1970-11-19

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-5, an Act respecting weights and measures, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal affairs-Mr. Tolmie.
[Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions between representatives of the parties with respect to tomorrow's business. As I think most hon. members know, arrangements have now been made so that members of the House of Commons from all parties may attend the funeral of our former colleague from Cham-bly, which will take place in that community tomorrow afternoon. On that basis it would be necessary to depart from the House at 11.45 a.m. and we would not return until almost five o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
There have been a number of discussions with regard to the possible timetable for the House, but I think there is now agreement that rather than attempting to meet for any part of the day it would be more appropriate if we do not have a sitting tomorrow at all. On that basis an order in the following form would seem to be appropriate:
That when this House is adjourned this day, it shall stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday, November 23, 1970.
As I say, there have been discussions about an order in this form. If there is found to be general agreement, I wonder if unanimous consent to that order could be sought.


Mr. Baldwin:: Yes.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion put forward by the Minister of National Defence. Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43 to discuss a matter of urgent national importance-the report of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics yesterday that during the third quarter of this year, which has just ended, the country experienced the highest rate of unemployment it has had in any similar period since the latter days of the great depression of the 1930's; and particularly, the refusal of the government to introduce positive measures to stimulate the economy, and the refusal of ministers, particularly those with economic portfolios, to be present in the House when this important matter is being discussed to listen to the suggestions put forward by the elected representatives of the people for combating serious and rising unemployment.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
I therefore move, under Standing Order 43, that this matter be brought before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, where expert witnesses from the fields of industry and labour can be called to make positive suggestions to the government for dealing with this very serious situation, in the hope that these suggestions will be paid attention to and acted upon without delay.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. The motion requires the unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity, so the motion cannot be put at this time.

November 19, 1970
Canada Corporations Act



CANADA CORPORATIONS ACT


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-196, to amend the Canada Corporations Act (Not Agents of Her Majesty).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of introducing this bill the purpose of which is to place Crown corporations on an equal footing with private enterprise. More precisely, this bill has the following objects: to submit public corporations to municipal taxation in the same way as private companies; in a case of bankruptcy, to provide payments to public corporations in the same way as to others, without privilege; to deny them any privileges in the matter of patents; to permit that a writ of mandamus be sought against a Crown corporation in the same way as if it were a private company; and finally to provide that criminal legislation apply to Crown corporations in the same way as it does to private companies.
Mr. Speaker, in other words this bill intends to subject government corporations to private corporation legislation and to take away from them the rights-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he knows that under Standing Order 68 explanation of a bill must be succinct. In any case, I consider that the hon. member has concluded.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills:
November 16, 1970-Mr. Howard (Skeena)-Bill Intituled "An Act respecting the Canadian Book Publishing Development Corporation".
Mr. Speaker:: The House may remember-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could this stand, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: -that the Chair raised a matter of procedure in respect of this bill. In view of the fact that the hon. member is not here at the moment, perhaps the bill might be allowed to stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. In view of the several price increases in rather basic materials in recent days, which will tend to work their way through the economy, does the minister, on the basis of studies that I am sure he has been making, believe that these constitute part of a pattern and that we may expect further increases in the prices of these basic materials in accordance with this pattern, or does the minister feel that these are simply isolated instances?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I made it clear in the House yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that the Prices and Incomes Commission had already launched inquiries into the steel price increases and now into the fabricated aluminum price increases. We have no particular studies that would indicate that this constitutes a pattern. With the Leader of the Opposition, I hope it is not a pattern and, if it were, I would hope that the Prices and Incomes Commission and other policies of the government would make sure that it was not a pattern.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to understand from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that he has no knowledge or that his department has no knowledge whether there are likely to be further increases announced in the prices of other, similar products? Am I to understand that the minister has not even conducted such a study?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure just what other products the Leader of the Opposition is speaking about. Does he mean other steel price increases, or does he mean increases in the prices of things made of steel? If he were more specific in his question I could be more specific in my answer.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, by similar products I mean similar products of basic importance in the economy. In view of the increases that have taken place, would the minister not take the trouble at least to make some inquiries to find out whether they constitute a pattern and whether we may anticipate more of such increases, so that we can govern ourselves accordingly in our judgments?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the Prices and Incomes Commission and other departments of government are observing these price movements, some up and some down, all the time. We have no specific study under way to determine whether this is a pattern or not or whether those particular price increases constitute a pattern. Copper prices have gone down in some instances, for example. The cost of living index on a year-to-year basis is at the lowest level it has been for a number of years.
November 19, 1970


Gerald William Baldwin: Only because of lower food prices.


Stanley Ronald Basford: So we have that pattern being
established-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister but it seems to me we are engaging in the field of debate.



REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO STEEL PRICE INCREASES

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Since not one inquiry by the Prices and Incomes Commission has led to a finding that price increases in the steel industry, of which there have been many, have not been more than they ought to be, would the government give serious consideration to the repeated suggestion of the steel workers' union that a public inquiry be organized to which all sides involved in the price increase dispute could make their submissions?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the hypothesis of the question is not entirely correct. The last inquiry by the commission into steel price increases was conducted before the pricing criteria the industry is expected to operate under had been laid down. Whether any particular inquiry is held in public or not is a matter for the commission itself. It has the power under the Inquiries Act to hold public inquiries if the circumstances warrant it. I trust that the United Steel Workers Union will be as helpful and co-operative as it can possibly be in the enforcement of the policies of the commission and the enforcement of the pricing criteria that the steel companies are expected to live up to.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: May I direct a further supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the evidence which has already appeared, particularly in the white goods industry, that any increase in steel prices is going to be reflected in higher prices of other commodities, would the minister ask the steel industry to withdraw its price increases until the Prices and Incomes Commission can report?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I believe that question was answered yesterday by the Prime Minister.
# * *



SKAGIT RIVER-POSSIBLE FLOODING OF VALLEY-APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION OF DAM

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the February 13, 1970, statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that before any dam construction can begin which would result in the flooding of the Skagit Valley approval must first be granted by the Department of Energy, Mines and
Inquiries of the Ministry
Resources, may I ask whether any such application from Seattle Power and Light has been received by the government?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this is the sort of question that should be directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources when he is in his seat.


Gerald William Baldwin: Have there been any dam talks?


Mark Willson Rose: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister if the government has received any information from the legal officers of the Crown supporting the contention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that first, such an application must be submitted to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would like to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker, since it involves a legal opinion.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The people of British Columbia would like the minister to assure the House that the government will take whatever steps are necessary to prevent the flooding of the Skagit River valley.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the whole situation has been under most urgent consideration by the government.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: A supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This is a very vital problem in British Columbia. Is the government prepared to renegotiate with Washington the provisions in the 1942 agreement of the International Joint Commission relating to the Skagit River? If not, and if all other methods fail, will the government be prepared to introduce legislation to stop this flooding?


Mitchell William Sharp: 

BILINGUALISM


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: I have a question for the Secretary of State. Is the recent directive of the Quebec government that communications with Ottawa institutions and municipal governments be unilingual only in accord with the federal government's program to assist bilingualism in all provinces?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say there is agreement or disagreement, since I am not fully informed of the decision the Quebec government has taken. I will just say that, as far as the

November 19, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
policy of the federal government on bilingualism is concerned, I don't see how that decision can help its implementation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: My
question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is in connection with a matter that is close to the hearts of all Canadians, namely, the terrible catastrophe in Pakistan. The extent of the catastrophe in this Commonwealth country seems to be mounting from day to day. By today's estimates there is the possibility that close to half a million people have died and 235,000 are homeless. Will the minister say whether the government is considering a substantial contribution? Fifty thousand dollars is merely a drop in the bucket compared with what is needed. Indeed much more assistance has been given to countries outside the Commonwealth. Is provision being made for a lead to be given by the government to enable private citizens to engage in a crusade for funds with credit being given to them in connection with their income tax returns?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has asked two questions. The first relates to the contribution that the government of Canada might make to the relief of the victims of these great tragedies in East Pakistan. The other relates to the larger question of the organization of a fund to which the public might contribute. We have now received a request from the government of Pakistan for substantial quantities of relief supplies. It has only just arrived. This matter is under consideration at the moment, and it may be that a decision will be reached some time today. I am quite confident it will involve a very substantial sum.
With regard to the second question, I hope that I or officials of my department will shortly have discussions with those who are considering the organization of a fund to which the public might contribute. I hope that some means can be found to facilitate it because I share with the right hon. gentleman the view that the people of Canada are deeply touched by this great tragedy whose dimensions seem to grow from hour to hour.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the answer I expected from the minister. The catastrophe seems to be as great as was the flood during the days of Noah. I should like to ask whether anything is being done to mobilize helicopters from across Canada to enable them to join the fleet which the United States is preparing, to the end that Canada shall make a substantial contribution to transportation in this connection, bearing in mind that helicopters

are the only means of transporting supplies to certain of the areas affected?


Mitchell William Sharp: The gift which I hope the Canadian government will approve could be available for this purpose. The immediate request we have received, however, is for blankets, medicines and so on, and we feel we should give priority to the request of the Pakistani government itself.


John George Diefenbaker: On the basis of such a request would the minister tell us what will be the value of the contribution which Pakistan has suggested that Canada should make? I am not trying to pin it down within $10,000, but approximately what would be the value of the assistance requested?


Mitchell William Sharp: The request is for supplies of various kinds. It is my hope that the donation will be in the millions of dollars.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: In view of the fact
that students at the University of Ottawa have been gathering materials of the kind the minister has been describing, will the government give favourable consideration to providing some form of transport so that goods collected by citizens groups in Canada can reach East Pakistan in the quickest possible time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes. This is a problem we have in connection with our own supplies and it will be looked at in the light of any voluntary contributions which are made.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the urgent appeal addressed to the government by the President of the Royal Canadian Legion on behalf of the veterans organizations of Canada for interim increases in disability pensions and war veterans allowances, will the government consider responding to this appeal at an early date?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times we are giving this matter our most sympathetic consideration and I hope that in the very near future I will be in a position to respond more specifically.


John George Diefenbaker: That has been the answer for a year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the Minister of Veterans Affairs take up with the Government House Leader the possibility of arranging with the various groups in the House for action to be taken with a minimum of debate in order that there might be no delay in dealing with this matter?
November 19, 1970


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Considering that Canada has been a contributor to UNRWA for a long time, can the minister advise whether his department has obtained a report on existing conditions in the refugee camps in Jordan? If so, can he indicate whether any new initiatives are in progress or in prospect to minimize the hardships in these camps and, hopefully, to make some assault on the solution of this too long existing refugee problem?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the hon. member knows, Canada has been one of the largest contributors, proportionately, to the funds available to UNRWA. The latest reports we have received are to the effect that the organization is in very serious financial circumstances. We have not yet decided whether it would be appropriate for Canada to make another contribution, since our contribution is already, proportionately, very substantial, but we are very much aware of the problem and we are considering it at the moment.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: My question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker. Further to questions posed to the minister yesterday with reference to the inclusion of optometrists in medicare on a cost-sharing basis, is the minister aware that in the September 21 issue of Key Man Bulletin, a publication of the Canadian Association of Optometrists, it is reported that the hon. member for Fraser Valley East was advised on September 14 by the minister's executive assistant that the subject of federal cost-sharing of optometric services was not only under consideration but that, in fact, it was under way. Would the minister care to elaborate on this statement by his assistant?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking the minister whether he is aware of a reply given by his Parliamentary Secretary. I would not think that a question in those terms is in order.


Robert Muir: Then may I rephrase it, Mr. Speaker. May 1 ask the minister whether the statement made by his executive assistant is correct, and is he now ready to include optometric services, on a cost-sharing basis, in medicare?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think that the second part of the question might be in order. The hon. member knows he cannot ask whether a statement is correct. If the minister wishes to reply directly to the second part of the question, that would be in order procedurally.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have endeavoured to answer this question several times before, namely, that this matter will have to be discussed with the provinces. There are no plans to extend medical coverage, until all provinces are in and Quebec, the last province to come into the plan, only did so recently. The whole question of to what degree coverage will be extended and to which professions it will be extended will be discussed with the provinces over the course of the next several months.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Has he noticed that some companies, like Husky Oil, have just increased the price of their crude and refined oil by about 25.4 per cent, and does he contemplate asking the Prices and Incomes Commission to determine whether this increase is justified since oil products are in abundance in Canada?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have only noted the press reports, which I take it are what the hon. member refers to. They have been brought to the attention of the Prices and Incomes Commission, but I have had no response from them at this moment.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the minister.
In the light of the facts he has just agreed to, does he intend to order an inquiry or ask some of his officials to get in touch with the Prices and Incomes Commission on this subject?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the oil companies, like other companies, are expected to adhere to the pricing criteria that have been agreed to and which are being enforced by the Prices and Incomes Commission. If the oil companies are not abiding by those criteria, of course the commission will be inquiring into the matter.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Considering the answer the minister has just given, would he check with the officials of the Prices and Incomes Commission in order to find out if these companies were consulted by the Commission before the increase was put into effect?

November 19, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Ian  Walson@Laprairie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Secretary of State.
Could he suggest to the CBC that photos of FLQ members now wanted by the police be flashed on the screen several times a day?

Mr. Speaker, if I may have your indulgence, I should like to ask a second question that is unrelated to the one asked of the Secretary of State.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Speaker is very indulgent but perhaps my indulgence can be shown by seeing the hon. member a second time later in the question period.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I shall gladly suggest this to the CBC.
Since I already have the floor, I should like to answer briefly a question directed to me by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. minister will appreciate that I have just reminded the hon. member that he should not in the same instance, direct two questions relating to different issues. In my opinion, the same rule applies to the hon. minister and as much as possible I intend to recognize the hon. minister presently.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON RESOURCES POLICY

Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister which he may wish to deal with as Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the government intend to make a statement or to publish a white paper on its energy resources policy before discussing the matter with United States authorities?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that it would be very useful to have as wide an exchange of views as possible on this subject, including discussions with the United States secretaries, before the government does announce its policy.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Could I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether, in view of the varying statements being made by different ministers on this subject, it would not be possible to have at least a paper correlating to some extent the various statements of ministers?
there is some difference of view at the moment, and perhaps this will help to stimulate discussion. The government is very concerned that it should arrive at a decision that is in the interests of all the people and that all points of view should be considered. I think that some difference in view among ministers before the government has made up its mind is really quite useful.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A further supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Simcoe North.



FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO PERSONS IN NURSING HOMES

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On January 28 and March 24, 1970 I asked the minister whether he had met with his provincial counterparts to discuss extending financial assistance to persons discharged from hospitals to nursing homes. Can the minister tell the House whether he did discuss this matter with his provincial counterparts, as he promised, at the last federal-provincial ministers conference or on another occasion? If so, will the government be announcing new policy regarding this question, and when?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be aware that since he asked the question there has not been a formal federal-provincial conference of ministers. One is anticipated within the near future-I am talking in terms of the next couple of months-and this question will undoubtedly be raised at that time.


Philip Bernard Rynard: May I ask the minister whether the government is going to present a positive and specific response to the Canadian Hospitals Association when they raise this matter with the government shortly?


John Carr Munro: As the hon. member may be aware, we are already sharing with the provinces the cost of nursing homes under the Canada Assistance Plan. Extending assistance in this area under hospitalization right across the board would, I think, be a very serious matter in terms of discussion with the provinces who are very concerned with rising health costs. Just how far they would be prepared to go along with us-and we would need their agreement to extend coverage in this area-is very questionable. As I say, this is a prime area of discussion; it has been raised on several occasions over the last year or two, and I expect will be again.



ACTION RESPECTING INDUSTRIES, INCLUDING GRAIN, ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY FLOATING EXCHANGE RATE

Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it is probably a measure of the complexity and difficulty of the problem that


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and

November 19, 1970

Commerce. It arises out of the government's undertaking to consider the position of industries adversely affected by the change to a floating exchange rate last summer. I understand that the minister received representations from such industries. Could the minister indicate whether the government has taken action in response to such representations? If so, would the minister undertake to make a statement on motions at an early date outlining what action was taken?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, our position was to receive representations from each of these companies that could claim it had been hurt by revaluation and try to render assistance on a very practical basis. I do not know whether I could provide an analysis of the information that was given, because it has taken the form of services and advice of all kinds. I presume that there would be too many categories to try to report on that particular matter.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether any consideration was given to the adverse effects of the revalution on the grains industry which is already suffering from a combination of bad situations and conditions? Has any action been taken by the government in that regard?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I seem to recall reading a copy of a letter sent to the hon. member on that subject in which it was explained to him by the acting minister or the minister in charge of the Wheat Board that the effects of revaluation had been compensated by the increases in prices.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether it would be correct to infer from his difficulty in making the statement requested by the hon. member that a substantial number of industries have found themselves in difficulties as a result of the change in the value of the Canadian dollar?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is very well known, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Regina East on a supplementary question. However, I must bring to the attention of hon. members that there are only a very few minutes left, and I suggest we should have no more supplementary questions.


John Stratford Burton: I should like to make a correction first, if I may. The letter I received was from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor for the purpose of asking a supplementary question.


John Stratford Burton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was going to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether he would give special consideration to the fact that in spite of the limited recovery in grain prices these prices are still depressed and that there was a particularly bad effect upon the grains industry, which should be taken into account by the government.
Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE



INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS FROM RETROACTIVE PAY

Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambfon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Post Office. In view of complaints from postal workers that sums approaching $165 in income tax have been deducted from retroactive pay amounting to $574 awarded to postal workers, will the minister undertake to determine if the amounts deducted at source are excessive?



POLLUTION


Mr. Mac T. McCulcheon (Lambion-Kenl):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Was the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry revealing government policy when he indicated yesterday that Canada will try to use United States demands for Canadian resources to persuade Washington to make a greater effort in cleaning up pollution along the border, specifically in the Great Lakes area, and, if so, will an official statement be made soon in Parliament?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that we are using every possible means in trying to persuade the United States to clean up pollution.
[Lateril



BORDER WATERS-MEASURES TO BE TAKEN BY UNITED STATES TO CLEAN UP CONTAMINATION

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the strong statements made yesterday by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry on pollution control, has the minister any report to make to the House on the measures that will be taken by Washington to help clean up the pollution of Lake Erie resulting from the use of detergents, or the pollution of the Saint John River as a result of the use of starch and fibres or, for that matter, the pollution of any other body of water on the border between Canada and the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of making such a statement at the present time. As the hon. member knows, it was mainly as the result of the initiative taken by Canada and the International Joint Commission that we are now seriously engaged in dealing with these problems on both sides of the border. We are trying to attain co-ordination of effort, and to get the United States to play its full part in the measures we have been taking.

November 19, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieile):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence.
The Quebec Minister of Financial Institutions stated on November 17, in a speech to Loyola College students, that the government of Quebec would pay for the services of the armed forces only for the day preceding the implementation of the War Measures Act. May I ask the minister whether this statement is in accordance with the objectives of the current negotiations between the two governments?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have seen this report. I suggest that the hon. member is asking for an opinion of a legal nature, which is out of order.
May I say to the hon. member that the discussions on the matter have not yet been completed, and that we hope to get a favourable answer in the near future.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In an area in northeastern Alberta of approximately 1,000 square miles adverse weather conditions have prevented farmers from picking up hay and harvesting grain. I wonder whether the minister would be willing to give consideration to the establishment of low-interest loans to these farmers to enable them to buy, first of all, feed for their animals and, second, food for their families?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows we have cases similar to this in many localities in Canada almost every year. For a number of years the response of the federal government has been consistent, that after we introduced and paid for a very large portion of the crop insurance program requests for this kind of assistance should be directed to the provinces.


Gerald William Baldwin: Let them eat white papers.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.

Could he use his influence with the CBC so that the football semi-finals being played over the coming weekend might be televised over the French network in the province of Quebec? They are now being broadcast only in English.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the growing opposition to certain aspects of Bill C-190, would he and his colleagues agree to have the Whips taken off at the committee stage of the bill so there will in fact be no inhibitions on the part of all hon. members on both sides of the House in joining to defeat this most iniquitous legislation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is attempting to resume a debate initiated yesterday during the question period.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has the government under consideration any amendment to the legislation which allows the establishment of special areas with a view to making federal financial assistance available in fast growth areas, with particular reference to what has been referred to as community infrastructure? I ask this question particularly in view of representations which have been made by the government of British Columbia.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be
necessary to amend the act, since it allows us to designate special areas by order in council, when there are good reasons to do so and it is agreeable to the various levels of government.
# * *



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has he had an opportunity of ascertaining from the White Motor Company whether it in fact intends to introduce price increases? Has the minister in his discussions with offi-
November 19, 1970

cials of this company been able to convince them that it they had not been so negligent in sending out parts, sometimes taking more than three weeks-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is more of a submission to the government and I would not think it is acceptable in that form.


Stanley James Korchinski: Could I ask if the minister has been able to ascertain whether this company will in fact introduce its price increases before the price of steel is increased?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to ascertain that.
* * +



BROADCASTING


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Is the minister in a position to inform the House what action will be taken by the CRTC to provide the residents of northern Nova Scotia with television coverage that contains Nova Scotia news content, which is presently not available, or will he obtain this information and report to the House?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the question straight off. I do not know whether the CRTC has taken decisions or made plans in that regard, but I would be happy to inquire and transmit the information to the hon. member.
[Later:l [English]



NORTHERN NOVA SCOTIA-HEARING OF CABLEVISION APPLICATIONS

Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: My question is in line with the question asked by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North. When the secretary of State is checking with the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, will he ensure that cablevision applications for the Pictou County area, which is northern Nova Scotia, will be heard at the Maritime hearings of the commission which are slated for early in the new year.


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
* sfc sj:



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr.   Gaelan-J. Serre@Nickel Belt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister of the Crown responsible for Information Canada.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Could he tell the House whether he intends to establish other Information Canada centres elsewhere in the country? If so, could he tell us which areas or cities will have priority?


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, this information could be given to the House in a statement on motions. If there is some urgency in that respect, the hon. member could notify the Chair so that the matter could be discussed at the time of adjournment.


Mr. Serre:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member could then also discuss the supplementary question at that time.


Gaetan-Joseph Serré: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce regarding the announcement this week that the Eaton automotive plant in London, Ontario, will be closed early next year throwing about 300 men out of work. I ask this question because the London plant is located on the edge of the constituency of Huron and many people from Huron are employed there. Will the minister look into this and see whether anything can be done?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have already done that. Indeed, a decision has been taken by the United States parent company to transfer the heavy duty truck transmission operation to a U.S. subsidiary. This is bound to happen in a qualified free trade agreement, and when it is in our favour complaints are made by employees in the United States to their government. We expect transitional assistance benefits to be requested in the near future. I might complete my reply by saying that plants of the same company in Toronto, Scarborough, Wallaceburg, Woodstock, St. Catharines, Hamilton and Chatham are not affected by this decision.



STUDY OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare of which I believe he has notice. It has to do with solid waste disposal in Canada. In view of the fact that the public health engineering advisory committee made a strong recommendation to the Department of National Health and Welfare that a preliminary study of this serious problem be undertaken, can the minister advise whether such a study has been undertaken and, if

November 19, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
so, would he be prepared to make a statement on motions as to the results of the study?


John Carr Munro: I do not think a statement is necessary, and I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of the question. The advisory committee on public health did set up a subcommittee under Dr. Jones of the University of Toronto. He went into the extent of the problem and the needed areas for further research. That brief is going to be approved by the health committee and then taken up with the science secretariat. It is still very much in the study stage within the department and within the government.



INDUSTRY


David Orlikow: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Would the minister use his influence with General Motors and join with Premier Bourassa and the United Auto Workers Union in trying to persuade that company to agree to make French the language of work at its Ste. Therese plant so the strike may be settled as quickly as possible?
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): I would be very pleased to do so, Mr. Speaker, now that I have been requested to do so.



PUBLIC WORKS


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: My question is for the
Minister of Public Works. Is it his intention to include in the next set of supplementary estimates amounts to provide for capital expenditures in the Atlantic provinces to alleviate unemployment during the upcoming winter months in view of the fact that this area of Canada seems to have been carefully omitted from the present estimates?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: It
would be our hope and intention to include votes in the estimates for the Maritime provinces. Over a five-year period the Maritimes have done better than any other part of Canada.


An hon. Member:: That is not very good.


Stanley Howard Knowles: God help the rest of Canada.


Arthur Laing: It would be our intention, however, to build installations there that are conducive to continuing employment rather than merely to provide employment in the building thereof.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is directed to the minister in charge of housing and urban affairs. In view of the recent agreement between the city of Toronto and CMHC making loans available to home owners for rehabilitation purposes at low interest rates in areas not designated as urban renewal areas, would the minister consider making money available to urban renewal areas in a similar way so we could avoid the bulldozer approach to those areas?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: There is a great deal of merit in the suggestion of the hon. member, and indeed it is the thrust of the experiment we are negotiating with the city of Toronto, and I hope to be able to extend that general idea into next year's operations with some funds behind it.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask my usual Thursday question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council regarding business of the House for next week from Monday to Friday.


Mr. Jerome:: Today, of course, will see the conclusion of the debate on the opposition motion. Pursuant to the order made today the House will not sit tomorrow. On Monday it is the intention of the government to complete the temporary emergency measures bill, following which we will proceed with government order 36, the surtax on shirts. We will then proceed to the young offenders bill, Bill C-192, followed by the CNR finance bill and the omnibus bill, C-191, to renew several loans programs, followed by the statutory instruments bill, the Buffalo and Fort Erie Bridge bill, and the anti-dumping legislation.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, November 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Stanfield:
That this House condemns the government lor increasing the economic inequalities between different regions of Canada by its opposition to full employment policy and its refusal to use short term and long term programs in a timely and effective manner to prevent the resulting recession-level poverty and social injustice now widespread in Canada.

November 19, 1970
[Stage Direction]
and the amendment thereto of Mr. Douglas, (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) (P. 1298).
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, without question we are faced with the most difficult winter that we have had in years, both from the point of view of employment and the economy. The realization just now seems to have hit the government, probably too late. Despite the growing promises in the Speech from the Throne and in the hundreds of speeches that cabinet ministers have made all over the country, Parliament and the government are in neutral gear. We have done nothing but talk about the situation in Quebec, urged on by rumours originating from government sources.
Even if we had set all that aside, there is practically nothing on the Order Paper for us to consider that would do anything to meet the emergency situation. Just now we had an outline of the business to be dealt with within the next week, and it is a dismal effort as far as any measures to improve the economy or to relieve the employment situation are concerned. Just look at the 20 pieces of legislation on the order paper right now. There is hardly one job creator in the whole lot. There are bills concerning the labelling of products, statistics publication, cutting the powers of the Auditor General, amendments to the Customs Tariff, and so forth. Then, we should look at this week's accomplishments so far as this Parliament is concerned. Monday and Tuesday we spent on the public order temporary measures bill. Yesterday and today, we have the special debate to urge some action to relieve the unemployment situation. Tomorrow, we will not be sitting. That does not give any feeling of confidence to those who are watching this government and Parliament in our ability to meet an emergency situation.
In my opinion the time has come for us in the House to face up to the ridiculous and tragic situation to which we and our country have been brought. A couple of dozen revolutionaries in Montreal have made fools of the Canadian government and the Canadian people. They have panicked the government into declaring a state of war or insurrection. They have frightened the life out of everyone in Quebec. They have given the rest of Canada a national emotional binge. They have eluded the police for six weeks, although apparently they are still around the city of Montreal. They have caused Canada to lose its high standing internationally, and Quebec to lose millions of dollars economically. The government of Canada has played into their hands right down the line, and we look more foolish as the days go by.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
We have spent six weeks of Parliament's time in discussing the War Measures Act and the temporary public order bill while the nation's economy is crashing down around us, the unemployed are walking the streets in increasing thousands, and pollution is continuing to choke us and ruin our heritage. Sitting in this House during the six weeks since the session began has been among my most saddening and frustrating experiences here.
Employment Programs
As we watch unemployment and misery in Canada mount, as the number of letters sent to members looking for help and jobs increases, and as the economy deteriorates the government has sat apparently helpless, and without policy or action. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has concerned himself almost entirely with the political situation in Quebec. The rest of Canada must wait.
The Prime Minister has indicated no concern, in any remarks he has made in this House or outside it, about the human misery, or unemployment. They are only figures on a chart. I do not know when the people of the country are going to wake up to the fact that they are being distracted from their misery by a series of confrontations in the province of Quebec. Probably that will come when the Prime Minister's opponents in Quebec become tired of being the whipping boys every time he wants to bolster his image in the rest of Canada.
Within the past few days, the government has indicated that it will allot extra money for the creation of employment this winter. But it is well known that suddenly making money available will not create jobs. You cannot just go out and build a new factory, or create a demand for goods and services in a few weeks. It takes not weeks but months, and in some cases years. The demand for goods and services, for increased production and the reversing of lay-offs in industry, cannot be met unless money is available to the public to buy goods. The tight money policy of the past few months has left less money in people's pockets with which to buy goods and services. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, you do not increase your purchasing power from unemployment insurance or welfare cheques.
So far as inflation is concerned the government itself may be a strong contributing factor. Just today the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee was presented with supplementary estimates for the current year showing an increase of $457 million, almost an extra half billion dollars. Our total federal spending is now $13,355,000,000, but so far as we could learn this morning only $60 million is for job creation this winter, that is $60 million of that $457 million. The $17 million was for student employment last summer. This large increase in government spending can do nothing but increase the inflationary trend unless it is used substantially for job creation, and that certainly does not appear to be the case from the figures presented to that committee. The government is now forecasting a budgetary deficit of some $400 million this fiscal year instead of a surplus of $200 million. It is finally recognizing, to some degree at least, the desperate situation we face this winter.
The extra money being spent would be justified if it were shown that it was being used to create jobs, but this does not appear to be the case. So, the increase in expenditure of half a billion dollars is not to fight unemployment, as is often recommended, but is merely an increase in general spending by the government, an increase which the public will have to meet by way of taxes, which will reduce by that amount the money they have available for purchases.

November 19, 1970
Employment Programs
I would like to look for a few minutes at unemployment prospects for this winter. Unemployment affects the different regions of Canada differently yet, as obvious as that might be, government policy is not tempered by this reality. Apparently the government is obsessed with controlling inflation. However, that applies to everybody else except the government. So far as its expenditures are concerned inflation continues to rise.
British Columbia at present has a rate of unemployment which is higher than the national average. The rate there is predicted to peak this winter with over 13 per cent of its work force unemployed. The highly seasonal nature of employment in the forestry sector accounts for some of this unemployment, and recently the Economic Council has cited the heavy incidence of industrial strikes as another reason for the unemployment picture. Yet this province rightly boasts of one of the best educated work forces in the country, and the highest per capita income in Canada.
The Prairie region traditionally has the lowest level of unemployment of any area in the country. It is worth noting then, Mr. Speaker, that the forecast actual rate of unemployment, set at 8 per cent for this region this winter, is almost double what the area normally experiences. In addition, there is reason to believe that there is considerable hidden unemployment in the Prairies, since the labour force figures omit farmers idled by a slowdown in farm production. Furthermore, it is obvious that the "government's left hand doesn't know what the right's doing"; regional policy has been particularly lamentable for this region.
The government of Manitoba has estimated that that Province has lost more jobs because of the government's closing of certain military bases and the moving of Air Canada's repair facilities to Montreal, than the province has gained through the government's regional incentive programs. The government is trying to pump funds into certain areas to repair the damage it has done itself. As I said previously, Mr. Speaker, pumping money into an area cannot create jobs immediately, or even in the near future. It seems that the quickest way of producing work for people has always been, and will continue to be, through the municipalities and local governments. All of these governments have on their shelves many projects which could usefully be done during the winter months.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
In previous years of high unemployment, special projects or winter works have been undertaken with federal and local co-operation. This means that even if a man does not have a permanent job he will be able to go out and do something, giving himself the satisfaction of earning money to keep himself and his family. This could very easily be done through a winter works program but the government has rejected it time and again-perhaps because it was originally a policy of the former Progressive Conservative government. If that is the reason it is a most lamentable situation, because this is where some help could reach those badly in need this winter.
To come now to Ontario, which is the traditional beneficiary of government money and fiscal policies, this centre, under the government's national policy, will not be helped this winter. Peak unemployment is headed for a ten-year high of 7 per cent in Ontario. In some areas within the province local unemployment will be twice the provincial average.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member but I understand that his time expired two minutes ago.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would respectfully recommend to the federal government that when the federal and provincial finance ministers meet in Ottawa on December 7 and 8 to compare notes on the economy and to exchange information on the economic prospects for the next year, the federal government initiate discussions with the provinces immediately on the unemployment situation. They should also discuss joint initiatives that the two levels of governments could take to meet the crisis situation of the jobless in Canada this winter. I understand that most provinces are willing, and indeed quite anxious, to take part in such discussions. I feel it is incumbent upon this government to initiate the studies with the provincial finance ministers when they meet here on December 7 and 8.
This winter Canadians appear to be facing the most severe unemployment crisis since the great depression of the 1930's. According to economists and people eminently qualified to speak on the subject, it is expected that one out of every ten Canadians in the country's labour force will be out of a job by March of next year. This is a very very serious prospect. Should this happen, 750,000 to 800,000 men and women and their families will be facing a bitter struggle for economic survival in the months ahead.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Walter C. Carter: It is quite apparent, Mr. Speaker, that, as
pointed out by the previous speaker, this government has been so preoccupied with Quebec terrorism and the FLQ that it has all but lost sight of the bitter economic crisis that Canada faces this winter. While it is not my intention to criticize the government's action in Quebec in recent weeks and months, I suggest to them and to the House that there are problems facing Canadians far more serious than the FLQ in Quebec. These are the problems connected with being able to keep body and soul together during the coming winter and are a result of this government's illogical and completely insane policies to fight inflation which have had a ruinous effect on the economy of this country to the grief and sorrow of the average man, the unemployed, the untrained, the underemployed and the little people of Canada generally.
Instead of dealing with unemployment with the same vigour and enthusiasm, and the same degree of urgency

November 19, 1970

that has been applied to imposing law and order in Quebec, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his colleagues have been groping around like blind men, groping around in a daze as though they do not really believe that things are going to be very bad in Canada during the coming winter. They have used the old ostrich psychology of sticking their heads in the sand and pretending all is well.
I feel that this House and Canadians generally, Mr. Speaker, should demand, must demand, that this government treat the coming winter unemployment as an emergency, and must produce emergency measures to deal with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter C. Carter: Whether the government wishes to
acknowledge this fact or not, it does have a moral obligation to deal with this problem which has been created to a large extent by its own illogical and irrational inflationary policies of the past year and a half.
The unemployment situation in Canada is a continuing embarrassment to the government's fight against inflation. The House knows that the embarrassment is much more acute when the unemployment figures are released by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The result is that the government has developed a method of presenting unemployment figures which makes them appear better than they are. I might say that it is quite obvious to most members, and I am quite sure to the Canadian public, that the government has actually succeeded in fooling itself by its own figures. However, I am sure they are not fooling the average man and certainly they are not fooling the large number of Canadians who now find themselves unemployed or are facing the prospect of unemployment during the coming winter months.
Economists tell us that by February, 1971, an estimated three-quarters of a million Canadians will be out of work. Donald MacDonald, President of the Canadian Labour Congress, has predicted that by February our unemployment figures will reach 9 per cent. Other observers have predicted that the rate could go as high as 14 per cent for the same period.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Walter C. Carter: It appears that this government has an obsession with inflation, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the Prime Minister have embarked upon a program of economic policies that guarantee no assurance of success and no assurance that they can beat inflation without having a ruinous effect on the economy.
The unfortunate aspect of this government's folly is that the people who contribute less to inflation, the untrained, the unemployed, the people who are barely scraping a living, the widows and the orphans and the people on the welfare rolls, are the real victims of this government's anti-inflationary policy.
Employment Programs
What we need in Canada, Mr. Speaker, is an economic policy which is devoted to growth and full employment for all Canadians. It is unfortunate that our country, which boasts of having the second or third highest per capita income in the world, should have such a high degree of poverty. The elimination of the disparity between our "haves" and "have-nots" presents a monumental challenge to our leaders, but unfortunately the present government has failed in its mandate and has been unable or unwilling to meet this challenge.
The fourth report recently published by the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council has revealed some startling statistics with regard to the economic conditions of the Atlantic region. For example, it is said, I believe, that in 1969 one person in four in Atlantic Canada was either unemployed or employed on some job that paid very low wages which were barely sufficient to keep body and soul together. We also find that conditions were such in Atlantic Canada between 1956 and 1969 that there was a mass exodus of people from that area. Indeed 209,000 people-I repeat, 209,000 people-were forced because of economic conditions to move from the Atlantic area between 1956 and 1969. This, I believe, underlines the serious weakness of the economy of that region. Newfoundland lost 54,000 people in the same period. Other Atlantic provinces lost large numbers of people they could not afford to lose.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
It appears, Mr. Speaker, that the difficulties were brought about because this government refused to acknowledge that Canada is made up of four or five different areas or regions. Instead, it has adopted the same policies right across the country in fighting inflation and unemployment. Quite obviously, the government ought to adopt regional policies for dealing with the difficulties in each of the regions. It is sheer madness to expect the Prairies and the Atlantic provinces to pay the price for the government's fight against inflation when those regions are already suffering their worst unemployment in years. The result of the government's policies in fighting inflation is economic chaos, and complete and utter frustration in the provinces that are affected most. I think I am not exaggerating when I say that the Atlantic region has probably been affected more by the government's anti-inflation policies than any part of Canada, with the exception of Quebec perhaps.
I should like to make a few proposals which the government may wish to consider and implement in the months ahead. They may help to alleviate the very serious difficulties brought about by unemployment. I strongly recommend that the benefits payable to all eligible unemployed persons be increased, to alleviate the distress that has been caused to many by the loss of their jobs. Families without any weekly income need money now, and not in two months time or whenever the white paper of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) will be implemented. They need money now, because their chances of gaining employment are growing slimmer every week.

November 19, 1970
Employment Programs
I also recommend that the government should increase the funds available under the Canada Assistance Plan. Reports from many cities indicate that municipal funds in this field are all but exhausted. This indicates clearly that there is a great need for more money, which ought to be distributed to the provinces under the Canada Assistance Plan.
I urge the government to remove financial constraints from the construction industry. Canadians need homes; yet the number of workers in the building industry has declined this year to a greater extent than is customary. The decline this year has been greater than in any year In the past decade.
I call on the government to remove the doubt existing in the minds of many Canadians, many businessmen both large and small, relating to the matter of tax reform in order that industry may have the necessary information with which to finance new development and order new construction. We have seen the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) dancing and working around the problem; I am afraid that has been of little consolation to the average Canadian or to the average Canadian businessman, big or small. There is a certain amount of doubt as to how tax reform will affect business.
I also ask the government to cease its attacks on organized labour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter C. Carter: Let it stop using labour as the sacrificial lamb of inflation, because this is what it is doing. We need the co-operation of labour, and I am sure this co-operation could be achieved if a new climate were created by this government. Instead of trying to pin the responsibility for what is happening on labour, let us try to get together with labour and work out the means whereby we can help each other to create a new climate.
I strongly urge the government to support the construction of urban transit projects. Most cities have in existence detailed urban transit plans; all they are requesting is the money to put those plans into effect. I ask the government to inaugurate immediately, in consultation with the provinces and municipalities, plans under which we can start work on sewage treatment plants and other anti-pollution measures.
Programs such as I have enumerated are intended to create new jobs and new job opportunities. Such programs, working through the public and private sector, would stimulate the economy and hence, of course, increase the demand for labour. Regionalized winter works and house construction would also provide additional stimulus to the regions. Accelerated transfers to provincial governments would enable those governments to meet their commitments. I also ask the government to step up grants under the regional industrial incentives program.
I heard an hon. member yesterday refer to the industrial incentives program, and he spoke as though this
program were the answer to all our problems. I ask him to reconcile his position, that these programs are the answer to all our difficulties, which the high rate of unemployment from which we suffer at present.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member. His time has expired.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, throughout Canada's history, the various governments which have run this country have seeked to abolish what we call regional disparities, or at least to lessen them considerably.
When Canada came into being, it was felt that by creating a national common market, by building a railway to link east and west, not only would the economic activity be stimulated, but the wealth would be distributed more equitably between various areas. After many years, it was quickly realized that it was not sufficient to link east and west with a railway, and that other means had to be found.
After the Rowell-Sirois Commission, we came to adopt the equalization formula. It was then believed that by trying to re-establish a better balance between the provinces from the standpoint of income, it would be possible to abolish those disparities or at least to lessen them to a considerable extent.
Well, in spite of all those commendable efforts, it was quickly realized that this second method was still insufficient. Then came the series of special programs designed to assist the areas of the country which were developing less rapidly than the others.
As early as the thirties, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, better known under the name of PFRA, was enacted. Somewhat similar legislation was in effect in the Maritimes. Then, what has been called ARDA was enacted in order to promote rural development. The ambit of ARDA was later enlarged in order to implement more general programs under FRED. Then we attempted, with industrial incentives, to encourage the establishment of industries in areas with a slower rate of growth.
Last year, on July 1st I think, the House passed a new piece of legislation on industrial incentives which provided for the setting up of special areas and gave us the authority to help those individuals faced with readjustment problems because we realized that up to that point, in spite of our efforts, disparities remained.
Had these programs not been applied, would these disparities be the same? We can safely say that they would probably be greater than they are now. However, these are hypothetical inferences which make it rather difficult to reach concrete conclusions.
When we initiated these new programs, we did not kid ourselves. We never though that overnight we would succeed in solving the problem of regional disparities in Canada. On the contrary we knew we would have to spend quite some time on it.

November 19, 1970

For instance, when a subsidy is granted to a company, normally it takes one or two years before that company goes into production, especially if it is of a certain size.
The same situation applies to special areas where we undertook the develop an infrastructure in order to create development centres capable of providing the various areas of Canada with equal opportunities. We know fully well that the designation of an area is not enough to solve its problems but the tools needed to give equal opportunities to Canadians, wherever they live, are available to us.
A moment ago I was reading the speech made yesterday by the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). He said of course-that is his usual argument-that not only did the government fail to do anything to eliminate regional disparities but that they have increased since this government is in power.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make my first remark now. The slate of programs I administer have never been designed to fight a general economic slow-down in this country. These regional development programs can reach their full efficiency provided the overall economy works normally. Therefore neither ARDA nor FRED nor the law on industrial incentives should be expected to straighten up our entire economy. We should rather consider these measures under their true aspects.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: What a ridiculous statement.


Jean Marchand: Do you want to make a speech?


Howard Russell MacEwan: You haven't said anything yet. Go ahead.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to make his speech.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members could keep quiet I could proceed with my speech.
These programs were not meant to correct the defaults of our economical activities on a national level.
The tax equalization system and the programs I administer are working normally. When the hon. member is saying that we did nothing his arguments betray complete ignorance of our activities in this field.
Of course, I would like things to progress more quickly. I wish I could do more. If Parliament should agree to grant me three of four times as much money, I would certainly find some way to spend it. One does not need to be a genius to spend money in these areas since it is overwhelmingly needed there.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, since January 1, 1969, we have assisted, through implementation of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, the establishment of 774 firms in Canada, thus creating approximately 36,940 jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Employment Programs


Jean Marchand: The incentives have called for an overall capital investment amounting to $1.1 billion of which 205 million were directly dedicated to the incentives themselves. So much for the industrial incentives program.
Now, when I say new jobs, Mr. Speaker, I mean those jobs which have been effectively created or those which wdl be as a result of the grants which have been paid. But these new jobs also give rise to new openings in other areas and I would say-this is indeed a very conservative estimate-that we may expect an equal number of resultant jobs being created in other enterprises.
Of course, I would rather have 200,000 new jobs, but to say that the present number is but a trifle clearly amounts to an exaggeration. If I refer to-


John Stratford Burton: May I ask the minister a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to remind hon. members the minister has 15 minutes for his speech.


An hon. Member:: He has all the time he wants.


John Stratford Burton: The figures the minister quoted, 36,000 jobs and $1.5 billion of development, do these refer just to the Regional Development Incentives Act or do they go back to the old area development incentive program? Do they also include special development area programs? Do they refer to industries in existence or only commitments of grants made by the government?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, part of it refers to the previous regional industrial incentives program, and part of it to the new legislation.
The 774 plants I have mentioned are not all in operation now; however they should be before long and this will provide jobs, as I said.
Concerning the other programs applying to special areas-ARDA, FRED, PFRA and so forth-I can say that they led to the creation of new jobs and to the investment of large amounts of money. In fact, in the Atlantic provinces, $167.6 million have been invested and 10,060 jobs have been created. In the province of Quebec, $40.6 million have been invested and 2,550 jobs have been created. In Ontario, $5.5 million were invested and 330 jobs were created. In western Canada, $31.2 million were invested and 1,870 jobs were created. Total outlays amount to $246 million and new jobs number 14,810. If one takes into account the number of jobs indirectly created, the total figure is about 34,000 new jobs.
Obviously this alone is not sufficient to solve the general unemployment problem in Canada. But to say that our programs designed to minimize regional disparities have not been and are not operative, is sheer irresponsibility. These programs are working well and we are enjoying very valuable co-operation from the Maritime provinces, from Quebec as well as from the other provinces. Furthermore we have reasons to believe that if these programs are intensified, they will help in substantially
1324

November 19, 1970
Employment Programs
reducing the disparities that have existed ever since Confederation.
Once again I say, Mr. Speaker, that those programs are not intended to restore a general situation which is unsatisfactory and which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has dealt with to some considerable length indicating the solutions he wanted to propose. I feel that these regional expansion programs are very thorough. There are others, for instance, the relocation plans in Newfoundland, and the "New Start", program which results in extremely interesting experiments. I believe that all this is worthwhile and that one must not expect from it what can be achieved through a fiscal or general policy aimed at achieving full employment in Canada.
I do not intend to repeat the speech delivered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). There are, obviously, reasons for inflation; but I shall merely comment on these. This government should not have to make a choice between inflation and unemployment. Ours is a matter of finding out whether inflation is going to create more unemployment than the anti-inflation steps that we have taken.
Now, if we had to do this over again, would we proceed in the same way? I am far from sure, Mr. Speaker. It could be that a more stringent policy would be required with regard to prices, profits and salaries. At the present time, some balance is being re-established, and, with the help of the measures we will be taking shortly, I believe that we shall succeed in creating a dynamic economy, one in which Canadians will feel happy.
However, my department should not be asked to work miracles, we are unable to do so. We have already accomplished much, and I am not including here a number of measures in the regional field for which I claim neither merit nor glory. I could mention, for instance, Devco in Nova Scotia. Also, thanks to the former Atlantic Development Board, known as ADB, sustained efforts have been made. I am sure that, without such undertakings, disparities would be even worse than they are now.
Mr. Speaker, I simply and strongly challenge the hon. member's comments to which I referred a while ago. Instead of downgrading all the efforts made jointly by the provincial, federal and often local authorities, we should appreciate these worthwhile programs. Of course, we should not expect from them more than they can normally give.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) brought forward the following motion, and I quote:
That this House condemns the government for increasing the economic inequalities between different regions of Canada by its opposition to full employment policy and its refusal to use short term and long term programs in a timely and effective manner to prevent the resulting recession-level poverty and social injustice now widespread in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, taking into consideration facts as they are, one cannot but agree with the Leader of the Opposition and say he was quite justified in introducing a motion of non-confidence toward the present government.
During the new minutes available to me, Mr. Speaker,
I would like to make a rapid review of the economic situation of the province of Quebec.
Surely, no one will blame me for pointing out the weaknesses in the province of Quebec. I do so, hoping to help the people in power to do away with the disparities from which stems the growing unrest in my province.
Quebec has the largest number of unemployed in Canada. From September 1965 to September 1970, Quebec accounted for between 27.5 to 28 per cent of the national labour force, while the rate of unemployment, compared with the national figure, ranged between 35.5 and 41.5 per cent. Except for the Maritime provinces, over the last ten years the rate of unemployment has always been higher in Quebec than in the other provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that those who have more than we do, in the province of Quebec, should be penalized in order to improve our lot. I think the Mari-times also deserve special attention, since their economic situation is very unsatisfactory.
I am sorry to say that in October 1970, 8.8 per cent of the labour force in Quebec was unemployed. In fact, the percentage was higher because the statistics provided exclude workers on retraining allowances. Therefore, it is certain that there are more than 159,000 unemployed in the province of Quebec, including those who get unemployment or retraining allowances.
The Quebec labour force is increasing more rapidly than the employment opportunities. Between 1961 and 1969, the Quebec labour force increased by 25 per cent; during the same period, jobs increased only by 17 per cent.
We therefore note a gap between the number of workers and the anticipated number of jobs. Young Quebecers especially are affected by unemployment. The unemployment rate among young Quebecers from 14 to 24 years of age reaches 11 per cent. This rate is much too high when we want to keep people happy and confident in their future and we must absolutely enable them to earn a decent living.
There is a large percentage of chronic unemployment in the province of Quebec. Indeed, 28 per cent of claims from that provinces as of August 31, 1970 covered a period of at least 27 weeks. In addition, a survey of the chronic unemployed in Canada shows that Quebec has 31 per cent of claimants and that claims extend to more than 27 weeks.
A considerable number of unemployed reside also in the Montreal area and it is essential that some steps be immediately taken to check that national evil which is unemployment. It has been proved that 40 per cent of the unemployed people of Quebec who receive unemployment insurance benefits are from Montreal.

November 19, 1970

What is the situation in the business world? More than half of commercial bankruptcies in Canada have been registered in Quebec. In other words, the province of Quebec is lagging behind in both industry and labour. The government has much to do in order to cope with the situation.
In 1969, 52 per cent of Canadian bankruptcies were recorded in the province of Quebec. Several sectors of the Quebec industry have suffered from some decline during 1970, but on the other hand, in certain other industries, some encouraging signs have to be noted. It is to be hoped that the situation will keep improving so that our industries may offer more and more jobs to Canadian people who need them.
About 30 per cent of the new manufacturing plants were established in the province of Quebec between 1960 and 1969, mostly between 1960 and 1964 rather than between 1965 and 1969.
In the field of home building, the situation is far less than comforting in Canada, particularly in the province of Quebec. During 1970, home starts declined in this province as compared with the previous year. There is a shortage of housing, because when families want to put a roof over their heads, they have much difficulty in finding one.
In 1961, 17,204 homes were built in Montreal, 17,518 in Toronto. In 1969, 23,650 homes were built in Montreal and 31,874 in Toronto, which is an increase of 81.9 per cent for Toronto and only 37.5 per cent for Montreal during the same period. During the first nine months of 1970, the situation in Montreal did not improve greatly.
What do we see now as far as prices and costs are concerned, Mr. Speaker? The price that consumers have to pay in Montreal for some commodities and services is substantially higher than in the other regions of Canada. For its bonds the government of the province of Quebec has to grant a much higher interest rate than any other provincial government. Ontario grants an interest rate of 6.85 and 8.84 per cent for its bonds if they are held to maturity. Quebec rates range from 9 to 9.6 per cent for similar securities.
Let us have a look at the current situation in the field of investments. There is a disastrous disparity between Ontario and Quebec as far as job-creating investments are concerned.
Total investments scheduled in Quebec for 1970 amount to 3 billion 400 million dollars compared with 7 billion 100 million dollars in Ontario. Quebec whose population represents only four fifths of that of Ontario receives only half as much investment as Ontario does.
Despite the fact that its population represents 29 per cent of that of the whole of Canada, the province of Quebec is getting a mere 19 per cent of the total Canadian investments. Six years ago investments in Quebec amounted to approximately 75 per cent of what Ontario was getting and to somehwere around 26 per cent of the Canadian total.
Employment Programs
During the last few years, capital investments dwindled in practically all areas except one and present forecasts are none too bright.
Personal income which is of interest to us all, has decreased in the province of Quebec.
The average hourly rate is lower in Quebec than in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario but higher than in the Maritimes and Saskatchewan.
Wages paid in industries in Quebec are generally lower than those paid in other regions of the country, except the Maritimes.
Personal per capita income has been constantly lower m Quebec than in all other provinces except the Maritimes. However, some improvement is noted in the situation in Quebec.
In my opinion, this short review of economic conditions in the province of Quebec shows beyond doubt that a situation exists in this province which it is urgent to correct as soon as possible.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) described a few moments ago the work which has been done by his department during the last few months. I agree with him that his department has made a tremendous effort to try to correct the situation, but because of the steps taken by his government to fight inflation, unemployment has increased, bringing about even more poverty among the people. I am certainly one who would wish his department were more successful but I am afraid that with some of the projects suggested by the minister we will, within a few years, be facing situations not too encouraging.
Some of our cities' small and middle-sized industries would certainly deserve assistance from the minister's department in the form of loans. They do not solicit grants unnecessarily, being convinced they can be selfsufficient. If these industries could get interesting loans at latively low interest rates, they could go on offering employment to many Canadians, this to the benefit of all.
I should like also to make other suggestions. I would like again to inquire to the minister about the Saint-Hya-cinthe region. I would like today, if possible, to convince him that it is his duty to declare it a designated area-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member but I must point out to him that his time has expired.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard)?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. As the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe has run out of time,
23568-13J

November 19, 1970
Employment Programs
the hon. member must first obtain the unanimous consent of the House. Does the House agree to allow the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) to ask his question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for their kindness.
I wish to ask the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, who has drawn for us a rather dark picture of the economy in Quebec, to give us his views on the reasons for the economic deterioration and to offer suggestions to improve the situation.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Well, with regard to causes, Mr. Speaker, 1 certainly do not have enough time at my disposal to go into them thoroughly. As for suggestions, I have already made some. There are others, I am sure. The minister, like myself, would surely be interested in hearing the hon. member's own proposals, because he shares my wish to see that the situation in Quebec is improved as quickly as possible.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House at the present time states, in essence, that the government is not making the economic system work. There are, of course, many people who will agree with that statement. The amendment moved by my leader, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), suggests that there is a lack of defined purpose in the government's programs and that its efforts are essentially not being adequately directed to meeting the wellbeing of people across Canada. I am glad that hon. members have an opportunity, through this amendment and motion, to discuss the government's regional development policies in particular. I suggest that the government's performance in tackling regional development and poverty problems has become a national disgrace. The government has failed to even make a start in its so-called war on poverty. All of us will acknowledge quite freely that some good things have been done, but the show that the government has put on in respect of these programs has been nothing more than a sham and a farce.
* (4:00 p.m.)
There are some 4 million to 5 million Canadians living in a state of poverty today, and another 3 million or so in varying states of deprivation. I suggest that the federal government had better realize there is a different mood and attitude toward conditions of poverty and hardship today. People are not prepared to tolerate unsatisfactory conditions indefinitely because they know they do not have to be that way, and they know that many of the disparities which exist are due to various elements of exploitation in both the present and the past.
The government has faced serious problems in the province of Quebec over the past month and a half. If the government had shown as much concern with tackling
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel) .1
basic economic and social problems in Quebec as it is now showing in tracking down elusive bands of criminal conspirators and adventurers, it would never have been faced with some of the problems now before us. I was particularly struck by some excerpts I read recently from a book written, but not yet published, by Pierre Val-lieres, one of the people now held on charges in Montreal. This book entitled "White Niggers of America" describes his view of the Quebec society in which he grew up. No doubt all of us will have disagreements with some of the views expressed, but we ignore them at our peril.
I noted one excerpt in which he described the conditions in which his family lived in Ville Jacques-Cartier, a community on the south shore of the St. Lawrence across from Montreal. It reads as follows:
The shack was made of wood covered with "papier brique", a kind of tarpaper designed to look like brick. In the centre front was a little white porch. Inside, only three rooms: in the middle a kitchen, which also served as dining room, living room, bath room, etc., to the left, a large bedroom which my parents shared with Raymond (who was not yet walking); lastly, to the right, a tiny room with a double-decker bed and a chest of drawers, this was the room of "the two oldest", Andre and me. The rooms were separated by walls of "donnaconna", a kind of hard, thick cardboard which could be bought quite cheaply from any dealer in building materials. Manufactured by Domtar in the Portneuf region (I think), "donnaconna" was easy to cut up, install and paint, and it was usually sold in panels four feet by eight. Many of the shacks that went up in Ville Jacques-Cartier in the years following our arrival were built entirely out of two-by-fours and broad panels of this economical cardboard, which was then covered with tarpaper. It was not exactly warm in the winter, but it didn't cost much, and with this miraculous material you could build a little house in two days!
Our shack seemed almost luxurious compared to most of the hovels in Longueuil-Annexe, which were covered with black tarpaper and looked like sinister old shanties abandoned in a swamp. On rainy days especially, Longueuil-Annexe looked like a burnt-out shantytown. The only trouble with this shantytown was that it was inhabited, to adopt the phrase of the Quebecois poet Roland Giguere.
This excerpt struck me forcefully because it reflected the viewpoint of one who had given up hope of being able to make meaningful change or improvements in society through existing institutions. That is a bad situation. As I read this excerpt, I thought of similar conditions I have seen in the past in Saskatchewan and, indeed, other parts of Canada. Fortunately, there was a difference. In my own province people did not give up hope. That was the great accomplishment of people like M. J. Coldwell, T. C. Douglas and others who led a new political movement in Saskatchewan in the 1930's. They offered hope of meaningful change, improvement and a better life through the democratic process. People felt there was a way out of their dilemma. For some today in Canada, for whatever reason, that hope does not exist. But the government says: Look at all the money we are spending. True, there is a lot of money being spent as the minister indicated this afternoon but the question is, how is the money being spent and is it doing the job.
My leader, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), pointed out yesterday that to the end of 1969 $46,176,000 in grants was provided to United States corporations by the Department of Region-
November 19, 1970

al Economic Expansion while only $20,877,000 was made available to Canadian concerns. Surely, this policy is in serious conflict with any attempt that might be made to check the growing influence of foreign corporations in Canada.
Let me refer to another matter. Yesterday my leader drew attention to an answer given to me this week that some $95,500,000 in grants have been made available by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which will provide 17,284 jobs. This makes only a very small dent in the unemployment situation. It might be worth noting that many of these jobs are not yet in existence. It is true the government has made a commitment to assist Canadian concerns, but the government I suggest is making many of these grants in an ad hoc fashion. They assist a variety of operators but whether the benefits envisaged will be achieved is not at all certain. I can give one example which came to my attention recently. It concerns my home town where I grew up, the town of Humboldt, which is in the consituency of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang).
Last June an announcement was made that $512,000 was to be provided for a poultry processing plant that cost some $1,200,000 and would provide about 207 jobs. I find that this company does not yet have the land on which to put up that plant. It has taken out an option but does not really, as yet, own the land that is available to it. The company is trying to raise capital. It has the $500,000 grant, or the commitment for it, and now is trying to raise the rest of the capital amount ng to $800,000. I presume this would include some provision for working capital as well as the capital cost of the plant.
Apparently the company has some $370,000 or so now which it raised through a farm grain deal that ties in with other operations of the company, namely, some feed mill operations. I am subject to correction on this point, but the information I have at the moment suggests that the principals involved in this particular operation will not have to put up one penny of their own money. Certainly, that will be the case if this company is successful in raising the $800,000 in capital it is trying to raise in the district before construction of the plant can be commenced.
I don't want to suggest that I do not want to see a plant of this sort in my old home town, even though it is not in my constituency at the present time, but certainly I feel we need to look at these proposed operations with a view to seeing that they are efficient and, are developed in a manner which will be to the benefit of the communities concerned.
I suggest that the government is engaging in the worst type of "ad hocery" in its regional development programs. Where is the concern for the impact of these programs or how they meet the needs of the community?
I suggest plants must meet adequate tests before they are started, regardless of the incentive. Until it has been shown that these proposed plants can meet adequate tests in respect of economic criteria and that they will be viable operations, the government should not throw away money on operators of various types, friends of the gov-
Employment Programs
ernment and foreign interests. The government is not planning or providing the type of framework that is needed in this regard. I suggest that it does have to grapple with the needs of the total economy, and I suggest it has not done this to date. This, of course, is essential if regional development programs are to be successful.
In this regard, I agree with the minister that two aspects of the situation have to be co-ordinated. The government is not adequately tackling the total problems in respect of the economy. The prices and incomes approach-the Boy Scout approach-has been a failure. The government has not developed an economic policy which would help to deal with the disparities that exist in this country. It certainly has not moved toward full employment. Four hundred and nineteen thousand people are out of work at the present time; some 9 per cent to 11 per cent of the labour force may be out of work before the winter is over. Regional development programs must be planned and the planners must take a long run approach. These programs must also be geared to time considerations and to the needs that exist at present. I suggest that further attention must be given to the whole question of providing an adequate infrastructure for the communities concerned, and efforts must be made to develop it. Rural problems must be tackled. The Indian and Metis peoples' problems must be tackled. The government must avoid pitfalls and must beware of the growth of situations leading to the types of comments that have been made by some people in this country recently. The government should remember the words of some of the people who are now taking a very bitter attitude toward our country.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I suggest that the government should place high priority on regional development programs and on correcting regional inequalities. To date its programs have been a failure. It is late in the day, but the government must correct its course while there is still time.


Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, the motion now under consideration is one of those which makes us look back to live once more what we generally call the "good old days."
A world war ended in 1945, 25 years ago already, and our country went from full employment to a state of deplorable conditions where unemployment ranges from five to 12 per cent depending on the areas. Should we come to the conclusion that wartime is necessary to create full employment? Is it true that these would be the only possible conclusions for our narrow minds?
I should like to suggest to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) and to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) that they take retraining lessons from the masters of work and labour in Germany which we destroyed so completely during World War II and which today stands as a model to the whole world, as far as full employment is concerned.

November 19, 1970
Employment Programs
On November 11, 1970, the official day set aside to honour the memory of our dead soldiers of the last two world wars, La Presse, the Montreal newspaper, published an article on the progress of automation in Germany where there is work for everyone. This is quite enlightening and impressive.
On page 3 of section "J" of the November 11 issue of La Presse, one can read the following:
During these last ten years, automation and rationalization have "freed" 13 million workers in West Germany. Yet, they have not become unemployed: with a few exceptions, they did not even have to learn a new trade.
__the workers, the government and the unions nevertheless
follow closely the development of the employment market, because they still remember the great world economic crisis of 1929-30 with its devastating consequences in the domestic field.
Even if the whole article is interesting to read, I will quote but the last paragraph:
There is no need therefore to be pessimistic for 1980: the number of vacancies will always be greater than that of jobs wanted.
That is simply marvelous and that is happening in capitalist Germany, under the eyes of our capitalist country. In 1970, we even get large loans from that country in order to finance our administrative deficiencies in Canada, and particularly in the province of Quebec.
If Germany can thus export capital, and at the same time maintain full employment on its own territory, why not also ask that country to export its experts in full employment, whom we could put at the head of our departments to replace inefficient nrnisters, who can only preach resignation in the face of our own inertness in filling the vacuum of a sick administration suffering from incurable unconcern.
Mr. Speaker, this happy situation of labour in Germany is due, and I quote:
-to the necessary qualifications, to the permanent training and to the sensible direction given to the growing generation-
The whole policy in the field of education is geared to the future by taking into account the high requirements of productivity for the next decade. This is enough, I believe, to shake us awake. These objectives are achievable since they have already been attained by men in Germany.
It is just possible, in my view, that men living in Canada achieve a similar aim. I urge that a mission of our most insignificant officials in charge of full employment be sent to Germany to undergo a conclusive retraining which would be profitable to the hard-working Canadian people who, as a whole, have always been willing to do their best under the leadership of their elite.
Let us not kid ourselves: the misgivings of a people always come as a result of the misgivings of its leaders. When a bus overturns, the fault does not lie with the passengers who bought their tickets. Let us rather look for the driver.
In Canada, we have everything we need except goodwill among our leadership.
When an economic problem such as unemployment arises, why not seek first its causes? Let us stop making speeches, ordering inquiries, issuing white papers.
If we are really unable to find out who is at fault, this merely means that we are unwilling to suppress unemployment.
Unemployment, inflation, poverty, excessive taxation, these are many economic ills that cannot be said to derive from earthquakes, tidal waves, floods or acts of God. No, those ills derive from the action of our statesmen and financial leaders.
We are being governed by inefficient and blind people. "Can the blind lead the blind? Both shall fall into the ditch." This is written in the Gospel. The Bible says also: "The light of the body is the eye: therefore, when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light."
If, as in Germany, management is enlightened, the whole labour force benefits from it. There is no unemployment, no inflation in that country. Probably their fiscal and financial system is adequate to the size of a productivity commensurate with their population and their natural resources.
All these things we have in abundance in Canada, but we lack adequate leadership. It must be realized, understood and stated in order to change the situation.
Let us replace the incompetent leaders, not only in the labour field, but in the areas of finance, currency, politics, industry and university training.
If our elite fails us, if our institutions are inefficient, let us proceed to the necessary changes and we will achieve our purposes.
Our whole administrative, monetary, economic and political activities overlook the real objectives and only seek profit. At the present time, this is where the trouble lies. We seek financial gain rather than satisfy the citizens' needs.
That is why in a period of unemployment, labour is sacrificed to financial profit.
That is why, even in war-time, life is sacrificed while finance reaps profits. In times of inflation, the cost of living goes up, taxes are increased, and all the citizens suffer. But finance pays off. Interest rates go up even as high as 10 and 12 per cent, but finance still makes profits.
What do we do when there is unemployment? We study its causes and show how it can be checked. But if we do not want to check it, then nothing can be done. The government could put an end to unemployment overnight, for they have the means to do so.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself knows what to do, but he will not do it. He has the means to force his ministers to do away with unemployment, but he does not want to use them to that end.
It is inconceivable that unemployment should be tolerated. Fortunately, there is one remedy that can be applied at once to stimulate purchases by making more money available to consumers.

November 19, 1970

Who wrote this important sentence? None other than the present Prime Minister, on page 33 of the March 1954 issue of Cite Libre, under the title "Fluctuations econo-miques et methodes de stabilisation", and I quote:
Competition among producers would result in price reductions. Competition among the unemployed seeking a job would bring about lower wages, which would reduce production costs. The interest rate would decline accordingly, and new investments would thus become profitable. Hut today, prices and wages are prevented from going down by monopolies and labour unions.
Here is what the author said on page 34 of the same issue:
The problem is still to find out whether there is any other limit to unemployment than utter destitution.
The most obvious solution would be to equalize the incomes among the various social classes, so that the poor would have more money to spend, the rich less to save.
The following is found on page 35:
The government will then be compelled to increase its expenditures (railways, roads, airports, parks). As long as such needs exist, it is inconceivable that unemployment should be tolerated.
Fortunately, there is one remedy that can be applied at once -to stimulate purchases by making more money available to consumers. The state must distribute largely and determinedly all kinds of allowances-
Mr. Speaker, I shall quote a few excerpts from the March 1954 issue of Cite Libre:
-to stimulate purchases by making more money available to consumers.
This is what the Prime Minister was then advocating. Today, now that he has been elected thanks to an election fund supported by high finance, he merely reverses his opinions. Consumers are not only neglected, but he even asks them their co-operation by requiring them to tighten their belt.
The Creditistes have demanded that the purchasing power be distributed well before 1954 and they are still demanding it.
We are demanding it, because we already have the products and unfortunately, there are also needy costumers.
Among those who are expecting higher benefits are veterans, widows, needy mothers, disabled persons, father and mothers who are asking for increased family allowances, the unemployed, permanent or seasonal, and all workers who are paid a salary they consider inadequate to meet their commitments. As the present Prime Minister once stated, and I quote:
The state must distribute largely and determinedly all kinds of allowances-
Then, why not pay a salary to students? How many students are now facing financial problems? Why maintain and defend the system which is causing concern to them?
Mr. Speaker, these are so many reasons why it is urgent to implement the measures advocated in 1954 by our present Prime Minister.
Employment Programs
Since American economists and sociologists have stated in a open letter to President Johnson that the first condition to avoid economical and social troubles, in the present state of production, is to ensure that each individual and each family is guaranteed a minimum income as a right, let me repeat the famous statement of the Prime Minister, and I quote:
"The state should distribute profusely and resolutely all kinds of allowances so as to stimulate consumption."
This sentence is all the more true today because, since 1954, the value of our national production has increased from only 25 billion to an expected 80 billion in 1970.
Mr. Speaker, I feel quite at ease to suggest that this type of administration be tried since, as early as 1954, the right hon. Prime Minister declared: "Fortunately, this remedy can be administered right now."
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, the appropriateness of this motion could not be any more heavily underlined than by the headline in yesterday's Toronto Star reading, "Unemployment Rate for Last 3 Months Worst in 25 Years." Since there was virtually no unemployment during the war, this means it is the highest it has been since the dirty 30's. The article goes on to say that there were 140,000 more Canadians looking for jobs in the last three months of this year than last year, representing the highest third-quarter unemployment rate since World War II.
Canada's economic progress faces an uncertain future. At the moment Canada's surplus export sales are at a record of $2,250,000,000 for the first ten months, up from $561 million in 1969. Purchases from the United States have continued to drop, while our sales to them have continued to increase. There is good evidence that this state of affairs may not continue, but rather be reversed. In so far as our automotive trade is concerned, it has turned out to be one of the brightest spots in our over-all trade, but not because of particularly good management but rather as a result of a fluke that a particular small car was very popular. The automotive pact is under heavy attack in the United States because there is great pressure to bring automobile production back home. President Nixon contends that because of the protection afforded Canada, undue pressure is on his government to have the pact abolished.
There is a rising protectionist movement in the United States and our ministers have been warning them about it. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has stated that growth in Canadian manufacturing is necessary to improve job opportunities. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), in a speech delivered in the United States, has just reiterated this sentiment. To illustrate how this protectionist sentiment is rising, Phillips Electronics Industries Ltd. of Toronto recently decided to bid on supplying Chrysler Corporation of Detroit with car radios. Chrysler placed the order in Detroit, and an official of that company said strong political pressure in the United States had caused the order to be shifted

November 19, 1970
Employment Programs
because it was felt that the auto agreement was working too much in favour of Canada. It is believed that this switch will result in 700 people being laid-off.
Then, Eaton Automotive announced on November 16, the closing of its London division early next year because the products made by the London plant are now being made in the U.S.A. This company is likely also under political pressure to maintain employment in their factories in the United States. Surely, this is a lesson for the strong nationalists who think we can live completely alone. We have the textile industry in chronic trouble as a result of low-priced imports, and the government is to amend the Export-Import Act to allow it to set mandatory import quotas. This is our own form of protection, yet we lament others raising their tariffs.
Then, there is the very probable entry of the United Kingdom into the European Common Market. It seems very probable that there will be a serious loss of markets, and especially could this be so in agricultural exports. The European Common Market is showing considerable protectionist tendencies.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the United States is suffering from a recession just as Canada is. It would seem likely that multi-national companies of both countries will be expected to expand in the United States. If the nationalism that is now so rampant in Canada against all things American continues, then those companies are most likely to consider themselves unwelcome in Canada. The Premier of Quebec has been telling Americans that they can only come to Quebec if they speak French, in effect telling them that they can only come in under severe restriction.
The Canadian economy is moving into a hard winter, largely as a result of Canadian government policies. It takes time for fiscal and monetary controls to take effect because such changes, either inflationary or deflationary, take time to work. The brakes applied a year ago are only beginning to take effect now, a year later. Similarly, the switch of the government to deficit financing, and the large expansion of the money supply, will not show up until next year. Even with these brakes applied, the price increase has still been running at 3 per cent, which is still very high. We should not forget that the Canadian economy is mainly supported by our great export industries. Without the great export boom, the nation would be in serious economic difficulties indeed. The outlook for profits in all but a few fortunately placed industries is much reduced, as is the outlook for the capital investment necessary to create new jobs and reduce unemployment.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The Prime Minister himself on the CBC program "Encounter," being interviewed by Charles Lynch on November 5, stated:
We have been homing in on unemployment in Quebec and in the Maritimes because this is where unemployment is highest, and we've done so by pouring in literally hundreds of millions of dollars in the past few years into those areas through regional economic expansion. Other hundreds of millions of dollars more through manpower retraining programs. Just a month or two ago another hundred million dollars for housing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that much of these hundreds of millions of dollars that have been poured into regional economic expansion in Quebec have not been as effective as they should have been. I think we all realize that much of the money spent in regional economic expansion must at best be considered a social expenditure and not recoverable in the form of economic gains. This great debate will have to come some time in the future.
I would like now to turn to what I feel is an important factor in our current economic trouble and that is the freeing of the Canadian dollar last May. For the second time since the end of the Second World War Canada removed, on May 31, the fixed rate of exchange of its dollar. In both cases, the rise took place under a Liberal government when the United States was engaged in a limited war. The response to the inflow of American capital resulting from the Korean War was the floating of the exchange rate 20 years ago.
This year the decision to abandon the fixed value appeared less urgent, particularly if proper precautions had been taken. The Canadian economy was not drawing in funds for expansion but was able to remain stable only because of a temporary surge of exports to western Europe and Japan, along with auto exports to the United States. The domestic side of the Canadian economy exhibited sagging tendencies. In the first six months of 1970, the merchandise trade surplus reached $1,246 million compared to $208 million in 1969. However, there does not appear to be much special life to exports and United States trade policy appears to be on the verge of becoming more protectionist, tending to depress exports to that country.
The huge merchandise trade balance was the result of several non-recurring factors. Demand for Canadian base metals received special stimulus after the strikes last year. Automobile exports, which alone accounted for 20 per cent of the gain in exports, benefitted from the popularity of a particular small car manufactured in Canada, but later this year several competitive models will be built in the United States, so that this can be regarded as a non-recurring event. Metal prices are declining most noticeably on the volatile London Metal Exchange, and shipments to the United States will decline because capital spending is very metal intensive, and as capital spending declines, metal shipments will also experience less buoyant markets.
Defence sharing agreements which have led to a spillover to companies such as Canadair will no longer be a favourable trade factor for Canada; even though, in all likelihood, the war will continue, more defence production will be handled in relatively depressed United States areas like southern California. In 1968 United States defence spending in Canada amounted to $320 million, in 1969 $300 million and 1970 will probably be lower. Because of balance of payments problems in the United States, direct investment in Canada will be discouraged. It is scheduled to drop from $2.67 billion in 1970 to $2.18 billion in 1972. Oil shipments may also suffer a temporary decline.
November 19, 1970

The relative strength of the Canadian dollar depends on our merchandise trade balance and the flow of the capital account. The latter is affected by, first, short term inflows, usually as a result of a difference in interest rates, or the desire for an alternative haven by investors concerned about their own country; second, long term inflows which stem from either direct investment, nonresident purchases of securities, or borrowing outside of Canada by government or corporations. Hitherto changes in the relative values of the Canadian dollar reflected short term inflows; that is, changes in foreign holdings of Canadian currency and foreign assets of Canadian chartered banks.
This summer the short term inflow stemmed not from a relatively alluring spread of interest between Canada and the United States, but from the unusually large merchandise trade balance and the repatriation of short term funds. The funds returned to Canada after the white paper on taxation proposed that investment and capital gains in non-Canadian securities would be penalized. The applicable provisions would restrict to 10 per cent the percentage of pensions fund assets that could be held in non-Canadian investments and capital gains in non-Canad an investment would attract a 50 per cent capital gains tax compared to a 25 per cent capital gains tax on widely held Canad:an investments. This is another example of the way in which the white paper on taxation materially increased the pressure on the Canadian dollar with an untoward and unexpected affect, even though no change in the law has taken place up to now.
Furthermore, the Quebec election gave some renewed confidence to lure investment back to Canada after the panic exodus earlier this year. Much too little was done to counterbalance these factors. The Minister of Finance foolishly chose to ignore these trends. Foreign exchange reserves improved by $267 million in the first quarter of 1970. In April reserves were increased by an additional $225 million. Canada, however, should be carrying higher exchange reserves on average than it did during the decade of the previous fluctuating rate. This is not the case. If strong counterbalancing efforts had been made earlier this year, short term inflows could have been checked, temporarily at least.
One reason often cited for the revaluation of the Canadian dollar is our relatively better control over inflation. The "state of the art" is such that it is doubtful that price movements can be measured with any such precision but even if Canada maintained greater price stability over the last year or two, this, even in combination with our large merchandise trade balance, did not warrant an unpegging of the dollar.
A common argument against a fixed rate of exchange is that it leads to alterations in monetary and fiscal policy for exchange reasons rather than to promote a satisfactory level of domestic income employment and growth. However, this summer concurrently with and because of the abandonment of the system of fixed exchange, the Minister of Finance announced an easier money policy. This was implied by the Bank of Canada's reduction in bank rate from 7.5 per cent to 7 per cent. The reduction
Employment Programs
in interest rates can be expected to reduce the incentive for short term funds to flow into Canada and to relieve the upward pressure in the dollar. The Minister of Finance thus was acting to have fiscal and monetary policy influence the exchange rate; proponents of a floating rate have claimed that this was like having the tail wag the dog. Interest rate differentials with 1he United States are now narrower than usual. If such an easy monetary policy had been adopted in March when the United States federal reserve board indicated it was moving toward easier money, (he upward speculative push on the Canadian dollar in all likelihood would have been avoided. However, all winter and spring the Bank of Canada and the Department of Finance adhered to a relatively restrictive course in order to arrest inflationary pressures.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I must remind him that his time has expired.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Rod Thomson (Batileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the motion before the House refers to long term programs to cure unemployment. I am glad it contains that language because some of the suggestions I wish to make relate to a long term cure for unemployment. I am also glad that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) is in the House. I wish to talk briefly about atomic energy plants and the part they could play in this long term cure.
Since unemployment is not caused by one factor solely, the cure for unemployment also will not involve merely one factor. We must do a great many things if we wish to cure unemployment. I should like to talk for a few moments about some ideas I have for this long term cure.
This morning in committee I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) how our money is being spent on research. The point of my question was this: I felt that we were adopting a scattered approach in our spending on research, and that we ought to concentrate. Since we do not have enough money to spend on all areas of research, we ought to concentrate on those areas that will be of greatest advantage to us. We ought to concentrate consciously on those areas of research in which we can compete with other countries effectively. We must concentrate on those resources and goods with which we can compete with other countries of the world. As I say, we cannot afford to indulge in research in all areas, so we had better specialize.
A few weeks ago I visited the atomic energy plant at Gentilly, Quebec, and I must say I was surprised at what is being done there. I regret that we have not sold plants of this type abroad. It seems to me that the government has been somewhat remiss in the amount of money it has devoted to this particular type of development. We seem to be developing a type of atomic energy plant that is different from atomic energy plants elsewhere. I am not saying this is wrong. Hopefully, this may have been a wise move. It may have been the best thing to do. Yet, benefits do not come about automatically. We must be
1332

I have visited the CBC station in Ottawa, a radar base in my constituency, the Atomic Energy plant at Gentilly and, as a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, some food processing plants. A great deal of the industrial equipment used in all these plants is manufactured in foreign countries. I am not knocking these other countries because they are able to produce this equipment cheaply and effectively so that it is economic for us to purchase it. However, I feel that some of this equipment could be produced just as well in Canada.
The electronics industry is too small and fragmented to compete with foreign firms. Possibly the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce could give some leadership to rationalizing this field so that more of this equipment could be produced in Canada. I do not think it would be economically feasible to produce all of this equipment in Canada because of our limited requirements, but some of it could be produced in this country. The government should study seriously what could be done in this respect. The government should give assistance for research, capital or whatever else is required for specified areas, so that Canadian firms will be competitive. This, in part, will solve the unemployment problem.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before this House today is very important. It gives members an opportunity to discuss one of the most serious problems facing this country today, unemployment, and the consequences of the government's fiscal and anti-inflationary policies with special regard to the regionally disadvantaged areas of the country. Attendance in the House does not indicate the importance of the measure before us. The tens of thousands of Canadians who are unemployed and have no voice will draw precious little consolation from the attendance to-day, especially by the members of the government and those charged with the responsibility.


Mr. Greene:: Or the quality of the debate.


James Aloysius McGrath: I hope the minister who has interjected will favour us with a contribution to this debate. Perhaps he can enlighten us a little more than some members as to what the government have been able to do. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) participated in the debate today. Although he talked a great deal, he said nothing. The great expectations of the minister and the new department, when the legislation was enacted by Parliament creating the department, have not been fulfilled. The minister made no reference to his responsibilities with respect to co-ordinating government programs to cope with regional disparity and the resulting consequential unemployment. He made no reference to the difficulties, indeed the impossibility, of carrying out effective programs to deal with regional disparity when the fiscal and monetary policies of the government do not take into account the regional facts of life in this country. Those provinces which contribute least to inflation, the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and some western
23568-14^
Employment Programs
provinces, are the ones which have to pay the cost of the governments' anti-inflationary policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: We expected the minister to make some reference to that in his speech. He is responsible to Parliament and the country for coping with these very serious problems. However, he said nothing about that. When we have occasion to raise the problems of unemployment and lack of government action in dealing with unemployment and regional disparity, the members of the government always conveniently refer to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the regional economic programs which are supposed to be the be-all and end-all.
We must examine these programs for their effectiveness in coping with unemployment and regional disparity. We must examine them in the context of growing unemployment. Today's unemployment is the most serious for this period since the depression of the 1930's. This is evidenced by the latest Dominion Bureau of Statistics' figures. We must look at the programs under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, we must look at them in that context.
The main thrust of the government's regional development policy is the Regional Development Incentives Act. Yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It was prompted by the tabling of figures under the Regional Development Incentives Act for the period ending October, 1970 which showed great disparities in the allocation of funds and the estimation of jobs created. For example, the province of Newfoundland received $826,000, whereas the province of Quebec received almost $40 million, almost half the total funds. By skating around the question the minister, in effect, refused to answer it. He indicated he would be participating in the debate and that he would have something to say about it at that time. We sat and listened to the minister, Mr. Speaker, but he did not say anything in this regard. We are as wise as ever.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The provision of these grants does not take into account the fact that there are five regions in this country; most important, they fail to take note of the fact that under the Regional Development Incentives Act the initiatives are in the hands of industry, not the hands of government. In my opinion this is the major weakness of this program. This illustrates the reason for the wide ranging disparities in the allocation of funds under the program. Companies obviously establish in more attractive areas where they can attain the same incentives as those provided for locating in some of the more remote parts of the country. Instead of locating in Newfoundland, or northern Saskatchewan, or northern Ontario they would obviously choose the more populous areas in Quebec around Montreal and Quebec City, or they would choose southern Ontario. This is surely the major weak-

November 19, 1970
Employment Programs
ness in the program. This is why the program should be changed and its administration and concept decentralized.
Then, there is the complementary program covering the so-called designated growth areas, the program designed to enable the federal government to move into areas of provincial jurisdiction to build up the so-called infrastructure which is supposed to attract industry. Take my own city as an example. It is one of the special areas, one of the growth areas. Under this program the federal government has announced its intention to build two high schools; it has announced it will build a new access route from the Trans-Canada Highway to the harbour in St. John's; it has announced it will provide water and sewage facilities. That is good. That is tremendous, because the city of St. John's and the various school boards could not afford to provide these schools and other amenities. The municipality is already taxed to the limit. But it is my contention that not one new job will be created. I say this because we already have, in this city, the infrastructure needed to support industry. It has been there for a hundred years, but it has not been enough to encourage industry to establish there. Why? Simply because of our geographical position in relation to the major markets of this hemisphere; because of our insularity and the consequent problems of transportation costs. All the cliches used by the minister or by any of his officials in trying to sell this program will not alter the facts which I have stated. The result is we have a program in which the government ignores these facts.
The government is unable to use the Regional Development Incentives Act in the way it was designed. It is unable to use the act as a tool to stabilize the economy and increase employment. The great weakness of the program, in my view, is that the government has lost control of it. The government finds itself unable to determine what type of industry shall locate in any particular area of the country as a consequence of its planning and investigations. This initiative is entirely in the hands of the industries concerned. If it is to be effective, this program, like the government's monetary and fiscal policies intended to combat inflation, must be decentralized. It must take into account the facts of life in this country, and these include the fact that Canada is not one homogenous unit but five different regions comprising five different economies. It is because of the government's failure to take this into account that its programs are not working, and unemployment is increasing.
It is all very well to talk about the necessity of building up infrastructures under a program which enables the government to enter areas of provincial jurisdiction, but the cold fact of the matter is that the program is a flop, the program is a total failure, and the minister's unwillingness to deal with this aspect today is proof positive of my statement, if proof were needed. I think it is fair to say that the minister's program, and government policy, have become bogged down in a quagmire of "adhocery"-a maze of ad hoc programs and ad hoc decisions. Much of the difficulty has been caused by the failure of the bureaucrats and the technocrats in the minister's department to take into account the experience

and knowledge of municipal authorities and provincial governments. There has been scarcely any consultation in connection with the planning, conception and implementing of these programs. These people go across the country and look down their bureaucratic noses at the provincial and municipal authorities as being somewhat inferior; this is certainly the case in the province from which I come.
Ask any member of this House who comes from Prince Edward Island or any other area of Canada where the department is heavily involved, and he will quickly say the same thing. The department parachutes into these areas technocrats and so-called experts for the sole purpose of carrying out the wishes of the minister's deputy minister, because nobody else knows anything about this program. It is obvious the minister knows very little about what is going on. The whole show is being run by one man only. He sends out teams of experts and they fan out all across the country-"You get in there; those local yokels don't know anything." This results in all kinds of difficulty due to lack of understanding or appreciation of local conditions. The Province of Newfoundland is a classic example. They have practically taken over the department of community and social development. We even had the chairman of the Regional Development Committee down there working during the summer-I do not know what his particular expertise consists of, but he was there; he was joined by the technocrats who are still down there. They even provided a deputy minister. Nobody on the island has any say in the implementation of the program.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I regret to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, it is all so
very clear that what has been said by the hon. member who spoke before me is nothing less than a political speech, reeking of partisanship, in the true stereotyped fashion, and seeking merely to destroy the confidence that the people of Canada have in the government's efforts to erase any regional disparity still prevailing in Canada. However, it is generally acknowledged that these efforts already have had some effects and there is no question but that given a good amount of doggedness, the scourge of unemployment may be overcome one of these days.
On the other hand, one must realize that the federal government is not the only level of administration that is responsible for setting up new industries or creating new jobs. I believe the federal, provincial and municipal governments all have to share this responsibility. The full responsibility for this situation should not be left to one government in particular.
This will perhaps lead me to make a speech which might be described as political and partisan but I shall make it all the same.
November 19, 1970

During the sixties, especially since 1963, the government of New Brunswick took its responsibilities in this field by co-operating with the federal government. One may wonder what happened in New Brunswick during these years. Several hon. members may not be interested in what goes on in the small province of New Brunswick. But for me, it is very important and it shows the degree of quality of our administration. We made more progress during this decade than during any other period in" our history since Confederation.
A recent statistical survey of the area by the Economic Council of the Atlantic provinces shows that, in the last few years, the economy has been healthy and that, in some sectors, expansion has reached a new high.
One of those sections is that of metal mining. In 1960 there was no activity whatever in mining in New Brunswick. Since then, the Heath Steele Company which had begun operating in our area in the 1950's closed its doors.
An $11 million program has since converted this mine and the concentrator it feeds into a vital element for the economy of the Northumberland constituency, in Eastern New Brunswick. Daily production is 3,000 tons and there are 270 workers. Such accomplishment is due to federal-provincial co-operation.
On the other hand the Brunswick Mining and Smelting Company operates two mines and two concentrators thanks to a $60 million investment. It produces 8,000 tons a day and has 1,025 employees.
The Nigadoo River Company mine and concentrator are now in operation. This represents an investment of $10 million. The daily output is 1,000 tons of ore and the mine provides work for 315 people.
At the present time the Anaconda American Brass is building a copper concentrator of a 1,000-ton daily capacity which should have been in operation in September this year. It means a capital investment of $6 million providing jobs for 110 workers at the present time.
I could continue, Mr. Speaker, quoting figures to show all the improvement in the New Brunswick mining sector which is due, if I may say so again, to the co-operation between provincial and federal governments that has existed particularly since 1963 and has gained momentum in the last few years.
I could talk about expansion in the forest industry which employs a great many people; this would have been impossible without the efficient part taken by the federal government. The same applies to hydro-electric power. In this respect, the hydro-electric plant at Mac-taquac is an example that speaks for itself.
Now, members opposite are blaming the federal government for the situation prevailing at this time. As for me, I believe the official opposition should perhaps examine its own conscience and go back a little to find what it failed to do while in power, in order to avoid the situations that we now know.
Employment Programs
If I may be partisan and deal again with the province of New Brunswick, I will refer particularly to the field of education in which, during the 50's, when practically nothing was done, the only effort of the provincial government was to maintain education at such a level that only about 25 per cent of the young people who attended school were able to get a degree.
Today, of course, the situation is quite different. In vocational training only, the federal government has made an enormous contribution. Before 1960, there was not a single vocational school in New Brunswick. This was really scandalous and I am somewhat ashamed to say it. But since 1960, we have had something to be proud of. In 1961, the New Brunswick Technical Institute was opened in Moncton. Building costs reached $1.9 million.^ The required equipment for the Institute has cost $1,500,000 up until now and a new $2.4 million wing was added last year, which makes a total investment of $5,800,000 about 75 per cent of which has been paid by the federal government.
Tne St. John Technical Institute, in New Brunswick, was opened in 1963. To date, building and additions cost $2,100,000. The cost of initial and additional equipment was $1,300,000, bringing the investment in the future of the youth of New Brunswick to a total of some $3,400,000.
The Bathurst Trade School did not exist in 1960. It was inaugurated in 1963. Its cost was $1,400,000 and the school is now undergoing expansion evaluated at $1,300,000, bringing the total investment for vocational training, with the assistance of the federal government to $2,700,000.
The ndmundston Trade School, in my riding, was inaugurated in 1965 and represents an investment of some $1,700,000, in vocational training.
Another trade school in my riding is the school of Grand-Sault which has just been built, and this means an investment of more than half a million dollars
Mr. Speaker, a new government has been elected in New Brunswick a few weeks ago. I really do not know if they will give the province a better administration than the previous government. Time will tell.
I do know, however, that during the sixties, considerable growth has been recorded in the field of industrial development in that province, under the leadership of the hon. Louis J. Robichaud. Remarkable and willing cooperation has been extended by the federal government, and I sincerely hope that this co-operation will carry over into this decade. I do hope so and in my opinion, all the citizens of New Brunswick expect it. The provincial government should now show its mettle, it should come out of its shell and vigorously carry on the aggressive policy set forth and implemented by the previous government.
I am sure that the federal government will not be found wanting, because of its strong present policy.

November 19, 1970
Employment Programs
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, being a man ot charity I do not begrudge the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) his opportunity to write the epilogue to a very important period-


An hon. Member:: Epitaph.


Mr. Fairwealher:: 
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, most of the speakers in the debate yesterday and today have been dealing, quite understandably, with the problems of unemployment, poverty and regional disparity. I intend today in the few minutes at my disposal to deal with another subject which I submit is related. The pro-

November 19, 1970
Employment Programs
jected costs of what we are doing are so tremendous that unless we think about our programs and our objectives, and unless we begin to set national goals we will create problems for this country the result of which will be that unemployment, meeting health needs and housing needs, to mention just a few of the basic needs of the people of this country, will become insoluble.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I want to discuss the failure of the federal government in "its policy-to take the words of the amendment to the motion put forth yesterday by the leader of our party-of opting out of its responsibility to be involved in the maintenance of national standards in health, welfare and education." It has become fashionable since the arrival in Ottawa of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) increasingly to hear the view that education is a provincial responsibility under the provisions of the BNA Act, and therefore that Ottawa ought not to be and cannot be too involved in educational problems. Mr. Speaker, whether we like it or not, we are involved and we always have been involved.
Ottawa by which I mean the federal government, is involved in the education of Indians. Ottawa is involved 100 per cent in the manpower training programs. Ottawa is involved in provincial educational programs at the elementary and secondary school levels. Every time the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) signs an ARDA or FRED agreement with one of the provinces, with the exception of Quebec, a major component is the reorganization, upgrading and redevelopment of the educational system of that province. Ottawa is certainly involved in the financing of university education both at the undergraduate and graduate level.
Mr. Speaker, some of our top civil servants at the federal and provincial levels have been giving thought to what has happened in education and what is likely to happen within the next ten to 15 years. They have been pointing to the dangers. Unfortunately, so far as I can tell there has been no response by anybody in the federal government to their analyses, by either the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), who has some responsibility for educational and cultural matters, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang), or the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
I commend to hon. members a speech delivered by the director of the education division of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Dr. Wisenthal, to the conference held at Banff in October by the Alberta Human Resources Research Commission. He points out what we all know, that there has been a tremendous increase in the number of young people attending post-secondary educational institutions, universities, community colleges, technical and vocational schools. This increase is understandable. We were remiss in these kinds of programs until the last few years and have been trying to catch up. Dr. Wisenthal documents the growth in enrolment. He points out that if one takes 1961 as the base year and puts the index figure of those attending university at 100 in that year, by 1969 the figure had risen to 250.9, an
increase of more than 2J times. He projects what will happen by 1980 if we continue in the way in which we have been going. His figure for 1980 is 581.8, an increase of almost 600 per cent.
Dr. Wisenthal goes on to analyse the enrolment figures. He points out that if you take the undergraduate university enrolment in 1961 as 121.5, by 1969 it had grown to 268.2, substantially more than double. He projects this on to 1980 and comes up with the figure of 638.4, an increase of almost sixfold from 1961 to 1980. At the graduate level, and I am not too critical of this because our graduate students have traditionally gone first to Great Britain and in more recent years to the United States, he points out that where there were 7.3 thousand students doing graduate work in 1961, this figure had grown by 1969 to 30.2 thousand, and by 1980 he estimates it will grow to 111.6 thousand. That is a tremendous increase.
Dr. Wisenthal has also calculated the costs and his figures are startling. If you take university costs in 1961 and give them an arbitrary figure of $100, by 1969 this had increased to $507.7, an increase of more than 500 per cent. By 1980 this will increase to $3,181.5, more than 31 times as much as we were spending in 1961. I am one of those who over the years have called for better things in the way of education. According to the statistics given by Dr. Wisenthal it appears that we may be facing an actual expenditure of $8.3 billion on all forms of post-secondary education in 1980. I do not know if this country can find that amount of money, but it seems to me this projection raises a number of very important questions about which the federal government has not even begun to think.
If we find this money, must it be at the expense of sacrificing other programs which are equally or even more important? We know about the housing needs of people in the low-income bracket. We know about the housing needs of people in the middle-income bracket in cities such as Toronto and Vancouver. These people are not able to finance adequate housing for themselves. If we have to find the kind of money which Dr. Wisenthal talks about, we may not be able to fulfil the desire of the Canadian people for proper kinds of social security systems, for adequate pensions, for an extension of health services to include such things as dental care and mental health, and for a guaranteed income. With respect to the latter, it appears to be part of the programs of all political parties, although we may differ about the details and we certainly differ about the timing for the implementation of such a program.
All this has happened at a time when easy assumptions were made by people in the educational field and by political leaders of all parties, that an education pretty well guaranteed an interesting job at good pay. That was the case until recently, Mr. Speaker, but obviously it is not the case any more. I am sure there is not a member of Parliament who has not been faced in his own city by young people coming to him and saying they have a B.A., an M.A. or even, according to yesterday's Globe and Mail, a Ph.D. and yet they cannot find employment. A study conducted by Dr. Frank Kelly, science adviser to
[Mr. Orlikow.l
November 19, 1970

the Science Council of Canada, shows that fewer than half the people in Canada who will be granted Ph.D. degrees in engineering and science this year will find jobs next spring. I could give details of a study carried out by the Graduate Students Association of the University of Toronto. The study shows that not only will this happen this coming spring but in fact it happened last summer when half the Ph.D. graduates of the University of Toronto did not get a job and so went on to further post-doctoral studies.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
We are facing an extremely difficult situation, Mr. Speaker. I have raised some of the questions asked by Dr. Wisenthal. I take no credit for the Ontario government, which is not formed by the party to which I belong but is a Conservative government; however, it appointed a commission on post-secondary education in Ontario headed by Dr. Wright. This commission has made a preliminary report. Whilst they have not any more answers than I have, they have asked a number of very important questions which they intend to look into.
They asked why higher education must be carried out in institutions called universities and colleges. They asked why it would not be possible to have, in place of segregated and fragmented institutions, a plethora of educational services available to all, at any age. They asked why universities have to be conducted in such a way as to have summer holidays lasting several months. They asked why it is necessary for young people to go directly from high school to college, which means that a student has almost 20 years of continuous education. They asked whether in fact young people coming from poor or low-income families have been or are able to go to university in any substantial numbers; whether in fact we are subsidizing the children of middle and upper-income families, those best able to look after their own needs.
These are questions of importance in respect of all the educational programs of the federal government for the next couple of generations. I hope the federal government will stop simply paying what it has accepted as its share of the cost of higher education and will begin to involve itself seriously with the provinces in a co-operative study of the problems of higher education, where we are going and what we ought to do in the next couple of generations.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make on this question and related economic conditions in the country, but in view of the fact that it is almost six o'clock I wonder if you would be inclined to call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
Privilege AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, notice of which I gave to Your Honour more than an hour ago, as required under the provisions of Standing Order 17(2). It was brought to our attention a day or two ago that on Saturday of this week the parliamentary dining room will be open for the lunch and dinner periods. May I make it completely clear that I have no objection whatsoever to this being done. We all know the reason for this. It is to enable government members to entertain in the dining room their guests who will be here for the Liberal convention. As I say, I have no objection to that whatsoever; I think it is a legitimate arrangement.
However, it has come to our attention, from members of the staff of the parliamentary restaurant, that they have been asked to work on Saturday for this occasion but that instead of being paid for that day they will be given another day off later on.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I find that there is a fair amount of feeling about this among those who are affected, and it seems to me that it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. I hope that if the information that has been given to us by the employees concerned is correct, the matter can and will be corrected.
Normally when one raises a question of privilege, one moves the reference of the matter to some committee. That is not necessary in this case. I hope that His Honour, the Speaker, either by himself or with the commissioners of internal economy will take care of the matter. If it were not for the fact that we are not sitting tomorrow, I would have pursued the matter in other ways and perhaps raised it during the question period tomorrow morning. Since Saturday intervenes between now and the time when the House will meet again, I have raised it in this way. I am sure that all hon. members of the House would want Parliament to do the fair thing by our employees in the parliamentary restaurant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member has indicated, he gave the Chair notice of the question of privilege. The Chair will, as the hon. member has suggested, discuss the details of the question of privilege with Mr. Speaker. I undertake to the hon. member and to all hon. members of the House that I will do that.

November 19, 1970
Employment Programs



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Stanfield:
That this House condemns the government for increasing the economic inequalities between different regions of Canada by its opposition to full employment policy and its refusal to use short-term and long-term programs in a timely and effective manner to prevent the resulting recession-level poverty and social injustice now widespread in Canada.
And the amendment thereto of Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands).
Mr. Paul Yev/chuk (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, unemployment and regional disparities can be discussed together because one is often dependent upon the other; they are two interdependent factors. In 1968 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his party won the election. They won it partly on the promise, I think, that they would be instrumental in removing regional disparities within the country. Generally speaking, when somebody says he wants to do something about regional disparities, I take this to mean that he is going to make efforts to improve the condition of poverty-stricken areas, that is to say, to improve their economic status. At the same time I take this to mean the provision of more employment in those areas and that disparities will be wiped out because we should make economic conditions across this country uniform.
Unfortunately, the opposite has occurred. I think the government attempted to live up to its promise to remove regional disparities, but it is not doing it in the way I have described. What is happening is that areas of prosperity and high employment are being dragged down to the level of those areas where there is great poverty and high unemployment. This is paradoxical. The government has adopted the wrong approach in dealing with unemployment and regional disparities. It is important for us to recognize that if we are to reverse the trend that the government has begun, the government must follow a national economic policy based upon certain economic realities. It must do that if it is to achieve the desirable economic goals which the Economic Council of Canada has set, namely, full employment.
We consider that an unemployment rate of 3.8 per cent of the work force constitutes full employment, a high rate of growth, by which we mean an increase of approximately 4.75 per cent per year in the gross national product, and reasonable price stability, by which we mean that prices shall not increase by more than 2 per cent per year. Also, we must be in a viable balance of payments position in which the foreign exchange rate of our money is not subject to undue fluctuation. Finally, we must see to it that there is an equitable distribution of our rising incomes.

Unemployment affects different regions of the country differently. However, as obvious as this might appear, the government's policy has not been affected by this reality. Part of the difficulty, it appears, is that the government is obsessed with controlling inflation. Because of this position it has virtually ignored the very important side effects of its war on inflation. One of those consequences is the reduced capability of the economy. The economy has already fallen substantially below its potential. The second side effect is the high unemployment rate that we have in the country today.
Let us look at the unemployment figures for the various provinces. We see that the situation is extremely unhealthy at this time. In British Columbia, for example, projections are that unemployment this winter will be in the area of 13 per cent. In the Prairie region, which traditionally enjoys the lowest level of unemployment of any region of the country, projections point to an unemployment rate of 8 per cent, which is more than double the rate normally experienced in that region in the winter. In addition, there is reason to believe that there is a considerable amount of hidden unemployment in the Prairies because the labour force figures omit farmers who have been made idle because of the slowdown in farm production. The projection for Quebec is that more than 12 per cent of the work force will be unemployed this winter. For the Atlantic region, which traditionally suffers from the highest unemployment rate, the projections show an unemployment rate this winter as high as 14 per cent.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The structural reasons for unemployment, such as remoteness from markets, aging population and reduced educational capabilities of the work force, have been seriously aggravated by the government's anti-inflation policy. It does no good for the government to saddle this region with the high costs of its anti-inflation campaign and then unsuccessfully try to offset these costs with an inadequate regional incentives policy. In order to properly tackle the questions of regional disparity and unemployment, a regional approach to this problem is needed. The fiscal and monetary policies of the government must be sensitive to the differences in the economic and social potential of Canada's regions. It is absurd to expect the Prairie and Atlantic provinces to pay the price of the government's fight against inflation when these regions are suffering the worst unemployment in years.
A regionalized approach toward inflation and unemployment would match the cure with the illness. The Atlantic, Prairie and British Columbia regions depend very heavily on international trade, particularly with respect to primary products. In June the government decided to float the value of the Canadian dollar. This action had very severe effects on regions involved in international sales of primary products. The government has contemplated no positive measures to alleviate the burden caused by this move. In addition, the existing tariff policy of Canada does little to help those regions which depend upon foreign trade in primary products.
November 19, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Unemployment is high. This is one of the effects of the government's war on inflation. When we examine the situation we find it is a little paradoxical that the government is probably the greatest contributor to inflation. This can be illustrated by the fact that the government's spending and taxation policies will be the main inflationary causes for at least another couple of years. Direct taxes contribute greatly to rising costs and prices. However, that is only part of the story. Increased government spending was achieved by bidding away resources and people from private industry. The result has been to increase incomes and prices and to make these resources scarce in the private economy.
This inflationary pressure will probably continue, because even at this time government spending is greatly increasing. Business cannot continue much longer to absorb increased costs and defer price increases. Business profits are 14 per cent lower than they were a year ago. In manufactured goods, profits are down 27 per cent. Capital investment, and ultimately long-term productivity. appear to be in jeopardy. As I mentioned previously, the Prairie region is in difficulty.
A few days ago I was alarmed to see a report from the Department of Agriculture indicating that in 1969, Canada for the first time in history became a net importer of agricultural products. This development becomes even more startling when one compares the 1969 agricultural trade deficit of $35 million with a net agricultural export surplus balance of $826 million, which was achieved in 1966. Over the years we have traditionally had a favourable balance of trade in agricultural products, ranging from $200 million to the high of $826 million.
The reason for the current unfavourable balance is two-fold. First, a recognizable decline of exports has been recorded since the high registered in the mid-1960s, 95 per cent of which is attributed to wheat. Second, importation of agricultural products has risen by roughly 80 per cent since the mid-1950s while at the same time exports have increased by less than 30 per cent for the corresponding period. While the majority of the decrease in our exports was the result of our dismal sales performance in wheat, other grain sales were disastrously affected. As a matter of fact, exports of coarse grains, barley, oats and rye reached the lowest level in more than ten years, registering an export figure of $37 million compared with an average of $96 million recorded in the period 1955-59. I ask hon. members to recall which party was in power at that time.
Turning to the meat industry, we note another startling revelation. The year 1969 produced an unfavourable balance in the meat trade, recording imports of $121 million against exports of $76 million. Such a large discrepancy has never before occurred, although there were slight deficits recorded in the years 1963 and 1967. Imports of $121 million represents an increase of 538 per cent over the level established in the period 1955-59, while exports for the year represent an increase of 78 per
Employment Programs
cent over the level established during the same period. Another fact which undoubtedly a vast majority of Canadians, especially farmers, find very difficult to accept-is that Canadians are now consuming some $60 worth of imported agricultural products annually, per capita, which is twice the amount for 1960.
When one analyses these figures, one wonders just what lies in store for the agriculture industry in the 1970s. The implications of the government's program to control production through restrictive quotas and national marketing measures, coupled with no-grow policies in respect of grains and the general concept of gearing production closer to domestic consumption, could very well inhibit the prospect of ever achieving a healthy, viable industry. We now have a grains policy which advocates the consolidation of farms into large, so-called commercially viable units. At this time, no one knows what farmers will do when they find they are forced to leave their farms. It will obviously add to the terrible unemployment situation which now exists. There appears to be no satisfactory program to cope with the retraining of these people and relocating them in satisfactory economic situations.
We have a marketing bill now before Parliament- which proposes to impose government controls on all aspects of production-buying, pricing, assembling, packing, processing, transporting, storing and determining the quantity, the time and place at which a regulated product may be produced. Why are such impositions being instituted? According to the experts and the government, the reason is that we have huge surpluses of agricultural products and we must institute quotas and other measures to ensure supply management and production control.
I believe this approach is sheer nonsense. What we need, first, is an admission by the government that the sales performance and marketing record of agriculture products has deteriorated to the point that it now must be classified as a dismal failure. I believe we then must take cognizance of the observation of the task force that our present allocation of funds to market research is far from adequate. In the past, a meagre 1.2 per cent of the total amount spent on all agricultural research programs has been allocated to market research, distribution and international trade. The task force also said that it found fotally incomprehensible the present lack of policies and priorities in the field of market research. It questioned whether the industry could withstand the vagaries to which it will be subjected without some clearly defined policies and goals. So evident was this that in several instances the task force was unable to secure adequate research data in Canada to compile its report and found that such information was more readily accessible from foreign sources, particularly the United States.
© (8:20p.m.)
I believe we should ask ourselves whether we in Canada wish to continue to be a net importer of agricultural products. If the answer is no, as I am sure it is, then it is the duty of the government and of the agricultural
[Stage Direction]
November 19, 1970
Employment Programs
sector in general to establish some priorities. We have already proved we can produce. We have the land, we have the ability, we have the technology and we can produce efficiently.
The first priority, as I see it, is that government and the agricultural sector in general must allocate more resources to market research and place more emphasis on market information and the dissemination of this information. On the basis of such factual and comprehensive information, farmers throughout Canada will be able to achieve an effective degree of product diversification related to forecasts and surveys made of market potential at home and abroad. In addition, we need an aggressive and effective sales force, thoroughly knowledgeable with respect to our products and the needs of our customers, which would show distinct loyalty to the concept of Canada first.
In conclusion, I believe the government should reassess its spending and taxation policies and then take a fresh look at its approach to regional disparities which have been treated in a backwoods manner up to the present time.
Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, neither the no-confidence motion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), nor the amendment of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan The Islands (Mr. Douglas), are acceptable. Instead, we should congratulate the government for the steps taken to reduce regional disparties and what social injustices exist in Canada.
The Gaspe area, one of whose representatives I am in the House, has always been considered by Canadians generally as being economically weak, but offering great possibilities for industrial development. The situation that prevails in the Gaspe peninsula also exists in many other parts of Canada.
To all those questions, there is an answer; it is a matter of finding it. There is no reason why the people of the poorer areas should keep on living in a state similar to that of the 30s, even in eastern Quebec where neither farming nor the lumber industry are profitable in many cases.
Referring to the history of Gaspe, should we say or even think that the federal government is the only one to blame for the economic and social situation now prevailing?
In the 1930's, local authorities, very often the priests of various Gaspe parishes, made representations to governments for the formation of new parishes, most of the time under the pretext of developing natural resources such as agriculture and forestry. The undertaking met with doubtful success.
Indeed, lengthy studies revealed that the economy of such parishes or villages was not profitable and that the social atmosphere was very difficult for their inhabitants.
Once those parishes, called marginal, disappear, nothing will prevent the movement of the population towards well-established service centers where it will be possible to attract industries.
Such is the situation of people anxious to improve their lot and ready, through the policy of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, to take the necessary means to reach this aim.
It is difficult to admit that in 1970, a group of parish priests should endorse a manifesto more negative than positive urging the people to stay in marginal parishes where experience has proved that economic and social life is impossible. Why blame this government which does use every possible means in order to improve the living conditions of people likely to be displaced?
Mr. Speaker, the opposition criticizes the regional economic expansion policy of the government but, in my opinion, it is the only solution to achieve the suppression of economic disparit.es. In a few years, we shall admit that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) were right.
Because of the experience gained in eastern Quebec as a result of the surveys carried out by the Eastern Quebec Development Agency (BAEQ) and following the Canada-Quebec agreement, we are looking forward to a general and gradual breakthrough during the next few months.
In spite of the delays, is it right for us to find fault exclusively with the central government which has been supporting its fair share of the financial burden? Should we not remember that during the past two years, while the Quebec government was responsible for the implementation of this agreement, some of the provincial ministers, ostensibly to preserve the territorial integrity of their province, tried along with some officials, to hinder the carrying out of individual projects provided for in the agreement, the financing of which was to be the responsibility of the federal government on a 75 per cent basis.
I do not have to recall those lengthy and hazardous discussions which set the provincial authorities against the federal government with respect to the development of the Forillon national park.
Are we to think then that, because the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) initiated the establishment of this park and had the funds required, the federal government is to be blamed if the agreement was signed two years late? I do not believe so. However, considering the attitude of Mr. Marcel Masse, provincial minister responsible for the Eastern Quebec Development Bureau at that time, the Quebec government is entirely to blame since it appeared, for numerous non valid reasons, to want to deprive the Gaspe population of an annual economic expansion worth from $30 to $40 million, when the national park is ready for use. Those figures do not appear to have been exaggerated, considering the experience of other provinces.

November 19, 1970

Every member nows that although it is underdeveloped, the Gaspe peninsula possesses considerable natural resources, which can be exploited with profit.
Would it be normal that in 1970 the Canadian government should venture to spend substantial amounts of money to create in every village of the Gaspe peninsula industries like the Gaspesia Pulp and Paper Company Ltd., in Chandler, and the Consolidated Bathurst Limited, in New Richmond? Is it not preferable to apply government policy, which consists in helping these lumber companies to expand and offer more jobs to the population, and consequently, enable it to reach a standard of living comparable to that of other regions with a stronger economy? This policy, which I consider acceptable, will make possible the establishment of service centres adequate to present needs. The policy we are trying to implement in the Gaspe peninsula should also be applied in the Atlantic provinces.
The government's regional development policy is aimed at ensuring for future generations a standard of living more in keeping with the economic progress of the nation as a whole.
The present government has already shown, and continues to show a keen interest in the establishment of new industries in Canada. Volvo, Michelin, Canadian General Electric are now operating in Nova Scotia and the leader of the Opposition, before presenting his motion of non-confidence, should have taken into consideration the benefits his own province has derived since 1963 from the federal government's policies.
The present government, through its Department of Regional Economic Expansion, has made it possible for existing companies to obtain grants for purposes of expansion. In this way the government participated financially in the expansion of several industries in my riding, including the Gaspesia Pulp and Paper Company Ltd. in Chandler, the Consolidated Bathurst Limited mill in New Richmond. It also helped the construction of the Canadian International Paper Company mills in Matane and, finally, it subsidized the fisheries complex in Riviere-au-Renard.
I would suggest that certain mining companies such as Noranda Mines and others decentralize some of their operations and install refining plants in underdeveloped areas. This decentralization would achieve two very definite objectives: the industrial development of such areas, which would ensure additional jobs and enable their residents to attain a living standard similar to that of the more favoured Canadian regions; and the possibility for decentralized plants to combat pollution of urban centers.
[DOT] (8:30p.m.)
For a long time, transportation has been a problem in several parts of Canada. For some years, the present government has endeavoured by all necessary means to meet all the requirements in this field. This goodwill on the part of the government is demonstrated by the fact that work has already begun on the site of the new Sainte-Scholastique airport.
Employment Programs
In the Gaspe and Lower St. Lawrence region alone, the federal government has spent, since 1964, $13 million for road construction, excluding the Trans-Canada Highway. It has built the ocean ports of Chandler, New Richmond, Matane and Riviere-au-Renard so as to allow the regular operation of the local industries, thus ensuring a decent standard of living for a good part of the population.
In conclusion, the motion moved by the hon. leader of the opposition and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands are irrelevant in the present context.
In fact, after these remarks, it would appear that the government, in my view, is fully able to set priorities notwithstanding the stresses it has to face. The future will demonstrate that the right hon. Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet were working for the wellbeing of the nation as a whole.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, the way the motion under consideration is now worded, gives hon. members the opportunity to point out, each in his own way, the poor results witnessed by the Canadian people concerning the unequal opportunities for a decent life in a country so affluent with a variety of all sorts of assets that its present administration is faced once more with an overproduction problem.
Instead of looking for a solution in the improvement of the means of distribution, a price and income commission was set up at the cost of $160,000 to $179,000 per year, in order to show to the Canadian people that they overspend. Here is an example of income distribution: a few good friends of the administration are paid salaries of $28,000, $33,000, $37,000 and $40,000 a year.
Several Canadians realize that it is a big price to pay to learn that they overspend. We learned lately that the members of the commission had succeeded in establishing, after investigation, the price of a cup of coffee. They would be of much greater service to the people if, while looking for price adjustment methods, they would try to uncover the true reasons for the price increases. They would easily find that one of those reasons is the high cost of interest on the public debt.
From confederation until 1964, the Canadian people have paid over $15 billion in interest on the public debt, and since then, the cost of interest on that famous debt has exceeded one billion dollars each year. Let us consider for one moment the tremendous increase of our debts and of all kinds of taxes which inevitably affect prices and we shall find the major cause for the increase in the cost of living.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The higher the proportion of income absorbed by taxes the more the purchasing power of the consumer is decreased and, without noticing it, he is drifting towards state socialism.

November 19, 1970
Employment Programs
This is easy to understand: the money the taxpayer keeps he can spend at will while the tax money taken in by the government is spent by the state according to its own plans and not according to the individual's plans.
The federal government now takes more than 25 per cent of the citizens' income. It manages more than one quarter of the total expenditures in this country. It rules over a little more than one quarter of our production and our consumption.
To this must be added the share taken by the provincial and municipal governments. One can wonder whether this is leading to the forced abdication of the human being to governments. And yet, the human being is free, and the government is only an institution bound to his service.
Some complain of being overburdened by taxation and above all consider that they are being deprived of the fruit of their labour, and they have a good point. However, I wanted mostly to outline that steadily increasing taxes are leading us quickly to state socialism.
Besides, when the overburdened private enterprise loses heart, it is, of course, replaced by an industrial or a state monopoly. In the first case, we have financial domination, and in the second, state bureaucracy. A system must be quite out of gear to force a choice between those two forms of human enslavement.
However, there is another solution: the control of money where it originates, according to the facts, the rights of the human being, and the capacity of the country. This would be Social Credit. But our governments prefer to rule the individuals rather than interfere with the privileges of the people who create money.
It is true that unless we decide on reform according to the Social Credit theory, whether we like it or not, we are on the way to state socialism, including the degradation of the human being.
Socialism and communism approach the problem of the distribution of goods with the idea that some people have too little and others too much. Instead of requesting the distribution of all surplus products, which represent an unused collective share, they insist on taking away from those who seem to have more than their share.
Unfortunately, sociologists, labour leaders, even earnest supporters of corporatism, approach the distribution problem somewhat in the same light. Without falling into the excesses of a sour and levelling communism, they seek a solution to the social problem only in a less unequal distribution of goods, and not in a generous distribution of the goods not already apportioned.
They all follow the rule of work participation in order to have titles to production, while promoting a more equitable allocation of those titles. Their submission to that rule is the cause either of their errors, or their deficiencies, or their difficulties, because since man has been using his brains, he seeks to eliminate human labour from production. And in an age when he succeeds
more and more, the problem becomes harder and harder for those good researchers, however well-intentioned they might be. They all lack a clear understanding of the distributive economic doctrine of Social Credit.
Besides denouncing this paralyzing and debt-breeding tyranny of the monopoly of money and credit, we suggest means to end it.
As soon as one acknowledges that the realities to produce are there-and I believe that they are easy to see-one has to proceed to implementation. It will also have to be accepted that the implementation of the financial suggestions of Social Credit set forth by Major Douglas would eliminate the obstacles precisely by putting finance before those realities.
"Finance, as rightly stated by Major Douglas, must be controlled by production and consumption or the production and distribution of products should not be conditioned by finance."
Money and credit-the purchasing power-available to the people must be constantly equivalent to the total price of goods available in that country-whatever the cost price of such goods-and those means of payment must be cancelled or depreciated only in accordance with the consumption and depreciation of consumer goods.
Any new production must be financed with new credit which would be recalled and cancelled only according to the appreciation-depreciation ratio.
The distribution of the purchasing power among individuals must depend less and less on employment to take into account an increased production, while there is a reduction of manpower. Dividends must gradually replace wages as the production capacity increases through automation and improved machinery. We must set up a financial system whose application patterns may vary yet respect those principles, as opposed to the present system which is inappropriate and disorganized, which breeds hardships or worries, inertia or unpaid debts while there is boundless productivity. There no longer shall we complain about lack of schools, of houses or of other things to meet real public or private needs.
Progress thus put at the service of everybody, without any financial restrictions, will prevent man from becoming too preoccupied and too busy with economic matters. It will therefore be up to him alone to engage in free activities favouring full development of his personality. Evidently, there will remain a wide field of action for teachers and priests but, at least, limits to this full development will not be imposed any longer by financial decisions only. We will no longer suffer from a financial dictatorship rationing human beings despite plentifulness and paralyzing citizens despite efficient means of action.
If everyone knew really what it means to be an honest and hard working man who is a victim of unemployment and finds himself unable to provide his family with a decent living, through the fault of an obsolete economic system, many people would change their mind and those mummies left over from a past to be forgotten would

November 19, 1970

soon be revived through a live contact with the realities of today.
Some people are quick to state that the Creditistes have "forward" ideas. This could well mean an implicit condemnation of the position of those who prefer to mark time in a world continuously striving for new achievements. Should we, in order not to disturb those champions of an economic statu quo, burden the rest of humanity-the healthy part-with the unbearable weight of so-called dogmas, the work of human brains trying hard to be considered infallible?
Because of the present situation, it is obvious that this winter will bring a great deal of unemployment and that many regions will particularly be afflicted by it. Among the various classes of manpower, it is the younger and the older people who are the most hardly hit. These two classes of workers deserve special sympathy. If it is appropriate to seek the best means of solving the problem, a task which is everybody's concern, it might also be important to show some understanding for the unemployed, to avoid summary judgments and, mostly, to avoid taking advantage of the present situation to retaliate on the workers. The spectre of unemployment is hard enough to bear without that.
It happens that we take the young people to task for their lack of ambition and ideals and find them skeptical and blase. We also severely blame them for being heartless and lacking in initiative. Of course, too soft and too superficial an education or the search for easy living have degraded the taste for well being earned through sacrifice. But that could not be true in every case. Those who have grown up in a large family have already had the opportunity of learning the value of sacrifice and selfdenial. They soon learned how to take care of themselves. Those who had more than their share of hardships, those who had to make efforts to get a high school diploma or a university degree have already earned, through their will to succeed, a capital that others do not have.
Anxious to work and to build a successful future, they are faced at the start with an artificial system which raises obstacles in their path. They feel crushed and deprived of a fundamental right: the right to work. They feel useless. A large number of them keep hoping that tomorrow maybe they will be accepted on the job, like the immigrant to whom the door of the country is widely opened. He will remember this with sorrow and with resentment, unable to understand why he was turned down.
What is more serious still is that many, even thousands, face the same situation. To be sure, a distinction must be made between those who want to work and those who do not, between those who are lazy and those who are not, between those who are capable and those who cannot do any kind of work.
One fact remains: during the economic depression of the 30's young and not-quite-so-young people with ambition had a taste of what it meant to be jobless and to wait for prosperity over long years. Among them some had enough courage to face exile in order to find employ-
Employment Programs
ment, yet without brighter hopes than the expectation of three meals a day. Others had to wait for the war to break out in order to relieve their parents of the burden of a dependence very unwillingly imposed upon them.
Let us try and find solutions more in keeping with 1970 realities.
[DOT] (8:50p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I do so to remind him that the time allotted by special order of the House has expired. Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Vicloria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I have been looking forward to this opportunity to pass along to the government the expressions of great concern that my constituents are conveying to me in increasing numbers and with increasing urgency. It becomes more difficult with every day that passes to explain to my constituents why the government of our wealthy nation cannot provide the basic necessities of life for its citizens. It is not enough just to say to the unemployed that our country is being poorly managed. It is not enough to say to them that the present government is inept, inefficient and confused. If I were to offer no more than that, I would be doing the same as the government is doing; I would be offering words instead of action.
Since the government appears to be tragically unaware of the seriousness of the unemployment situation in this country and of the seriousness of the general economic climate in Canada today, I would like to lay on the table a few frightening examples of what we are faced with, in the hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will take note of them. First of all, it will probably come as a surprise to the Minister of Finance to learn that his attack on inflation has been a disaster. It will probably come as a surprise to this government that the people of Canada are not smiling as broadly as the Minister of Finance when they contemplate the greatly increased unemployment that faces us in the coming winter months.
At the present time the rate of unemployment in Canada is the worst in 25 years. But according to the forecasts, that is only the beginning. The outlook for even our most affluent provinces, for the provinces with the best management, is dire indeed. Starting with the Atlantic provinces, the prospect is 14 per cent unemployment in the coming months, and some forecasts go up to 20 per cent. This is a high price to pay for the government's ill-conceived and ill-fated war against inflation.
In Quebec, the prospect is 13 per cent unemployment, and this figure is likely to be exceeded. There is a Liberal government in Quebec now, and even the attempts of the federal Liberal government to shore up

November 19, 1970
Employment Programs
Quebec's tangled economic situation is not likely to help matters a great deal. The federal government has accepted the responsibility to provide the jobs that the Premier of Quebec promised his people if he were elected, and it appears that both governments have failed miserably.
In the Prairie provinces the prospects are no better. It is predicted that unemployment in the three Prairie provinces will run to at least 8 per cent, and again this is a conservative estimate. Moving to the west coast, that western anchor of this great nation, this wealthy nation, the province of British Columbia faces the prospect of 12 per cent to 14 per cent unemployment at a time when jobs should be most plentiful.
Using the round figures of 500,000 unemployed and $5,000 as the annual income lost by each unemployed person, the net loss to the country is astronomical. This represents a loss of income in the order of $2J billion a year. Using a base tax rate of 10 per cent, the loss in taxes amounts to $250 million. The lost income represents lost purchasing power, lost opportunity for these people to better themselves in our society and lost dignity and pride of accomplishment.
We cannot afford a loss of this magnitude. If any corporation or business adopted the same shoddy business practices that this government is using to manage the country, that company or business would surely fail. The same logic must be applied to our country, because our country is a giant corporation that is being managed for its stockholders, the Canadian people. Any government that attempts to manage Canada as though it were five separate economic entities is inviting disaster, and that is just the manner in which this country is being managed.
Surely the government must be aware of the seriousness of the unemployment situation. The figures are there for them to see. If the average Canadian can assess the danger that faces us economically, surely our jovial Minister of Finance can see the danger. In an economic system such as ours we can consider that we are holding our own if we hold unemployment to about 3.8 per cent, but only if we maintain an economic growth rate of about 4.5 per cent per year. We are tragically short of a healthy growth rate, at approximately 1 per cent, and we are certainly exceeding the limits of unemployment. In fact, that rate is more than double the acceptable rate.
There is clear evidence that the government does in fact recognize the danger in our economic and fiscal postures, in spite of its attempts to cover up with a smile and a shrug of the shoulder. There is evidence of panic in the ivory tower. There is clear evidence that the largest cabinet in the history of this country is slogging hopelessly in a morass of indecision and confusion. This confused situation is being compounded daily by the implementation of hastily contrived, stop-gap measures in a vain attempt to stem the tide.
One example of such hastily conceived measures is the streamlining of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In the process, hundreds of local commission offices were closed and thousands of qualified persons have been required to deal at a distance with offices that are there for the sole purpose of serving the people. Every day I
receive requests from constituents for assistance in cutting through a new brand of red tape in order to obtain benefits that are rightfully theirs, benefits that have been paid for over many years. The percentage of cases in which I have been able to gain satisfaction for my constituents has been almost 100 per cent. This in itself points up the extent to which this particular management innovation has failed. However, it is useless to try to convince the government that other methods should be instituted.
The government is much too busy innovating and experimenting to concern itself with serving the Canadian individual. It is much easier to jump from one stop-gap measure to another than to try to develop long-range programs that work to the advantage of the individual. I am sure that the Liberal backbenchers receive the same type of complaints from constituents as do opposition members. It surprises me that there is so little evidence of concern on the part of those members with regard to government practices and government failures to resolve fundamental problems. It surprises me that at least a few government members do not take advantage of their rights under our parliamentary system to make their views known to their government.
It is typical that when the government announces loudly a program to deal with a problem, it tells only half the story. I am thinking about the program announced a few days ago to deal with unemployment. Included in the program is the provision of $10 million add tional funds for the Unemployment Insurance Commission retraining program. One would automatically assume that this would mean additional schoolroom seats for those who would like to improve their level of schooling and their employability. Speaking for Ontario, that is not the case. In response to complaints from constituents who were unable to enrol in a retraining course, I made inquiries about the state of the program in my area. I found that the budget for my region is short of its basic requirement by approximately $89,000 and, as a result, several levels of formal schooling have been wiped out for the present and for the foreseeable future.
* (9:00 p.m.)
For instance, two of the most important levels as far as improvement of employability are concerned, grades 11 and 12, have been eliminated from the training centres in my region. There are four classroom seats available in grade 8, and only one seat in grade 7. The number of job-seekers in the region has doubled in the past few months. The need for retraining has increased correspondingly, yet there has been a serious setback in retraining funds and facilities.
There is another aspect of the compound problem of economic slowdown and high unemployment that should be stressed, and that is the long-range effect of decreased revenue on the one hand and a spiralling welfare budget on the other. When people are unemployed for long periods of time, people who would ordinarily be employable, the drain on the public treasury for welfare and other assistance will in time create a serious imbalance in our economic structure. When people who should be

November 19, 1970

contributing to the economy are, instead, drawing from that economy, those who are contributing will be required to contribute still more. If this process served to eliminate the problem, it might be acceptable. But all it does is perpetuate the problem and we have a gradual roll-back in the economy instead of healthy growth.
As I mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, this situation cannot be prolonged indefinitely, not in a business or in a corporation and certainly not in a national economy. The fact remains that poor management is behind most of this country's ills. It is also a fact that the only way we can recover from the dilemma of impoverished affluence is to institute sound management principles. It would behove us to move in that direction now, while we can still move at all.


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, in order to develop those parts of our country which have experienced relative disfavour in the past, the government adopted certain programs under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I was overjoyed to see those programs adopted and I embraced them. The theory that money should be pumped into those areas to a greater degree than into the more developed centres is a sound one, but I wonder how it works in practice; I wonder if the end result is what we intended by bringing in that kind of measure.
Earlier in the debate many hon. members spoke about the incentives plan. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), and I have great regard for his selling ability, particularly when he was the Minister of Trade and Commerce-he and his executive assistant had many great ideas for selling Canadian products-spoke about the industrial incentives plan and about other plans to be added to it. Regardless of what we add to that plan, I am wondering if the end that we seek is being accomplished. We hear murmurings from different parts of the country about whether the incentives plan really does develop the kind of industry, and therefore the kind of employment, we would like to see in those parts of the country that are less favoured than others.
How does it actually work, Mr. Speaker? The government comes along with a plan and says, "These areas are less favoured. If industries would like to establish in them, we will give certain amounts of money as an incentive for them to do so." But what in fact happens? I speak, as we say in French, en connaissance de cause, because northern Ontario has been established as one of those areas largely because of the efforts that some of us made to bring attention to that part of Canada. But there are many people who ask, "Even though northern Ontario is a designated area, just how much money has come into it for regional economic expansion?" If we make comparisons, and some people have done this, we see that some parts of Quebec have received more money. But let us look at this matter a little more closely. Let us look at my own constituency of Cochrane. Let us look at the various areas which could support new industries.
Employment Programs
I believe that no economic base is sound unless it maintains a variety of industries. A one-industry town is not economically sound, and this is the basis of many towns in northern Ontario. When you visit these towns and ask, "How would you like to have a new industry?" they reply, "By all means. We will do everything possible to help bring in a new industry." But, Mr. Speaker, when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, how many of those people have actually gone out and done something about bringing in industry?
I am raising these points because I do not know anyone who has put more effort into attracting secondary industry to northern Ontario than I have, and I have travelled all over the world. You just do not sit back and say, "We are a nice area. We have lots of nice fishing and hunting. Everybody should be happy to come here and establish industry." It does not quite work that way. Even with the incentive provided by the federal government of up to 25 per cent of the capital cost, how many people say, "We would like to go to northern Ontario"? There are not many who say that.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
It is a question of selling them the idea, bringing them there and letting them see what we have to offer in the region. Then perhaps they may establish a new industry. We have asked people from outside the country to put money into industries in that area, but the point is that unless there is some kind of input from local individuals, from local governments, and co-operation among all levels of government, we will not develop secondary industry in northern Ontario or anywhere else in Canada. It would be an anathema for us to speak against the idea of foreign capital in northern Ontario because we know we have no alternative source of capital. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), has spoken on this subject. I suggest that those members of the New Democratic Party who are so ready to speak against foreign investment in this country should stop and think for a moment. No one in northern Ontario would stand behind that idea. It is strange that people in the New Democratic Party are so anxious to speak against American investment in Canada, or any kind of foreign investment but they specify American investment, of course.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: It is amazing that they never mention that the unions in Canada which are international-we call them international, but they are American-control the destiny of this country because they decide whether there will be a strike. They would rather talk about American money. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I would accept money from the Americans any day of the week to help develop industries in northern Ontario. I am sure the hon. member for Timiskaming would, also.


An hon. Member:: Would what?


Ralph Wesley Stewart: In the riding of Cochrane not very many people have enjoyed this regional economic

November 19, 1970
Employment Programs
expansion handout. I consider it a straight handout and it is a great thing. If I had money, there is nothing I would rather do than start new industries wherever the government would pay me these incentives, because there is nothing greater as far as I can see. However, in my constituency there have been only three instances of people making application and being successful in obtaining an incentive grant, and these were strictly on the basis of expansion.
Two weeks ago I was in Cochrane for the expansion of Cochrane Enterprises. This is a plywood plant which had expanded considerably, and we were all happy about it. However, no new industries have come into the area despite all the efforts being made. This leads me to believe, Mr. Speaker, that something must be wrong somewhere. It is not only a question of the incentive grant. It is not only a question, as my hon. friend from Prince Edward-Hastings suggested, of granting tax relief for a number of years. There has to be something else. It seems to me that we should be trying to find a way to get people from the horseshoe around Lake Ontario to say, "This is not where we want to be. We want to be up where the air is pure, where land does not cost much. We would like to establish an industry in northern Ontario or other areas".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We need a new transportation policy.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has lit upon the question I was going to raise next, that is, transportation. In my wanderings around the world I came across a group willing to go into a pulp and paper enterprise in northern Ontario, which is something the local people cannot go into because it requires a large amount of capital, and so on. This is a case where you have to accept somebody else coming in. We hope this industry will come about. There are economic studies being made now to determine whether we should go into it.
One thing that concerns them and everyone who thinks about establishing in the northern part of Ontario and other regions of Canada which are disfavoured is the question of transportation, the question of freight rates. This is an essential program. Every time we speak about development we come back to the problem of freight rales, the cost of sending the products to market.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Wesley Stewart: For this reason we hope very shortly to have a conference in northern Ontario which will determine a new transportation policy for the whole of that area. For the moment, however, let us consider one of the existing industries there, pulp and paper. Why should companies in Cochrane, Smooth Rock Falls, Kapuskasing, Timmins or anywhere in northern Ontario be jeopardized because of their location? Why should they have to spend more than someone in another part of the country to send their products to market? A producer in British Columbia can send his products to Europe much more cheaply than a producer from northern
Ontario, yet the British Columbia producer has to ship through the Panama Canal and across the ocean. In Germany, from anywhere along the Rhine River to the North Sea the cost of sending the product is the same. Of course, Germany is much smaller than Canada, but the principle is there. The point is that no one is jeopardized because he lives in one part of the country rather than another. Why should we in Canada be jeopardized in this way?
It seems to me that these disparities will not be cured by this program of incentives alone. We have to look deeper. The real problem is transportation. This is a big country and we cannot send products to the sea from every part of it for the same price. But we should be able to do so and there should be a policy established for that purpose, otherwise people in one part of the country are disfavoured as compared with people in another part.
In years past, Mr. Speaker, we have heard these problems discussed. People have said, "We in northern Ontario are not understood by people in the south. People in Toronto don't know about us, don't care about us; they forget about us."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ralph Wesley Stewart: That is the truth. People in northern Quebec have said, "Those people down in Montreal and Quebec City don't know about us and don't care about us." The hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) can confirm what I am saying, because people in the northern part of Quebec have the same mentality, the same outlook and aspirations as the people in northern Ontario. A few years ago there were those who thought that because of this lack of understanding and our richness under the soil, although we are disfavoured on top of the soil, we should get together and have the northern part of Ontario and the northern part of Quebec form a new province. When I first heard about this I thought it was not a very good idea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I think this might be a good time to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, we have before us a motion which, among other things, refers to the increasing economic inequalities among different regions of Canada. For the purpose of my remarks tonight I should like to state that there are four regions of Canada. The first is the metropolitan megalopolis like that to which the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) referred. Those of us who live in other places feel they are such vast centres of power and luxury that the rest of us are hewers of wood and drawers of water for the city dweller. However, I have heard the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) say that the second heaven has not yet arrived for people in places like Toronto. I have to agree. I would not want to live in one of those asphalt jungles.
We are considering the responsibilities of the federal government and what it has accepted as its responsibilities in dealing with the inequalities of various regions of Canada. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there are specific

November 19, 1970

policies to make provision for such things as urban renewal, urban reconstruction and that sort of thing in the urban regions of Canada. Then we have what have been referred to as the slow-growth areas of the country. These are areas where for one reason or another it would appear the economy has become stagnant and unemployment has reached unusually high levels. In respect of these regions we have had much debate for many years in the House. Various types of programs have been tried and developed, and some have been discarded. At present we have ARDA and we had the designated areas program. Now we have the designated regions under the regional Area Development Incentives Act.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The third region I refer to constitutes 30 or 40 per cent of the land mass of Canada. It is the area of the territories. There, for constitutional reasons that I will not go into, the federal government has assumed great responsibilities, both in the area of industrial resource development and toward the provision of community facilities, to make it possible for the people who live and work in those areas to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. There again we may say that perhaps everything is not all that it might be.
I suggest the fourth region of this country is what I will refer to as the fast-growth resource area, which is largely in the northern parts of the provinces. The hon. member for Cochrane referred to one of these areas. These areas, for one reason or another, feel alienated from our great metropolitan regions such as Toronto or Vancouver. The area that I represent, which is roughly the northern three-quarters of Vancouver Island, is one such area. It is not a matter of redevelopment; it is not a matter of the existence of a high level of unemployment in those areas: it is a matter of beginning with undeveloped resources and undeveloped facilities and of people having to live there and of travel to and from the area.
I have been examining various programs of the federal government. It seems to me that the whole area of the country which has sometimes been referred to as a possible mid-Canada corridor has really been left out of the picture so far as concerns economic inequalities and social inequalities that may exist between this region and the other regions of Canada I have outlined. Therefore, I think it is time that a few minutes were taken to examine this situation.
The only existing federal programs in those areas that I can think of are programs under the auspices of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the fields of housing, and sewer construction which have general application across the country. I suppose one could say that the manpower retraining and mobility programs do something toward providing skilled manpower in those areas, but I suggest that these programs tend to aggravate rather than improve matters involving the provision of social amenities, transportation and other necessary facilities. This is a situation which I have discussed in the House and have raised with members of various federal governments over many years.
Employment Programs
I must say that it has been a rather frustrating task so far as I am concerned because I come from the province of British Columbia. It seems to me that this is something in which the government of the province of British Columbia has been completely uninterested. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, when we talked about the need for federal assistance in the provision of community facilities and transportation facilities in areas such as the northern part of Vancouver Island it was pretty difficult to build a convincing case when the Premier of British Columbia was talking not so long ago about having $300 million to pour into the Yukon if that part of Canada would link itself with British Columbia. That was $300 million for the building of highways and other community facilities.


An hon. Member:: Give him Cochrane instead.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That is an example of the kind of problem that a member in the federal House representing such a fast growing area has had to face. There has been a need to examine the situation and to determine whether specific and particular problems and inequalities applied to the people living in those areas of the country, and to determine whether they need a distinctive program apart from that provided for slow-growth areas or for the great metropolitan centres.
There has been a glimmering of interest in this matter since the special areas were established under the government reorganization bill of the previous session. I am referring to the bill which established the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The minister of municipal affairs has suggested that northern Vancouver Island is one of the areas that should qualify under this program. My initial reaction to that, Mr. Speaker, was that the suggestion probably did not amount to much more than the kind of sparring that had gone on between the federal and provincial authorities. I mention, for example, the idea which was bandied about of making the road to northern Vancouver Island part of the trans-Canada highway. I have suggested more than once that this proposition was never properly put to Ottawa and that if Mr. Bennett had $300 million to spend in the Yukon, he could certainly afford to build 100 miles or so of road northerly on Vancouver Island.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: However, Mr. Speaker, this does not alter the fact that there is a real need for social capital to be invested in roads, sewer and water systems and in the normal paving programs that take place in communities. Also, when large industrial undertakings move in to exploit resources almost overnight, without any particular provision being made by any authority for a comparable investment to be made in community facilities, the people who are expected to live and work in these areas will be faced with real problems and, I submit, with real inequalities. So I suggest that when we talk about these programs to deal with such problems in specific regions of the country, consideration must and should be given to

November 19, 1970
Employment Programs
the particular needs of the people who live in the undeveloped, fast-growth resource areas in the northern parts of the provinces of this country.
I should like to see more serious attention paid to these problems. If the statements I have read in the press are correct, that the government of the province of British Columbia through a cabinet committee is making at long last a serious study of this problem with a view to making a presentation to the federal government in a proper way, I hope that that presentation will be given consideration by the government. I could expand on this situation in some detail. I could particularize those areas in my constituency where the need for this kind of development is the greatest. In the circumstances, and with the limited time I have in this debate, I do not think I have an adequate opportunity to develop this theme. I have, therefore, contented myself with giving a general outline of the problem which I submit exists virtually across the whole of Canada. It is one which, as I have already said, is of particular urgency in the area of Canada that I represent in this House.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, it was only a few short years ago, 1961-1962, that the government of that day was being violently attacked in this chamber by those who now form the government because of the serious unemployment problem that confronted the country. Day after day, with their usual bloodthirsty motivation for political advantage, the Liberal opposition of those days-


An hon. Member:: Author?


Erik Nielsen: bringing pressure on the economy have been compelled by their membership to press for higher and higher wages to replace lost purchasing power. This is the situation created by this government's policy of high taxes, high costs and high prices. It is a ruinous, iniquitous policy and has resulted in forcing down the standard of living of a whole group of Canadians who have joined the rank of the new poor as a result of this government's policies.
Inflation picks the pocket of the working man, siphoning purchasing power from his pay cheque, forcing him to demand higher and higher wages, taking the food away from his family. And that inflation is the product of policies of high taxation and high spending invoked by this government, which have subtracted the working man's gains at both ends by reducing the amount he receives and adding to the cost of the things he buys. Under this government labour has become the forgotten department. Labour has been downgraded. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) has been reduced to chief conciliation officer for the federal government. He is the closest thing to a minister without portfolio. These are the areas and these are the problems where the government has failed pitiably.
We have growing unemployment, the iniquitous indirect tax of forced inflation, high costs, unjustified government spending resulting in high taxation, with Canadians being squeezed more and more every day and having to run faster just to stay where they are. This is the area in which the government should act and in which it stands indicted by a record of inaction unparalleled in the history of this nation. This government should come back to earth, forget about long-range theorizing and academic abstractions and come to grips with the people's problems. They should stop preening and admiring themselves. They are all on a permanent ego trip. Where is the just society? What happened to the war on poverty? Where is participatory democracy? Slick phrases coined to get votes, but principles forgotten. Poverty cannot be beaten without full employment. Society cannot be just, with poverty increasing.
This government has been spending hundreds of thousands, nay, millions of dollars on armies of task forces running all over the country, to say nothing of the commissions and royal commissions. The Prime Minister, his ministers and most members on the government side have been busy mounting platitudes and paying lip service to the just society, participatory democracy and the now infamous war on poverty in the various regions of Canada. Since all these task forces, commissions and royal commissions, studies and reports have a name, I think we should give a name to the government's efforts to fight the war on poverty, a name to describe the things being said by government spokesmen in their posture of being great generals riding to do battles which they have not even begun. Let us call their efforts and their statements "combined regional anti-poverty." The true measure of their efforts and the truth of their statements may be best described, I suggest, by the first letters of each of four words of that title.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Employment Programs


Erik Nielsen: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: All I hope is that my hon. friends will not clap for too long in their enthusiasm, because I see that time is running out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I can state that the only difference between this debate and the debate which was held on November 12, 1970, is that the opposition is even more intent in its determination to make clear to the people of Canada the reckless, cold-hearted and barbaric attitude of the government toward the millions of Canadians in the work force, numbering 8.5 million, and those who would like to form part of it but have little chance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This attitude caused unemployment figures to skyrocket to 419,000 in October of this year, compared with 314,000 a year ago. I should like to add that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is striving earnestly for the dubious honour of going down in history as the Prime Minister who held office during the period of highest unemployment since the depression. Such a course will surely lead historians to state that he flirted with disaster and was seduced without benefit of affection. It will also be known as a regrettable side effect of the government's fiscal and monetary policies-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It being 9.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section (9) of Standing Order 58, to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.


An hon. Member:: Where are the government members?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.

November 19, 1970
Division


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed to the amendment will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: 
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Pursuant to Special Order made earlier this day, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock in the afternoon.
At 10.15 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Monday, November 23, 1970