1970-05-15

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege respecting the rights of all members of this House. One of the ancient and fundamental rights of a parliamentarian is surely the right of entrance to and egress from the legislative chambers wherein he deliberates as a representative of the people. There is a long tradition of parliamentary bodies successfully asserting their freedom from restraint and arrest in the discharge of their duties.
Yesterday's reported barring of members from the centre block, the locale of this chamber, by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is a most serious intrusion upon the essential freedom of movement of members of this chamber. There is surely cause for concern and, more importantly, a need for an investigation as to the circumstances surrounding this most regrettable incident affecting the privileges of all hon. members.
It was my intention to move that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, but I desist from this course at the present time in the hope that the proper authorities will make appropriate investigation.
An obvious question concerns the authority on which such orders were issued. More fundamental is the need for reassurance that the security of the centre block will remain the responsibility not of the state police but of the parliamentary protective staff, and that no emanation of the executive will be empowered or authorized to interfere with the members of this House in the legitimate and proper discharge of their duties in this place.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hillsborough has given me notice of his intention to raise this question. Unfortunately, I have not had an opportunity to have the matter looked into and investigated, as suggested by
the hon. member. I have received a preliminary report and that report would not appear to substantiate, at least entirely, the fears expressed by the hon. member. In any event, I will have the matter looked into.
As hon. members realize, if I may say this in passing, the difficulty we have in relation to this situation is that while the parliamentary precincts, by tradition and practice, are recognized as covering the buildings themselves and principally the centre block and west block, parliamentary precincts have never been officially deemed to include the grounds surrounding our buildings, which makes of course for a divided authority. So far as the centre block is concerned, there is no question whatever that the protective staff of the House of Commons, who are parliamentary employees, have sole and exclusive jurisdiction over protection within this building. I can assure the hon. member that as far as I am concerned there is no intention whatsoever of allowing this to be changed. At the same time, once we are out of the building we fall on grounds which are perhaps a little more directly under the control of the executive. This may have been the source of the misunderstanding to which the hon. member referred a moment ago.
e (11:10 a.m.)
In any event, without going into the matter in greater detail I assure the hon. member that a complete investigation will be carried out, and I will report to the House at the beginning of the week. I may even go a little farther than the point raised by the hon. member and launch into the field of obiter dicta and express my views about the question of parliamentary precincts.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Hopkins.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.']
May 15, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister relating to the imminence of a strike in the postal service. What action, if any, is the government taking to avert such a strike?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of staff relations and disputes over wages and other matters comes under the responsibility of the President of the Treasury Board. I ask my colleague to deal with the question.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as members are aware, a conciliation board was appointed which produced a non-unanimous report. At the instigation of the government negotiations were resumed on the basis of the conciliation board report. These negotiations occupied two days during the course of the current week. The Council of Postal Unions have indicated that they would not be available for further discussions as they wished to consult their membership directly. As a consequence, these discussions are not now continuing. The Council of Postal Unions is currently discussing the conciliation board report with its membership. This consultation will be continuing today, over the weekend and into the early part of next week. The Council of Postal Unions is now seeking a mandate from its membership. Consequently they are not available for continuing discussions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I must first say that I was a little taken aback by the Solicitor General giving more information than he usually does when he answers a question.


Mr. Bell:: He is having a lot of fun these days.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I ask the President of the Treasury Board what measures he anticipates taking when the representatives of the unions are prepared to resume discussions? Also, what contact is being maintained with the representatives of the postal unions with a view to resuming discussions at the earliest possible time in order to avoid a strike which would obviously have disastrous consequences for the country?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: We have an undertaking from the Council of Postal Unions to resume these negotiations next week, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the President of the Treasury Board give the House a firm assurance that a strike will not take place before further discussions between the representatives of the government and the representatives of the postal unions concerned?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: We have been so assured by the Council of Postal Unions.



POSSIBLE NATIONAL STRIKE-INCLUSION OF JOB SECURITY AS BARGAINING ISSUE

['Mr. Speaker, I can say that it is only when there is a shortage that we import butter from New Zealand.']
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. Is the minister in a position to confirm that when the postal workers and the government return to the bargaining table the government will be prepared to bargain over the question of job security?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The government is prepared, and always has been prepared, to bargain over any bargainable issue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the government agree that this is a bargain-able issue?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As I indicated in the House the other day, job security is a rather imprecise term. Some elements of what is described as job security are bargainable and are being bargained over. Others are not.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May I address a further question to the President of the Treasury Board based on the fact that whether there is a strike or a lockout lasting one day or many months, eventually the employer and the employees must get together. In the meetings the minister has told us will take place, will the government take the attitude that a decision must finally be reached, and on that basis try to reach an understanding in order that disruption and disaster may be avoided?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's supplementary sounded argumentative.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harold Edward Winch: It may have sounded argumentative but I think the principle is a sound one to follow in Canada.
May 15, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE


An hon. Member:: Sound.


Harold Edward Winch: My direct question is: Will the Treasury Board negotiating committee approach their next meeting with the attitude, "let's settle it now, because we shall have to settle it in the future, anyway"?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I wish I could enlist the support of the hon. member as part of the government's negotiating team. He has expressed forcibly the principle we have been trying to get across. I suggest that if he cannot be part of the team he might use whatever channels are open to him to convey those sentiments to those directly concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



Mr. Real Caouelle (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the acting Prime Minister.
Is Canada about to protest strongly against Israel's scandalous attacks against Lebanon?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this question was asked yesterday. I must admit that I do not remember whether an answer was given. At any rate, I will accept the question.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the honourable member wish to ask a supplementary question?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister answers my supplementary question in the same way as he did my first question, that is by rising and then sitting down again, one mush admit that such an answer is not convincing.
As a follow-up to my first question, I wish to know whether Lebanon has asked Canada to intervene against the aggressors?


George James McIlraith: believe not, Mr. Speaker. As to the first question, in view of the seriousness of its implications I think it had better be answered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on his return to the House. I should prefer not to attempt to give an answer today.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Baffle River):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. It is based on reports that approximately one million pounds of Australian meat are presently entering the United States each week by way of Canada. Is the minister in a position to assure the House that this will in no way affect our own domestic beef exports to the U.S. market, either in quantity or price?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the postulate on which the question is based is a correct one; I do not think it is. I believe that the United States government has a system to control the import into the United States through Canada of meat coming from Australia, and I just want to question the validity of that part of the question.
On the second point, I understand that this does not affect Canadian exports of meat to the United States in any way. I understand that different types of meat are involved. If the hon. member wants a more precise answer to the question, I will give it to him on Tuesday.


Cliff Downey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are new regulations now being brought out by the United States to prevent Australian meat entering that country through Canada, or is this a program of long standing?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a program that has been implemented for a certain while.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainfe-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) a question.
Is he aware of the statement made in New Zealand by Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the effect that Canada intends to import butter from that country? Could he tell the House whether this policy is likely to affect the dairy industry in Canada?
May 15. 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: This question was asked a few days ago and the minister answered it at that time.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, could I formulate my question differently and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member wish to ask a supplementary?


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question that will be in order.
Could the minister tell us whether the policy will affect the dairy industry and which steps he will take to protect the Canadian dairy industry?


Mr. Speaker:: I will allow the minister to reply to the question, but here again, I believe the supplementary was the subject of an answer by the minister.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I can say that it is only when there is a shortage that we import butter from New Zealand.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the telegram received by the Ministers of Transport and Labour from the President of the Canadian Labour Congress, will the government reconvene the meetings in Vancouver to improve safety standards on British Columbia towboats before this dispute leads to an increasing economic crisis in British Columbia?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minisier of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly plain that negotiations with regard to safety and manning standards are not, in my judgment, a proper matter for labour negotiation. However, in so far as there are tripartite negotiations under way strictly on the matter of safety, we will reconvene these meetings at the earliest possible moment that is convenient to all parties, and I expect that that will be within a few days.


Mark Willson Rose: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since one of the officials who participated in the earlier negotiations on behalf of the Department of Transport is reported to be with the Manhattan and another is in the

Bahamas, has the minister other competent officials that he is prepared to send out immediately to see that these talks are reconvened?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are officials fully versed in the complexities of this matter who can be sent, and I am certain that this will not cause any delay in the reopening of the talks.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Is he aware that the opinion is being expressed that if the departmental regulations in regard to safety, manning and conveniences were appropriately revised, this would very rapidly open the way to a settlement of this whole dispute which is such a threat to the economy of the west? In view of this, would the minister really get on the job and have these regulations revised?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the last part of the comment, we have been on the job. I was the first one to meet with the unions on the west coast to establish this procedure. However, I do think it is improper to directly involve the establishment of safety standards with a labour dispute. The question of standards should be a question of deciding what are the best safety features, and should not be the subject of negotiation between the owners and the operators. It is on this rather delicate point I want to be sure we are fully understood. But there will be no unnecessary delay in resuming negotiations. I can assure the hon. member of that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have one further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister of Transport not to lean too heavily on the niceties he wishes to preserve in terms of separation of responsibilities but to bear in mind-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor for the purpose of asking a question. I suggest that he should not engage in debate.



HOUSING


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Finance. In light of recent statements which indicate that the sales tax on building materials brought the
May IS, 1970	COMMONS
government some $165 million last year, $90 million more than the amount provided in direct aid for low-cost housing, which would seem to be contrary to the government's concern about housing, will the minister now give consideration to withdrawing the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, if the assumption my friend makes is correct, more than half of the amount, of course, would come out commercial construction rather than housing. If we intend to make any such changes as he suggests, I will announce them in the ordinary manner in the House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have a supplementary question for the minister. In view of the fact that interest rates are affecting the cost of housing more than any other factor, and in light of the fact that the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing has indicated that he has been in consultation with the minister regarding the assessing of all schemes which would increase the flow of mortgage money and decrease interest rates, and keeping in mind that it has been stated that the housing crisis is the worst since the war, can the minister advise whether the government has arrived at any conclusion yet and, if not, when may we expect an announcement in this regard?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I gather that the purport of the question is, when are interest rates going to come down. There has been some slight reduction. The government treasury bills issued yesterday were about half a point lower than in the previous week, but interest rates will not really be contained until inflation is conquered, and I hope all members on that side of the House will support us in our fight against inflation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's great concern for the plight of those who do not seem to be in a position to acquire homes, and in view of the fact that it seems to be almost impossible because of the proposals in the white paper on tax reform which indicate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his supplementary?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, my question is, would the minister now give serious consideration to the removal of residential homes from the capital gains proposal in the white paper?
*	22375-261
DEBATES	7011
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: I have continually said since the white paper was issued that it is not the intention of the government, if a gains tax is ultimately enacted by Parliament, to tax gains on ordinary homes.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. When does he anticipate that the study on base redundancy currently-being conducted by his department will be presented to him?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we are currently involved in the final phase of our study. I expect I will be able to make a final decision probably early in June or the end of May.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, would the minister assure the House that prior to taking action on the report by his department there will be an opportunity for an examination of the recommendations either by a committee of the House or through some public medium?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I believe I have a mandate that was given to me to operate within a fixed budget. In order to achieve that objective I have to take some decisions which I believe are the prerogative of the executive. As we have in the past we will in this instance consult with the local authorities. We have indicated that in any decision we would give a year's notice and also, in respect of the people employed, six months' notice. We intend to follow that practice.



TRANSPORT


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Are the employees of the railways engaged in the running trades in British Columbia still continuing to book off sick in considerable numbers, and has this action adversely affected the movement of grain, coal and other commodities?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: My latest information is that the dispute, if that is what it can properly be called, has been settled, that the matter is
May 15, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry now resolved and the trains are running on the normal schedule again. As for possible disruption, I do not believe there was anything of any great consequence during the period of the dispute.



TAXATION


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance and to preface it with a reference to encouraging Canadian investment in our own industry. I should like to quote one sentence from page 26 of a speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the hon. member will not get us involved in the same difficulties we had yesterday. He has to ask his question directly. If he is going to refer to a speech, it should be by way of asking the Acting Prime Minister whether that speech made outside the House reflects government policy.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I put the question then without referring to the speech because I am sure the Minister of Finance has read it. In view of the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that the petroleum and natural gas industries will be put at no disadvantage by the taxes to be implemented by Canada under the white paper proposals compared with the United States tax system dealing with depletion allowances and capital gains, has the minister withdrawn all that part of the white paper which would put these industries at such a disadvantage?


Edgar John Benson: Without agreeing to the conclusion stated in the hon. member's question, I have not proposed the withdrawal of any sections of the white paper.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stating government policy in the United States when he made that statement which appears on page 26 of his speech?


Mr. Speaker:: Of course the Minister of Finance is not authorized to reply to that question under the Standing Orders. This question can be asked of the Acting Prime Minister.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then I will ask the Acting Prime Minister, who changes from day to day, whether he can assure us that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was stating government policy when he made that statement which appears on page 26 of his speech made recently in the United States?


George James McIlraith: I am not sufficiently familiar with his speech to identify it by page numbers. I will, however, be very glad to have the particular sentence in the speech to which reference has been made looked at and an answer given to the question subsequently.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of the fact that the statement is made in one sentence-and I know what the privileges of hon. members are when they refer to matters such as this- may I quote that one sentence so that the Acting Prime Minister will be informed of it in the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no objection to this. What I was suggesting to the hon. member was that the question in the first instance should have been directed to the Acting Prime Minister. I see no difficulty in asking it in those terms at this time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will read it to the Acting Prime Minister. The minister said:
In particular, I cannot see that it would legislate a tax climate in which the Canadian petroleum industry would be put at any significantly increased disadvantage compared with the industry in the United States.
My question is whether the minister in that sentence at page 26 of his speech was setting out government policy?


George James McIlraith: I think it would be obvious to hon. members that he was.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Fairweather:: There goes the white paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to ask for the co-operation of the hon. member. We are running short of time, and I invite him to ask his supplementary question as quickly as possible. We will go on to another question thereafter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know this is a most embarrassing situation for the government. I can see why they would not want any more supplementary questions. I wonder whether I

May 15. 1970	COMMONS
could put this question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance said that that part of the white paper which discriminates against our industry compared with the United States industry will not be withdrawn, how does the Acting Prime Minister now reconcile what he has just said?


George James McIlraith: It is very easy. The hon. member has put a wrong interpretation on the white paper. I do not accept the hon. member's interpretation of the white paper on that point.


Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: You
are squirming now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I can make it very briefly. I suggest that the Solicitor General has never read the white paper and he should take the time to study it.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that on reflection the hon. member for Calgary North will recognize that this is not a point of order.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I want to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources how soon he anticipates tabling the report of the task force investigating emergency gold mining assistance?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that the report will be tabled. It is an interdepartmental effort largely under the aegis of my department. Whether or not the report will be one that will be tabled has not yet been decided.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Information Canada!


William Arnold Peters: Is the minister in a position to advise the gold mines committee representing community interests of the intention of the government regarding emergency gold mining assistance when they meet him at the end of the month?


John James Greene: I am meeting the committee from northern Ontario and northern Quebec, later this month, as the hon. member stated, but I am meeting them to hear their representations and their views in respect of the
DEBATES	7013
Inquiries of the Ministry continuation of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act and not to give them a decision at that time.



1976 WINTER OLYMPICS-WILLINGNESS TO HAVE ASSISTED VANCOUVER


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister.
Would he tell the House whether the Prime Minister was expressing the opinion of the cabinet when he stated that the city of Vancouver might have been granted financial aid if the winter Olympics had been held in that city, contrary to Montreal which will not get any assistance?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether I can allow this question. The hon. member is asking whether the Prime Minister was expressing the opinion of the cabinet. I do not believe that the question may be asked in those terms.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member obviously cannot put a supplementary to a question ruled out of order. He may have another question to ask and I will now give him the floor for that purpose.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Does the Acting Prime Minister feel that the federal government could have helped the city of Vancouver if it had not been decided that the summer Olympics would be held in Montreal?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member must admit that his question is hypothetical.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleton):: would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister, and I regret that I was not able to give him notice.
Is the government aware of a statement or statements to the press by the Chairman of the National Capital Commission to the effect that he might close the national capital parkways in this region for a week for the strange
7014	COMMONS DEBATES	May 15, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry purpose of proving their importance in carrying traffic? The second part of my question is whether the Acting Prime Minister can assure the House that the government will not permit the people of this area to be inconvenienced by the disruption that this extraordinary and senseless experiment would cause?


George James McIlraith: The statement has caused concern. I am very doubtful that the Chairman of the commission has any such authority under the National Capital Act passed by this Parliament.



PRIME MINISTER'S SUMMER RESIDENCE

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Is
the Acting Prime Minister also of the opinion that the Chairman of the National Capital Commission has no authority to declare that the Prime Minister's summer residence and other amenities of the office of the Prime Minister shall be eliminated at the discretion of the Chairman?


George James McIlraith: I do not want to be put in the position of giving a legal opinion on the National Capital Commission legislation, but it is quite clear in the Act that the function of that commission is to advise the government on the planning of the national capital region. The responsibility for decision is that of the government and not of the commission. The commission has certain ancillary powers to carry out certain works supplementary to the main objective.



REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF CHAIRMAN FROM OFFICE

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the representations with respect to the Chairman of the National Capital Commission, who has been a proven failure in past efforts on behalf of the government, and the fact that Members of Parliament, municipal officials and others have made strong complaints, including the very hard slap across the knuckles he received from the Acting Prime Minister of yesterday, will the government not take action and dismiss this man immediately from his part-time job which he maintains requires a great deal of effort to carry through?
Hen. G. J. Mcllrailh (Acting Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, that question is much too difficult. It will be seen that in its rather lengthy preamble there are a great many alle-
gations that are quite unfair to a public servant.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Are you going to fire him or are you not?


George James McIlraith: As I see it, it is not agreeable to Parliament to have a public servant described in that way in a preamble to a question and attempt to obtain an answer to a question put in that form.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why don't you get more
verbose?


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege based on the fact that the Acting Prime Minister today has accused me of making statements about a public servant which, oddly enough, I can support by the statement of the Acting Prime Minister of yesterday. I call his attention to page 6967 of Hansard where the Acting Prime Minister- the Secretary of State for External Affairs- made this statement:
They said the report of the remarks made by Mr. Fullerton completely misrepresented his position.
How can the Acting Prime Minister today accuse me of making a statement about a public servant when the Acting Prime Minister of yesterday made the same statement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ESTABLISHMENT OF HOUSE COMMITTEE TO DEAL WITH PLANS

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the Acting Prime Minister in relation to the national capital. Having in mind the continual debates between the city of Ottawa and the National Capital Commission over authority and plans, would the Acting Prime Minister encourage the government to give consideration to setting up a committee of the House to deal with national capital plans?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I had understood that some matters of this kind were presently before one of the standing committees, but I will certainly take the suggestion of the hon. member under consideration.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I did have a supplemen-
May 15. 1970

tary on the hogwash expounded the other night by the Chairman of the National Capital Commission but I think we have had enough of that for the moment. I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In his continuing absence and because of the urgency of the problem, would the Acting Minister investigate and report to the House why workers of Hustler Products Corporation, an operation brought into Cape Breton Island by Devco with financial assistance, have not received moneys for which they have worked in the past four weeks?


Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I shall make inquiries into this question, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Muir: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. gentleman who was kind enough to promise to make inquiries. Would the Acting Minister also investigate and make known to the House if Breton Versatrek, another industry sponsored by Devco, is going to resume operations? If so, when are the employees who were laid off going to be recalled to their employment?
I'lr. O'Connell: I shall take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the minister advise the House whether he has had any communication from the Yukon Council regarding Bill C-212 and particularly with reference to the establishment of an executive committee?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the government has received a telex from the Speaker of the Council of the Yukon Territory and, if I may, I shall read two lines: -may I, on behalf of all members of council and the people of the Yukon Territory, extend to you our thanks and appreciation for the efforts you have made to bring about necessary changes in local government requested for many years-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



RATIFICATION BY DENMARK OF AGREEMENT RESPECTING SALMON FISHING

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that the 14-nation Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission agreed in London on Tuesday of this week to institute a ten-month closed season to protect salmon from fishing fleets in international waters. Since Denmark is a member of this commission, is the minister in a position to inform the House whether Denmark has ratified this agreement?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: No, I am not, Mr. Speaker, but I will make inquiries.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question. Does the minister endorse the principle that nations which protect and develop salmon within their territorial boundaries own the exclusive right to harvest these salmon and, if so, what steps is he taking to convey this viewpoint at the international level?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member knows, this has been a long-established policy on the part of the Canadian government and we are taking every possible step to ensure that there is no harvesting of salmon on the high seas.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the minister any brief information on the situation at Windsor with respect to the customs officers?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: There is no change today as far as the Windsor situation is concerned, Mr. Speaker. The workers are still out but the traffic is still moving through the port between the countries.


Mr.   II W. Danforth@Keni-Essex: Are any
discussions being held or any steps being taken directly for the installation of the safety device which it seems reasonable that the customs men should be seeking at this time?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: The safety device, Mr. Speaker, is a telephone or means of communication between the booths and the
May IS, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry office. We have told the employees that telephones will be installed on May 20. We told them that on May 12 and they will be installed next week.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: Mr. Speaker, in part my question was asked by the hon. member for Kent-Essex, but I wonder what objection the government has to employing additional personnel so there would be two employees on the job rather than just one as at present?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: First, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it would be of any help. This is being looked at right now but the thing we cannot forget is that there is only about the distance of a car separating these men one from the other. They are pretty close. What they want is to have a means of communication from the place where they are to the office. This is being installed and will be ready at the beginning of next week.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to introduce legislation, thereby implementing one of its election promises which would enable the purchase of farm land now that the LIFT program has reduced the availability of land for purchase in western Canada?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I believe the program of legislation has been set for this session, but I shall check further into the matter in relation to the specific point raised by the hon. member now.



WHEAT-INCREASE IN ALLOTMENT OF BOXCARS TO KEEP ELEVATORS FILLED

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, last week I directed a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board, at which time he advised that additional railway cars were being provided for the Saskatchewan pool terminals. Since these terminals had to curtail operations last week, can he now say whether additional cars have arrived and whether additional cars are being allotted to them in future?


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the specific breakdown of the number of cars being loaded on any given day for the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool terminal, but I am happy to report to hon. members that whereas, with the difficulties last week, average loadings in the country for Thunder Bay had been 875 cars, for the first three days of this week the loadings were 1,104, 1,217 and 1,317 cars respectively.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since there is already a shortfall in Saskatchewan of 6,000 carloads to meet the schedules and allow for delivery of a four-bushel quota, can the minister tell us what action has been taken to make sure that both railways increase the total number of cars employed in grain movement?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the meeting dealing with the issue of loadings for Thunder Bay discussed a longer working week for those persons who really must put forward a greater effort in order that more cars will be there. The railways seemed to indicate that there would be an availability of cars to meet the new schedule, which would allow catching up on the backlog which has taken place so far.


Mr. John L. Skcberg (Moose Jaw):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate whether the block system is working satisfactorily? If so, why is there a shortage of cars at those points at this time?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that the block system is working satisfactorily. The exact placing of cars is still, to some extent, in the hands of particular elevator companies, including the pools. One would have to investigate the decisions of all the people involved in order to have an evaluation in detail of how it is working.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the $17 million refit bill for the Bonaventure, is the government reconsidering its plan to scrap the ship?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, my figure for the refit is $12,570,000. With regard to reconsidering
May 15, 1970	COMMONS
the decision to decommission the ship, not to scrap it, the original decision has to stand.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, would it not make sense to continue the ship in operation so that the taxpayer can get some of his money back?



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. What is the result of the representations the minister undertook to make, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to Czechoslovakia about the prohibitive air ticket tax and the clampdown on travel visas introduced just as Air Canada's flights to Prague were being inaugurated?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the Czechoslovakian tax applies only to pleasure travel undertaken by residents of that country and paid for in the currency of that country. It does not apply to tickets purchased with other currency or purchased by people other than Czechoslovakians. It is not anticipated, therefore, that it will have any significant effect on the new bilateral agreement now in operation between Czechoslovakia and Canada, and the airline proposes to proceed as planned.
o (12 noon)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Georges-J. Valade: That this House urges the government to take immediate steps to change its economic policies which are contributing to the growing rate of unemployment as evidenced by the figures just released by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on page 8 of his working paper on the Constitution, entitled "Income Security and Social Services", the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) outlines the role of the central government as follows:
The Government of Canada must be given sufficient powers in the Constitution to enable it to
DEBATES	7017
Economic Policies and Unemployment stimulate and expand the economy, and to manage the economy in such a way as to maintain high levels of employment.
It must also "have the power to redistribute income and to maintain reasonable levels of livelihood for individual Canadians, if the effects of regional disparities on individual citizens are to be minimized."
These are the statements of policy made by the Prime Minister in his working paper on the Canadian Constitution.
As for me, I maintain that the central government already has or assumes, if need be, the powers requested by the Prime Minister. Far from using them to promote economic development and to maintain employment at a high level, the government policy has caused the dislocation of the economic structure and an alarming and dangerous increase in the unemployment rate in Canada.
Although they have been warned by economists, union leaders, administrators, manufacturers and columnists of big Canadian newspapers the government and particularly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) are pursuing a ridiculous and unrealistic economic policy whose effects can only endanger further the future of Canada's economy and bring disastrous and unavoidable consequences on the human and social level.
The immediate effect of tightening credit, of maintaining high discount rates and of the uneasiness caused by the white paper is a constant increase in unemployment. The motion I proposed today is once again an attempt to bring the government and the Minister of Finance to their senses as far as it is possible, and to bring them to create the "just society" which was their slogan at the last general federal election.
The motion, I am making a point of repeating it, reads as follows:
That this House urges the government to take immediate steps to change its economic policies which are contributing to the growing rate of unemployment as evidenced by the figures just released by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
Mr. Speaker, I do say:
That this House urges the government-
The motion is not directed to members of the opposition, but to all members of the House. We ask them to take immediately the necessary measures in order to remedy the present disastrous conditions of unemployment in Canada.
The causes of unemployment are numerous. The government policy is not solely responsi-
May 15, 1970
7018	COMMONS
Economic Policies and Unemployment ble for it. However, its policy and its attitudes are directly responsible for increased unemployment.
I mentioned a few causes of unemployment a while ago and I wish to repeat them, since the government seems deaf to warnings and information coming from all sources in that connection. Credit restrictions, high interest rates, shortage of capital due to the publication of the white paper, the recommendations of that white paper, strikes which are unfortunately unavoidable due to pressures on the industries, the flight of foreign capital, since there is distrust towards the present Canadian administration, the slowing down in the construction field, the 11 per cent tax on building materials, the unrealistic and unconsidered attitudes of the central government, its steady refusal to acknowledge that its economic policies were misguided, are all so many causes of unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, almost 95 per cent of the citizens in my riding are workers. I am aware, and several of my colleagues representing ridings like mine, are also, aware of the plague of unemployment affecting thousands of Canadian homes. I am particularly concerned by the economic deadlock in which the government has thrust the Canadian workers and taxpayers. I am growing every day more and more aware of how serious this curse has become for when I meet my fellow-citizens, they complain to me about it by the thousand.
There are bread-winners beseeching me to help them tackle their problem. In spite of all I have done myself to approach a number of authorities and industries, I simply cannot find outlets to absorb the available manpower. Several reasons are given for refusing such as that the applicant is over 40, or in other cases, a lack of education, or the fact that he is physically handicapped, and many other similar reasons. But the problem really stems from the fact that no jobs are being created and several industries have to shut down because of the present policy of the Liberal government.
Mr. Speaker, at the time of the last election, in June 1968, we read a very interesting document entitled "The Just Society". I have read in that document, already forgotten by the Liberal government, certain passages it might be well to reflect upon. For instance, I will quote one of the paragraphs of that historical document. I have that folder here. In paragraph A, entitled "The Just Society", and opposite which appears a photo of our "with [Mr. Valade.l


An hon. Member:: Twice the national
average.


Georges-J. Valade: Twice the national average, as my hon. friend says.

There is also a disturbing trend. I shall come back to it later.
All responsible people have denounced the government policy, namely, the restrictions on credit and the white paper proposals. The most experienced economists have questioned that policy. In a very interesting article published in La Presse of Montreal, on January 24, 1970, and entitled "Review and Outlook of the Canadian Economy in 1970", Mr. Andre Beauman, a very well known economist and consultant engineer, had this to say about the "Bensonian" policy:
Action taken against inflation by the federal government is already quite detrimental enough to Quebec.
As a matter of fact, in view of the present unemployment rate there, those steps run counter to the economic incentives needed by Quebec and furthermore can only increase the industrial gap that has always existed between Ontario and the other provinces.
One could go on indefinitely quoting expert economists who unanimously reject the government proposals as a solution to inflation.
The new Quebec premier, Mr. Bourassa, in the last days of his election campaign, was compelled to denounce the federal government's policy in this regard.
Other authorities who know all about economic stability could also be quoted. As a matter of fact, Professor Richard A. Mus-grove, in a paper entitled "The Optimal Mix of Stabilisation Policies" and reproduced in a brief submitted by the C.N.T.U. to the federal government said, and I quote so as to further enlighten, if possible, the Minister of Finance:
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)

The other possibility is to insist on price level stability, while letting employment drop to whatever level it may. This approach is not only absurdly inefficient and unjust, but it is altogether unrealistic. Sustained unemployment is incompatible with social stability in our society.

DEBATES	May 15, 1970

This is an economist who knows what he is talking about. Indeed he tells the Minister of Finance and the government bluntly that their economic policy is wrong, bad and irresponsible.
We have said it before and we will repeat it as often and as long as necessary, even without any hope of bringing the minister to reason, in order to draw the attention of the Canadian people to the tremendous blunder they made when they entrusted dangerous amateurs with the destiny of this country.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: You
are not serious.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, if I am not, thousands of jobless are serious when they consider the plight of their families.
As you are the member for Trois-Rivieres, representing an area particularly affected by unemployment, you must tell us whether or not you agree with the government's policy. You must tell us whether or not you agree with the hundreds of families who are starving in your constituency of Trois-Rivieres and who cannot rely on the central government-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I should like to point out to the hon. member that his remarks must be directed to the Chair.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I was replying to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, and if he challenges me again, I shall reply in kind.
About 540,000 unemployed people cry out in anguish, hoping to be heard by those who have been elected to build up a "Just Society".
The highest priority in Canada is not the economy, but unemployment. We must therefore deal with it.
When 9 per cent of the people in Quebec suffer from unemployment, 10 per cent in the Maritimes, and almost 7 per cent throughout Canada, I think the matter requires consideration. The government has no right to remain indifferent to this human problem. Its first duty is to take immediately the measures required for improving the situation before it reaches despairing proportions.
Is the pride of the Minister of Finance more important than the elimination of unemployment?
Statistics are sometimes eloquent, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Finance would
May IS, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	7021
Economic Policies and Unemployment
not want to discuss the figures supplied by us that phenomenon-the unemployment rate the Dominion Bureau of Statistics but, before stands at 7 per cent for the current year. And giving some examples of unemployment in what is more disquieting is that contrary to Canada, I might point out that the Progres- previous years
sive Conservative government was in office in 1963. Badly decimated, the Liberal party was the official opposition and, in the interest of all Canadians, it should have stayed there.
Mr. Speaker, we remember the never-ending attacks of the Liberals against the Progressive Conservative government at that time. In fact, I have here a copy of a statement made by the right hon. Lester B. Pearson, former Liberal Leader, at Sault-Sainte-Marie on May 7, 1962. Here is what he said: 535,000 unemployed in 1964 and the Conservatives remain in power.
In 1964, the Liberals were in power and we witnessed the highest unemployment rate while today the number of unemployed reaches 544,000.
I would like the Liberals to remember that statement of their former leader in order to establish which of the two parties betrayed its commitments and its responsibilities towards the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, if we examine the figures released by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, we realize that in 1967, 1968 and 1969, the unemployment rate kept rising.
For the months of January, February, March and April, unemployment rates in Canada were respectively 6.1, 6.4, and 5.7 per cent in 1968, 5.9, 6, 5.7 and 5.4 in 1969; in 1970 the average for the same months was 6.6 per cent. But it is in Quebec that the situation is most critical. Yet Quebec was loyal, too much so perhaps, and fooled to some extent by the Liberal party's promises during the last election campaign, having sent to this Parliament more than 55 Liberal members. What a tragedy! If people could retrace their steps, they would willingly act otherwise.
Figures do not lie as they are published by a federal agency. Well, in Quebec there were
206,000	unemployed in March, 203,000 in April and the figure for May is expected to rise to 207,000. The percentage was 9.2 per cent in March of this year and 8.9 per cent in April.
If we now refer to the figures concerning the Atlantic provinces, we note that it was in that area that the unemployment rate was the highest, since it reached 10.4 per cent.
In British Columbia, in a province under a Creditiste administration which is said to work miracles-and I hope that those who praise the creditiste principles will explain to


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. Unless the House gives its unanimous consent, the hon. member will not be allowed to proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Agreed. The hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade).
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who are reciprocating our past courtesies on the occasion of debates in the House.
Mr. Speaker, the most alarming fact is this: contrary to the tendency of the last five years, when the number of unemployed decreased by about 32,000 per annum in the month of April, at present their number tends not to decrease but to increase, a clear sign that we are really experiencing a serious recession. Therefore, there is urgency for the government to propose solutions and to offer incentives to the Canadian economy.
There is another alarming indication. In the manufacturing industry, the number of jobs decreased by 11,000 in April, instead of increasing, a fact that the Minister of Finance can certainly confirm. Normally, an increase should have occurred.
Both these situations really indicate that unemployment, instead of receding is growing, which is going to be disastrous.
I wonder what the government intends to do to stop this.
So far, I agree with my colleague who said the government had given no indication whatsoever about how it was going to steer the wheel in the right direction. It remains undisturbed, and goes on enforcing its policy while already aware that it is bad and contrary to the public interest.
There is a lot of evidence to support this for the government and the Minister of Finance have been given a number of warnings in this respect.
I would like to quote here the warning given by a union leader, Mr. Donald MacDonald, the chairman of the Canadian Labour Congress as reported in the January 1970
7022	COMMONS
Economic Policies and Unemployment issue of The Canadian Worker. I am sure that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) would have told his colleague, the Minister of Finance about it, even though his communications with the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) may be somewhat different. This is what Mr. MacDonald had to say, at page 26 of this document:
It would be rather difficult not to conclude that the unemployment rate will then be higher, and maybe appreciably higher, in 1970 than it is now. It is also difficult not to realize that in 1970, unemployment will be for the Canadian people a more serious problem than that of inflation, as the rate of increase of prices slows down following recession conditions.
There, Mr. Speaker, is someone who understands the problem, who knows what he is talking about, and who warns the government of the possible disaster if the latter does not adjust his aim.
There is another painful situation: that of unemployment amongst Canadian students. In the publication of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) entitled "Summer employment survey of post-secondary students in Canada-1969," one finds interesting things. For instance, that 90 per cent of the male students and 83 per cent of the female students look for employment during the summer months. It also points out that in 1968, 306,000 students looked for employment; in 1969, 346,000 and in 1970, over 400,000 young people out of a total of
64,000	students will be looking for work. That means 60,000 students more than last year.
What does the government intend to do to provide jobs to those young people who bank on summer employment to pay for their studies, to help their families make ends meet?
We would like the Minister of Finance to answer that question. We would like him and the Liberal government to give some hope to the students who are preparing their future, who are working at it now and are caught in a vice, in the economic straight-jacket imposed by the Minister of Finance. They would like to know if some day they can breathe a bit more freely and can count on the co-operation, the understanding and if possible, on the intelligence of the present Liberal government.
The situation is even more significant in the case of student employment. When we compare the situation in Ontario and in Quebec, it is in Quebec-as well as in the Maritimes- [Mr. Valade.l
DEBATES	May IS, 1970
that students will be most affected by the callousness of the Minister of Finance and of the government.
We also find that the situation is paradoxical, since it is in Ontario that students were the most successful in finding work in the past and it is in Quebec and in Newfoundland that we find the lowest employment rates. One can also read on page 7 of that report:
As might be expected, generally more students found jobs in provinces with relatively low overall (all age groups) unemployment rates during the summer.
Which means that it is in the provinces where the economy is stimulated and sound- which is logical-that students have less difficulty in finding employment.
In the province of Quebec and in the Maritimes, the situation is so disturbing that it has become dangerous. What will the students do to get work during the summer months? That is the question I am asking to the Minister of Finance and I would like him to answer in order to dispel some of the anxiety felt by thousands of our students. Mr. Speaker, a great deal could be said on this subject, but I do not intend to abuse of the time allowed to me. I know that most of the things I said, except perhaps the new statistics on unemployment released by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics have already been said in this House. In newspapers and magazines, they were also said by economists, business leaders, union leaders, and the government always turned a deaf ear to those warnings. We feel duty bound, both morally and politically, to remind the government and the ministry of their human and social responsibilities in the face of the unemployment situation which is most disturbing at the present time.
Sure enough, there are solutions, among which the following, which ought to be considered by the Minister of Finance.
First, he should try to understand the present economic situation, and indicate that he is prepared to cast aside immediately his stiffness, and to free capital. He should build a climate of confidence, by indicating his intention to amend extensively the white paper, so as not to endanger the interests of those who have accumulated gains in their lifetime, and who are overly taxed at the time of their retirement, as is the case for pensioners and those who contribute to profit-sharing plans.
The Minister of Finance might also reduce the discount rate of the Bank of Canada, and take the necessary steps to lower the interest rate.
May 15, 1970	COMMONS
Furthermore, the government, in conjunction with the Minister of Finance, should admit that it made the wrong economic decisions, and gear its policy to full employment, develop foreign markets, foster the expansion of secondary industry by adequate measures, hasten the reforms of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and take steps with a view to reducing immigration, selecting immigrants, and adapting the immigration policy to the present requirements of the country.
Mr. Speaker, the government could also do a great deal for students. It could, for instance, develop national parks in summertime, and force foreign companies who have subsidiaries in Canada to employ a greater number of students.
In the report submitted to the House, it was stated that, unfortunately, several companies had hired American students last summer. I hope that, this year, the government will take some action to ensure that industry will hire Canadian students in preference to foreign ones.
Unemployment is a human drama, a social ill. Economically speaking, it is costly and it is prejudicial to our democratic institutions. The family man who is unemployed is an easy prey for all kinds of social agitators. He is unable to satisfy the essential needs of his family. His dignity as a human being is lessened and he feels abandoned by society. Unemployment leads to poverty, and its consequences, from a social standpoint, are known to us.
There are obviously some serious problems. I refer to the important priority to which the government should devote itself immediately. The government should take into account the considerable number of people 40 and over affected by unemployment. The government should take steps to make it possible for them to find work.
There is another problem which is that of the disabled who still can be useful. The government should see to it that they get better co-operation and better attention from the officials at manpower centres.
Of course, there is also the problem of the employees of all ages with a lesser education. These are, in short, the proposals I am putting forward today through a motion urging the government to take the necessary steps and decisions to check as soon as possible unemployment in Canada before this dangerous and disastrous situation gets worse.
DEBATES	7023
Economic Policies and Unemployment [DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Douglas Charles Rowland: I should indicate to members before I commence that the colour of my shirt does not necessarily have any social significance, merely a sartorial one.


An hon. Member:: How about the colour of
your speech?


Douglas Charles Rowland: C'est la meme chose.
I was fortunate in preparing my first major intervention in the House in that I was confronted not with the problem of finding adequate documentation to support my case but rather with an embarrassment of riches. The catalogue of government follies in respect of anti-inflationary policies is virtually unending. Probably the kindest thing we can say about the government's anti-inflationary policies is that they represent dismal, utter and complete failure.


Mr. Saltsman:: That is an understatement.


Douglas Charles Rowland: They have been disastrous for two major reasons, the first being the total absence of selectivity, both in respect of regions of the country and sectors of the economy, and second, because of the total lack of sensitivity both in human and in economic terms.
I understand that it is customary on occasions such as this, when a member makes his first major intervention in the House, to spend some time discussing the nature and character of his constituency, but this particular topic does not lend itself to that kind of approach. However, there is one bit of local lore which I might bring into the debate. I represent a constituency in which there is to be found a large Icelandic population, and accordingly, during the recent election campaign, I became very well acquainted with some of the Norse sagas. One of the more impressive figures to emerge from the sagas is the Berserker. The Berserker was an heroic figure, a man who in the heat of battle became so overcome by blood lust that he struck about himself indiscriminately with any weapons of destruction which came to hand.
While one must admit that the Berserker would be a marvellous ally in the case of war or on the battlefield, he would become an object of horror in a modern operating room. Yet, this is the approximate situation with which the Liberal government has presented the people of Canada. The Minister of

Economic Policies and Unemployment Finance (Mr. Benson), and his minions on the Prices and Incomes Commission, believe themselves to be at war against inflation and they are striking about themselves wildly with any weapon that comes to hand, without regard to the effect. But they are not at war; they should see themselves as being engaged in a delicate operation upon the economic heart of the nation, an operation which requires the discriminating use of the scalpel rather than the indiscriminate use of a bludgeon. The result of the federal government's misconception of its role is to bring the nation to the brink of economic disaster and to push many of the citizens of this nation over that brink.
If I may extend my medical analogy from surgery to pathology, the federal government, rather than treating the inflationary situation, has absorbed itself in a facile, simple minded attempt to eliminate the symptoms of inflation. In so doing, this government has not only failed to control inflation, failed to reduce inflationary pressures, but it has also forced unemployment up to one of the highest rates in years. Today, 66 of every 1,000 people in our work force have no jobs. That is, roughly, in excess of half a million people. Such a situation is completely unacceptable in a modern state by any standard of measurement, be it economic, social or moral.
In the name of fighting inflation, this government has implemented policies which increase waste and injustice. It has calmly and deliberately implemented policies which have increased unemployment as an alleged weapon against inflation. This government has done so, despite the knowledge that even small, fractional additions to the percentage of the labour force without work must mean that thousands of Canadians and their families will have been visited with the misery of dislocation and hardship. The New Democratic Party cannot accept this as being a basis for rational policy. Nor can we accept any approach to anti-inflationary action which treats the public sector of the economy as being less productive, and therefore more easily sacrificed, than the private sector. We simply do not accept that any real solutions to economic difficulties will result from reduction in the public sector to permit even less social discipline than is now evident in private sector responses to the true priorities in the Canadian economy.
Moreover, many of those now being dropped from federal payrolls as an austerity measure are people who were in work which

May 15, 1970
offered the best real hope of increasing productivity and opportunity for others. They were and are basic researchers and planners. Their efforts were being made in many of the very regions hardest hit now and having the longest history of disadvantage. It is now all too clear that the federal cutbacks have curtailed the very activities in the very regions where more, not less, strength is needed. A basic premise of economics is that failure to spend money on essentially needed progress in capacity and necessary support development is a sure way to risk inflation being translated ultimately into deflationary collapse for many if not all of our people.
To lump essential public service maintenance and investment in social and economic progress for the disadvantaged people in communities with ostentatious investment in nonessentials, such as high rise luxury office buildings or things easily deferred such as the fourth service station on one corner, is neither responsible policy nor is it likely to be effective policy in curing any crisis.
The Economic Council of Canada has made clear its view of the dangers of excessive restraint and blanket curtailment of essential progress. There is, in the economic policies of most progressive governments in Europe, a basic commitment to increases in manpower and development spending specifically as an anti-inflationary measure. It obviously makes good anti-inflationary sense to upgrade the skills of people in order to increase national productivity and capacity. The facts of economic success in a jurisdiction applying such policies suggest that the best reason for adopting it here in Canada is that it works.
But this government is unable to understand such logic. In its war against inflation, it has imposed cutbacks of needed public services such as housing, urban renewal, health services, winter works, and pollution control. The results have invariably been harmful to the wellbeing of this nation, and in some cases the results are absolutely absurd. For example, the increased cost of accommodation is one of the major elements forcing up the cost of living. But what has this government done about that situation? Has it increased the amount of housing stock available in an effort to force down the price of housing? No, it has not. Instead, it has adopted policies which ensure a continuing shortage of supply of adequate housing, thereby ensuring a continuing rise in housing costs.
In short, I am saying that there needs to be some selectivity in the cuts applied to govern-
May 15. 1970	COMMONS
ment expenditures. No doubt, as the recent report of the Auditor General points out and as the recent report of the Public Accounts Committee demonstrates with respect to the Bonaventure, there is needless and wasteful government expenditure. No doubt there are areas of government expenditure which could well be curtailed or deferred in an inflationary situation. But Benson's bludgeon doesn't permit this kind of selectivity.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
If there has been an absurd lack of discrimination and selectivity in the application of cutbacks to government expenditures, when one comes to examine the imbalance between government cutbacks and private sector cutbacks the situation is absolutely ridiculous. This government has obviously accepted the theory that is so assiduously propounded by many of the less trained minds in our business community, that the spending we do collectively through government for hospitals, roads and schools, is harmful to the economy, while the spending that we do as individuals is good for the economy whether we spend it on snowmobiles, shoes, skis, colour televisions, or trade last year's car for this year's car. This type of private spending is healthy spending, according to the government. We in the New Democratic Party say that it is socially and economically irresponsible to demand, as this government demands, that the public sector of the economy bear the majority, indeed almost the totality, of the burden of sacrifice required to reduce inflationary pressures.
The policies employed by the government have led us into a system where there is an outrageous imbalance in our priorities; a system where we are lavish in the production of things that add little to social advancement, while at the same time there is a terrible squeeze in those goods and services that are provided collectively. Assuming that the economy is overheated and that some restraint is required, it would be more rational to selectively pace our private sector investment as well, particularly private sector investment of the relatively less valuable kind mentioned just a moment ago, rather than to cut back on education, social services and health services which are absolutely essential for our economic wellbeing.
But the federal government has allowed and, in fact, encouraged the private sector to increase its less socially useful expenditures and its access to the money market in
DEBATES	7025
Economic Policies and Unemployment Canada, the very same money market on which the federal government competes for the same funds. I could go into an elaboration here, Mr. Speaker, of the precise policies which the government has employed but I see that time will not permit me that kind of detail. The result of these policies has been that we are faced with a superabundance of private goods but a famine of public goods. This has led to a tremendous distortion in the allocation of our resources.
I am not arguing that in every instance public spending must take priority over private spending. It is as absurd to insist that public spending always and in every instance has priority over private expenditure as it is to continue the present policy. Rather, I am saying that we require the establishment of some over-all spending priorities, public and private, and that once these priorities have been established we should then selectively apply anti-inflationary policies to reflect the priorities. In that way, necessary and healthy expenditures, both private and public could be continued, even in some instances increased, while unnecessary and inflationary expenditures both public and private could be curtailed.
If selectivity is required in sectors of the economy, it is equally required in the various regions of the country. It is nothing short of stupid to apply the same anti-inflationary devices in areas of the country such as Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Atlantic provinces, as are being applied in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. Mr. Bourassa has told the government this; Mr. Schreyer has told the government this; Mr. Thatcher has told the government this; Mr. Robichaud has told the government this; Mr. Smith has told the government this and Mr. Smallwood has told the government the same thing. But the government of Canada refuses to listen. No wonder the tensions within our nation continue to grow. No wonder they continue to grow when those areas which contribute nothing to inflation are being treated as though they are contributing. The Saskatchewan economy, for example, is on the verge of depression, if not actually in one, and yet it is still obliged to suffer federal anti-inflation measures.
In summary, this government has attempted to halt inflation by aiming broad axe slashes at the very base of our progress. It has had neither the sensitivity nor the intelligence to apply its anti-inflationary measures selectively with respect to sectors of the
Economic Policies and Unemployment economy and regions of the nation. The result has been a continuing upward spiral in costs accompanied by drastic and unacceptable increases in the levels of unemployment.
But this has not been the only failure of the government's anti-inflation policy. Any responsible government, in attempting to deal with inflation, not only attempts to reduce the upward pressures on costs, it also attempts to reduce the hardships imposed upon those who are suffering as a result of its inability to regulate the economy properly. For our pensioners, for our low income earners, for all on fixed incomes, for those handicapped with physical, social, economic or other disadvantage today, today's sickness is one of too little and not too much.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Charles Rowland: We cannot, as responsible Canadians, tell our fellow citizens in these circumstances, wait and pull in your belt for awhile. Yet, that is what this government is doing.
Canadian farmers are in deep trouble and need cash now. Low income families have no more slack to pull in. They need real assurance, not just that the cost of living will not rise as fast, but that their capacity to meet the cost of living will be substantially improved. The family in poor housing with no capacity to pay high rent or high mortgage interest has a need which can only be met by building adequate low cost housing. The emerging student, and the worker seeking to improve his skills, must not be left to swell the ranks of the unemployed, or to remain among the too great numbers of underemployed. These Canadians require more than relief payments, unemployment insurance benefits, or even more training. They require new jobs and better jobs to be created by development of the economy.
But the federal government refuses to meet these needs, refuses to deal with these effects of inflation. This is but one more piece of evidence of the bankruptcy of the federal government's anti-inflationary policy. It is but one more reason why the New Democratic Party will support the essential message contained in the motion now before this House.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I might indicate that I have recently been acquainted with the subject of a conversation between two members of our caucus upon learning that I was making my maiden effort in here today. One of them indicated that he hoped it would not be too maidenly and the other said TMr. Rowland.]
May 15, 1970
that if the examples of maidens we have seen recently are any indication, perhaps that would be a good thing. I hope I have lived up to his expectations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
David Réal Caouette: On
behalf of all my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on the motion moved by the member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade); given the current economic situation in Canada, the motion is very important but it does not make any concrete suggestion. In fact, it censures the government and urges itto take Immediate steps to change its economic policies which are contributing to the growing rate of unemployment as evidenced by the figures just released by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
Rightly, the member for Sainte-Marie has strongly criticized the present government. Unfortunately, he has failed to make concrete suggestions likely to improve economic conditions in Canada.
It is a fact that there are 545,000 unemployed in Canada, that 611,000 students will be looking for jobs this summer, which represents a total of 1,156,000 jobless. It is also true that the economic upsurge should be the first concern of the government. However, the hon. member was careful not to bring forward practical suggestions.
Besides, we had a Conservative government in power in 1960-61, when the total number of unemployed in Canada reached the alarming figure of one million, and no economic improvement was introduced in 1962 or in 1963. That was one of the reasons why the administration of the right hon. John G. Dief-enbaker collapsed in February 1963.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that we should, of course, blame the government for its mistakes. However, I also believe that we should propose some reforms.
Yesterday, everybody felt sorry for the
545,000	unemployed. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) stated that 1970 will be an extremely difficult


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting to listen to the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) carry still further his continuing campaign to become Governor of the Bank of Canada.
Just over two months ago, I delivered a budget speech in this House urging the undertaking of a national effort during the course of this year to help check the inflationary spiral of costs and prices in Canada. I pointed out then that it was the policy of the government to restrain increases in total spending in the economy as an essential prerequisite for achieving our primary economic objective. I readily acknowledged that we faced a hard task in bringing about a significant reduction in the rate of cost and price increases. I anticipated that the economy would grow more slowly during the current year than in 1969, and that there would be some increase in unemployment as well.
I further warned the House that there would be difficult wage negotiation in the months ahead. Some of those negotiations, I predicted, might be followed by strikes, perhaps prolonged ones, before settlements were reached. Profits have already begun to fall and are likely to fall further in terms both of total dollars and of unit output. While the picture is not yet complete, there are indications that the rate of growth of the economy has slowed down in the early months of this year and, as anticipated, there has also been a moderate increase in the rate of unemployment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Moderate?


Edgar John Benson: After climbing marginally
during the last half of 1969 to a seasonally adjusted rate of 4.8 per cent, the rate declined to 4.5 in January, rose to 4.8 in February, 5.1
Economic Policies and Unemployment per cent in March and reached 5.6 per cent in April. Every increase in the rate of unemployment has provoked a new round of criticism of the government's economic policies from members of the opposition. Strangely enough, probably the most intemporate criticism and the most devoid of any alternative suggestions for dealing with inflation, has come from the Conservative party which subjected the nation to the highest and most prolonged unemployment in Canada's postwar history. At no time has unemployment under a Liberal government, including the one we have now, reached the level which existed at all times when the Conservative party was last in power.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
The fact that there has been a relatively moderate increase in the number of Canadians without jobs as a result of the slower growth of the economy does not reflect any lack of concern about unemployment on the part of either myself or the government. On the contrary, one of the central objectives of the government is to promote the greatest increase in employment and in the standard of living of Canadians that is possible under conditions of relative price stability. To achieve this long-term objective, however, we are confronted by the immediate necessity of breaking the back of the inflationary spiral that grips the nation and seriously jeopardizes future employment and prosperity.
In their rush to condemn the government at every opportunity for the present degree of unemployment, members of the opposition seem to have lost sight of the fact that the sharply rising level of prices is a matter of serious concern to the Canadian people. They have lost sight of the fact also that if the cost and price escalation were allowed to continue unchecked, the economy sooner or later would head into a dangerous tailspin. Members of the Conservative party, which introduced the motion now before the House, have urged us to forget about inflation as being a matter of no concern-in sharp contrast to their position of only a few months ago. They have urged us to reverse the present fiscal and monetary restraints and to put the economy back into high gear.
Presumably what they are proposing is a substantial increase in the money supply by the Bank of Canada, as was proposed this morning by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade), in an effort to bring interest rates well below the level prevailing in most 
May 15, 1970
of the industrialized nations of the western world. Presumably they are also proposing a substantial cut in taxes, a substantial increase in government spending, or both, with the inevitable consequence being the emergence of another heavy government deficit.
Only a few weeks ago, a member of the New Democratic Party introduced a mo don calling on the government to consider an immediate and substantial increase in old age pensions and veterans' pensions and allowances. The leader of the Conservative party did not disassociate himself from the contention of the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that old age pensions should be increased across the board to $150, a move that would cost the treasury more than $1.2 billion a year.
To understand the reasons that lie behind the present policies of restraint being followed by the government, it is only necessary to consider the situation that would be bound to result if the government were to follow the course of short-term political expediency being urged on it by the opposition. Were the government to take its foot off the brake and bring it down hard on the accelerator, there would undoubtedly be a temporary spurt in economic growth and some decline in the level of unemployment. But such a move would also add fuel to the fires of inflation. The very reversal of government policy would further reinforce the inflationary expectations of the nation, which together with the increasing pressures caused by a rising demand for goods and services would lead to a rapid acceleration in the rise of costs and prices. Any improvement in pensions that might have been provided, as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, would soon be wiped out in the rising tide of inflation; and in the end the nation would be confronted by the spectre of severe and prolonged unemployment.
If past history is any guide, one of the first symptoms of the developing trouble would show up on the highly sensitive international front. Here, I should like to dissuade the hon. member for Sainte-Marie, who this morning said that there was an outflow of capital from Canada. Quite the opposite is happening in this country, as evidenced by the fact that we have taken in several hundred million dollars in additional foreign exchange since the beginning of January.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Things will not be the same after the white paper is implemented.

May 15, 1970


Edgar John Benson: This money has come in and is continuing to come in. As I was saying, in contrast to the present degree of confidence in Canada reflected by the strength of the Canadian dollar, there would be a flight of capital from the country. This could lead very quickly to a major balance of payments crisis, which would finally leave the government with no choice but to resume the battle against inflation once again, a battle that by then would be just that much harder to win.
To follow such a course is clearly not in the national interest. Instead, the government has followed the slower and more arduous course of working to dampen down the fires of inflation while avoiding the danger of recession. While our position remains flexible and alert to any changes in underlying economic conditions, to date the economy has followed closely the path we foresaw at the time I introduced the budget last March.
The present course of economic restraint being followed by the government is not unique to Canada. To a greater or lesser degree, it is the same course that is currently being followed by most of the industrialized nations, virtually all of which face a common inflationary problem. This is particularly true of the United States, which has adopted fiscal and monetary restraints that closely parallel the thrust of our own. I might observe, Mr. Speaker, that not only have these restraints received a broad measure of support from businessmen in the United States, but also from a number of the leading economists outside of the administration. I might also point out that unemployment in the United States on a seasonally adjusted basis rose from 4.4 per cent in March to 4.8 per cent in April, following the same trend as that evident in Canada.
Ironically, what concern has been expressed over the direction of administration policies in the United States has tended to focus on the possibility that fiscal and monetary restraints may not be sufficiently restrictive in combination to check the momentum of inflation within a reasonable period of time.
Within recent months there have been a few tentative but encouraging signs that the government's efforts to moderate the growth of the economy may have helped to bring about a slowdown in the rate of price increases. Over a seven-month period from September, 1969 to April of this year, the consumer price index rose at an annual rate of 4.1 per cent, compared to an annual rate increase of 7.1 per cent between February
DEBATES	7031
Economic Policies and Unemployment and August of last year. Unfortunately, however, there has still been no comparable slowing down in the rate of increase of wages and salaries, which represent the major component of costs. If anything, the reverse is the case. Figures for the first quarter of 1970 indicate that there has been some acceleration in the rate of wage increases approved as part of major collective bargaining negotiations between mid-January and March.
In a speech to the Canadian Club of Toronto on April 20, the Governor of the Bank of Canada observed:
So far as wages are concerned, the average pattern of recent settlements under collective bargaining suggests that we are continuing to build into major sectors of the economy average annual increases in excess of 8 per cent; broader measures of wages and salaries actually received are still showing year-to-year increases of 7 to 75 per cent on average.
The Governor continued:
These rates of pay increase are obviously far in excess of the average productivity growth in our economy and are not compatible with a movement towards price stability.
In an article published in the current issue of the Labour Gazette, Professor E. P. Neu-feld of the University of Toronto, one of Canada's leading economists, noted that we are suffering from a high and persistent rate of inflation. He states that:
If we examine current trends in wage rates and wage rate settlements, we are forced to conclude also that, in the absence of strong and persistent anti-inflationary action, current inflationary trends will continue for several more years.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
As the House is well aware, the government has strongly supported the undertaking of the Prices and Incomes Commission to gain support from all sectors of the economy for voluntary restraint of cost and price increases. To the extent it is successful, such an effort would make it possible for the government to ease its restraints on the growth of the economy. It is a matter of considerable regret that leaders of organized labour have to date not only declined to co-operate with the Commission, but also have consistently rejected any responsibility for contributing in any way to the restoration of cost-price stability.
In its submission to the cabinet on March 23, the Canadian Labour Congress maintained that there should now be enough sophistication in the nation about economic matters to make it unnecessary to point out that private
May 15, 1970
7032	COMMONS
Economic Policies and Unemployment sectors of the economy do not create an inflationary environment, but only respond to it. "Unfortunately," the CLC said, "it is all too evident that there is still a good deal of misunderstanding on this point." If there is a misunderstanding, it appears to be on the part of the Congress. The sixth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada, which was signed by representatives of the CLC who sit on that body, pointed out that it was frequently assumed that maintaining the high standard of performance of our economy was almost entirely the responsibility of government, particularly the federal government. "Nothing could be further from the truth," the Council emphasized. While governments had a large and influential role to play, the report maintained that the great bulk of decisions affecting the economy are made outside the ranks of government. "It is vitally important," The Council noted at another stage, "that there should exist in Canada a much broader and better understanding of the relationships between costs, prices, productivity and incomes, as a basis for improved decision-making. Also needed in the public domain is a better appreciation of the basic factors that should be taken into account in the bargaining and price-setting process."
If anything, the increases in unemployment that have taken place during the early months of this year only serve to underline the importance of sill sectors of the economy joining in a national effort to help break the inflationary spiral by voluntary action. So long, however, as there is a widespread failure to understand and appreciate the vital nature of the relationship between costs, prices and productivity and incomes outlined by the Economic Council, the government is left with no choice but to continue to maintain restraints on the economy that are essential to halt the cost-price spiral and set the stage for a return to strong, but stable economic growth.
Two years ago this government told the Canadian people that it was prepared to make the tough decisions that were needed to serve the long-term interests of the nation as a whole. This government was returned to office with this mandate and we have no intention of betraying it now. Despite the sound and fury being generated by opposition members, I have considerable confidence the Canadian people have enough good sense to understand why the government must continue to pursue what is now a hard and difficult course.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Don't you believe it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Speaker it is always a privilege to
follow the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).


An hon. Member:: Why?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Because once every six months or more often, we have the privilege of hearing the minister deliver a lecture. He acts as if he were a university professor delivering a lecture on economics to his students. This still does not solve certain problems. I do not know where the minister obtains his figures, but the figures I have, which appeared in the Globe and Mail, have been checked through the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Let us take a look at the situation in respect of the jobless in Canada or unemployment as it exists today. The Liberals have the ability to come up with their own figures when they are in opposition and again when they form the government. It does not matter how they dish them out.
The minister speaks of the unemployment in the Diefenbaker years. Well, he may have overlooked the fact that at that time unemployment in the United States was at a level of more than 5 per cent. Using his own figures in respect of the United States, the figure has moved from 4.4. per cent to 4.8 per cent. Let us not worry about this for the moment. Let us take a look at what is going on today in Canada. People are not concerned about 1958, 1962, 1963 or from the time the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) formed this government. They are worried about the situation today. The total figure in respect of the jobless in Canada is 6.6 per cent of the labour force. This figure has been confirmed by DBS and is quoted in the Globe and Mail. This does not take into consideration the number of university students, either graduate or undergraduate, who are now trying to thumb their way across Canada, moving from place to place in an effort to obtain jobs.
I would still wager-and I believe the Minister of Finance if he is fair would admit this-that the total figure in respect of unemployment today is closer to 8 per cent than 6 per cent when one takes into consideration the university students, graduate and undergraduate. What is the situation across the country? In the Maritimes the figure is 10.4 per cent, and that figure has been checked. In Quebec it is 8.9 per cent. In Ontario the figure, which is the lowest in Canada, is 4.6 per cent today. In the three prairie provinces

May 15, 1970	COMMONS
it is 5.2 per cent. In British Columbia, it measures up to the national average of 6.6 per cent. This is the situation at the present time. Everyone has some sympathy for any government in respect of the question of inflation. The minister's whole argument, however, involved an attempt to say that we are the only ones who criticize the government for inflation and that now we are recommending certain remedies that would aggravate the situation.
I think we could come to grips with the situation and I believe the minister might agree with this formula. In order to curb inflation, one must first of all stabilize labour's wages and prices and profits. If this cannot be done on a voluntary basis-and the Department of Consumer Affairs certainly has failed to control the cost of living-then there must be some other way to control inflation. I could put the government policy in a nutshell. All one need do is read the book, "Oliver Twist". A character in that book believed that if he cut down on the feed of his horses a little each day he would save money and still be able to operate his delivery business. This was in the horse and buggy days. The whole policy would have worked out fine except that the horses died. This is exactly the type of policy the government is following. The government says it will curb inflation even though it does not know how high the unemployment figures will go. If one carries the government's policy through to a conclusion, what the minister really is saying is that it is the government's intention to carry this policy to the saturation point where the profits of every company gradually reach zero.
At that point the government would have 100 per cent unemployment but would have controlled inflation. The minister shakes his head. Is there any difference between the type of policies which were tried in many places throughout the world by governments of all types in the 1930's, whether the government of Great Britain, the Hoover government of the United States or the government of this country, and the type of program upon which the minister has lectured us this afternoon? There is no imagination and there are no new ideas in the kind of program for 1970 on which the minister has lectured us this afternoon.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
DEBATES	7033
Economic Policies and Unemployment


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let us consider the situation. The government cannot ignore it. The profits of all corporations are falling. Some people may say that this is a good thing. There has never been such a rapid decline in the stock market since the collapse in 1929 which led to the depression in the 30's. Our trade balance is decreasing. There is an imbalance in our foreign payments. The rate of unemployment across Canada is one of the highest ever, and we also have a problem with regard to employment of our students. The situation is similar to the one just before the Mackenzie King government was defeated and the unemployment situation is similar to the one at the beginning of the 1930's when the government was blamed for a depression which was worldwide. When a Liberal government is in office the excuse is made that the problem is worldwide, but when the Conservative government is in power the problem is purely Canadian.
I want to say a few words about the situation of Canadian students. I represent a university area, the city of Calgary. Students there are unable to obtain employment. They were promised scholarships and loans which have not been forthcoming to the degree they expected. No scholarships or loans are available because of red tape. Students cannot continue to attend the university, and by next fall the greatest Canadian resource, the human resource, will be depleted because students will not be able to continue their courses, whether they be post graduate or graduate courses training them to contribute to the new society.
The only way in which we can remedy the situation is to follow some of the recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada. In western Canada, unemployment has risen during the last year more than in any other area. It jumped from 3.2 per cent to 5.2 per cent, and both Calgary and Edmonton are still enduring the effects of the policy of the Minister of Finance who is trying to cool off the economic atmosphere in those cities. He is still discriminating against cities in Alberta as well as other cities in Canada so far as tax laws are concerned. The only way in which we can bring about a stable economy in this country is to get our trade moving. That is why I want to come to grips this afternoon with a speech delivered by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene).
It is very difficult to get at the facts. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources says one thing, the Minister of Finance says anoth-
May 15. 1970
7034	COMMONS DEBATES
Economic Policies and Unemployment er, and the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) says still another. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is touring the world at a time of economic recession similar to the collapse of 1929. The Acting Prime Minister says that he does not know who is stating government policy. He and the Minister of Finance contradict each other from day to day.
Let us look at what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said in his recent speech in the United States. It seems to me, at the outset, to be pretty stupid diplomacy to blast the United States when they are still our best customers. If you are going to sell goods-and this is how you reduce unemployment-you do not tear apart your customers. That is a fundamental rule of good taste and good diplomacy. I should like to quote some of the minister's statements. I am certain that even if the speech did reach the Prime Minister's office, it would only be read by his staff while he travels throughout the world making the kind of news that does not help to create good will for this country. That is why the United States is now beginning to take a good hard look at Canada. We lost their friendship, as we did that of Great Britain, through the kind of diplomacy employed by our Prime Minister.
This is what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said, and I quote from page 5 of his speech:
We have made these views known-
This is in reference to the sale of natural gas and petroleum.
-to the United States government, both officially and unofficially: in so doing we have urged that its decisions should be reconsidered and the controls removed.
I would be quite happy with this policy except that day after day members of the opposition, including myself, have questioned the government to find out what negotiations were going on with the United States with regard to the petroleum industry and what problems existed in western Canada so far as the grain trade is concerned. The problems of western Canada as regards industrial markets are reflected in eastern Canada. I believe we should set up a western economic council which could ascertain the facts, not only to help that region but to help the whole of Canada. That is the first positive recommendation I wish to make. Once that council reviewed the statements made in the speech, parts of which I will quote, they would cer-

tainly make recommendations similar to the one made by the Economic Council of Canada. However, of course, if those recommendations were ignored by the government they would be useless.
At page 18 of the minister's speech, reference is made to the long term export outlook. I agree with some of the facts that are given and some of the reasons for them. It is stated that about 45 per cent of our oil is exported and that 98 per cent of the oil exported goes to the U.S. The minister says that the U.S. has just reviewed its import policy and that interim action directed toward modification of this policy is in hand. Then, the following statement is made:
Kind things have been said by U.S. policy makers about the desirability of looking to Canada to suply a large part of the growing volumes of imported oil your country will need; but at the same time it has been recommended by the Schultz committee that arrangements for free access for Canadian oil to U.S. markets should be contingent upon the negotiation of a "suitable energy agreement" with Canada.
What we should be doing is increasing our export of crude petroleum which would help our balance of payments with the U.S. and help the whole of Canada. We should be negotiating greater exports of petroleum to the United States instead of insulting that country, because the kind of diplomatic insults that this minister and the Prime Minister have handed out to the United States from time to time is no way to establish friendly business relations with our neighbour and thus help our economic situation at this time.
Then, after the minister has criticized U.S. cutbacks and has failed to give us any information concerning Canada's negotiations with the United States, he said the following, as quoted from page 21 of his speech:
And having regard to the long standing arrangements between our two countries in defence, trade and other areas, I cannot find it credible that we would divert such supplies unless by mutual agreement for a common purpose, or that we would violate trading agreements that were in effect between us.
In other words, the minister agreed to the unilateral cutback, but at the same time he said:
And having regard to the long standing arrangements between our two countries in defence.
Let us pause at this point. When did we lose the friendship and confidence of the U.S.? When we pulled unilaterally out of NATO, that is when we lost it.
Mar 15. 1970	COMMONS


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: That is also when we lost our friendship with Europe.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As Dean Acheson said on the national network of CTV one night,-no doubt a program which came from the United States-it was not the fact that Canada pulled out 5,000 troops that was so important, but rather the fact that this action triggered other countries into following the same policy, thus eroding the defence of the whole western world. Once the United States has come to the position that Canada has stabbed her in the back, how can we go down to the United States asking favours in reference to increasing our trade in crude petroleum or any other product?
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Two-faced!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The United States has dumped her wheat in all the traditional markets of Canada, while they talk about the world surplus. In the Globe and Mail this morning it is pointed out that we own 30 per cent of the surplus, but still their exports increase whilst ours decrease. The same thing applies to grain as it is now applying to petroleum. Let us take another look at some of the things that were said. Here is the threat. On page 25 the minister says:
First, viewed against the scale of United States needs, Canadian gas resources likely to be available for export presently appear relatively small.
He then goes on to say:
Based on resources in the western Canada sedimentary basin, we might have about 1.6 trillion cubic feet available for export in 1990.
Let us stop there. The Borden commission established and the conservation boards of western Canada have agreed-and I am sure the National Energy Board will come to the same conclusion-that we have a surplus of natural gas in Canada to export to the United States at a reasonable price which would increase our trade with that country. We have more than we need in the foreseeable future, whether in the domestic or international market, and we should now be exporting it in increased quantities. But what did the minister say? He said, "We are going to use this commodity as a bargaining agent. We will not give you our natural gas unless you increase the exports from our country into yours of crude petroleum." What kind of nonsense is this? We are 20 million people, whilst they are 200 million people. We cannot get 22375-27J
DEBATES	7035
Economic Policies and Unemployment any answers from the ministers. Even those who come in the House might as well remain outside.
Instead of going to the United States and negotiating, saying, "Look, you need our natural gas and we are going to work with you in that regard. We will increase our exports, but at the same time we have to keep the other side of our industry healthy," the minister uses threats. I am certain any reasonable businessman or trade official of the United States, if he were approached properly, would assist us to increase our exports of crude petroleum. But you do not say, "We will not sell you a commodity we have in surplus unless you take some of the commodities we don't need." What kind of diplomacy is this? That is why we are in trouble in the export markets.
The minister can dish it up if he likes, but he knows now and knew long before he became minister that only in trade and only in production that relates to trade can you have full employment and cure inflation. The minister said at page 25 of his speech:
Secondly, Canadian gas will be available to supplement United States supplies only if our petroleum industry as a whole receives the incentives of progressive growth and assured stability-
In other words, he says, "You cannot have our natural gas even though we have a surplus, because you will not take as much crude petroleum as we want you to." Surely, that kind of diplomacy will not increase our trade. Let us deal with a subject which I raised today in the question period. The minister can say what he likes about the fall-off in profits, the hard dollar. We were on the gold standard, as any economist knows, during the thirties. It has been proven that was a great mistake. The fact that our dollar may be increasing in value is the worst thing that could happen to Canada's trade position, because it puts our goods in competition in the world market at a higher price, compared with their currency, than normal. That is no remedy for inflation, increasing trade or increasing employment.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It decreases our exports.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Of course it decreases our exports, because we are not able to compete.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.
May IS, 1970
7036	COMMONS DEBATES
Economic Policies and Unemployment
Mr. Deputy Speakers Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I Will try to be brief, but I should like to read what the minister said at page 26:
In particular, I cannot see that it would legislate-[DOT]
The word "it" means the Canadian government.
-a tax climate in which the Canadian petroleum industry would be put at any significantly increased disadvantage compared with the industry in the U.S.
I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) about this, and he admits that he made that statement. He admits that we should only compete in the petroleum industry or in the manufacturing industry if our industries are in a comparable competitive state with that of the tax structure of the United States. I had the pleasure and privilege of cross-examining Mr. Bryce and Mr. Brown who appeared as offiicals before the Finance Committee two weeks ago last Thursday. Mr. Bryce admitted, whether the minister likes it or not, that if the white paper goes through in the manner of the recommendations contained therein-that is why it is called the Benson iceberg, because only 10 per cent shows above the surface-we will have the highest capital gains tax of any western nation. Read the cross-examination. Don't deny it until you have read it-I say that through you, Mr. Speaker.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Bryce said that he drew up that document and handed it to the minister. I ask hon. members to read the cross-examination. If there is any question, the minister should rise on a question of privilege. I asked, "Would our capital gains tax be higher under the white paper than the United States and Great Britain, taking everything else into consideration?" The answer was, "Yes". Now we have the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources going to the United States and telling them these things in an official manner. Ministers cannot speak for themselves; when they open their mouths they are speaking for the Canadian government and Canada as a whole.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

' Mr. Woolliams: That has always been the case. But we have the minister going down to the United States saying, "I do not think my government will bring in a system of taxation that will not put Canada in the same competitive position as the United States." Yet under certain circumstances the first year in capital gains tax, Mr. Bryce said, can be as high as 80 per cent, as high as 50 per cent thereafter, and in a widely-held corporation as high as 25 per cent, which he said would be higher than the capital gains tax in the United States and Great Britain.
On top of that, Mr. Bryce admitted that we are in a different position. In order to develop the extractive industry of Canada we are an importer of capital. They are basically exporters of capital, and therefore we are putting ourselves under the law as far as I am concerned. But today the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) was asked, "Will you make any changes in the white paper in this regard?" and he replied, "Oh, no." The Minister of Finance is not only trying to pilot the white paper through committee and the House of Commons, but he is piloting it through the country. The white paper is the document of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, knowing full well that we need the capital to develop our resources and get full employment, when he told the United States that we would be in a competitive position was merely whistling Dixie while the Minister of Finance was ramming through the white paper.
Then the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources goes on to say at page 27:
I feel very certain that if, in America, some 70 per cent of your petroleum industry and some 60 per cent of your natural resources, and some 50 per cent of your manufacturing industry was owned by non-Americans, you would share an equal concern.
Certainly we are all concerned about Canadians owning their own resources. But surely, Mr. Speaker, in a nation like this no government can fly in the face of the fact that if we are to encourage Canadian investment we must have a lower tax system than that of the United States, Great Britain, Japan and West Germany, to be able to leave pools of capital in the hands of those people who have the know-how of investment and the know-how of industry.
[DOT]	(3:10 p.m.)
The minister read us the sort of simple little lecture on economics that we heard in university. But it was a lecture written by
May 15, 1970

officials-the sort of thing we heard even before the minister became Minister of Finance. It was the same old stuff, taken out of the same old textbooks. Today we have an unemployment rate in Canada of 6.6 per cent and a great many of our students are unemployed. The government is using inflation as a shield to disguise the true state of affairs.
The reason is that in today's financial climate there is little encouragement for the formation of pools of Canadian capital which can be invested in our industries and which can be used to take over industries controlled by other countries. What do you think would happen to the extractive industries, as well as industry in general in Canada, if the United States were to withdraw from this country capital that is invested. As I said the other night, if there is a surplus of grain in the United States-and at present they have a surplus of one billion bushels-their government can buy it up and the economic effect will hardly be felt by their taxpayers: the money spent will be just like dropping a spot of water in the ocean. But if our government were to buy up the Canadian surplus of grain or crude petroleum, if any, the burden would rest heavily on 20 million Canadians. Even the LIFT program, which may involve about $150 million and which according to Prairie farmers who are engaged in an efficient program of grain production is not worth-while and will not work, will impose a heavy burden on the taxpayers of Canada.
All this really boils down to one thing. We have a minister who insults our best customers, and we are losing trade. Unemployment is increasing. The minister says that is a regrettable side-effect of the fight to controlling inflation. I asked at the beginning, and I will end on this note: Where do you reach saturation point? The government is propounding an old-fashioned rule of economics: once everyone is unemployed and once corporations and individuals make no profits, you have controlled inflation. If that is not a nineteenth century philosophy, I do not know what is.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: In
order to place the debate in the proper context, Mr. Speaker, I should like to recall that it relates to an opposition motion moved by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade), which reads as follows:
That this House urges the government to take immediate steps to change its economic policies
..DEBATES	7037
Economic Policies and Unemployment [DOT]which are contributing to the growing rate of unemployment as evidenced by the figures just released by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
^Before answering certain arguments voiced earlier in the debate, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make two preliminary remarks.
First, the house is studying a motion of the opposition aimed at censuring the government. Apparently, the opposition is not overly interested because only three of is members are in the House this afternoon and since the debate got under way, never were more than five of them in attendance. This is not very eloquent of the extent of their interest for the debate.
I also noticed that our friends of the opposition twice intervened to sort of fire words at us, being confident that they could succeed in nonplussing the government. Both of them asked the House to allow them to continue their comments beyond the allowed 20 or 25 minutes, while no member of the New Democratic Party, the Ralliement Creditiste nor the minister asked for an extension of their time.	,
This reminds me of what Boileau, the famous author of L'Art poetique, said: "What we conceive, with ease we can express; words to the notions flow with readiness." One should not require further time to set forth one's arguments. Those are two considerations which lead me to believe that the opposition is not really convinced that the government should be blamed.
I regret that the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) is not here, because I would have liked to tease him, since he is not talkative and only knows a single word "shame." With his very harmonious baritone voice, he has been regularly and systematically repeating the word "shame" since the beginning of the debate hoping to make the government members blush and perhaps compel the government to resign.
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening the hon. member who put that motion and I must say that I was deeply disappointed by the speech of the hon. member for Sainte-Marie. The speech of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) was at least colourful. Indeed, he is very vocal and very intelligent. He is a criminologist who could have someone cleared of the most glaring offence or bring about the conviction the most innocent of men. But when we listen to him attentively, we are aware of the tricks of the trade which he succeeds in spotlighting paltry things and glossing over what might be important issues.
7038	COMMONS
Economic Policies and Unemployment
I come back to the mover, the hon. member for Sainte-Marie, whose speech was petty-minded. Moreover, the hon. member for Calgary North joined in that little game when he tried to discredit the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who is travelling abroad.
I believe we can give credit to the Right Hon. Prime Minister for attending the sittings of this house regularly. If he is not present, it is because he is performing official functions, as all our prime ministers have had to do occasionally. I find it mean to make fun of that fact. Nevertheless, a tribute was inadvertently offered to him when it was said that he was "in". Obviously that is one tribute that cannot be offered to all opposition leaders, not even to those who were at one time premiers or prime ministers.
Narrow-mindedness was also shown by saying that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) was arrogant, vain, heartless and had no charity nor any understanding of the needs of the people.
That speech was of a disconcerting barrenness because, instead of suggesting solutions to inflation which he deplores, the honourable member for Sainte-Marie wasted his time in partisan considerations and electioneering. He also went astray first of all through flagrant contradictions and then by insisting on making of his speech a vote-catching manoeuvre. As a matter of fact, did he not say at some point, that there is quite an obvious solution to inflation: it is to get our economy moving. This is self-evident. It is not difficult to stimulate our economy; everybody thinks of it when we are faced with inflation or unemployment. But some ten minutes later, he added: The most important priority is not economics but unemployment. So, where is the logic of the hon. member for Sainte-Marie? I wonder.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
He then said:
The government should show more clearly that it is aware of the present climate.
Considering the emptiness of the remarks made by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie, I wonder how the truly constructive solutions of this government may be compared to his proposals. Besides, he did not propose anything at all, as the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette) pointed out.
What did this government do to check inflation? It passed a great number of meas-
[Mr. Mongrain.1
DEBATES	May IS. 1970
ures that I shall enumerate in a moment. Before doing so, I should like to put forth three principles.
In an economic climate such as ours, first we have to ask ourselves what the economic situation would be, had not the present government taken these drastic and bold measures and then how does the economic situation in Canada compare with that of other countries of the Western hemisphere? Finally, another rather infrequent phenomenon must be acknowledged. Indeed, we are presently living in a kind of period of transition between two generations. I should say a kind of cultural and economic explosion between two generations, which makes the problem of inflation facing almost every country in the world still more complicated.
Having said this, I should like to list briefly the concrete measures adopted by this government to contain inflation and cut it short. I shall be very brief, because I do not intend to ask the House for extra time, and I want to allow other members to make their own comments.
What has the government done? It has established designated areas in order to eliminate regional disparities. It has also designated special areas, to assist municipalities in supplying services which permit economic growth. I am referring here to the Industrial Development Bank which for many years has been helping companies to survive and develop.
The government has implemented programs to retrain workmen who can then relocate when they can no longer earn their living in their own region. It has created training programs everywhere in the country to increase academic levels and the technical skills of the unemployed so that they can find regular employment.
The government has also been granting loans to small industries for many years and is still doing so with satisfactory regularity.
The new textile policy is designed to help that industry to withstand somewhat better competition from the under-developed countries is now another good measure. The members opposite are critisizing the tax reform now proposed by the Minister of Finance precisely because they are not happy to see that 3 million Canadians will pay less taxes. They are not happy to see that, for the first time in Canadian history, the Minister of Finance is introducing a year and a half before the legislation is passed, tax reform proposals and is
May 15, 1970	COMMONS
saying to the Canadians: "Let me have your comments since I want this tax reform to meet as much as possible the needs of all Canadians". This is the first time this happens. In my opinion, a monument should be erected to the Minister of Finance who understood the nature of active democracy.
As far as the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is concerned, they did not want to leave it short of cash, although there is a shortage of funds in Canada and in every country in the world.
The government gave a push to external trade by delegating ministers to South America a few months ago in an attempt to enter into new trade relations. The Prime Minister is now doing the same thing during his journey abroad.
He is streamlining the unemployment insurance machinery. I was rather amused this morning when I heard the hon. member for Sainte-Marie advise the government to bring unemployment insurance in line with the facts. He deserves to be praised, for the papers announced this morning that this is now a fait accompli.
The hon. member for Sainte-Marie also blamed the government for not showing enough concern for the development of national parks. The Quebec government, of whom the hon. member for Sainte-Marie is a supporter and with whom has been buddy-buddy for quite a few years, has always objected to the development of national parks in the province of Quebec. The federal government has offered to the province of Quebec these past months to establish such parks on her territory, but he was turned down. Quebec says it wants that territory to remain untainted by outside influences, which is of course quite illusory.
There are the equalization payments, Mr. Speaker, and I insist on the case of the province of Quebec since the member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Yalade) brought it up this morning. They amounted to $360 million last year for Quebec, and for the current year they will bring $430 million precisely to help that province to fight against the regional disparities from which it suffers.
What about the balanced budget the Minister of Finance announced to the Canadian people, which helps to inspire confidence in the government and Canadian finances, which contributes to attracting serious investments from countries which have a bit more capital than we have.
DEBATES	7039
Economic Policies and Unemployment
You have there measures adopted by the government to fight against inflation.
Mr. Speaker, my remarks may sound disconnected, but I am trying to follow the trend of thought of the mover of the non-confidence motion, the member for Sainte-Marie. Did he not say, this morning, that unemployment had reached an unheard of level in Canada? Let us look at the statistics.
I wonder by what right our friends of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, the Conservative party, lecture this government, they who from 1930 to 1933 caused the great depression; who from 1958 to 1962 had the highest rate of unemployment over, although we were not yet in the thick of inflation. In Canada, the unemployment rate was 6 per cent in 1959. In the Atlantic provinces it was 10.9 per cent and in Quebec 7.8 per cent. That was a year after the Progressive Conservative party came to power. In 1960, in Canada, it was 7 per cent; in the Atlantic provinces, 10.7 per cent and in Quebec, 9.1 per cent. In 1961, the unemployment rate in Canada was 7.1 per cent, in the Atlantic provinces, 11.2 per cent and in Quebec 9.2 per cent. In 1962, it was 5.9 per cent in Canada, 10.7 per cent in the Atlantic provinces and 7.5 per cent in Quebec. Then, the Liberal party came to power. I will quote now the statistics beginning of course with the year 1963.
For 1963: 5.5 per cent in Canada, 9.5 per cent in the Atlantic provinces, 7.5 per cent in Quebec. There is already a decrease.
For 1964: the federal government statistics show a rate of 4.7 per cent in Canada, 7.8 per cent in the Atlantic provinces and 6.4 per cent in Quebec.
For 1965: a further decrease: 3.9 per cent in Canada, 7.4 per cent in the Atlantic provinces and 5.4 per cent in Quebec.
For 1966: 3.6 per cent in Canada, 6.4 per cent in the Atlantic provinces and 4.7 per cent in Quebec.
For 1967: 4.1 per cent in Canada, 6.6 per cent in the Atlantic provinces and 5.3 per cent in Quebec. And that keeps on until 1969.
For 1969: 4.7 per cent in Canada, 7.5 per cent in the Atlantic provinces and 6.9 per cent in Quebec.
For 1970: the percentage can only be established at the end of the year.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that since 1962, namely since the coming into power of the Liberal government the unemployment rate in Canada has decreased more regularly than
7040	COMMONS
Economic Policies and Unemployment during the four years of the Progressive Conservative administration, from 1958 to 1962 and those are the people who want to give a lesson in economics and unemployment control to the present government. I say: Physician, heal thyself. Before becoming a professor, one should be a pupil and learn to manage.
Besides, I was always amazed at such a phenomenon, that the Minister of Finance, whoever he may be, gets the assistance of a whole team of specialists as advisers, and he has the benefit of the experience of the Bank of Canada, the opportunity to attend conferences and to consult with all those responsible for finance in every country participating in the International Monetary Fund. He must, therefore, certainly have some idea about managing the finances and the economy of the country. There are people, on the opposition side, whose experience is extremely limited and who, in spite of the fact that most of them have never given any proof of their ability in this field, come here and lecture the Minister of Finance.
I do not say that this government is perfect nor do I pretend there is no poverty in Quebec, but I do say that if this government had not taken courageous and efficient steps, the situation would be infinitely worse and the recession period would last infinitely longer.
I do say that instead of fishing in troubled waters, which is quite easy and most often just sheer demagogy, our friends in the opposition should realize that we are all Canadians, solidary towards each other; they should realize that the future of our country is not based on the outcome of the next election, that the future of our economy is at stake and that it is imperative that we should join hands instead of stirring up emotions.
The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) said, as he usually does, that the Bank of Canada for instance, is designed to maintain the Canadian economy. He blames it for not maintaining a very strong economy and for not reducing unemployment more considerably.
That reminds me of a striking fact: Our Lord Jesus Christ, when he came on earth, intended to save the human race. When he established His Church, it was precisely to save mankind. And Our Lord Jesus Christ is much more powerful than the hon. member for Temiscamingue or the Bank of Canada. At least I do hope so. It happened neverthe-

DEBATES	May 15. 1970
less that Our Lord Jesus Christ did not succeed in converting everybody. Along the road, Our Lord lost many of his disciples. To the whole mankind, Our Lord said: Follow me or my Church and eventually, you might be entitled to Heaven.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
About the same can be said of an organization like the Bank of Canada, designed to maintain the utmost prosperity, but which cannot attain a greater degree of perfection than the Creator or Christ himself. Then, it is rather childish to keep saying: Listen, our attempt to make the economy buoyant was not fully successful because the Bank of Canada or the government are failing in their duty.
In fact, there are too many contingencies. The matter is not so simple. A truly perfect economy in a country like Canada is not possible. However, we must aim at perfection by every possible means possible, especially by courageous means such as those taken by the government, even at the risk of being impopu-lar. The state must resort even to means frowned upon by the electorate. In fact, it should try to get across to the Canadian voters these very eloquant words spoken by the late President Kennedy; the citizen should not always ask himself what his country can do for him; on occasion he must ask himself what sacrifice he can make for his country, if he wants his country to enjoy reasonable progress of prosperity.
And in that connection, I noted that the hon. member for Sainte-Marie, when I addressed myself briefly to him, reminded me that there probably were unemployed and poor people in my constituency. It is true that there are, just as anywhere else. However, in my constituency, they have realized that we will be able to cure the evils of the Canadian community if we close the ranks and understand that we cannot always ask the government to give us all the things we want. We understand that we have to do our share of the sacrifice.
The hon. member for Sainte-Marie also said that the Canadian people made a mistake when they voted for the Liberals. Well, Quebecers have just made another mistake, since they have elected 72 Liberals members in the province of Quebec, while the only electoral platform was federalism.
I will say to the hon. member for Sainte-Marie that the Liberals have regain in my area three constituencies from the Union
May 15, 1970	COMMONS
Nationale, a party the hon. member have been supporting for approximately 12 years. It must be noted that those constituencies had been represented by members of the Union Nationale party for 35 or 45 years.
I think that Quebecers and other Canadians are not quite as stupid as the member for Sainte-Marie would have had us believe this morning. They know that their security under present circumstances is in the. hands of this liberal government which is made up of so many brilliant men and Cabinet members who have the courage to take the necessary steps to steer the Canadian economy so as to aim it once and for all towards prosperity and the minimum of comfort which St. Thomas Aquinas considered necessary for leading a virtuous life.
That is what the government is trying to do and if one recalls the measures I mentioned earlier and applies them honestly instead of discrediting the government in the eyes of the public for political purposes, it will be seen that we are on our way to renewed prosperity and that we will not have to wait too long.
And when opposition members suggest that, that-


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


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate, one which in my opinion amounts really to a rerun of the March budget debate. By tradition, budget debates are very general in nature so I intend, like several hon. members who preceded me, to cover a number of different topics. I hope that what this speech lacks in unity it can make up for in pertinence, or possibly even in impertinence.
On budget night, listening to the minister, 1 had the distinct impression that I had heard it all before. To paraphrase the song from "My Fair Lady", I had grown accustomed to his farce. Whether or not the Canadian people believe the government's policies are farcical, I am certain the minister and the cabinet do not. Yet it is the people who will ultimately decide. I believe most Canadians find it very difficult, in the face of both constantly escalating prices and simultaneous unemployment, to place a great deal of faith in the 22375-28
DEBATES	7041
Economic Policies and Unemployment government's policies. But only time, the risk of hideous unemployment and social unrest will decide this question.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I propose to discuss housing, unemployment and various interrelated matters. I note that the March budget proposed to continue the capital cost allowance deferral in three provinces, including my own province of British Columbia, for another two years. One wonders whether this so-called cooling-off technique is really working as it was intended to work. The move was obviously designed to inhibit commercial growth of low-priority construction in high-growth areas, a laudable enough aim, I suppose. But is it really working in this way, or is this deferral arrangement simply adding to costs in those communities of more than 50,000 inhabitants to which it is applicable?
It appears to me that if in fact this kind of discouragement of construction really works in high-growth areas-which, incidentally, are also high-employment areas-it might operate in just the opposite way to that which was intended. The government's policy will not encourage any businessman in his right mind to shift more money to slower growth areas and it may not, in fact, discourage construction in areas in which entrepreneurs have good prospects of commercial success. It might just be adding 2 per cent or 3 per cent more to the cost of construction, thereby contributing to the very thing the move was intended to discourage, that is to say, inflation.
On the other hand, if the arrangement is working, if it is discouraging construction, it may be contributing to unemployment in the building trades, thereby adding to our sorry record of unemployment, the worst in recent years. The government still seems blindly determined to pursue its policy of trading off employment against inflation even in the face of a growing chorus of criticism from reputable economists in Canada and elsewhere.
I am no economist, and I do not pretend to be one. But one glimpse of the unemployment picture will confirm the presence of real suffering all over Canada at the present time. One wonders how much more the people will have to suffer before the government takes a second look at. the policies it is pursuing.
One famous economist and former Kennedy aide, John Kenneth Galbraith, told the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs a few weeks ago that voluntary guidelines such as those to which importance
May IS. 1970
7042	COMMONS
Economic Policies and Unemployment is attached by Dr. Young and by the Prices and Incomes Commission were "the first resort of politicians who do not wish to face up to the problem of inflation." Mr. Galbraith said they had not worked in any other country and they would not work here because they struck at the very people who most need assistance. In this connection I think of hospital workers and those employed in the unorganized sectors of our society. Again, we shall have to wait and see. The deflation psychology, if it is not bringing down prices, is certainly contributing to unemployment. We heard recently that the CPR has set out a directive to lay off 10 per cent of its clerical staff-some 1200 people-and recently the Dunlop plant closed, as a result of which 600 men lost their jobs. I was interested to read in the Globe and Mail of April 23 a comment of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in regard to these lay-offs. He said:
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I want to make It clear that I have no secret formula to prevent a plant closing. I say very frankly that I do not know how to prevent it unless you resort to a planned economy.
I am pleased to see that the Leader of the Opposition believes that a possible solution lies in what a number of western European countries have done, that is, the employment of a planned economy. Perhaps Sweden is the best and most notable success story in this regard. Although Sweden's economy is planned, it still remains a mixed one. To a large extent market forces in that country are free to guide the direction of economic trends.


Mr. Osier:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The
hon. member rises to ask a question.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Apropos of a planned economy, I wonder if international factors would still be allowed relative freedom as they are in Canada? Perhaps I should illustrate this point for the purpose of asking my question. We are now allowed to import capital from other countries. We are now allowed to have labour unions which originate in other countries. Indeed, the hon. member's colleague from Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) recently asked labour union representatives in Winnipeg to be sure to vote for a U.S. union so that it would be large and powerful enough to be able to break the government's policy to deal with inflation this coming year. It seems to me that you cannot have it both ways. If you
[Mr. Rose.)

are going to allow international unions to intervene and to use their great monetary support to break government policy, you cannot have a planned economy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. I ask the hon. member to put a question. He has made a very long interruption and I do not think should be allowed to proceed.


Mark Willson Rose: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; you took the words right out of my mouth. If the hon. member across the way wants to make a speech, then let him prepare one in the normal way and not take up my time, which is limited to 20 minutes. I really do not know what his question was, but I would suggest to him that we have found it necessary in Canada to have strong international unions because we are constantly up against strong international corporations which own up to 80 per cent of some of our industries. The multinational corporations are causing this country a great deal of difficulty in one way or another. As I was saying before there were a number of catcalls from the benches opposite-


Edmund Boyd Osler: You mean, a penetrating
question.


Mark Willson Rose: 
Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr, Speaker, as, we listened to the

hon. member who introduced the motion, this morning,: his eloquence, the elegance and style of his speech made us almost forget about the substance of what he was saying.
A closer look reveals that the substance of his speech was largely tinted with political partisanship. It may be fair to do so, but it should not be at the expense of those who suffer, who are concerned and who are unemployed.
We cannot make the people forget now the interrelation of our economies, particularly of western economies, and a speaker pointed out earlier that the government was responsible for the fall in the Canadian stock markets.
I am even surprised that he did not suggest we were also responsible for the decline of the market on Wall Street.


An hon. Member:: It is climbing up again!


Rosaire Gendron: 
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House this afternoon places the emphasis on the requirement of the government to change its economic policies which are contributing to the growing rate of unemployment. This does not mean that it must change all its economic policies, but certainly most of them. There is no question-and the government and the apologists for the government party will admit this-that unemployment this year is much more serious than last year.
The figures before us do not take into account that vast wave of university and high school students which will soon descend upon the labour market. In fact, the university students are there now but the statistics are late. Wait until we see the next statistics. I am wondering whether those people who drowse so comfortably on the government benches and ignore this problem will then bestir themselves into thinking there is something radically wrong.
I had to laugh, Mr. Speaker, when listening to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) going back to 1960-61 and trying to quote statistics. If he had been here then-in fact, before that time-he would know it was the bounden duty of the members of his party who were here before him to constantly pound on this question of unemployment and the government's policies. But the unemployment of that time came upon us with the 1957 election. It had been forecast. There was a recession in the United States-not as bad in Canada as it was in the United States but it was there.
When I was elected to Parliament in 1957 there was a housing crisis and a housing funds crisis just as serious as it is now. One hundred million dollars had been left lying completely idle in direct loans: no direct loans were being made at the time. We did not have to amend the act, but I remember that housing construction had come to a complete stop by June, 1967. We are now experiencing a fantastic decline in housing starts.
It must be remembered that while there was, regrettably, high unemployment in 1958-
DEBATES	7047
Economic Policies and Unemployment 59 and 1960, steps were taken and great deficits were incurred by the government to alleviate its effects. Steps were taken when the levels were below what they are today. The trouble is that the government exhibits a form of confidence that all is well, that one does not have to act until there is a crisis. But we have had a crisis reaction to inflation during the past 18 months. Hansard will show speech after speech going back five or six years, warning the government of the creeping inflation that has been allowed since 1964; the easy money policy and the budget inflicted upon this country by the former member for Davenport

all these things. When the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) was Minister of Finance, he told us that all was well and we had the best of all possible worlds. Then, of course, inflation came along and we had the crisis of February, 1968, which seemed to shake the government up a bit. But they overreacted, so we have had surtaxes which have increased inflation because wage demands increased to take the surtaxes into account.
We have had monetary restriction. The government allowed credit expansion to go up, and then of course it had to go back much further. Naturally, the results are much more emphatic, much more difficult to resolve. Our friends to the left seemed to reach for some Never-Never Land of a totally planned economy. They say that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was talking about a planned economy, that you could keep a certain plant open. But he was not talking about a planned economy in that sense; he meant a controlled economy in which an uneconomic plant is kept open.
Of course, the problem of unemployment is solved: there will be many people running around pushing paper, trying to figure things out and correcting the maladjustments resulting from excessive planning. I remember all those people who in Great Britain in 1946 suddenly joined the public service to bring in a Socialist Utopia. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that they were engaged in economic planning production. A great deal of it was thrown out afterwards. I was there. The only point is that the most fantastic amount of bureaucracy has to be erected to control all this planning. That is the way I suppose one cures, to a certain degree-
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: It would be the same thing in Canada.
May 15, 1970
7048	COMMONS DEBATES
Economic Policies and Unemployment


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My hon.
Mend says it would be the same thing in Canada. All our people would be planned out of their shoes. Everybody would be controlled. It would be jobs for the boys, that is all, and the net result would be even worse. Let us look at the paradox of continuing high rates of inflation. One need only look at recent statistics set forth in the last report available from the Bank of Canada to see what is happening. I am sorry I have not the latest figures in this regard, but I have not the weekly bulletin with me. At page 314 of the April issue we see the consumer price index broken down. There we see the wholesale price index and the total index, which is shown for the period up to the end of March as standing at 128.9. I suggest the index is closer to 130 now, because during the last month there was an increase of six-tenths of one point.
The food index stands at 130.5, clothing at 126, housing at 139, and household operation at 115.4. For goods other than food, the total index is 117.9. But when we look at the figure coming under "Services except shelters", I submit that it can be seen that we live in a dreamland, especially when we consider the nature of our economy. It will be seen that 60 per cent of economic activity is in services and 40 per cent is in the production of goods and food. Do hon. members know what the index for all services except shelter has climbed to? In the month of March it reached 147.3. That indicates a cost increase in this particular sector which has far outstripped production. There has been dislocation. It may be the result of imperfect tools, but economic tools and their use should be part of the economic policy of the government. Therefore, the government ought to look at this sector of the economy and pay more attention to it.
We now have the Prices and Incomes Commission which has exhorted management-I do not know exactly to what degree it has been successful-to reduce prices. Some price reductions have been announced. We do not know to what degree any public influence has resulted in a maintenance of prices, but I do not think anyone has really reduced prices- not even the automobile manufacturers who faced a fantastic decline in their sales during the first quarter of 1970. Oh yes, they have reduced their prices merely by making standard features optional. In other words, they have not done anything to reduce prices.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't forget peanut butter.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I suppose the Prices and Income Commission has to a small degree focused some attention on inflation. All governments no doubt will tell you they have trimmed their budgets and have cut back on certain activities. But whatever they have cut back, they have certainly had to lay out again in wages. They may have had to cut back on capital projects or on the maintenance of existing ones, but those cutbacks have been more than offset by increases in wages. The index for services except shelter stands at 147.
Let us consider this question and see what has happened. Teachers in Ottawa are getting a wage increase of 10.5 per cent for one year. In Toronto, the outside municipal workers are to get 19 per cent over two years, which is practically what the teachers have received for one year. Of course, right now we cannot tell if this is so, but I will wager that those increases are not matched by any increase in productivity. Any increase in productivity will nowhere near match the increase in wages. I think the studies last fall of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, when views were received from the public, clearly indicated that there must be a much closer rapprochement between the average rate of wage increases and salaries of management, and in that I include the taking of dividends which are part of the wages of management.
The wages of production workers as well as of management have increased. I am not going to single out the wages of some people who are earning a salary at a supposedly medium or lower level-not at all. There have been excesses all along the line, as well as in government. We have seen them. In 1969, as a result of my question that was answered in January, there was published a return. It is too bad the answer was not printed in Hansard, because then the public could have seen it. This was an Order for Return to be tabled. In it we saw that senior levels of the public service in Ottawa had received salary increases of up to 25 per cent, and perhaps more, effective in 1969. There was no increase in the productivity of those men, in return for the extra moneys they received. So we get this inflation. I have talked quite a bit about inflation, but the problem is still with us and it is very serious.
May 15. 1970	COMMONS
For the edification of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres I say that there was no problem of inflation in 1957. In other words, it just did not exist. Therefore I say that the hon. member cannot talk about the same measures to combat inflation as were used before, and he cannot talk about combating or dealing with problems of inflation which produce unemployment. Neither can he say, "In order to cure unemployment you will have to do the same as was done before," because the situations are entirely different.
It seems to me that we must consider the government's economic policies, and those quite aside from the question of the actions of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which are just beginning. We do not know what will be produced in that area: longterm solutions are being applied. The man who is unemployed is looking for something to be done right now. Certainly, the anticipation that there will be increases-the government has been trying to preach the contrary, that there will be none-is one of the dangers we must face in controlling inflation. This is one of the dangers we must face in, shall we say, changing the inflationary psychology in order that we may turn the corner. In this regard I suggest our problem may be even more severe today because of government inactivity in this sphere in the past. Let us look at its economic and monetary policies. The Bank of Canada returns indicate that in March the bank rate dropped by 0.5 per cent.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The action of the government and of the Bank of Canada with regard to the bank rate is not related to the level of economic activity in this country. It is not related to the degree of unemployment. It was changed as a result of an international payments situation because the government maintained a higher bank rate in dealing with the problem of inflation, a problem which is even more acute in the United States. There has been an extraordinary increase of over $500 million in recent months in Canada's international monetary reserves. It is necessary for the government to incur short-term obligations in the money market in order to have the cash to pay for all the purchases it has had to make. The bank rate was reduced by one-half of one per cent. I question the ultimate decision of the Bank of Canada as to whether the secondary reserves of the chartered banks should have been increased.
In the construction and many other industries this monetary policy has resulted in a
DEBATES	7049
Economic Policies and Unemployment restriction of credit. It is impossible to get money. Down the road is unemployment. The government still has not brought in its consumer credit regulations. I recommend that the government not do this because down the road of consumer credit restrictions is unemployment.
It is unfortunate that in the time available I cannot give more alternatives as to what I think the government should do. I feel that the government should abandon any question of consumer credit controls and relax its fiscal measures in so far as certain levels of tax are concerned. This morning the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) made the admirable suggestion of removing the sales tax on building materials. This would provide an adequate stimulus to housing construction and would relieve the tax burden in this country.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, this is the day that the opposition designated as their own. It is the opportunity to tell how the problem of unemployment should be met. This is the day which they designated to indict this government for its alleged failure to fight unemployment. I wish to compliment the four or five members of the official opposition who thought it important enough to come here this afternoon to talk about the problems of unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a question of privilege-


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on a question of privilege.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: There are ten over there.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My question of privilege is that I think it is invidious for a member to draw attention to the presence or absence of any particular group. I point out that if that hon. member, who lives in Ottawa, had to travel to western Canada, he would have left earlier today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The
member can put up or shut up.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the hon. member's attention that I live in western
May 15. 1970
7050	COMMONS DEBATES
Economic Policies and Unemployment Canada and I have visited my constituency on the last three weekends. However, I felt unemployment was important enough to stay gnd discuss this matter.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You live here.


Raymond J. Perrault: I have a residence in my constituency as well.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has the floor and he should be given an opportunity to continue his remarks.


Raymond J. Perrault: In this fight against unemployment and inflation, most of the opposition members are draft-dodgers. More of them should be in this House, on this designated official opposition day, to discuss this matter. During the past few hours we have heard the same shabby, shoddy and shopworn slogans about unemployment that we have listened to for several months.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What are we getting now?


Raymond J. Perrault: We have higher unemployment in this country. The levels are not satisfactory. As Canadians, regardless of party ties, we have a responsibility to create as many jobs as possible and as soon as possible. Very little is to be gained by raking over slogans and making empty accusations against a government which has initiated more new programs in the past few months to provide long-term solutions to this problem than in any comparable era in Canadian history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Raymond J. Perrault: I have a document issued by an organization with headquarters in Paris. The name of the organization is OECD. What does the OECD say about Canada's efforts? In this report mention is made of the action of the Canadian government to rapidly develop a manpower policy. The article is written in terms of the excellent progress being made in Canada by the government to fight unemployment and to develop methods designed to promote structural improvements of the economy. There is reference to the federally-supported accelerated training and retraining program for adults. Training within industry and management training are encouraged. There is reference to the regional development program.

One of the tasks of this international organization is to compare the economic performance of the nations of the world. This organization speaks in high praise of Canada's regional development program, tax incentives and the training of manpower adjustment measures. The report refers in glowing terms to the new geographic mobility program which gives loans and grants to unemployed workers willing to move in order to take jobs. Transitional assistance benefits are given to workers affected by the United States-Canada agreement on liberalism of trade. This report states that a consultative service is being built to help solve problems connected with technical change at the plant level. This document has not been published by Information Canada, nor the National Trade Federation. It is published by OECD, an organization which is surely respected by even the opposition parties. This organization is not interested in bringing to bear partisan, narrow criticism against the government. It merely reports the facts about countries such as Belgium, Austria, Ireland, Switzerland, Luxembourg, France, etc. It recognizes Canada as one of the leaders in developing programs to help people obtain jobs. Anyone listening to the debate this afternoon could only conclude that Canada is an economic wasteland, devoid of all hope.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond J. Perrault: The applause by the opposition which greeted that remark indicates why they will never be the government in the foreseeable future. They have no confidence in the country. It is fair to conclude that the same opposition members gleefully look on each DBS report as political ammunition.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: You learned that from Paul Martin.


Raymond J. Perrault: The opposition should consider their responsibility here to propose alternative programs. All day they have been combing statistics for as much gloom, doom and disaster as possible. If it is possible to reach a negative effect by any statistics, the opposition will do it. In this wasteland of words there has not been one syllable of a suggestion for any alternative program. As a chap said the other day, all the ideas of the opposition to fight inflation and unemployment could be printed on the back of a postage stamp, with big wide margins.
May 15, 1970	COMMONS
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Opposition critics are aware of the destructive effects of runaway inflation. I am interested in the experience of our Socialist friends in Britain. Harold Wilson told the British people that they might even have to go through a spell of unemployment before the government reached its economic goals. This is what he told them in Britain, and they did suffer unemployment. Hopefully, they are working their way out of that difficulty at the present time. Yet the Socialist party here attacks the government because unemployment levels are higher than normal.
Members of the official opposition in particular are aware of the effects of soaring inflation. Yet they appear to welcome loose money despite the hardship it would impose on the poor, the deprived and the underprivileged. On one hand they call for government restraint in spending. How often have they denounced the government in this House for what they have termed profligate and wild spending? Yet in the next breath they advocate expenditures on a scale which if accepted would increase the taxes of every Canadian workingman.
They call for lower interest rates, completely disregarding the fact that most of our economic woes are being created in the United States where the financing of an expensive war has been superimposed on a peacetime economy, resulting in a wave of inflation which cannot be kept outside Canada. The sound economists in the opposition ranks have not been vocal in this debate because they know these things to be true. They realize that this is a difficult time for all of North America. Some of the critics have called for new government initiatives but they have found it impossible to advance new ideas on their own behalf. The other day the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was confronted with this situation. He said it was not the job of the opposition to propose ideas; it was the job of the government. Mr. Speaker, in a modern democracy it is everyone's job to contribute to the bank of good ideas.
Some of the opposition members have told Canadians for years that they are in favour of tax reform. Some of them, including in particular the members of the official opposition, have been saying for years that they want greater equity in our taxation system. Now they say they will not stand for tax reform. The white paper on taxation has been made a subject for scorn. They ask for its withdrawal-yet they offer no alternatives.
DEBATES	7051
Economic Policies and Unemployment Meanwhile, the poor, the underprivileged and the weak, about whom they profess to be concerned, look to them in vain. Not one idea has been advanced by the official opposition which would result in greater equity in taxation. The Leader of the Opposition who should spend a greater part of his time in the House suggesting ways in which the white paper proposals could be amended, is, instead, galloping around the country on a rubber-chicken circuit saying he wants the white paper thrown out, and the people who pay $100 to get in bang their tables when he does so.
I come from a province where, it is true, many are unemployed. Nevertheless, many come to British Columbia from other provinces to seek work. If the present measures fail to stimulate employment in British Columbia, as in other provinces, I hope the government will alter its policies. But let no one suggest there has been a lack of new concepts. I think the time has come for the opposition to state explicitly what they are prepared to support. We need something more than inflamed oratory of the kind some of them have employed in this debate. Will they urge acceptance of voluntary guidelines on wages, prices and profits?


An hon. Member:: No.


Harold Edward Winch: Will you?


Raymond J. Perrault: Will the leader of the NDP, for example, urge the Canadian Labour Congress to accept voluntary guidelines in connection with wages? Will the leader of the Conservative Party urge the acceptance of voluntary guidelines covering prices and profits as far as industry is concerned? Or do they ask for compulsory control of wages, prices and profits? They should state their attitude explicitly, because the Canadian people have a right to know which measures the opposition will support. The people know what they are against, but few of them know what they will support. The fact is that some of the most vocal opposition members are visibly overdrawn on the bank account of ideas. This is unfortunate because we require their very best thinking to assist, at least in part, the efforts of the government to carry out its mandate.
A few minutes ago one of the speakers in this debate drew attention to what was happening in other countries. I think he was one of our friends in the Socialist party. He said that other countries were setting an example
May 15, 1970
7052	COMMONS DEBATES
Economic Policies and, Unemployment to Canada. He mentioned Sweden in particular and told us there was less inflation there than there was here. But statistics show that Sweden has suffered even more from inflation that has Canada in recent years. Of course, the fact that we are doing better than certain other countries does not mean we should slacken our efforts in fighting inflation. We are a rich country with great resources, so we should not use excuses of that kind. On the other hand, we should not be too critical of ourselves and the steps we are taking to meet this problem.
The unemployment figures are not figures of a kind we want to see; nevertheless a wide range of government programs is under way to reverse the present trend and to bring more job opportunities into being. The process of making more jobs available in Canada will not be assisted by the kind of controversy which has been instigated by opposition members today. Some of them are capable of advancing one or two constructive and practical ideas, and all of us would welcome their contributions if they showed themselves willing to make them.


Mr. Baldwin:: I just have one comment to make, Mr. Speaker. I think the economic policy of this government was well exemplified by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) when as Acting Prime Minister he was asked about the housing program and said it was going in fits and starts. It is all fits and no starts, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Luc Pepin: A great contribution!


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I know you very often hear an hon. member rise and say it had not been his intention to make a speech. I say it now. I can no longer sit in my place after listening to the speech of the previous speaker.
An. hon. Member: That was the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).


Harold Edward Winch: I meant the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Speech, you call it?
[DOT] (4:50 pan.)


Harold Edward Winch: Listening to his remarks we can completely understand why, when he was provincial leader of the Liberal Party they made no progress whatsoever. I very much

regret that since he has come to the House of Commons he has not learned very much.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I have to interrupt the hon. member and remind him that there is a motion before the House. The motion does not refer, so far as I have been able to find out, to the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) and he should not be the subject of debate. I invite the hon: member to direct his remarks to the subject of the motion that is now before the House.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, you are completely correct, but I regret that you draw this to my attention and not to the attention of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour, who never touched the subject. The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour said that it was the responsibility of the opposition to give direction to the government on matters of policy relating to the important issues of inflation and unemployment. I say, sir, that this is not our responsibility. To use the words of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour, we should be a bank of information. I would remind him that this government was elected on the promise that they had the answers to the problems of inflation and unemployment. If the government had accepted our suggestions, a great many problems would have been resolved before now.
The remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour have prompted me to rise to my feet, because his constituency lies adjacent to mine.


Mr. Comeau:: You mean, he has no
unemployment?


Harold Edward Winch: That is the very point I am coming to. I suggest that the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour, who was speaking on behalf of the government on the subject of inflation and unemployment, should not have the temerity to ask the opposition how to solve those problems because, as I have said, he and his government were elected on their promise that they had the answers and would bring about not only a just society but full employment. I ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour please not to leave at this point, because he failed to mention that in his riding and mine at the present time the rate of unemployment is running at 6.6 per cent, higher than at any point during the last seven years.


Thomas Miller Bell: He forgot to mention that.
May 15, 1970


Harold Edward Winch: As a result of government policy to deal with inflation and unemployment, the psychosis of lock-outs, strikes and government decision, the province of British Columbia is facing at the present time the most serious situation it has ever faced in its history.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Liberal times are tough times.


Harold Edward Winch: We have a Social Credit government in British Columbia but there is a Liberal federal government in Ottawa. I participated in this debate because I was so incensed at hearing a British Columbia member on the government side condemning the opposition members, irrespective of party. This government has one of the largest majorities ever known. The government has the power, the influence and the initiative-yet the longer it stays in office, the worse conditions in the country become.
I suggest that a British Columbia member having condemned the opposition, his words
DEBATES	7053
Economic Policies and Unemployment should be thrown right back at him because his is a member of the party with the power and the initiative. I further suggest that were he to look into a mirror and ask who was responsible for conditions today, the reflection would indicate it was he and his party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it the hon. member was not addressing his last remarks to the Chair.


Harold Edward Winch: Through you, sir, it was addressed to the government and to the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to bring to the attention of hon. members that pursuant to Standing Order 58 (11) the debate on this motion is deemed to have been completed. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday next at two o'clock in the afternoon.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
t, V

* ** '	[DOT]' *' i	"
: ** *; '

1	, M
' * r; T. ' -s	?	- -fr JW. J-
*

		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		



70S5
Tuesday, May 19, 1970