approximately 1,000 pupils, for whom there is one librarian who has to divide her time among three schools, one of which is some five miles distant from the other two. The provincial standard is one qualified librarian for every 300 pupils.
Later, it reads:
Parents on the reserve have been told by Indian Education Services that they must assume financial responsibility for their teenagers' high school education beyond $800 per year.
I point out that the cost of educating children in the high school on the mainland is substantially more, in the neighbourhood of $2,400 a year. The department assumes no responsibility for the extra amount and the parents will have to pay the difference amounting to $1,600 a year. Obviously this will be impossible. So in effect the department is saying to the parents on the island, "Your children cannot go to a high school on
April 28, 1970	COMMONS
the mainland where they could get an education which would enable them to get jobs and function within society as to other young people." I say this situation is a disgrace. It is the kind of thing which ought not to have happened. The just society is being cut back precisely in the area where it is most needed. If the reply tonight is that this is not general policy, I feel the government should change this policy affecting the children of Manitou-lin Island.


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member who has just spoken that this is not departmental policy. While I appreciate his concern and the note of urgency he brought to the matter, I might add that this is something of a tempest in a teapot. The report on which he based his question and his remarks tonight were merely the result of an excessive concern on the part of the district superintendent. He was concerned that he might not have sufficient funds in his budget to carry out the lunch program and other programs of the students concerned.
My information is that the letter to which my hon. friend referred was what I might call a "Dear Parents" letter that was sent by the district superintendent to the parents in regard to cutbacks in the provision of some assistance programs in education which were anticipated because of fiscal problems that the district office faced in the coming fiscal year. As I have mentioned, I think this was a justifiable exercise of concern.
Happily, the budget has proven to be such that funds have now been reallocated-at least my information is to that effect-to the Manitoulin Island district. As a result of this there will be no need to cut back this program or other programs in the area.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation to bringing to the attention of the federal Health Department the gravity of air pollution that is daily tightening its vise and strangling us for lack of pure air. I do not believe that the federal government realizes there has been a 700 per cent increase over the last 15 years in respiratory diseases, and that 90 per cent of this increase is in urban areas where air pollution is most severe. Neither do I believe
DEBATES	6399
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion that the government that is charged with the responsibility of handling air pollution is aware of medical evidence that points out that 50 per cent of all diseases in man are traceable at the present time to air pollution, among them bronchitis, coronary disease, emphysema and cancer. I do not believe the government realises, for example, that medical authorities and compensation boards recognize the relationship between air pollution and emphysema.
Most of this air pollution is caused by the combustion of oil and petroleum products. This produces a great deal of pollution, somewhere around 80 per cent of all air pollution that we have today. Last year in the city of Toronto there were 941 pounds of dust dumped per month on each square mile of the city. The state of New York limits the poisonous sulphur content of its fuels to .37 per cent. Ontario's limit is four to five per cent. As far as I can ascertain, no one knows what the federal government's limit is, if the federal government has one.
Let us not be told not to get panicky, that everything will be all right, when there are floating around in the air over the United States and Canada, 160 million tons of particles, and almost two billion tons of gases. Let us not get panicky when some scientist tells us that we have only another ten years to straighten things out or we will not be here. The public is getting awfully tired of our lame-duck approach to our problems.
What guidelines has the federal government laid down to date? Does it have any guidelines? How much research is it doing? What is the federal government doing to bring the provinces up to date on the research it is doing? How many meetings has the government had with its counterparts in the provinces, or is the government getting all its research from the provincial government at Queen's Park? These are questions that need answering.
A child born on the North American continent in 1946 has been inhaling the equivalent of nine cigarettes a day. The World Health Organization has stated that the maximum tolerable dose is .1 part per million in a 24-hour period. But Toronto and Ottawa run as high as 1.7 per million parts. We must remember that air pollution not only kills slowly but it can also kill quickly. I do not have time to put all the cases on the record but I should like to mention one. The most classic case was the smog pollution in London, England, which killed 4,000 people.
April 28, 1970
6400	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I hope I have brought the seriousness of this situation to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary and that he will be able to tell us exactly what the department is planning to do. We hope that they will stop playing with air pollution as if it were a toy. We are now dependent on the winds to bring in from the ocean much of the oxygen we use. We are depleting our oxygen by building roads and by construction work across Canada, by 1 per cent per year. The carbon dioxide content since 1900 has risen by 10 per cent. What a heritage we are passing on!
I would remind the government that the United States spends $480 million to combat air pollution alone. What does Canada spend? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can tell me, but my figures show me that it is $300,000. If they were to spend relatively the same amount as the United States, the figure would be $48 million. How can the federal government give leadership without adequate research? Perhaps I could leave the House the solemn warning of President Johnson in the following words, "Either we stop poisoning the air or we become a nation in gas masks groping our way through the dying cities and the wilderness of ghost towns".
I hope that I have in some small way awakened this sleeping department to the gravity of the situation that is facing us today.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the interest of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) in the problems of air pollution, especially as they affect health and life. At the same time I would like to reassure the hon. member that the federal authorities are not only aware of the problems of air pollution, and indeed of other forms of environmental pollution, but are very concerned about them. That is why at the present time we have before us in Parliament the Canada Water Act. That is why the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) has taken additional steps within his department, asking that top priority be given to the problem of air pollution in particular so that in the shortest possible time he may present to Parliament a clean air act.
For the past 15 years various branches of the Department of National Health and Welfare have been studying this problem, and last month the minister reorganized the envi-


ronmental pollution division and established a new air pollution control division under the directorship of Dr. Stanley Winthrop. More money has been assigned within the department, not only to hire personnel and to carry out additional programs which would give us a better idea of the extent and the effects of air pollution but also to co-operate with the provinces and to conduct further research in this field.
Last autumn the Minister of National Health and Welfare convened a meeting in Ottawa of experts on air pollution, which included staff of his department as well as experts from the provincial departments which deal with this problem. They have agreed on some very urgent, major problems concerning air quality, and it is hoped that within the very near future national standards will be determined.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary, but his time has expired.


Mr. H. E. Stafford (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday in this House I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) if he was giving consideration to an increase in the salary of federally appointed judges, since the Minister of Justice of Ontario recently announced salary increases to provincial judges whereby some provincial court judges are making within $500 of the amount the federal government is paying Supreme Court judges of the provinces, and up to $4,500 more than the federal government is paying county court judges.
The federal government pays county court judges $21,000 and Supreme Court judges $26,000 per year. At the same time, the Ontario government pays the chief provincial judge $27,000, senior provincial judges $25,000, and other provincial judges-some of whom are not members of the Bar-up to $24,000. It is also a matter of interest that by August 31, 1970, the Ontario government will pay Crown attorneys in Toronto up to $29,011, and Crown attorneys outside Toronto up to $27,916.
There is no question that these increases by the Ontario government are justified. My point is that the federal government must recognize that federally appointed judges have greater and more varied responsibilities
April 28, 1970	COMMONS
than provincial judges and that they should be granted salary increases commensurate with their responsibilities. No serious scholar of Confederation would minimize the importance of provincial responsibility under section 92(14) of the B.N.A. Act. It is the duty of the province to administer justice and organize the workload of the courts for, as George Washington so aptly put it, "The administration of justice is the firmest pillar of government."
The responsibility of the federal government under sections 96, 99 and 100 is equally clear. Lord Atkin referred to these sections in the case of Toronto Corporation v. York as "Three principal pillars of justice"-"not to be undermined": these are the appointment of judges by the Governor General, the security of judicial tenure, and the provision and fixing of judicial salaries by the Parliament of Canada. I doubt if many people, including the members of the legal profession, have a real conception of the exacting and demanding duties of our federally appointed judges. Want of time prevents my dwelling at length on the subject. I would point out, however, that they must be familiar with the whole compass of the common law and statute law; they must have a solid working knowledge of all matters falling into legal and equitable jurisdictions.
It is neither my duty nor my desire to enumerate all the matters with which they must struggle. It is sufficient to point out that they must have an extensive and accurate knowledge of the rules of practice, as well as the principles applicable to matters such as bankruptcy, injunctions, libel and slander, interpretation of wills, construction of statutes, criminal law, municipal law, real property, mortgages, mechanics liens, matrimonial causes, corporate law, constitutional law, civil rights, contracts, torts, taxation and many other divisions of the law. I make bold to suggest that we have placed an unduly heavy and oppressive load on our judges. It is worth while to note that in England the work of the court is divided into three branches: equity, the Queen's Bench, and the probate and divorce division. Not so in Canada. We expect our judges to be qualified to do justice in all branches of the law.
Further, the changes in the texture of our society and in our social attitudes, and the constant changes in our law have served to put greater pressures on the members of the federally appointed judiciary. An able, courageous and conscientious judge is the best
DEBATES	6401
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion guardian of our rights and liberties. Their salaries should reflect, in some measure, our trust and confidence in them and our expectations of them as human beings and as ministers of justice.
I do not wish to detract from the important and necessary work done by the chairman and members of the various commissions and boards under federal jurisdiction, but I respectfully suggest that the range and weight of the burden they bear cannot be compared to the task we have set before our federally appointed judges. I hesitate to refer to specific boards, but it is common knowledge that membership of some of them does not require professional qualifications or the constant decision-making that is the hallmark of the judiciary. Members of boards share their responsibilities and assign some of their work to staff and assistants. A judge, on the other hand, works in a solitary world with only a secretary. He cannot share the agony of his decision; it is his and his alone. Yet a comparative study leaves no doubt that our federally appointed judges are underpaid.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
On occasion, something is made of the fact that our judges are entitled to a pension. This is a somewhat illusory benefit, the realities of which may be gauged by the relatively small number of federally appointed judges drawing a pension. Based on past performance, only 15 per cent of the 94 county court judges and the 37 Supreme Court judges in Ontario will live to qualify for a pension. This is partly explained by the fact that the retirement age is set by statute at 75. This is against the trend of present-day thinking and I urge that serious consideration be given to retirement upon attaining 65 or at least 70 years of age.
We tend to forget that most of our judges accept an appointment to the Bench at the moment they are embarking upon the most lucrative stage of their professional careers. Apart from the monetary sacrifice, they are restricted in their business and social activities in a way that few of us would accept, for a judge, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion. Fortunately for our way of life there has never been a lack of men prepared to dedicate their lives in the constant labour of maintaining our civil, religious and political liberties through the rule of law. We expect our judges to do justice to all. I suggest we do justice to them.
April 28, 1970
8402	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Stafford) has as usual argued his case well. He is an eminent counsel from Ontario and has put the case before Your Honour very well. I am sorry the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) was not able to be here on this occasion, but I know tomorrow he will read in Hansard with interest the remarks of my learned friend. The minister has asked me to reply to the hon. member for Elgin's well-reasoned argument tonight. The minister advises that he is aware that certain provincially appointed judges are now receiving salaries higher than those paid to federally appointed judges.

This situation adds to the concern he has already expressed to members of this House on several previous occasions, and more recently before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, to the effect that if qualified men and women are to be persuaded to take appointments to the country's senior courts, salaries will have to be competitive with those currently earned by the best lawyers in Canada. It is the minister's intention to review the salaries of judges with the government before next fall in order that government policy can be decided prior to introduction of the annual amendments to the Judges Act next fall.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Wednesday, April 29, 1970