1970-11-12

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Asselin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Reporting on an address I delivered yesterday to members of Ottawa's Richelieu Club, the press quoted me as having said that resolving of constitutional problems should take place within two months.
I want to correct this error because, in fact, this is what I said: "If, within a few months, I would say two years at most, there is no sign of action in the constitutional domain-"
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this correction is to further clarify my position on the subject I was dealing with.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate to the effect that the Senate has passed Bill S-6, an Act to amend the Anti-Dumping Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions through the usual channels and there is general agreement and, hopefully, unanimous agreement, concerning the following motion:
That the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 1968 and the Auditor General's Report thereon and the evidence adduced in consideration thereof in the previous session be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


Mr. Baldwin:: The discussions have been fruitful. We agree.


Mr. Speaker:: The discussions having been fruitful and hon. members having heard the motion proposed by the Minister of Agriculture, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Sianley Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I report a second fruitful discussion. It has to do with the time limits on speeches in the debate which will take place later today on the motion that will be moved by my hon. friend from York South.
The agreement among the parties is that the mover of the motion and the principal speaker on behalf of the government shall each have 30 minutes, the principal speakers for the Official Opposition and the Ralliement des Creditistes 20 minutes, and all other speakers 15 minutes. It is also agreed that no speaker shall ask for an extension of time.


An hon. Member:: Including you Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: No one will get it, you mean.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I understand there has been discussion on this subject to that effect. Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NATIONAL MUSEUMS


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It has to do with maladministration of the National Museums of Canada as evidenced by the prolonged absence of highly paid museums' officials from their offices while touring foreign countries at considerable public expense. There is also the matter of contracts let by the museums branch for publications as far back as 1967 which to my knowledge have not yet been delivered.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
I should therefore like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott):
That the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to inquire into the financial administration of the National Museums of Canada to determine whether all proper procedures are being followed and have been followed with respect to the expenditure of public funds.

November 12, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Battle River.

The House knows that such a motion cannot be put without unanimous consent. I therefore ask the House if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to advise the hon. member that there is no unanimity in favour of the submission of his motion. Therefore it cannot be put at this time.


Cliff Downey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I impress upon hon. members that it would be much easier to facilitate an investigation by this means than by going through the ordinary process of questioning in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that that is not a point of order. It may be an argument in support of his motion, but it is not a point of order.



CUSTOMS TARIFF


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
November 10, 1970-The Minister of Finance:-That this House, pursuant to subsection (lc) of section 7 of the Customs Tariff, do approve that the Men's and Boys' Shirts Surtax Order being Order in Council P.C. 1970-959 of 2 June 1970 made under subsection (la) of section 7 of the said Act, continue to have force and effect until the 29th day of November, 1971.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who I believe reports to the House on behalf of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Why is it that for the second month in a row the monthly report of DBS on employment and unemployment has omitted any breakdown of the period of time of unemployment?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the document published today-the press release-gives only part of the total picture. The procedure is that in a very few days another document-the main publication called "The Labour Force"-will come out giving further information, including data on duration of unemployment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Then am I to understand that the minister is giving the assurance that this information will be forthcoming from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and circulated in the same manner within a matter of days?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who asked that question last month, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, made the same point. On the following day I sent him a note of explanation and he seemed to be satisfied. The new system has been in operation since August.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I asked the question a month ago and I received no information from the minister.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Then I can only apologize to the hon. member. I'll correct myself immediately.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Leader of the Opposition rising on a further supplementary?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



INTERIM CHANGES IN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether the government has decided to make any interim changes or arrangements in regard to unemployment insurance, for example, in the length of time required to qualify or in the benefits payable, to come into operation some time during the winter, as opposed to the more definitive proposals that are included in his white paper?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, may I assure the House that if the government had come to such a decision I would have announced it by now or perhaps held the announcement for the debate later this day. However, it is not my intention at the moment to recommend an increase in benefits this winter. What I am hoping is that we can accelerate the already rapid pace at which we are converting the white paper's proposals into proposed legislation. Above all else it is more important that we create jobs.



MANPOWER


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether any special manpower programs are
November 12, 1970

planned lor this winter, aimed at effectively upgrading manpower resources by taking advantage of the slack in the economy to provide incentives to people to receive further training?


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the minister will reply to the question briefly. It seems to me the matter is of such importance and so wide-ranging that perhaps it should be discussed by way of a statement on motions, but the minister might want to reply very briefly.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I can be very brief, indeed, because the question has been asked many times and has been answered in the House on several occasions by statements to the effect that additional programs in regard to upgrading and training have been made available and are being put into effect.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Canadians across Canada are not aware of the changes in the programs to which the minister has referred, will he make a statement on motions to clarify the point so we will know what changes are contemplated?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think that Canadians across the country are aware of the fact that additional money has been put into the program. Region by region, applicants are certainly aware of it. There has been no fundamental change in the program as such; rather, a far larger amount of money has been put into the program in order that the applicants who are applying may be accommodated. Therefore there is no difficulty in bringing this to the attention of people across the country.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Justice. Would he be prepared to place on the table tomorrow a list of the persons who have been charged in the province of Quebec as a result of the recent situation there, together with a list of the offences with which they have been charged? Would he also indicate the number of persons who are still being detained without charge and the length of time these persons have been in detention?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, this would be a rather unusual procedure, but the charges are, of course, public and I will do the best I can to provide that information. The figures as of noon today are: Arrested, 447; released, 383; detained, 64, and 41 of the 64 have now been charged. I understand that four or five will be charged tomorrow and more will be released this afternoon.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, last week the minister indicated there were 43
Inquiries of the Ministry
persons for whom warrants of arrests had been issued. Since he made that statement, how many of that number have been apprehended?


John Napier Turner: I cannot give the hon. member that information, not because I do not want to but because I just do not have it on hand.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
ask the minister what amounts of arms, rifles, machine guns and explosives have been uncovered as a result of nearly four weeks of police investigation?


John Napier Turner: I may be able to find that information later in the afternoon.



HEALTH INSURANCE


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the fact that, because of their status, Indians and Eskimos earning their living on reservations do not pay income tax, can the hon. minister tell us who will pay hospitalization costs of Quebec Indians and Eskimos who will have no medicare card?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is in fact asking for a legal opinion. As far as my information is concerned, if my memory serves me right I do not believe that any doctor who is in the plan in the province of Quebec can extra-bill.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the submission by the Western Hog Growers Association requesting that the marketing of hogs be excluded from Bill C-176, can the minister indicate whether the government has reached a decision in this regard, and will consideration be given to their request to appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture which is presently studying this bill?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, it is not up to the Minister of Agriculture to decide who shall appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture. With regard to the substance of the question, however, I can say that inasmuch as there are several hog marketing commissions, agencies and so on set up under provincial marketing legislation at the present
1090

November 12, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
time, it seems to me it would be inadvisable to exclude them from the co-ordinating action we hope will flow from the application of Bill C-176.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question of which I gave him notice. Either just prior to the implementation of the War Measures Act or shortly thereafter in accordance with the Quebec Police Act, was the investigation of criminal and seditious activity placed under the control and direction of the Director-General of the Quebec Provincial Police, Mr. St. Pierre, and was all police force assistance basically under such direction and control?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for the courtesy he showed me by giving me notice of his question. My understanding is that pursuant to the authority of section 79 of the Quebec Police Act the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province of Quebec ordered that the Director-General of the Quebec police force assume, under the authority of the provincial Attorney General, the command of municipal police forces. I do not know if every municipal police force in Quebec was affected by the order. The RCMP could not, of course, be brought within the terms of such order, but the force has been co-operating throughout with the provincial law enforcement authorities.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's answer, were the RCMP-we have had some talk about the RCMP of late-merely asked to render their skilful and knowledgeable assistance to the Quebec Provincial Police? Is it not correct that the RCMP, throughout the world of police forces, are recognized as one of the finest trained forces with the latest and most up-to-date scientific equipment equal to, if not better than, any other national police force in the world?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will appreciate that the question has not been put in the proper form. Perhaps it might be redrafted. If the hon. member wishes the minister to reply I suggest the question should be asked in other terms.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker. I got carried away by my rhetoric. Let me put it this way. Would the Minister of Justice give us a report to the effect that the equipment, skill and training of the RCMP are equal to that of any other police force in the world?


Mr. Speaker:: Again I would think that at this point the hon. member is asking the minister to express an opinion. I know it would be a very valuable opinion, but that
is not what the Chair has to decide. I would think the question in those terms is not in order.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the uncertainty in the answer he gave the other day in connection with the police work. As one who has known the mounted police since the days of the Northwest Mounted Police, although I fully share the opinion of my hon. friend from Calgary North, I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I put this question to the Prime Minister. Would he clear up the implication that there was inefficiency on the part of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police so that this great body of men will not be under any shadow in the days ahead?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I thank the right hon. gentleman for giving me the opportunity to do that, Mr. Speaker. I understand that as a result of my answer to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings who asked me whether anything was going to be done to make the police more efficient there may have been some interpretation that I felt they had not been as efficient as they might have been. I am very happy to say, and I would have the House remember that in my answer I emphasized this, that the police deserve a very great vote of thanks for the way they have operated. This does not take away from my belief, and I believe that of the police themselves, that they are dealing with a new situation in Canada involving a form of terrorism which perhaps has been unknown heretofore and therefore they have not been as trained in the solution of that type of terrorism as we with hindsight might desire. This is in no way a criticism of them. I said it was our society which was unused to this kind of situation and that we had all been caught slightly off guard.



PENSIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the right hon. gentleman's statement a short while ago that he thought old age pensioners might be able to get through the winter without an increase in their pensions, but that he hoped they would not have to, can he now say whether there will be an increase in the old age pension before Christmas?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, without agreeing with the premise of the question which is not exactly in the terms I put it, I can only say what the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been saying, namely, that in due course he will announce the government's policy on these matters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of current news stories about white papers and committee reports, may we have an assurance that action on this

November 12, 1970

matter will at least be started in the House of Commons before Christmas?


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister is silent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was the Prime Minister not cogitating a reply?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member knows better than anyone else that I am not in a position to say what will happen.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who, according to the roster system, should be here today. However, I can probably put my question to his Parliamentary Secretary or to the acting minister. It has to do with the fact that since the coming into force of the Canada Water Act any assistance that was given previously to municipalities for conservation projects has been stopped by the government. In view of the fact that a tremendous number of conservation projects in Ontario, particularly along the Grand River, are being held up because there are no federal funds available, I would ask the minister to give favourable consideration to restoring the 37 J per cent assistance provided under the former Act.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this can hardly be termed a question. He is making a submission to the government and I suggest respectfully to him that he has to assume it will be considered.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Si. Barbe):: My question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Would the minister advise the House whether he met with the national advisory council of the Canadian Veterans Association of the United Kingdom during his trip to England arising out of their concern about the closing of the DVA office in London, and what were the results of the meeting?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Yes, I did meet with them. We had a very interesting discussion on the London office and I am sure that as a result of our meeting decisions will come forward which will be to their satisfaction and to the satisfaction of my department.


Jack Marshall: Would the minister advise the House whether the department is still going ahead with the decision to close the office in March or whether, in view of the discussion which he had, the decision will be reconsidered?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Eudes Dubé: I always said the office would be gradually phased out. The office is not to be closed at present.



FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAM-AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare supplementary to a question I asked him some weeks ago. Will the minister make an early statement describing the projected birth control program which is being undertaken by his department?


An hon. Member:: And how retroactive will it be?


John Carr Munro: I think I indicated to the hon. member at that time that the government program in the family planning area was announced in some considerable detail. If the hon. member wants me to repeat it or send her a copy of the announcement setting out the details, I will be pleased to do so.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I should like to know when and in what form this information will be made available to the public?


John Carr Munro: As was indicated, Mr. Speaker, a consultative service is set up in the department, and we indicated at the time that this was a matter of choice for individuals but that information would be supplied with respect to it. That information is being formulated now and we expect it will be available through organizations, with their co-operation, in the fairly near future.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abifibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the refusal by the Israeli government to accept the UN's recommendation to the effect that Jerusalem should be considered as an entity separate from the Israeli problem, does the Canadian government intend to ask his UN representative to protest once more against the confiscations and expropriations which the Arabs have to suffer?



AGRICULTURE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question. In light
23226-70J

November 12, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
of the fact that there now seems to be some doubt that passage of Bill C-176 will deal with the problems of trade between provinces and as the litigation in the province of Quebec has not yet got to the Court of Appeal, or at least there has been no decision, will the minister not review with the Minister of Justice the question of obtaining, under section 55 of the Supreme Court Act, terms of reference from the Governor in Council so that the Supreme Court can deal with this very important matter?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As a
matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that the passage of Bill C-176 will improve this situation. Since the question was based on the premise that it would not, I would not think the other part of it is applicable.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the minister not discuss this matter and have either himself or the Minister of Justice make a statement, particularly having in mind the widespread view that one reason no action is being taken is that it involves litigation in the province of Quebec?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Minister of Justice and I have had many conversations and discussions about this matter. The hon. member may assume what conclusions we reached.


Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, 1
would like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Agriculture, and I do this in all seriousness. Since there is some indication from governmental investigations of a provincial nature, and other investigations, that the broiler industry may in the main be under the control of a small number of companies that are in themselves part of larger industrial complexes, is this the influence behind the minister's decision not to refer this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada?


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



POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS AS FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD

Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the results of a survey by the Food and Drug Directorate indicating that polychlorinated biphenyls, known generally as PCBs, are becoming recognized as a food and environmental hazard, is the government taking any steps to reduce the volume of this contaminant in the environment?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, that whole matter is under consideration at the moment and I will be pleased to advise the House and the hon. member what the results of our deliberations are.	[DOT]


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Have there been or are there at present interdepartmental discussions on this problem?


John Carr Munro: I cannot assure the hon. member on how far interdepartmental considerations have gone on but, as I say, I know the matter has been given considerable consideration within my own department.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has his department commenced a study of the publishing industry and, if so, when will that study be completed?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, we have done that, and the study is now ready. It is being printed, and I presume that in the next three or four weeks I would be able to table it in the House.


Max Saltsman: In view of the seriousness of the fact that two of the major publishing companies in Canada are in danger of being absorbed by outside interests and as the study may not be completed in time to take any action, could the minister meet with his counterparts in the provincial governments and put a halt to sales of publishing companies until this study is completed?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, if the results of the study could be useful in the present discussions going on between Ryerson and the government of Ontario, I am quite sure we will find a way to communicate the information needed to the interested parties.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House whether or not he has received a submission from Ryerson Press or the government of Ontario with regard to the takeover of this company by American interests?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was in correspondence with the Ryerson Press authorities about three, four or five months ago, but that correspondence was mainly of an informational nature. They wrote to me because they had heard that the study to which I have just referred was going on in my department and they wanted to contribute to it. They made us acquainted with the general difficulties that the company was experiencing, but there was no specific mention in their letter of the actual possibility that it was going to be taken over by U.S. interests or specific request for financial assistance. The man in question answered my letter in a very distinguished fashion, and contributed to our information. We wrote to each other-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister and the hon. member would like to continue this conversation after the question period.

November 12, 1970


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whiiby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question and I am hoping for a little briefer answer. Is it correct for the House to infer from the minister's statement just now that if the government of Ontario does nothing to prohibit the takeover of Ryerson Press, the federal government does not intend to take action?


Mr. Speaker:: I would point out that the hon. member's question as asked is hypothetical.


John Edward Broadbent: I will rephrase it, Mr. Speaker, in the following fashion. If the government of Ontario does not take specific action to stop the takeover of Ryerson Press, does the federal government at this time intend to take action?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may have rephrased the question but it is still hypothetical.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. In view of the fact that the Premier of Ontario has indicated his intention of meeting McGraw-Hill and Ryerson Press representatives in the hope that the Ryerson Press operation can be kept in Canada, has the federal government had any contact with the Premier of Ontario to indicate that it would be prepared to give financial assistance, if that were necessary, in order to keep Ryerson Press in Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I can only say I have no money in my budget for that purpose.


Gerald William Baldwin: That has never stopped you before.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of reports emanating from the minister's department to the effect that the government is prepared to provide employment for the 400 Lapalme truck drivers provided the CNTU gives up its demand that the union local be retained within the Public Service, can the minister say where these 400 jobs are available and how long will they be held in abeyance for the Lapalme drivers before they are offered to other unemployed people?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I read the same report in the newspapers but it was not given by the Department of Labour. It was through another department of government. I think the hon. member will have to address his question to the appropriate minister.


Robert Simpson: May I ask the minister if he would care to read the latest news release from the Department of Labour which carries this report?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Mackenzie.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since this matter has been raised on half a dozen occasions I wish to point out that the particular bulletin to which the hon. gentleman refers is nothing more than a summary of reports from the various newspapers issued daily across Canada. The inference is that I, as Minister of Labour, should assert some form of censorship over the papers, which is something I refuse to do.



PRESENCE OF RUSTY BEETLE IN WHEAT SHIPMENTS

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. The other day I asked him when he would be able to provide some information in regard to cargoes of grain found to be infested with rusty beetles. Since this may have an effect on potential world sales I wonder whether the minister is prepared to indicate to the House the amount of grain involved and whether negligence had occurred in inspections at the terminals?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I told the hon. member a few days ago that I would try to get all the information I could on the subject but he will realize it may take a little time. However, I can assure him that we have sufficient quantities of good grain of many grades in Canada, free from rusty beetles, to supply all markets.


Stanley James Korchinski: Could I ask the minister whether his department is conducting investigations out in the country on the possibility of beetles in grain, other than the investigations being conducted at the terminals?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we are making as many checks as we can with the staff that we have available. I repeat what I suggested to the right hon. member for Prince Albert the other day, that the farmers themselves have some responsibility for the management of their farms and for checking the bins for beetles.


John George Diefenbaker: The farmer always has to pay under this government.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Will the minister take steps to see that the parties responsible for this infestation of export wheat are required to pay for the cost incurred instead of assessing all the cost to the farmers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The costs of doing this will have to be considered. If this grain is in one of the commercial positions we will have to take that into consideration, but a full assessment has not been made yet.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is trying to catch your eye. I merely rise to give you an opportunity to recognize him but if necessary I can ask a question.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will make a

November 12, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
report to the House in due course on how it was possible for the infestation of this amount of grain while in transit to escape detection and arrive in export positions before it was detected?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is debate or argument and in those terms I do not think it is acceptable.
The Minister of Justice has now caught my eye.


Gerald William Baldwin: Better make it good.



NATIONAL SECURITY


John Napier Turner: I thank the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Just don't forget it.


John Napier Turner: This is an example of the co-operation of Parliament, Mr. Speaker. Earlier in the afternoon the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands asked about seizures of dynamite. From a public statement made yesterday by Inspector Melangon of the Quebec Provincial Police it is my information that the number of weapons retrieved in the anti-terrorist raids since mid-October included a total of 116 offensive weapons, 2,976 rounds of ammunition and 2,609 sticks of dynamite. Inspector Melangon said that more than 1,800 sticks of dynamite remained unaccounted for out of the 4,500 stolen in the last several months.



AVAILABILITY OF WEAPONS-PASSING OF ORDER IN COUNCIL

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, when the minister is dealing with weapons and the amount of dynamite stolen, I wonder if he would answer my question with respect to restricted and prohibited weapons and advise whether there was a prior Order in Council passed with regard to section 82(e) of the Criminal Code?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to be able to give the hon. member a full answer which includes not only an appreciation of the law but an appreciation of the facts and I will combine those when I give the answer.


Gerald William Baldwin: If your law is no better than your facts you have a long way to go.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Considering the disturbing increase in the unemployment rate in Quebec, does the minister intend to designate other special areas in that province so that they may benefit from the provisions of the act, and so as to reduce unemployment?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, almost the whole of the province of Quebec is already designated under the act, even the hon. member's riding, and we shall certainly assist any firms wishing to settle in that province.


Martial Asselin: I thank the minister, Mr. Speaker.



CORNWALL-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON STUDIES AND PROGRAMS

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the month of April I asked the minister a question concerning a constituency not represented on the floor of the House, namely, the area of the city of Cornwall. That area had the highest unemployment rate at the time the question was asked and it has not changed since. The minister at that time assured me that the question would receive early attention but six or seven months have gone by. Could the minister today tell the House what has been done?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered this question a few days ago. Since then, the federal government has decided to invest a large sum of money in the rebuilding of the Cornwall wharf and we will continue to study projects which will, no doubt, remedy the unemployment situation.


John George Diefenbaker: Why such a long delay?



SAINT-HYACINTHE-DESIGNATION AS SPECIAL AREA

Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, does the minister want to say that he has finally reached a decision regarding the Saint-Hyacinthe region, which also suffers from unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we have reached the point where we should draw the line. I have suggested to hon. members that it was not quite in order to go over every region of the country to determine whether it is designated. Having heard the question from the right hon. member for Prince Albert, perhaps this would be a good place to draw the line. I suggest to hon. members that questions referring to individual regions are not quite in order at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may rise on a question of privilege, I did not deal with Prince Albert but with Cornwall. Having been in Cornwall I felt that the matter should be raised in view of Your Honour's position of complete neutrality and inability to make representations here in the House.

November 12, 1970



COMBINES


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the minister having his department investigate an alleged monopoly developing in the broiler industry in Alberta in view of the fact that 80 per cent of the industry is dominated by the Alberta Poultry Marketers Co-operative as outlined in a recent study released by the University of Alberta?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, thanks to the hon. member, I and my department are aware of the report and it is being examined for any possible breaches of the Combines Act that might be involved.
*	Hs *



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence and is in respect of a pay increase for the armed forces. Have the minister and his colleagues in the Treasury Board any charity in their hearts now that it is about a month overdue?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National
Defence): Yes, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the Treasury Board do have charity in their hearts.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could indicate whether we might expect an announcement on pay increases soon?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: I am afraid I cannot do that at the moment, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I refer to an answer given to a question put by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka on November 10 at page 1043 of Hansard. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources at that time stated that the ministers in charge of the water pollution questions and environmental management from the provinces of Quebec and Ontario attended a meeting which reached an agreement to the effect that on the completion of the Quebec-Ontario study of the Ottawa River which will be completed early in the new year "we will proceed to enter into a joint water quality management agreement pursuant to the terms of the Canada Water Act."
My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister please check into the authenticity of the raw sewage being flushed directly into the Ottawa River by the French Embassy,
Inquiries of the Ministry
the British High Commission and none other than 24 Sussex Drive?
$ $ &



SOCIAL SECURITY


John Edward Broadbent: I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Senate Committee on Poverty is going to recommend some form of guaranteed annual income and in view of the further fact that the Prime Minister will have the honour of presiding over the highest number of unemployed Canadians in history this winter, would he inform the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
*	sfc



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of reports arising from the discussions at the Atlantic Provinces Economic Conference pointing out that regional development policies require extensive modification, especially in the area of resource development, can the minister say whether such modification is contemplated? If so, will he make a statement on motions clarifying the government's legislative role in this area?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are continually analysing
programs and projects and trying to improve on them. We certainly intend to go on with it if the House decides to allocate considerably larger credits for that purpose.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON RECOMMENDATIONS BY COUNCIL ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Patrick J. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday I asked the minister about the different methods he is studying for improving the program. Is the minister prepared to make a statement on motions this session as to the firm recommendations made by the Council on Rural Development which comes under his department?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I believe the other day I did reply that this report is being considered by my department and immediately we come to some conclusions, I shall make a statement in the House, if need be.
November 12, 1970

Business of the House
[English]	GOVERNMENT ORDERS



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: wish to direct my question to the Minister of Labour because he is always very frank and open. I assume the department has made an estimate or forecast of the rate of unemployment this winter, in particular the month of February. Can the minister disclose this forecast to the House now or in the debate later? It would be very helpful to the country and to that discussion.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The only figure I can speak about with accuracy is the figure for the month of October which indicates that for the first time seasonally adjusted unemployment rates show a reduction in that serious problem. Second, there are more Canadians at work today than at any time in Canadian history.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems we are now embarking on the debate which will begin in a few minutes. The question period has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council the intentions of the government with regard to the business for this week and next week.


Mr. Jerome:: Today, of course, is an opposition day. Tomorrow we will call the motion standing in the name of the Minister of Finance with reference to the surtax on shirts. That will be followed by resuming committee of the whole on the emergency powers bill. This will be followed by the statutory instruments bill, the CNR finance and guarantee bill, the Buffalo-Fort Erie bridge bill, the packaging and labelling bill and the statistics bill. It is intended that Thursday of next week will be another allotted day for the opposition.


Gerald William Baldwin: In view of the fact that the debate which we were on on Tuesday and which it is proposed to continue on Friday overshadows all of the program, will the Parliamentary Secretary discuss with his minister and the Minister of Justice a proposal to limit speeches in committee of the whole to ten minutes, with one contribution in respect of each clause, and also consider whether steps could be taken by agreement to complete that bill tomorrow provided there can be some agreement among the members of the Liberal caucus?


James Alexander Jerome: We would be delighted to pursue any efforts in that direction, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF SUPPLY


Mr. David Lewis (York South) moved:: Whereas there has been a relentless upward climb in the level of unemployment in all regions of Canada, and
Whereas a number of responsible economic authorities have predicted record levels of unemployment this coming winter, and
Whereas, unless special measures are immediately taken, the likelihood of serious increases in the level of unemployment in the Province of Quebec and the City of Montreal will add to an already critical situation,
Therefore, be it resolved that this House calls upon the Government to institute, in co-operation with provinces and municipalities, policies and programs that will increase significantly the number of jobs available this winter and, as a special measure of assistance to those who remain unemployed, to increase both the amount of unemployment benefits and the eligibility period provided by the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we placed this motion for debate today because it is clear to anyone who looks at the situation objectively that our country is facing a crisis with regard to unemployment. Whether one uses the seasonally adjusted figures or the actual figures, the problem of unemployment in Canada now and the forecast for this winter suggest that the problem is extremely distressing and dangerous. I admit that the seasonally adjusted figures are more appropriate to use in terms of the trend annually, but they do not touch on the human beings involved. The number of people who are unemployed at any time must be of concern to those who want to see justice in our society. The actual figure gives the human story of frustration, idleness and distress. I am going to be concerned with the actual figures rather than the more theoretical seasonally adjusted figures.
When one says that there is an unemployment problem in this country he immediately hears the kind of remark made a few minutes ago by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), namely that more Canadians are at work today than ever before in the history of our country. That is true, but it is as irrelevant and misleading as it is true. It is irrelevant because it does not touch on the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are unemployed. It is misleading because it ignores the fact that in our country at the present time there is, on an average, an increase of between-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South has the floor.


David Lewis: I do not intend to waste any time on that comment. When the hon. member gets half his wits back I will listen to him.
What the minister fails to see, although I am sure he is aware of the fact, is that every year there is an increase in the work force in Canada of between 300,000 and 350,000. These are new job seekers. If the number of
[Mr. Marchand.l
November 12, 1970

employed in Canada did not increase every year, unemployment would now have reached close to two million instead of 400,000. The relatively small increase in the number of people employed in Canada is to be expected in view of the increase in the total work force.
As the Economic Council of Canada has shown in table 3 of its September, 1970 report, instead of 300,000 or
350,000	new jobs, which would have kept Canada at the same rate of unemployment in 1970 as in 1969, and that was high enough, in 1970 only 77,000 new jobs were created in this country. There were about 77,000 new jobs created in 1970 in this country. So assuming the increase in the total work force is something like 300,000, there is already a shortfall of 225,000 jobs even for those who have been added to the work force, quite apart from the numbers who were unemployed before. The situation is serious and I hope no member of the government will try to hide behind the increase in the participation rate, as the economists call it, or the increase in the number of people actually at work, to fool themselves to the point of asserting that there is no unemployment crisis in this country.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
In October of this year there were 419,000 unemployed, an increase of 21,000 as compared with the month of September. Unemployment showed an increase in practically all the regions of Canada with the exception of the Maritimes. The Quebec figures showed an increase as did those of Ontario, the Prairies and British Columbia. Some of these increases were very striking. Perhaps the most significant fact which emerges from these figures, and one which I believe members of all parties ought to look at with the utmost concern, is that 23 per cent of the unemployed in October, 1970, were young people between the ages of 14 and 19. If we add the number of people aged between 20 and 24, we find that 45 per cent of all unemployment in Canada come into this larger category, that is, it occurs among those under the age of 24. Young people leaving school, or leaving colleges and universities, are frustrated by their inability to find work, their inability to make a contribution to society and to fulfil their young, hopeful lives. Aside from terrorism, there could be nothing more destructive to the social order than to have hundreds of thousands of young people leaving schools and colleges confronted by the frustration and despair which unemployment produces.
The other significant fact which emerges from these figures relates to problems we have faced and dealt with in the last few weeks. Of the total of unemployed in Canada in October, 1970, 38 per cent were in the Province of Quebec. A province which has only about one quarter of the total work force has almost 40 per cent of the total unemployment. And these are average figures I am giving, something which always worries me; I suppose our statistics can never be perfect, but when we talk about the number of people who are unemployed in Quebec or the Maritimes or elsewhere, we are talking about the province as a whole. But when we consider eastern Montreal, for example, or the County of Gaspe, I have no doubt that unemployment in such places may
Employment Programs
well amount to 15 or 18 per cent. So, one finds a concentration of desperate people without work in certain areas of a province or in certain areas of the country. I will return to the significance of this in a few moments, although I am sure it is already clear to everybody. At any rate, the unemployment in connection with which we have the figures for October has risen sufficiently for it to be considered as an extremely serious situation.
But this is nothing compared with what every forecast for the coming winter tells us. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in an attitude which he so often and so unhappily displays, made fun of, or made an insulting reference to, the President of the Canadian Labour Congress who said there would be 9 per cent unemployment this winter and that the figure might climb as high as 11 per cent; the figure he forecast was 750,000. When a question was asked based on the statement by Mr. MacDonald, members of the House will recall that the Prime Minister made an insulting statement about his not being a reliable source from the point of view of veracity, or some such phrase. Well, the Prime Minister can make that kind of flippant remark as often as he likes; I suspect that the more often he does it the more the people of Canada will recognize it, and him, for what they are. The fact is, that what Mr. MacDonald said has been said by every reputable economist in this country-they are not labour people, either. Mr. Robert Crozier, an economist with the Economic Council of Canada, said as reported in an article in the Toronto Star, from which I quote, that by next February or March, unemployment will be up to 9 per cent, or maybe a little above. In numbers, he put the figure between 750,000 and 800,000. Mr. Forrest Rogers, economic adviser to the Bank of Nova Scotia- not a revolutionary institution, Mr. Speaker-said he thought there would be 8.5 per cent unemployed; 9 per cent, he thought, might be a little high, though he was not prepared to argue that the rate might not reach 9 per cent. Professor Sydney Ingerman, labour economist at McGill University said the actual rate of unemployment nationally would be in the area of 9 to 10 per cent. So, what the President of the Canadian Labour Congress said was supported by these and many other Canadian economists. Indeed, if I remember correctly, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) himself admitted there would be very heavy unemployment this winter. I cannot recall whether or not he gave a figure, but he said he expected very heavy unemployment.
If there are to be between 750,000 and 800,000 unemployed, this unemployment will, as usual, be concentrated in the depressed areas of the country. So even larger numbers will be in the Province of Quebec; even larger numbers in the Atlantic provinces, and even larger numbers in the depressed areas of the Prairies and of Ontario. So if we are talking about 9 per cent as a national rate of unemployment, it will be 12 to 15 per cent in the Province of Quebec, probably 15 to 18 per cent in the Atlantic provinces, and 20 per cent or more in the area where unemployment is concentrated in the Gaspe and the eastern region of Montreal.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the direct result of government policies which have been pursued for the last while in an
November 12, 1970

Employment Programs
alleged fight against inflation. It is the government which has deliberately slowed down the economy and which is responsible for this growing unemployment, as well as for an increasing number of business failures. They are responsible for the fact that many small businesses, even if they have not failed, find themselves under extreme economic and financial pressure.
The Prime Minister said some time ago that he was prepared to accept 6 per cent unemployment as a consequence of his policies against inflation. Well, on a seasonally adjusted basis he already has a rate of 6.5 per cent as of October and on an actual basis he is likely to get between 9 per cent and 11 per cent, and even higher in some areas during the coming winter. The so-called fight against inflation about which the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have been talking has proved a disaster for hundreds of thousands of ordinary Canadian workers.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
This disaster has also been felt by families. Everyone who has studied unemployment figures knows there are large numbers of people who are not taken into account but who are nevertheless out of work. For example, women who stop trying to get into the labour force; young people who give up in despair at trying to get a job. The likelihood is that this winter there will be not
750,000	to 800,000 unemployed but much closer to one million-certainly 900,000. Add to this the dependants of those who are unemployed, and this winter there will be without exaggeration between two to three million people who are either out of work or suffering from the loss of income of those who have no jobs.
We warned the government that their policy would result in this kind of disaster for the people of Canada. I suggest disaster is not too strong a term when we consider what we can look forward to this winter. All over the country welfare rolls have been climbing. In every major industrial city, the welfare budget has been exceeded. In Toronto alone $22 million more than was budgeted for has been spent on welfare. The same is true in the borough of York and surrounding areas. When I speak of Toronto in this context I am talking about metropolitan Toronto, not merely the city of Toronto. The same is true in other parts of the country, as some of my colleagues will no doubt point out. Again, the burden of the government's policy has been thrown on those who are least able to bear it, namely municipal governments who have to squeeze their provincial government for additional revenue to meet expanding welfare costs as a direct result of the policy of this government to increase unemployment.
All of this has direct relationship to the troubles in the province of Quebec that we have been discussing in this House for the last weeks. In one of the speeches I made I said-this was also said by my leader and other members in this House-that while no one has suggested that the people in the FLQ are concerned merely, as they claim, with social justice, it is nevertheless true that small groups of self-styled revolutionaries would not have
dared do the kind of thing the FLQ did were it not for the social and economic circumstances in Quebec that gave them encouragement. We have all admitted these are twisted men and women with criminal psychologies, people who require the kind of attention the Police are giving them and ought to have given them a long time ago.
If I may quote my previous words, were it not for the frustration of the young, the despair of the old and the hurt of the unemployed, there would not have been the soil in which to plant the seed of the FLQ. If there had not been these conditions, the FLQ would not have evoked any sympathy at all; they would have been detested by everybody and would not have attempted what in fact they did attempt. When you have despair, unemployment and depressed economic conditions, you are inviting disaster and unrest of one sort or another.
This situation must be added to a history of economic distress and inequality. The young Quebecois can look at a history over a large number of years of being unable to get the same job as an English-speaking Canadian or to climb to the same heights; a history where the average wage in the province has traditionally been below that of the province of Ontario; where out of 77,000 jobs created in 1970, 49,000 were in the province of Ontario and only
3,000	in the province of Quebec. Now we have the prospect of unemployment this winter on an increasing scale. With such a history as this the government, indeed this Parliament, is just begging for trouble. This is why this subject is of such immediate and important concern to me, and I am sure to all members of the House.
I am trying to finish within my allotted time, so I shall not elaborate further on that subject. Let me pass on to another matter. The heartbreaking fact in the present situation is that there is not much one can do in November that will affect unemployment figures for January, February or March. As economies function, there is always a time lag of six months to a year before any investment begins to produce employment or an expansion of the money supply begins to improve the economy. The same is true of fiscal and other policies.
This government has sat back with the knowledge that there is not very much they can do at this time, in November, to ease the tragedy of the next several months. What is equally true is that the government's attention was drawn to this fact six or eight months ago. Indeed, I remember asking the Prime Minister about six months ago a question based on the proposition that he and I both knew that there would be a time lag before any improvement in the economic situation could be felt, and that therefore he ought to start to ease the money supply, lift the constraint on public expenditures, so that any action that he took then would have some useful and substantial benefits this winter for the unemployed. I remember my leader asked that question, and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) also drew the attention of the government to this matter.
I suggest that even a child at school who had studied even to a slight degree the subject of economics would

November 12, 1970

have known perfectly well last spring that unless the government took steps at that time to increase economic activity in Canada we would be in the fix that we are going to be in this winter. And believe, me, Mr. Speaker, we will be in a fix. I do not say that with the slightest degree of pleasure, but rather with profound regret at the government's failure to listen to what obviously is economic good sense. Even though the government wished to implement nineteenth, perhaps even eighteenth century economic policies, it should have had the elementary sense to start improving economic conditions six or eight months ago with the hope that by this winter the situation in the country would have improved. It did not do so. There was no plan and there never is. So you drift along and come to the winter with the kind of unemployment that is now being forecast.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I want to use my last two or three minutes to put the following suggestion on record. There are some things that ought to be tried immediately. They will not serve to cure the unemployment problem this winter and they will not even serve to reduce the number of unemployed very substantially, but they will serve to give jobs to perhaps 50,000 or 100,000 people. Saving the dignity and the lifestyle as well as the self respect of even 50,000 or
100,000	unemployed is important if you are concerned with human life and human dignity. It is worth doing these things to reduce unemployment by at least the number it can be reduced.
I propose first that the federal government should immediately call a federal-provincial conference on the subject of unemployment and none other, and that the federal government should encourage the provincial governments to bring to that conference representatives of the major municipalities in their provinces. I do not care whether these are ministers or officials, as I am not interested in protocol. I am interested in getting together spokesmen for the federal government, for the provinces and the municipalities, to sit down and work out some concrete things that can be done this winter to reduce unemployment, particularly in the major industrial centres of this country.
There are things to do. There are schools and hospitals which could be built. There are sewage plants required and there is some roadwork that in some parts of Canada could be done in the winter, although not in many areas. There are jobs of that kind that the three levels of government could arrive at, not with any exaggerated objective but with the perfectly practical objective of creating in each industrial centre in this country another few thousand jobs and thereby remove those people from the unemployment rolls.
I suggest secondly that special programs of this sort ought to be aimed at the highly industrialized centres of the province of Quebec. I said during our debate on the War Measures Act and at other times, and I say now, that as one member of this House and as one Canadian I believe it is vital at this stage of Canada's history to pay particular attention to the social and economic distresses
Employment Programs
of that province in order to remove at least some of the soil in which extremism can and does grow.
Third, I suggest there should be a real change in the way in which the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is functioning at the moment. My inquiries in several areas across the country from people in municipal office, people who are members of various advisory councils, committees and what not, have persuaded me that there now lie on the desks of officials of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion many projects on paper which have been prepared for municipalities in the provinces. These programs could be started tomorrow if the bureaucratic red tape were cut and if the Department of Regional Economic Expansion stopped bickering about little details that stand in the way of getting them underway. Perhaps more thousands of unemployed could be saved this winter.
I have only this suggestion and one other, then I am through. I suggest an immediate increase in old age pensions. The old age pensioner uses every penny he gets in consumption and he cannot save a thing. Therefore, any increase in old age pensions is an immediate increase in the demand for goods and services, and is an immediate stimulus to the production of those goods and services in the country. That is one of the best and most clear ways of making sure that every dollar given is a dollar that goes into the consumption cycle and therefore into the industrial and services production cycle.
Finally, 1 was heartbroken to hear the Minister of Labour say categorically earlier today that he does not intend to make any change in the unemployment insurance arrangements. This is a great and heartbreaking pity. I cannot see any reason, if we are to have large numbers unemployed this winter, why the government could not immediately increase unemployment insurance benefits to $100 per week, as is proposed in the White Paper, and extend the period of eligibility for those who have exhausted their benefits in accordance with the present rules, so that at least the months of this winter will be covered. This would not solve unemployment in the winter months, but at least some unemployed in the winter months would be covered and this would be doing the human and decent thing. It would make it possible for the unemployed to live more decently and also it would prevent the kind of despair that leads to unrest.
We placed this motion on the order paper not just to have a motion for debate, but because of our conviction that precisely at the time when the country has faced a crisis of the sort we have been discussing for weeks, it is necessary to bring ourselves back to the fundamentals in society and to look at the social and economic consequences of this very desperate problem of unemployment now as well as the greater unemployment during the coming winter.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, there can be no question but that we are confronted in this country with the prospect of a serious unemployment problem this winter. It is difficult, if not
noo

November 12, 1970
Employment Programs
impossible, to get any prediction from government sources. Predictions from individual sources have indicated unemployment running up to 9 per cent, not seasonably adjusted but 9 per cent in terms of actual unemployment.
The figures for October are by no means reassuring. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) has already called attention to the percentage of the, 419,000 persons out of work during that month who are under the age of 24, and the bitterness and disillusionment which this must be causing. It is clear also that the percentage of unemployment which might be considered long term unemployment, that is persons who have been unemployed for several months, is substantially on the increase. At the end of September, for example, there were 390,000 claimants for unemployment insurance benefits as compared with 260,000 at that time in the previous year. This is the result, in part, of increased unemployment and, in part, the fact that those who were unemployed this year remained unemployed for a longer period of time than was the case a year ago.
Let us compare the figures for August, September and October of this year to the figures for the same period in 1961, when later on in the year there was approximately 9 per cent unemployment. We find for the month of October, 1961, the actual rate was 4.8 per cent whereas this year it is 5 per cent. In 1961, the seasonally adjusted rate was 6.5 per cent whereas this year it is 6.6 per cent. There is every indication, therefore, of a tough winter. It is going to be especially bad in some regions.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
We must understand that while we should be particularly concerned about regions which are exceptionally hard hit, unemployment is a problem across the country. I believe in the great province of Ontario, for example, there are, according to these October figures, some 108,000 persons out of work or about 25 per cent of the total unemployed. So, we should not think of this as simply a regional problem, although we have to be concerned about the effect in some regions of the country. We are confronted with the prospect of an unemployment rate which will be dangerously high during this coming winter. Even the term "mass unemployment" should be used with care because it might lead us to think in terms of masses and statistics rather than in terms of the individual and the social reality of this kind of unemployment. Unemployment is not a statistic. It is degrading and represents a loss of dignity and self-respect in the individual.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is a disaster for the family and, incidentally, is also a blow to the economy. This is what this government seems to fail to understand. Surely, it is obvious that mass unemployment leads to stagnancy, leads to market loss, cuts, the demand, leads to a need to cut costs and hence more unemployment. It is a vicious circle, in addition to the terrible losses from the point of view of the individual. Today, in this discussion, we can 
only focus our attention on what we can do and recommend.
I should like to spend a minute or two, first of all, in considering what has brought on the situation as described by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and others. It is of course a consequence of the deliberate slow-down brought on by the government as part of its fight against inflation. I am pleased to see that recent figures indicate the cost of living is flattening out. I am pleased to see this, although it remains to be seen whether it represents much success in respect of the root causes of inflation. For example, I question very much whether there is as close a connection between unemployment and the control of inflation as this government appears to believe.
Certainly, I repeat that the deliberate slow-down of the economy and the resulting creation of substantial or mass unemployment is an inhuman way to fight inflation. We are seeing some of the consequences of this inhumanity this year. The government has accepted unemployment much too casually. This can be seen in the complacency which was evident of the Speech from the Throne. One would have great difficulty in relating what the Governor General was talking about to the same country in which we live if one were to read the Speech from the Throne now. A few days ago, when questioned about what more the government would do to fight unemployment, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that it would do more if it proved to be necessary. What proof does the Prime Minister require that more is necessary? What more proof is required than what has been forthcoming? Independent people who have no axe to grind forecast that three-quarters of a million Canadians will be out of work. Let me emphasize-and I have to put this interpretation on events because I cannot believe the government is completely callous-that the economic forecasting of this government must simply be deplorable. That is the only way I could explain what has happened unless I were to draw the conclusion that the government simply does not care and I do not choose to do that.
When one contrasts the kind of forecasts made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in his spring budget, for example, with what is actually the outlook today, and when one contrasts what we now know is the real thing as compared to the kind of complacency that exuded from the Speech from the Throne, surely there can no longer be any doubt that the Economic Council of Canada was absolutely correct in insisting for a number of years that the government should take part in establishing an independent short-term forecasting unit. If the government had not been so stubborn, and had taken this advice of the Economic Council, the government might have been prevented from taking this horrible road which will cause the Canadian people so much suffering this year. Let us have no more of this kind of forecasting which leads to the kind of emergency we are talking about here today.
There is, of course, a short-term problem we are facing now and a longer-term problem, both of which are quite severe. I am not prepared to admit that nothing can be
November 12, 1970

done with regard to the winter or that the short term and longer term problems are entirely distinct. I am not prepared to admit this, but I wish to emphasize that the government must be prepared in respect of its over-all approach and the methods it uses. We have the attitude of the Minister of Finance the other day when he said, I believe in answer to a question from the New Democratic Party, that if expenditures were increased he hoped the opposition would be prepared to support a tax increase to take care of them. Apart from anything else, this is an answer which would appear to indicate an attitude which is completely oblivious of the problem we are facing this winter. That type of answer was wrong-headed on three counts. First, it overlooked the need for expanded employment. Second, it implied the conviction and the assumption that tax increases are themselves anti-inflationary, whereas this by no means is apparent in view of the experience in this country during the past couple of years. Third, I believe the minister was ignoring the fact that if we use the technique suggested by the Economic Council of Canada, that is, the use of a full employment budget analysis. There is still some pretty substantial restraint in the over-all stance of governments in this country, particularly the government of Canada.
I suggest, without offence, that the Minister of Finance and his associates are living in the past, and that the massive number of unemployed this winter are paying a heavy price for this. Even this government must surely recognize now that it is confronted with a serious problem, that the outlook is substantially different from that forecast last spring, that more must be done to move the economy forward and that more must be done to meet the prospects of this winter.
I say there ought to be an autumn-or perhaps now early winter-budget. The Minister of Finance ought not to wait until spring to outline the fiscal policies and fiscal stance appropriate to Canada in this new context. This must now be obvious to the government.


An hon. Member:: Do it now, why wait till spring.


Mr. Benson:: I did it a month ago.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister said he did this a month ago. He presented a sort of resume of the things he would do. That is far short of a statement of a budgetary nature including a forecast of conditions and including, in particular, a precise statement of the objectives and stance of the government. It is urgent that this government now set out clearly the course for the economy as it sees it and remove the ambiguity that exists, because the government keeps talking about restraints at the same time as it keeps talking about loosening the supply of money. As a result, Canadians do not really know today how much expansion in the economy and reduction in unemployment the government would really like to see brought about. The government must give leadership, it must set a clear course for the economy.
Employment Programs
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The psychology of the situation is very important. As I said, I do not think that Canadians generally, including the business community, are certain in their minds just where the government would like the economy to go. The government must remove the uncertainties that are holding back decisions in the private sector with regard to investment. There is, first of all, the floating dollar which is creating great uncertainty because nobody knows whether it is going to be pegged for sure, when it is going to be pegged, or the rate at which it will be pegged. I realize that the minister cannot tell me this afternoon what his plans are in this regard. I realize he cannot tip his hand. But I do urge upon him the importance of removing the uncertainty that this creates as soon as it is possible to do so, because this is creating great uncertainty, especially for those involved in the export business, but also for those involved in virtually any business in the country.
Second, there is the uncertainty that exists today with regard to tax reform. People who are making decisions about investment do not know how much of the white paper on tax reform the minister will implement. They do not know whether the minister is going to accept the recommendations made by the House of Commons committee and which recommendations of the Senate he will accept. Here, we have another area of confusion and of uncertainty. It is important that the minister clarify and eliminate uncertainty in this area as rapidly as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think also-and I make this recommendation very earnestly to the minister-that tax reductions would be appropriate in the present context. We in this party have urged for a long time the elimination of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. I urge that this be done in the area of housing because this would very substantially stimulate a good deal of employment in the near future, and quite quickly.
I suggest also that the minister should move to reduce income taxes, especially for those at the lower end of the income scale. I suggest it is not good enough simply to eliminate the 3 per cent surtax after January 1. It is simply not enough to drop that surtax after January 1 to achieve the necessary psychological effect. It would be like a number of changes that the government has made to date, and no doubt we will hear them repeated by the Minister of Finance as they have been repeated time after time by spokesmen for the government. These changes have not been enough to establish the necessary psychological climate in the country to support a healthy expansion.
I suggest that a reduction in income tax, especially, as I said, at the lower end of the scale, of at least twice the level of the surtax, which I hope will go in any event after January 1, will do a lot to help create the necessary climate for expansion. There is no reason at all to believe in this context that this would be an inflationary propos-

November 12, 1970
Employment Programs
al. Indeed, it would be very interesting to see whether it would not work in the opposite direction and whether a reduction in some income taxes would not have the effect, for example, of reducing the extent that workmen feel the need to press for wage increases. Second, there is no reason to believe that by reducing taxation in this way at this time the government would be necessarily reducing its revenue prospects to any substantial extent, because if this tax reduction did have the effect of creating an appropriate climate for expansion, expansion in employment, the economy of the country would very promptly begin to generate additional revenues for this government as well as for other governments.
Then, again, there is the argument in terms of equity, of doing something in particular for those at the lower end of the income scale rather than waiting until the whole tax reform package is implemented. A reduction in taxation at this time, is, I think, a step well worth taking, well calculated to produce expansion, not calculated to create inflationary pressures. It might very well work in the opposite direction. It is quite consistent with any cooling off that the government might feel necessary in the future. Let us see the government establish a better forecasting system if they are going to talk about cooling things off again. It is obvious that they started to1 cool thing's off too late and it is equally obvious that they have cooled things off for too long.
The measures I have suggested today, including an efficient forecasting system, are intended to help out in this area. As regards the immediate problem, I agree with the hon. member for York South that the provinces should be called together. Every municipal and provincial government has projects on its books that have been deferred simply because of budgetary considerations. They could put them into effect very quickly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) but I do so to advise him that the time limit fixed by special order today has expired. Is there unanimous agreement to allow the Leader of the Opposition to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am reluctant to do that, Mr. Speaker. I will just say a few words more. A special order has been passed and I do not think I should speak longer. I think I made my point. Although I have not been able to end up with the proper flourish, I will defer that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I beg the minister's pardon. It was my understanding that the spokesmen for the opposition parties would speak first. However, since the minister is on his feet, I will recognize him.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to listen to the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) if he wishes to speak at this time.


Charles-Eugène Dionne: Mr. Speaker, the motion now under consideration is, in my opinion, most important. Unemployment in Canada has reached such an alarming rate that it is useless to make provocative comparisons and try to establish facts with statistics which do not always reflect the real situation, since a great number of unemployed are not registered with Manpower Centre offices.
To undertake to prove, by juggling with figures, that there were more unemployed in 1970 than in 1969 or by going back to 1960, 1962 or 1963 to show that the number of unemployed was higher under another government will not solve the problem.
I have heard so many sterile speeches on this matter in the House that I have come to the conclusion that though figures probably do not lie, there are surely liars who juggle with them since there are always contradictions in this regard, depending on who is in power and who is in the opposition.
Thousands are unemployed in Canada and we must endeavour to find the means to reduce the demoralizing effects of that social evil.
During the depression from 1929 to 1939, those of my age realized that the governments were unable to solve the problem. Various plans were tried out: welfare, a type of concentration camp where people were paid 20 cents a day. The workers protested against the use of machines, mechanical shovels and others, which took away the work they wanted to do. And so, our administrators, Grits and Tories alike, proved their incompetence to a population that remained patient and courageous in spite of it all.
Their numerous study sessions only resulted in the adoption by the Canadian Parliament of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which went against the theories of the champions of full employment. The enactment of such legislation has helped many workers and has created employment for some officials-who could do better sometimes-to whom it was explained that their job was to help the unemployed faced with problems, which justified their full time employment.
The motion under study recommends that the unemployment benefits should be increased and the eligibility period extended. This is logical, considering the present situation. However, being aware of the mentality of the public service within the present financial system, which enjoys discretionary powers, I can imagine the groans that will come from those who seem to be commissioned to protect the fund before the unemployed.
Let us hope that they will show more realism in front of the present alarming situation.
It will no doubt be answered that the new legislation is still being studied and that it will not take effect before several months. This is no reason to delay a decision called for by the circumstances. Besides, the act has often been modified since it came into force.

November 12, 1970

In 1939, in the middle of an unemployment crisis, the government did not ask for delays before declaring war. Decisions were taken without hesitation. Let us hope that after the events which have taken place subsequently, our administration will finally understand that it is not normal to leave in destitution courageous people who are quite willing to have a decent living in a country they helped to build.
A convenient way for not worrying about this problem is to try to deny its existence. It is the first reaction one notices among some politicians, and in the press which is at their service. I want to point out the difference between this crisis and that of the thirties. This one is not approached with the same resignation as the other. Very few people knew the cause of the great crisis that happened before the war. Today, thousands of people know exactly that it is a purchasing power crisis, a money crisis.
Let me quote at this point part of a speech delivered by former president Roosevelt, in his inaugural address given during the crisis period of 1929. Here it is:
It is in this spirit that you and I have to face our difficulties. Only material interests are involved, thank heaven! Values have fallen to amazingly low levels: taxes have increased; we have lost our solvency power; all governments are confronted with an alarming reduction in their income; the exchange system is paralysed in the commercial traffic. A more serious situation still is an army of unemployed facing the problem of its subsistence, and a great number of other individuals who have but greatly reduced income. One must be a smug optimist to deny the dismalness of the situation...
The changers have given up their seats in the temple of our civilization. We can now restore and consecrate again this temple of ancient truths. The extent of the restoration will depend on how far we shall go in substituting superior social values to purely monetary motives.
Happiness does not consist only in the possession of money; it is found in the joy of work accomplished, in the emotion of the creative effort.
It must be recognized that material wealth is not a barometer for success.
No doubt the 1970 administrators will reply that the situation is not the same today. I
I understand that the various programmes of pension, allowances, unemployment insurance and others have contributed to bring a little relief in an intolerable situation. But let us consult the reports of the Economic Council of Canada for 1969 and 1970, and the editorials of current newspapers. In its edition of April 23, 1969, La presse published an editorial entitled "Poor Man's Bread", and this is what it said:
We will never be ashamed enough, we will never be humiliated enough; the truth is thrown into our face: "four million Canadians live in a state of poverty!" You do not want to know anything about that because your personal comfort, your high standard of living, even the affluence which is common with many people must not be upset and then the problem of the have-nots does not concern you. This is what you think: think again!
Whether you like it or not, however annoying the shedding of light on harsh truths, the Economic Council of Canada has just given a lesson to the whole country in a brief introduced yesterday before a special Senate committee.
Employment Programs
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The tone is cutting and no one is spared. Here are a few examples: Poverty is a fact. Its victims are numbered in millions. Those who claim that there will always be poor people, are but disgusting egoists. To have so many underprivileged in an affluent society is a shame. To repeat that the evil can be cured once and for all is fallacious. The Senate committee was shocked. It had every reason to be.
In closing, the editorial writer added and I quote:
Pious wishes will not help much. When a society becomes ''poisoned"-the phrase is taken out of the document-it has little use for verbal poultices. The most scholarly theories collapse. Alas! the Economic Council itself, frantic in the face of a situation which it dares not describe, has no other recourse but pompous words. Public understanding, enlightened humanitarian-ism, combined effort of institutions and governments. Of course, there is nothing more noble. However, the daily bread cannot be found in dictionaries.
In the official report of the Debates of the Senate for November 5, 1970, the hon. senator for Madawaska-Restigouche, speaking on poverty in Canada, stated this:
My colleagues on the poverty committee know what I am talking about because they too have heard these people. We have visited their homes. We have talked with them. We have talked to their children. It would be impossible for me to try to describe some of the scenes we witnessed.
Never before have I thought that in a country like Canada, a country so rich in natural resources, this Canada of ours where the standard of living is amongst the world's highest, I would witness such living conditions.
These people are furious because during the last fifteen years they have been running around the country to find employment, and when they succeeded in doing so and became established, they were soon displaced by so-called progress.
We have all this misery and poverty around us while we spend billions of dollars on social welfare. Just think for a moment what it would be like if those social measures were not in effect today. It would make the thirties, which we all remember, seem like years of good fortune.
And yet today we are so geared that we can spend up to $30,000 to create one job. What a price to pay, honourable senators! What a stupid price, I would say! And to whom is it paid? In most cases to people who are taking advantage of the loose legislation covering the tax payer's money to serve their own interests rather than the public interest.
And furthermore, in the same speech, the senator stated:
We are living in a sick society. I feel it is a sick society when freedom is abused every hour of the day, with no respect for the consequences. It is a sick society where respect for and cooperation with the authorities elected by a democratic system are gradually being replaced by obstruction, vengeance and, too often, by revolutionary action. It is a sick society with a monetary system whereby every dollar in reserve may be doubled in 10 to 12 years due to the high rate of interest.
This statement of fact can be made in Canada in 1970. You will agree that it is high time for the supporters of the "just society" to wake up and to find another remedy than credit restrictions and taxes on building materials to improve the situation.
Forced unemployment, with the physical and moral miseries which come with it and often follow it for years is a calamity; this is a truly modern curse which

November 12, 1970
Employment Programs
should have our society blush with shame, a society which is so proud of its science, of its civilization and of its democratic institutions.
The remedy to such unrest is, first of all, to find the causes and, then, to apply an efficient medicine.
It is found that unemployment prevails when products do not sell. Indeed, when manufacturers get fewer orders, they lay off personnel, which adds to the number of unemployed.
An ill-adapted production helps create unemployment. The Lauzon and Sorel shipyards are clear evidence of uneasy adjustments. Another reason for unemployment is machinery and automation. The worker becomes unemployed when the machine produces in his stead. Machinery has even been invented for that purpose. Unbalance between increased production and limited purchasing power worsens as fast as progress demands the installation of new machinery.
The solution to such an issue is distribution among people of profits due to progress. The more products become independent of the work of the individual, the more they should be distributed otherwise than through wages. This is the aim of the Ralliement creditiste when it asks that a periodical dividend be given to everybody.
Whether the problem is an accumulation of products due to lack of purchasing power or the replacement of workers by machinery, a dividend is the solution.
A wage increase would be absolutely useless to workers replaced by machinery. On the other hand, as any wage increase is reflected in higher prices for products- even if an increase of $1 were granted-if the merchant sells one more dollar for the same quantity of products for $1 more than in the past, the consumer cannot give a larger order.
Quite often the main cause of problems experienced by most Canadians lays in the mechanism employed for distributing goods; it operates slowly, whereas in this century speed rules supreme and means of production have undergone changes allowing maximum results in many areas; some politicians even feel alarmed and sometimes speak of overproduction.
They are not realistic enough to realize that we are dealing with underconsumption even though the reports of the numerous commissions they have set up prove beyond any doubt that a high percentage of Canadians live in poverty and lack all sorts of goods which the production system keeps displaying before their eyes by making use of all available advertising media while the consumer has to make do without these goods since he cannot afford to absorb this abundant production.
A specialized education is not required to realize that we are living in an upside-down world. Facts prove that we are able to produce but at the same time they show that we are not intelligent enough to distribute the goods we produce. It is the height of absurdity! Such a situation justifies the logical moves of those who advocate a distributive economy in order to bring back some order in a society whose leaders seem to have gone insame.
We recognize the difficulties involved in putting this system back on its feet, but since this is necessary we must act without delay if we are truly determined to prevent revolution.
Why could we not have

besides commissions on the public service, education, public utilities, unemployment insurance-a monetary commission comprising experts on figures and on love of the poor, responsible for developing the technique of balancing the production of goods with the need to provide each man with enough to live, and for working out payment and credit procedures in a spirit of reliability, foresight and honesty? Since it is the country which answers for currency, is it not its responsibility to benefit from it and regulate its exchange?
The endless studies on poverty will produce no practical result. It is necessary first to straighten the monetary system, a human institution controlled, monopolized and rarified when necessary by handlers of money and credit, exposed by the highest doctrinal authority in the world. In this respect, let us refer to the encyclical Quadrage-simo Anno.
We should not linger on old methods which have produced the results we know: inflation, recession, ever higher taxes, an increasing national debt which is unpaid and unpayable under the present system.
Why continue to look for undiscoverable solutions in that upside-down system?
We of the Ralliement creditiste do not pretend that a monetary reform would be the panacea likely to remedy all evils, but we have good reasons to believe that it is one of the best means to find adequate solutions to the current problems.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I was sorry that we were unable to hear the final flourish of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). He got to the stage where he was going to increase exemptions, reduced taxes and with the additional money he found thereby was going to call the provinces together to spend it. I was wondering what he would do for a finale.
The motion presented by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and his remarks to the House, provide further evidence of the tendency of his party to regard current economic conditions in a vacuum, as unrelated either to the past or the future. Neither the past nor the future can be ignored, however, if we are to consider current economic problems with some proper sense of perspective.
Let me point out at the outset that there is probably a very large measure of agreement among us about what should be our basic economic objective, that is, achieving the greatest year to year increase in production, employment and incomes that is possible without creating a self-defeating spiral of costs and prices.
Where we differ in a fundamental way is over the means that should be adopted to achieve this objective.

November 12, 1970

In sharp contrast to many in the opposition, the government came to the conclusion that the steadily escalating inflation which began in the mid 1960's posed a serious threat to the achievement of this objective over the long term. We were accused and continue to be accused of having a psychopathic obsession over the danger of inflation. We were accused of being prepared to sacrifice employment because of some academic attachment to price stability-as if the two were not directly related.
Let me emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that our deep concern over the problem of inflation has not reflected any lack of concern over unemployment. On the contrary, we were concerned about inflation primarily because it threatened to undermine the very foundation of our economy and thus prevent it from achieving its potential growth together with higher and more stable levels of employment.
In recent months, governments of most countries around the world have come to share our deep concern over inflation. It was one of the issues foremost in the minds in those attending the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund in Copenhagen last September. In its annual report for 1970, published earlier in the month, the IMF pointed out that the performance of the world economy during 1969 and the first half of 1970 was marked by what it described as "severe inflationary pressures" and stressed, to use its words, "the central need for restoration of financial stability in the major industrial economies, and particularly in the United States".
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
During the Throne Speech debate, the Leader of the Opposition was inclined to dismiss rather scathingly the views of what he termed "international bankers" as being of no account.
Since he, himself, referred to the approach of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, it is of particular interest that in its mid-year review the OECD asserted that "price inflation is an old problem which has now acquired new dimensions and a new urgency" and emphasized the need for member countries to adopt the necessary fiscal, monetary and income restraint policies to bring it under control.
A few weeks ago, the Economic Council of Canada published a review of the Canadian economy. The report pointed out that recently the growth of the economy has fallen significantly below its real potential, but it also strongly suggested that inflation was the major cause of this development.
The Council said, and I quote:
On the whole, but with the glaring exception noted below, the performance of the economy since we started to make such appraisals in 1964 has been relatively good-certainly good in comparison with the generally poor performance in the late 1950's and early 1960's.
The glaring exception to this generally good record cited by the Council has been, in its words, "performance in relation to the goal of reasonable price stability."
Over the past several months we have made considerable progress in overcoming the glaring defect in the
Employment Programs
performance of our economy referred to by the Economic Council in its most recent report. Only last week, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics reported that for the third month in a row the year-over-year increase of the Consumer Price Index in October amounted to only 2.8 per cent. On a seasonally adjusted basis, the increase in the index since last February has amounted to 1.5 per cent at an annual rate. This record of performance surpasses that of virtually any other industrialized economy and stands in particular contrast to that in the United States, where the increase in the Consumer Price Index for September amounted to 5.6 per cent over the previous year.
As I have acknowledged many times in the past, resolving the critical problem of inflation has been a long, arduous process and it has carried its own costs in terms of a temporary moderation in the rate of economic growth.
In this context, I think it is worth recalling the observation made in the 1970 annual report of the International Monetary Fund that, and I quote:
-the experience of industrial countries in the recent period seems fully consistent with and bears out the well-known proposition that the maintenance of financial stability in the short-run will make for a better growth and employment record over the long-run.
Despite the clamour of members of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, we have not been prepared to sacrifice longterm benefits for the economy in order to achieve shortlived illusory gains because we are convinced it is not in the best interests of the Canadian people to do so.
At the same time, however, we have been deeply anxious to see the economy move ahead toward its full growth potential as soon as, and as quickly as, this could be done without severe risk of a renewed and destructive price and cost spiral.
In my remarks to the House on October 13 during the Throne Speech debate, I outlined in some detail the steps that have been taken over the past seven months to stimulate economic growth as the inflationary pressures slowly began to recede. It is not necessary for me to reiterate now all of those various measures we have taken to stimulate a faster rate of growth of production and employment. I would like to emphasize, however, that over this period fiscal policy has progressively become strongly expansionary.
The March budget itself proposed a significant increase in the stimulus from the federal sector, providing for an increase in cash requirements over the previous fiscal year of about three quarters of a billion dollars, not including requirements to finance policy exchange transactions. Primarily as a result of expansionary policy measures adopted by the government in the interval, the cash requirement for the current fiscal year has risen to $1.3 billion, with a further $1.2 billion being required to finance foreign exchange transactions up to October 1.
On a national income accounts basis there has been a shift from the surplus for last year estimated at $648 million to a deficit in the current year that is estimated
1106

November 12, 1970
Employment Programs
currently at $450 million, a swing of more than $1 billion. In contrast to what the Leader of the Opposition has said, I think this is a very signficant move in fiscal policy in Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You can't live on that.


Edgar John Benson: And you can't live on your credit. In my speech of October 13, I indicated to the House that during this period there had been a shift of similar magnitude on the monetary side in the expansion of monetary policy, with the result that ample credit is available in the banking system to supply the needs of all credit-worthy borrowers. In the interval there have been two further important developments in the monetary field.
Toward the end of October, the chartered banks began lowering their prime lending rates from 8 per cent to at least 7J per cent, providing a spur for a further increase in loan demand.
I am sure that all hon. members will welcome the announcement that effective today the Bank of Canada's bank rate has been reduced from 6J to 6 per cent, reflecting the recent decline in short-term treasury bill yields to less than 5 per cent for the first time since 1967. Today's reduction in the bank rate is the fourth since May of this year and represents a decrease of 2 percentage points from the 8 per cent peak established in July, 1969. This lowering of the lending rate of the Bank of Canada, which goes hand in hand with a continued increase in the money supply made available by the central bank, is only one more in the series of measures adopted by federal authorities to promote increased economic growth as quickly and to as great an extent as circumstances and sensible economic management will permit.
In his motion, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York South refers to the relentless upward climb in the level of unemployment in all regions of Canada and suggests that a number of unnamed-he named one or two recently-but allegedly responsible economic authorities are predicting record levels of unemployment this winter.
For our part, we have never sought to minimize our concern over the increase in unemployment to a level far higher than we would like to see. I am willing to refer to my budget statement of last March in this regard. At the same time, however, there is nothing to be gained by exaggerating the nature and extent of the problem, unless it is some brief political advantage.
Recently I suggested publicly that on a seasonal basis -the hon. member said this is the fair way to measure the trend in unemployment-unemployment had about reached its peak and expressed confidence that we could look forward to continued improvement. I am sure most members will welcome the report published today by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Manpower and Immigration that on a seasonally adjusted basis unemployment dropped from 6.9 per cent in September to 6.6 per cent in October. I might observe, in
passing, that in the United States there was a further small increase in unemployment during October.


An hon. Member:: Their rate is different.


Edgar John Benson: The rate is different because the measurement is different. What makes this report particularly gratifying is the fact that the decline in unemployment during October to the level existing last June occurred despite an increase in the labour force of 10,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis, and despite the fact that the General Motors strike had been underway for five weeks at the time the survey was taken.
I should make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that while those on strike are not counted as additions to the unemployed, the shutdown of General Motors plants has led to the laying-off of a significant number of workers in associated industries which supply General Motors factories. It is because of this factor that reports of an impending settlement of the strike are all the more welcome. During October there was an increase in employment, seasonally adjusted, of 34,000, which was matched by a similar increase in September. While the importance of this expansion in employment over the two-month period should also not be exaggerated, the figures suggest that the economy may be becoming more robust than it was earlier in the year.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
One of the important factors in determining how quickly economic growth regains a healthy momentum is capital investment, particularly in the private sector. As hon. members are aware, actual capital expenditures by business this year appear to have fallen significantly short of the large increase indicated by company investment intentions. Nevertheless, a strong underpinning to capital investment both this year and next has been provided by the marked resurgence which has taken place in housing construction as a result of the heavy volume of funds made available by the federal government. In October, housing starts were running at an annual rate of 270,000, which represents a very sharp increase from the annual rate of housing construction of
136,000	in the second quarter of this year. I think this is an indication of the effect government action has had with respect to unemployment.


Mr. Alexander:: It will still be short.


Edgar John Benson: Earlier this week my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) made public a survey of 200 of the largest companies in Canada indicating that they planned increases in capital spending next year of 11 per cent. While this expression of intention is a less than infallible guide to the expenditures which will actually be made, it is nevertheless encouraging that these major companies are contemplating a substantial expansion of capital investment in the year ahead.

November 12, 1970

The motion before the House, Mr. Speaker, makes special reference to the unemployment situation in Quebec, a problem about which we are very conscious. But to maintain proper perspective, I think I should point out to hon. members that the problem of unemployment in that province goes beyond that caused by slow growth of the economy generally. A few moments ago I referred to the importance of capital investment in stimulating economic growth and new job opportunities. Over the past four years, however, there has either been a decline or only a modest rate of growth in capital spending in Quebec as compared to the rest of Canada. In 1969, for example, private capital investment in the province per capita was only 62 per cent of the national average, compared to 84 per cent in the Atlantic region and 101 per cent in Ontario.
Notwithstanding the events of recent days, there has, I believe, been a significant change in the political climate in Quebec which is reflected in the election to office of a provincial government pledged to place a new emphasis on promoting healthy economic growth. It is for this reason particularly encouraging that the survey of large Canadian companies to which I referred earlier indicated an above average increase in the amount of capital investment planned for Quebec next year.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A couple of million?


Edgar John Benson: Hundreds of millions of dollars.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What about Alberta?


Edgar John Benson: This estimate would appear to be in line with reports of major capital projects expected to get under way in the province over the next several months about which Premier Bourassa said last week he would be making an announcement shortly. It is just such developments which will provide the strongest possible base for promoting the accelerated long term economic growth of the province.
At the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I noted that the International Monetary Fund, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Economic Council have all recently warned about the dangerous effect of inflation in undermining the strength of the world's economies. Before concluding, I want to underline the further warning from each of these organizations about the need to exercise caution in stimulating the renewed expansion of the economy after inflation has been brought under control because of the continuing danger of unleashing new inflationary forces.
In its most recent report the Economic Council emphasized that, to use its words, "great care must be taken to move in a more gradual way back to potential in order to avoid the excessive surges of inflation-creating demand such as occurred in the mid-1960's and pushed the economy hard against its potential". The progressive and far-reaching series of measures we have taken over the past several months represent strong and positive action by the government to stimulate economic growth. We 23226-71J
Employment Programs
remain more than ready in the future to adopt those further measures which are possible to promote faster expansion of production, employment and incomes without sacrificing the hard-won gains we have made in our crucial fight to restore economic stability, upon which sustained economic growth and high and growing levels of employment ultimately depend.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult, in a 15 minute speech, to advance a serious economic argument, especially when one has already made some notes for another speech.
To reply to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), may I say, first of all, that one of the central assumptions he made was that a direct causal connection existed between price stability on the one hand and long range growth and full employment on the other. This came out clearly in his speech. Yet he put forward not one shred of evidence to justify this contention. He is right in saying that relative price stability exists today, but if he wishes to argue that this degree of price stability is connected with economic growth why does he not present some statistics on which to base his argument? Why does he not take prices within a sector of the economy, show that they have been maintained at a relatively constant level and then, show, also, that there has been an expansion of employment in that sector? This would be significant information. But he does not attempt to do this. I have no time in which to elaborate upon the point, but I suggest he could not do so in terms of the economy as a whole.
There is a good deal of evidence to show that many countries have maintained price stability while experiencing high levels of unemployment, and there are numerous other countries which have maintained high levels of employment concurrent with a lot of inflation. It is this kind of information which has led such reputable journals as the Wall Street Journal to conclude that attempts to find a connection between price stability and economic growth should be abandoned because the evidence no longer warrants making the kind of assumption which underlines the hon. gentleman's policies. The minister has trotted out once again an essay in the conservative economic thought which has motivated the government; he has provided us with nothing more than the rhetoric we have heard many times in the last two years to support his position.
The other point I will make before getting into the ten minutes or so which remain to me concerns the minister's reference to the low rate of capital investment in recent years in the Province of Quebec. It is true there has been a low rate of capital investment in the past, and I, with other hon. members, are glad to know that this situation may be changed. What better reason for a massive introduction of public capital into the province? I will return to this point later.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The fact is that there are 419,000 unemployed in Canada, an increase of some 105,000 over the same time one year ago. Non-partisan economists have predicted that we may have as high as 9 per cent of the labour

November 12, 1970
Employment Programs
force unemployed this winter. In other words, the Prime Minister is in power at a time when there will be more unemployed Canadians than at any previous time in history, hardly a commendable record for one who is supposed to be a progressive politician. As the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) have indicated, unemployment is not simply a statistic: it means gross human deprivation for the men and women directly involved, and also certainly for their children. Something has to be done to remedy the situation.
Closely related to unemployment are welfare costs in the cities. I am informed that the city of Montreal is now spending $68 million a year on welfare. Toronto has exceeded its present annual welfare budget by $22 million. This year Edmonton has exceeded its budget by some $350,000. My own city of Oshawa, a much smaller community than the other metropolitan areas, has exceeded its welfare budget for this year by some 280 per cent, and this in a relatively prosperous part of the country.
As everyone knows, the federal government involves itself in many ways in urban affairs. Most of the unemployed in Canada live in our cities. The government could take action in many areas, such as communications, housing, transportation, postal services, pollution control and so on, which could stand an infusion of public capital.
I do not want to exaggerate the benefits that would accrue from such an infusion, for it would take time for the effect of such investment to pay off in full employment. But it would be paying off by next February, when the forecast is that we will have the highest level of unemployment this winter. I suggest a conference should be held soon between the federal government, the provincial governments and representatives of our major municipalities to make clear that unemployment is a serious issue.
Certainly I think there is need to do something about housing and urban renewal, both for its own sake and for the spin-off effect this would have on the whole economy. About 80,000 people today in metropolitan Toronto alone are on the public housing lists, a figure that exceeds the population of my own city. Yet the government spends a sum total of 3 per cent of its housing money in the public housing field. It is the poor people of the country who are waiting for public housing, yet 97 per cent of government funds for housing go into other sectors that need less help.
I have recited a number of areas in which the government could spend money beneficially, and housing as I say, is one of them. It is an area in which the government should spend even more money, after consultation with provincial and municipal governments.
Another step tnat should be taken immediately at the federal level is to increase the rate of unemployment insurance. This has already been suggested. If this action were taken now, thousands of people who wifi be unemployed this winter would receive help. In addition, the

time for which unemployed people are able to collect benefits should be extended. In general terms, the government must also begin now to rid itself of its old ad hoc monetary and fiscal policy approach and to indulge in serious economic planning which is aimed at full employment. The government must get away from its preoccupation-and I emphasize that word-with price stability. Stable prices are important, but weighed against the priority of full employment that must take second place, as indeed is the case in all advanced countries of western Europe.
I want to speak briefly about the issue of Quebec. According to the most recent figures, 45 per cent of the unemployed of this country are between the ages of 14 and 24. In terms of what is taking place in the province of Quebec, I suggest this is a serious condition. Those who become involved in radical politics, whether of the FLQ variety or the democratic sort associated with the Parti Quebecois, tend overwhelmingly to be in that age group. This group consists of a curious mixture. On the one hand, there is the highly educated, young university student radical; on the other hand, there is the very poorly educated young person, for example, the taxi driver in Montreal. This is not a coincidence. What we are witnessing now in Quebec is a common phenomenon around the world, that is the young radical student discussing issues from his, in the case of the FLQ, terrorist point of view with the young unemployed worker. He attempts to "radicalize" the young worker.
What needs to be done, and done right away, is to solve the unemployment question, particularly among the young people of the province of Quebec. A study undertaken shortly after the last election in that province showed that some 50 per cent of the workers who lived in the east end of Montreal and voted for the Parti Quebecois did so not for separatist reasons at all but because they wanted social and economic reform. If we want to repair the damage that, in my view, has been done by the Prime Minister in recent weeks, we must reach these young workers of Quebec and provide jobs for them as soon as possible. Then and only then, in my view, will we have a chance of keeping Quebec in Canada.
At the same time, we must give a greater sense of participation to the young student who is not economically deprived, both within his own province and within Canada as a whole. It seems to me it is primarily this lack of opportunity within the country as a whole that has led to his decision to opt out of Canada. To deal with this kind of young person in Quebec, we will require much more sophisticated approaches than merely economic ones, though I do not have time to elaborate on this. Nevertheless, I cannot emphasize too much the need for something to be done about the young unemployed workers of the province of Quebec if we are to prevent Quebec from separating from the rest of Canada. Without their support separatist students would get nowhere.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
In this regard, and this will be my concluding point, it seems to me once again that the federal government,
November 12, 1970

because of its involvement with provincial and municipal governments in many aspects of policy, could be doing something. The mayor of Montreal has proudly suggested that his administration is going to spend some hundreds of thousands of dollars to build 3,000 new low income homes which will be made available to people with lower incomes after the Olympics. What he has not pointed out or emphasized is that the same city is going to lose 3,400 units now in existence during the preparation of that great extravaganza. This represents a net loss of some 400 housing units to the poor people of Montreal. What the federal government could do if it were really serious about involving itself with the concerns of the poor people, particularly those in the province of Quebec, is say to the mayor of Montreal he will not get one cent of federal money to put into that extravaganza unless this policy is changed and unless he begins to do something now about the welfare of these poor people.
The politics of grandeur are popular not only with the mayor of Montreal but, unfortunately, with many other people in that city. This approach must be abandoned if the real needs and interests of the average citizen in that city are to be met. The federal government has an important responsibility to not encourage the politics of grandeur by participating in this Olympic project of Mr. Drapeau. That is one act, symbolic if you like, of a number of similar practical moves the federal government could make in respect of municipal politics, not only in Montreal but elsewhere in this country. I will conclude with that suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and, although he delivered his speech in a very commendable way, I think it might be well to point out to the hon. member for York South that he spent 28 minutes out of his 30-minute speech bewailing unemployment, stressing its disastrous and unfortunate consequences. I feel that on that score, except for a few allusions he may have made, all hon. members agree.
And as time went by, I became very anxious to know what constructive suggestions he might make to the government to change the situation he so intelligently and learnedly put before the House.
For another minute, he spoke about the effectiveness of the measures and towards the end of his speech, he talked about the establishment of special programs of a general nature following a federal-provincial conference with the co-operation of municipalities, about changes of attitudes in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and about an increase in old age pensions.
Mr. Speaker, the disastrous effects of unemployment cannot be denied. The hon. member for York South talked about the unemployment conditions in Quebec. I agree with him on that subject, but more so with the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) who just sat down and who said that something must be done to fight unemployment in Quebec.
Employment Programs
In 1969, the hon. member for York South said, if those figures are accurate, that 45,000 new jobs had been created in Ontario. On the other hand, the federal government is blamed in certain areas of the country for overdoing it in Quebec, where only 3,000 new jobs have been created. Yet, the same federal legislation, the same measures of assistance are involved.


David Lewis: It was not in 1969, but in 1970.


Ovide Laflamme: I thank the hon. member for his correction, but whether it is in 1969 or in 1970, the argument is basically the same, to wit under the same federal legislation, 45,000 new jobs are created in Ontario and only 3,000 in Quebec.
Why this anomaly? I do not agree with the reasons given by the hon. member. The real cause of the shortage of investments reported by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and one which has yet consequences for which the federal government is required to take emergency action, so to speak, is the lack of stability and action which, for too long a time, have been a characteristic of politics in Quebec.
While nowhere else in our country was any disagreement possible on the basic structure of our society, in Quebec, this matter was challenged and the news was splashed all over the front page of all Canadian newspapers.
And while unfortunate events were taking place in Quebec, investors were being frightened away so that, as the Minister of Finance has just stated, capital investments in Quebec in 1969 only reached 62 per cent of the national average.
The hon. member for York South should understand that basically this terrorist action is not linked to unemployment. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has just said that activitsts and terrorists are generally found among the unemployed who have lost hope. This is true. However, the agitators in Quebec who are mainly responsible for a drop in investments, and, consequently, more unemployment, have been led on by the political climate which prevailed for too many years. This state of affairs has been gradually disappearing, so we hope at least, since April 29, 1970.
I have no intention of singing the praises of Mr. Robert Bourassa, premier of Quebec. The people of Quebec, in the last election, had no other choice but to vote for a party that was the only one, in the last ten years, to advocate keeping Quebec in the Confederation and putting an end to the sterile debates on constitutional reform and the carpet wars. The Liberal party wants to solve the economic problem and to take action in that area.
Almost all the people would have wished to cast their vote for it, except those who, cleverly stressing the problems obtaining in Quebec, tried to make the people believe that the Ottawa government is against the adoption of any legislation that may be helpful to the poor. This climate seems to be lifting and since Quebec has a government able to really understand the situation, it is

November 12, 1970
Employment Programs
our duty in Ottawa to say that the federal government is not against the province of Quebec, as we were told for 25 or 30 years.
I call the attention of the hon. member for York South-and I know that the hon. member for Charlevoix <Mr. Asselin) has brought in a correction in this connection-to the heading of an article in Le Devoir. The hon. member for Charlevoix tries again to raise a problem of which the population is extremely tired. This heading is as follows:
Martial Asselin: Without a special status for Quebec, Canada is finished.
We have been reading such titles in newspapers for ten years. We have been saying over and over again for ten years that the Quebec people do not want the resumption of fruitless constitutional discussions but rather economic action.
In this regard, the federal government is doing presently what it ought to do. Indeed, it passed an act on economic development. This legislation is not perfect but since January 1, 1969, the federal government has contributed to the development or the establishment of 267 new industries in the province of Quebec. About $39 million have been paid to Quebec as incentives to economic and industrial expansion. In Ontario, 45,000 new jobs were created-as compared to 3,000 in Quebec-with only $10 million in aid to economic expansion.
If something is wrong in Quebec, it is attributable to the lack of investors, I think. As a matter of fact, they run away from political complications that some provincial politicians have kept up while pursuing their own purposes. Among the efficient measures the government has implemented, are the system of equalization payments and the aid to economic expansion which, according to some other provinces, constitute preferential treatment to words the province of Quebec.
Just recently, steps have been taken to solve problems in the textile industry, which creates many jobs in Quebec, particularly in the Montreal region and in part of my riding.
However, measures implemented or to be implemented by the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) will ensure better control of imports and a rational increase in the number of jobs in the industry.
Those are absolutely positive measures likely to bring about a more promising future for workers of Quebec. I do not intend to blame the hon. member for York-South for trying to establish a relationship of some sort between FLQ activities and the unemployment situation which prevails at present. Indeed, most FLQ members are connected with the Parti Quebecois. They specifically advocate the destruction of Canada. I would not think that these same people would tackle the federal government.
While I agree with the hon. member for York South concerning the unfortunate effects of unemployment, I believe he could give a hand to his fellow members and especially those from Quebec and try to impress on the population that the federal government has done more than it could possibly do.
It has been said that federal legislation sometimes favour Quebec sometimes the rest of Canada. Fifteen times more jobs have been created in one province than in another. This depends on the lack of capital and inaction on the part of the government at the provincial level.
It is essential during the following months that unemployment be reduced in our province, as well as in the other provinces where the rate of unemployment is entirely unacceptable. The support of the whole Canadian population is needed, as well as a common front, to preserve unity in the country by supporting the measures deemed essential by the government to ensure security of employment.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I, of course, agree with my leader who began by saying that the matter of unemployment is not simply a regional problem. Of course it is not. Nevertheless, in my brief intervention of 15 minutes I shall try to call again for attention to the economic ills of the Atlantic area. To try in 15 minutes to discuss the neglect of a century is a challenge, sir. I wish it were not necessary for us here constantly to bring to the attention of this Parliament the problems of our regions. I would much prefer to be able to point to levels, statistics and satisfactions in the economic life of Atlantic Canada which would equal many of the non-economic aspects which are so much to be cherished in our part of Canada. Yet I do not apologize for declaring and reiterating the needs and inequities of the provinces by the sea. Confederation was a merging and sharing of many things. Certainly, it is a sharing of disadvantages, especially those which the act of confederation itself imposed or made more burdensome.
This country is not truly prosperous if any of its regions, or governments, or its people are seriously disadvantaged as a result of the acts of omission or commission of the national government. The resolution refers to the serious problems in Quebec. We all feel concern about such matters. Surely, all decent people want to help this province in its present travail. In many ways Quebec and Atlantic Canada have similar weaknesses, problems and disadvantages. While there have been dramatic, and sometimes I feel dangerous, reactions in Quebec that have not been in those the provinces by the sea, let us not think that the economic problems that concern us and the disadvantages that exist are less critical, less serious or less blighting than those which for too long have affected and inhibited the province of Quebec. In fact the difference, in a general way, may be that ours, sadly, have been of much longer duration. But because we have become accustomed to the role of being the Cinderella of confederation does not mean that we have grown enamoured of that role. In fact, we have long since grown weary of finding ourselves at the bottom of the favourable economic statistics and heading those which are unfavourable. The fourth report of the Economic Council of Canada set out vividly the continuing and deplorable situation.

November 12, 1970

[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I referred the other day to the latest report from APEC, a very important and dedicated body in Atlantic Canada. They pointed out on November 6:
And the outlook for construction is bleak, with a 30 to 40 per cent tall in the value of construction contracts awarded in the first seven months of the year.
"Most indications of the business climate in the region in the closing months of 1970 and the first half of 1971 are not good"-
"Prospects for resurgence from the slowdown of the past few months are not favourable since there are few signs of significant federal or provincial measures to offset the current slowdown."
They go on to say:
"It may be too late already to avert a severe economic crisis in the region this winter ..."
The government of Canada cannot put into effect all remedial measures which are necessary, although I believe and affirm here that the prime responsibility is theirs. Other jurisdictions within the region must also accept their share of responsibility and must be called in for a massive assault upon the problems which for too long have inhibited our growth.
In fairness, I must say that something has been commenced by the government in Ottawa. Since the then Premier Smith of Nova Scotia raised the question of economic disparity to the level of agenda discussion at the Dominion-provincial conference, the question has at least earned a new level of constitutional respectability. What has been accomplished, however, is much less than what has been proclaimed. There has been a great deal of sounding of trumpets, and far too few advances. Plans, programs and projects have been plotted by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, a plethora of them, and of course we all accept the need for planning and innovation. We are not fearful of new techniques and new approaches.
But apart from studies, apart from long range plans, have we had a serious assault on the grave problems facing us now, this fall, this coming winter? The signs are, as I have indicated in the quote from the APEC report and others I could bring to bear, that the winter ahead down east will be once again a winter of discontent. These are grim forecasts. In considering the cold realities of the last many years, none of us is sufficiently optimistic to believe as we would like to believe that these statistical projections will be proven wrong in the actuality.
One especially disturbing and recurring problem is the high incidence of unemployment among the young in our region. It has grown chronic year after year and has been invariably twice the national average. The only reason it is not twice the national average at this moment is that the national figures have gone so bad. That is what happened to the statistics.
How long have we known down there that the basic problem was at its worst for those under 24 years of age, as indicated by the figures that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) mentioned for the nation. Do we
Employment Programs
not realize that the figures are deflated somewhat by the constant and eternal outward migration from the region toward Toronto where our young people end up looking for what they think is the promised land, some of them even making the newspaper columns of some slick metropolitan daily which refer to the dispossessed Maritim-ers who wear white socks? Very clever!
A shocking figure with regard to housing came out the other day. Housing starts in the four Atlantic provinces for the first nine months of this year totalled 3,351, a drop of 39 per cent from the 5,509 starts recorded during the same period last year. In every province there is a drop in the figures relating to this very important matter of housing. There is a serious lagging in the construction industry. There is much that has to be done, much that demands action immediately. While we appreciate the fact that there are some plans under way by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, we ask that attention be given to the problems that face us this fall and this coming winter, before that which has long been bad becomes far worse.
One thing that has always troubled me, as the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) tries to do something for the region-and I believe he is trying- is that there is no pervasion into other departments of the government of the general concept of regional dis-party. We find that as he tries to set up long range employment opportunities, some of his colleagues through their departments will be taking measures which result in under-employment and unemployment. Projects are cut off, personnel is diminished. Surely, if we are serious about the question of regional disparity, every department in the government should recognize the fact and govern itself accordingly, so that the dispersion of these disparities, if I may be alliterative, becomes the prime role and high priority of the government.
I think also that we must move quickly for concerted action by all levels of government. We must regionalize our assault upon the problems in the Atlantic provinces. I am doubtful if a Maritime union will come about quickly, but we must, we should and we can have a great deal more co-ordination and co-operation as we assault the massive problems which are shrinking the economy of the provinces by the sea.
I ask again for the government to show a little sensitivity to the immediate problem. I will give an example. In the province of Prince Edward Island there is one industry which is capable of great expansion, namely the tourist industry. It does not require a royal commission to go to the Charlottetown airport and count the number of seats in the aircraft and the number of seats in the terminal building to know that we need an extended airport. One does not need to be a genius to know that in my constituency, which is the smallest in terms of land and much smaller in terms of agricultural production, where we produce a million and a quarter pounds of blueberries, a freezing plant would be a good thing. You do not need a five year plan to realize this.
I can only cite these as some of the immediate aids to solve our economic problems. I bring these problems

November 12, 1970
Employment Programs
rather sharply to the attention of my colleagues because the government seems not yet seized of the compelling urgency of our regional problems. I give the government one very practical suggestion. It is one along with those excellent suggestions which my leader put forward, and he knows more about these problems in the Atlantic region than any man in this country. I say that it is time for a renewal, a recreation, a resurrection of the Atlantic adjustment grants.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: In the province of Prince Edward Island we have a regional economic expansion plan. I wish it well, but when you see a little province like P.E.I. called upon to put up $2 for every $1 that the national government puts forth, you realize that that is not the kind of planning we need. The ratio should be reversed at least, but better still we should have the kind of thing which was extended in 1957 and 1958, an assistance which would enable the provinces to meet the needs of their people in these days when expanded social services are required. That is one suggestion I put to the government at present-bring forward new Atlantic adjustment grants. Use the same figure as before, but compute it in relation to the increased cost of living and you will see what happens to the $35 million.
We ask, sir, that statistics such as those which came out in the fourth report of the Economic Council of Canada be considered and the terrible economic disparity be diminished. If that is not the job of the national government I do not know what is. Looking at per capita income figures we see that in the province of Ontario the average income is $2,296, in the province of P.E.I. $1,370, and in the province of Newfoundland $1,173. Do we need to talk any more about disparity? If I gave figures for the cost of living, the disparities would be all the more. I call on the government to look seriously at this excellent resolution, thoughtfully worded and carefully presented, and to look very carefully at a place which has known more unemployment, more neglect, and more disparity than any other part of this great land.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter)-Fisheries-depletion of marine resources; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)- Canadian National Railways-non-payment of minimum wage-discussion by Minister of Transport with president.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis:
Whereas there has been a relentless climb in the level of unemployment in all regions of Canada, and
Whereas a number of responsible economic authorities have predicted record levels of unemployment this coming winter, and
Whereas, unless special measures are Immediately taken, the likelihood of serious increases in the level of unemployment in the Province of Quebec and the City of Montreal will add to an already critical situation,
Therefore, be it resolved that this House calls upon the Government to institute, in co-operation with provinces and municipalities, policies and programs that will increase significantly the number of jobs available this winter and, as a special measure of assistance to those who remain unemployed, to increase both the amount of unemployment benefits and the eligibility period provided by the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the motion before us and I think that every member normally elected and free from any financial obligation should do the same.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), who has introduced this motion, deserves congratulations because he wanted to draw the attention of the government to the unfortunate situation in which too many Canadians find themselves. The results of this government and of the previous ones are summed up in this motion, which tells quite a different story from that of the Canada Year Book, which gives the interesting side of the economy.
For instance, this valuable book points out the high rate of productivity achieved by wheat and milk producers. A wheat and milk surplus supports this contention. The same book interestingly notes that the country still ranks first as a world exporter of mineral products. Through that book, we learn that Canada remains the main world producer of nickel and zinc, is second for the production of asbestos and uranium and numbers among the great producers of copper, gold, potash, iron, lead and silver. It is also gratifying to learn that Canada comes third among the world producers of various minerals, after the United States and the Soviet Union. The book even says that Canada will become the greatest potash producer of the world. Third largest world producer of aluminum, large producer of oil and natural gas, Canada also meets 40 per cent of the demand for newsprint and asbestos throughout the world.
In spite of the large quantity of raw materials exported at extremely low prices, such as iron which in Quebec has a 50 to 70 per cent dosage, and which sells for 2 cents a ton, we hold a record, namely the equivalent of $850 per capita for exports. This record can mean a lot if it is compared with American exports of $370 per capita and the world average of $171.

November 12, 1970

In view of these results, how come we have so many poor people?
In our prosperous country, whose production this year will reach about $80 billion, that is $3,800 per person- which is the evidence of an overabundance of products and survival for the whole people-how is it that we tolerate so many people out of work, without income, and with all the resulting want?
How is it that the administration of the luckiest country in the world manages to create enough problems to justify the introduction of the motion before the House today?
How is it that the records I have mentioned a moment ago, have never brought us anything but trouble? Is it that this poor administration is the result of inflation or is it the inflation which is the cause of the poor results which result in an increasing number of victims?
One fine day, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) increased his expense account, and when hard times come he asks for the co-operation of the people by saying: Tighten your belt, we must fight inflation.
But who is responsible for inflation, Mr. Speaker? Has It come in through the back door or the front door? Assuming that the government could not have foreseen it, where have the experts been since 1950? What was the use of all the royal inquiries and task forces?
Is it not a fact that two inquiries were ordered in 1961, one dealing with health services and the other with taxation? It was decided in 1962 to hold an inquiry on banking and finance, and in 1963 another inquiry on bilinguialism and biculturalism was initiated. In 1964 the first report of the Economic Council of Canada was presented to the House. Was it not a statement on Canada's economic goals to 1970?
Since 1965, what have the reports of the Tariff Board been used for?
Since 1966 what steps have been taken following the tabling of the report from the special joint committee on consumer credit?
Since the setting up, in 1966, of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, what measures have been taken to help the consumer?
In 1968, the elections were supposed to solve our economic problems, were they not? Certainly hon. members remember that those economic problems were said to be the result of a minority government. The solution then was to elect a majority government to restore the balance. And now, where is this marvelous balance that this government was supposed to maintain? In 1970, what will the Prices and Incomes Commission, created in 1969, bring us? Will it explain why Canadians should tighten their belts even more when their Prime Minister is increasing his expense account?
What was the use of these commissions and inquiries but to create new jobs for some friends of the government?
Employment Programs
Since 1950, 106 commissions gave us to understand that studies were made. However, one thing is sure: those commissions have cost $69,931,417.08.
That is the amount mentioned in a return tabled on October 22, 1969 in answer to motion No. 2685 in the name of the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne).
In the field of agriculture, for instance, four commissions which cost $1,255,000 did nothing more than to point to a glut of milk and wheat quite enough money has been spent just to learn that we have over produced.
Three commissions on finance have cost $1,865,000. They were charged to find, the means of hiding from the Canadian people the real causes of rising living costs. For the government only finance, the glorious, the devine finance, has priority.
Compared with the wishes and profits of finance, the life and the labour of the citizens are of very little importance. The life of the citizens is disregarded, their labour is overlooked and finance always comes first.
Citizens die, workers are unemployed, but finance brings profits. We remember that up to March 1967, the interest rate was frozen for banks, which are now authorized to lend ten times the amount of money they have.
We remember also that the wish of those banks to have this ceiling removed was fulfilled on March 22, 1967, when the Liberal government passed the act which freed them from those restrictions.
The results were not long in coming. Just have a look at some reports from those banks.
In the newspaper La Presse, for instance, on the 27th of November, 1967, we could read:
26.1 per cent increase in the holdings of the Bank of Nova Scotia.
The final yield, a significant indicator of returns, reached- $3.30 per share-
When you know that the par value of the shares is $2, you cannot help finding out that the business is quite interesting.
The following applies to September 1969, and I quote:
Increased earnings-Toronto Dominion Bank
Final yields for the third quarter, before assigning losses and taxes, increased by 25.3 per cent-
The same newspaper also reports as follows:
Total assets of the Bank of Montreal increased by 21 per cent.
Net operating earnings of the Bank of Montreal, for nine months to the end of July, maintained the growth rate achieved in the first quarter of the current year; they are 33.1 per cent higher than earnings in the corresponding period last year.
The La Presse dated March 4, 1970, reported as follows:
Net gains of 33.7 cents per Royal Bank share in the first quarter.
And here is what we could read in Quebec l'Action on June 19, 1970:
Gains of leading Canadian banks ... increased by 27 per cent.
1114

November 12, 1970
Employment Programs
The rest of the article said that in comparison with last year, the "champion" had been the Bank Canadian National whose assets increased by 60 per cent, followed by the Royal Bank whose assets were 42 per cent higher.
Thus, banks beat their own records. More and more, they pick in the pockets of people, with the results we know. Under the present legislation, indeed, a bank may get 9 per cent interest on $1,600, while it can loan that amount after a deposit of only $100 is made in an account. One has to admit that as an investment yield, it is hard to do any better.
There is also at the present time a housing shortage. In my opinion, slums should be cleared and rebuilt. We know that home building is an important factor as far as labour is concerned and that the financing of a house at lower interest rates would promote that sector of our economy.
The government which encourages certain countries by extending to them credit facilities at low interest rates should extend the same facilities to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which could then meet the requests of customers interested in borrowing at less than 91 per cent.
In my opinion, a new start in housing construction does not require a miracle. It is merely a question of doing for Canada what we do for other countries. Since the 11 percent tax on building materials is never charged on products shipped to other countries, I suggest that it be cancelled also in Canada and that instead a 10 percent discount be granted on all materials sold in this country.
In order to assist this government pull the people out of the present crisis, I feel that there is another area worth considering, and that is our merchant navy.
When one sees that Canada does not own more than two merchant ships, whereas Sweden, with a population comparable with that of Quebec, owns a fleet comprising 1,092 units, one cannot help wondering.
When we know that during the years 1875-1880 our country ranked fourth among those that had a merchant marine, it seems queer to see our lakes and rivers deserted now.
If theoretically I am against royal inquiries, knowing the present condition of our merchant marine I would be in favour of initiating one in order to determine who has stolen our ships from us.
All the countries of the world, even those with less shoreline than Canada, take much pride in building and operating ocean-going cargoes.
Considering that our country has 59,670 miles of shoreline-nearly three times the circumference of the earth, the longest shoreline in the world-and that we have tremendous quantities of oil, grain, paper, wood, ore, asbestos, stone, granite and other merchandise to transport towards the great international markets, I endorse the recommendations by the CNTU as follows:
Build an ocean-going merchant fleet designed to carry at least from 40 to 50 per cent of our exports and imports.
Increase subsidies to Canadian shipbuilding so that Canadian shipping companies may order new ships at prices comparable with those they would pay in the United Kingdom.
Adopt legislation favouring in concrete ways Canadian shipowners, seamen, shipyard workers and all manufacturing industries supplying material and equipment.
Promote replacement of obsolete ships with speedy cargoes that can face foreign competition.
Change the Navigation Act of 1934 to take into account present conditions of sea transport.
Denounce the Commonwealth Navigation Convention (1931) and abolish the extraordinary privileges granted to those countries in order to protect our shipowners against competition from ships carrying the flags of the Commonwealth countries.
Levy a 50 per cent tax on repairs, purchases of ocean-going ships or equipment made in foreign countries, except in cases of emergency.
Restrict exclusively to ships registered and built in Canada and to really Canadian undertakings the use of our coastal and interior waters.
We ask for the immediate construction of a powerful oceangoing merchant fleet, by and for Canadians, to carry at least part of the foreign trade of Canada.
With regard to another matter, there are two quite important groups of Canadians who are neglected: manufacturers of textiles and of shoes.
The government pretends that it just became aware of the situation and in order to improve it a Commission was established. Mr. Speaker, I already doubt its result since if the government had been wiser and more responsible, it would have referred a long time ago to the figures of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and it would have gotten itself acquainted with recommendations contained in briefs presented by executives of the textile industry.
But the government does not care for these briefs, whether they originate from the textile industry or other industries.
I have in hand a letter dated December 12, 1966, addressed to the government by the Canadian Footwear Manufacturers Association. This is what it says:
Herewith a copy of a brief that we addressed to the Canadian Customs Tariffs and Trade Committee in order to inform the members of this Committee of the serious situation in which the footwear industry finds itself now.
This brief is the fifth that we have sent to the Committee since May 15, 1964 and as you can notice, footwear exports are still increasing at an alarming rate.
Since then, this organization has been submitting briefs at a rate of about two each year, nearly always along the same lines, and as early as 1966 it was said that:
Importation of footwear from low-wage countries and Communist states accounted for 47 per cent of our domestic production in 1966.
In order to help the Canadian shoe industry increase the number of jobs instead of reducing them, it is essential that the representatives of our government do not grant any tariff concessions in the trade discussions provided for under the Kennedy plan.
It is realized today that, under the Kennedy plan, some importers have been favoured by certain tariff changes.

November 12, 1970

Mr. Speaker, they have waited for the stores and warehouses to overflow, for plants to close their doors, and for thousands of workers to be unemployed, and now they hire three persons: Mr. Annis from Ottawa, Mr. St-Lau-rent, well known in Quebec political circles, and a person named Campbell.
Mr. Speaker, even if the name of the latter appears on soup cans, I still think that this commission's conclusions will be "for the birds".
Again, the government must stop questioning the value-


Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise him that his time has now expired.
[DOT]	(5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that all of us share a desire to provide more assistance for the unemployed. I am sure that none of us would claim to have a monopoly on good will toward those who are seeking employment or who have lost jobs because of economic vicissitudes.
As the motion before us indicates, this is not the responsibility of any one level of government. It is not the responsibility of the federal government alone, of municipal government alone or of provincial government alone. Indeed, the responsibility to combat the current unsatisfactory levels of unemployment in society cannot be confined to government alone and it is fair to say that it goes beyond government. The responsibility extends to all organized and unorganized groups and to the entire population of the country.
For example, the great trade union movement has a responsibility to provide leadership to find satisfactory solutions to the problem of unemployment. Management, similarly, has a responsibility. Those in our farm community have a similar responsibility. Another point has been made very clear by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) over the past two years. He has emphasized repeatedly that the job of managing the economy in this country involves the balancing of alternatives and designing policies which are not only satisfactory in the short run but are likely to achieve the best over-all results.
[DOT]	(5:30 p.m.)
I have been in the House all afternoon and have listened to the speeches of opposition spokesmen. I have been profoundly disappointed by some of the speeches by these members who would like to replace the present government. I commend certain opposition members for their acutely developed powers of hindsight. As well, some of them have told us what is wrong, without providing solutions. I have a pamphlet which was written by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) in 1943. This eloquent member has been an author in his day. He
23226-72*
Employment Programs
defined all the problems at that time. He said "we must increase wage levels," "destroy the control of monopolies," "provide guarantees for security," "abandon colonialism" and "bring dignity and a racial harmony to Canada." But not a suggestion as to how. It is strange that after so many years in public life this man still fails to advance specific ideas and solutions to the problem of unemployment and other difficulties which beset our economy. His ability to provide original ideas is as elusive as the quest for the mother lode or as elusive as a piece of pork in a can of pork and beans.
What was the "solution" which he advanced today? He started by saying that we should begin our fight against unemployment by scheduling a federal-provincial-municipal conference. That idea is hardly revolutionary. And then we heard from the financial spokesman for the official opposition. He said the situation in the Maritimes is very difficult and that this government does not have an understanding of the unemployment situation there. He is suffering from at least one type of myopia or loss of memory.
In 1958, when the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was Premier of Nova Scotia there was a Conservative government in Ottawa. The rates of Maritime unemployment in Nova Scotia were 11.2 per cent in 1958, 11.1 per cent in 1959, 10.6 in 1960 and 12.1 in 1961. We must not forget the history of this country. Those who advance easy solutions in this debate should be aware of the fact that when they had responsibility for government they were not able to provide easy solutions.
I will not spend a great deal of time on the first part of the motion. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in his policy statement of October 13 and in reply to questions since then has reviewed the alternatives which confront the government at this time. Stated in its essence, this government, like all governments, has to make choices. It has had to make some basic decisions to get the most permanent results out of the limited amount of new funds which it can divert to government purposes-to direct as many additional resources as possible to measures which will benefit permanently the growth of the economy.
Last June the Minister of Finance announced accelerated and increased payments to the provinces in the amount of $75 million. In addition, $150 million remaining to be spent under the technical and vocational school training program are to be disbursed to the provinces in this fiscal year and the fiscal year 1971-72. On October 13 the Minister of Finance concluded that "the effect of these measures was to add $150 million to our budgetary requirements and $150 million to our nonbudgetary requirements, or $300 million in all-a very considerable figure."
At the time of that policy speech the minister further announced that he would "ask the approval of Parliament for the expenditure"-this figure should be borne in mind when we talk in terms of increasing unemployment benefits on a temporary basis-"of an additional $60 million to be directed very specifically to the allevia-

November 12, 1970
Employment Programs
tion of unemployment where the unemployment conditions are especially severe." This is being done. "Just under a third of this sum would be used by the Department of Manpower and Immigration in an extension of its manpower training program." Many of the programs involved in the $60 million are under way and new jobs are being created as a result of the funds which were allocated last spring and a month ago.
It is not correct to say that the government has been callously standing by while the unemployed have been suffering. The government has been investing enormous amounts of public money in programs which will give permanent benefits to the unemployed. The government is not merely adding a few dollars and saying its responsibility ends there; it has consciously designed programs to ensure that people will have employment on a continuing basis. In the Pacific region, where my home is, actual allowance payments and other training payments paid by Canada Manpower centres in 1968-69 alone amounted to $8,502,592-a substantial amount of money. This could mean not only long-term benefits for those who are unemployed-but long-term work opportunities and life incomes.
It is important to stress at this point the results which the government's fiscal and monetary measures have achieved. Consumer prices are now beginning to stabilize, as indicated by the fact that the consumer price index has remained stable for the last three months-not an insignificant fact. Investment and residential construction have risen to the point where housing starts are at a rate unprecedented in the history of this country. There is no need to emphasize further the very substantial reduction in interest rates which has taken place at all levels and in particular by the Banks of Canada.
It is strange how many critics blossom forth on the subject of so-called tight money and how little they say when those interest rates begin to decrease and the prime rate of interest eases. The silence is, to coin a phrase, "underwhelming." Yet, this process has been continuing for the past seven months but there has not been one acknowledgement today from the official opposition, although they should rejoice with us and the rest of Canada that interest rates are coming down. These are some of the positive results of the government's policy.
My main purpose for entering the debate is to discuss the second part of the motion which refers to increasing the amount of unemployment insurance benefits. All of us can understand the impatience which this motion implies. I can assure hon. members that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) shares their desire to increase unemployment insurance benefits at the earliest possible date. The government has been urged to do this. Countless editorials have urged the minister to initiate action to bring about immediate temporary increases in unemployment insurance. There have been many communications from the public since the white paper on unemployment insurance was tabled in this House on June 17, 1970. Yet, as has been indicated, one must deploy as effectively and as beneficially as possible the limited funds available to the government at this time.
This does not constitute the main reason why the government sees certain difficulties in attempts to increase unemployment insurance benefits at this time. It is important to realize that there are no precedents for raising benefits without raising contributions or, in other words, for raising benefits out of general revenue. Hon. members know that one of the main purposes of the Canada Assistance Plan is to provide supplementary assistance to the unemployed. In fact, one of the original elements of the Canada Assistance Plan was the Unemployment Assistance Act of 1956. There are still agreements by some provinces that are carried out under the terms of the Unemployment Assistance Act.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The minister and the government realize that by many Canadians unemployment insurance or assistance in any direct form is labelled welfare and has a bad connotation. I shall not attempt to identify the reasons for this, but hon. members should be reminded that this form of providing for the unemployed, where there is a basic insurance program supplemented by an assistance program, is the normal pattern in most European countries and in the United States. Be that as it may, no one on this side will deny the need for bringing unemployment insurance benefits up to date. This is certainly one of the basic reasons for the white paper which the Minister of Labour presented last June.
During the consideration of the white paper proposals there has been some excellent co-operation from some hon. members on the opposition side. I think it has been a very useful exercise indeed. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and others have made a constructive contribution to this dialogue. I think they appreciate more than anyone else how earnest the government is in its desire to bring in unemployment insurance reforms.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond J. Perrault: I was dismayed to hear the hon. member for York South criticize the preliminary remarks of the Minister of Labour. He suggested there had been a less than frank disposition on the part of the minister to use certain unemployment figures correctly. This is the same Minister of Labour who has expressed his deep concern about the unemployed in the words of his white paper:
People such as the hired hand on a wheat farm in Alberta; the fisherman casting his nets for cod off the banks of Newfoundland; the young Gaspe-born clerk working by day in a large corporation and taking college courses at night; the newly-arrived immigrant who knows little English or French and possesses few skills, but who is determined to make his way in a complex Canadian city such as Toronto or Montreal.
And then:
The rewards of economic growth should be directed not only toward the individuals who have had the opportunity for a good education, a well paid job, a two-car garage and a home in the country. They are also for the widow or divorcee who has to raise her children alone on minimum wages earned working long hours in an inner-city garment factory; for the youth who has had to drop out of school to help his family and now finds his particular skill is no longer needed in a sophisticated eco-

November 12, 1970

nomy; and for the man over 40 who is jobless, not because he is untrained, but because in our youth-oriented society he is considered too old.
The minister went on to say:
In the 70s, it is fully expected that temporary unemployment will be a possibility for a broader spectrum of the Canadian work force than ever before.
Some of the figures which have been placed before us today reflect the minister's views-these figures, which disturb members of all parties, reflect the widespread technological displacement of labour in this country. This is precisely one of the reasons we need the wide-ranging reforms in unemployment insurance which were brought into the House by the Minister of Labour-the minister who has been criticized unfairly, in my view, this afternoon. It is to be hoped all members of the House realize that no new program of the magnitude of the new unemployment insurance program can be put into effect without a great deal of thought and planning, and that it would be wrong to set aside the far-reaching and comprehensive plan now under review in favour of stopgap, short-term modifications. Surely the present arrangements require something more than patchwork. They must be replaced by an over-all plan which will provide new and meaningful benefits for the work force.
The plan which is now before the House and, specifically, before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, is the product of two years of hard work and planning by the government. Yes, and now with the co-operation of government and opposition members. Of those two years, close to six months was required to review and approve the proposal in all its aspects, to write the white paper, print it and distribute it. The government in no way apologizes for the time required to achieve an adequate public understanding of the white paper and to enable Canadians to express their views. Additional time has been required for this review by the public and by the House committee. Certainly, the work of the Standing Committee under the able chairmanship of the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weatherhead) deserves commendation.


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, presently dealing with unemployment insurance, has missed the purport of the motion before the House. The first part of the preamble to that motion reads:
Whereas there has been a relentless upward climb in the level of unemployment in all regions of Canada-
I do not think the hon. member will disagree with that. The motion continues:
Whereas a number of responsible economic authorities have predicted record levels of unemployment this coming winter-
Employment Programs
I believe the hon. member will agree with that, too. Then there is a third paragraph, one which is of some concern to me, I should like to discuss it as it applies to the province of Quebec, the city of Hamilton and, indeed, to all regions. One thing which puzzles me is that a country which is so rich in resources, so rich in technical know-how, so industrially advanced and served by so many employable people who wish to work, should find itself in a position calling for a motion such as we have before us today.
I am not saying the government has intentionally and heartlessly followed a program designed to bring about the present state of affairs, but I do say the government is proving itself complacent and apathetic in the face of it. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) told us that he had been concerned ever since the sixties by the trend which showed there was an acceleration of inflation to an extent which threatened not only Canadian economic development but Canadian unity itself. It seems to me that rising unemployment also threatens not only the stability of our economy but the stability of the whole nation. A balance must be maintained. At present the scale seems to tipping away from the government in this regard.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) takes an attitude which can only be called complacent and apathetic. The Premier of Ontario says rising unemployment has been deliberately brought about by policies adopted in Ottawa. The answer given by the Prime Minister some time ago spoke of unemployment as being a regrettable side effect of government fiscal and monetary policy. Surely we must take note of the disastrous side effects of this policy on those unable to combat it successfully. I think it is time the government reassessed the regrettable side effects of its fiscal and monetary policies.
An editorial which appeared on Wednesday in the Toronto Telegram of October 11 stated:
In Quebec we are seeing how social unrest caused in part by chronically high unemployment has been a root cause of political extremism. If regional unemployment goes unsolved elsewhere no one can be sure violence will not be tried again in other parts of Canada.
It appears to me that the government is ignoring the frustration of the old, the anger of the young, the hopelessness of the poverty-stricken and the frustrated incentive of employables. It seems to me that the prospects of revolution will be determined to some extent by the social and economic status achieved by the groups I have just mentioned. It seems to me that we have been dealing with the effects. We must not let the War Measures Act and the temporary emergency powers bill cloud our vision and turn us away from a study of the causes. One has only to look back over the past couple of weeks to a policy adopted by politicians in the country to the south of us who tried to emphasize the need for law and order, a policy that was not accepted by the vast majority of Americans. They were more concerned, as I have often said, with the nuts and bolts, nitty-gritty issues, one of which of prime importance is unemployment.

November 12, 1970
Employment Programs
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
We have found that those politicians who concentrated on attempting to alleviate the horrendous suffering from unemployment were, generally speaking, successful. It has been projected that this winter, out of a labour force of about 8,400,000 there will be a vast army of 750,000 to
800,000	men and women making a frustrating and disillusioning struggle for economic survival. In the Atlantic provinces the projected figure of unemployment is 18 per cent, in Quebec 12 per cent and Ontario is sneaking up to 6 per cent.
Donald MacDonald, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, has said that as far as he is concerned unemployment this winter will be around 9 per cent, or 750,000 people. It does not matter to the man who is unemployed whether we talk about the seasonally adjusted rate, the unadjusted rate or any other rate; all he is concerned with is that he will be one of the 750,000 people out of work in and around the month of February. This is the situation to which we should direct our attention. What disturbs me is that the Prime Minister has indicated that such a rate has not been predicted by any responsible source.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Stick to the facts.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I repeat what was said by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). He put on record some responsible views on this matter. For example, he mentioned Mr. Forrest Rogers, who is an economic adviser to the Bank of Nova Scotia. Mr. Rogers said that unemployment would be around 81 per cent but he would not argue that we could not reach 9 per cent or even go beyond. Reference was also made to Professor Sidney Ingerman, a labour economist at McGill University, who said that the actual rate of unemployment nationally will be in the area of 9 per cent. The hon. member did not remember the prediction of Premier Ed Schreyer, but according to my information he predicted an annual unemployment rate of 9 per cent.
The Lord above did not give all the brains to members on the other side of the House. Many members of the House as well as people without the confines of this grand chamber have sufficient expertise and economic background to challenge the government and its bureaucrats. My leader referred to the unemployment figures, actual and adjusted, between the years 1960 and 1970. I should like to refer to another responsible paper, the Financial Times, which last month suggested that if this pattern of increasing unemployment, be it seasonally adjusted or actual, is not reversed, by February and March of 1971 there will be a rate of unemployment of 9 per cent to 10 per cent, or more than 750,000 Canadians out of work.
Reference was made to the rate of unemployment, adjusted and actual, in 1961. These figures led in 1962 to an actual rate of unemployment of 8.5 per cent in January, 9.1 per cent in February and 8.7 per cent in March. Therefore, unless the present pattern is reversed one can easily accept the statement that we might have 750,000
people out of work this winter or even as many as one million.
I see my time is running out. This has been a constructive debate. The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour said that the NDP had nothing to say. Perhaps I am wrong and it was another member who said that the NDP had nothing constructive to say. I ask hon. members to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for York South, wherein he placed before the government many constructive ideas. In addition, I emphasize the points that were made by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).
When one listens to members who come from slow-growth regions of Canada, one must remember that Canada is divided into five economic sectors. These divisions are the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies and British Columbia. These regions differ in terms of employment, rates of growth and composition of output. I do not think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), who is looking at me, would disagree with that. I should like to know why the government implements policies meant for the over-all good of the country but which nevertheless have disastrous effects on certain regions.
In closing, may I say that this motion is an important one. We must continually press the government to take responsibility for this situation, because the projected level of unemployment for February and March of next year is unacceptable. I return to my original premise, that we must concern ourselves not so much with the effects as with the causes of revolutionary movement. Revolutionaries prey upon the discontented. They prey upon those who are without proper housing, those who feel there is no room for them in our established, democratic way of life. It does not matter to me how many of these people there are; as long as our programs are not geared to assist those who are frustrated, in my view we are in for trouble.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair. The House will meet again at 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the debate so far has ranged rather loosely over various forms of criticism directed at the government's monetary and fiscal policies. I think it can probably be reduced to simply a judgment of our timing or fine tuning, to use the words of Milton Friedman. Basically, it is reduced to a matter of judgment as to the wisdom of the timing or fine tuning of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) versus the allegedly more accurate and more refined tuning of those opposite.

November 12, 1970

There has been little offered in support of the contention that their handling of the situation would have been any better. I shall not get into that area because it does not seem to be one that is very effectively dealt with by the opposition.
I should like to come to grips with what is, surely, part of the problem in respect of unemployment and specifically an industry which is of central importance to our economy, an industry that has over the past few years been living in a state of siege beleaguered by imports from low-wage countries, an industry which in my view should be a key sector of our economy, with policy developed accordingly. I am referring to the electrical industry. I propose to deal with it in two sections. I should like to relate the position of the electrical industry to two policy statements which have come from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, both of which I concur with and both of which I consider to be directly relevant to the situation in which the electrical industry finds itself. These statements offered some hope of reprieve from what otherwise might have been a very damaging and potentially dangerous situation.
I do not have to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the importance of this industry because you know it as well as I. You know the range of engineers, draftsmen, workers and scientists employed by the industry and you are aware of the level of research and development carried out by it. You know its record in the field of nuclear research and atomic power development. Right now it faces some very serious threats.
I want first of all to deal with the potential problem of offshore concessional financing, specifically as this relates to mining contracts and projects. I am speaking specifically of the Iron Ore Company of Canada in the Sept lies area and other mining projects which might also be affected by the situation in respect of offshore concessional financing. I begin by referring to a statement made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) in the House on May 26, 1970, which appears in Hansard at page 7319. It was a statement on Motions under the heading "Announcement of program to alleviate adverse impact of concessional financing by foreign governments".
The minister in his statement recognized clearly that the manufacturing industry had been making representations to the government concerning what it considered to be highly attractive financing terms available to their competitors abroad. In his statement at page 7319, the minister on behalf of the government said:
The government is satisfied that in several instances the availability to foreign manufacturers of export credit at lower rates of interest has resulted in substantial loss of business to individual Canadian companies which otherwise would have been competitive in price, performance and delivery.
The minister went on to recognize the difficulties or dangers involved in a full-scale credit race and concluded, prior to stating his policy recommendations, with this statement:
____the government has decided to take a number of steps designed to mitigate the adverse impact of foreign government financing of exports to Canada which causes injury to Canadian industry.
Employment Programs
He went on to mention four proposals, one of which relates to the invocation of the provision of the antidumping act. He said:
First, Canada will use all available means consistent with its international obligations to curtail foreign government financing of exports to Canada in cases where it causes material injury to Canadian industry. In this context, consideration will be given to invoking the provisions of the anti-dumping act in specific cases.
One of the steps he suggests the government should take involves closer co-operation with the OECD to work out arrangements in respect of concessional financing in trade between developing countries. He raises other points and emphasizes certain proposals to deal with this problem.
I think all of us in this House strongly support the position outlined by the minister on May 26. All of us, particularly those who represent ridings which have industrial manufacturers within their boundaries, realize the importance of this statement. It so happens that right now one of the important industries, namely, the electrical industry, is faced with the prospect of offshore concessional financing which, if not matched by a Canadian equivalent, could lead to the loss of a large number of jobs related to mining projects in Quebec. I have in mind jobs that could be handled by Canadian manufacturers who are totally competitive. These jobs could be lost simply because the accounting is wrong, because offshore concessional financing is not matched by an equivalent in this country.
I refer specifically to the Iron Ore Company of Canada and a project there which could involve some $200 million. The part of the project which could be handled by Canadian manufacturers in the electrical sector amounts to at least $15 million, and the part in the mechanical sector-such as pelletizing equipment, grinding mills, etc.-probably runs in the area of $60 million. Canadian manufacturers are competitive in every sense of the word, in these particular areas and probably in others. At least in these areas there is no question at all about competitiveness. But there are competitive United States suppliers who would have available to them, through concessional financing, terms which could make the Iron Ore Company of Canada lean toward United States suppliers rather than toward Canadian suppliers.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
What this mean in terms of jobs, and in this debate we are concerned about unemployment, I can only guess. My guess would be that in the electrical sector it would probably mean 750 man-years, but in terms of related industries such as steel and aluminum, plus the service industries, that figure could probably be tripled. This is a specific contract in respect of the Iron Ore Company of Canada where concessional financing is being offered, but there are other companies in respect of which it is not yet offered. However, if concessional financing is not matched in this case,-all subsequent contracts may well be affected.

November 12, 1970
Employment Programs
My point is that until the principles laid down in the statement of May 26 are enforced by general agreement, or until through co-operation and consultation with the OECD ground rules are laid down governing concessional financing between developed countries, we in this country must match the sort of concessional financing that threatens the manufacturing sector. This clearly is not in our interest in the long term because it would become a full-scale credit war, which benefits no one. But until comparable terms can be made available or until agreement can be reached, we must offer comparable terms.
I am aware that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance know about this situation. The guideline in the May 26 statement is there and it becomes critical that through a consortium of our chartered banks comparable terms be offered so that Canadian manufacturers can compete with their United States equivalent. Otherwise the jobs involved, the technology, the drafting, the engineering and the whole range of skills in general will be lost to our competitors in the United States.
I see that I am running short of time. The second point I should like to raise concerns the Canadian electrical industry generally. It seems to me that what is needed now, and what has been argued for for some time, is a general review by the federal government and by the provincial governments-because some of their agencies are utilizers of electrical equipment, particularly the power utilities-plus the Canadian Electrical Manufacturers Association and the trade unions involved, such as the United Electrical Workers and others.
There should be a review of government policy as it affects the Canadian electrical industry. There are two fundamental facts available to anyone who reviews the situation. The first is that the industry has not realized its full growth potential. Second, areas of the industry are under a state of siege. In today's Globe and Mail there is an announcement to the effect that Philips Electronics Industries Limited of Toronto will close down its division. We have known that the Marconi Company has laid off 800 and intends to lay off another 700. The Canadian General Electric plant at Rexdale, and other companies, are involved in lay-offs.
This is an important sector of the industry which has employed a large number of Canadians and Canadian skills. As I said earlier, areas of the industry are in a state of siege. I think the only possible approach at this stage is not to try to balance out a particular sector in an ad hoc way, but to review the total electrical industry and make a decision concerning its importance to our economy. My argument is that this is a key sector of the economy whose importance should be assessed from the point of view of the technology it contributes, the engineering it contributes, the employment it provides and the growth potential it offers and its relevance to a science-based economy. On that basis I believe it can be declared an industry of national importance and one in respect of which a policy should be developed to ensure that its growth potential is developed.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to the textiles policy. The textiles policy is one which everyone cannot help but support. It is one of the most intelligent pieces of government initiative in the field of industrial policy which I have observed. What were the reasons for the review? I quote from the statement on textiles policy as follows:
Firstly, major and fundamental changes in world technology, production and market demand are creating a new competitive situation... Secondly, present policy designed to cope with the problem of "low-cost" imports have become increasingly difficult to administer. This has led to delays and uncertainties which have resulted in severe disruption and hardship to producers and workers.
Thirdly, the textile companies, the unions and the provinces have expressed concern about the adequacy of the present policy in terms of future investments and employment in the industry ...
The position of the textile companies applies equally to the electrical companies. I suggest that the reasons for the review of textiles policy are on all fours with the situation about which we complain today in the electrical industry. The reason this very intelligent, progressive and in many ways imaginative textiles policy was evolved applies equally to the electrical industry.
In conclusion, I wish to repeat the electrical industry is basic and central to our economy. I consider others to be important, but the electrical industry has been in a state of siege from Japan, Hong Kong and a whole range of low-wage countries. The purpose of my intervention tonight is to stress the importance of this industry and the importance of a government policy vis-a-vis the industry. For these reasons I have raised the question and I hope the government will reappraise its policies regarding this particular industry.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I find the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault), and the speech of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) interesting because both hon. members scold our party for moving this resolution. The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour said we have offered nothing constructive and that there are more people working now than ever before. He ignores the fact that unemployment in Canada is higher than it has been for a dozen or more years, and that unemployment in British Columbia in October of 1970 was 69,000, compared with 40,000 in October of last year.
The hon. member for Peterborough says our criticism of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is one of fine tuning. He disagrees as to when certain measures should be taken and then proceeds to lecture the minister about circumstances in the electrical industry. I agree with him, but why does he say this situation applies particularly to the electrical industry? It is a very large employer in his constituency and therefore he makes representations on behalf of the industry. I do not blame him.
We are not concerned only with the electrical industry. We are concerned about the high rate of unemployment throughout this country. It is now agreed by experts in

November 12, 1970

federal and provincial governments, in the business community, in labour circles, among economists and in the academic community that the prospects for higher unemployment are now very great and that heavy unemployment will continue, not just through the winter but into and possibly through the whole of 1971.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, who said that we had nothing concrete to offer, that we have said for the last two years that in choosing to make the increasing cost of living a more important issue than rising unemployment the government was making the wrong choice and we would wind up with both a higher cost of living and higher unemployment. In fact, we have been proven correct, as have the academic economists who have argued to that effect even longer than we have.
A very conservative estimate of the situation, made by a leading academic economist who I saw about a week ago, is that we will have this winter a seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment of more than 7 per cent and that the picture for the whole of 1971 will run at not less than 6 per cent, seasonally adjusted. Unemployment in Canada rose from 314,000 last year to 419,000 in October of 1970. That is an increase of 33-1/3 per cent. It is little comfort to the 419,000 unemployed to tell them that more people are working than ever before; it does not help them to meet the bills they have to pay in order to live.
In Quebec, unemployment rose from 135,000 in October of last year to 159,000 in October of this year. The economist whom I have consulted estimates that unemployment in January of 1971 will be 789,000 and in February of 1971 it will be 811,000-9.8 per cent of the labour force, or a seasonally adjusted rate of 7.2 per cent. That is not very far from the calculations which Mr. MacDonald, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, made recently and which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) derided so stridently the other day.
What do these national unemployment figures mean? We have been spending most of the time since the House reconvened this fall discussing the problems of Quebec. Every Member of Parliament is concerned about the violence, the bombings and the kidnappings with which Quebec has been afflicted. We in this party who have been critical of the government's reaction to the events in Quebec, and who have been told that we do not understand Quebec because we do not have a Member of Parliament from that province-and of course we do not-do know that a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 7 per cent nationally means 9 per cent unemployment in Quebec.
Quebec has consistently had 20 per cent to 50 per cent higher unemployment than the Canadian average and an unemployment rate about twice as high as that of the province of Ontario. Quebec, which contains 25 per cent of the Canadian population, has consistently had about 40 per cent of the unemployment. When you realize that four out of ten unemployed people in Quebec are under
Employment Programs
25 years of age, you appreciate the dimensions of the problem.
The Prime Minister recently said in a television interview that one of his main objectives was to get the people of Quebec to choose between federalism and separatism. I say-and I say it with a good deal of regret-that given the unemployment among young people which I have mentioned, it is not surprising that the young people of Quebec in the last election seemed to opt so heavily for the Parti Quebecois. If we want to do romething to maintain federalism, it is not good enough to say, as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said so often, that heavier unemployment is just one of the side effects we have to face in dealing with the problem of rising costs.
What about the future of Quebec? Mr. Bourassa in his election campaign promised that he would produce 100,000 new jobs by the end of 1971. But this year only 3,000 new jobs were produced in the province of Quebec, compared with the fact which was pointed out by Dion Cohen, who writes a column in the Toronto Star every week, that in each of the next ten years the Quebec labour market will grow by 75,000 workers a year.
To cut unemployment in Quebec to 6 per cent, which is still intolerably high, Quebec would need to attract about $7 billion in investment every year for the next ten years. That is a goal hopelessly out of the reach of that province, on the basis of past performance, without very great assistance from the federal government. Yet we have a federal government which is concerned about federalism and simply says, "We cannot do anything about Quebec or about unemployment because we have to deal with higher prices."
The large increase in unemployment has meant sharp increases in welfare costs in cities in every province of Canada. It is true that half the costs are paid by the federal government, but this is of little consolation to hard-pressed taxpayers at the municipal level. Every city and every province in Canada which budgeted for sharply increased welfare costs this year has found that despite those increases in the estimates, they put much too little into their budgets to meet the increased costs of welfare. The skyrocketing costs of welfare are to a large extent the result of rising unemployment.
We have been told we have offered nothing concrete in the way of programs to deal with the problem of unemployment. As I indicated earlier, that of course is not true. We have said for the last two years at least that it is impossible for Canada to do much about the rising cost of living when inflation has gripped every country in the western world. Canada buys more from the United States and sells more to that country than any other country with which we deal, and when the U.S. is gripped by inflation it is simply nonsense to think that we can check inflation in Canada.
We warned the government that its policy of restraint and deflation would mean higher unemployment and difficult living conditions for the working poor and those on fixed incomes such as pensions and welfare. This, of course, is what has happened. We have been saying all

November 12, 1970
Employment Programs
along, and will continue to say, that if the government has to choose between full employment and a gradually rising cost of living, or no increase in the cost of living and heavy unemployment, it should opt for full employment. That is what we would have done and that is precisely the policy the government of Canada rejected, basing its policy on the advice it received from the head of the Bank of Canada, the Deputy Minister of Finance and the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission. They opted for restraint and we are suffering as a result.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Provincial governments are becoming concerned. A few days ago the Conservative Premier of Ontario, Mr. Robarts, made it clear he was going to consider what programs his government could initiate in order to put people to work in that province. On October 30 the government of Manitoba announced a program to alleviate as much as possible the heavy unemployment expected in that province. It will draw on the $74 million capital fund placed in its estimates as a reserve against unemployment. It will go ahead as quickly as possible with a program to build schools, improve its university, provide public housing and a host of other projects. It expects to be able to gainfully employ in the neighbourhood of 10 per cent of those expected to be unemployed this winter.
We urge the government of Canada to join with the provinces and not wait for the provinces to come forward with proposals. The government should call a conference. That does not sound very revolutionary and in fact it is not; it is too late to be revolutionary about employment for this winter. The government should call a conference with the provinces at which the larger cities would be represented, to see what programs they have ready and to see what the federal government can do to finance those programs.
It is not good enough to say that we have more people working than ever before. It is not good enough to say that the percentage of unemployment is less than it was. The fact remains that this winter we will have 800,000 people unemployed; we will have a higher unemployment rate than any other industrialized country. That is something of which all Members of Parliament, regardless of party affiliation, ought to be ashamed. I close by urging the government to change its priorities, to make full employment a more urgent objective that the illusory goal for which it has been striving, that of holding the line on rising costs-a goal that can only be achieved and has only been achieved at the expense of the poor people of this country.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I spent the whole day listening with the greatest possible attention to the remarks of my hon. colleagues, and I come to the conclusion that though many of their arguments were brilliant, they have said countless useless things. Were businessmen from the various parts of the country-company directors, for instance-to attend our debates, they would be shocked to hear us jabbering
away for days on end, to solve such matters as that before the House. They would tell us; "Solve the problem, legislate, instead of repeating the same things over and over again."
Naturally, that is part of the procedure and one must submit to it. That is why, in part, I am following the bad example and making a few remarks. I shall try not to repeat what has been said up to this point, Mr. Speaker.
I apologize for the looseness of my remarks but I do not want to repeat what has been said before. For instance, the government has been accused of implementing an unsound economic policy. 1 question the competence of those who say such things when in all countries, namely the United States, world renowned economists such as President Nixon's advisers, disagree about inflation and hold views diametrically opposed to those of experts as competent as they are. I wonder where my hon. colleagues who blame the government for having followed such or such economic principle in its fight against inflation, have collected their information.
After having read the notice of motion, I was satisfied and convinced that nobody would object to it. Since it justifies the action taken by the government months ago, why spend a whole day on it?
A whole series of measures are already in force. We could have devoted this day to pass some of them in order to speed up our business, but obviously this is part of the political tactics of the opposition. I noticed that some of my collagues opposite whose sincerity is apparent at times were reluctant to make certain bold statements.
As for me, I will simply point out what has been done in my area. Incidentally, I thank my friends opposite for showing a special concern for the province of Quebec in their notice of motion. It was time Parliament saw to it. In the last 100 years, there has been no excess of sympathy in this house for Quebec. On behalf of my province, I therefore wish to thank the mover for his thought which will certainly do no harm.
From 1968 to 1969 in my riding, the federal government paid $845,732 to retrain the unemployed. It is obvious that this is a worthwhile effort. Then during the same period, it granted the unemployed $995,800 in living allowances. Furthermore, from 1969 to 1970 allowances were granted to 1,260 people to help them retrain, improve their education, teach them new trades so as to enable them to earn a living. And the federal government spent the amount of $1,080,000 in my riding with a population of 150,000 distributed over three municipalities. I refer to my riding, but I imagine that the same thing applies in most other constituencies of the province.
In 1969-70, the federal government spent $12,058,000 for the building of technical schools or CEGEPs. In my view, that is an effort to reduce unemployment.
My colleague spoke a moment ago about the policy concerning the textile industry. That new policy has been of help to us because we have in our province an important industry, called Wabasso Cotton, which is nationally known. The new policy has not yet produced all the results we expected of it.
[Mr. Orlikow.l
November 12, 1970

[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
On behalf of the company, I thank the government for such a policy which has prevented unemployment on a large scale in our community since Wabasso Cotton employs thousands of workers.
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) tell us that next year millions of dollars will be invested in new industries across the country and I lost no time in inquiring to what extent my constituency will benefit from that. Charity begins at home.
I therefore found out that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has received 22 requests from industries wishing to settle in my constituency, and which will benefit all, if their applications are approved, from government incentives, contributing thus to reduce the rate of unemployment, a realization much more efficient than any speech.
I am not talking about the substantial grants made, for instance, to composite schools, about the $4.5 million granted recently to the municipality of Trois-Rivieres, under the designated areas program, for housing projects. Because of certain representations, this assistance has been considerably increased, with the result that today, we have in our region a fairly decent employment rate.
For instance, certain amounts were allocated to the construction of decent housing for some 3,000 or 4,000 students of our University of Quebec, and there were many more. Therefore, the government has done something, and if the opposition wanted to be efficient, rather than waste a day in yacking, it would say: We will study the next measure and try to adopt it as soon as possible in order to reduce the unemployment rate. I believe that this would solve many more problems than all the palaver we now have all day. I apologize for behaving as badly as some others, but it is very easy to be led astray, even with the best intentions.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a correction. It was said that the situation which exists in Quebec, this uprising of a few FLQ members, could be a movement of revolt from young people who are held in unemployment and who are dissatisfied with the government. Well, I have another explanation. I know a good deal about this matter, because I have been studying it for the last 25 or 30 years.
Young Quebecers have 200 years of frustration rankling in their mind. They are trying to eliminate them. It was only recently that our English friends from other parts of the country realized that Quebec has the right to live on equal terms with everyone. I am not a separatist, but a federalist. I had to fight for being a federalist, and I still believe in federalism. I remember when I first came to Ottawa, people would tell me to "speak white" whenever I used the French language. I could relate scores of such incidents where French Canadians, barely accepted, were insulted. We are now attempting to redeem two centuries of history and this cannot be done in a year or two. The government under the Right Hon. Mr. Pearson initiated this movement and our present government
Employment Programs
under the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is carrying on. I call upon all my friends of the opposition who, I am sure, are true Canadian patriots, to co-operate with us in order that we may achieve the understanding which is required to have all Quebecers accepted on an equal footing everywhere in Canada, in all fields of endeavour. Thus there will be fewer FLQ members and fewer unemployed people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, upon reading the motion of the hon. member for York South, it is impossible not to note three very important points.
First of all, there is an unrelenting escalation of the unemployment level in all regions of Canada.
Then, those responsible in the field of economy foresee a still higher level of unemployment during the winter months.
Finally, substantial measures should be taken immediately to eliminate that unfavourable situation in the province of Quebec and particularly in the city of Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, what is the present situation in the province of Quebec and throughout Canada? The government members, particularly the one who has just sat down, may attempt by their speeches to convince the people that everything is for the best, but it remains, nevertheless, that there were, throughout the country, 419,000 unemployed workers in October 1970. These 419,000 people have the right to work but they cannot find employment because of the lack of foresight of those sitting on the government side.
In October 1970, the number of unemployed persons in Canada exceeded by 105,000 the number recorded in October last year and by 21,000 the number recorded in September of this year. In fact 6.6 per cent of the labour force is unemployed.
There was a time when we were sitting on the opposite side of the House and when those now sitting there were on this side. We heard quite a lot about unemployment in those days.
There could not be a lay-off without the three most influential Liberals, namely Messrs. Pickersgill, Chevrier and Martin, rising to sympathize with the unemployed workers' fate. And the story we now hear from the former mayor of Trois-Rivieres and from others is quite different from what we heard in those days.


Mr. Mongrain;: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres on a question of privilege.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend for whom I have a great deal of esteem and whom I know to be very

November 12, 1970
Employment Programs
honest, has just said that all those who sit on this side used to sit on his side. I have never sat on that side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I shall point out to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres that there is no foundation to his question of privilege and that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe has the floor.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: What is the situation in the province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker? In October 1970, there were 159,000 unemployed. This is a record which does not cheer me up. In Quebec, 8.8 per cent of the working population is unemployed.
It is the responsibility of the members of the opposition to call the attention of the government members to their responsibilities and to make sure that they assume them.
By looking at their previous speeches, it is clear that they are responsible for providing employment to those who want to work, but however 159,000 people are unemployed in the province of Quebec.
What is still worse, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the forecast for the winter months is even darker. It is estimated, in some quarters, that there will be from
750,000	to 800,000 unemployed in Canada. Are we justified in protesting loudly and asking the ministers and the hon. members opposite to do something to alleviate unemployment, this cancer of our society.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
It is also disturbing to realize that unemployment periods last longer. In October 1970, 74,000 people had been unemployed for a period of four to six months. This represents 18 per cent of the unemployed, in that category. For the corresponding period last year, there were 12,000, or only 13 per cent of the unemployed.
As to those who have been unemployed more than six months, there were 72,000 in October, that is 17 per cent of the unemployed, while in October 1969, 46,000 were in that category, that is 15 per cent, and fiery speeches, appeasement speeches from the other side of this House will not succeed in disproving those facts based on D.B.S. figures.
In the building sector, 34,000 jobs were lost in October 1970; among the bush workers, there are 10,000 fewer jobs than last September.
And who is responsible for that situation? It will be recalled that in order to fight inflation, this government found that solution, namely create unemployment and thus fight inflation at the expense of workers, farmers and low income groups. That is an inhuman way, I repeat it, following my leader who said so on several occasions in this House, and the government has no reason to be pleased. Instead of coming up with an expansion policy, the government has found nothing better than to implement restrictive measures in order to create unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, I would be angry with myself if I did not take advantage of the few minutes I still have to once
more point out the situation prevailing in my constituency.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps for the twentieth time, I will say that 20 per cent of the labour force is unemployed in the Saint-Hyacinthe area. What are the reasons for such unemployment? I shall mention the closing of some plants a reduction of personnel on account of foreign competition and the adverse effect of the refusal of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) to recognize as a designated zone the Saint-Hyacinthe area, though all the required criteria for designation apply to it. The city council, the common front of Saint-Hyacinthe and I myself made representations to the minister, but we all met with a refusal.
A while ago I said that some plants had closed down in the Saint-Hyacinthe area. According to a study made last summer by the Richelieu-Yamaska Social Development Council, from 1964 to March 1970, we lost ten industries that were providing work to at least 494 employees.
In the field of shoe manufacturing, we have also lost at least one industry that employed several hundred workers. According to this study, we have lost the share that the Saint-Hyacinthe region had a right to expect, had it been fairly treated by the federal government.
I would like to quote a few excerpts from this study in order to put on record what our people think of the refusal by this government to make the Saint-Hyacinthe region a designated area. After considering the reasons why the federal government disregarded the Saint-Hya-cinthe-Drummondville region for the development of an international airport, the report states, and I quote:
The federal government, for technical as well as economical reasons, did not comply with a request submitted by the province of Quebec on behalf of the Yamaska region.
We venture to think that no political consideration intervened in the rejection of the Saint-Hyacinthe region as the airport site and as a designated area.
And further, we can read:
In support of this hope, let us mention that the "Snow Jet" plant, which would have created 700 immediate jobs, chose to locate in Drummondville, not in Saint-Hyacinthe, for the only reason that the economic advantages were better there.
This is, in my opinion, and in the opinion of my people, an injustice to our region. I would again draw the attention of hon. members and, in particular, of the powers responsible, one of which is the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, to this fact, so that this injustice can be corrected as soon as possible.
It has often been repeated today that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) had announced a series of measures which had already been put into effect to remedy this situation. It must be recognized that if these measures were actually taken, then they were inadequate, since the unemployment rate only keep rising month after month. It is the responsibility of those who sit on treasury benches to see that this situation, which is degrading for the workers, is eliminated as soon as possible.

November 12, 1970

Winter work subsidies must be reinstated to meet the requirements of municipalities, and the 12 per cent tax on building materials must be removed in order to give new impetus to the building industry.
Besides, arrangements must be entered into with the province of Quebec to give the premier of this province, who promised 100,000 jobs, an opportunity to keep his promise.
Mr. Speaker, the people will not be content with promises any longer, and disorders will keep increasing, unless the people are given what they have a right to.


Mr. Hu Harries (Edmonion-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, the motion addresses itself to the short-term future. It would be difficult to deny that in that time we will be facing some immediate and important economic difficulties, although we may well differ on our description of the magnitude and causes of the difficulties. Without belabouring the obvious, it may be useful to define three segments of the economy that should be considered.
The first segment is that which is continuing to undergo technological readjustment. I am referring to the farmers on the Prairies and other regions of Canada, fishermen, lumber operators and others involved in small-scale resource industries. These people are not restricted to any particular geographical region, but they do constitute a separate and important force in the economy.
Second, we must consider the special geographic areas where, due to a combination of labour force and capital circumstances, there is a failure to get the needed economic expansion. These areas, the most significant of which is Quebec, have been described as slow-growth areas. The third general group may be included in the description of those affected by a slowdown that extends all across Canada and is in response to policies, both business and government, and fiscal and monetary restraints. What is happening now is that these three segments, each of substantial significance, have gone on a strong downward trend all at the same time. Whether this could have been foreseen is not of much help in meeting the problem as it exists, although I belong to the group with the 20-20 hindsight that says we had ample warning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hu Harries: What is the government doing? What suggestions can be made with respect to the problems of technological adjustment? I suggest that this government is pursuing good policies enthusiastically and with vigour. In my view, the technologically unemployed bear an unfair and unreasonable share of the cost of our affluent society. I hope the government will continue to do as it recently did, announce that more funds will be poured into retraining and into those programs which are directed specifically to meeting the needs of those who bear, as I have suggested, a completely unreasonable share of the burden of change in our society. In Edmon-
Employment Programs
ton alone, last year the government spent $2,880,000 on retraining and $3,305,000 on allowances incidental to this retraining.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
With respect to the slow-growth areas, the government has recognized that federal investment alone cannot do the job. It is clearly folly to spend capital funds on projects which do not provoke revenue and can only result in the imposition of large annual service charges. Employment arising from expenditure of this type is economically cannibalistic. At the same time, capital contributions to private industry are not the answer, per se, to rising employment opportunities. Let us face the facts. The industrial projects undertaken by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion amount to a pretty mixed bag. Payments to build a cattle-feed lot in Alberta can by no stretch of the imagination be justified economically. On the other hand, assistance to develop new technology in the building industry could have a profound effect throughout the country and is the kind of investment which should be undertaken.
I would not want to be unfair to a new department which has an important and difficult job to do, but I suggest that capital funds, even when made available in co-operation with industry, are not likely to be the answer in the long term. Quite clearly, they are not the answer in the immediate future. More attention should be given, now, to encouraging competitive production through payment, if necessary, on a cash basis for specific production inputs. For example, there is presently a strong world market for ships. We have steel, we have men, we have yards. Surely we do not need to wait upon the Japanese, the Germans or the British to show us how to put these things together into tankers and cargo ships. There is no need for us to design the wheel, but what we need is some enthusiasm and some push. We as Canadians have an odd outlook which seems to demand that government be the only customer for major capital goods if government is providing some of the money. This is self-defeating paternalism which I hope we can cast off.
Lastly, on the matter of the general economic slowdown, it is clear that government policy has been workmanlike if, at the same time, unimaginative. Indeed, if the government can be criticized for its monetary fiscal policy it can be argued it has been too often persuaded by the plodding arguments of the opposition. The conventional wisdom respecting the position of the central bank, the budget and specific tax items is hard to ignore, but I for one hope we shall not have to wait too long before specific taxes are recognized not only as productive revenue sources but also as a key factor in economic policy. I see no reason, for example, to continue to impose the federal sales tax on building products.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hu Harries: Similarly, this tax applies to a number of other quasi-capital items. Surely at a time when we are looking for specific developments we can use or, if you wish, manipulate this kind of tax to the benefit of the

November 12, 1970
Employment Programs
economy. There may be sections in which specific taxes could be used to great advantage and I hope the government will consider the possibility, not only of using monetary fiscal policy but of being a little innovative in its approach to specific needs where we possess the technology and where what is required is some incentive of a kind which the government could rapidly and, I believe economically provide.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I want to take five or six minutes in which to discuss the unemployment problem in Canada generally and in my own province in particular, as a representative from the east coast. I suppose it would be a waste of time for me to repeat the statistics which have been quoted, to deal with inflation and the government's attempts to combat it or the ill-effects of mounting unemployment in various parts of Canada, particular in urban environments.
I have listened carefully to the observations of the leaders in the House of Commons today and have been impressed by their ability to present their case and advance positive suggestions for easing the unemployment burden. I was most impressed by the remarks of my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), his questioning of the present incidence of taxation and his speculation as to whether relieving the tax burden might not stimulate the economy to a tremendous extent. I think his contribution was most reasonable and rational.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: It is difficult for me to convince Members of the House of Commons and, it seems, Canadians generally of the particular seriousness of the unemployment problem in my part of the country. Newfoundland is a small province with only half a million people, and we live a long distance from the centre of activity. For many years Members of Parliament from my province have been bemoaning the fact that severe crises have been brought on by heavy unemployment. I will be reasonable; I do not think the unemployment in my province is entirely the responsibility of the federal government.
Recently events have taken place in the province of Quebec which have driven home the fact that there is a serious social and economic crisis in that province. In recent weeks I have heard members of this House rise in this chamber day after day and argue, with insistence, that Quebec needs particular help in its economic and social problems. Although these, I suppose, have been developing since 1760, suddenly people have become very concerned about the serious crisis in Quebec. I agree there is a crisis in Quebec; but need the people of Canada hear about that kind of revolution and social unrest in my own province before they are convinced that we, too, face a serious economic problem?
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
In a rational way we have been trying to show the Canadian people, and not only in the most sophisticated manner, that we on the east coast of Canada sometimes wonder about this just society, about confederation and the benefits we have received from this great union of Canada. Certainly unemployed Canadians are asking themselves this question. We are concerned because today there is in Canada 6.7 per cent unemployment, with a forecast high of 9 per cent. I believe in February of 1962 there was a 9 per cent unemployment situation in Canada. Using the same model, we are forecasting 9, perhaps 10 per cent at the end of this year or at the beginning of 1971.
How many Canadians fully realize that last year the Dominion Bureau of Statistics admitted that in February there was 15.3 per cent unemployment in my province? Not only that, but unemployment statistics do not truly reflect unemployment in the nation. There is an old expression that statistics can he. They do not lie intentionally. Those who draw up these statistics are researchers, scientists-reasonable people all. However, the basis upon which they arrive at an assessment of unemployment is inadequate. For example, I could prove that when the Dominion Bureau of Statistics talked last year of 15.3 per cent unemployment, we had in our province perhaps 22 per cent. I further predict that we will reach the point between now and the spring of 1971 where one quarter of our people will be unemployed. Even during the great depression years in North America the unemployment rate was never as high as it is in the province of Newfoundland.
I am not a bit concerned whether the rate is actual or adjusted. How many unemployed Canadians worry over this distinction? What a lot of gobbledygook for us to debate in this House day after day! The unemployment situation is reaching critical proportions. As the Leader of the Opposition has stated, it is no longer a regional problem. For the last two decades the people of Newfoundland have had to leave the province and travel to Toronto in order to take advantage of the seasonal employment situation. As a result, they became skilled in various construction trades. They adapted themselves to urban Toronto life, a difficult adjustment to make. They also made a contribution. Their contribution was a great one because many Newfoundlanders distinguished themselves in the construction trades in various parts of urban Canada. Many of them returned to the province to take advantage of construction opportunities in recent years in my province. Nowadays most of these Newfoundlanders who went to Toronto are part of the breadlines that now form up in that great city. A serious unemployment situation in Canada as a whole affects every region of the country. The unemployment problem in Toronto is having a debilitating effect on the employment situation in the province of Newfoundland.
I should have liked the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) or his Parliamentary Secretary to hear what I have to say now, but I see neither is in his seat. I trust that someone will bring my remarks to

November 12, 1970

the minister's attention. During the last two years a program has been developing in Newfoundland called the DREE program. That is not its real name; it is a compounding of the initials of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The aim of the program is to bring about a change within 20 to 25 years from a rural economy to an urban economy, with 50 or 60 communities in Newfoundland instead of the thousand we presently have.
The basis for this regional development philosophy was the provision of an infrastructure, a word somebody dug up from somewhere which sums up the provision of public services, things like roads, water and sewer systems, schools, industrial parks and the like. The aim was to create an industrial economy in the province of Newfoundland, in the province of Prince Edward Island, in Nova Scotia and in that province which recently went through a period of political renaissance, New Brunswick. Although we have been made aware of this theory of regional development, the problem is that the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council in the last couple of days has taken very serious issue with the regional development philosophy, mainly because the department is deemphasizing and overlooking the resource base of the provinces right across the nation.
Let me point out why I raise this point. In my province a fishing industry still survives, despite the downgrading over the years of the role of the fisheries. We feel that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion should seriously consider an input of funds to upgrade the fisheries in the province. For example, we feel that in addition to improving marketing, transportation, conservation and resource management and dealing with the problem of overfishing, which my colleague from St. John's West (Mr. Carter) will raise in a few minutes, we should have more sophisticated fishing facilities, bigger boats, better technology and more research in oceanography.
I admit, Mr. Speaker, that for me to suggest this evening that this policy should be revised would not be realistic. Nevertheless, I feel the government would make an excellent beginning by loosening-up its spending in order to provide efficient facilities and alleviate the unemployment problem. I am not one of those Members of Parliament who believe that this kind of emergency measure should be regarded as a long-term solution. I agree with those who declare that this is a band-aid policy. However, I would rather see tens of thousands of my fellow countrymen this winter at least given the dignity of being employed, with the government providing facilities that might in the long run be the stimulus for the development of one of the basic resources in my province.
If the minister were here I would issue a challenge to him. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) has been a tremendous discouragement to the province in recent years because of his disinterest in fishing facilities. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) is not in the House this evening, but he too should take a keener interest in this problem. These Canadians who occupy positions of eminence in the federal cabinet ishould heed
Employment Programs
my pleas. On behalf of 500,000 Newfoundlanders and my Maritime colleagues here, I plead for something to be done in the immediate future to alleviate the problem of unemployment, while at the same time providing worthwhile fishing facilities on the east coast. I am sure I would have the concurrence of all the members of the Atlantic provinces-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: -as well as the agreement of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault), who this afternoon tried to justify the government's position, coming as he does from the affluent province of British Columbia which is now also suffering a serious unemployment situation, when I suggest that a new input of funds should be made to provide efficient fisheries facilities in the province. I am not talking of a new deck on every little wharf in every little cove, but of facilities which have been required for years. I could give both the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) a list of a dozen justifiable projects which require immediate action.
For example, since the spring of 1969 the Department of National Defence has been waiting to call for housing tenders in the town of Gander so it can move in personnel to the $17 million communications centre. The tender has not been called because a bunch of bureaucrats and civil servants in Ottawa do not understand what hardship, poverty and unemployment really mean. I should like all hon. members to stand in their places, even if it means extending the debate beyond ten o'clock, and express their ideas on how the government should act immediately to deal with the unemployment crisis. The situation is getting chronic, though in my province it has been chronic for years. It does not make us feel any better to know that other Canadians are now faced with the same situation. We feel that perhaps we can make other Canadians a little more aware of our problems in Newfoundland particularly and in eastern Canada generally.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I know that hon. members have gone back to their constituencies and talked about the problems in Quebec. The Quebec people are aware of these problems. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will not tell us what proportion of federal government money is going into the province of Quebec. I know what proportion is going into that province. I do not intend to expose this fact because I do not want to create the impression that I am against the idea that the bulk of the $60 million announced recently will be spent in Quebec. I am not going to indicate the exact proportion, between $2 million and $3 million, of that amount which will be going into Newfoundland, but it is not enough to build a good breakwater.
This minister, along with others, stands and talks about the efforts being made on behalf of the unemployed in Canada. I hope Canadians realize that we, too, have a

November 12, 1970
Employment Programs
problem in Newfoundland that is so chronic it is almost beyond description. This winter we will have a larger percentage of people unemployed in my province than the United States or Canada had during the great depression. Let us stop fooling around with great political jargon and speeches. Let us have action. I hope the Minister of Finance or some other dignitary will stand up tomorrow and announce an all-inclusive policy to deal with the problem of unemployment.


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, as several previous speakers, I also think it is time for action. It is through action that we will solve our problems and not through lengthy discussions.
However, as the old saying goes, since light comes from the exchange of ideas, and to bring my own contribution to the solution of those problems, it is my pleasure to express my opinion on this motion which relates to a most serious problem, as everyone says, namely that of unemployment. It is imperative to consider the measures taken by the government to help the unemployed and the poor as well as the new measures required.
About the general principle of the motion, when it is a matter of upward climb in the level of unemployment foreseen for this winter and steps to be taken to alleviate its consequences, we can only approve it. Indeed, we must congratulate the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) for the opportunity given to us to discuss this serious problem.
The situation, specially in the Rimouski riding, which I have the honour to represent, and in the area of the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe, is not very rosy either. It is quite clear there is work to do in urban centres and in small towns, but in the so-called marginal municipalities there is a lot of unemployment. A great many citizens in these hamlets and villages, live mostly on government sponsored social measures, either federal or provincial. If we consider for instance certain figures, we see that in 1969 the monthly average was 16,437 unemployed in that region or 18 per cent of the labour force on the basis of the whole population. This is a very high rate of unemployment. For all Quebec the rate of unemployment was 6.9 per cent in 1969. This means that the rate of unemployment in our area is between two and three times higher than the provincial rate. Needless to say several families are in distress because of that unemployment. All of us want to do our utmost to solve this problem.
The motion states that according to certain economic experts, a record unemployment level is expected during winter. In the light of that essential action initiated to eliminate inflation, the government had foreseen those difficulties, but in my opinion the government must not solely be held responsible for the increased unemployment rate. Indeed, the various strikes by construction workers, post-office employees and other workers encouraged by union leaders, some of who are very good friends of the mover, have certainly contributed to create
some uneasiness, especially by unbalancing our economy and discouraging enterprise, especially since summer is over and that winter will soon be here.
We are all in favour of immediate steps being taken, of having the federal government come to as early an understanding as possible with the provinces and the municipalities with a view to reducing the unemployment rate during next winter. This is our ardent wish. However, it does not suffice to settle the unemployment problem, we have to solve various other problems as well to insure our financial and economic stability.
One thing has struck me in the speech of the mover whom I consider very clever and very competent: he has again referred to the terrorism in the province of Quebec.
It seems to me that we should take some action in that area and that we should give more objective consideration to the problems in order to achieve progress.
If I am not mistaken, he said a moment ago that unemployment is no more no less than the cause of terrorism and that the unemployed are terrorists. If we consider those who have or apparently have taken part in terrorist activities and those who have been arrested, we find that they are far from being among the unemployed.
One is a teacher, another an editorial writer for a well known magazine, a third a sociologist, another a taxi driver, another a lawyer and yet another an important union leader. I do not think the latter is unemployed as I know what salaries are paid to union leaders with the contributions of those poor workers and unemployed.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Some CBC announcers or moderators are far from being unemployed people from the point of view of their income. Some professors of the University of Quebec or other universities are equally far from being unemployed. Some of those born with a silver spoon in their mouths, certain students who can study thanks to the effort of governments and to the money of their parents are far from being unemployed people and it seems to me that those who promote all those terrorist movements in Quebec do belong to a privileged class.
In spite of all that, it can be said that the government took very serious action in order to reduce the unemployment rate and to check poverty. Let us simply consider the measures about unemployment insurance. Moreover, the government is soon to improve the lot of unemployed persons through the implementation of the recommendations of the white paper on the subject. It is expected that higher allowances will soon be approved. The Unemployment Insurance Act will apply across the board and benefits will be increased.
Some efforts at least have been made in the field of regional economic expansion. Members from other provinces have been upbraiding the Minister of Regional

November 12, 1970

Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). The minister is one of those who knows the province of Quebec and is eager to help his fellow-citizens.
The legislation on designated and special areas supplies two most useful weapons to fight the scrouge of unemployment.
In my region of Rimouski, the lower St. Lawrence River and Gaspesia, we benefit, as does all Canada, by the acts fostering updating and vocational training.
For instance, if we consider that for the year 1968-69 this retraining program has cost $1,231,692 for the district of Rimouski alone and that a further amount of $1,450,244 was paid on allowances incidental to this retraining; if we consider for the year 1969-70, the allowances paid to the 1,260 persons who took those courses amounted to $1,509,000 and the federal government contribution to composite schools, we can say that the government has done its share to help alleviate the unemployment situation. As for the proposed measures, I feel that the granting of tax credits should be one of the first short term measures the government might take to encourage private enterprise and, but the same token, to create jobs.
The new measures designed to improve the Unemployment Insurance Act should be applied as soon as possible. Furthermore, in this fight against inflation, it would be advisable to gear those measures to particular areas, because we are all aware that in Canada some areas suffer from unemployment on account of their situation. Then, care should be taken so that the people of these regions do not have to suffer too much from the war we have to wage against inflation.
As far as Quebec is concerned, long-term social animation and education work should be done among our youth in order to encourage those who have chosen scientific or technical careers to create jobs instead of relying on the government, once they have completed their studies and earned a little money. Let them be self-reliant, depend on their own efforts. This would greatly improve the manpower situation in Quebec, particularly when we think that in the last few years, according to my information, 75 per cent of students majored in arts, literature and human sciences. It is necessary and very useful but 75 per cent is surely too high a percentage because those students will later be unemployed.
Finally, I think that the fight against unemployment must be considered very seriously by the government. On behalf of my fellow-citizens, I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) to take the necessary steps in the next few weeks to lessen the danger of economic deterioration this winter, that we might live with a certain amount of pleasure and have the satisfaction of working towards better living conditions for our fellow-citizens.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, as I listened this afternoon to the glowing words
Employment Programs
of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in describing the government's anti-inflationary policy of these last months, I was reminded irresistibly of the famous medical bulletin "The operation was a great success, but the patient died."


An hon. Member:: That is an old one.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes, it is an old one, and so is unemployment. The fact is that while the Canadian patient is far from being dead, he is in a very critical state at this time in respect of unemployment, and the government's policy has contributed immeasurably to that state. The fact also remains that the government's own research people tell us that during this coming winter 700,000 people will be looking for work in Canada and that three million Canadians will face loss of income due to unemployment.
The minister quoted various experts to buttress his rosy opinions, but neglected to give us this quotation from the latest report of the Economic Council:
We regard recent and current rates of unemployment as unacceptably high. Canada probably now has the highest rate of unemployment among the more industrialized, advanced nations, even after allowance for the differences for the basis of unemployment estimates.
He also neglected to give the opinion of the general public, the every day men and women, many of whom have experienced unemployment in a very direct way. A Gallup poll of November 7 asked this question:
On the whole would you say the government is doing a good job, or not a good job of handling unemployment?
The following was the Canadian picture. Sixteen per cent said that the government was doing a good job of handling unemployment, 19 per cent said it was doing a fair job and 57 per cent said it was doing a poor job of handling unemployment. The highest level of disappointment was in the province of Quebec, where 63 per cent said the government has been doing a poor job. Quebec was closely followed by the west, where 60 per cent said the government had been doing a poor job.
We have heard a great deal about Quebec this afternoon. I shall say only a few words about it. What a tremendous job the Premier of that province is facing now in finding jobs. He promised 100,000 new jobs by the end of 1971. The Economic Council says that the total number of jobs created for Quebec in 1970 is 3,000; so he will have to provide 97,000 jobs in the coming year. Meanwhile, without federal assistance and federal programming neither the province of Quebec nor any other province will be able to cope with the unemployment problems they will face in the months immediately ahead because we are dealing with an immediate and urgent situation.
I agree with the member from Newfoundland who said he had no interest in talking about seasonally adjusted figures, because what we are dealing with is not figures but men and women and their families and the fact that

November 12, 1970
Employment Programs
they lace deprivation and frustration in the period immediately ahead. In the meantime misery, insecurity and frustration abound in Canada and particularly, as we have seen, in the province of Quebec. We have seen the climate of desperation that has been created there and what a haven for terrorists has been created by this general climate.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I say quite seriously that if you were to arrest every FLQ member in the province of Quebec tonight and were to apply capital punishment to them, there would be a fresh crop there tomorrow morning until and unless you get rid of the economic conditions which make it possible for these people to flourish. They flourish in an atmosphere of social insecurity and social despair. The fact that 38 per cent of all the unemployed in Canada in October of this year were living in the province of Quebec adds immeasurably to the dangers and troubles not only of that province but of all Canada.
Now I want to turn my attention to the other side of Canada, my own province of British Columbia. This morning's issue of the Globe and Mail reported a rash of lay-offs in the softwood plywood industry in B.C. That province manufactures practically all the softwood plywood in Canada. These lay-offs are being carried out by the five big plywood companies in B.C. Reference was made by one hon. member tonight to a certain industry being a key sector in his riding. Well, I say that the forest industry is the key sector in B.C. It is by far the biggest industry and it provides more help to other industries and services, more jobs and security for people, than any other industries in the province.
The lay-off situation which the Globe and Mail reported this morning is the latest blow in a whole series of unemployment disasters that have overtaken B.C. these last few months. We are deeply worried in the province, particularly when we see the forest and lumber industry being overtaken by unemployment. We are appalled by the refusal of the government to reconsider its policies and try to study ways and means of providing immediate employment. This would not deal with the situation in a large way but could provide help for a great many families this winter.
Let me give the House the B.C. unemployment figures very briefly. In September of 1969 there were 33,000 unemployed people in B.C. and in September of this year there were 58,000. In October a year ago there were
40.000	unemployed in B.C. and in October of this year
69.000	were unemployed. Even those tragic figures do not tell the whole story. I am told that the unemployment figures do not include Indians. Evidently Indians are not considered persons when the unemployment figures are computed. I do not think women, either, are counted as persons because I know-reference was made to this matter by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis)- that when unemployment is bad there is much less chance for women to get jobs and a great many women, having tried in vain, stay home and give up in despair. This simply means that the standard of living in that
family goes down, with all the unfortunate consequences for the family and the lack of opportunities for its children.
Some time ago the Economic Council told us that we in Canada could not tolerate a higher rate of unemployment than 3 per cent and still have an acceptable standard of living. We have almost 8 per cent unemployment in British Columbia today. We also have well over 100,000 people on welfare in that province. This means a great many things so far as a healthy situation in B.C. is concerned.
Taxes in Vancouver on ordinary family homes have gone up over 10 per cent every year for the past four years. They have increased in the past four years by nearly 50 per cent. What do the taxes go for in the city of Vancouver? The largest costs for the city of Vancouver are the police. The police union is suggesting an increase in pay, and already their costs constitute the largest single item in the city's operating budget at $10.5 million. The police commission is also asking for more policemen and more equipment. The total extra bill will be about $750,000. I want to say right now that increasing the number of policemen and their equipment will not do any more for B.C. to ensure law and order in that province than it will to do the same in the province of Quebec, if the economic situation is allowed to worsen.
Social assistance costs are another major item in the city of Vancouver's budget. They amount to about $7 million. This figure is four times what it was just four years ago, and it is going up. Even if the economic climate in 1971 improves, the city's share of social welfare costs will be much higher for the total year than they have been this year. The influx of young transients has added to the problem. I dealt with that matter earlier this year. The costs that were being added by the young transients-and even at that, the welfare department reports that less than 10 per cent of the assistance money is paid to people from out of town-have added to the problem still further.
I point out that a serious situation is being faced by Canada's third largest city, when over 100,000 people in the province are receiving welfare and when the welfare budget in the city of Vancouver has increased to four times what it was just four years ago. It is not surprising to find that the mayor of that city is longing to apply a similar measure to the War Measures Act, to divert attention from the fact that he is not dealing at all with the unemployment situation there.
I should now like to recapitulate some of the measures which we think should be taken. This afternoon the hon. member for York South spoke of the federal government calling together the provincial premiers with a view to seeing what could be done, not as a long-range measure but to get us through the winter. That is an eminently sensible suggestion and one with which I think the government would find it very hard to quarrel. The only point is that it must be done now, because very speedy action will have to be taken if people are not to suffer

November 12, 1970

desperately, not only in Vancouver and in B.C. but also in the Maritimes and in Quebec this winter.
Various methods and schemes have been suggested. Comments have been made that while the government says they are not going to have a winter works program, there might well be similar programs under another name. All the municipalities have projects that could be proceeded with, many of them in the winter months. In our province most of these projects could be carried out in the winter because the weather is not sufficiently severe to prevent work from being done in the wintertime. We have mentioned construction of schools, hospitals, sewage plants and other projects such as pollution clean-ups.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Let no one say we do not have the money for it. All hon. members within sound of my voice, and a lot of other people across the country know that if a catastrophe like war were to break out tomorrow, the money would be found, just as it has been on previous occasions. To hon. members who are slightly amused at the idea that we could do this in peacetime, I say we ought now to consider that we have a war of another kind on our hands-a war against social injustice, a war which unless we tackle it now will lead to the insurrection kind of war which has already erupted in one part of our country.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, for those of us who were looking for ideas and inspiration this, in many respects, has been a rather unusual and unsatisfactory debate. The leader of the party that chose to introduce this particularly important resolution did not participate in the debate although all the known candidates to succeed him certainly did. On the other hand, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) did participate, although none of the known candidates to succeed him did. In both cases, however, the financial spokesmen of the two parties, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), did not participate in the debate. It leaves one wondering just what the opposition expected from the debate. We have been left to deal with pretty well the same old generalities.
The most important and widespread criticism of government policies is that the degree of economic restraint imposed by fiscal and monetary policies, and the resulting increase in unemployment, are undesirable and unnecessary. The argument takes various forms, apart from those who contend that no purpose is served by restraints since there is nothing Canada can do to halt inflation generated largely from abroad. There are those who suggest that Canada can work its way out of inflation by vigorously expanded economic growth. This position has been taken by the Conservative and NDP spokesmen and it has also been taken by organized labour, particularly the Canadian Labour Congress. The Conservatives have suggested that voluntary guidelines are sufficient to prevent a renewal of inflation, the NDP
Employment Programs
has proposed price controls, while the CLC has advanced no alternatives.
While acknowledging the strong impact of inflation from abroad, the government has taken the position that much of the present momentum behind costs and prices has been domestically sustained. It has been argued that all nations must exert efforts to bring inflation under control. The fact that price increases in Canada have been substantially less than those in other nations appears to deny the argument that Canada can do little by herself to curb inflation. There are also those who have argued that inflation is a matter of no concern in Canada because the rate of domestic price increase has been running well below that of other countries. There appears to be an assumption, on the part of those who advance this contention, that the relatively better price performance in Canada is something that just happened rather than something that resulted from government policy.
The leader of the Conservative party has long advocated voluntary restraint as the only measure to bring inflation under control. But since the Prices and Incomes Commission launched its efforts in 1969 to promote such restraint, the Leader of the Opposition has contended that the government should have taken more initiative to promote guidelines and has accused it of failing to provide sufficient support for the commission. The only other alternative advanced by the Leader of the Opposition for dealing with the problem of inflation is the elimination of the sales tax on building materials, echoing belatedly a position taken earlier by the New Democratic Party.
The Conservative leader has provided no public support for a series of tax incentive measures proposed by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), which were aimed at rewarding those who hold down prices and increase productivity. Today would have been an excellent opportunity for him to endorse the hon. member's public proposals, should he have seen any merit in them. The main thrust of the Conservative position has been to attack government policies on the ground that they were deliberately aimed at restricting the growth of the economy. That, of course, is nonsense.
The NDP has strongly attacked the government's restraint policies. It has contended that there is little Canada can do to control inflation because most of it is imported from abroad. Various spokesmen have alternatively suggested the necessity of comprehensive price and income controls, despite the fact that such controls have largely been rejected by organized labour. There is considerable inconsistency between the NDP's contention that inflation is largely imported and, its advocacy of controls, since such controls would have little or no effect in curbing inflationary pressures exerted from abroad.
The government has taken the position that while it does not reject the possibility of government controls, it would be most reluctant to impose them except as a last resort because of the problems they would bring to the working of the market economy, including their impact upon the collective bargaining process. The leader of the

November 12, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion NDP has suggested that the anti-inflation fight in Canada is unnecessary because of the lower rate of price increases here compared with abroad. This, again, is a development that can only be attributed to the government's economic policies.


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


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, on November 10, as recorded at page 1048 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) the following question:
Can the minister say if he has succeeded in arranging talks with the Soviet Union concerning the depletion of our marine resources? If so, when will these meetings take place?
The minister replied that no meetings had been scheduled at least to that date, November 10. This came as quite a surprise to us because we were led to believe from a statement made by the minister, and reported in the St. John's Daily News, that efforts were being made by him to arrange some kind of meetings with the Soviet government with a view to arriving at some kind of management control and conservation of our marine resources. I am sure the House is aware that there is a very serious danger of depletion of the fishing resources in the territorial waters off the east coast of Canada. Scientists say, and the minister has gone on record as agreeing, that unless something is done in the next five to ten years to impose management control, the cod species could become a rare delicacy.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Mr. Bell:: It is now.


Walter C. Carter: The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) has raised this matter in the House on numerous occasions. We have urged the minister to get together with the member nations of ICNAF to agree upon some kind of management control. In the past ten years, despite improved methods the cod catch in Newfoundland has been reduced by 50 per cent. In the same period, from 1958 to 1968, the catch on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland increased by something like 700 per cent because of the increased capability of foreign
nationals. This, of course, is to the detriment of the fishermen of Newfoundland and all those on the east coast of Canada.
Some time ago we learned that the minister was meeting with the delegation from the Soviet Union to discuss conservation methods and management control on the west coast of Canada and we raised the question of why the conference should be confined to that area. The minister has since stated that he does intend to have similar talks with the Soviet Union concerning the east coast.
Mr. Speaker, tonight I ask what this minister and the government intend to do about the present situation on the east coast of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter C. Carter: Our marine resources are being raped; they are being depleted to a frightening degree. In Newfoundland, while our catches are decreasing the catches of the Soviet Union, East Germany and other European countries are increasing. Mr. Speaker, I realize that I only have seven minutes in which to make my point, so perhaps right away I should ask the minister this question: What is going to happen to the east coast fisheries unless something is done by the government to bring an end to this rape and plunder?
I know the minister has only three minutes in which to reply, so I ask him to make the government's plans and intentions known. I hope he will tell us if he plans to talk to the Russians, to the East Germans and the other countries of the world that are plundering our east coast fisheries. When are these meetings to take place? Will there be representation from eastern Canada? As I asked earlier: When will these representations be made? The minister will probably say there will be a Law of the Sea conference in the near future. We contend that this conference will not take place for another five years, which may be too late as far as the east coast fisheries are concerned.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) is correct in his understanding that we are endeavouring to talk with the Russians in a bilateral way-that is, Canada and the U.S.S.R. only-about common problems in the North Atlantic, problems in the fishing industry and in particular the problem of overfishing.
I spoke to the Russian delegation that visited Canada after several preliminaries on our part to discuss the situation on the west coast at which time I suggested such a meeting. I received some indication from them that they would be prepared to discuss this matter specifically with us. We will of course be following this up. As of this moment I do not have a reply from the Russians saying there will be such a meeting. However, we will continue to press for a meeting of this kind.

November 12, 1970

As the hon. member knows, there is a commission, made up of interested nations, that meets each year on the North Atlantic. The annual meeting of the North Atlantic Fisheries Commission is attended by the Russians, West Germans, Poles, Americans and ourselves. The last meeting was held in St. John's, Newfoundland, in June of this year. Each year all countries fishing in the North Atlantic meet to compare notes with regard to catch over the years and their estimates of the sustainable yield of the North Atlantic.
I have stated on several occasions that we are coming perilously close to the point of overfishing, the point at which the total catch can drop dramatically. All the nations I referred to are aware of this fact. There have been negotiations which have resulted in quotas being established, particularly at Georges Bank, off Nova Scotia. We have yet to establish an agreed sharing of a sustained yield operation in other areas, particularly off the Grand Banks. This is another objective of ours. We have this commission and are talking to the Russians in that forum. We have been carrying out, particularly on Georges Bank, an investigation of the herring resources, for example, with the United States and the U.S.S.R. We are meeting them there as well.
The hon. member is quite right that the resource is under serious pressure. The typical catch of an inshore fisherman today is half what it was ten years ago. The only bright aspect has been an increase in the price of his product, otherwise he would be in very bad shape indeed.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, Canadian National Railways, one of Canada's largest employers, is a Crown corporation; its assets are owned completely by the people of Canada. The CNR is managed by a board of directors who are quite properly independent of the government and parliament in their day-to-day operations of the company. I am sorry to say that in my opinion the officers of the CNR and the board of directors are rapidly giving the CNR the reputation, deserved, of being a cheap, chiselling company.
There has been specific legislation on the statute books of the province of Saskatchewan in the past few years. This says plainly that employers in the province are required to give employees who have worked for the company for five years, three weeks holiday with pay. The CNR is arguing in the province of Saskatchewan that its hotel employees are not entitled to this three weeks holiday with pay because it is a federal company and it does not, therefore, come under the jurisdiction of the province's labour laws.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
In a number of provinces, including, Manitoba, Ontario and Alberta, where the CN has hotels, it has argued,
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
since the federal Parliament enacted the $1.65 an hour minimum wage for employees coming under federal jurisdiction, that its hotel employees are not entitled to $1.65 an hour because the hotels are under provincial jurisdiction. 1 say that any private employer who advanced that kind of specious argument would be laughed out of any court in Canada and would receive the kind of condemnation which cheap, chiselling employers deserve. Yet this is precisely what the CNR is doing.
I raised this question on October 27 and again on November 10 after it had become clear from statements by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) that the department intended to prosecute the CNR for failure to observe the federal minimum wage laws. I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) if he would discuss with the board of Canadian National the desirability of their living up to the laws of Canada. The situation in which the Department of Justice, on behalf of the Department of Labour, prosecutes a Crown corporation is a ridiculous one. The Minister of Transport, whom I like very much, contented himself by saying that he could not comment on the case because the matter was before the courts.
Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in the minister's comments on the case publicly in parliament. What does interest me is that the Minister of Transport should discuss the matter with the officials of the CN. It is true they are independent. It is true we do not watch every single action they take. But it is also true that we are dealing with a Crown corporation whose president and directors are appointed by the government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And
can be fired by the government.


David Orlikow: And can be fired by the government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And
should be.


David Orlikow: I suggest to the Minister of Transport that he drop this false modesty and speak to the officials of the CN. I want to say to him and to the president of the CN that if this matter is still outstanding when the estimates of the company come before the Transport Committee, those officials will be spending an awful lot of time in Ottawa rather than in Montreal where they should be, conducting the affairs of the company.


Mr. Andre Ouellel (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Duquet), who is unable to be here tonight, I should like to reply to the hon. member for Calgary North-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Winnipeg North.

November 12, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


André Ouellet: -and say I appreciate the observations he has made. Obviously, I am not in a position to tell the House the whereabouts of the Minister of Transport and the various meetings he has. I should like to indicate to the hon. member, as previously stated by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) in reply to a question asked on Tuesday, November 10, I believe it was, that this question is already before the courts and it would be improper for me at this time to make any statement about it. I think all hon. members will appreciate that under the circumstances this is the appropriate manner in which to reply to the point and I shall say nothing about the possible outcome of the proceedings. Obviously, the minister and his department will be watching very carefully the outcome of the proceedings.
I would also inform the hon. member that the Jasper Lodge case, which in fact is a test case, is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court of Alberta within three weeks, I believe at the beginning of December. Thus, I think we can expect an early decision on the application of the law and I hope that this very important issue will then be finalized.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.19 p.m.