1971-10-14

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Government House,
Ottawa
14 October 1971
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable D. C. Abbott, P.C., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy. Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 14th day of October, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Louis Fremont Trudeau Brigadier General
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. lean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2), I would like to table in both official languages the text of a trade agreement concluded between Canada and the People's Republic of Hungary as well as related correspondence.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table two copies each in both the official languages of a press release entitled "Advertising Code for Children" and the attached broadcast code for advertising for children.



HAULAGE OF LOOSE MATERIALS SAFETY BILL


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-270, respecting the safe haulage of loose materials.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is a very innocuous bill at a time when Canadians are faced with many great problems. However, it is of great concern to many people and has been for many years.
The purpose of this bill is to prevent damage to motor vehicles, to property adjacent to the highway, and to the roadway itself, which can be occasioned by trucks carrying such loose materials as sand, gravel, rock, stone, etc. The bill would require such loads to be adequately covered. The bill deals with federal works and undertakings only as motor vehicles would normally come under provincial jurisdiction. Safe haulage of loose material is a concern of all motorists, pedestrians, horsemen, bicyclists, and even politicians as I am sure this bill applies to them.


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


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motions.
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning a procedure that might normally be taken at this point. The House leaders met this morning and in the course of their discussion it became evident that there would be a general desire in the House to have an adjournment debate this evening. I understand that at least two of the opposition parties have filed motions with Your Honour for an adjournment debate this evening. We on this side would be agreeable to have such an adjournment debate under the normal rules on a motion that would be moved by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), "That this House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing the economy." I am sure that motion would be broad enough to cover all of the elements that might be contained in the opposition motions. However, I understand that hon. gentlemen opposite might like to indicate to the House the less neutral content of their motions.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker, we accept this suggestion, the government

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy
having anticipated that the unemployment statistics would require a debate of this kind. As long as the hon. members have a chance to put their motions we are agreeable.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) is in accordance with the understanding we had at our meeting this morning. We agreed that the House should order a debate for eight o'clock tonight. It was, of course, understood that the members of the opposition parties who had filed notices with Your Honour this morning would nevertheless be permitted to present those motions at this time so the House would know the points that they wished to make.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the President of the Privy Council and the representatives of some of the opposition parties. Is it agreed that we will proceed on this basis?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, here is the motion that I intended to move:
There is no more pressing matter to put before the House than the state of national emergency revealed by the official unemployment figures published today, which show that more than 7 per cent of the labour force is out of work in Canada, and indicate a steady trend in the rise of the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, since the government House Leader has accepted to hold the emergency debate tonight, I will now resume my seat.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I am doing what I was told, Mr. Speaker, although the exercise may not be very useful at this time. I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the fact that the actual rate of unemployment in September was the highest since 1960 in that month and the adjusted rate the highest since 1961, the appalling prospect of more critical unemployment levels this winter which urgently require a massive program to create hundreds of thousands of additional jobs, a program which should be announced without further delay since valuable time has already been lost.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The agreement which has been reached by hon. members of course makes it easier for the Chair to make a ruling, or perhaps a non-ruling. I gather there is agreement that there should be a debate on this important matter. This debate will take place at eight o'clock this evening on the basis of the submission made for the consideration of hon. members by the President of the Privy Council.
I am not sure that the hon. member for York South would think it necessary for me to refer at this time to the form of the motion he has presented to the House. As hon. members know, we have established and followed somewhat religiously the procedure and form of motion under

Standing Order 26, subsection 2 which states that we shall receive from hon. members a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed, that is, without argument and without debate. I would hope that this requirement, which has been followed so strictly until now, would be followed in future as it has been in the past, and I would invite hon. members to co-operate with the Chair in this respect. It is not easy to determine what is debate, what is argument and what is simply a statement of fact, but it has been helpful to all concerned and for the House until now to limit motions under Standing Order 26 to a very bare statement of the facts.


Gerald William Baldwin: So bare it is almost indecent.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: In
view of the statement which is expected from the Minister of Finance tonight I shall not ask the questions this afternoon that I had intended. However, in view of the obvious discrepancy between the adjusted unemployment figure released today and the forecasts upon which the June budget was based, in all earnestness I should again like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will now support the establishment and assist in the financing of an independent unit responsible for short-term economic forecasting in Canada in order to improve the economic intelligence of the people generally including, not least, that of the government of Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the idea deserves consideration but in this particular instance it does appear that the existing short-term economic forecasting units in the universities have made the same mistakes as we have in their misap-preciation of the participation rate of the labour force.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Without in any way accepting the factual-ity of what the right hon. gentleman has said-I could not do so-may I suggest to my right hon. friend that this only emphasizes the importance-


An hon. Member:: Question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister not agree that the extent to which other forecasters in the country have been inaccurate only reinforces the request of the Economic Council of Canada that such a short-term forecasting unit be established?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition would not admit that the supplementary as asked is really an argument in support of his original question. I wonder whether in those terms it can be accepted as a supplementary question.
October 14, 1971


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is argument, although very well justified in the circumstances. I am sorry that some of my hon. friends to the rear on the other side are a little upset. I can understand why. In view of the very alarming figures regarding unemployment published today, will the Prime Minister now invite the provinces to attend a conference regarding measures to combat winter unemployment on virtually an emergency basis? In light of these figures will the Prime Minister attempt to convene an immediate meeting with the provinces so that the federal government can confer with the provinces jointly on measures other than those the minister will propose tonight?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the House knows that I have been attempting precisely this for several weeks and even months now. I have been attempting to get the provinces to sit down with us on an urgent basis to discuss the economic situation in Canada. I cannot at this time give a final report to the House on a date. As the House knows, we had agreed to a date in early December. I have since that time gone back to all the first ministers to obtain agreement on an earlier date, and I may have such an earlier date to announce to the House shortly. As of now I do not have the agreement of all provinces on any one earlier date, but I am still working on it, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether, on the basis of the unemployment figures released today, he will not reopen this question with the provinces with a view to convening an immediate meeting on this subject?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I really do not see the point of the question. The provinces know about this and they, themselves, have been trying to get agreement on earlier dates. I agree that perhaps today's figures will make them even more anxious to do so. But when premiers say that they are free on certain dates and not on others, I take their word for it. I sometimes try to get them to adjust dates when that is possible. That is what I am trying to do. I am trying to get universal agreement on some earlier dates. I am telling the House that they have not yet all agreed, and I am trying to proceed by way of co-operation rather than by strong arm methods, which the House always recommends that I not use.


Gerald William Baldwin: The Prime Minister should try that method here.



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-POSSIBLE ANNOUNCEMENT IN EMERGENCY DEBATE OF PROGRAM TO CREATE JOBS THIS WINTER

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, some hon. members may know the answer to my question better than I do but, since the government House leader has not said anything about it and as I think the information should be on record, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether, when he introduces the motion this evening, he will place before Parliament a program to create jobs this winter?
Inquiries of the Minister


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should not like to comment on what I will say tonight at eight o'clock until I say it.


David Lewis: Inasmuch as a general debate on the economy has been held before, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether the House will debate a program for work this winter or whether there will be merely a general debate on the outlook of the economy?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think there has been agreement among the parties that one member from each party will have the opportunity an hour before I speak of seeing exactly what I am going to say in the House so as to be in a position to reply.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will a doctor be present in the House when the minister speaks?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further supplementary question of the Minister of Finance. Has he or have officials of his department discussed with representatives of the provinces whatever it is that he is going to say this evening?



GRANT TO CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF FACULTIES OF MEDICINE-INQUIRY AS TO COMPLETION OF PROJECTS

Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
On October 4 last, the minister stated that the government was now subsidizing two projects undertaken by the Canadian Association of Medical Schools, that is the cost of university training and the determination of the possible number of medical students. Could he tell us when such projects will come to an end?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, but I can ascertain and let the hon. member know.



STATISTICS CANADA


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to those asked of the Prime Minister. In light of the Gazette's scoop on the unemployment figures this morning, has the government initiated an inquiry into how this newspaper got the figures before the Prime Minister got them?
Hon. ]ean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer this question. I am informed by Statistics Canada that copies of the document were given to the press slightly before eight o'clock this morning. I am told that there was an
8662

October 14, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
unauthorized disclosure, the source of which is not yet known. Statistics Canada is investigating this matter.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is the government planning in the very near future to have a debate in the House in which all members can express their strong and united opposition to the economic pressure being brought to bear on Canada by the United States government, aimed at making this country no more than a supplier of power and raw materials for use by United States industry, and the determination of the people of Canada that this country will remain strong economically and not become an economic vassal of the United States?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in answering the hon. member's question I can say yes to the first part of it. An occasion will certainly be provided to all members of the House to say that in the debate tonight, but I cannot guarantee that all members will want to say that.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In light of the fact that seasonally adjusted unemployment rates in the Atlantic provinces have increased from May to the present time, regularly throughout the summer, and at a higher rate than in any other part of Canada, and as the economic disparity between the Atlantic provinces and the rest of Canada is increasing, at least measured in these terms, is the minister giving consideration to a special review of the activities of his department which are designed to reduce the economic disparity between the Atlantic provinces and other parts of Canada?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the figures quoted by my hon. friend are incorrect. When you compare the unemployment rate for the Maritime provinces with the average rate in Canada, going back a few years, you see that the relative rate of unemployment is lower, although the absolute rate has increased since the month of May.


John Angus MacLean: Am I to understand that the minister is satisfied with the rate of unemployment in the Maritime provinces?


Jean Marchand: That is not what I said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is debate.



ACTION ON ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: My question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. What action is the minister's department taking in connection with the recommendation of the Atlantic Development Council with regard to his department becoming involved with Fundy tidal power as this would materially assist in decreasing the rate of unemployment in the Atlantic provinces?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that I answered that question the day before yesterday by saying that we have received two or three reports, namely those of the Science Council and APEC, besides the one just referred to by the hon. member and which we are now considering. We hope to be in a position to make very soon a statement on the matter.



SUGGESTED DESIGNATION OF PRAIRIE PROVINCES AS SPECIAL REGION

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the unemployment figures on the prairies, which show that the adjusted rate again increased this month, can the minister say whether he is contemplating any changes regarding the prairie region or contemplating designating the region so that the prairie provinces will benefit under the Regional Development Incentives Act?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Let's designate the whole country.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the public has learned through newspapers and other media that the over-all unemployment rate had increased in Canada, in other words the rate is higher in all regions. This is not a problem of regional disparity but rather of general economy and the matter will be discussed tonight when each and every one will have an opportunity to express his opinion.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oxford. Order, please. Perhaps the Chair should recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Oxford.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the statement the minister has just made that this is not a regional problem, does the minister feel that his department can be successful in eliminating regional disparities if we do not have full employment in the country?
October 14, 1971



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a related question for the Minister of Labour. I realize the minister may have some difficulty in answering the question inasmuch as he only reports to the House for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I have asked the minister this question before. Will he use his good offices with the Unemployment Insurance Commission to do something to try to untangle the administrative mess with regard to the processing of unemployment insurance claims? I ask the question at this time particularly in view of the increase in unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: I cannot accept the implication that there is any administrative mess. I can certainly make representations to make sure that the Unemployment Insurance Commission maintains its usual high rate of efficiency, which at this moment means they are processing over 98 per cent of the claims on time. I shall try to improve that to 99 per cent.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Does the minister agree that waiting for three and four months in many, many cases amounts to processing on time?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member again that this is debate. I recognize the hon. member for Greenwood.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister now in a position to reply to the question I asked him the other day concerning the strategic implications of the Amchitka test?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, sir. I thank the hon. member again for notice of the question. I afti advised that the United States has disclosed officially that the purpose of the proposed nuclear explosion on Amchitka Island is to test the warhead for the Spartan missile, the long-range interceptor component of the Safeguard antiballistic missile system. In the second part of his question the hon. member asked whether I had made any representations on strategic grounds to the United States. I have not done so, although my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has been in active consultation with United States authorities on this point, as the hon. member knows.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister related to a statement made recently by the Premier of Quebec concerning the coming conference of first ministers on unemployment.
Since the Premier of Quebec stated that he did not place much reliance on such conferences to deal with the problem of unemployment and that in his view the best way to do so would be through a more equitable fiscal distribution between the federal and provincial governments, is the Prime Minister considering the possibility of discussing the matter with the premiers as a means of solving the problem of unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such a statement, but it seems incomplete to me, if it was made since, as the hon. member knows, the provinces are free to set whatever rates of taxation suit them in all direct tax fields. So, if the provinces think that they have not enough money, they can always increase their taxes rather than ask the federal government to give them some.
As for the tax distribution itself, it is true that the present agreements will end next year and that we must, this fall, on dates that will be proclaimed as soon as an understanding has been reached with the provinces, discuss such a question at a federal-provincial conference of both the premiers and the Ministers of Finance.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The Canadian Association of Broadcasters has just made public an advertising code for children. Since this code will be put into effect only on January 1, 1972, that is after the holiday season, I should like to ask the minister if he intends to take the necessary steps to put a stop right now to this harmful advertising?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the code I tabled at the beginning of the day's session became effective as of yesterday. The hon. member asks about further action. I made it clear in the press release I issued yesterday relative to the code that we would, of course, continue to enforce all the laws related to misleading or deceptive advertising, which are laws of the country, in addition to the voluntary code.
24319-59}
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC WORKS

October 14, 1971



CHURCHILL, MAN.-IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. Having regard to the growing economic distress in Canada and its particular impact upon the northern parts of our country, is the government planning to implement immediately its recently announced redevelopment program for Churchill, Manitoba?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are proceeding together with the government of the province of Manitoba. We were awaiting their approval as to their participation. We have now received it and we shall be proceeding on schedule.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Does this redevelopment plan involve the modernization of the Port of Churchill and, if so, what amounts are likely to be expended on this aspect of the program?


Arthur Laing: At this stage there is no provision for further investment in the port itself. The proposal is in essence, to close the camp and to move the people who are now at the camp into the town of Churchill itself.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Can the minister say whether work of this nature will be conducted during the coming winter having regard to the unemployment situation in Churchill?


Arthur Laing: The sums we had set aside for this year are on target. I would think that if the province of Manitoba would like to move the work forward more rapidly we would see what we could do on our side.
* *
*



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question. I asked this question the other day of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister of Justice was away briefing the wheat case. My question is this: Has he referred the decision to provide $100,000 to cover the cost of an experiment respecting marijuana by a university to the legal officers of his department with a view to determining whether that action is within the law?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: I shall have to take that question as notice and give an answer later.



LABOUR RELATIONS


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister
received any communication from the Saskatchewan Minister of Labour asking him to intervene in the Eldorado dispute and, if so, what initiative does he plan to take?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I received such a request last week from the Minister of Labour for Saskatchewan pointing out the economic hardships that have resulted from this strike which is now of two months duration. The letter was a very objective one, and I would urge the company, which is a Crown corporation, to act as a good employer, get back to the bargaining table at the first opportunity and resume negotiations with the union.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Since opposition parties chose to compel the government to pay only $62 million, instead of $100 million, to western farmers, would the minister indicate whether, in view of the $38 million thus saved, he would be prepared to recommend that part of this amount be allocated to potato producers?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member's question should be considered as a suggestion made to the minister.



LIFT PROGRAM-REQUESTS TO FARMERS FOR REPAYMENTS-POSSIBILITY OF PROSECUTIONS

Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Is it the intention of the hon. gentleman's department to proceed with prosecutions in cases where aerial photographs have proved that a farmer's application in connection with the Lift program was incorrect?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I am not sure about the question of prosecution or what action is being taken. I really will have to take the question as notice. I am not sure what the hon. member is really asking about, whether the question concerns the collection of money which has been paid out or whether it relates to the Wheat Board with respect to misinformation in permits. I would need more information before I could answer the question.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Is it true that the PFRA Regina office is making demands with regard to these repayments?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question can be asked in those terms. Perhaps the minister and the hon. member might consult at the end of the question period.

October 14, 1971



PUBLIC WORKS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works a question. He seems to be in a very positive frame of mind today. Has he decided to go ahead with construction of a breakwater to the south of the container pier in Halifax?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I think that this question might better be addressed to the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I might say that normally this question would be considered at the time of adjournment. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Transport would like to come back at ten o'clock.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs which is prompted by a reported statement by a prominent member of the United States treasury department to the effect that Canada and the United States have been holding talks on many, if not all, of the subjects raised in the famous grievance list. Could the minister indicate at what level these discussions have been held, whether they are continuing, and what subjects are being covered?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this question could be directed to myself or to a number of my colleagues since we have all been having discussions of this kind. I think a general answer would be that the discussions have been held at all levels, ministerial and official, with the participation of myself, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and our respective officials. As I said, most of the subjects on the list were familiar. However, some of them were new.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Selkirk.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members are applauding the fantastic development of my leg muscles that has been accomplished over the last few days. My question is for the Minister of Regional Econom-
Inquiries of the Ministry
ic Expansion. May I ask the minister whether, prior to the recent decision by Imperial Oil to consolidate their prairie operations in Edmonton, or at any time since that decision was made, he has consulted with Imperial Oil to discuss the implications of such consolidation for regional economic dispartity?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this question as notice.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question.
I would think that since the United States have announced the forthcoming nuclear test on Amchitka Island the minister has had some consultations with the American authorities on this matter and I would like him to give us some indications that the Americans will take into account the representations made by him or by the government of Canada.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that particular question is that I have been assured that our representations are being taken into account. However, perhaps I could correct the first part of the question put by the hon. gentleman the United States has not yet made a decision to have the test.


Mr. Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. John Roberts (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister been informed that Mr. Gleason, president of the International Longshoremen's Association, has stated that he intends to put Toronto local 1842, the Toronto harbour local, under trusteeship? If so, have any reasons been advanced for this, and does the Department of Labour intend to intervene in the situation?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have received word informally that this could possibly happen. I can assure the House that if the president of an international organization were to put a Canadian local, even though it be a local of an international union, under trusteeship by reason of the fact that it had signed a

October 14, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
collective agreement that was in the best interests of its Canadian members, I would be obliged to have another look at my labour bill C-253 which is before the House and include a provision to prevent this type of harassment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In light of the fact that the chairman of the Nova Scotia Voluntary Economic Planning Board, Mr. A. R. Harrington, and the president of the Maritime Provinces Board of Trade, Mr. Joseph Zatzman, have added their voices to those of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council and declared that DREE's record during its first 30 months of operation is disappointing, has the minister or the government any plans to make DREE's activities more fruitful?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I answered a question in exactly the same terms a few minutes ago.


Robert Muir: Is the minister aware that the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council has attributed DREE's ineffectiveness to its failure to establish firm policy lines and the government's "inept handling of the national economy"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Have any members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police volunteered or been invited or instructed to participate in the controlled experiment with respect to the use of marijuana? If so, have they also been instructed not to "bust" other participants?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Not to my
knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will inquire.



DISCUSSION WITH PROVINCES OF INCLUSION OF MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT UNDER MEDICARE-DISCONTINUANCE OF CERTAIN GRANTS

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Are any discussions under way with the prov-

inces to include mental health treatment as a cost-shared item under medicare?


John Carr Munro: Not in those direct terms, Mr. Speaker. There are discussions under way with the provinces with respect to altering the cost-sharing arrangements under the medicare and hospitalization acts. If the arrangements were altered this would affect cost-sharing in the area of mental health.


Randolph Harding: Are present federal health grants to the provinces for mental health, t.b., cancer, etc., being phased out? If so, what is the deadline set for the discontinuance of these grants?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, grants such as these have gradually been phased out over a period of years and replaced by national health grants. Many of these grants were originally designed to assist the provinces many years ago to get their health department programs under way. Since then, of course, these programs have become very sophisticated.



MEDICARE AND HOSPITALIZATION-DISCUSSION WITH PROVINCES ON ACCEPTANCE OF FULL COST IN RETURN FOR FIXED FISCAL EQUIVALENT

Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are discussions under way with the provinces with a view to persuading the provinces to accept the full cost of operating medicare and hospitalization plans in return for a fixed fiscal equivalent?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, this is not the design or intent of the discussions we have been having with the provinces. We have been talking to the provinces about new financial arrangements, perhaps along the lines of some per capita formula, and we have also been insisting upon uniform standards, and so on. These are, in general, the sort of discussions we have been having with the provinces, largely in response, I might add, to a request by the provinces that there be a greater degree of flexibility in the cost-sharing arrangements regarding health care which would enable them to get other programs under way.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for asking another supplementary question but the subject is important. Am I to understand, therefore, that the government is not now pressing forward with the idea of getting out of these cost-sharing plans in the health field entirely and substituting for these plans a fiscal equivalent?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, these discussions are not about the federal government getting out of this area at all. They are an effort on our part to make a positive response to a request of the provinces for some different type of financial arrangements which will allow them to have a greater say about their own priorities in the health field.
October 14, 1971



DISCUSSION WITH PROVINCES ON INCLUSION OF PARAMEDICAL SERVICES UNDER MEDICARE

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether discussions are still going on with regard to the inclusion of paramedical services under medicare, such as optometry, chiropractic, osteopathy and the like?


John Carr Munro: The general answer is yes, Mr. Speaker, but at the moment the discussions are more concerned with making more flexible financial arrangements in sharing the cost of health services.



INCREASE IN GONORRHEA-SUGGESTED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM AND EXPANSION OF TREATMENT FACILITIES

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I should like to address my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the alarming statistics on the incidence of gonorrhea in Canada recently reported by the department of National Health and Welfare, has the minister considered instituting an educational program to check the rapid spread of this infection and expanding treatment facilities with the possibility of the use of the new antibiotic, menocycline?


John Carr Munro: We have noted the statistics to which the hon. member has referred and we have had meetings between the federal and provincial officials to examine the whole area. We think that we have generally worked out satisfactory joint endeavours to cope with the problem.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General concerning the murder which happened yesterday in the town of Sainte-Therese.
According to newspaper reports, the alleged murderer would have been paroled against his will. Is the Solicitor General aware of that fact and could he tell the House why that individual was released against his will? Does he intend to report to the House in this connection?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the individual was not released against his will. Since August, he had been working outside the institution in a normal way. The fact remains that the day the murder was committed, the Pinel Institute was notified by the Parole Board early in the morning that the parole of the said individual had been rejected.
I have not yet received any information to the effect that the individual concerned would have been advised of this decision by the Parole Board.
Inquiries of the Ministry ENERGY



RESUMPTION OF STUDY OF POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF HEAVY WATER PLANT AT MONTMAGNY

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since studies have already been undertaken about the establishment of a heavy water plant at Montmagny, would he tell the House whether representations have recently been made to him or to senior officials of the department by the authorities of the town of Montmagny, asking that the study of this project be resumed?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, representations to this effect were made to me when I was Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I do not know whether similar representations have been made to the present minister, but I shall inquire.



SUGGESTED FURTHER CONSULTATION WITH FARM ORGANIZATIONS ON STABILIZATION BILL

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. In light of the fact that the tax reform bill will probably take considerable time in the House, giving the minister ample opportunity to consult the various organizations regarding Bill C-244, has he written or does he intend to write to these organizations so as to enable him to patch up the bill, give it a shot of adrenalin and revive it again in the House in this session?


Otto Emil Lang: In the normal course of events I talk very frequently with agricultural organizations and farmers. Certainly I have been hearing from many of them about their desire to see a stabilization program put into effect along the lines of the one that we had before the House. I will certainly give the question of how to move forward with some such program further consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Peace River, but I should like to bring to the attention of the House that there are only four minutes left before the end of the question period and hon. members will have to try to limit supplementary questions. Perhaps from now on the Chair might turn an eye toward the senior and distinguished members who occupy the fifth row at the back of the House to allow them an opportunity to ask questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the minister also take into account in these discussions the possibility of such needed reforms as the payment of storage on farm stored grain and a two-price system?

October 14, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: As is well known, these two subjects have absolutely nothing to do with stabilization per se.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ACTION TO PERMIT FREE MOVEMENT OF FEED GRAINS BETWEEN PROVINCES WITHIN DESIGNATED WHEAT BOARD AREA

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: I should like to direct my question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Has his department given consideration or is it giving consideration to adopting a policy to permit the free movement of feed grains between provinces within the designated Wheat Board area of western Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: We have certainly looked into this question from time to time fairly intensively, but at present there is no intention to make any change.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary to the President of the Privy Council.
As the House has now devoted many days to studying the interests of wheat producers, would it not be fair to discuss the situation of other producers before resuming the debate on Bill C-244?



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: My question is for the
Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of indications that not all funds allocated for job-creating projects are being spent, such as for urban renewal in Montreal as stated by another minister recently, would the minister inform the House what amount of money is to be spent over a two-year period in the area of Quebec City for the renewal of historic buildings, expressways, ski resorts and other projects, and would the minister consider tabling a comprehensive report on actual and projected expenditures under the special-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question should be placed on the order paper.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Would he answer today the question I asked him on Tuesday, which he said he would answer yesterday, having to do with whether or not there

is any payment due to producers of eggs under the deficiency payment program, the assessment period for which ended at the end of September?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: May I say
very briefly with respect to this matter that the mandatory support price, that is, 80 per cent of the previous ten year average, is 28.6 cents per dozen on the basis of grade A large. The cumulative average for the 1970-71 year is 30.4 cents, in other words, 85 per cent of the mandatory support level.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that the question period has expired. Perhaps the hon. member might be allowed a supplementary and then we will call orders of the day.


Robert Elgin McKinley: In view of what the minister has said and the disastrous prices still in effect for eggs, would he advise whether or not the Agricultural Products Board is considering a fowl buying program and, if so, how soon will it be announced?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, but the hon. member will recall that we did have an egg purchasing program earlier this year when we took 50,000 30-dozen cases of eggs off the market. If we had been assured that there would be a corresponding cutback in production so that there would not be a surplus in the marketplace again, we probably would have gone farther with that program.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps in fairness the Chair should recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley West before we call orders of the day.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In light of the Solicitor General's recent statement on motions regarding in part the payment of the federal minimum wage to correction institution inmates, would the minister say whether he has considered or reached any decision regarding unemployment insurance deductions from the minimum wage so that upon release of inmates a better economic base might prevail for their re-establishment, since the new act does not seem to provide the same kind of security benefits as the former act did?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Provided the Solicitor General introduces his very enlightened policy of rehabilitation of inmates of penitentiaries and provides them with the minimum wage of $1.75 subject to the normal deductions of income tax, etc., I would be very much in favour of the concept that unemployment insurance contributions be deducted so that on release of an inmate he would be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits as are other Canadians if unemployed.


Mark Willson Rose: Would the minister indicate to the House whether he would use his good offices to persuade the government to institute such a scheme?
October 14, 1971


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need to persuade the Solicitor General to bring in what is basically his program which I am sure has the endorsation of the government, but I can assure the hon. member that so far as unemployment insurance is concerned I endorse the concept and will do everything I can to see that it becomes a reality.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has to call orders of the day but has made a mental note of hon. members in the last two rows who desire to ask questions and will try to give them some sort of precedence tomorrow.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader the usual Thursday question about the business of the House for the rest of this week and next week, and also ask him what days may be available to be used as opposition days under supply motions.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, before replying directly to this question, may I make clear a point that might have been left unclear in our discussion with respect to the adjournment debate at eight o'clock tonight, namely, that the rules with respect to the length of sitting and with respect to the length of speeches will be the rules that apply normally under Standing Order 26. I believe that was understood in our discussion, but it would be helpful if it were nailed down now as part of our understanding.


Mr. Speaker:: I gather there is unanimous agreement on the point now made by the President of the Privy Council to the effect that the provisions of Standing Order 26 regarding length of speeches and time allocation will apply to the debate that will take place from eight o'clock on this evening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I wish to thank the House very much for that assurance.
This afternoon we will try to vary the menu for hon. members by bringing on the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Conventions item, followed by the weather modification activities legislation, and after that the motion to set up the committee to scrutinize statutory instruments. Next week, in addition to the tax bill, I would like to call two opposition days, one definitely on Thursday and hopefully the other one on Wednesday.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I make a suggestion to the government House leader and the other House leaders. There have been some discussions among House leaders with regard to the nature of a motion which would be placed before the House. I think there is general agreement as to the terms of an all-party motion which would deal with the question of nuclear explosions in general, and nuclear explosions in the Amchitka area in particular.
Business of the House
In light of the fact that one of the opposition days which the government House leader has mentioned would probably be at the disposal of this party, we are prepared to devote the time which normally would be taken on the disposition of a motion of that kind to a motion moved by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on which a vote would be taken. This would require a variation of the usual practice. I would suggest to the government House leader, if this is acceptable to him and also acceptable to the other parties, that we undertake this tomorrow because the sooner the better.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Peace River has indicated, there have been some person to person discussions since we discussed this matter at our meeting this morning. I should simply like to say that we would agree with the modification now proposed, namely, that this debate take place tomorrow. However, we would like to suggest that it be limited to two hours, that the speeches be limited to, say, ten minutes each, and that the vote, if necessary, be taken at the end of two hours of debate, which would bring the vote on at about three o'clock tomorrow afternoon. I hope you will forgive us, Mr. Speaker, because we seem to be negotiating in public, but at least we seem to be reaching agreement.


Gerald William Baldwin: I think that would be agreeable. It is highly refreshing to have something discussed in public for a change.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I agree, on the understanding that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should put down the motion that we would debate so that it would be before us tomorrow. We would call it as the first item under government business, or on motions, whichever is the wish of the House, with the understanding that the time taken would be counted as an opposition day. I thank the hon. member for his suggestion. I know he has more time for opposition business than I have for government business, and so I thank him for that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may it be made clear that the motion to be put down by the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be in the wording that was agreed to by the four House leaders? As for the suggestion that he would move it under motions we would accept that, it being understood that the debate would end two hours after it actually had begun.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Apparently the House leaders are clear on what they have agreed to. I suppose we should let the record speak for itself and proceed on the basis of what has been agreed to by the House leaders on behalf of their parties. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
8670

October 14, 1971
Weather Modification Identification Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
June 9, 1971-Report state of Bill S-13, An Act to amend the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry-the Minister of the Environment.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the order of business for today.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is finished.


Gerald William Baldwin: The Prime Minister, as usual, is far behind. We are dealing with today; he is dealing with yesterday. I was wondering if the government would be prepared to reverse the order and agree to proceed with the weather modification bill, which we understood would be the first item of business. That would clear the air for the rest of the afternoon.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had been asked previously to vary the order to suit another opposition party. I will now vary it back to suit them both, but in this case I won't be suiting the minister behind me because he wants to proceed with the other item. However, on this occasion the opposition rules, and we will call the weather modification bill.



WEATHER MODIFICATION IDENTIFICATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-ll, to provide for the obtaining of information respecting weather modification activities, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment) moved:: That Bill S-ll, An Act to provide for the obtaining of information respecting weather modification activities, be amended by deleting clause 5 and substituting the following:
"5. Any information obtained by the Administrator or his authorized representative pursuant to this Act may be made public or made available on request to any member of the public".


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


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-ll was first introduced in the Senate on Tuesday, February 9. It received second reading on March 4, following some brief examination by the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. On March 18 it received third reading, and was subsequently turned over for our consideration in the House of Commons on March 25.
Following a short debate in the House, the weather modification information bill was studied in detail by the Fisheries and Forestry Committee. A few amendments, most of which by the way, were quite acceptable to the government, were introduced. However, one such amendment is in our view not desirable, and I will say why in the course of my brief remarks.
I should like to remind hon. members that the purpose and intent of the bill is to enable the gathering of information relative to any activity undertaken with the hope and the objective of modifying the weather. Scientists generally recognize that although such weather modification attempts are still in their experimental stage, the day will come when it will be possible not only to precipitate and direct the precipitation of rain clouds, to eliminate fog, and control hail precipitation or to direct it, and indeed by design or by accident for man eventually to exercise some degree of control on regional or global climatalogical patterns. But many of the theories have not gone beyond the experimental stage, with scientific proof lacking to back up many claims. This is perhaps one of the newest and one of the most interesting scientific developments in the last decade. However, we must remind ourselves that to play with the forces of nature on such a grandiose scale may produce undesirable and even catastrophic effects. I do not think this is the time and place to catalogue the various possiblities. I should, nevertheless, refer hon. members to a just recently published report of the Study of Man's Impact on Climate-SMIC for short-entitled "Inadvertent Climate Modification". This is published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology press.
The report is an excellent, up to date compendium of the most recent thinking, practices and theories with respect to weather modification. I think it would be very useful to have on the official record of this House, for the enlightenment of hon. members and the interested public sectors, the test of the statement endorsed by the Sixth Congress of the World Meteorological Organization held in April, 1971. The statement is a recapitulation of arguments used in the committee in defence of Bill S-ll and is a valuable piece of scientific information on the present state of knowledge and possible practical benefits in some fields of weather modification-in fact those fields which are of concern to Canadians at this stage of the game. I should like to quote from that statement, Mr. Speaker, the brief summaries of the current status of weather modification in several categories, as follows:
Stimulation of Precipitation: Of the many experiments conducted in this field, only a few have clearly demonstrated that seeding has increased the precipitation; in some cases there is even evidence of a decrease in the precipitation. However, there is some evidence that orographic precipitation can be modestly increased by seeding, particularly during the winter, over the mountain ranges of the western U.S.A. There is also some evidence that sub-tropical convective clouds, selected on the basis of numerical models, become taller and larger when they are heavily seeded so as to release latent heat. In view of the high correlation between the size of convective clouds and the rainfall from them, the seeded clouds presumably give more rain that if they had not been seeded. Confirmation, however, is required from further suitably designed experiments.
Dissipation of Fog: Supercooled fog and stratus can be dissipated by seeding them with ice nucleants or by means of cooling agents. This has been brought into operational use at several

October 14, 1971

airports at which there is a relatively high incidence of supercooled fog. The more common warm fog may be dissipated by the use of heat, hygroscopic particles and the down-wash of helicopters. Successful experiments have been reported with each of these techniques but, in addition to other disadvantages, they have been considered too expensive for general use. Recent experiments, guided by numerical modelling and using carefully sized hygroscopic particles, offer some prospects for a more economical technique.
Hail Suppression: After extensive experiments and the development of a model of hail growth, substantial successes in the reduction of hail damage have been reported from the U.S.S.R. Recent experiments in other countries have shown some reduction in hail damage with varying techniques, but more adequate numerical and physical models need to be developed.
Hurricane Modification: Recent hurricane seedings off the eastern U.S.A. coast have been accompanied by reduced maximum wind velocities for short periods. Confirmation is required from further experiments. In view of the limited opportunities for hurricane seeding, there is need for improved numerical hurricane models to strengthen the scientific basis of the hypothesized hurricane modification and to provide guidance for future experiments.
I do not wish to repeat what I said about this bill at the committee stage, Mr. Speaker. I should like now to address myself to the specific amendment which stands in my name. It was my view that at the committee some confusion seemed to surround the wording of clause 5. I should like to remind hon. members that the original wording of that clause was found to be objectionable. The result was that the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) submitted an amendment which was adopted by the committee. I am somewhat in disagreement with the use of the word "shall" in the text of the amendment submitted by the hon. for Timiskaming and I am proposing that the word "may" be substituted therefor. I think I can now convince the hon. member for Timiskaming that we are in agreement on the intent of our respective amendments. Our differences of opinion seemed to centre around the use of the word "shall" or "may".
I have two learned opinions on the matter to back up my particular amendment with the use of the word "may". Let me quote from a well-known and respected authority on parliamentary practice, namely Dr. Ollivier who recently retired from his functions in the House of Commons. The report of the committee on health, welfare and social affairs dated February 18, 1969, reads as follows at page 480:
I want to make the distinction between "may" and "shall". When we say that the Governor General may do something, it means that he shall do it. You never say that the Governor in Council shall do something. That is the distinction. If you impose a duty on a commission you say that the commission shall do it, but if you impose a duty on the Governor in Council you say the Governor in Council may do it. On that second point I am not quite in agreement. It forces the Governor in Council to do something.
I think what Dr. Ollivier was saying in a tactful way was that it is not polite in a legislative context to use the word "shall" with reference to the Governor in Council.
The other opinion with respect to the use of the word "shall" or "may" was referred to by my minister and I quote from Hansard of June 21, 1971, at the bottom of page 7182, the second column as follows:
-I have been given by law officers of the Crown who were seconded to my department from the Department of Justice. They have been consistent in recent years in interpreting Canadian legislation and, as a non-lawyer, I do not wish to question their
Weather Modification Identification Act
advice in this connection. They use the word "may" rather differently than most of us do in everyday conversation. They use it, implying an obligation, a very serious obligation. The obligation is on the minister. The minister has a public duty, which I am certainly prepared to accept and which I am sure all future ministers of the environment will be prepared to accept, to act in certain ways which are outlined in the bill. This is a duty which will be enforced by Parliament.
I continue quoting:
The word "shall" differs, implying mandatory action enforceable through the courts. It is a question of whom the minister must regard as his master or, to put it another way, who the real master of the minister is. Is it to be Parliament or the courts? If, in the last analysis, his master is the courts, then our draftsmen use "shall". But if it is Parliament, then "may" has real significance and is binding on the minister.
That is my reason, Mr. Speaker, for bringing forward the amendment to clause 5. May I assure all hon. members that the administrator of the act will comply with the intention of the act in its amended form.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House deals with weather modification and, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Corbin) said, it received thorough study when it came before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Over the past few years in Canada weather modification activities have been quite sporadic. However, technology is advancing and we can, therefore, expect that such activities will increase in the years ahead. It is therefore necessary for the authorities to be made aware of any activities that may be contemplated. It is also necessary for them to be informed in detail of all such activities that are to be carried out. This, basically, is the reason behind this bill, a bill which calls for the appointment of an administrator to whom a report must be made, on the required form, by anyone desirous of engaging in weather modification activities.
At this particular point in time, Canadians are not entirely certain that cloud seeding, when carried out, will increase rainfall or alter the weather pattern in any particular part of Canada. However, from a scientific standpoint I believe it is absolutely essential that action, as contemplated in this bill, be taken, so that we may have an awareness of and detailed information on all weather modification activities either contemplated or carried out in Canada.
We do not have too many criticisms of this particular bill. That is unusual. However, it does not state the name of the department which will assume the responsibility for supervising the actions of the administrator and which will supervise and be responsible for tabulating the reports that are filed by people planning to engage in such activities. I presume that the administrator will be operating in co-operation with the Canadian Meteorological Service, since it is part of the responsibility of that service to study the nature and behaviour of our atmosphere. I hope that this question will be resolved by the minister or his parliamentary secretary later, when we debate this bill.
This bill is important not only to Canadians; it is important to North Americans as well as to peoples in all parts of the earth. As we are becoming increasingly aware, our
24319-60*

October 14, 1971
Weather Modification Identification Act
atmosphere knows no international boundaries. In recent years additional emphasis has been placed on cleaning up our environment, which includes the earth, the water on and surrounding the continents and the air we breath. We are aware, for example, of the vibrations that were created around the world before the tests were undertaken on Amchitka Island. Hopefully, these vibrations will result in postponing indefinitely all these tests. In like manner, we are made aware of the effects of fall out from nuclear tests made many years ago, for traces of radioactivity and radioactive substances have been found in our far northern areas. These substances could only have been carried by the winds which blow from the four corners of the globe. It is very important, therefore, that we have control of all activities which may pollute the air we breathe. We, on this side of the House, therefore, support the principle of this bill.
As I said a moment ago, our earth's atmosphere knows no boundaries. I would therefore ask the minister or the parliamentary secretary, what steps were taken and what representations were made to the Russians or to the United States, our two giant neighbours, to ascertain, prior to the drafting of this legislation, whether they are considering something comparable to Bill S-ll, since any action taken by either of these two great countries which would pollute their air could have a very damaging effect on Canada. I believe that a topic of this importance should be debated at the United Nations. It might be something that could be undertaken by a special international committee, for unless everyone is alerted to the necessity of cleaning up the atmosphere, of cleaning up all our air, we could all be in trouble.
I understand that the Russians have been carrying out a hail suppression program in some areas of their country. There are reports that they have fired silver iodine artillery shells into hail clouds and, as well, that they have shot rockets into hail clouds, with some degree of success. Since we, in Canada, up to now have only been studying hail storms, has the government given any thought to date to exchanging scientific data with the Russians on this matter in order that destructive hail storms could in future be either broken up or curtailed before valuable crops are destroyed? It would also be interesting to learn if the Americans have perfected hail control programs since they, too, suffer from this atmospheric phenomenon in certain parts of the United States.
One part of the bill, clause 7 dealing with offences and punishments, I believe is worthy of comment. That clause provides that anyone guilty of an offence is liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both. In my view, anyone charged with interfering with the forces of nature, or anyone who is subsequently charged with this offence, should pay a much larger fine than that stipulated in this bill. It seems to me that a $1,000 fine is not a sufficient deterrent with regard to such crime.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate, most sincerely, to interrupt the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). I am wondering whether we are proceeding in an orderly fashion, since we are now considering, at the report stage, the amendment proposed by the parliamentary secretary. I am wondering whether we should not at this stage limit

debate to what is before the House and, on third reading, make the type of speech which is being made by the hon. member for South Shore. It seems to me that it might more appropriately be made on third reading, after we have considered the amendment. I appreciate what the hon. member is saying; yet I think that we should be orderly in our consideration of the bill and follow regular procedure. It seems to me that the proper procedure would be for the House to consider the amendment before us and then later this afternoon when we reach the third reading stage of the bill, we might at that point give consideration to other matters which are not at this time before the House.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I shall heed your admonition. As a matter of fact, my next comments were related to the amendments proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment. I do not have a copy of the amendment. As I understand the suggestion, he was dealing with clause 5 which reads as follows:
Any information obtained by the Administrator or his authorized representative pursuant to this Act may be made public or made available on request to any member of the public,-
The amendment, as I understand it, is to change the word "shall" to read "may". We on this side of the House are concerned about any attempts to curtail information or limit the knowledge which may be available to the general public. We believe that such important information as this obtained by the administrator should definitely be made public on the request of any member of the public. We have always followed the course of endorsing the word "shall" in preference to the word "may". In our view, this removes any possibility of the administrator at any time refusing to give information to any member of the public who may be interested in seeing it. Without any further comment, I wish to place on the record that as far as we in the official opposition are concerned, we prefer to see the bill passed as it is now written, using the word "shall".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon the government House leader indicated that there had been an objection to proceeding with this bill today, but that he had learned from across the floor that the objection had been withdrawn. It was I who had objected, but only because I was hoping the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) could be here because of his keen interest in this piece of legislation. When I learned that it would be impossible for him to be here this afternoon and that he had nominated me to speak in his stead, there was nothing for me to do but withdraw my opposition. It is interesting to note the number of subjects about which one has to learn something when he occupies a role such as I happen to have in this party.
I am very grateful to the parliamentary secretary for his reference to the hon. member for Timiskaming and to the keen interest that he has shown in this whole question of weather modification equipment. This is germane to the report stage amendment now before us, Mr. Speaker, because what the parliamentary secretary is seeking to do is make a change in an amendment that the hon. member
October 14, 1971

for Timiskaming was successful in getting the standing committee to adopt.
Earlier this year the hon. member for Timiskaming filed a public bill in his name, Bill C-24, entitled An Act to Govern, License and Regulate the Operation of Rainmaking Equipment in Canada. During the course of session- it was on April 5-the member was given the right to withdraw his bill and have its subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry so that the subject matter of his bill could be considered along with that of Bill S-ll. The parliamentary secretary also paid tribute to the interest of the hon. member and the work he has done on the subject. I am happy to have this opportunity, in his absence, to commend him on his concern about this whole question.
As for the change that the parliamentary secretary now proposes, even though I am an opponent of split infinitives and of sentences that end with prepositions, and even though I am a stickler on the proper use of such words as "shall" and "will", when it comes to this "shall" and "may" business, I feel like the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). If we really want it done, I would rather say "shall". When I am told I shall do something, I do it, but when I am told I may do something, I may not.


Gerald William Baldwin: You never do it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Mr. Davis:: The hon. member is on the right track.


Eymard G. Corbin: May I answer the question raised by the hon. member?


Mr. Speaker:: The member may rise on a point of order. I gather he already spoke.


Eymard G. Corbin: I am attempting to answer the question. If I can do it on a point of order-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the hon. member can ask me a question. He can ask whether I understand such and such.
Weather Modification Identification Act


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member understands extremely well the intent of my amendment and I congratulate him for that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker. We have it on the record and that is what is important. At least I will be able to show what has been said to the hon. member for Timiskaming. If this report stage amendment passes, as report stage amendments moved by the government side usually do, it will be clear that the administrator under Bill S-ll, known as the Weahter Modification Information Act, does not have an option. He must make public the information referred to in clause 5 and, in particular, when any member of the public makes a request for that information, it shall be made available to him.


Eymard G. Corbin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I assure the hon. member that such will be the case. However, I must also tell him at the same time that the information will be made available to the public on request, as long as it does not contravene some other legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suppose that applies to any statute. I hope it is not like the payments to the Wheat Board under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. I hope there will be no repetition of our experience in connection with that legislation. The word "shall" is used in that act, and look at what happened. Perhaps we are better off with "may" than with "shall". At any rate this point has been cleared up. I shall get in touch with my hon. friend from Temiskaming and try to persuade him that what he wants is what the bill requires. I am glad to note that the information obtained by the administrator under this act will be available.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I ask the parliamentary secretary a question? I understand the distinction between "shall" and "may"; as my hon. friend from South Shore (Mr. Crouse) has said, this party has always been concerned that there should be the fullest possible disclosure of information. To this end there is a bill on the order paper, Bill C-250-by chance it happens to be in my own name- calling for public disclosure. It is modelled on the legislation in the United States and in Scandinavia which provides that the onus is on the government to make a case when it wishes to refuse information. Can I have an assurance from the parliamntary secretary that, having examined this bill, he will be prepared to give it reasonable support.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to bring to the hon. member's attention that the parliamentary secretary has already spoken. Perhaps the question might be asked and answered in other circumstances, for example, tomorrow during the question period.
Is the House ready for the question?
Motion (Mr. Corbin) agreed to.


John (Jack) Davis: that Bill S-ll, to provide for obtaining of information respecting weather modification activities, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry be concurred in.

October 14, 1971
N.W. Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act Motion agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


John (Jack) Davis: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



NORTHWEST ATLANTIC FISHERIES CONVENTION ACT


John (Jack) Davis: that Bill S-13, an Act to amend the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


John (Jack) Davis: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Bill S-13 to amend the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act is a very simple piece of legislation. Its purpose is clear. One of the great problems connected with Canada's coastal fishery is that of over-fishing. We badly need enforcement procedures which will allow us to set quotas in co-operation with other countries and make sure that those quotas are not exceeded. This bill provides the legislative support required to enable us to put our enforcement officers on vessels owned and operated by nationals of other countries. It also provides a reciprocal right on the part of other countries to investigate the operations of Canadian commercial fishing vessels on the high seas. In other words, this bill provides legislative authority for a system of inspection on the high seas, particularly in the north Atlantic. It will enable us to enforce reasonable quotas, quotas which will be consistent with sound conservation.
The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act applies to the north Atlantic and at the present time it covers all those nations which are signatory to the international convention for the northwest Atlantic. These countries include Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Rumania, Spain, U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom, Poland, the United States and, of course, Canada. This legislation would enable officers from Canadian fisheries protection vessels to board any fishing vessel owned and operated by the U.S.S.R., or the U.K. or Portugal, for example, check the gear, check the catch, and so on. We shall no longer be operating on the basis of rumours or hearsay as to what other nations are catching off our shores. We shall be able to provide facts, and use these facts in our development of sound conservation measures.
As a result of a Canadian initiative, most other countries have passed similar enabling legislation and we expect that this legislation, which is reciprocal, will be in effect in 1972.


John Angus MacLean: I do not intend to take up the time of the House for very many minutes on this bill. We in this party agree with the purpose of this amendment. I might add that the measure has been passed without amendment by the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Increasingly, it is being recognized that the living resources of the sea-and these resources in the northwest Atlantic are very rich-are being over-exploited by the nations of the world. It is more than 20 years since the nations chiefly concerned joined together in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention, commonly known as ICNAF, to control the exploitation of these resources. To begin with, control was chiefly limited to restrictions on net sizes and so on, regulations which could be generally enforced at the home ports of the vessels involved. For many years, enforcement was the responsibility of the country to which the fishing vessel belonged and which was a signatory to the convention. But as time went on the nations concerned, and Canada most of all, realized that regulations of this kind were not sufficient to safeguard the future of the resources by making sure they were not over-exploited. It was realized there had to be a beginning, at least, of closed seasons in some areas and complete prohibition of fishing for certain types of fish, possibly for given periods.
Concurrent with that, it was recognized that the former method of enforcement would probably not be adequate. As a result, an agreement was arrived at, I think at a meeting at St. John's, Newfoundland, in 1970 whereby the members of ICNAF agreed that there would be reciprocal enforcement among all members with regard to their fishing vessels. The minister will correct me if there are any technical errors in what I have said in that respect, but it was agreed in principle that enforcement officers of any of the signatory nations could enforce the regulations mutually agreed upon regarding the fishing vessel of any of the other nations operating in the ICNAF areas.
I think that this is a very important new principle of international law. We are recognizing that if any Canadian fishing vessel on the high seas infringes the regulations to which we as a nation have agreed, the enforcement officers of any other nation can on request board our vessel and make sure it obeys the law. This would be a principle that probably would be abhorrent to strong advocates of freedom on the high seas in the purest sense. However, on the other side of the coin, I think the time has now come when nations with special problems on the high seas-and most of these waters are classified as the high seas-must get together with other nations and be prepared to relinquish some of their rights for the common good. Further, they should mutually agree to exchange certain rights and obligations so that, as far as humanly possible, all vessels operating within ICNAF areas are made subject to the regulations mutually agreed upon, even if these regulations have to be enforced by the enforcement officers of another member nation.

October 14, 1971

Having said that, may I say I think this legislation is a step forward. It is a reasonable and forward looking attempt to regulate in a sensible manner the conservation of a renewable resource in the northwest Atlantic, to the future benefit of the countries concerned. In view of our geographical position, if these objectives are achieved I am sure Canada will benefit in the long run more than any other country. We are hoping that this will be the result of this small but very important step that we are now taking.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, last June when we discussed this bill in committee, I think it was generally agreed that no amendments would be offered when it came before the House at report stage, and as we have seen today this has happened. I should like to say that the members of my party are in favour of the legislation. As indicated by the previous speaker, this measure is certainly a step forward in the enforcement of conservation measures as far as the North Atlantic fishery is concerned.
During the discussion of this bill one or two matters did not come through too clearly, so perhaps the minister could clear them up when he concludes debate on this bill. As I recall it, the indication in the discussions last June was that Canadian inspectors would be given the right to inspect the ships of member nations of ICNAF and that these other nations which had inspection ships in the area would likewise have the right to inspect Canadian vessels. One of the points that I think the committee failed to discuss was whether there was any sharing of the cost of inspection.
It is my understanding that some countries-I believe Norway was one but there are other small countries- have no intention of putting inspection ships into this area. While these countries are willing to accept inspection by Canadian or by ships of other member nations, they themselves will have no inspection crews to check the fishing vessels of other nations. Therefore, I am wondering whether there is any kind of pooling arrangement under which the inspection costs are assumed by the nations that inspect, such as Canada, since it is one nation that is not only interested in this fishery but vitally affected by it, or is the cost going to be shared by those nations which do not have ships in the area to do this checking?
I am not too sure how effective Canadian protection officers are going to be in checking vessels that fish the area that has been outlined. We had some discussion of this matter during committee stage, and I was given to understand that the patrol boats would make surprise checks, which I think would be a proper way to carry out their duties. If our inspection forces suspect that the vessels of other nations are not complying with the regulations, say in the matter of fishing gear, size of mesh or type of fish caught, then these vessels can be checked. As I said earlier, I think this is a very good thing.
One point that was raised in committee, and which I would ask the minister to comment on when he concludes this debate, is whether the minister has any further information on the controls desperately needed as far as the inshore salmon fishery is concerned. I believe there are some areas outside the coverage of ICNAF. Certainly, the Atlantic salmon is one species that desperately needs pro-
N.W. Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act
tection, and some of the nations have been reluctant to reduce their catch. I do not think the commission was able to get majority agreement on this point at the last meeting. I might be wrong, but I believe there was hope there would be agreement amongst the nations to reduce the salmon catch, particularly to the west of Greenland where apparently the Atlantic salmon are caught in great quantities and the catching of them seems to have adversely affected propagation of this species in our Canadian waters. If I am wrong on that point, I should like the minister to correct me, or at least to inform us whether he has any further information regarding this particular species.
I do not think there is much more that we can say about the act. It is a very short and limited piece of legislation, but again I want to say that periodic inspections carried out on this very valuable fishery resource is something that we have long required. I am hopeful that we will see more co-operation than ever before among the nations of the world so far as our fishery resources are concerned, and I think that conservation is the key word in resource development. We are glad to see that a number of nations in the world are willing to move progressively to ensure that adequate checks are made in reaping the crops from this particular fishing area. Again I say that we endorsed the bill in committee and that it is the intention of our group to vote for the bill on third reading this afternoon.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I, too, wish to speak briefly on the bill before the House. As the minister has stated, this bill was dealt with by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry which held hearings on these important changes.
This is an important change in the act governing the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries, in view of the fact that our fisheries resources off Atlantic Canada are facing serious depletion. When the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries was set up in 1949 it was charged, as I understand it, with the responsibility of investigating, protecting and conserving the fisheries of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean in order to make possible the maintenance of the maximum sustained catch from these fisheries. It would appear, in view of the decline in our fisheries stocks, that ICNAF has failed to fully discharge its responsibilities. I say this because one of our best managed fisheries resources, if you could use that term, namely our haddock resources, are practically depleted. They are fished in areas called subareas 4 and 5. They have been almost completely destroyed. Unfortunately, this is also true in other areas coming under ICNAF where herring, flatfish, cod, redfish and other species are fished. We heard, for example, a few weeks ago of action taken by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) when he put forth an edict that herring could only be caught in Canada for human consumption. I agreed entirely with that action, but no information was given along with that announcement as to whether the minister or the government had taken any steps to secure agreements with other countries that they, too, would abstain from catching herring for other than human consumption. So today, off the coast of Atlantic Canada we still see the enormous fleets from Europe, the

October 14, 1971
N.W. Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act
Russian fleet primarily, the fleet from East Germany and the fleet from Poland, to name but a few, and these massive fleets are still taking all the herring they can catch.
I ask the minister, in what manner do we conserve the herring resources in the North Atlantic by limiting the catches of Canadians to herring for human consumption only when there has been absolutely no effort, so far as I know, to obtain agreement from the Europeans to take similar action? This is not conservation, it is only curtailment of Canadian fishing activities. Desirable as this is in order to maintain the fishery, it would appear that other action must be taken or else we are acting in vain, as has already been stated here. Apparently the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries has not been capable of acting in time to take proper preventive measures. It does not act, it reacts after the various species are depleted.
It was mentioned a moment ago by the previous speaker that we face serious loss in the North Atlantic of our salmon resources. Here we have one country, namely Denmark, taking something like four million pounds of salmon a year on the high seas. I realize that efforts have been made to obtain international agreement on the curtailment of the catch of fish, the androgynous species, on the high seas. However, so far as I know, to date no agreement has been reached. So, the Danes are literally milking a cow which they neither own nor feed. We, as Canadians, make efforts to restock our salmon resources but in many cases the last we see of the salmon is when they go down Canadian rivers to the sea. They never come back. We must secure some type of agreement with other countries to prevent this from happening. To travel among Canadian fishermen today is to meet with a group of men who are somewhat frustrated and who are very concerned about their own future as well as the future of their industry in view of what is happening on our continental shelf.
Other countries are taking some action to extend their fisheries jurisdiction. Iceland, for example, which depends for some 90 per cent of its income on the fisheries, has taken action. The Icelandic parliament has introduced a resolution to implement fisheries jurisdiction over their entire continental shelf before November of 1972. When taking that stand they did so for a very definite reason. They wanted to set down their course and to make it clear to all and sundry that this is what they will present as a nation when they come before the 1973 Law of the Sea Conference. They look upon the continental shelf surrounding Iceland as being part and parcel of their country. They maintain that there would not be an Iceland without a continental shelf. I believe this logic could also apply to Canada. We certainly would not be a nation, a country, without our continental shelf. Certainly, a coastal state must have a prime interest in, and a primary concern with the fisheries surrounding its shores.
After all, Mr. Speaker, if you had a right to go to a bank and take out money any time you desired, you would look with disfavour on any action that would bar you from continuing that course of getting funds. Similarly, European countries do not look with favour on any legislation

which limits them from taking any quantity of fish they like off our banks, off our continental shelf. I am not saying that we should take over control of the continental shelf and ask all other fishing nations to stop fishing in that area, but I believe that we must take a stand. I believe we must extend Canadian fisheries jurisdiction out to the limit of our continental shelf.
To date our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has expressed concern. Our Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) has expressed concern. Some action has been taken towards establishing a 12-mile limit but today, Mr. Speaker, when you visit fishermen, in-shore fishermen and off-shore fishermen, they talk of the 12-mile limit almost in terms of it being a joke. There is very little fishing activity carried out within 12 miles of our shores. There has been so much over-fishing on our offshore banks that the amount of fish that can be taken in our in-shore areas is very limited. This accounts for the frustration of our fishermen, and they keep asking their elected representatives "Can nothing be done"?
Some Latin American countries have extended their fishing jurisdictions 200 miles from their shores. Off the coast of Latin America this is very important because when they extend their fishing rights 200 miles from their shores they are covering the Humboldt current, which is one of the richest fishing currents in the world. They have done this in order to protect the fisheries for their own people. We in Canada must consider some type of fishing jurisdiction over our continental shelf if we are to survive as a fishing nation. I submit that we should no longer even consider fishing limits on a 12 miles scale. We should start considering depths, something like a 500 fathom area because this is the depth, or close to that depth, in which some of our deep-sea fishing trawlers are operating.
Now, returning to the bill, which I endorse, because even though it is not going to be too helpful we welcome any assistance that will be beneficial, I question the manner in which it will be enforced. I believe the minister stated that such legislation has been adopted by other countries, and that it will be acceptable to them. But to date, to name but one country, Russia has refused to have any examination made of fishing equipment below decks on its vessels. As I say, I question the manner in which this legislation will be enforced. Possibly the minister, when he winds up the debate, will enlighten us on the manner in which the regulations will be followed and enforced on ships operating on our continental shelf.
Only last Friday we learned of the over-all concern of the people in Atlantic Canada who are engaged in the fishing industry when representatives from Newfoundland, from Nova Scotia, from Prince Edward Island, from Quebec, from New Brunswick met in the West Block with the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). They made a very good presentation, with a written and graphic brief, describing the over-all decline of the fisheries. Some of the figures which they presented to that meeting told a story of over-fishing, of complete disregard for the resources so far as other countries are concerned, a course which, if followed, within the next five years would bring about a total depletion of our over-all fishing resources.
October 14, 1971

At that meeting we were told that the catch of codfish has declined by 50 per cent in the last five years. We were told that haddock stocks were decimated almost to the point of no return. We were told that European countries were now concentrating on the flat fish, yellowtail, flounder, sole and such species, and that if the overfishing continues these particular species too will soon be decimated. At that meeting they presented certain resolutions which I think should be placed on the records of this House because their suggestions and their proposals are worthy of consideration by the government. They suggested, and I quote:
Speed up the phasing out period of all foreign activity in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. In the process there should be discussions with the Canadian fishing industry on the Canadian aims in dealing with the St. Pierre question and how it relates to the eventual control and management of the continental shelf.
Enforce the 12 mile limit immediately in all areas around the Newfoundland and Labrador coastline and zone or "box off" certain important areas on the east coast for the exclusive use of in-shore fishermen during certain periods of the year.
Obviously, this is not being done. They also recommended that the government exclude gill net fishing from all off-shore banks. Again, I quote:
Discuss with Iceland, Norway and Denmark immediately Iceland's proposal to implement the 50 mile limit which is to be effective in September 1972. Also discuss the plans of the other two countries to follow similar action. We believe this will be a very useful exercise in determining what areas the Icelanders, the Norwegians, the Danes and the Canadians can work together toward achieving the common aim of extension of management control over their respective continental shelves.
Either close out all fishing activity on Hamilton Inlet Bank during the pre-spawning and spawning season for a minimum period of three years or implement immediately a crash quota system to apply for the 1972 fishery and to continue in existence until sufficient research is carried out to determine what quantity of fish can be safely taken annually from this stock and still maintain a maximum sustainable yield.
Close off all fishing activity during the haddock spawning period on the Southern Grand Banks where haddock concentrate for spawning and restrict fishing activity along the western slope of the Grand Banks during the haddock migration period. This action to facilitate the recovery of this important species for which scientists have so little hope at the present time.
Implement sea and air surveillance on whatever scale is necessary to establish the level of activity on our continental shelf and to locate this facility where it can effectively do the job. This type of surveillance is necessary to determine what effort is required in this direction for effective management control on the shelf. This facility should also incorporate the Air Sea Rescue Service which is now totally inadequate to do the job.
Step up research on critical species such as cod, flounder, red-fish and haddock in all areas to determine what action is required to maintain sustainable yields. The knowledge of quantities that can be safely taken from fish stocks will bring stability to the industry by determining the fishing effort required and the number of shore jobs which the industry can support. If this knowledge had been available and acted on in the past we would not be here today, stated the groups spokesman!
Make known to the foreign fishing nations our strongest objection to gang fishing which is not only contributing to overfishing but in some cases presents a definite hazard to the lives of Canadian fishermen.
Continue discussions with the Danes and take every possible measure to eliminate high seas fishing for salmon.
Canada should make its position absolutely clear at the 1973 Law of the Sea Conference that Canada as a coastal state will not
N.W. Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act
accept anything less than full management control over the marine resources on the continental shelf by the end of 1973.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the basis of the brief presented to the three ministers on Friday morning. It is a well worded brief and contains some very definite suggestions which we in the Official Opposition endorse. In view of the serious economic conditions faced by the people in Atlantic Canada as a result of the decline in our fisheries resources, I urge the minister to give careful consideration to these well thought out proposals. If acted upon they should be helpful to Canada in establishing our position when we come before the 1973 Law of the Sea Conference where, hopefully, we can gain some control over these fisheries resources which are so important to our people in Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Minister has already spoken and, of course, at this stage of the proceedings may speak again if members give unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Angus MacLean: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the minister closes the debate, perhaps I might ask him if he would indicate to the House what countries so far have passed legislation which will allow enforcement officials of other countries to board their vessels? In other words, what countries have passed legislation comparable to this?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) asked several questions. An important one was whether the international convention for the North Atlantic organization failed in its duty, as outlined in its terms of reference, to conserve the fish stocks of the north Atlantic. I think a short answer has to be, yes, it has failed in its duty. It has failed to conserve the fishery resources of waters commonly described as the high seas.
As a nation, we have extended our own exclusive limits. We have included all of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, all of the bays and inlets around our coast and 12 miles out to sea beyond that. Still we have not covered the largest continental shelf in the world and our own immensely productive shelf off Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.
The North Atlantic convention for the conservation of fish stocks has failed to protect those stocks, has failed miserably in a number of cases. It has failed badly in respect of haddock and may be failing in respect of other groundfish species. The mighty cod is either at the point of maximum sustainable yield or has been pushed beyond it. In other words, there is excessive pressure on our ground fishery. Stocks and catches have been failing in recent years.
Having said that International Convention of countries that fish commercially in the North Atlantic has failed in the past 22 years, I owe it to the convention to ask the question whether it can recover its balance and in future do the sort of job it was originally designed to do and asked to do. I think the answer is yes-a qualified yes, if it can have the authority, if all the countries fishing in the north Atlantic will back it or, as is more likely to be the case, it can be used as a medium for negotiating agreements resulting in certain practices such as reducing the

October 14, 1971
N.W. Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act
fishing efforts of all countries in the North Atlantic it can be a success.
It is making a beginning on haddock. Quotas are now being set up to establish a fishery which will first of all recover and then operate on a sustained yield basis on Georges Bank. An important conference is to take place in Rome next February, an interim meeting of the members of the North Atlantic fishing community. This conference will deal with the matter of quotas. Hopefully, and certainly this is the thrust of the Canadian submission, quotas will be set in respect of herring. Canadian fishermen take half the herring. But, we have a continuing interest in this particular species and there are indications that it, too, is approaching the point of over-exploitation.
Our basic approach is to establish a managed fishery not only in our own exclusive limits but out over all our continental shelf-which in places extends 400 miles into the Atlantic-and all of the slope beyond it and to insist that in future it is by agreement, a managed fishery. It would be necessary for the scientists of the member countries, all 14 of them, to agree on condition of the stock that exist there, the numbers of fish that should be conserved and on a maximum catch, thus ensuring useful production for the indefinite future. There is the tricky question, but I am sure it can be answered, of sharing out the sustainable yield between nations. Finally, there is the matter of policing the extent of the catch and the manner in which the catch is taken. The bill before us addresses itself to the question of policing the catch of all important species.
I was asked several questions today. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) asked whether other countries would share in the policing of this fishing effort. It is true that Canadian fisheries protection vessels will be patrolling off our shelf and a number of other countries will not have vessels of that character in the area. We will be doing more than our share of the policing. Perhaps this is as it should be because we claim it is our shelf. It is much closer to our shores and thus much easier for us to do the policing.
This bill gives us the authority to go on board any vessel of any other country and we will be doing more of this type of inspection. The Canadian taxpayer will be putting up much of the money. When the whole scheme is in effect and all the stocks of the north Atlantic are under a sustained yield management, I think we can then claim, as a coastal state, to have a special position, to have put more into the shelf management operation than the other countries, to be entitled to an increasing share of the pie, so to speak, and to be on the inside track when it comes to sharing of stocks of new species caught in the area. I would hesitate to ask other countries to share in the policing activity when I think this could be a good thing for the future, to assert our sovereignty and to obtain a larger share of the catch under good management in the longer run.
Questions were asked about Atlantic salmon. This is another threatened species of fish. The fishery has been over-exploited all along the east coast of the Atlantic. It is now confined largely to rivers in Canada, principally Labrador, the north shore of Quebec and New Brunswick. There has been fishing pressure from European countries in recent years off Greenland. The Danes are progressive-

ly pulling out of that fishery, partly because they expect to go into the European Common Market which precludes them from fishing around Greenland, and partly because the fishery itself has fallen off. They are getting out of the salmon fishery and, using the same fishing vessels, they are fishing off Africa. Indeed, the Danish government is subsidizing the conversion of its salmon vessels, still about a dozen in number, for use in fisheries in other parts of the world.
Our basic approach to the next Law of the Sea Conference and our basic approach to the North Atlantic fishery with respect to salmon is that there should be no fishing by any nation beyond the exclusive limits of that nation. If our resolution passes, at the 1973 Law of the Sea Conference and that law becomes the law of the sea with respect to salmon, there will be no high seas salmon fishery to police, because no nation would take salmon on the high seas.
Our remaining problem will be of course, that any Canadian salmon or salmon spawned in Canadian rivers which swims to within 12 miles of Greenland and which inhabits those waters will continue to be taken by the Eskimos based in Greenland. There will be a continuing problem in that regard, but it will be nothing like the problem we have recently experienced with respect to the unrestricted fishery for Canadian salmon on the high seas.
There was reference to the action which Iceland is proposing. Iceland is now proposing to extend its 12-mile fishing limit to 50 miles. Iceland's principal reason for the change is that the 50-mile limit around Iceland neatly includes most of the continental shelf off Iceland. It does not include all of it; it includes all but a part of it.
Their 50 mile limit is a simple limit; it is easy for captains of fishing vessels to observe. As I say, it is an Icelandic formula. It does not suit Canada because we have a much larger continental shelf. If we were to set it at 50 miles, that would mean that we would have to exclude the 350 miles of the Grand Banks extending eastward from Newfoundland. We intend to include the whole of our shelf, which is, of course, a bigger shelf. We intend to cover the whole shelf and hope to gain management control over the sustained operations over the whole of the shelf. We will share the product of the shelf on a sustained basis with other nations, do the bulk of the policing, if that is the wish of the other nations and, in effect be the manager if not the total exploiter of our shelf.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would permit a question. Would he indicate when we can anticipate an announcement by the minister of that policy which he has just enunciated, namely, that we intend to go for the management of the fisheries resources of our entire continental shelf.


John (Jack) Davis: I think the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) will recall that one of the first speeches I made as Minister of Fisheries I made in Boston. It was about ten pages long and explained our policy. What I said then has been our policy ever since. It is the approach we will take at the next Law of the Sea Conference. We want to make
October 14, 1971

sure that sound conservation practice is extended to the whole of our shelf and its slope. We are prepared to fish our shelf along with other nations on a co-operative basis, but with Canada being on the inside track; and, in so far as the exploitation of new species is concerned, we would have the total fishery. That has been our policy. That is our policy today.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one further question. I hesitate to interrupt the minister. Has the government indicated to the Icelandic government, for example, that we as Canadians will support their resolution which, if I read it correctly, states that their continental shelf fisheries resources will be managed by them in the area between 50 and 70 miles off the shore. That area is to include their natural continental shelf which, in one area, extends out for 70 miles. Will we, as a nation, take the public stand that we are endorsing that type of action in the hope that Iceland, in turn, will support our action when we go before the 1973 Law of the Sea Conference?


John (Jack) Davis: There is common ground here. We have worked closely with the Icelandic fishing industry in respect of getting the price of fish up, and in respect of the optimum management of the continental shelf. We are interested in the fishery out beyond 50 miles. We are not interested in a 50 mile only policy. What I have referred to is a total shelf policy. We may cheer them on, but I do not think we should follow their policy in detail, Mr. Speaker.
There are one or two other points I should like to touch on, Mr. Speaker. I would not like to leave the impression that our commercial fishery off the east coast is in the process of being wiped out. It is in difficulties, in that the resource itself is under heavy pressure offshore from very large fleets owned by a number of countries. Indeed, the number of countries is increasing. Japan has recently entered the fishery off the east coast as well. Yet the total catch in quantity this year, in 1971, will be in the same order of magnitude as the highest catch ever taken in the North Atlantic. And because of the higher prices which we now obtain for our fisheries products in the markets of the world, the total income to the fishery will be very much higher this year, 1971, than it has ever been. So, in terms of income, we are making progress. It is in terms of fish stocks that, we have a problem, and this is the area in which we must work closely with other nations.
As for the other points which have been raised are concerned, I was asked how many of the 14 nations have already indicated their willingness for reciprocal policing of their vessels by our own officers, and vice versa, in the North Atlantic. I am sorry that I cannot answer that precisely. I think about ten nations have already taken the necessary steps, either by regulation or by passing legislation. All are expected to do so before the convention meets again next year in June. The principal nations about which we are really concerned, the USSR and the United States, have signed and we are anxious to start operating reciprocally with them now.
Perhaps a few statistics could be of interest. I think anyone listening to this debate would have the impression that over the years other offshore nations have been taking the bulk of the fish from our shores and continental shelf. This is true with respect to cod. The offshore nations collectively took two-thirds, and we took about a
Committee on Statutory Instruments
third of the cod. However, Canadians took more than half of all the other species, including herring which may be in jeopardy, and haddock. The average figure is 50 per cent. Canadians currently take 85 per cent of the total catch of scallops off the east coast. Canadian commercial fishermen take 80 per cent of the pollock. They take 60 per cent of the herring, 50 per cent of the haddock, 50 per cent of the red fish and 50 per cent of the flounders. So, good conservation practices will depend in considerable measure on our own good practice as well as the practice of other nations.
I am glad to note that hon. members in all corners of the House support this legislation. I am convinced that it will help us eventually to develop a policy to bring about orderly production and better remuneration for the commercial fishery in the North Atlantic.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That Standing Order 65(3) be amended by adding thereto the following:
"(c) On Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, to act as members on the part of this House on the Joint Committee of both Houses established for the purpose of reviewing and scrutinizing statutory instruments standing permanently referred thereto by section 26 of the Statutory Instruments Act, to consist of 12 members;"
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its Members to act on the proposed joint committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a very few remarks in connection with this motion to establish an additional standing committee, a standing committee that is intended to be a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament. Hon. members will be aware of the history of this process in establishing parliamentary machinery for reviewing regulations and other forms of administrative legislation. The setting up of this scrutiny committee is really the final step in that process.
As hon. members will recall, in the first session of this Parliament, a thorough review of this question was undertaken by a special committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGui-gan). On the basis of the committee report, the government prepared the Statutory Instruments Act which was passed earlier in the present session.
I believe that consultations have been held with members of the opposition with regard to this particular motion and that it has the general acceptance of the House. As has been pointed out in previous speeches that have been made in discussion on the bill, it is intended that the committee will operate in a non-partisan man-
__________________________COMMONS DEBATES
Committee on Statutory Instruments
October 14, 1971
ner-at least that hope has been expressed and agreed to by members who have taken part in previous debates.
It has been suggested by the committee that the chairmanship of the committee be rotated or moved about among members of various parties in the House. Perhaps if that procedure is followed, it will give some incentive to carry out the work of the committee with a minimum of partisanship, although I am certainly not advocating that partisanship be removed from the House of Commons or any of its committees generally.
Even though it will be a joint committee, the committee will be small. It will probably require members who are expert in this field and who, over a period of time, will develop a growing expertise in the examination of statutory instruments, administrative regulations and so on. The work of the committee will be a continuing job because of section 26 of the act which provides for a permanent referral of the subject matter to the committee.
It has been recommended by the committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Windsor-Walker-ville, that this new scrutiny committee be assisted by a skilled expert staff in order to perform its work effectively. I believe that recommendation of the special committee received the support of the House and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) in the debate on the act. It is probably a good idea to get the committee organized as quickly as possible so that the expert staff required, however, small it may be, can be recruited and assigned to the work of this committee.
I do not propose to say anything further because the ground has already been covered in a previous debate. For those who would like to refer to previous discussions on the work of the scrutiny committee that is proposed in this motion, I refer them to the debate of Monday, March 8, 1971. It contains quite a full account of the discussion at that time in which distinguished members of this House, including the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the Minister of Justice gave their views on the work of the committee. I should revise my inclusion of the name of the member for Winnipeg North Centre because his participation was confined to one or two small interjections. The main burden was carried by the hon. member for Peace River and the Minister of Justice.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we endorse this motion. I am sure it will pass. When the motion does pass, I hope the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) will engage in the usual consultations to secure the submission of names of those from this House who will form the committee so that, in conjunction with the members of the other place, the committee will be formed and immediately commence its operations. One of the first and most difficult tasks the committee will have will be to develop a jurisprudence with regard to this very important issue.
I do not want to traverse the ground we already covered in the debate. However, I should again point out that practically every bill that comes before this House has a clause that deals with regulatory powers granted to a minister, tribunal, board or the governor in council. This is a tremendously important subject. I think this fact is emphasized by item 78 on the Order Paper, a motion

standing in the name of the President of the Privy Council which deals with the right of the committee to be appointed to study the kind and nature of legislation to deal with emergencies. There is an amendment to the motion by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) to give the committee the right to look into the circumstances surrounding the problems in Quebec last year. To stress the importance of this motion, if this committee had been active, it would have had the right, pursuant to the Regulations Act, to look at the order in council which contained the proclamation to bring into effect the War Measures Act. I think that simple statement underlines the importance of this committee.
I wish to very briefly put before the House some of the recommendations of the select committee to which the President of the Privy Council referred, and of which I was a member. They are to be found in the third report of that committee of the 1968-69 session. The committee recommended what should be the powers, duties and functions of a standing committee. I will not say anything about the composition of the committee as it will be comprised of members of the other place. I do not have any objection to that. There is something to be said for the fact that it will provide a measure of continuity which may be very important. One proposal is as follows:
All regulations should stand permanently referred to it.
This is what the select committee recommended. This will be brought about by the terms of the statute.
It should strive to operate in an objective and non-partisan way.
I agree with the President of the Privy Council that in this House we operate on the adversary system. Hopefully, not as much of this adversary system is carried into all committees. There is bound to be some. If this committee is going to function, not to place a nail in the last plank of the coffin of bureaucracy but at least a nail on the last rail which will hem bureaucracy in a corral behind it, it will have to examine and scrutinize with a measure of objectivity those things which are referred to it. To that extent, I recommend that when the committee is constituted the first chairman be selected from the ranks of a party other than the government. That, of course, is up to the committee. I like to think that it will at least start out on that basis.
This is the practice in the United Kingdom where the chairman of the special scrutiny committee on statutory instruments is always a member of the opposition. I am not suggesting this should necessarily be the case here, but I hope it would start out like that. "It should have a small membership". That condition is met. "It should normally sit in public session." I do not think there will be any objection to that. "It should be empowered to sit while parliament is not sitting". "It should have adequate staff". I pause here to enlarge upon that recommendation. The success of the United Kingdom committee is to a large extent ensured by the effectiveness of its chief adviser, who is counsel to Mr. Speaker at Westminster. I do not suggest we follow this procedure precisely here, but if this committee is to function effectively in examining statutory instruments and checking the operations of government boards and tribunals which operate under statutory instruments it should have an adviser with some knowledge, some training, some considerable experience, who
October 14, 1971

would function as a kind of ombudsman in collaboration with the committee.
When we consider the thousands of statutory instruments which are passed in a year, I would think it would be physically impossible for this committee to deal with them all. But it is the experience in the United Kingdom and, I think, in Australia, that an effective, capable and learned chief executive operating with the committee is able, through the simple method of making telephone calls and taking part in discussions, to weed out a lot of the difficulties and faults which appear in statutory instruments so that the committee is left with the task of dealing only with matters which cannot be settled by discussion. I would imagine that through telephone cover-sations or personal discussions a proper officer would be able to weed out most of the areas of difficulty before they get to the committee.
A final proposal is that it should examine regulations on the basis of six criteria:
Are they authorized by the terms of the enabling statute?
That is manifest.
Do they make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute?
That is very important.
Do they trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties?
Have they complied with the provisions of the Regulations Act?
Do they represent an abuse of the power to provide that they should come into force before they are transmitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council?
And so on.
I suggest that a committee which is objective, hardworking and properly staffed would perform a function which has long been needed in this country. I wish to confer my blessing, and the blessing of our party, on this committee. I feel that since the lives, the fortunes and the liberties of the people of Canada are affected to the extent of almost 90 per cent by statutory regulations rather than statutes, this committee will be one of the most important committees to function under the authority of Parliament during the course of the next few years.
I have taken a little longer than I should have taken. I hope that if necessary we can trespass to a limited extent upon the private members' hour in order that this motion may be passed and the process of setting up the committee begun.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of what we ought to do about regulations and other statutory instruments is one which lends itself to lengthy discussion. However, I believe there are not many who wish to speak in the debate today; perhaps there is a general disposition to complete an afternoon of accomplishment by getting this motion through by five o'clock. I shall therefore take only a minute or two to say that, just as we welcomed the passing earlier this session of the statutory instruments bill, we welcome this motion which will establish a standing committee to which statutory instruments, regulations and so on can be referred for scrutiny. I concur in the general attitude which has been expressed both by the
Committee on Statutory Instruments
President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) to the effect that this committee must approach its work in an objective manner and also to the effect that it will be engaged in a very important activity.
It is our experience in Parliament time and time again to think we knew what we passed when we gave final approval to a piece of legislation, only to find months later that things were being done or restrictions were being imposed of a kind we did not believe appeared in the bill at all. When we try to find out what happened, we discover that we had given authority to the Governor in Council to make regulations for the carrying out of the purposes of the act and that under this authority restrictive regulations were passed, or restrictive definitions introduced of such a nature as to produce quite a different result from the result we thought had been intended. I could give a number of examples of this sort of thing, but since time is limited, I shall refrain from doing so now. This is an area which the committee ought to scrutinize very carefully. I would hope that with the committee exercising an eagle eye there might in future be fewer departures by way of orders in council from what Parliament really intended.
A few moments ago I said I would not make references to examples. But let me give just one, not in order to be contentious, but merely to make my point. Take the new Unemployment Insurance Act. Because we gave the Governor in Council the power to define "earnings" we found that things were happening which we did not expect and that in many cases benefits were greatly reduced. I use this as one example. There are others. So this kind of job is extremely important, and we are therefore glad to give our support to the motion to establish a standing committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motion, (papers) and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Private Bills.
June 10, 1971-Resuming the report stage of Bill S-12, An Act respecting Central-Del Rio Oils Limited, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.-Mr. Harries.
And resuming debate on the motion of Mr. Skoberg, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre),-That Bill S-12, An Act respecting Central-Del Rio Oils Limited, be amended by adding the following to Clause 1 at line 27 on page 1:
"on the condition that sections 52 to 56 of the Bank Act apply to the company mutatis mutandis notwithstanding the provisions of Part I of the Canada Corporations Act."
Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I understood the Clerk at the table to be reading an item with respect to Bill S-12, which is No. 3 on the list of
Private Bills

October 14, 1971
private bills. I had understood that we were proceeding with the bill relating to the Royal Victoria Hospital, which is No. 1 in any event.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is quite right; that was merely an oversight.



ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL

Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace) moved: that Bill S-19, respecting the Royal Victoria Hospital, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to amend the charter of the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal, one of the great hospitals not only in Canada but in the entire world. It has provided outstanding medical care to several generations of Canadians and produced many great medical personalities.
The Royal Victoria Hospital was incorporated as a charitable corporation by act of Parliament in 1887. Its charter is found in the statutes of Canada 1887, 50-51 Victoria, chapter 125. As members of the House might expect, the charter is very much out of date. It was passed at a time when hospitals were established by individual initiative and philanthropic associations. There was no medicare and very little government intervention. Times have changed and now the state is very much involved.
The purpose of this bill is to bring the charter up to date, and in particular to bring it into line with the provisions of the Quebec Hospitals Act and the medicare legislation. The principal provisions of the bill are as follows. First, it eliminates the right to establish branch hospitals. Second, it eliminates the provisions for ex officio governors. Third, it provides a new method for appointing governors to the board of governors. Fourth, it eliminates certain passages regarding indigent patients due to the introduction of the Quebec Hospitals Act and medicare. Fifth, it eliminates certain references to the laws of England and it changes the provisions regarding the official visitor. Sixth, it eliminates the requirement to obtain the consent of the heirs of Lord Mount Stephen and Lord Strathcona for a change in the charter. Both men have been dead for many years and their heirs are in the third and fourth generation and scattered all over the world. Lastly, the bill amends the charter so that the minister of health of Quebec under the Quebec Hospitals Act can recommend adoption of certain orders in council for financial grants and bond issues.
Since it is urgent that this bill be passed as soon as possible, I would ask the House to give it quick passage at this stage so that it can go to committee.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations on this bill. Since such a famous institution as the Royal Victoria Hospital is under discussion, I think acknowledgement should be made of those men who founded it. Eight men founded this hospital, and they were Sir George Stephen, Sir Donald A. Smith, Hon. John J.C. Abbott, Alexander T. Paterson, James Wentworth Buchanan, Richard B. Angus, Andrew Robertson and Thomas Davidson.
This hospital was established in 1887, at a time when there were not many hospitals in Canada. It was one of the first hospitals in the province of Quebec, and it has achieved a very enviable reputation over the years. It was one of the first hospitals in the province that treated the sick, medically and surgically, and those who were indigent in whole or in part and unable to provide for their own welfare.
I think it might be worthwhile to draw to the attention of the House the fact that hospitals were often founded by religious bodies. In Judaism it was always believed that the rich should look after the poor. The Christian religion established this principle, and Christ himself in his own teachings said-and many Christians at all periods have found the motive for their philanthropy in these words- ''Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me". Some, however, with a materialistic view of the rewards and punishments of the afterlife, have seen, in almsgiving especially, a means of making God their debtor, and this was particularly obvious in the mediaeval period.
When St. Bartholomew's Hospital and Guy's Hospital were established in London in the year 1100, it is interesting to note that a lot of their patients were poor people who had no place to sleep or to rest. They were down and out and they went there to get a meal or to be looked after. Of course, some of them were sick. So that the founding of these hospitals lies in the humanities.
As I have said, the Royal Victoria has a very enviable record. From the time the hospital was a private corporation until the present day it has been one of the famous teaching hospitals in Canada, in fact on the North American continent. It is renowned in the field of medicine and has been made famous by many of its graduates. Among those who have held teaching positions in this institution is the name of Osier, and it is of interest to note that Osier was born about 40 miles north of the city of Toronto. It is a name known in medical circles throughout the world. Osier held the post of professor of medicine at Oxford University. Dr. Archibald, the great chest surgeon, also taught at the Royal Victoria Hospital and at McGill University. Wilder Penfield, the neurosurgeon who established the department of neurosurgery at the hospital is recognized as an authority in his field throughout the world.
I could go on at length to name outstanding doctors who have graduated from this institution, doctors who have not only made their name in the field of medicine in Canada, but in the United States and other countries they visited. In the march of events, however, it is necessary that changes now he made in the charter and statutes of this hospital to comply with the Quebec Hospitals Act and the Quebec medicare plan. It is hoped that under the Quebec Hospitals Act this teaching hospital will continue its great progress, not only in disseminating the knowledge of medicine but in the care of the sick.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, when Parliament in 1971 seeks to amend a statute that has remained intact for 84 years-since 1887-I think it is a unique occasion. I understood the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) to say there is a two-fold purpose in the bill; first, to modernize or bring the charter up to

October 14, 1971

date in the general sense, and second, to make it comply with the Quebec Hospitals Act. I have some wonderment as to what we are really seeking to accomplish, apart from the general purpose of endorsing the hospital itself, its concepts, and what it seeks to do in the medical and health areas. I do not think there is any disagreement about that fact.
When the bill was before the Senate, it was referred to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I have not followed the proceedings of that Senate committee, so I really do not know at this point what matters the Senate committee inquired into in so far as legalities and constitutional matters are concerned. But perhaps some consideration should be given to just what it is we are seeking to do. Before I get to that, I understood the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace to say that the gentlemen who were the initial sponsors and promoters and who incorporated the Royal Victoria Hospital have long since died. Yet, I see that the names of these individuals who are enumerated in clause 1 of the bill, namely, Sir George Stephen, Baronet, the Honourable Sir Donald Alexander Smith, and the others are the same individuals who are enumerated in the statute of 1887 under section 1.
In this bill we are seeking to repeal section 1 of the statute of 1887 and to replace it with clause 1 of this bill, and yet we still carry on the names of the individuals mentioned in the statute of 1887 as being the incorporators of the Royal Victoria Hospital. I have no argument with that. I assume that it is done out of historic recognition, not out of any legality inasmuch as these gentlemen were the ones who initially incorporated the Royal Victoria Hospital. If it is done out of recognition of the contribution they made to the establishment of a Protestant faith hospital in the city of Montreal with the intention of establishing other hospitals in other provinces, then it is fine with me, although if it is not for the purpose of the recognition of these gentlemen I do not see the legal necessity of saying that there are a number of gentlemen in the city of Montreal in the province of Quebec together with such other persons are as hereafter associated with them. From the point of view of draftsmanship, I do not see any sense in talking in the present tense, about people who are deceased, and saying that there are other persons who are likely to be associated with them, all of whom will carry on the functions of the Royal Victoria Hospital so that it may be a continuing organization and so that it does not decline if individual members of it pass on. This, it seems to me, is a strange sort of approach for Parliament to be taking, and I wonder whether perhaps an explanation could be given by the sponsor of the bill when he has the opportunity to speak in closing the debate.
The other thing that disturbs me and makes me wonder about what precisely we are doing here is the very simple fact that when the Royal Victoria Hospital was incorporated in 1887 it was authorized to do certain things, one of which was to establish a hospital in the city of Montreal to be called the Royal Victoria Hospital. That is fine. The charter goes on to say, also convalescent cottage hospitals as branches thereof at Banff, in the Northwest Territories and in Caledonia Springs in the province of Ontario. Such being the case, I think it was necessary in 1887, since
Private Bills
under the provisions of the constitution health is under provincial jurisdiction, to superimpose on top of that a national authority, a federal corporation giving the incorporated Royal Victoria Hospital authority to extend itself beyond the boundary of the province of Quebec, or indeed beyond the boundaries of any other province as the case may be. Presumably, this is what the Parliament did in 1887. It said, yes, we will incorporate the Royal Victoria Hospital with a federal or a national identity and give it a national complexion and a charter, thus authorizing it to go beyond the provincial boundary and into Alberta, the Northwest Territories and Ontario as specified in section 1 of the statute of 1887.
What we seek to do here is to repeal section 1 of the statute and to replace it with something else. Some of the things we replace it with are extracts from the statute of 1887, but there are some things that are left out and one of those is the authority to establish convalescent cottage hospitals in Banff, in the Northwest Territories and in Caledonia Springs in the province of Ontario. We are now saying that all the authority which the Royal Victoria Hospital has under the statute of the Parliament of Canada is to establish a hospital, one only, in the city of Montreal in the province of Quebec, and this is a continuing thing. In fact, the explanatory note to clause 1 reads as follows:
The purpose of this amendment is to remove the Hospital's power to establish branches outside Quebec. The Quebec Hospitals Act contemplates the establishment of "a hospital" only.
In other words, we are now removing the authority of the hospital to establish itself or branches thereof in other provinces, and we say that its sole authority will be confined to the city of Montreal in the province of Quebec. So, the need to have a national charter seems to disappear. In fact, the constitutional requirement under the BNA Act that health, civil rights, medical care and so on, be under the authority and the exclusive jurisdiction of the respective provinces makes me wonder even more why the Parliament of Canada is involved in this situation. In addition to that, the province of Quebec, probably more so than any other province over the years on a continuing basis, has been extremely jealous, and rightly so, of the constitutional jurisdiction it has under the BNA Act. When the late premier Duplessis was in office, he even contended against becoming involved in expenditures under the Trans-Canada Highway Act and becoming involved in receiving federal grants to universities. There was a strong concern about constitutional jurisdiction within that province. Because of that concern, I wonder whether we as the Parliament of Canada are embarking upon the correct course in seeking to do what we now do under the bill. I wonder whether, in fact, we should not be paying respect to the constitutional jurisdictions of the provinces, in this case the province of Quebec because that is where the hospital is, and is to remain, and whether we should not simply repeal the statute of 1887.
All throughout the explanatory notes to the subsequent clauses of the bill, those following clause 1, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and as also-I am not getting into the details of them now- there are three or four references that I can see, just at a

October 14, 1971
Private Bills
quick glance, wherein clauses or sections of the act of 1887 are being amended to meet the requirements of the Quebec Hospital Act and, in another instance, the Quebec medicare plan. If this is so, if this is the purpose, to have the Quebec Hospital Act prevail, which I am sure is what the case must be within the constitution, why do we have to go through the process of the Parliament of Canada seeking to comply with a law of a province, which that province has exclusive jurisdiction under the constitution to enact in any event?
It would seem to me that if the Quebec National Assembly, exercising its authority under the constitution to pass legislation with respect to hospitals, were in fact to pass such legislation, then any federal legislation would become null and void. How can there be two jurisdictions here? How can there be the Parliament of Canada saying with respect to a particular hospital, "Here is one set of rules, one set of circumstances, one set of proscriptions and activities," and the Quebec National Assembly, exercising its authority under the constitution, saying "Here is another set of circumstances, and here is something else that is going to prevail"? It seems to me that we do not need to go into the process of saying, "Yes, we will pass other legislation now with respect to the Royal Victoria Hospital in order that a statute of the Parliament of Canada and the operations of the Royal Victoria Hospital meet with or comply with the requirements of the Quebec Hospital Act." Surely those operations must do that now. Surely, the Royal Victoria Hospital must comply with the provisions of the Quebec Hospital Act, which is exercised exclusively within that province?
Surely, the operation of the Quebec medicare plan as it has application to the people in that province is paramount and overrides any decisions which the Parliament of Canada might make, because it is operated within the province's exclusive constitutional jurisdiction? These are the doubts or wonderments I have in my mind. I am not objecting to advancing the structure, the authority and the provisions relating to the hospital so that its administration and internal operations may be modernized and brought up to date, reflecting more the needs of the people in that province who go to that hospital. I am not questioning that at all, but what I am questioning is the whole constitutional issue of whether we are really on the right track, and whether or not the most appropriate thing might be simply to repeal the statute of 1887, because obviously the bill before us came here by petition. It is a private bill. It came by petition of the principals of the Royal Victoria Hospital themselves. I do not know who they are at the moment, who signed the petition, or sought to have the bill introduced in the Senate. That is immaterial. But whoever they are, they represent the hospital, and the hospital as a corporate society is saying, "We no longer want to have the authority to establish convalescent cottages outside the province of Quebec. We only want the authority to have the hospital established and maintained within the province of Quebec, as it always has been."
Then they are seeking to say, "In addition to that we want the federal statute that was enacted in 1887"-and presumably there was good reason for its enactment at that time, since there was not any medicare plan, any hospitalization plan,-which was enacted and established

at a different time, under a different set of circumstances, and with a different concept about society with respect to medicine, hospitals and payment of bills to be changed now and adjusted to meet the Quebec Hospital Act.
I submit that the Quebec National Assembly, operating within its jurisdiction, has enacted sufficient legislation within its own jurisdiction that we are not competent in a constitutional sense to question it. This is the thought that I have to express. There may be some points I missed in all of this, not having had the opportunity to look at the record of the proceedings before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee which examined this particular bill. I do not know whether or not this question of the constitution, this question of the exclusive jurisdiction of the province to enact legislation in this field of health and medical care, was discussed in the Senate committee, to what extent it was discussed, and what answers were given by the constitutional authorities. But it seems to me, without that kind of background knowledge of what they did, this is a valid point that should be considered.
I am not saying that we should not give second reading to the bill and refer it to the committee. That will take place in due course this afternoon. But it seems to me that unless those questions are answered, and answered clearly, we are in fact likely to be offending against the British North America Act, against the attitude of the government of Quebec which consistently has been to uphold rigidly and clearly the provisions of the BNA Act in those areas where the Quebec National Assembly has exclusive jurisdiction, and this appears to be one of them. I say that this appears to be one of them, unless there are some constitutional provisions within that act, as there are sometimes, that carry forward a special arrangement outside of the provisions of the constitution, such as was the case in Nova Scotia, where for many years the province of Nova Scotia had a special set of laws relating to divorce matters. They were laws of the Parliament of England that, by virtue of a provision in the BNA Act, were carried forward and remained in effect in what became the province of Nova Scotia.
As I say, there may be some provision in the BNA Act with respect to the Royal Victoria Hospital, or with respect to the establishment of hospitals, which gave at that time some authority to the Parliament of Canada to be able to enact special statute law in that area. These are things that need to be examined. I hope that when the bill gets to committee this question will be cleared up because it would seem rather a needless exercise for us to go through the process of passing a statute with respect to amending the Royal Victoria Hospital Act of 1887, and then find out it was not necessary, that the whole process was ultra vires of our jurisdiction in any event.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
I recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
October 14, 1971


Mr. Andre Ouellet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr, Speaker, I have listened with interest to the comments made by previous speakers on this bill and I am happy to note that there is no objection in principle either to the proposal or to its adoption.
I should mention, I think, that on reading the proposed amendments it is clear that the only object of this Senate bill is to amend the act of incorporation of the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal so that it be in accord with the Quebec Hospitals Act.
With regard to the department of National Health and Welfare I would like to say that this matter affects only the internal administrative arrangements of a province and, therefore, does not fall directly under the department's jurisdiction.
The constitutional apprehensions raised by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) are not, I think, as serious as he seemed to maintain. In my opinion, this legislation, both from the legal and constitutional point of views, is quite acceptable.
I would also like to reply to a question of the hon. member for Skeena about clause 1.
The enumeration contained in clause 1 refers to certain persons incorporated. Those named there are generally designated as the founders of that renowned hospital. It is still customary to mention people belonging to the corporation- This clause lists people who at the beginning set up the corporation and the sole purpose of the proposed amendment is to remove the hospital's power to establish branches outside the province of Quebec. The Quebec Hospitals Act contemplates the establishment of one hospital only.
Finally, I want to point out that the Quebec Hospitals Act could soon be replaced by Bill 65 that provides for complete re-organization of health institutions and social services in the province of Quebec. When the legislation becomes law, it will probably be necessary to amend our legislation.
Anyway, we cannot see anything in the present bill of national scope to which we would feel it a duty to oppose. I must say also that we do not believe the bill runs counter to any provision of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act.
Therefore, I recommend the adoption of Bill S-19.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read for the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, June 10, consideration of Bill S-12, respecting Central-Del Rio Oils Limited, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and the amendment of Mr. Skoberg (page 6588).
Private Bills
John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, first a point of order in regard to Bill S-21. Did I understand correctly that this bill has been dropped? I did not quite understand the translation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. That bill was stood.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, there was debate when Bill S-12 was before us for second reading, and I am very aware of the debate when it went to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. That was a most unfortunate debate, to say the least. I am also aware that we have an amendment which would call for bringing this company, Central-Del Rio Oils Limited within the sphere of Canadian ownership.
Many people have suggested that we in this House should not be hung up on the idea of Canadian ownership, that there has to be a complete change in the area of ownership of companies. I agree with this and ask the government why they have not brought in regulations in light of the report which the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) made to the cabinet last June.
We are all well aware of the problems that exist in various parts of the country in regard to what should be construed as Canadian ownership and what direction should be given to corporations residing within our boundaries. In view of the concern expressed by many eminent people about the type of regulations we have and the direction the government should be giving, we are entitled to ask that safeguards be written into the bill to spell out clearly where ownership will be Canadian and direction as to the destiny of Canadian corporations, which means the destiny of thousands of employees.
Not long ago I read a book on this subject, entitled "Canada can Thrive," by Raymond Spencer Rodgers. It appears that when we talk about nationalization or nationalism we are all tagged with a name which really means retaliation. In 1958 there was a move afoot to try to bring about this type of nationalism and so gain the respect of the younger people of our country.
We have a difficult situation at present with our good neighbours to the south. Some time ago the Carling Company selected Baltimore as the site for a brewery. The legislature in Maryland vetoed the bill on the ground that this Canadian company was not 51 per cent American owned. In that case the executive power stepped in at the last moment and set the legislation aside. In related incidents involving the U.S. Customs, Canadian corporations have suffered. The book gives examples of various areas where exports are affected. At page 26 appears the following:
It cannot be said that Ottawa has been vigorous in its approach to this problem in the past.
We talk about the Canadianization of certain industries, about the type of bills we should enact and whether we should introduce amendments that would bring foreign-owned industry under the control of the Canadian people. The book continues:
During the fourth session of the twenty-fourth Parliament, a private company sought incorporation in Ottawa. Only the most spirited opposition by the old CCF, plus two Conservatives (who were thought to be crossing party lines for having done so- though in fact the matter did not relate to a government bill)

October 14, 1971
Private Bills
prevented the Aurora Pipe Line Company from being completely American in composition.
I am using this as an analogy because it is similar to the case now before us, although the company with which we are concerned, Central-Del Rio, is really Canadian. If we are interested in Canadian ownership and Canadian direction we must ensure that amendments are included in every bill that goes through this House to make absolutely certain that this will be the case. The book continues:
CCF MP Harold Winch said in the debate that "this House of Commons is being asked to give its stamp of approval to a company that first of all has no interest in Alberta. Everything will be exported for secondary industry in the states of Idaho and Montana" through a half-mile long border pipeline, built by a U.S. controlled company.
His colleague, Arnold Peters, added that "if it is necessary to spend $15,000 to build this pipeline, then goodness gracious, surely the Canadian people could afford to do this if it would give them the key to the complete control of the Alberta oil fields and the export markets."
A little lower down the page appear these words:
After months of opposition the backers of Aurora finally made a verbal promise that the majority of the directors were to be Canadians-even if only sleeping directors. And as the bill passed into history, Ernest Broome, the only Tory MP to consistently follow Diefenbaker's theory made this final observation:
"I am pleased with the announcement"-
Even though two Conservatives of those days took a stand to which their party must have taken exception, I have yet to hear any Liberals or Conservatives in debates of this type speak on the difficulties with which Canada is faced. We must all be concerned about Canadian nationalism. I submit that it is not good enough for assurances to be given in the House of Commons. Amendments such as the one proposed should be included in the bill. The preamble ought to say that the company shall remain under Canadian ownership.
It is not good enough for us to be given that assurance by word in the House of Commons. There must be guarantees to make sure that this company continues as a Canadian company. I realize that at this time 90 per cent of the shares are Canadian owned. Nevertheless, as one of the directors forcefully told the committee, we cannot control the destiny of the company once its shares are listed on the stock exchange.
If we are truly concerned about who controls our industry, we should be more concerned about the decision-making process in Canada. We therefore ought to provide, either in a clause or in the preamble of the bill, that companies such as this in Canada will be controlled and directed by Canadian directors who are ordinarily resident in Canada. It seems to me that the definition of "resident in Canada" has arisen in connection with other bills. That is a matter we ought to be concerned about in view of the difficulties Canada faces. It is no use having a corporation say that it will abide by the law of the land and make sure that its ownership remains Canadian: we must see that in writing and in legislation.
Not long ago when this matter was before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications questions were directed to the president of Central-Del Rio Oils
Limited regarding the tabling of the first quarter's interim report. I believe we asked for that report to be appended to the transcript of the committee's proceedings. That request was made on May 20, 1970, and as yet the report has not been made available. At that time we wanted to know whether he was prepared to answer questions regarding the inclusion of clauses affecting ownership. Some members of the committee took exception and suggested that the question was not proper.
It seems strange that since the president was prepared to answer such questions, members of the committee- some of whom are in the House this afternoon-took exception to questions which, if answered, would clarify the situation that we face in Canada. We were sincere in trying to elicit that information. If the rest of us are equally sincere, then I suggest there should be no objection to obtaining answers from such witnesses.
It should be noted that on page 12:15 of the committee report an hon. member on the government side is reported as saying:
-there is no government policy, no Canadian policy about foreign ownership as yet, and therefore I think Mr. Skoberg is out of order.
He went on to say:
He cannot force them to go into anything, or promise anything in that direction, unless there is some sort of a policy adopted by Parliament, and there is not such a thing yet.
That state of affairs could go on indefinitely unless the government is prepared to bring in regulations and implement the report which has been submitted by the Minister of National Revenue regarding the ownership of Canadian industry. The cabinet ought to consider the report made to it by the Minister of National Revenue and table it in the House. Perhaps the government is afraid to table it because the minister's report is similar to the Watkins report. Perhaps the government is concerned about statements made by people like Dr. Rotstein who is an associate professor in the department of political economy at the University of Toronto. He is reported as saying that events since August 15 had proven the legitimate concern expressed by Canadians, "some of whom are called nationalists and some of whom are interested in Canadian independence without wanting to be called nationalists."
I suggest that amendments ought to be incorporated in the bill to guarantee the Canadian ownership of this company. I think such amendments would be acceptable to the House, to the company concerned and to the Canadian people. There ought to be in the bill a definition regarding residence. Such a definition is included in the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. At the same time there ought to be amendments providing that the majorities of directors of this and similar companies shall at all times be Canadian citizens ordinarily resident in Canada. I presume that this type of commitment could be included in this bill. It should be in writing and should not be given verbally. If that were done there would be no reason why bills such as this should not be passed by the House of Commons.
We ought to be concerned about the outstanding shares of this and other companies. That matter ought to be looked at closely. We should take a leaf from the Bank Act amendments on which this amendment is based, because the adoption of such an amendment would guarantee

October 14, 1971

Canadian ownership. I realize, of course, that if the amendment were adopted the company would face regulations with which other companies are not faced. That brings me back to the original question. Where do we begin establishing so-called Canadian ownership and protecting the Canadian consumer? I submit that if the government had adopted some of the proposals suggested by this party, we should not now face our present dilemma.
I wish to refer to some of the things said on the subject of ownership. What I am about to quote was not said by a raving socialist. He is the vice-chairman of MacMillan Bloedel in Vancouver. He said:
We are no longer a nation of consumers quarrelling with manufacturers and retailers; no longer unions and employers pursuing separate interests; we are no longer separatists with cultural axes to grind.
We are suddenly and simply Canadians without economic allies, very much on our own, and we shall need all our intellectual resources-our plain horse sense-in business, in government and in the universities to devise measures that will defend our aspirations as effectively as the Americans, the Europeans and the Japanese defend theirs.
This was stated by R. W. Bonner, vice-chairman of MacMillan Bloedel, Vancouver.


Frank Howard: I have doubts about anything he says.


John Leroy Skoberg: It appears from this type of quotation that even people in this position are finally being hurt by the actions of people outside this country. As long as we are not in a position to control our destiny through legislation and even the small amendment we ask to this bill, we are at the disposal of people in other countries.
We are interested in trying to bring about some type of recognition for Canada. We are not married to the amendment. If there are other substitutes, we in our party will be only too pleased to accept them. At the same time, we insist that there be some protection in writing for the Canadian people. In the bill before us there should be some type of resolution, preamble or clause to spell out that the directors of this company should be Canadian for ever and a day. If this can be done, possibly we could accept this bill in so far as the CPR and Central-Del Rio are concerned. We have suggested many times there should be a modification in respect of the number of directors.
If we look at the many comments made by people across this land there is no reason to back off in demanding that there be some type of Canadian ownership. The policy of the company may be their prerogative. At the same time, the type of business that the company carries on, in so far as the protection of the Canadian people and Canadian workmen is concerned, is the prerogative of the Parliament of this country.
Canadian content is one of the main problems we have to face. Canadians all across this country ask about this. When they find there is no employment for them. Today we learned of the increase in unemployment. This question is being asked by young people on street corners and workers in automobile plants throughout the land. They are asking Parliament what it is doing to protect their
Royal Assent
Canadian heritage. We are being asked to ensure that they will have job opportunities in so far as any operation in Canada is concerned.
I noted another release with regard to the problems we face. This all goes back to the incorporation of Central-Del Rio in so far as the federal charter is concerned. I quote as follows:
The Windsor-based automobile equipment manufacturer last week was awarded a federal government incentive grant for $381,000 to locate a plant in Sault Ste. Marie that would manufacture machine steel bases and columns.
Because of the changing atmosphere it was decided to locate the plant and carry on business across the border. Even though industrial commissioners in the Soo tried their best to get the management of the plant to reconsider their action, they were informed by the vice-president of the company that they would not move to the Soo because of economic conditions in the country.
I am sure all members are asking themselves what brought about these economic conditions in our country. In fact, what are we really doing to ensure that situations such as this-which is only one of many hundred in the last month or two-are properly dealt with?



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[Stage Direction]
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to support employment in Canada by mitigating the disruptive effect on Canadian industry of the imposition of foreign import surtaxes or other actions of a like effect.
An Act to amend the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act.
Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair to resume same at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
The Canadian Economy

Mr. Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to special order made earlier this day, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), seconded by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), moves:
That this House do now adjourn.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce certain measures to deal with the current problems facing the Canadian economy and to sustain and reinforce the growth of production and employment now taking place. In terms of production, employment and prices, the Canadian economy is on the course I envisaged at the time of my June budget, before the United States economic measures of last August were announced. The disappointing news concerns unemployment; it is very disappointing. I told this House that I had expected unemployment to fall in the second half of this year, and the hard fact is that the September figure is three-tenths of a point higher than it was a year ago. I do not wish to minimize in any way the seriousness of this fact.
Output is advancing strongly. It grew at an annual rate of 2.3 per cent in the first half of 1970, 3.5 per cent in the second half, and then accelerated to 6.2 per cent in the first half of this year. In the second quarter output was rising at a rate of 8.5 per cent per annum. The strong increase in the August index of industrial production confirms that this pace is being maintained. This, then is the recent record of real production, quite apart from any changes in value attributable to price developments.
Domestic demand has been growing with output. Consumer spending is coming on strongly and, if anything, rather earlier than we had expected. Its pick-up in the second quarter was very pronounced and was distributed widely over the whole range of goods and services.
Capital investment in machinery and plant was up quite vigorously in the second quarter after having fallen in the first. The action here was considerably more than I had counted on for this period.
In housing we are having the best year ever. The September starts were at an annual rate of about 260,000. This figure compares with starts of 191,000 in 1970. Thus, we are well on our way to a level of housing construction this year at least one-fifth higher than we achieved last year.
Employment has been increasing about as forecast. There are some 200,000 more jobs in the economy now than a year ago. Except for the welcome surge in productivity which always takes place at this stage of an expansion, the number of new jobs would be even higher.
The cost of living figure published yesterday shows a decline for the month of September; the index is some 3.5 per cent above the figure for last September. Wholesale prices, according to figures released yesterday, were also down in September and now stand 2.5 per cent above their value a year ago. While we should like to see an even

October 14, 1971
better price performance, these results and especially the very recent trends are encouraging. In this respect we are still well in the forefront among the industrial nations.
Our unemployment rate does not derive from a failure of employment to grow. The growth of employment has largely matched the growth of an increasingly productive economy, as I have said. We observe in the September figures for the first time some effect of the United States measures on the Canadian economy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Be honest.


Edgar John Benson: -but the overwhelming fact behind the increases in the unemployment figure is the increased proportion of Canadians of working age who have jobs or who respond in the sample survey as being without a job and looking for work. This proportion, described technically as the labour force participation rate, was higher in the third quarter than ever before in the history of the labour force survey. To my knowledge, no one in government, in business or in the universities predicted such a phenomenon.
No doubt the explanation is complex. Those who are recorded as unemployed include men and women who have lost their regular employment, teenagers of age 14 or older who have decided not to return to school, college students who, for the time being at least, have dropped their courses, women who have decided to seek work, a large number who are seeking part-time work, some who are drawing unemployment insurance and some who are not, and some who are drawing welfare benefits and some who are not. I shall not try to explain the composition of this unemployed group, many of whom are having a very difficult time. Members of this House may be assured that the government is making every effort to obtain full knowledge of the many facets of unemployment in Canada. My purpose this evening is not that: it is to deal with the problem in practical terms.
In the weeks since mid-August I have been aware of a growing feeling of concern in the economy deriving from the unsettled state of the international trade and payments system and from the uncertainty concerning the duration of the United States economic measures and the extent of their impact upon the Canadian economy. This worry threatens to weaken our economic expansion. The government has contributed and will contribute in every way that it can to restoring international stability.
I would like now to propose to the House measures to reinforce the economic expansion and to provide jobs for Canadians who want to work but who have no work to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: I wish to propose, first, a series of expenditure measures to relieve the problem of unemployment in the coming winter and in the months thereafter. By means of this program we will join forces with industry, provincial governments, municipalities and active private groups to create jobs, improve the skills of our work force and encourage economic growth. The program has five parts designed to engage workers quickly, efficiently, usefully and in the regions where jobs are most needed. It will benefit all unemployed groups and it will have long-
October 14, 1971

term value without creating short-term distortions in our economy.
The first is a local initiative program under which the government will grant $50 million to municipalities and their agencies and $50 million to community organizations and other organized groups to finance labour-intensive projects.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: We will be calling on these organizations and groups to submit worth-while projects that will create jobs for the unemployed without delay. We expect to consult with provincial governments forthwith to establish a mechanism for them to approve municipal projects. Appropriate arrangements will be made in respect of the two territories. Regional committees will be created to consult with the local interests who will initiate community projects. This program will be under the direction of my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Sabotage.


Edgar John Benson: Second, we propose to introduce a new $20 million on-the-job training program with special emphasis on unemployed young people who are ineligible for the existing manpower training programs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: We will co-operate closely with industry in this effort. In addition, $15 million will be allocated to an expansion of our existing Canada Manpower program. The on-the-job program is designed to encourage employers to prepare for future economic expansion and to ensure that trainees acquire solid skills to increase their earning capacities and to help them take advantage of new employment opportunities.


George Harris Hees: These are things you have been refusing to do for months. The truth hurts, doesn't it?


Edgar John Benson: We are building flexibility into this program-


An hon. Member:: You certainly are.


Edgar John Benson: -to cover a broad range of employers, and we will help to finance the program by tax incentives or direct payments to employers. The tax incentives will take the form of a 150 per cent write-off of specified costs incurred by a firm in respect of the training it provides. Alternatively, there will be a direct payment of equivalent value provided to those employers for whom this form of assistance is more suitable. Further details of this assistance will be announced later. The training programs will also be administered by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
The Canadian Economy


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the opposition may find unemployment amusing, but I do not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: We find the whole thing very sad.


Mr. Horner:: The government caused it.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please?


George Harris Hees: Talk about deathbed repentance!


Edgar John Benson: Third, it is proposed to create a new and improved $160 million special program of loans to provinces and their municipalities to finance additional job creating capital projects. A somewhat similar program announced last December has been very successful. It has funded major highway and community projects across Canada and created many thousands of jobs. To concentrate the job-creating impact in the approaching months we have added an important financial incentive which will relieve provinces and municipalities of $3 for every $4 of on-site labour costs which they incur up to May 31, 1972.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: This is the winter works program that you have been refusing.


An hon. Member:: The old winter works is back again.


Edgar John Benson: This incentive feature will cover an important part of the total cost of projects financed under this program. We will be consulting the provinces forthwith on the early implementation of the program. Consideration will also be given to the way in which the program might be made applicable in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. This capital loan program is intended to be completed by March 31, 1973.
Fourth, the Department of Public Works and other departments and agencies of government will launch an $80 million program of federal labour-intensive and capital works, embracing a wide range of maintenance and improvement projects. These will include, for example, alterations and improvements in federal buildings and transportation facilities, forest and parks projects and the extension and modernization of other federal installations. Beyond this, I would like to announce a specific allocation of $10 million in loans this year for construction of multi-purpose exhibition buildings. This program will be under the direction of my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: He's a little better, but that's not saying much.


An hon. Member:: We are desperate now.


Edgar John Benson: Again, our criteria for these projects will ensure that they create a maximum number of jobs, start quickly and concentrate in regions where unemployment is most serious.

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy
Finally, my colleague, the minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will accelerate $113 million in loans for public, home owner and student housing, for sewage treatment and for land assembly projects. These loans will be made before the end of this year instead of in 1972. My colleagues with responsibility for individual parts of this comprehensive program will be informing the House of further details shortly.
It is in the corporate sector of the economy that the adverse effects of the American import surtax and the threat of other U.S. measures, coming on top of the appreciation of the Canadian dollar, are having their most serious impact. If the corporate sector of the economy is weak and uncertain we cannot have a sustained growth in job opportunities. I am therefore proposing a substantial cut in corporation taxes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: We urged that three years ago.


An hon. Member:: That is going to help the poor!


Edgar John Benson: The cut has been designed in such a way as to give to Canadian firms maximum flexibility in responding to the special difficulties they confront and the opportunities they can seize in an expanding economy.


An hon. Member:: What expanding economy?


Edgar John Benson: I propose that effective July 1, 1971, until the end of 1972 the tax payable by Canadian corporations be reduced by 7 per cent. The whole cost of this reduction will be borne by the federal government. This change, combined with the elimination of the 3 per cent surtax, brings the effective reduction of corporation taxes from last July 1 to 10 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: In my judgment, help to the private sector to enable it to create more jobs is a most effective way, in present circumstances, of helping all Canadians. I have said, Mr. Speaker, that the rates of consumer spending are favourable. Nevertheless, it is the government's view that we must do all we reasonably can to give confidence to the economy and induce increased demand for goods and services. I remind the House that spending by individuals makes up two-thirds of national income and is therefore the base on which the whole economy rests. To this end I propose that effective July 1, 1971, the federal tax payable by persons be reduced by 3 per cent during the period ending December 31, 1972.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: This proposal means that many taxpayers will receive refunds in the winter months, many taxpayers will be paying less tax immediately, and that all taxpayers will be paying less tax in 1972. I want to emphasize that this change is in addition to other important changes in personal income tax for 1971 announced in my budget of June 18. From July 1 we have eliminated the 3 per cent surtax for all Canadians. By eliminating tax on taxable income up to $500 we have taken 750,000 Canadians off

the tax rolls since July 1, and effective last January 1 payments under the guaranteed income supplement have been exempt. With the help of this House there will be further alleviation for taxpayers in the lower income bracket if we get Bill C-259 through the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, neither of the tax measures I have proposed today will reduce provincial revenues from corporate or from personal tax sources.
The expenditure programs I have described are designed and will be administered in such a way as to have the earliest possible impact. The corporate tax cut is expected to result in a reduction of federal revenues of $160 million in fiscal year 1971-72, and a reduction of $175 million in fiscal year 1972-73. The cut in personal taxes is expected to reduce federal revenues by $125 million in fiscal year 1971-72 and by $225 million in fiscal year 1972-73.
These changes, combined with other changes that have taken place since my June budget, imply a budgetary deficit in the fiscal year 1971-72 of $1,000 million deriving from revenues of $13,580 million and expenditures of $14,580 million. I now estimate that non-budgetary requirements will be $1,600 million. Total cash requirements for the current fiscal year, apart from funds required to finance or obtained from exchange operations, will thus amount to $2,600 million.
Before concluding my remarks I would like to sum up the total dimension of the program I have proposed today. The total cost of the expenditures and tax reduction measures will be $1,070 million. The impact on Canada's gross national product will be substantial. More important, these programs, with their multiplier effects, will produce a large number of new jobs for Canadians. The economy is strong and growing. The measures I have proposed today are designed to keep it that way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: With the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table notice of a ways and means motion covering the tax changes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Has the minister leave to table this document? Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, when I heard the applause a minute ago I wondered what it reminded me of. It reminded me of the applause the same people gave the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) when he presented his June budget. They are now applauding-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -with equal fervour when the minister rises to try to make up for the inadequacies of the June budget. I shall have some comments to make in a few minutes about the specific measures that the minister has proposed. It may be considered a little unkind for me to begin by recalling the past on a night when the minister is making such a vigorous effort. But regardless of the
October 14, 1971

shamefaced reversal of attitude, it is still the same old crowd, still the same old government.
This is the same government that day after day, week after week rejected our demands for its forecasts of economic trends. It is the same government which, refusing to give such forecasts, expressed its confidence that everything was going better and better all the time. It is the same government whose past decisions now stand revealed by the minister himself as ineffective, irrelevant and inappropriate to the needs of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to describe the government as a bungling, incompetent group of economic ignoramuses, because in the present circumstances of the country I do not feel like being that charitable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It will be sufficient to say that the policies of the government have been bankrupt in every sphere of economic activity, bankrupt to the extent that this afternoon the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), in trying to defend his policies, the inadequacy of his regional development policies, had to retreat into the weaknesses of the national economy. Yet, Mr. Speaker, it is not his policies that are inadequate; it is the economy of the country as a whole.


Jean Marchand: Be serious, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I listened to the Minister of Finance and now I am trying to listen to some of the rabble across the way and their catcalls, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: They are a very rude lot.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Whatever else the minister's speech may have demonstrated, the statement he just made constitutes the clearest possible admission that the government has been wrong in its policies over the past six months and over the past year, and that we have been right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Pierre told us inflation was licked.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: His admission is wrong to the extent that he is coming forward tonight and announcing the government is to spend a million dollars. That is how right we were and how wrong he has been-a million dollars!


Edgar John Benson: You don't know the difference between a million and a billion.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A billion dollars, Mr. Speaker. I know the difference. I do not expect the minister to apologize; I do not think that is particularly relevant. But we now have the government's admission of its own economic incompetence. I do not suppose it came very easily, certainly not in terms of the long time it took for this announcement to come forth. It came from a government cornered in a hole of its own digging. It came when there was no alternative. But it came, and that is about the only good thing, without qualification, that I am able to say about this government.
The Canadian Economy
Nothing could be a clearer demonstration of the inadequacy and inappropriateness of the June budget presented by the Minister of Finance. The predictions of the minister have been wrong all year, Mr. Speaker. Outside economists have predicted some growth in the economy, but independent economists have not predicted any significant reduction in unemployment in the course of 1971 based on the fiscal policies that the minister produced in his June budget. The minister cannot quarrel with that; he knows it is so. Based on what independent economists were saying, I predicted earlier in the year that the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment would not fall during 1971, unfortunately, below 6 per cent. The minister jeered at me. He ridiculed me, Mr. Speaker.
Now we have lame explanations about an unexpected growth in the work force, increased participation in the work force. The government has not run into anything that was not predicted long ago by the Economic Council.


George Harris Hees: Pierre told us inflation was licked.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: How is the heavy water there, Bob?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is all right.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: If you had something heavy in your head, it would be better.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I know that I am doing all right, too, when I hear that sort of remark from across the floor.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: There is a hole in your head; that is why you are not heavy at all.


George Harris Hees: Pierre is ready to leave town.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We now have massive unemployment. We now have continuing inflation, massive unemployment and a massive deficit. The Minister of Finance has worked himself and the country into a very considerable bind. He has left himself very little room to manoeuvre. It is in this unfortunate stance that we are now caught by the United States initiative. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can read this speech if he cannot listen.
It is very late now to tackle problems for this winter-it is mid-October. I am enjoying the good humour of the House tonight. Certainly there has been no sense of urgency shown on the government benches in recent months- no sense of urgency in regard to inviting the provinces to meet, no sense of urgency with regard to announcing a program to tackle massive unemployment; simply the repeated pretence that everything was going along all right and everything was improving.
Mr. Speaker, I think the government must have been incapable of recognizing that the budget was wrong and that its forecasts were wrong. I think its attitude must have been that it just cannot be wrong in its forecasts. Last month it took refuge in the argument about our

The Canadian Economy
teenagers. To those of us outside the government the argument seemed so incredible that quite frankly I said it was a dishonest statement. It may be, however, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) could not imagine that he and the Minister of Finance and his colleagues could have made such a mistake in judgment, such a mistake in forecasting as that involved not only in the June budget but in the continuing posture and stubbornness demonstrated since then.
It is high time that the government acted. We in this Parliament and the Canadian people have been waiting for months and months for the government to act. The situation has grown worse and worse, yet the government did not act-all it did was talk. It assured us that things were not so bad. The minister tonight says that things are good and yet, Sir, we know better.
The government has described me and other members of the opposition as prophets of gloom and doom. They have described me as the chief gloomster because I have been telling the government and the Canadian people the truth about the situation. I warned the government that it must act, and act quickly and decisively. I said it must cut taxes and I said it must take direct measures to create jobs. But the government did nothing, Mr. Speaker. If I am called the chief gloomster for that, I suppose, considering the source from which it came and the activity of the Minister of Finance tonight, it is a compliment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: It was the only thing that made them act.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The kindest thing anybody can say about this government is that it has been the victim of its own blind complacency. Unfortunately, the Canadian people and the Canadian economy have been the innocent victims of that complacency. The government has certainly been hurt: we can see that tonight, Mr. Speaker. But that is not relevant. It is the Canadian people who are hurting and hurting even more.
In terms of cost this is a very substantial change after months and months of pretending that nothing was necessary, after months and months of doing nothing. It is a very substantial package that the Minister of Finance has finally produced, in terms of cost. It involves something over a billion dollars. I should like to ask the Prime Minister why they have waited so long. Why have the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister waited until mid-October to introduce these programs, Mr. Speaker? It is inevitable that at this time many of these will be crash programs.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: What is wrong with that?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What is wrong with it? If my hon. friend does not know what is wrong with it, I doubt if I can explain it to him, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You would not understand it, anyway.


George Harris Hees: The cuts should have been introduced many months ago.

October 14, 1971


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Government supporters do not have enough brains to understand these things.


Erik Nielsen: You have to draw them a little picture.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is clear that they made a mistake.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is clear to anybody. It is clear that programs such as the minister announced, $50 million for local initiatives, $20 million for training and $160 million for loans to municipalities-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What's a hundred million?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What's a hundred million? A great deal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is a great deal, despite the views of the Prime Minister. It is important for this $160 million, and more, to be spent to the best advantage, despite the views the Prime Minister may hold. What possible excuse is there for the government's introducing a crash program at this time instead of earlier, when the program could have been properly planned for the coming winter?


George Harris Hees: And when we suggested it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does anybody on the other side of the House pretend that these programs can be as well worked out now as they could have been when we and everybody else in this country except the government realized they were necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Why not talk about winter works?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My hon. friend mentions winter works. This government has reviled winter works programs, yet that is what this is-a winter works program.


George Harris Hees: They laughed at us.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Not only did they laugh at us; they waited until it was very late in the year before introducing such a program effectively.


An hon. Member:: Read your text, Bob.


An hon. Member:: So what has changed?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What has changed? The winter works programs which the Prime Minister reviled previously have now become appropriate, Mr. Speaker. It will be interesting to see what has changed. May I now talk about taxation cuts, Sir. My time is limited.


An hon. Member:: Keep going, Bob.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Minister of Finance has proposed a 7 per cent cut in corporation taxes up until the end of 1972.


An hon. Member:: Have you any better suggestions?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If my hon. friend will wait, he will hear them. These cuts involve substantial cost to the treasury; there is no question about that.


An hon. Member:: That's an announcement, I suppose.
October 14, 1971


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is also no question in my mind that if the Minister of Finance had been prepared to announce a reduction in corporate taxes without such a short terminal date, the effect on incentives might have been substantial.


Edgar John Benson: The hon. member should look at Bill C-259.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: All right. The 7 per cent reduction, Sir, is to be effective until December 31, 1972.


Edgar John Benson: The hon. member should look at Bill C-259.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will look at Bill C-259.


An hon. Member:: Explain it to him, Mr. Benson.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The minister could not explain anything.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I ask the Minister of Finance this question: What effect will the short-term corporate tax reduction have upon employment and investment?


Edgar John Benson: There is a long-term effect as set out in Bill C-259.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In Bill C-259?


Edgar John Benson: That is right.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister is suggesting that there is to be a reduction of four points over a period of several years. If he is here, those changes will be made. I doubt if anybody in this country is confident that the minister will be here and that he will be able to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I say to the Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the long-term reduction in corporate income taxes may very well have a substantial effect on incentives and investments, and therefore on unemployment. Therefore, I challenge the Minister of Finance or anybody on his side of the House to explain to us on this side in what way and to what extent this 7 per cent reduction in corporate taxes up the period ending December 31, 1972, will affect employment in this country. This reduction may well provide more money-


An hon. Member:: Explain that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will explain it and make it simple for you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: You had better make it simple.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It will be simple enough for my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) to understand.


George Harris Hees: They never understand.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Make it very simple.


An hon. Member:: Draw them a picture.
The Canadian Economy


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, a corporate income tax reduction for that limited period of time will make more money available for increased dividends. It will also make more money available for investment, without question. I want the Minister of Finance to tell the country how many new jobs this will create over that limited period of time, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will explain to my hon. friends what I should like to do.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Hon. members over there seem to be getting a little excited. Once the fact is pointed out to them, most of them are capable of seeing how dumbheaded their own Minister of Finance is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Perhaps they are getting a little embarrassed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The 3 per cent reduction in personal income tax is fine. That will be helpful, without question. But, Sir, why was it not possible in June? It was inflationary in June, even though inflation allegedly had been licked. The reduction was inflationary in June. But how much more effective it would have been in June! If instead of having a simple 3 per cent reduction in personal income taxes now, there had been a 6 per cent, 7 per cent or 8 per cent reduction in personal income taxes at that time, would the psychological effect not have been that much greater? Would that not have been better, rather than bringing forward these dribs and drabs, 3 per cent in June and 3 per cent later? Much of the reduction has been thrown away in terms of psychological impact upon the income earners of this country.


Gerald William Baldwin: The government was following Liberal dogma.


An hon. Member:: Throw your own psychology away.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Sir, think of the delays. Think of the cost to this country which has arisen as a consequence of the misjudgment, poor forecasting and mistakes which have been made by this government and the Minister of Finance in recent months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: That is shocking.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister is now accepting arguments we put forward as long ago as January and even further back. Think of the enormous cost to the people of this country and to the country itself as a result of that delay. There is also a big cost to the treasury. I say to the Minister of Finance that his 7 per cent corporate tax reduction for that limited period of time is not the effective tax reduction that he ought to be proposing at this time. If he is prepared to extend it further, that would be different. But for the limited period of time it will not be effective.
8694

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy
If the minister envisages a short-term reduction in taxation, something he will commit himself to only until the end of 1972 and no longer, then personal income tax reductions of more than 3 per cent would have been effective, far fairer and more just than these short-term cuts, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: And they would have produced a lot more jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So far as corporations are concerned, there would have been a much more beneficial effect on investments and incentives-and this would not have cost the government a cent-if the minister had announced that he was going to defer implementation of those parts of his tax reform bill relating to corporations. That would not have cost him a cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the Leader of the Opposition to mention that he has received a three-minute credit to compensate for interruptions, in the same way as the Minister of Finance was granted a three-minute extension of his time to take into account the interruptions when he was speaking. The Leader of the Opposition may pursue his speech with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the generosity of the House in this regard. I am pleased to see that the government has recognized the need for action. Some of the measures proposed will certainly be helpful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If the government takes my advice, it can use this money, as I pointed out, much more effectively and to much greater advantage than it has been. We have had perversely bad judgment from this government in economic matters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The budget tonight, coming after the June budget, is the best proof of this. The government has been wallowing around. I say to the minister in all sincerity that the country has no confidence in him. I suggest to him, and I say this to his face through you, Mr. Speaker, we have no confidence in him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He better resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish to make one further comment. I do not like to make it in this House because I do not like to speak of people who are not here to answer back, but it is necessary to do so. The government needs new economic advisers. There is no better proof of that than this budget tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, although I have seen the government's program only since seven o'clock, it is my intention to deal as well as I can with the actual program presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). I start by expressing some pleasure that at last the government has accepted the challenge of the times and has seen fit, far too late and far too inadequately, to produce a program to deal with the unemployment expected this winter.
The first point I make is that nowhere in his statement and nowhere in the documents that I have seen is there any attempt to estimate either the level of unemployment that may be expected this winter or the number of jobs that the program which the minister has presented will create.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I am particularly concerned about the latter, because there is an indication as to the kind of thing with which we are dealing. In the documents which I have seen, we are informed that the $160 million loan program to municipalities last year produced a total of 13,000 jobs. I ask hon. members to note this. Thirteen thousand jobs were produced with the $160 million, the equivalent, the document states, of 13,000 Canadians for a year. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, the program presented by the Minister of Finance obviously will not even scratch the surface of the real unemployment crisis expected this winter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: It is the duty of the minister to tell this Parliament and the country how many jobs this program is intended to create. On the basis of the information that we now have, it is my guess that we will be lucky if the people without work in Canada this winter have jobs to a total of 30,000 to 50,000 out of a total unemployment likely to be as high as 700,000, 800,000 or more. I am not talking about the multiplier effect that may result six, eight or 10 months from now. I am talking about the four or five months this winter. I stick my neck out to say we will be lucky if 50,000 of the unemployed will have jobs as a result of this program. The reason the minister does this is well illustrated in the nonsense in which he indulged in the introductory paragraph of his speech. He repeated the same pollyanna rubbish that was repeated time and again during the last 18 months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: He still expresses the same complacency and satisfaction with the performance of the economy. I cannot think of anything more nonsensical than this sentence in his speech: "Our unemployment rate is not derived from a failure of employment to grow." How stupid can anyone be, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Of course, the total employment has grown. If it had not grown, we would have two or three million Canadians unemployed. There has been a steady increase in the labour force of between 250,000 and 300,000 for years. If employment did not grow, you would have a cumulative quarter of a million unemployed in each year
October 14, 1971

for the past 10 years in this country. In what kind of rubbish does the Minister of Finance indulge?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: What kind of nonsense does a man complacently place before us which makes the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) grin all evening as he listened to this nonsense? What kind of rubbish is that? Even in the present year, that is a nonsensical, misleading, distorting statement.
Even though there were approximately 200,000 more jobs, the increase in the labour force in this one year was 238,000. Already it fell short by a very substantial proportion to find jobs for the increase in one year, let alone the increase in the labour force over time. He has repeated the same complacent rubbish, as every minister has done. The minister said that we have had an unprecedented increase in the participation rate. Sure, there has been some increase, but let me quote some figures to show what the unprecedented increase has been in the last quarter. I have the figure. I will start with 1967 so I will not have to spend too much time.
In 1967, the participation rate in July was 55.7; August, 55.8; September, 55.5. In 1968, the participation rate for July was 55.5; August, 55.5; September, 55.7. In 1969, the rate in July was 55.6; August, 55.5; September, 55.4. For 1970, the participation rate for July was 55.9; August, 55.6; September, 55.7. For this year, 1971, the participation rate for July was 56; August, 55.8; September, 56. If there was any difference, it was one small part of a small one per cent. The minister tries to seek consolation in that fact as an explanation for the increase in unemployment. How gullible does he think even his own members are?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: How puerile and gullible does he think the people of Canada are about such nonsense?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Let the government have the decency and the humility to accept the fact that its policies up to now have been wrong and that the unemployment figures are the result of those policies. The Canadian people would appreciate such honesty and frankness. This dishonesty, this distortion is shameful not only for the government but for Parliament where it is pronounced.


Mr. Hogarth:: Give the other side of the picture.


David Lewis: I wish, Mr. Speaker, you would tell the spirited gentleman to keep quiet. The program will, I hope with all my heart, do some good. But it is too late. Throughout his submission the minister said the provinces would be consulted as soon as possible. I say to the government, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) that in a federal country such as ours these consultations ought to take place before a minister announces a program, so that the provinces and the municipalities, through the provinces, might have something to say about the priorities and might know what the government intended to propose.
The Canadian Economy
One does not have to be an economist to know that three-quarters of what the minister proposed will take time to come into effect. You cannot make $113 million available to housing and expect that the jobs will be open in December, January or February. They will not. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Andras) has money already available, money which has not yet been picked up. It probably amounts to a great deal more than $113 million. If he has used it all up, he should have been after the government a great deal earlier than now. It takes time for people to invest in housing. It takes time for additional money to become effective.
The whole proposition advanced by the minister amounts, in major part, to a winter works program. I have no objection to that. It is the government which objected to it. Everything is a kind of tokenism. Look at the breakdown of the $113 million for housing and other works. In his statement the minister talked, and the press gallery no doubt noted it, about sewage treatment, roads-


Jean Marchand: That is what we call public works.


David Lewis: But in the accompanying document the minister said $4 million will be spent on sewage treatment projects. Mr. Speaker, I should like to know how many sewage treatment plants you can build across Canada for $4 million.
Then, again, we are told that $1.7 million is to be set aside for land assembly. How much land assembly can you carry out in the major communities of Canada for $1.7 million? I point these things out because I am anxious that the people of Canada should know that the statements made by the minister have to be read with great care.
I want to say a word about the training program. The sum of $15 million is to be available to expand the present training program. But for what jobs? Is this program to provide additional training both under the present scheme and on the job merely a way of reducing the size of the unemployment rolls, or is it a serious undertaking? What jobs are there for the trained people to take? I notice in the accompanying document that since 1966-1967, when the government's training program was set up, 1,134,485 Canadians have been upgraded and trained under this plan. This is very good, Mr. Speaker. I ask Your Honour to stop and think what this means. It means that approximately one-eighth of our labour force has been through this training scheme.
Mr. Speaker, we must have in this country the most upgraded and trained corps of unemployed in the western world. What are we training these people for? Where are the jobs? What will the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) do with them? What will the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) do with them? I am the last to decry the fact that some young people will now receive training and be upgraded. It is necessary to do it. But I say to these people, "Do not be misled." When they have finished their training and upgrading process they stand a chance of being in the same unhappy position as others who have received training and been upgraded-the chance they will leave college and walk the streets. That is what a good many have had
24319-61;.

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy
to do until now, and that is what a good many will do in the future.
In the few minutes left to me I want to deal with the tax measures. I would first of all draw attention to the double standard which the minister and his colleagues constantly apply. My hon. friends and I noticed this the first minute the minister began to talk about tax changes. Seven per cent for the corporation; 3 per cent for individual Canadians. This is typical of what the government does. Why 7 per cent to the corporations, those penurious, poverty-stricken corporations of Canada? In the last quarter, corporate profits were the highest for some years.
Note, also, that this 7 per cent decrease-I will describe the kind of decrease it is in a moment-is not meant to apply only to the manufacturing industries which might be hit by United States import policies. It will apply to all Canadian corporations, including the resource corporations which already enjoy tax concessions worth hundreds of millions of dollars. These corporations, too, will benefit from the minister's across the board 7 per cent reduction.
Please note, also, that the 7 per cent deduction is not related to the tax rate. It is a reduction in the amount of tax payable, one of the most regressive ways in which tax reductions can be brought about. The payer of lower taxes gets 7 per cent and the payer of higher taxes gets 7 per cent, and in total amount the payer of higher taxes benefits from a much larger chunk of dough. On that point I do not care so much about the 7 per cent reduction for corporations. I care very much, though, about the 3 per cent reduction in income taxes payable by individuals. The changing rates should have been graduated.
Three per cent across the board is not graduated. It means that a person who makes $10,000 a year and over- and only 10 per cent of Canadian taxpayers have taxable incomes of $10,000 or more-will get a great deal more out of the 3 per cent than a person who has a taxable income of $4,000 or $5,000 a year: his 3 per cent will amount to only a few dollars. But for those with higher incomes such as Members of Parliament, that 3 per cent will amount to a pretty large chunk of money.


An hon. Member:: You should know about that.


David Lewis: And the lawyers, when they practice, and the doctors and the engineers.


Mr. Mahoney:: Don't forget union lawyers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David Lewis: I do not intend to lower myself to deal with remarks of that kind. It is obvious that members opposite are attempting to use their wit. Unfortunately, they are only half succeeding. I think it is important to note that a 3 per cent across the board reduction in income tax payable is worth a great deal more to those with high incomes than it is to those with lower incomes. It is a regressive and inequitable way of adjusting the tax system.
I think the people of Canada will greet the announcement today with some relief, as I do, because I would much prefer to have some program than none at all. But the people of Canada will understand that it is far too late and quite inadequate.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that actual expenditures-I am not talking about income tax losses but actual expenditures-should be two times or even more the amount proposed by the minister if there is to be any sizeable increase in jobs. The goal we should have set ourselves is the creation of at least 250,000 jobs during the winter months. From what one can foretell, this would have provided work for only about one-third of the likely number of unemployed in the dead of this winter. Nothing less justifies our being here and nothing less justifies the existence of this government.
All through the period of increasing unemployment crises the government has shown, as I have said, an attitude of complacency and insensitivity. No other government that I know of in the history of this country has shown greater complacency in the face of obvious difficulty. No other government has shown more insensitivity to human suffering. When the Prime Minister some months ago started his fight against inflation, as he called it, he said he would be prepared to take 6 per cent unemployment. He did not have to take it; more than 6 per cent of the Canadian people, according to the adjusted rate, are in fact taking it, and even on an unadjusted basis we have had unemployment that high. Ever since then no appeal to the government has had any effect. Then, unemployment became so desperate, as the September and August figures show, that even this government could not escape trying to do something about it.
It is a great pity that this action comes so late. Even the small program announced this evening-and it is small- would have helped. It would not have been small had the government not created an unemployment crisis of immense proportions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time expired about a minute ago. He can carry on with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to inquire again whether there is unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will not be many seconds, let alone minutes. The government's program might have been adequate had not the government created an unemployment situation of crisis proportions. Economists across the country have been pleading with the government to realize that it takes time from the announcement of a program to plan the program, to make investments and to create jobs. Therefore, if the government's program is intended to influence the unemployment situation this winter, it should have been announced last April, May or June, not in the middle of October.
October 14, 1971

It is regrettable beyond words that this program has been so long delayed. This program is not so imaginative, so ingenious, so unprecedented that it needed all the brains of all the ministers and officials for the last six months to bring it about. This program could have been thought out by knowledgeable people within a period of weeks and been presented much earlier than today. Whatever may happen on election day, for years this government will stand condemned in the eyes of every thinking Canadian as a most ruthless and insensitive government, as a government without the sense of urgency and compassion that every government in a democratic society ought to have.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), I expected him to announce, at the end of his speech, general elections for the month of December, because, to my mind, the program he has just announced is an election-oriented one.
Mr. Speaker, this is a program mapped out by economists-as usual-who advised the government to present this House and the general public with new measures intended to create employment in Canada. However, other economists, who probably attended the same universities, advised the leader of the Progressive Conservatives telling him exactly the opposite. As for the economists of the New Democratic Party, they suggested another solution.
Mr. Speaker, I was particularly impressed by two paragraphs in the speech by the Minister of Finance. I would like to quote first the last paragraph:
Mr. Speaker, the economy is strong and growing. The measures I have proposed today are designed to keep it that way.
Now today, hardly a few hours before the minister's statement to the House, I was reading in today's issue of Le Droit two articles which I will quote. First one could read the following:
Substantial increase in unemployment rate-
In the same issue, another article deals with a "substantial increase in our exports to the United States."
At noon or yesterday, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated: "We are beginning to feel the adverse effects of the 10 per cent surcharge." Today, the newspaper Le Droit announced that Canadian exports to the United States have increased, in spite of the American surcharge. Who is lying to Parliament and to the Canadian people? The economists or the government?
Mr. Speaker, I have been surprised to learn today through newspaper reports that our exports have increased in spite of the surcharge and to hear the government say that the surcharge has brought about the increased unemployment rate. Now, the Minister of Finance said the following:
Mr. Speaker, the economy is strong and growing.
Everyone agrees, on the contrary that the economy is not growing and that it is far from strong, I continue to quote:
The Canadian Economy
The measures I have proposed today are designed to keep it that way.
If we keep the economy in its present direction, in one year we shall be worse off than we are now. However, what struck me also were the words of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who has been crying for several weeks: Give us a program. We too had shouted to the Progressive Conservatives who were in power in 1962: Give us a program. They have waited till they were defeated in the elections. Mr. Speaker, nothing concrete has been suggested.
Members of the New Democratic Party are saying the same thing: This will create only about 15,000 jobs.
Mr. Speaker, it is the economists that I hold responsible for the situation in which we are. They are bad advisers, people who are in the clouds. In French, we say they are fogbound, that they do not keep both feet on the ground. And I am asked: Where are the economists of the Social Credit party? Economists of that sort I do not want!
The true economists, Mr. Speaker, are the farmers, the workers, those who know what it means to earn a dollar and to work to build our country instead of creating difficulties as the economists are now doing.
Economists use fine words. The Finance Minister's speech was written by economists. The minister said that economists-


An hon. Member:: Name them.


David Réal Caouette: Oh! I can surely name some. The first one would be the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He knows how to impose an interest rate, but he does not know how to distribute credit nor how to create some on the basis of Canadian production statistics.
I quote further:
-it is the government's view that we must do all we reasonably can to give confidence to the economy and induce increased demand for goods and services.
This means that we must spend more. It is interesting for the poor man to be told by the government: My friend, if you want to help get the economy moving again, spend a little more. You have nothing but spend more. How clever! An economist claims that we must spend more. I go on with the quotation:
I remind the House that spending by individuals makes up two-thirds of national income and is therefore the base on which the whole economy rests.
Economists manage to understand that. However, we put up with a system that prevents people from spending because they are without purchasing power. What is done to keep things in order? A little, not very much!
All sorts of task forces are being established: task forces are sent to the Gaspe area to see whether or not there are poor people there; task forces on bilingualism because one hears that French Canadians are responsible for the predicament of English Canadians and vice versa. Both are in a predicament because we do not have the means which would allow our economy to function on a rational and normal basis.
We give away social welfare benefits, old age security pensions and unemployment allowances. The administration of these programs is even costlier. Some needy fami-

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy
lies receive nothing from social assistance offices while others obtain benefits which they do not need. What do we, of the Social Credit party, suggest?


An hon. Member:: Nothing!


David Réal Caouette: Do not misconstrue my words. First of all Canada's entire social legislation should be revamped into one single whole. We should not find an unemployment insurance office here and a labour employment office there; a social welfare assistance office here and an auxiliary office there, and so on. No. The structure of social security must be altered to the extent that we will not even mention social welfare anymore. Social security should be extablished and it would give people the incentive to work and develop what can be developed in our country.
What do we suggest then? The payment of an income to everyone aged 18 or over. By replacing current programs all Canadians would enjoy the following benefits: social security-not social assistance-which will give all citizens a greater purchasing power and would spur the economy. A bachelor aged 18 or more should get a yearly guaranteed income of $1,500 or $125 per month. If he works, he should not be penalized by being denied his $1,500 payment. This is the poverty threshold in Canada. This would be a minimum that would enable everybody to live. A married couple would receive a yearly $2,500 which is about the equivalent of the pension presently paid to our senior citizens. A married couple with one child would get a yearly $2,550; with two children $3,000; with three children $3,250; with four children $3,500; with five children $3,750; and with six children he would get a maximum of $4,000. Everyone should be assured of that and if an unemployed worker should find a job his guaranteed income should not be discontinued; he should keep it.
At the present, if you claim welfare allowances and you get caught you must pay back the money you received or you will be denied any further allowances. What would you do? Stay at home and refuse to work. In fact, there are many cases of abuse.
Recently, I met a worker on compensation who was receiving $86.54 a week from the province of Quebec. This worker had two children and a fairly high rent to pay. So the compensation payment of $86.54 a week was insufficient. He goes to the welfare office and the manager tells him: You are not entitled to allowances because your income of $86.54 a week is sufficient. He makes him sign a form whereby the worker promises to pay back any amount of welfare he may get while waiting for his compensation. So the worker signs the form and on his way out gives it a second thought, tears up the form, goes back inside and says: I refuse to accept that commitment, I will work it out in some other way.
I know a young man of 29 who one day told his wife: Listen, go to the welfare office, tell them that I left you, that I will stay with my father, and then apply for a welfare allowance! The wife went to the welfare service and the official granted her $220 a month because, on the advice of her husband, she had said that, with her children, she had been deserted. Such a case is becoming typical in Canada.

What I am now suggesting would cost less to the government than all those dishonest schemes people are using to get something out of the welfare system. People are said to be dishonest whereas the legislation itself calls for dishonesty. The law is unfair: it penalizes one citizen in order to help another!
We are suggesting a guaranteed income plan, no matter if the citizen works or not, has money or not. The millionaire would get a yearly guaranteed income as well as the unemployed. If, instead of discouraging work we were to tell the married man with three children, receiving a yearly guaranteed income of $3,250: if you have a job and earn money, you will not lose your $3,250, I am sure that about 80 per cent of the unemployment problem would be solved, because the citizens would be interested in getting a job, knowing there would be at least something to depend upon.
Instead of hiring officials in unemployment insurance or welfare offices, in manpower centres or economists' offices, we would establish our economy on sound bases. That may seem bold, because we are not used to such thinking. But the Prime Minister should realize that the program which was just announced again amounts to nothing more than a bandaid treatment. That will not solve the problem of unemployment in Canada. That is so true that even when the Prime Minister, as I mentioned when beginning my remarks, says we are beginning to feel the effects of the 10 p. 100 American surcharge, at the very same time Statistics Canada register a definite increase in our exports to the United States. Therefore, the tax has not hindered Canadian exports to the United States at all.
As a contribution to the economic development of Canada, we should add on a discount on products manufactured in Canada so that our population may be in a position to sell its goods to Canadian consumers. Instead of granting discounts to Japan, Germany, China or Russia, let us grant them to Canadian consumers on goods produced in Canada in order to help our industries, our manufacturers, our farmers and thus contribute to creation of new industries in our country.
If this proposal were seriously studied, I would undertake to look into the cost for Canada of setting up such a system that would guarantee social security for all, that would not penalize a man for working, or another who can find work for two or three days a week, or else the working mother who goes outside her home to earn a few cents to boost the family's annual income.
Mr. Speaker, the suggestion should be examined by the caucus of every political party in the House and by our economic brains. Let them study it and then tell us if it is nonsense. As I said earlier, I am personally convinced that the program would be cheaper than any of the existing ones. Then, the Minister of Finance or anyone who succeeds him, will be able to conclude his speech with those words: "Mr. Speaker, the economy is strong and moving ahead. The measures I propose today are conceived to keep it in that direction".
If the Finance Minister wants to be logical, if he does not want to play political games or throw dust in the eyes of voters in the event of an early election, he should consider the proposal I just made: a discount on Canadian
October 14, 1971

products, an income, and social security for every Canadian. I am sure that from then on we shall have full employment in Canada, industrialists will not be so much afraid of undertaking capital expenditures and new ventures in Canada. Then, the whole population will be able to say: "At last, we are given an economic formula that provides us with security and personal freedom".


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), in opening the discussion tonight and in indicating the measures which were being taken, also reviewed the signs of strength in the economy such as the constant improvement in the gross national product to levels which are very impressive indeed. He also could have referred to the figures of exports, to which the previous speaker referred. Both of these improvements indicate the basic, underlying strength of the Canadian economy and led us on a number of occasions to indicate to all sectors of the economy that the time was ripe for growing and moving ahead in this country.
The figures in growth of employment have also shown significant increases. Hon. gentlemen opposite make some point of the fact that unemployment figures have increased, and will not accept the logic that we have not only what we all very well knew, which is a very rapidly increasing working age population, but that in addition we have what was not so expected or so known, increases in participation rates.
The figures, again, this month which show signs of high unemployment in seasonally adjusted terms also indicate the growth, on a year to year basis, from a year ago of
202,000	new jobs. The significant figures to compare are those which indicate that the working age population in that year grew at a rate of 2.4 per cent while employment grew at a rate of 2.5 per cent, so that employment was growing at a faster rate than the growth of population but not fast enough to take care of the increased participation in the labour force. It is this fact which has led, above all, to the need for special programs at this time.
We of course can take some consolation in the signs of strength in the economy shown by the figures of gross national product and exports and growth in jobs, but we are very concerned as a government and as individuals about any Canadian who is seeking work and cannot in fact find it. For that reason we have before us tonight programs which are designed to create jobs immediately.
The programs are of three basic types. There are the longer term capital projects which will create, of course, fewer direct jobs than other expenditures might in the short-run but which will be of longer term duration and will provide jobs over a longer period of time. These will also, of course, provide significant numbers of indirect jobs over the whole period of the construction. This applies equally to the accelerated CMHC expenditures, the direct expenditures by the government on capital works and the capital programs which will be encouraged by loans to municipalities and provinces across the country.
In this year's program for loans to municipalities for capital works the additional feature has been added of a forgiveness for the jobs created and applied in the
The Canadian Economy
immediate short-term period. This will have the effect of channelling this money more into those parts of available capital projects which are in fact easiest to mount and most productive of jobs even in a direct sense. But, of course, the major portion of the expenditures indicated tonight is not of a capital nature but directed specifically to more job-intensive areas. This is true of the direct federal expenditures. It is also true of the extremely important local initiative programs which will allow municipalities and municipal organizations and other responsible organizations across this country with work incentive programs for community betterment to mount those programs quickly and with the direct result of significant job increases in Canada in the immediate period. These programs under local initiatives will be designed to produce the best possible result in terms of the job accomplished, as well as putting to work the greatest possible number of people.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Who is the consultant, somebody in the States?


Otto Emil Lang: The criteria for specific application of this program will be available through Manpower centres before long. The centres will be fully involved in the preparation of applications. I want to emphasize again that under this program the emphasis will be upon meritorious projects which produce a good result, as well as upon the labour intensive projects.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If you had all this money, why did you have to try to steal $60 million from the farmers?


Otto Emil Lang: The local initiative programs really invite persons from one end of the country to the other in municipalities and other responsible organizations to apply their vast ingenuity in joining in the solving of the job creation problem and in producing the best possible result.
It is perhaps worthy of note that when the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), the leader of the New Democratic Party, was speaking he seemed to fail to notice this part of the program under which $100 million invites initiative by individuals and groups and municipalities from one end of the country to the other.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the third type of expenditure which is involved in the program announced tonight is the availability of funds for training programs. These training programs have been designed from their inception to improve the basic skill or the developed skill of members of the work force, to put them in a better position to perform the new and challenging jobs which are continually being created in this country and which require additional skills. It is worthy of note that at times, whatever the particular unemployment figures may be, there are significant shortages of persons with particular skills for jobs which are available. The training programs are designed to remedy this problem by helping to fit available manpower for the jobs waiting for them. The traditional training programs as they have existed for a

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy
number of years will be augmented. Immediate discussions will begin with the provinces-


An hon. Member:: The woodshedding course.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This is the penitent's plea.


Otto Emil Lang: -for training which will be initiated here both of the basic and skill development type.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Did the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) take you out to the woodshed?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Not yet, but he will after this speech.


Otto Emil Lang: These programs have been specifically designed in a way to involve the wishes of the people involved in them, and have always drawn a distinction between those who have recently emerged into the labour force-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will say so.


Otto Emil Lang: -and those who are basically in a regular education program, and this for what may have been fairly valid reasons.
The new feature in the program is the on the job training.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What are they going to work at when you have them trained?


Erik Nielsen: What is new about that?


Otto Emil Lang: The on the job training program will involve an availability of approximately $20 million through the form largely of tax incentives, through the form of a 150 percent write-off for the wages of approved trainees and, in some small measure, through certain programs for institutions which cannot benefit under the tax incentive program. This program will be available not only to those who have been in the labour force for the three year period, which is the condition for the other program, but will be available also for those who cannot meet that criteria. The Canadian Manpower centres will be fully involved in attempting to assess the potential of individuals referred to on the job training and to assure that the training offered is of a type which is, so far as possible, transferable to other employment. In this program there will not only be the fullest consultation with the provinces but also with labour unions and industrial management. Indeed, unions will be fully involved in consultations with regard to specific application of the program so that they may be satisfied that it is working.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When are you calling an election?


Otto Emil Lang: Certain conditions will be applied to assure that the trainees who are put in jobs do not take places which would go to ordinary employees. For instance, where employees are laid off, the training program will not be available but in all cases the fullest consultation with union organizations will take place.
These expenditures, Mr. Speaker, both of the capital sort and the labour intensive sort which may be mounted early and put more people to work per dollar spent, and the training programs, indicate our concern for the move-

ment into employment of the maximum number of Canadians as soon as possible.
The other programs, the taxation programs announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) indicate our concern about the basic availability in the economy of inducements to expand in the private sector, and the basic strength of the Canadian economy for this kind of growth to take place. There have been some concerns, particularly because of international development, and here the stimulus of tax incentives should offset to a significant degree the problems this has created. A good deal more will be heard in the next few days about the details of these various programs-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We have heard a lot now, but nothing happens.


Otto Emil Lang: -and the initiative to put to work those additional members of the labour force who are seeking work, as a result of the changed participation rate, as a result of the tremendous rate of growth in the work force in this country. It should never be forgotten that the challenge which faces us is great.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It won't be.


Otto Emil Lang: Considered on a year to year basis at a 2.4 per cent rate, there is an increase in the working age population in the work force of approximately 5 times the increase shown in many of the industrial countries in Europe, and very significantly greater rates than that in the United States.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How do you account for that?


Otto Emil Lang: These are the challenges which face us, Mr. Speaker, and the programs put before the House tonight go a long way toward helping the immediate situation and, through those programs and their indirect effects which are of longer range duration, of sustaining even greater growth in the economy in the months ahead.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time that Canadians are entitled to some honesty from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his government. One can understand now why the Prime Minister takes so little part in these debates, takes part in the odd debate on the Speech from the Throne, takes part in the odd debate on Nigeria and takes part in more than the odd debate on television. One can understand why he does not participate in debates in this House now, judging from the weakness of the contribution we have heard for from the minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).


An hon. Member:: He doesn't care.


Erik Nielsen: We need honesty from ministers like the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) who comes to this House and says there is no unemployment in the north, when he knows very well there is; from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) who, in response to question after question from this side of the House tells us that the Unemployment Insurance Commission is operating at 98 per cent efficiency, when there is
October 14, 1971

not a member in this House who has not had complaints from his own constituents about the long delays in processing certain claims; from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), who says that the Canadian economy is on the course "I envisaged in my June budget".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: That is about as honest-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Or cold-blooded.


Erik Nielsen: -or cold-blooded as this government is wont to be on these things. They snow us with statistics. They try to paint a rosy picture. I think the worst offender on the government side is that well snowed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, I believe, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney).


An hon. Member:: He belongs to the Minister of Finance.


Erik Nielsen: The Minister of Finance; that is even worse. To him everything is rosy. Everything is going along fine. And the Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister (Mr. Danson) has thrown the first hand grenade to start off an international trade war. One must only assume that he did it with the knowledge and consent of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). They all paint a glowing picture; yet not one of the ministers and not one of those faceless donkeys on the other side of the House will make a contribution by referring to the rate of unemployment existing in this country. The percentage stands at 7.1 per cent, the highest in a decade. And what do they do? They shrug the figures off and trot forward as a cure-all for this tragic situation promises that were universally implemented by the previous Progressive Conservative government. They march those programs forward.


An hon. Member:: Which previous government?


Erik Nielsen: We need honesty from the minister who has just resumed his seat. He says that there is a new feature to this whole program.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is new and improved.


Erik Nielsen: It is on-the-job training. This program has been in effect for a decade. Why, if it had not been for the shortsightedness of this government in cutting back on that program, it might still be making a contribution to relieve the unemployment facing us now. Talk about confusion; here is confusion personified.
We are in the middle of debating the tax reform legislation in the form of Bill C-259, and the government announces that it has some 100 amendments to make to that bill. Now, the government trots forth another package of confusion. I ask, how in the world are we to conduct a logical debate, which the minister responsible for the Wheat Board talked of in his contribution, on the basis of this kind of confusion?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Do not go too far away, now.


An hon. Member:: I see the Prime minister is leaving.


Erik Nielsen: I guess the heat is a little much for the Prime Minister. I do not blame him for leaving. He is packed and ready to go. He should go for good.
The Canadian Economy


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: They reviled the winter works program and the on-the-job training program, as well as the vocational training program that was implemented by the previous Conservative government. The Minister of Labour was in the House at that time, as was the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner).


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This program is new and improved.


Erik Nielsen: It is new and improved. They scorned our program, scoffed at it and spurned it. They spurned all suggestions which have come from this side of the House over many months, knowing that there would be a severe crisis in the economy and in unemployment. Now, suddenly, they have clasped these programs to their breasts as if they were the originators of these schemes.


An hon. Member:: They think they have a new idea.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is just a new breast.


Erik Nielsen: It is a silicone breast. In 1963, when all these Liberals trooped across the country, and there are lots of them here although I notice that the much maligned rump on my right is not here in force tonight, they promised that there would be one million new jobs a year. One million new jobs a year was what they would produce; yet we heard the Minister of Finance taking pride in there being only 200,000 more jobs this year than a year ago. What a pitiful attempt that was to explain that hundreds of thousands people in this country have been made unemployed through the deliberate actions and policies of this government.


An Hon. Member:: Shame.


Erik Nielsen: It is gratifying to note that finally the government has agreed that there is an emergency. This bears some examination, since repeated attempts have been made on this side of the House to adjourn the House in order to carry on an emergency debate such as this. Such attempts have been made for several months. Yet, all of a sudden Statistics Canada figures are released for unemployment this month and then this becomes an emergency. Since the government consents, we are allowed to debate it.
There is to be $160 million in a winter works program for building federal buildings, exhibition buildings and CMHC works.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We should build a memorial for this government and, indeed, for the minister.


Erik Nielsen: They need a memorial. All this talk about multiplier effect is all gobbledygook. It is an attempt to camouflage the real trouble in which they find themselves. There is nothing really constructive here which will provide remedies and jobs to get us out of the hole. I talked about honesty a minute ago. Oh, yes, the Prime Minister marches forward. He has gone out in order to build a new program to meet the economic crisis caused by the United States "Nixonomics".


An hon. Member:: He wants more parliamentary secretaries.

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy


Erik Nielsen: They do not have to worry over there. They are secure. Only about one third of them are not employed by the government. The rest all have their sinecures. There are cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries and all the rest of them.
The Prime Minister, on the CBC program "Encounter" said this a few weeks ago:
We feel that the budgetary measures that the government has taken have put the economy on a growth path. The Gross National Product is increasing;-


An hon. Member:: That is true.


Erik Nielsen: -consumer demand is increasing;-


An hon. Member:: That's true.


Erik Nielsen: -housing starts are the largest ever;-


An hon. Member:: That's true.


Erik Nielsen: -inventories are falling; exports are growing.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They can go out and spend another $1 billion.


Erik Nielsen: The Prime Minister says the government has done lots of things for the people. Let him tell that to the 7.1 per cent of the labour force that is unemployed. He admits that it is a shame that there are unemployed people and he says that the unemployed figures are higher than we would like to see. That was back one month ago.


An hon. Member:: That was on "Laugh-in".


Erik Nielsen: And what did he have to say about this winter? He looked forward to this winter with rose coloured glasses and said:
-in terms of the economy itself it will be a better winter.-So in terms of growth of the economy it will be better. In terms of the number of unemployed people and in terms of the relative, the adjusted figures and absolute figures, it will be better.
It is time we stopped fooling around with adjusted, relative, and absolute figures and got some of these unemployed people back to work.
That brings up another thought. When I saw the Minister of Labour sitting on the other side of the House as a backbencher, he always attempted to created the image that he was the champion of the man with the lunch bucket. He always used that phrase when he was devilling for the minister of labour of that time by intervening in labour disputes. I can recall the CBC and Trans-Canada. He always trotted forth his lunch-bucket of the common workingman. He is now Minister of Labour. He has a responsibility to that workingman who is now without work.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He lost his lunch-bucket.


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps he did lose his lunch-bucket. It is not an honest image. When discussing a matter as serious as the one now being debated, it is not enough for minis-

ters and members opposite to get up and spout forth a whole host of statistics and paint rosy pictures. It is time they told it like it is. They should tell us what they are going to do in real terms to meet this critical situation of unemployment.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was questioned on the same program by the nationally known syndicated writer, Mr. Lynch, he said with regard to unemployment:
-it will be better.


Mr. Lynch:: It will be better.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Oh, yes. You know, barring some disaster from south of the border.
That is the scapegoat they are trying to use for their incompetence. They are trying to say because of the actions of the President of the United States, Canada is in the economic mess it is in today. They know full well that mess is their own creation and they do not know how to get out of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Eric Kierans says that.


Erik Nielsen: The sensible ones who left the government are the people saying this.


Mr. Francis:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: We hear the member for Ottawa-


An hon. Member:: The member from nowhere.


Erik Nielsen: As the Prime Minister would say, who the hell is he? Let the member get up and make a contribution to this debate, and let him try to get away from this figure of 7.1 per cent. Let any member opposite try to do the same. Instead of applauding ministers who are saying and doing nothing, they should ruddy well be getting up and representing their constituents by telling it like it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I quote from the transcript of the same program:


Harold Edward Winch: Well you've had a pretty good disaster from south of the border.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, and we have brought in measures which we think will annul that disaster.
Well, the figures today do not exactly bear that out. Later in the program the Prime Minister said:
But whether the end result in the winter and in the spring will be 5 per cent or 4 per cent or more or less, I don't know. What I know is that the economy is moving in the right direction, that the adjusted figures and absolute figures are falling with, as I confessed to the House a few days ago, with the exception of the teenagers.
He said that just three weeks ago. How utterly wrong he was and still is. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) spoke of incompetence. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. What I really like about the transcript-


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Tell us what you think of tonight's measures.


Erik Nielsen: The measures are far too late and far too inadequate. All they are is a refurbishing of programs introduced in the early 1960s by the Diefenbaker government.
October 14, 1971


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I can remember the four horsemen of the Apocalypse sitting on this side saying to the then government the same things I am now saying.


Mr. Cafik:: Geography might have something to do with it. It depends on where you sit.


Erik Nielsen: Tell that to the hundreds of thousands who are unemployed in the country. It does not make any difference where they sit. The hon. member should tell that to his constituents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: That member should not be interjecting.


Norman Augustine Cafik: We are as concerned about unemployment as you are.


Erik Nielsen: That is fine, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member is concerned, he will get up on behalf of his constituents who are more than hard hit by the unemployment problem in the country.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I intend to do that.


Erik Nielsen: If he is not spineless, he will get up and do that.


Norman Augustine Cafik: If you will sit down and give us a chance, we will all have a go at it.


Erik Nielsen: This is rule by divine right. They all have it over there. It is symptomatic of the Liberal party. They believe that only they have the answers. They believe that only they are right. They believe that only they have the right to speak. They believe that any legislation that comes before this House should be approved without even a whimper from the opposition. They do not understand the workings of a democratic institution such as Parliament. That stupid interjection by the hon. member is evidence of that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: He supports the lawbreakers.


Erik Nielsen: The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act is just one example of how they are breaking the law. Another document which demonstrates this was tabled in the House on October 8. Members should look at it if they think the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act is an isolated example. The Auditor General is so ashamed of the Northern Canada Power Commission's financial report that he will not even certify it; he does not think it is in compliance with the law.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) spoke of the rosy situation. In his last paragraph he said that the economy is strong and growing. According to him and his supporters, we do not have to worry at all. On September 7, 1971, as recorded at page 7580 of Hansard, the Minister of Finance said:
We are confident that the trend will be that unemployment will continue to decline as the economy gathers further strength. My hon. friends opposite know this will happen, and I hope that the Leader of the Opposition, who guaranteed that unemployment would not go below 6 per cent this year, will turn his leadership
The Canadian Economy
over to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings when it does.
It has not. The Minister of Finance was not only wrong in making that statement last September, he was less than honest. As recorded at page 6908 of Hansard, the minister said:
As to the problems of right now it is evident that unemployment is too high. There is too much slack in the economy. At the same time, costs are still rising at a rate that causes concern about future price developments. It is evident also that these problems are interrelated. They must be treated and solved together. I am sure that we turned the corner last year, and despite some apparent hesitancy are now clearly on the way up.
Some "up," Mr. Speaker!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I do so to advise him that his time has expired.


William Warren Allmand: If I
understood correctly the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) this evening, Mr. Speaker, he said that he approved of the measures announced but said they should have been implemented sooner. He approved of the measures to the extent that he tried to take credit for them. I would like to deal with both these points.
First, in terms of expanding employment in a free, mixed economy such as ours there are only so many alternatives from which to choose. No matter how many economists we read, we note that more or less the same alternatives are listed time and time again. It is a question of mix and of degree. During the last few months the Leader of the Opposition has suggested all of the alternatives. It is not difficult for him to state this evening that he has suggested these matters before in a general way. If you recommend everything, Mr. Speaker, you are bound to come up with something right from time to time.
Second, his criticism with regard to timing is more serious. He says that our forecasting is poor and that these measures should have been implemented sooner. I admit that timing is the most important element in administering economic policies of this nature. I am not convinced that, given the information which was available, the timing was wrong. It is easy now, after the fact, to claim that the timing was wrong, but on June 18 when the minister presented his last budget, all the indicators were up. At that time there was no way of predicting the United States surcharge. This evening I got the impression from the opposition that in their view the surcharge had not affected the situation in any way. But a few weeks ago, if I read them correctly, they were saying the opposite. Anyway, at the time of the budget there was no way of predicting the United States actions and no way of predicting the worsening of the unemployment situation as it affected young people.
I remember very well the reports which appeared in the newspapers after the June budget and the opinions expressed by economists. There was almost unanimous agreement that it was an expansionary budget, that it was what the economy needed. I think it is important that I should remind hon. members of some of the statistics

8704

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy
which were given by the minister tonight with respect to the rate of growth at that time. He pointed out that the rate of growth increased by 2.3 per cent in the first half of 1970, 3.5 per cent in the second half, and 6.2 per cent in the first half of this year. He also stated that in the second quarter of the year output was rising at the rate of 8.5 per cent per annum. So, there was an increase from 2.3 per cent to 8.5 per cent in the growth rate in a short period of one year. All the indications on June 18 were that the economy was on the upswing. I submit that to have applied further expansionary policies at that time would have been irresponsible; it would have meant adding fuel to an economy which did not need it.
People can criticize today, and say the forecasting was poor, but I have not so far heard any specific suggestions from the opposition parties as to ways in which forecasting can be improved. Every country in the world is finding difficulties in forecasting today because no economy is completely closed; we live in an interdependent world and all sorts of factors enter into economic forecasting. I agree we should seek out means of improvement, and I have myself made suggestions with this in mind. Some time ago the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) suggested that an independent short-term forecasting body be set up. I would personally prefer to see the staff and authority of some of the existing short-term forecasting bodies increased. I submit they should be subject to political control and be more responsive to political needs.
The leader of the NDP said the policies presented tonight by the government, though good as far as they went, were inadequate. Unfortunately, as is often the case when he gets warmed up in a debate, he engaged in personal attacks on the Minister of Finance and other ministers. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who spoke before me, did the same thing. I do not know in what way this sort of thing can add to the value of a debate such as this. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) spoke about complacency. He accused members on this side of being complacent with respect to the economic conditions. I think the hon. member confuses noise and volume with interest. He and other members on that side of the House get up and make loud noises, feeling they are showing great interest in a situation. Members of the government, studying the situation in depth, are not making a great noise about it, but the hon. member and his friends regard this as an expression of complacency. Mr. Speaker, seriousness cannot be judged in terms of volume.
One interesting thing about the speech of the leader of the New Democratic Party was this: although he represents a more or less socialistic party he came forward with no real alternative solution. He launched the same type of attack as did the leader of the Official Opposition. He approved in general of what was being done, but said we should have done more of the same a little bit sooner. He offered no real alternatives. In a free, mixed economy such as ours there are not so many alternatives available. It is a question of mix, of timing, of political wisdom and forecasting-and nobody is perfect in all these respects. Nevertheless, I submit the timing was good in view of what was known at the time.
The opposition accused the government of being complacent to the extent that no action was taken. I repeat

that the budget of June 18 was a significant budget and that it was recognized as being so at the time. As a matter of fact, most of the members of the opposition stated then that we were about to call an election because it was such an expansionary budget. They claimed in the press and on television that it was the type of expansionary budget which necessarily led to an election. Now, they are saying that nothing was done on June 18. I submit the government took a significant step on June 18, but since then new elements have entered the picture, elements which could not have been predicted. We are now accused of over-estimating the effect of the United States surcharge. Maybe the opposition is under-estimating it tonight, although a few weeks ago they were placing much more emphasis upon it for political purposes. Now, they are saying it has nothing to do with the situation.
The hon. member for York South said he would like to put forward a program which would create 250,000 new jobs. The proposals he had in mind for bringing this about involved more of the same which would mean, I suppose, an even greater deficit. He says the measures which have been introduced will not lead to employment on that scale. I do not know what evidence he relies on to support his own judgment.


Mr. Orlikow:: You mention a figure. How many jobs will be produced? That will be seen.


William Warren Allmand: I am not an oracle or a prophet like the hon. member for York South. I believe the measures which were presented to the House tonight are significant and will lead to a great increase in employment.


David Orlikow: How many jobs?


William Warren Allmand: I shall not predict. It is easy to predict when you are in the opposition. You can make all kinds of predictions, and you are bound to be right one time or another.
The leader of the NDP also criticized the government for not consulting with the provinces before introducing this program. He spoke about credibility. I wonder where this leaves his own credibility. If I am not mistaken, it was only a few days ago that he and his party were suggesting that the government should present a program without consulting the provinces. His supporters were saying that if it was not possible to get agreement on an earlier federal-provincial conference, the government should go forward with its plans now and let them be known at once. Tonight he criticized the government for putting these proposals forward before consulting the provinces.


An hon. Member:: That should have been done last July.


William Warren Allmand: You fellows will have your chance to speak. This debate can go on all night. The Prime Minister pointed out, in answer to questions, that he had tried to arrange a meeting with the provinces as long ago as last June. He took the initiative in that connection. If a meeting was not held, where does the responsibility lie? A date was set for December. The Prime Minister said he would prefer the meeting to be held earlier. We all hope he will have these meetings soon.
The leader of the New Democratic Party suggested tonight that in putting forward these proposals and pro-
October 14, 1971

grams without consultation we are doing wrong. As far as I know, consultation may have been had with the provinces, but only last week many members of the opposition were suggesting that we do just this. So where is the credibility of the New Democratic Party?
We expect this sort of criticism from the opposition. I have the feeling that if the Minister of Finance had put forward tonight all of the programs suggested by the Conservative party, the New Democratic Party and the Social Credit party, he would have been accused of providing too little, too late, or something to that effect. We expect the type of speech made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), which was mainly directed at the personalities of members of the government and had not very much to do with the proposals put forward or with any serious criticism or analysis of our policies.
I was pleased to note in the measures put forward tonight some of the proposals which I suggested in an opposition debate a week or so ago. I am particularly pleased with the on the job training program which is directed mainly at youth, those who do not qualify for the Canada Manpower retraining program. In speaking in that debate a while ago I referred to the report of the Committee on Youth which has been downgraded to an extent which I think is unjustified. I pointed out that one of the best parts of the Committee on Youth report related to youth unemployment. This committee made some very good recommendations, some of which have tonight been adopted by the government.
In conclusion, I note that members on both sides of the House have expressed great concern at the economic situation in Canada. It is serious. We have all emphasized its seriousness. No one tries to underestimate the seriousness of the situation. But I submit that if we are sincere in what we say about the situation, we should all get behind the government's program and make it a success. I submit that the question of improving the economic situation in Canada is bigger than partisan politics; it is something that requires the co-operation of all members. I hope the government's program will be a success and that we will all play our part.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this occasion I think it would be well to remind hon. members that at this moment the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) are in the press room engaging, I am informed, in a form of television debate. No wonder interest in this House is not very great.
I remember the debate on the western grain industry and reading in the Globe and Mail of the attitude of Saskatchewan farmers in the Assiniboia by-election campaign now under way. Their feeling of alienation has been personified no more than in the great debate that went on in this House for days, in which the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) put forward a grain stabilization bill involving a 1 per cent reduction for the farmers and a cut-off point which meant that the grain stabilization program would be of little use to the farmers before 1980.
This evening the Minister of Finance bettered Scrooge on his deathbed. Having stated, not only all summer but for the last two years, that everything was fine economi-
The Canadian Economy
cally he was faced this morning with an unemployment rate of 7.2 per cent. Thereupon he suddenly decided that the economy needed a massive shot in the arm, but I am afraid that much of this massive shot in the arm is going to be wasted. For example, let us examine the winter works program, which essentially is what the program for the municipalities is. It takes months to get such a program properly under way and to see that there is a reasonable return on the dollar. Engineering works, and so on, require a great deal of preparation.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet should have realized over the course of the summer that much needed to be done. The Prime Minister did not even get around to setting the date with his provincial counterparts to work out such a program. So this program is announced without any basic preparation having been made with the provinces, let alone with the municipalities. Even in this day and age when our communications are supposed to be better than they were 100 years ago, the municipalities will be hard put to evolve any programs that will be useful and meaningful by way of providing jobs.
Nevertheless, the cut in taxation is welcome. The cut in corporation tax is particularly welcomed by the private sector and should increase opportunities for employment in the future. However, I understand the cut in corporation tax is self-limiting since it will end in 1972. Steps that should have been taken gradually have been taken at a jump. This leads me to wonder whether these measures are an election ploy to blind the Canadian people to the way in which the economy has been so badly run during the past three years.
A number of other features have to be considered in making an assessment, a critical analysis of the situation confronting us. What are some of the forces that have brought us to the present predicament, forces that are both internal as well as external? There are some things we could have done about these problems, but I am sure that history will show that this administration has handled badly both the internal and the external management of our affairs.
The first factor to be considered is that Canada has built up the most comprehensive system of welfare to be found anywhere in the world. Welfare, in its broad sense, is a provincial responsibility, yet the federal government has encouraged and promoted welfare programs ad infinitum, even against provincial protestations that the programs were forced upon the provinces often before they were ready for them. No attempt was made to assess the cost of the programs before they were applied, how they would be managed or how to prevent excessive spending once they were applied, good as the programs themselves were. Only now, when the programs are assuming excessive cost, is the government getting around to curtailing their cost and making some economy moves.
The federal government has been extremely derelict in its duty. Whenever the workability of a program was questioned by the provinces, the federal government invariably answered that in order to ensure universality open-ended programs had to be adopted. Nor have these spending programs yet run their course. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) will be introduc-

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy
ing his family income support plan, if we ever get through the tax bill, which in effect will rechannel family allowances to the lower income groups. Granted, much of the family allowances went to people who did not need them, but under the new proposal the total cost will be an additional $150 million.
The recently passed Unemployment Insurance Act is a disguised form of guaranteed income. In committee, Members of Parliament were assured that the plan will operate at a fiscal break-even point when unemployment is at the rate of about 4 per cent, though the figures given were imprecise. When it is considered that unemployment in the sixties averaged well over 5 per cent and that at the present time the unemployment rate is 7.2 per cent, it can be seen that almost half of the unemployment insurance money will come from the federal treasury, according to the estimates made by the Department of Labour.
All this brings me to the main point: what are we doing for Canadian business? It must provide all the goods that we need in order for our welfare economy to survive. Until tonight, the government has given precious little encouragement to business beyond piling tax upon tax. In the Globe and Mail of Tuesday, October 12 the following is said regarding Mr. Nixon, the Liberal leader in Ontario:
Or take the uncertainty that afflicts business, causing it to pull in its horns and fail to produce the expansion that would have provided jobs- It was caused by the Ottawa Liberal government, lingering for years over a new system of taxation that would have heavily penalized business, withdrawing it

largely under well-researched attack by the Ontario government-replacing it with another system almost as confusing, topping it off with a Competition Act that has business wondering if it will end up in jail or paying a million dollar fine. Instead of providing jobs.
The tax bill now before the House is one suited to a decade long gone by. It is one that favours so-called equity over economic growth, and where there is a conflict between equity for the taxpayers and revenue for the treasury, it comes down firmly on the side of treasury. In this tax bill, the government has discriminated against the millions of Canadians who are individual entrepreneurs, farmers, and storekeepers. It has assumed no responsibility for the unincorporated business sector of the business community. It has not assisted these groups to become more viable.
In the tax laws governing small businesses, the government has taken away substantial freedom of choice from these small businesses. Indeed, they seem only to have paid lipservice to the widely held public sentiment that small businesses should be granted tax concessions in the proposed tax structure. They have hedged this tax portion of the bill so rigidly, in apparent fear that some foreigner will buy a small company, that they have virtually reduced the tax proposals to naught. The government is planning to put curbs on industry under the Labour Code section dealing with technical change, so that a company will not be able to introduce technological changes until the end of a labour contract. On the surface at least, this looks like a device that will hold back technological changes in our industry, and what surer way is there to prevent an efficient industry?
Further, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford), in his competition bill, is restricting
(Mr. Ritchie.]
business in an apparent attempt to create an ideal society where every consumer will be protected to the nth degree. He may well be hedging industry and services with regulations to such an extent that it will be hardly able to breathe.
As the government of a country with the international trading pattern that we have, this government has been behaving in a curious manner. While the United States has been defending the western world with its blood and treasure in Viet Nam, the Canadian government has been systematically cutting down its commitment to NATO and cutting down its own security forces. It has recognized Red China at the expense of Taiwan. It is assiduously engaged in attempting to expel Taiwan from the United Nations in direct contrast to the American position. What did the Globe and Mail say about this in its editorial of October 12? It reads:
Or consider the coldness which has developed between Canada and the United States, and which has undoubtedly contributed to if not precipitated the U.S. disregard for what U.S. measures may do to Canada's economy.
While in Russia, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has portrayed the United States as a cultural, economic and possibly military threat to Canada.
In the long awaited and apparently now defunct Gray report on foreign ownership in Canada, there was an implication that the government would be sympathetic to the economic nationalists in Canada who portray Canadians as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the Americans. The Gray report would certainly have been punitive against foreign investment.
The action of the U.S. government in applying the surtax to Canada cannot really be condemned from their point of view. Canada, along with Germany and Japan, is one of the nations at which it was aimed. They did not have any alternative but to correct their balance of payments. Much of the American grievance lies in the automotive pact and the use to which it was being put, such as the Michelin tire plant in Nova Scotia and snowmobiles. All this has created an abnormal balance in favour of Canada. There are many areas in which negotiations would be useful in dealing with the U.S. surcharge. We have to be aware of the change in conditions in the world in which we live. While the world has been coalescing in trading groups such as the European economic union, the Asian group, and North America, we have been doing very little about it. We have assumed that we can operate outside any trading bloc in an independent manner. This may be so, but we cannot do this without a considerable change in the direction of our economy.
Measures should be taken at the internal level to stimulate business, as has been proposed tonight, but also we should give the entrepreneurs a greater place in our society. Our welfare structures should be scrutinized, and we will have to make some decisions to ensure that economies are effected in these fields without a reduction in service. In the international field, we should negotiate with the Americans on the sore points and the so-called grievances with resolution and firmness. Mr. Connally has suggested that Canada has probably met many of the conditions necessary for the removal of the U.S. surtax. It has allowed the dollar to float and it has allowed market realities freely to determine exchange rates. It has made
October 14, 1971

some move toward the reduction of specific barriers to trade. I think that the Canadian government could do its part in hastening the end of the surcharges by declaring its readiness to re-examine promptly the safeguards in the 1965 Canada-U.S. auto pact.
The measures announced tonight by the Minister of Finance should be accepted and promoted. It is unfortunate that they have come so late, and I believe that, particularly with regard to the winter works program, an earlier announcement would have been a more effective way of providing jobs for this coming winter.


Mr.   Yvon@: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in tonight's debate. Last May, when I was elected in my beautiful riding of Chambly, I emphasized the importance of the economy.
Tonight, I want to express my views on unemployment and on the economy of Canada, problems of extreme concern to us, not only because of their present magnitude, but also because of their potential disastrous consequences.
Fortunately, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has announced tonight action to be taken in behalf of Canadians, action which will no doubt help to solve the problem of unemployment and restore stability to the Canadian economy. I want to congratulate him and thank him on behalf of my voters and of all Canadians.
Although we are short of jobs, it is not because of a lack of raw materials in Canada. We own a rich subsoil and huge power resources. The land that our people have developed for more than 200 years is truly immense. I suggest that unemployment is due to the fact that the growth rate of our population increased faster than that of our industries. This is quite obvious, and in my opinion, that is where the problem lies.
We have seen other countries devasted by war that have reached industrial power far greater than anything Canada has ever been able to achieve. These countries do not have our advantages in material resources, but they were aware of a reality that Canada has not recognized until now. These countries were aware of the need to work and of the need of markets for their products.
The good fortune of our neighbours can explain why Canada has, in some measure, been sheltered from the full appreciation of both of these needs. When we were basically an agricultural country, we were able to sell a very large percentage of our gross national product and we were able to afford and sustain relatively new industry under protection.
Other industries started off without protection, and that is why from the beginning they could equip themselves with an organization and specialization that assured them of success.
After 1968, Canadians have found themselves competing in a much freer way in the markets of the world, but particularly in the market of the United States. They could not however equal the high industrialization of others that mass production made possible.
Canadians generally have not matched the productivity of many other countries. Without protection from now on, their industries cannot profitably exist in direct competi-
The Canadian Economy
tion with the great new plants located in the United States, Japan and the European Common Market.
As the United States' balance of payments became and remained intolerable to the United States, they have found it necessary to take the moves of the import tax and of other legislation. These added burdens, these protective measures in favour of exports, are beyond the ability of many Canadian manufacturers to stand.
It brings into question the viability of American branch plants in Canada and it most certainly brings into question the viability of Canadian manufacturing plants which must be able to share freely in the North American market.
We should explore with the Americans not only the conditions of immediate removal of the trade limiting taxes, but a continuing policy leading to some assurances to the United States in matters of energy and of raw material.
In my view, the United States must guarantee to Canada an immediate access to the North American market so that our plants in Canada may operate on a footing of equality. This is the only way in which I can see the development in Canada of an industrial society worthy of Canadians as a whole.
The world is being divided into great markets-Southeast Asia, Japan, the European Common Market, and Canada must belong to one of these. The logic of geography dictates that this must be a North American market.
Many organizations-even separatists-havee put forward this logic, but it can only be effectively negotiated by a Canada strong and united in its purpose and its wish.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, we are participating in this emergency debate tonight because of the disastrous unemployment figures announced today by Statistics Canada. In the month of September, 7.1 per cent of the labour force, on a seasonally adjusted rate, was unemployed. The number of unemployed in September was 434,000 compared with 398,000 in September, 1970.
One would think that this is something unexpected, unpredicted, and nobody knew it would happen. In fact, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) said precisely that when he said that members of the opposition were being wise after the fact. Mr. Speaker, the truth is-and members of the government know it-that the government has consistently misread the economic indicators. The government has been consistently wrong in its estimates of what the level of unemployment would be. Not only has the government been wrong in its esti- * mates of what the level of unemployment would be but it has deliberately chosen to exaggerate unemployment because of its fears about inflation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in December, 1969, that he would not be deterred in his fight against inflation even if the unemployment rate rose to 6 per cent. Well, Mr. Speaker, last month we had an unemployment rate of 7.1 per cent.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), the Prime Minister and-I hesitate to bring this member into the august company I have just mentioned

the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) all

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy
predicted that within the last year or so things would be getting better, when in fact they have been getting consistently worse.
On November 12, 1970, the Minister of Finance said: Recently I suggested publicly that on a seasonal basis .. . unemployment had about reached its peak and expressed confidence that we could look forward to continued improvement.
What was the rate of unemployment then, Mr. Speaker? It was 6.5 per cent. On March 18 of this year the Prime Minister said:
The government has taken a series of steps intended to alter the course of the economic policy . .. Some time must elapse before these steps can be fully efficient.
He went on to say:
I think that all the economic indicators show that the economy is moving.
What was the rate of unemployment then, Mr. Speaker? It was 6.2 per cent. The economy was moving, but in the wrong way. Just a few weeks ago, on September 7, the Minister of Finance said:
Unemployment will continue to decline.
He challenged the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to resign his leadership if the prediction of that hon. gentleman that unemployment would not go below 6 per cent this year did not materialize. What is the unemployment rate now, Mr. Speaker? It is 7.1 per cent. Here is a real gem from the parliamentary secretary, who said on April 27 of this year:
The government is not prepared to accept an unemployment rate of 51 per cent to 6 per cent seasonally adjusted or otherwise, for the future.
Mr. Speaker, we have not had less than 6 per cent unemployment, seasonally adjusted, for the last 16 months but the parliamentary secretary seems quite willing to accept an unemployment rate of 7.1 per cent. We have heard a great deal from the ministers and the Prime Minister-the Prime Minister who believes in a just society, who believes in participatory democracy, who gives strong leadership to this country compared with the former Liberal Prime Minister who was weak, vacillating and uncertain about what to do.
Mr. Speaker, here are some interesting comparisons. For the month of September, in the four years during which the former Liberal Prime Minister led this country, from 1964 to 1967, the rate of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, varied from a low of 3.6 per cent to a high of 4.5 per cent. In the four years this great Prime Minister has led the country the unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted, for the month of September has varied from a low of 4.7 per cent-the lowest rate under this Prime Minister is higher than the highest rate under the former Prime Minister-to the highest rate yet for the month of September, of 7.1 per cent.
Given the consistently wrong, fraudulent and deceptive predictions of the Minister of Finance and of the Prime Minister, is it any wonder that we are involved in an emergency debate tonight? Is it any wonder that the Minister of Finance comes here tonight and spends the first ten minutes of his speech repeating all the nonsensical arguments he has been making for the last couple of

years, that things are getting better and better? The number of people employed, the number of houses being built-everything is getting better except one thing: the patient is dying. We have more unemployment than we have ever had in this country.
These are the simple and concrete facts which cannot be ignored, Mr. Speaker. This government has consistently misjudged what is happening. In any other country where a minister has been so consistently wrong and where the Deputy Minister of Finance has repeatedly in meetings with economists from other government departments and officials from provincial governments berated and lectured them about how wrong they are, they would have been asked to resign. If they had any decency, they would not have waited to be asked. This is the record of this government-consistently ignoring unemployment.


Mr. Perrault:: And you need a new record.


David Orlikow: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Perrault) is good at interjecting. But I do not mind, Mr. Speaker, because we have heard him before.


Raymond J. Perrault: You have been making the same speech around here for ten years.


David Orlikow: The parliamentary secretary says that I have been making the same speech for ten years. The only reason I have done so is because this government is consistently wrong in regard to what has to be done. Mr. Speaker, in most governments one expects that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who represents business and takes the point of view of businessmen, does not worry about the employee; but one expects the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour to have some heart. I do not expect him to have any brains, but I do expect him to have some heart, some compassion, some understanding about what ordinary people want.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the parliamentary secretary were in his place I would recognize him. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am more than willing to answer a question by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour if he wants to ask it in a proper way, because I know that every time he opens his mouth he puts, not just one foot but both feet into it, or changes his feet. When I have finished, if the parliamentary secretary wishes to rise and defend the government, I shall be glad to hear him.
In September we had the highest rate of unemployment this country has had in the last ten years-a rate of unemployment, Mr. Speaker, higher than that of the worst years under the previous Conservative government about which the Minister of Finance spoke so scathingly. I am willing to listen to him, Mr. Speaker; I am willing to have him defend his government and the 7.1 per cent unemployment.
October 14, 1971

What is the situation? We have a crash program. I shall talk about that in a few minutes. I said a few moments ago that in September of this year 434,000 people were unemployed, or 7.1 per cent of the labour force at the seasonally adjusted rate. But September is a relatively good month, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Not for the Liberals.


David Orlikow: In September, 1971, we had 10 per cent more unemployed than in September, 1970. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who said that we could not tolerate 5j per cent to 6 per cent unemployment, to tell us what is going to happen.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: He doesn't know.


David Orlikow: In February, 1971, we had 675,000 unemployed. Since we have 10 per cent more unemployed in September of 1971 than we had last September, I predict-after consultations with economists in government and outside who have been consistently more correct in their estimates than the economists to whom the Minister of Finance listens-that in February, 1972, the normal increase in employment which we have had will mean we will have 750,000 unemployed.


Mr. Whelan:: No.


David Orlikow: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), when estimating the effects of the Nixon economic policies announced a few weeks ago, estimated that if the U.S. surcharge remains in effect for a full year it will mean a loss of 90,000 jobs. I suggest, from a very simple calculation, that by next February the surcharge will result in another 50,000 unemployed. This means that between the normal unemployment and that caused by the Nixon economic policies we will have 800,000 unemployed.
Tonight the government announced programs which sound pretty good. The leader of our party and others have challenged the government, the Minister of Finance or any other member-the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour who is so ready to interject-to calculate the number of jobs that will be created by these programs.


Raymond J. Perrault: You estimate it.


David Orlikow: The parliamentary secretary suggests that I make an estimate. I intend to do just that. I predict that the maximum number of jobs produced by these programs-.and it will not be in the next four months because there is a considerable time lag between the announcement of a program and its implementation-will be in the neighbourhood of 50,000. Mr. Speaker, that means that in February, 1972, this country will be faced with 750,000 people unemployed. I hope I am wrong. I would love to hear some parliamentary secretary say I am wrong. Although I have been here for close to ten years, I have not discovered what functions parliamentary secretaries serve. However, in the light of estimates prepared by economists attached to the Department of Finance, prepared by economists attached to the Department of Manpower and prepared by economists attached to Statistics Canada, I should be happy to hear the Parliamentary
The Canadian Economy
Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Perrault) get up and tell me I am wrong, that I have exaggerated and that there will only be 500,000 or 400,000 people unemployed this coming winter. They will not do that, because they know the figures I have given are pretty close to being correct.
I am not alone in my concern. To show that what I am saying is not particularly partisan, may I quote from a short article which appeared in the Globe and Mail on October 9, headed, "Welfare roll boost expected this winter with job scarcity". The estimates I am about to quote have not been made by politicians, have not been made by economists or by elected people; they have been made by people who have the responsibility of seeing that Canadians do not suffer too much and do not go hungry. Of course, I am talking about the welfare directors of a series of cities in the most prosperous province of this country, Ontario. Here, in part, is how the article reads:
In Oshawa, where rolls doubled last year, welfare administrator H. G. Chesebrough said last month's announcement by General Motors to lay off workers could swell the welfare rolls. -
In London the January, 1971, welfare rolls were 33 per cent higher than the January, 1970 rolls-
The administrator there expects the welfare budget to be 15 per cent higher than it was in 1970. I continue quoting:
In Peterborough, officials predict welfare costs this winter will rise by 25 per cent over last winter. -
In North Bay, Nipissing District welfare administrator Royal Poulin said he predicts the number of people on welfare will rise by 40 per cent. -
In August, 1970,-
This will interest the hon. member for Windsor. -Windsor's expenditures totalled $197,676. In August, 1971, the figure rose to $310,285.
These are facts. They cannot be ignored or pushed aside by the government, and they will not be met by the hastily conceived and, in many cases, ill conceived proposals brought forward by the Minister of Finance this evening as a result of the government's fright.
What do we have here? We have $113 million in further loans for housing, sewage and land assembly. Any province or city which has had dealings with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation knows that a minimum of one year elapses between the time a proposal is made and when it is approved and work can begin. That $113 million will join the line-up for approval behind the tens of millions of dollars worth of projects that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is considering. Much of that money will not be used in the winter of 1971-72.
Then, we have $35 million for job training. I do not have time to go into details but, as has already been pointed out, we have already upgraded through job training in our Manpower training centres over one million Canadians. As my leader said, this winter we will have the most highly trained unemployed people in the world.
What does the government propose as its major method of dealing with the unemployment crisis? It proposes just what one would expect from a millionaire Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and a big business administration, a 7 per

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy
cent cut in corporation taxes. Mr. Speaker, corporation taxes in the last quarter of this year were much higher than they have been for a number of years. There is no sign that corporations need tax cuts to produce more jobs and to expand productive capacity. Why should they expand their productive capacity when this winter three quarters of a million people will be unemployed? How many cars, radios and television sets will the three quarters of a million unemployed be able to buy this coming February?


An hon. Member:: Let them buy Canadian made goods.


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


An hon. Member:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member may only continue his remarks if there is unanimous consent. Is there such unanimous consent?


An hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: There is not unanimous consent, so the hon. member may not continue.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this debate, tonight, on the unemployment which we are experiencing now in Canada, is far from premature, because if it had come about a little sooner, it is quite possible that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) would have opened the Treasury a little sooner, and the situation would not be as serious as it is now.
An old proverb states: Better late than never. Unemployment among the young, especially in the 18 to 25 age group, is a real calamity, and more particularly in the province of Quebec, where employment opportunities for the young in that group are extremely limited.
We invited the government, on several occasions, to do something really practical. Indeed on two opposition days we considered that topic and we did more than just criticize. On those occasions, as was done tonight by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (M. Caouette), we suggested proposals and solutions to the government, in order to help those people who are at present in alarming circumstances.
As the previous speaker said, educated or non educated, young people are doomed to unemployment. Such are the conclusions to be drawn from statistics. I do not have enough time to quote them but most of the hon. members are familiar with them because they are published from time to time and give us the information we need.
The Canadian economy is more and more unable to absorb the multitude of specialized young university people entering the labour market. Short term projections are most pessimistic. Indeed, although the federal authorities refuse all comments on the situation, some experts assert that the labour market for new graduates will be almost inexistent in the spring of 1972.
Mr. Speaker, these are far from encouraging forecasts. Even if the policy announced tonight is applied, I do not
[Mr. Orlikow.J
see really that we could make an all out effort in such a short period of time as a few months and achieve the objective of sending our young people on the labour market without delay to earn a decent living.
Such is the situation prevailing for the graduates between 18 to 24 years of age from our colleges and universities. That is the deadend young people are facing today, after having made the necessary sacrifices to acquire a sound education: they find no possibility of putting their energy, skills and know-how at the service of their fellow-citizens so that they may enjoy a better standard of living based on our material and human resources.
While considering the situation, one has the feeling of being in a tremendously small country, where there is no room to move and no possibility for our young people to come to a normal fulfilment. And yet as early as 1968, when I first came here, I remember reading a report from the Economic Council which, as a matter of fact, was informing the government of the desastrous economic situation. This same Council was telling the government about a number of ways likely to correct this situation.
Instead of doing something, the government took pleasure in fighting inflation even at the risk of increased unemployment. And we have heard in this House extremely categorical government statements that to fight inflation you cannot help creating unemployment.
In fact, the government allowed the situation to reach a most dangerous level and now claims to be the saviour of the people. The program proposed tonight makes me think of those two poor guys standing by a well. Suddenly one of them deliberately pushes the other into the well. Later, he helps his victim to get out of the well with a ladder. Of course, once he is out of the well the unfortunate guy is in a worse situation than before since his clothes are all wet.
When the government has spent the millions of dollars it is offering this evening, the Canadian people will be worse off than before. Indeed, the loans will have to be paid back as well as the interests running into millions of dollars because we do not want to alter the present financial system and we wish to cling to old methods that may have been adequate some years ago but that are far from being so in 1971.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) talked about a program this evening. I would not wish people to feel that I am criticizing all that has been proposed. I would like to analyse the program objectively and also to see that consideration is given to the fact that it might be possible to improve upon it by amending the regulations respecting the loans and interest rates.
The plan which was announced tonight by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration provides that $35 million be earmarked for trainees who have registered in the manpower training program. I would like, in this respect, to suggest to the government that they change the qualifying conditions for admission to the retraining courses.
I was discussing just today, three cases of people who had been to a manpower center to register for retraining courses and, by reason of existing regulations, they could not be admitted, one because he had not been for at least three years on the labour market, the other because he
October 14, 1971

was 55 years old and it was impossible for him to be retrained in order to earn a decent living, and the third because he did not fulfill the conditions required in the present regulations.
I would suggest that these conditions be amended at least in regard to young people. It is not their fault that they are 18 or 20 years old, that they have just graduated and have not been for at least three years on the labour market as required by regulations. They are unable to pursue their studies and receive such benefits as provided by law. Therefore, I would suggest that these conditions be amended in order not to discourage these young people, but to allow them to follow up their education. If later on they are offered an opportunity to contribute by their knowledge and work to the development of our country, we will not have completely wasted our money.
I should like to comment on another aspect of the program, namely, public works. I recall having often suggested here, in this House, a policy intended to encourage public works, federal, provincial and municipal, to offer the workers job opportunities. I also suggested that those public works be put at the disposal of the public. We would then kill two birds with one stone. Through public works, we would increase the purchasing power of the consumer and simultaneously build useful works from which the country could benefit.
I am pleased with the program as announced, but once again, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with its mode of financing because I have had experience as an administrator in a municipality when the winter works program was in operation. The same problem occurred again and again: Where to find the money to undertake those works? Some advantages were offered by the government to pay for labour, but the fact remains that there are always some materials to buy, some machinery to pay and the programs did no more than that introduced this evening, include any provision to that effect.
In the special development loans program, one can read the following:
Provinces and municipalities will receive in assistance of $3 for every $4 they spend on labour hired locally for projects approved up to the end of May 1972.
Mr. Speaker, I do not like the expression "from now until the end of May 1972", because although the idea is to promote winter work, I would wish that encouragement be given to summer work as well, for it is less costly for municipalities to have water systems, sewers and so on built in summer than in winter, and people eat as much in summer as they do in winter.
Everybody knows that the labour cost portion of public works is consistently decreasing. The member for Bona-venture-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (M. Bechard) shakes his head in dissent. I would suggest to him that he ask people who are seriously engaged in construction, and he will be able to see, from the figures he is given, that labour is the smallest item of expenditures related to the construction of municipal services.
This is the reason why I submit that, in the case, at least, of work done by machines, government compensation should also be granted in respect of such necessary equipment. Then comes a statement of the terms under which such loans will be made-I quote:
The Canadian Economy
The incentive will consist in forgiving loans to the amount of 75 per cent of on-site labour costs incurred up to May 31, 1972.
It seems great, at first glance, for up to 75 per cent of a loan to be forgiven. But here lies the problem: under present rates of interest, few municipalities can afford to get into considerable debt in order to engage in public works. This is, at present, the great problem which every municipality is faced with, and I know what I am talking about. In order to get the 75 per cent they will have to undertake a work program and there will be the difficulty: finding money. The municipalities will go into debt. If they really want to do something, they will have to contract colossal debts. That is the reason why I have come to following conclusions: according to the figures mentioned this evening by the Minister of Finance the situation will be worse once that work program is achieved within four or five years than it is today because municipalities will have to pay back the capital and high interests, as I said at the beginning of my remarks.
Canadian mayors-they are not a candid lot-have already thought about discussing that problem. In April 1971 they submitted a brief to the federal government. Not in the days of Noah, Mr. Speaker, but in 1971. They made an interesting submission and the other day, about a week ago, I urged the Minister of Finance to read it again in order to pick up some ideas and be in a position to announce a more generous policy than the one put forward tonight concerning financing municipalities. I can only assume that he did not take it so much into consideration.
Recently, the Executive Committee of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities brought forward the following press release.
The Executive Committee of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and municipalities met in Montreal on September 30 and October 1 last in order to discuss, among other things, the major problem of unemployment in Canada, particularly for the coming months. The Executive Committee then perused, and decided to support a request from the City of Toronto asking the federal and provincial governments to contribute financial assistance in the form of grants and loans to municipalities that are anxious to accelerate implementation of projects and initiate new ones in order to reduce the number of people unemployed.
The Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities also urged its members to prepare such programmes for immediate action and, through their provincial association, to call on their provincial government to get financial assistance.
I did not invent this. The mayors and municipalities are requesting financial assistance because they don't have the means to undertake the works that would be necessary within their respective boundaries.
The hon. member for Temiscamingue made very practical suggestions in his speech. I could see that members behind the curtain were laughing. The suggestions seemed funny. However, people should not laugh too long at the Canadian population.
This week, I heard a minister ask the opposition to make suggestions. But some make fun of proposals that are advocated instead of examining them seriously to see if they are sound. Tonight, the hon. member for Temiscamingue suggested we provide security to all Canadians because Canada can do it. The evidence is that there are

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy
800,000	unemployed who are sound and fit to work. They are getting rusty. If we put them to work, we could surely develop our country and produce more. Production would be related to the money guaranteed each Canadian. Whatever way we call it, it is social security for the various categories of Canadians.
Another member has spoken like that. The hon. member for Temiscamingue was rather hard on economists tonight. I hope it will give them food for thought. This is not done out of malice for them but to make them look squarely at problems. As for me, I would quote another economist. He opened his eyes and made a suggestion similar to that of the hon. member for Temiscamingue tonight. In fact, Mr. Theobald said the following:
He has again expressed his conviction that it is impossible to obtain full employment.
I share his view. I go on quoting him:
-However, he added, even if that objective were achieved, there would still be some workers who should be assured of an income. It would be those who are too old or too sick to get a job, whose responsibilities demand that they be spared the obligation of working, for instance, the woman who is alone and who has dependent children. Such would also be the case of students.
Some sneer when there is talk of paying students. That is comical! Yet, it has become necessary. He went on to say:
In order to make possible this guaranteed income ... in order to establish an official policy to create job opportunities and guarantee an income to all those who are looking for work. He suggested that the initial level of the guaranteed income be set at $1,000 for each adult and $600 for each child.
About a guaranteed income for students, Mr. Theobald stated: "One must admit that it is just as fair to say of a student 'that he is working' as it is to say it of a worker in a factory. The time has come for us to accept the concept of a salary for the student, from age 14 perhaps, with proportionate increases as he gets older. Such a salary would be paid to any student attending a school or a university."
For our part, we advocate the payment of a salary to those who are 18 years of age. So, he goes further than we do.
Mr. Speaker, common sense incites us to reflect on this:
Automation requires that we change the fundamental notion according to which there cannot be any salary without some corresponding work.
In the old days, that was that. If you wanted a dollar, you had to go and earn it through your work. But in 1971, there is so much genius and intelligence around us, we have invented so many machines of all kinds that it is fascinating to watch them operate in our factories. And our unemployed must be satisfied with watching rolling mills shape steel into smooth sheets and powerful mechanical presses stamp parts through electronical systems, while in the old days, workers necessarily had to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. He can carry on with his remarks only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to participate in this debate but I do so now for several reasons. First, I want to make it abundantly clear that as a member of the government and as Minister of Labour I share whatever responsibility the opposition is trying to place on the shoulders of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). The Minister of Finance, I believe, has been subject to an awful lot of unnecessary and unwarranted abuse by members of the opposition in recent weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I welcome back the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Gundlock). I have not seen him for about a year and a half. I suppose he has been quite ill.
The second reason I rise to take part in this debate is this: I think it is about time we put to rest the old chestnut which the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) was airing, namely, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of this country, because he happened to be born to riches rather than to poverty, is insensitive to the burdens and difficulties encountered by working people. This is a very false rap to place on this man, because the whole history of the present Prime Minister, when he had the money and the resources to be independent, callous and insensitive to the needs of the people of this country was just the contrary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The present Prime Minister, in his youth, took the time, when the provincial police in the province of Quebec were no more than the private army of Mr. Duplessis, to march with workers who were on strike in that province. He provided, along with other civil libertarians, including Frank Scott, the type of legal advice that enabled the Witnesses of Jehovah in my province to take their court case to the Supreme Court of Canada and win it. That is hardly the action of a man who is insensitive, callous and unfeeling, as the opposition have tried to portray him to the Canadian people in recent weeks.
There is no use by going on at length because the real interest that the opposition has in the problem of unemployment is perhaps exemplified by the fact that there are less than six of them in the House at this time. Proportionately, they are least in attendance in this House. There are present three members of the Official Opposition. Where is the concern that they have for the poor unemployed people of this country? Why do they not demonstrate their concern by their participation in the debate tonight? Earlier in the debate the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) referred rather sarcastically to the fact that I was known as the man who cared about the man with the lunch pail. I have never been ashamed of caring for such men and I am not today. In the final analysis, the most precious ingredient this country has, its greatest resource, is not machinery, not government, but people.
No one in this House is pleased by the fact that we have an unemployment rate of 7.1 per cent today. No member of this side takes any satisfaction from such a high rate. To try and attribute such an attitude to the Prime Minister
October 14, 1971

of this country, I suspect will not fool many people at the present time.
What has this government done since 1968?


Mr. Yewchuk:: Nothing.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Since the hon. member came to this House a short time ago, he has constantly shown by his remarks exactly that degree of ignorance with which we on this side of the House stamp him. We will all be waiting for him to make a speech without assistance from any notes prepared for him by his research department. Any piece of legislation that I have introduced and had passed by this House affecting that category of person to whom the hon. member for Yukon sarcastically referred as the man with the lunch pail has had the full support of this government. My colleagues have accepted the philosophy of the legislation in question.
Earlier this evening I listened to the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) read a speech, and I suppose he is in the right party because I have yet to hear as reactionary a speech from any member of this House in recent months. On the one hand, he was deploring the fact that 7.1 per cent of the labour force was out of work. On the other hand, he was upset because we have provided enlightened legislation, such as the new Unemployment Insurance Act and the new Labour (Standards) Act; and he made a sly remark about the proposed labour bill which provides ways and means of alleviating the insecurity of people who are fearful of being out of work. I suggest he cannot have it both ways.
There is no substitute for jobs, Mr. Speaker. When members of this House and other people outside the House who should know better, such as leading industrialists and others, deplore the fact that people are on welfare and suggest we must cut back on welfare-as the hon. member suggested earlier-then it is time we put an end to the notion that every person in this country who is drawing welfare is slovenly and lazy or would prefer to draw unemployment insurance rather than work. That is not the fact.
The other day the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), in two good speeches, pointed out that less than 15 per cent of the people drawing welfare in this country are capable of working even if jobs existed. I suggest it is high time we stopped apologizing for the expansion of CAP, for our new unemployment insurance program, and for many other social measures that this government has introduced to the House and had passed since 1968.
I still adhere to the philosophy that people are more important than machines, and I do not apologize to the opposition or to the hon. member for Dauphin for my proposed measure dealing with technological change, which simply means that an employer or an industrialist who intends to introduce technological change to improve his profits should, at the first opportunity, sit down and discuss the effect of this change with the people who will be affected by it. This is just plain decency. It is also time people understood that we no longer have a silent group of workers but well educated people who want jobs. If jobs are not provided by private industry, these people will rise up and make it quite clear that they prefer some
The Canadian Economy
other form of government. I am not talking about a switch to government by the party of the Official Opposition; I am talking about a switch to socialism. Heaven knows, our record right now is nothing to write home about with unemployment at the high rate it is. I admit that because I am honest. But God help us if a socialist party were in power at the present time. This is a fact of life that private enterprise had better understand.
Let me look at the economic situation for a moment. Cash savings in this country are at an all time high. There are more people working than ever before in Canadian history; roughly 94 people out of 100 are earning higher wages than ever before in Canadian history. Add to this the fact that inventories are probably at a record low, that there is ample money in the system, that interest rates have dropped, that there are all kinds of incentives built into the economy to enable private enterprise to encourage expansion. Accelerated depreciation is one of the many incentives contained in the last budget. The recent textiles bill that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) introduced encourages the textile industry to rationalize instead of hiding behind high tariff walls, and to become competitive with other countries that flood this country with textiles. This, Mr. Speaker, is progressive Liberal legislation.
Having said that finally everything is in place, that savings are high, inventories are low, money is in ample abundance at the chartered banks and that interest rates have fallen, why the reluctance on the part of private industry to meet its responsibilities and begin to expand? I suggest there has been a series of events beyond the control of the Minister of Finance. This is why I said at the outset that the Minister of Finance is being made the goat of events that are beyond his control.
Let me give the House a very good example. Last year in the province of Quebec an end was brought to uncertainty in the province by the election of a majority government-never mind which party happened to get that majority. What has happened since then? As the economy was about to take off, last October we had the FLQ crisis.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Three budgets in a year.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: And there should be as many as six. This kind of flexibility is not outmoded thinking; it is progressive thinking, something the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) knows nothing about. It illustrates the ability of the Minister of Finance to adjust to changing economic conditions. He brings in a series of budgets instead of following the old, stereotyped method of presenting one a year. This is something for which hon. members opposite should applaud the minister, not condemn him. Right after the crisis last fall, and again in March, the minister took ways and means of stimulating-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member has just arrived from his siesta. He is a fitting example of someone who should not worry about unemployment, considering what a big wheel he is in Alberta and what a wonderful lawyer. If he has something to contribute, let him contribute it, otherwise he should remain silent.

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: After the FLQ crisis, when the minister felt it was time to stimulate the economy he introduced money into the economy as he did again in March. Again he tried to accelerate the economy in June. As a result of those measures in March and in June the economy improved, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) has pointed out, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) pointed out and as I have repeated tonight. Then came events beyond the control of the Minister of Finance.
It is all right for the opposition to say that the high rate of unemployment is not the result of the surcharge, but the effects of the surcharge have been devastating in a psychological sense, as has the possibility of DISC or certain tax measures designed to bring industry back to the U.S. These are the types of unexpected roadblocks that the Minister of Finance has run into. No one can blame him for the events that have taken place in the U.S.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: As someone asked in the House, what is an acceptable rate of unemployment? To me there is no acceptable rate. The unemployed man has no consolation if the rate of unemployment is 3 per cent but he is out of work. There is no acceptable rate of unemployment. However, there is a practical appreciation of what a country of this size can achieve with a population of 22 million people, running as we do geographically.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, running as we do.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The point I am trying to make is that even in the days of the Tories the average rate of unemployment between 1958 and 1962 was over 6 per cent. No one questioned that-it was understood. From 1962 to 1970 the average rate of unemployment hovered around 4.8 per cent. That is too high, but that is what the recent history of this country has been and will be more often than not as long as we are under-populated and as long as we have the geographical and periodical climatic conditions which this country has to face.
Tonight I listened to hon. members opposite talking about inflation. They said that all this is the result of inflation. The fact remains that when we decided to do something about inflation we did not have to fire the head of the Bank of Canada, as did the Tories with Mr. Coyne, if they want me to review that for them. The only instrument at the disposal of this government up to this time was fiscal and monetary policy, which is traditional and classic, supplemented by price and wage guidelines, not control. Whether we like it or not, that exercise was successful.
So that with the 6 per cent rate of unemployment which we had prior to the present rate, our rate of inflation was about half of that which the Americans had with an equivalent rate of unemployment. You cannot get away from these statistics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I happen to be one-I am not speaking for the government but for myself-who feels that never

again can we tackle the problem of inflation with the blunt instruments of fiscal and monetary policies.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Tell the Prime Minister that.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I have said it before, and I have said it in this House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why don't you resign from the cabinet, if you disagree with the Prime Minister?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If we are going to control inflation and have low rates of unemployment, then we will have to tackle inflation in another way one of these days.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What is your method?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It may very well have to be selective controls which were advocated by the former leader of the NDP on December 12, controls which were recommended by the Premier of Saskatchewan in an hysterical outburst over the CBC a couple of weeks ago to which I happened to listen.
The challenge to private industry and to private enterprise is to provide the jobs which more and more people feel, quite properly, is their right in what can be termed potentially one of the richest countries in the world. That is the challenge before the private enterprise system, whether we are in power or the party opposite is in power. How well we meet this challenge may depend on whether the people will turn in desperation to something as outmoded and old-fashioned as socialism.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Your party took over the last NDP member.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If you think I am exaggerating you have only to look at the experience in England under Harold Wilson, who had ample opportunity to do what he wanted.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I cannot hear above the babble. I suppose something I am saying is agitating the oil baron from Calgary.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He flatters me.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: He has developed into one of the senior statesmen around here. Nothing he says excites anyone any more. He has mellowed. Look at him sitting complacently in his seat, worrying about unemployment, since ten minutes to twelve. He has not been here since eight o'clock when we started discussing this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There is one good thing about the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey). I have not always agreed with him but I have found him to be fair. I left here at exactly 10.30 p.m. and I met Hayden Smith from Calgary. I had an interview with him and then I came right back. I am sure the minister will admit that I was here during the speeches of the other ministers. I know he would want to be fair in that regard. I realize that he is quite a player. I will not say what he plays at, but he plays at politics. I know he would want to be fair.
October 14, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) has only one minute left.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I would apologize to the hon. gentleman-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) seeks the floor on a point of order.


Paul Yewchuk: Would the minister permit a question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: First I wish to correct the record, if I am wrong. If the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) was here from eight to 10.30, I did not notice him because he did not say anything, either standing or sitting, in those 2 J hours.
To sum up, I have listened to the opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), with my usual attentiveness. I do not believe that leaders of political parties should be heckled unduly. I think they should have a chance to make their point. They are usually non-partisan and serious in their approach. I think we can best summarize the contribution of the hon. gentleman by saying that his only criticism was that what we have done is right but that we did it too late, which is a matter of judgment. I trust the judgment of the Minister of Finance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Athabasca wishes to ask a question, but I should point out that the minister's time has expired, so the question could be asked and the answer given only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) put the blame for unemployment and inflation on many things. Would he consider putting the blame where it really lies, and that is on the shoulders of this incompetent government?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member's asinine intervention only justifies my description of him earlier at the beginning of my speech.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity of hearing the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) on former occasions. He has the reputation of being quite an adept debater. I think he has given some indication of that ability this evening, but I would just like to check him, notwithstanding the fact that he may think we are unwarranted in the abuse we heap on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). We shall continue to do so so long as his fiscal and monetary policies mean that the vast majority of the Canadian people will have to suffer and be deprived of the bare necessities of life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Vast majority?
The Canadian Economy


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You know the criticism does not stem just from this party. The criticism certainly comes from business leaders and from economists. The criticism comes from the persons who are out of work, and from those who fear that they may be out of work. The criticism comes from the mother who is looking for food for her child. So, in all fairness, I think the Minister of Labour should have gone beyond the members of this House. He should have gone into the streets where, if he is not aware of it now-


Mr. Gundlock:: He will be there soon.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -he would learn that people are certainly concerned.
To say that these times are trying and disturbing, and that we are in a time of crisis, is certainly an understatement. I am distraught, I am dismayed and disgusted, not because of the programs the government has brought in this evening, since it had no other alternative, but I am dismayed, distraught and disgusted with the complete snow job that has been perpetrated on the Canadian people in the past five or six months as a result of statements that came from the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I should like to say, as we reflect on some of those statements, that I can only properly conclude this government is a sham, a farce and a fraud.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The statements of the Prime Minister alone would lead one to believe he was trying to bring in confidence when there was no reason to have confidence. Mr. Speaker, this is a classic example. One day in January during the question period the Minister of Finance said:
I would feel very unhappy with my position as Minister of Finance if there was not an upturn in the economy in 1971 and if unemployment did not trend downward on a seasonally adjusted basis.
This is the sort of theme that has been running through the speeches of the Minister of Finance month after month. I think it is shameful the way he has approached this particular problem. It does not matter how you cut the cake. It does not matter what type of rhetoric comes from the other side, or what statistics come out, the only statistic that means something is the one which appears in every paper in the nation in big half inch print, if not more: "7.1 per cent of the work force is out of work."


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Tell us what you would do.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) will not interject this time. You know what I think of your speeches. I called your intervention asinine. I do not know whether the Minister of Labour-this is through you, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that we are not helping this debate, or ourselves or the House, by interruptions. I think that hon. members who have the floor should be given an opportunity to make their speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, the newspaper headlines are important. This is what the people of Canada have been reading this evening, and hearing over television. The Ottawa Journal of October 14, the day of disaster, has a headline "Jobless Trend Most alarming in Ten Years." The Toronto Star reads "Unemployment Rate is Highest in Ten years." The Ottawa Citizen has "Jobless Highest in Decade." Those are the things with which I am concerned.
I listened to the Minister of Labour indicate his compassion and humanity, and I cannot quarrel with that. However, when he tried to explain away the feeling towards the Prime Minister, I felt it was pretty hard for anyone to have any confidence in a man who would, without any hesitation or reservation, say he was prepared to see this country have a 6 per cent level of unemployment as a result of the fight against inflation. I say this with the greatest amount of respect. If he was going to say anything, he should not have said that because it is hard to reconcile his compassion for humanity with the statement "I am prepared to see this country reach 6 per cent unemployment in my fight against inflation." How can you say that a person like that has compassion, has feeling? Why didn't he say, "What my government will attempt to do is reach full employment, whatever that may be"? That would have been a more acceptable statement.
Even though the Prime Minister was prepared to let unemployment rise to 6 per cent, we now have a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 7.1 per cent. After continuous prodding by the opposition which gave you some indication of the direction in which you should go in terms of programs, you sat on your haunches-the Minister of Finance in particular. I not only call you breakers of the law but you are also thieves, and I say that with a great deal of respect.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should not be carried away like this. I suggest to him that he should not forget that all speeches in the House require that they be addressed to the Chair. I suggest that this is fundamental and hon. members should never forget it. I invite the hon. member to make his speech to the Chair. If he wants to call me names, well, I will be glad to listen to him.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for putting me on the right track. Through you, Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that after listening to the announcement of the type of programs that have been brought in-


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), but I believe the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) is rising on a point of order.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I am too sensitive, and I know the hon. member was carried away, but really I do not think it is parliamentary for the hon. member to refer, even to a collective body, as a group of thieves. I hope you might ask him to withdraw and correct that statement.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, my remark has been made. I do not intend to withdraw it unless directed to do so by the Chair. And I will tell you why I used that phrase. When the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was calling for tax cuts, was calling for corporate tax cuts, was calling for personal income tax cuts, the government said, "It cannot work; we cannot do that sort of thing."


Norman Augustine Cafik: How does that make us thieves?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Because we have been telling you month after month that you have to cut taxes, you have to bring about confidence in the economy. And now, all of a sudden, when the panic button is hit, here we have tax cuts.
[DOT] (midnight)
Mr. Speaker, I listened with some amusement to the great dissertation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in which he said he envisaged the problems in his June budget. What a ridiculous statement that was. I heard the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) and others complain that we on the backbenches read our speeches. I am not reading anything now because I am deft enough to know what the problems are, but I would suggest that the minister's speech-writer should be fired forthwith. Any time he makes a speech it contains statements like, "I am now aware of a growing feeling about the problems of the economy".


An hon. Member:: Why not fire the minister, never mind the speech-writer?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have heard it said that he should resign.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Big Ben does it again.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The group around him have been giving him bad advice. Our human resource, Mr. Speaker, is the greatest asset we have, the greatest asset any country can have particularly in respect of democracy and freedom. We can only maintain this asset with a climate wherein the people can obtain some help, wherein they in turn can be taxed in order that we can afford to pay for some of the programs the government is bringing in.
The Minister of Labour has indicated that the vast majority of people on welfare do not want to be, and I readily admit that. But if this government continues its ad hoc approach and complacent attitude we cannot help having more people on welfare. The cities are growing. I understand that the welfare budget of the city of Ottawa is $18 million, much more than was expected. I have not heard anything about the Canada Assistance Program. I hope that it will alleviate the problem. It seems to me that if the city of Toronto is in a predicament and cities all across the country are in the same position, we will have a very bleak Christmas.
I hope members on the other side of the House will not criticize me for reading about 18 lines. The Minister of Labour was careful to point out that there were only three opposition members in the House when he was speaking. I had hoped he would put on record the fact that the member for Hamilton West was at his desk doing his duty.
October 14, 1971

I am bothered about the loss of production, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to read the following: It has been estimated that for every 1 per cent of unemployment increase in the range 4 per cent to 7 per cent, a country such as Canada loses some 3 per cent of gross national product. Taking a level of full employment, for example, of 3 per cent would mean that we are losing each year, at present levels of unemployment, some 6.9 per cent of gross national product. This may not sound a lot, but if I tell you that this represents some $5 billion worth of goods lost each year to the Canadian public-that is almost $250 lost to each Canadian man, woman and child-by the obstinacy, stupidity and arrogance of the Canadian government, you will see that there is an urgent need to change the policies and the men who lead this country. I say that with a great deal of sincerity.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: We know what the people of Ontario are thinking.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Is that the same overpriced Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney)? He is the axeman, Mr. Speaker, the one who goes around the country telling the Canadian people how well the economy is doing. If the economy is doing so well, why do we have to find this $1 billion tonight?


Edgar John Benson: Because the economy is good.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I cannot understand how it can be said the economy is booming when we have to find $1 billion. Mr. Speaker, I see my time has just about run out-


Raymond J. Perrault: It sure has.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Perrault), a man whom I respect. There is only one thing wrong-he has a big mouth. He should get up and make some suggestions, instead of continually sitting there nattering and making nonsensical interjections.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, for the life of me I cannot understand why it took this government so long to realize that the country was approaching a crisis before it had the gumption or even the brains to bring in these programs. Unfortunately, the type of program they brought in with respect to moneys going to the provincial governments and the municipalities takes time. I think they made a bad mistake in waiting until now before bringing in this program which we all hope will relieve some of the suffering and deprivation with which so many Canadians have been confronted for too long.


Mr. Steven Otto (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Chambly (Mr. L'Heureux) who made a speech tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven Otto: When I made my maiden speech it was in 1962 and I sat in the opposition benches.


An hon. Member:: It seems like yesterday.


Steven Otto: I know that some of the frontbenchers on this side are still wondering which side of the House I am on.
The Canadian Economy
From time to time they must think I am still in the opposition benches, but believe me it is not my fault.


An hon. Member:: You will have a different speech tonight.


Steven Otto: In this Parliament especially, I think a good opposition member is required because-I hate to say this-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Go ahead. I can take it.


Steven Otto: -of the lackadaisical manner of the
opposition.
It was two weeks ago tonight that I spoke on the U.S. surcharge and the DISC program, and I recall that I had some tough words to say about the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).


An hon. Member:: He is leaving now.


Steven Otto: I think that is only fair and I do not think anyone in the House can accuse me of not telling it as it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But you always vote with them. You never put your vote where your mouth is.


Steven Otto: In order to tell it as it is, I will say that the minister made a good speech tonight and the policy is a good one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That $4,000 really changed your thinking.


An hon. Member:: It really fixed you up, Steven.


Mr. Bell:: You are getting more like the member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) all the time.


Steven Otto: I hear comments from the other side, but I can assure them that the position I am supposed to be elevated to is not going to change my feeling about the government. I believe that if the government is right-and it is in this case, as I am going to explain-then it should be given full credit. At the same time, I was very disappointed.
I heard every speech of the opposition. I was disappointed to hear the opposition rehashing old potatoes or rehashing yesterday's speeches, as you might say. They told us what they said one month ago or two months ago, and they could have criticized constructively. That is what they should have done, but what did we hear? In speech after speech we were told that 7.1 per cent of our people are unemployed, that unemployment could rise and that unemployment should be much less. Yet, with regard to those issues that were mentioned by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), there was no constructive criticism.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Cannot the hon. member do better than that.


Steven Otto: For the sake of hon. members opposite and for this side as well, may I relate briefly the position in which

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy
we find ourselves. We need not go far beyond the surcharge; we do not have to go into those things that are now obvious, matters such as the depreciation credit program of tne American government. We need to consider the DISC program, which will be in effect, and the morale of Canadian business and Canadian workmen who will be affected.
However, in case hon. members accuse the government of not acting promptly enough in this crisis, may I remind the House that this morning the figures showing 7.1 per cent of our people as unemployed were released, and this evening the Minister of Finance presented what is probably the most dramatic budget in the peacetime history of Canada. The government brought forward a deficit budget; it is to spend over $1 billion. Do you know what that means? As I was counting the figures, hundred million by hundred million, I thought to myself, "My god, where are we going?" The budget means that the government has said, "We have confidence in Canada; we will go into deficit financing because we know we will survive independently. Not only will we survive; we will make good." That is an expression of confidence that does this government credit, and it deserves credit for it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is amazing what an appointment will do to a man.


An hon. Member:: He has been to the pork barrel.


Steven Otto: I expected the opposition to speak about many things sensibly and critically. For example, there are municipal projects. I know that the government's program will take care of some; nevertheless, I hoped the opposition would point out to the government that these municipal projects ought to be labour intensive. Much of the equipment and machinery that we use is American made, that is, made outside the country. We must be selective in this regard. I hope the government will be selective in the way it makes funds available for municipal projects. The same thing applies to provinces. We must make sure that much of this $160 million is not used by provinces for political purposes, such as building roads from nowhere to nowhere. The money should be used for the more efficient production of goods rather than for the creation of more efficient labour, so that when we come to the second phase of the program that was introduced tonight, the industries of this nation will be strong and efficient.


John Leroy Skoberg: What second phase?


Steven Otto: We need to spend intelligently, without leaning on our good neighbour to the south. If the money is not spent that way, we ought to make sure that it is spent on well designed projects. It should be spent efficiently and not necessarily on make-work projects.
Hon. members opposite wonder what will be the effect of this $1 billion that is to be injected into the economy. I should like to try to answer the question. I have been in business for many years and have some idea of the effect that $1 billion will have. As I say, over $1 billion is to be spent. Most manufacturers and most people know that money will be available. In the past, manufacturers have limited their inventory and laid off people. Hon. members have heard about that. Manufacturers did so because they
were not sure they could sell their goods. Now that they know that $1 billion is to be available in consumers' hands, because that is where the $1 billion will go largely, manufacturers will rehire people and build more inventory so that they can meet the anticipated demand. That will be the immediate reaction of business to a budget such as this.


An hon. Member:: Tell Nixon that.


Steven Otto: I will be speaking about Mr. Nixon a little later.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Steven Otto: Many worth-while and necessary municipal projects have been shelved. There is now almost $72 million available immediately for those projects. The assumption that municipalities will need to wait between six months and one year before using this money is not correct. It may be good that some projects arising from this program will be slightly delayed, because we will have a regular succession of projects, a regular succession of employment, a regular succession of goods on the market and people with purchasing power. That will avoid first, an upward cycle, and, then, a downward cycle in business.
I am speaking of facts which apply no matter when proposals like these are made, especially proposals as dramatic as these. These are very, very dramatic and, of course, we can expect an enormous reaction to them which will bring psychological benefits to industry and to our people.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There will be other budgets after this one.


Steven Otto: May I now say something about corporation taxes vis-a-vis personal exemptions or personal income taxes? I think that $125 million less in taxes represents a relatively small amount. The NDP suggests that this matter ought to be handled on a different basis. I think that all segments of our people ought to be given incentives. After all, they are all consumers and many are producers. Sooner or later we shall have to adopt the American view that there is only one employer, the entrepreneur, businessman or corporation, if you like. I agree that some of the criticisms regarding the tax bill are valid. We should be careful in the forthcoming tax reform bill to make sure that active Canadian producers as opposed to passive investors are the ones who will really benefit in Canada. There is a division between these two classes of people and we must pay attention to this matter in order to increase productivity in this nation during the next year and a half or two years.
In conclusion, and I do not want to take too long, may I say this.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Say something, at least.


Steven Otto: I fully endorse these proposals. I think the minister and the government ought to be complimented, because I think these measures will do much to take care of us during the next year and a half or two years. The government has not produced an over-all program. We still have to look at the long-term aspect, especially when

October 14, 1971

it is realized that the United States is determined to be isolationist in economic matters. We will need to stand independently on our own feet and we need programs which will be long lasting and involve labour, banking, incentives, exports, insurance and the CBC. All these things must be involved.


John Leroy Skoberg: When?


Steven Otto: I think, and this is my own view because I have nothing with which to back it, that this is the first phase of the government's program. I hope that the next part of this long-range program will be introduced within the next month or so. I think that then Canadians will know we intend to make our own way in this world. The very fact that this government is betting $1 billion means in all certainty that we will be able to do this on our own.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have been here all evening listening to speeches from both sides of the House. I have heard a great many reasons for this program and a great many explanations about it.
I listened to the engaging Minister of Labour (Mr. Mack-asey). When everything is going so beautifully in the country, when the government has made such a beautiful job of doing things and apparently we have more employment than ever before, it is a mystery why we should have this program. The minister did not clear up the mystery. He did a wonderful job of trying to throw us off the track of thinking clearly. Although he was very engaging, for him, unfortunately, he failed to bamboozle some of us at least.
I will give my explanation for the go ernment bringing in this program at this time. I think it has been forced out of the government by sheer necessity. It has been forced out of a government which has never shown any real concern for the unemployed. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is willing to live with 6 per cent unemployment: he said this. I do not care how many apologies are made for what he did or did not say 20 years ago; I let the facts speak for themselves. The actions of this government speak louder than their words.
I believe this program has been hastily put together. It has been put together by a government which has never shown any real concern for unemployed people. Now that the members of the government face the danger of becoming unemployed in the near future they are beginning to realize for the first time what unemployment might feel like. Consequently, the government has thrown together everything it can from its various departments and will be spending this enormous sum of money as a result.
Unemployment in Canada did not happen yesterday. It did not happen when the surcharge came into effect. For years we have had a steadily growing unemployment problem, increasingly so in recent months. The opposition has been recommending to the government the sort of things it should be doing. We have recommended that it should not be putting all its eggs in the corporation basket. When dealing with problems, this government has the habit of giving the most to big businesses to carry on. We told them that was not the thing to do.
The Canadian Economy
As far back as a year ago last summer we pointed out to the government that business concerns were unable to cope with unemployment. We stated that funds should be given to the municipalities, which were in a very bad way indeed, to enable them to continue their work. The municipalities did not have the wherewithal to carry on this work. The government turned a deaf ear; it paid no attention. Suddenly, out of a hat it picked this enormous spending program. The government is bleeding all over the green carpet tonight for the unemployed.
The government has not paid one iota of attention to the problem of unemployment until now. It is only doing so now because it is losing sector after sector of the Canadian people, having shown such disregard for common, everyday men and women and their families. This government does not care about people. As long as the gross national product is increasing, and as long as some people are getting jobs, the government does not give a hoot about those on the scrap pile, the unemployed. They do not demonstrate this by their words, but by their actions.
Talking about the increase in gross national product is no consolation for those people who cannot share in it or cannot share in making it possible. Talking about the growth of employment is small comfort to those who have looked in vain for jobs for months and even years. This insensitivity to people, this throwing around of professional jargon and concern only for industry rather than people is the reason this government is losing the confidence of section after section of the Canadian people. This program will not win back the confidence of the people. That does not mean the program is a dead loss. It is better than nothing; we know that. Many people who have studied the matter have predicted that three-quarters of a million people will be unemployed next January or February. A maximum of 50,000 jobs is not going to loom very large in the picture.
People may be impressed when the huge figures are publicized tomorrow. Many people were impressed when the Benson budget came out in June, but by the fall they had a chance to see what it was doing and what it meant to the ordinary person. The Benson budget had all kinds of incentives for industry. It let the corporate people off paying their fair share of taxes. The ordinary people will have to pay more than their share of the taxes.
This program will cost a great deal of money. Who will pay for it? Once again the corporations are being let off. The ordinary people will have to pay for it, the same as they are paying for other things at the present time. The financing of this program will merely compound the evils in the tax bill which is before us. It will take years to pay for the program. The people who can least afford it will be paying and paying because of this government's foolish notion that the way to look after the ordinary people is to pay great amounts of money to large corporate businesses and hope the result will trickle down to the ordinary people. It will not. It never has.
One of the most startling figures in the whole unemployment picture published today is the number of people seeking jobs in the month of September compared with Septembers going back to 1956. These are people who have been looking for work for seven months or more. In September 1956, 8.6 per cent of the unemployed had been looking for work for seven months or more. There are

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy
variations throughout the years-7 per cent, 18,1 per cent, 13 per cent, and so on. In 1961 it reached 20.3 per cent and decreased thereafter. In September, 1971 22.6 per cent of those unemployed had been looking for work for seven months or more. That is startling.
I want to deal with my own province of British Columbia for a few minutes. The hard fact is that unemployment has been for years eating into the vitals of that province and its people. This is because of the one-sided development that has made us essentially a raw materials province, hewers of wood and drawers of water for the American economy to a large extent, as well as for parts of the Canadian economy. This is because Liberal governments have refused to put safeguards into legislation to provide for Canadian ownership, namely, 51 per cent control of our natural resources. As a result, British Columbians have had to ship out minerals and raw materials of all kinds as well as the jobs, enterprises and growth which go with them. With what result?
I checked today, and found that every pulp mill except those of Crown Zellerback and MacMillan Bloedel, the two giants, has been shut down for at least one month this year. Rayonier has been shut down four times this year. Columbia Cellulose is closing its two mills at Castlegar and Prince Rupert for three weeks. In the metal mines, four have closed down, two silver and two copper, and at least three more are to close in the next six months. Why? Because there is no market at the present time. Talk about consumers! There are not any consumers available and this program will not be able to make them. What happens as a result? These people must crowd into towns, live on unemployment insurance and then get on social assistance.
I want to give something of the facts in Vancouver, the social assistance facts as they are today. I checked them today with the city social administration in Vancouver. The total number of social assistance cases in Vancouver today is 18,108. Remember, these are cases, not families. It means there are about 45,000 individuals in Vancouver receiving relief today at a total welfare cost of $2.1 million a month in direct assistance which does not include administrative costs. The number of employable single men and women is 6,528, at a monthly cost to all three levels of government of $533,000.
The Vancouver figures for social assistance are about 10 per cent higher than they were last year. Those of you who know Vancouver know that we have thousands of young people hanging around, young people who have never had jobs and no hope of jobs. Fifty thousand jobs for all of Canada under this program is a flea bite when it comes to the problem of employing our young people. These are problems that should be being faced, and have not been, by this government in any way, shape or form.
This is a costly program. Who is going to pay for it? As I say, the corporations are being let off their fair share with a 7 per cent reduction in taxes. Individual taxpayers are having much smaller concessions with a 3 per cent reduction. Once again the small taxpayers will get it in the neck. In my riding are many, many elderly people who have saved their homes by dint of the utmost scrimping, by cutting down on their food, trying to give up the drugs

and other things they need. These are the people who will have to pay an undue proportion of this $1 billion program which is supposed to deal with our unemployment situation. In addition, I have no confidence that this program in all its vast ramifications and moneys will not result in vast empires being set up by those who are administering it, with spacious offices and all kinds of waiting rooms and people well equipped with telephones and well barricaded from the public. I fear this will take a large portion of the new funds, and the figures we have had on the manpower situation in the last five years have not been reassuring to me that this program will do any better.
Too many people have come to me, men and women alike, pointing out that they were well trained, having taken all the courses they have been allowed to take, and still have no jobs. It was perfectly foolish for the Minister of Finance to say in his speech tonight:
The on the job program is designed to encourage employers to prepare for future economic expansion and to ensure that trainees acquire solid skills to increase their earning capacities and to help them take advantage of new employment opportunities.
What new employment opportunities? That is what these people want to know. For years they have been going round and round like squirrels in a cage, taking all the training they can get and being told there are no jobs. They have been told by administrators in Manpower that they had better go on welfare-women have been told that-because this is better than to go on looking for non-existent jobs.
For the minister to say, in his engaging manner, that the Prime Minister is after all a man with a big heart and that it is a very nasty thing to say that a government under his auspices could have a bad program, is a pretty strange way to try to draw attention from what is actually happening. The government is trying to cure the present situation with the hair of the dog that bit it approach. The dog that bit it was the policy of making the laws of this country so lax that United States companies could come in and use our resources, control our resources with their capital, take over companies without permitting any secondary development in any province such as we should have.
Now the government comes along and says, "Sure, we shall increase our manpower supplies, increase our industrial training and that sort of thing and educate you up to PhD level." But today you can see people with PhD degrees walking around Vancouver looking for jobs. Knowing these people, it will be no wonder if they take a second look at this program. I hope the program will work, but I am telling you this: this program, Mr. Minister-


An hon. Member:: "Mr. Speaker," surely.


Winona Grace MacInnis: -will have to do a whole lot better than previous ones in the interests of those who are unemployed. The minister made me leery when he said the program was designed to encourage employers. I think this program should be designed to encourage the unemployed. It is precisely because the government has always wanted to put carrots in front of employers, to make them, hopefully, give jobs, that we are in the mess we are today.
October 14, 1971

If you want to help the unemployed you must give money to the municipalities and help them with the least amount of frills and administrative costs to give jobs to people and get going with the least possible delay. This is what we must have. To say that we should be prepared now to take this program that has sprung full-fledged from the head of the cabinet, welcome it with loud hosannahs and say it is wonderful when, after all, the government is trying to make up for months and years of neglect, is expecting too much. We hope the program will work. We shall try to make it work but we are from Missouri; we must be shown, because we think of what the government has been doing for years.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, when I heard today in the House of Commons that we were to have another debate on the economy I was surprised that we would leave what we were doing, although I commend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) for taking precious time out for this debate.
It is ironic, in my view, that we should be interrupting the debate on the amendments to the Income Tax Act at this time. I realize that pressure from the opposition was such that it was felt it was an advisable thing to do and so we have done it. Although his speech was excellent, resulting in a commendable program which is being well accepted and is appreciated by all of Canada, it could have been made tomorrow on motions. It is unfortunate we have had to take this previous time away from the Income Tax Act.
Tax changes, or proposed tax changes are disruptive, of course. They are disruptive to the business community at any time. After several years and the expenditure of several million dollars, the government is fulfilling its commitment to the Canadian people by presenting a comprehensive, massive bill providing urgent amendments which we know will affect the lives of most Canadians. In my opinion-it is one which is shared, by the way, by many of my acquaintances in the business world-the first priority of the House of Commons is to complete the debate on Bill C-259. Expansion programs that will now go forward as a result of the statement made by the Minister of Finance, corporate structuring, promotional and sales policies, depend to a very large extent on pro forma projections and balance sheets. Anyone who has been involved in the financing of projects that provide more jobs for Canadians must realize that tax positions are an important part.
I have witnessed the delaying tactics used by members of the opposition, and I am sure I will witness many more irresponsible tactics before Bill C-259 reaches a final vote in committee of the whole. To my knowledge, there has never been a time when the people of Canada have been given such a great opportunity to provide some genuine input in the matter of tax changes as during the preparation of this bill.
Canada's economy, especially since August 15, 1971, must of course receive a great deal of attention. As explained by the Minister of Finance tonight, statistics on unemployment having been published this morning the minister rose from his seat tonight and provided a consid-
The Canadian Economy
erable number of solutions to the problems facing us. Perhaps there are more than is absolutely essential, but they are there for the good of the Canadian people and unquestionably will do the right job. We appreciate them very much.
I submit that the number one necessity in aiding Canada's economy is to indicate through Bill C-259 what the business community's share of the cost burden must be as related to the Income Tax Act. Until this decision is made, segments of Canada's economy will continue to jostle for a little better position to enable them to improve themselves taxwise. But when the bill is passed, it will be accepted as the law of the land and Canadians in all walks of life will once again prove, as they have in the past following tax legislation, that they have the confidence not only in themselves but in Canada to continue to advance the economy to the best of their ability.
Regardless of the irresponsible, panic stricken statements of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party-and I particularly refer to their television performances earlier this day-Canadians are enterprising people. The vast majority of the general public is enterprising. They possess initiative; they are imaginative and creative. In my opinion, these are the essential ingredients of a successful economy.
In my opinion the enemies of a successful economy are, first, uncertainty-uncertainty brought about by delay in the tax bill, second, unfair and unrealistic competition through manipulation by multinational corporations and foreign governments. I also consider that one of the enemies of government is too much unrealistic or undue government interference. Lack of confidence in the economy by the purchasing public is another enemy of the economy. All of us in this House of Commons, jointly and severally, should be working to instil confidence in the Canadian people rather than endeavouring to tear it down, as demonstrated tonight by the television appearances I witnessed and some of the speeches I heard.
Lastly, but certainly not least, I would say that the uncontrollable cost increases that are unmatched by increased productivity are probably the worst enemy of the success of any forward-looking policies. In my opinion, the opposition members of this House are guilty of attempting to destroy the confidence of Canadians in themselves. The business community acknowledges the value of guidelines provided by government. Indeed, the business community insists upon them. The government knows that every Canadian is a vital part of the economy and, given a fair opportunity, will respond.
I acknowledge that the policies of government are of considerable influence on the economy. However, in a democracy governmental policies alone, without the participation of the people involved, cannot succeed. When inflation received its promised attention and proposed guidelines were submitted by the Prime Minister in relation to prices and incomes, the business community at least partly co-operated. But those who are organized and able to demand excessive increases in their revenues not only did not respond but attacked the government in a vicious manner and practically challenged the right of the Prime Minister to suggest the only solution to the inflationary spiral.

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy
I am not relating my remarks entirely to groups we know as labour unions or the labour movement. They are a very important segment of our society. I do not know where we would be today were it not for the work of organized labour which has done its best to bring about a proper sharing of prosperity in this country. Nevertheless we have these pendulum swings, swinging one way a little too far and swinging the other way. I am not suggesting that the labour movement, or organized salaried and wage earners, such as teachers, or landlords and other service industries, are the only contributing factors to inflation, but what we must do at the present time is control costs.
In the days ahead I am convinced it will be proven that the Prime Minister was right. Failure to use a heavy hand may be the only criticism that we will hear in the days and years to come. I have to confess that although I have been in business more years than I care to remember, I do not own a slide rule. The reason for this is that I could not find one showing the multitude of variables that daily beset the businessman. I did learn, possibly the hard way, that when the cost of anything that I purchased went up it was considered inflationary. I also have bruises to prove that when the cost of production went up I either found a way to alleviate the situation or to dodge the banker and the sheriff.
Therefore, I submit that notwithstanding the volumes written by economists, some of them not yet out of school, there are but three ways to beat rising production costs. I bring up this point at this time because we are faced with very serious problems regarding the export of products around the world. At the present time we are confronted with a 10 per cent surtax imposed by the United States, plus two or three other very serious programs recently implemented. We have two things we can do: we can sit here and twiddle our thumbs or we can do something about it.
As I say, I believe there are only three ways to beat rising production costs. The first is to increase productivity to arrest unit costs. The second is to decrease production costs at some other level, although I never really found one. The third is to increase the selling price to maintain the essential percentage above the unit cost. Now, we have inflation. I can recall being aware of the fact that there was no such thing as a static position in business. The operation proceeds forward or backward. A forward movement requires additional risk capital. I hesitate to use the word here, but risk capital, if you will pardon the expression, is derived from profit. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the word "profit" is apparently a dirty word in this place. I was never able to lure investment capital from wage or salary earners. They wanted blue chip investments, and I do not blame them. However, I now find after all these years of reasonally successful operation I was wrong. I should like to quote from the Chilliwack Progress.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


M. Ervin Pringle: It is one of the greatest weekly newspapers in the country. I am quoting from a statement which was made by Mr. Tommy Douglas. He said this:

Profit does not make jobs, despite President Nixon's stand that "controls on everything except profits will create jobs". Instead, giving big business the go-ahead to create greater profits in order to stimulate the economy would only result in more automation which would mean fewer jobs.
"Redistribution of income is the key to an improved economy", he continued.
Boy, have I been doing things wrong-profit provided all my risk capital and more jobs through expansion. The question in my mind is, whose income is he talking about? This statement could have been a Freudian slip, but at least he told his followers that if the NDP had their way they would redistribute their followers income, unless of course his followers had no income and I doubt this very much. However, I would like to qualify my statement by saying that the affair was a farewell party to Tommy Douglas and I am sure that all of us in this House wish him well in his new position in the wings. At least he had the consideration to retire to the wings.
I was interested in the remarks of the new Leader of the NDP, that master of miscalculation. I heard him say that the 3 per cent reduction in tax was not based on a graduated scale. Surely, even he must realize that all personal income tax is graduated. I would suggest to the Leader of the NDP that if his salary requires a 60 per cent tax, he will now pay 57 per cent. Those who pay 17 per cent will be paying 14 per cent, and three-quarters of a million people will pay no tax when this bill is passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


M. Ervin Pringle: May I finish my speech first, and then I will be happy to attempt to answer the hon. member. There is a wide graduation between 14 per cent and 57 per cent. I have an idea what the hon. member will ask me, and I want to think of an answer.
Now that the Minister of Finance has provided the base for a terrific boost to the economy, is it not time that all those who contribute to costs-and I emphasize the word "costs";.-did some serious soul-searching. I am not speaking only of the guy who sweeps the floor or the man who puts the money in the vault, but rather about every one of us in the country who contributes in any way to costs. The Americans have thrown down the gauntlet, not only to their trading partners such as we are but to those on the home front as well. A decision has been made in the USA that rising costs must be arrested, not only prices and incomes, but all costs.
I was delighted to learn that the American labour unions have decided to co-operate. I wonder why they did not persuade their Canadian subsidiary unions to do this when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) requested their co-operation for Canada. Therefore, it now appears that there is a really important job for the NDP, and I am happy that I may be the first one to announce this in the House of Commons. After all these years, I believe they could provide a service to the Canadian people. They could persuade organized labour, for whom apparently they are a type of recognized political arm, that Canadian unions should cool it, that they should avoid excessive demands for increases. Possibly they could go a little bit further by providing leadership and by setting an example for the rest of the people.
October 14, 1971

I have a great deal of respect for members of the labour unions. I have worked with them and many of them are my friends. I am convinced that members of the labour unions would respond if the proper leadership were available. If it becomes evident in the near future that the cost of products in Canada continues to rise, then surely we must act responsibly.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Thank you very much.


M. Ervin Pringle: You are on my side.


Thomas Lefebvre: I am not sure about it.


M. Ervin Pringle: You are not sure if I am on your side. The ball is in the hands of those who contribute to all the costs of Canadian production. If the costs of our products continue to rise, we will simply not have a market, and that is another word that does not seem to find its way into the House. I am using words such as profits, markets, production, and secondary industries. There is nothing to stop anybody from starting a secondary industry tomorrow if they can find a market, but we do not discuss markets and we do not want to mention the word "profit". These are the two main pedestals on which the economy of any country must stand, because without profits and without markets you do not have lunch boxes. It is all right to talk about people, but people must eat. People require to be paid, and this money must be generated in some way.
In my opinion time is running out, not for my speech but with regard to what we are going to do in the near future. I do not know whether we can keep pump-priming ourselves into prosperity. I think we will have to be realistic as well. Canadians are now challenged to accept their responsibility as autonomous Canadians who place service to their country above all else and lend their hand. I do not care how many criticisms we heard from the opposition members tonight who have made desperation speeches, but regardless of the number of attempts by the government to inject money into the economy I do not think we can succeed without the co-operation of all the Canadian people. I think they are ready and willing to co-operate and I do hope that they will take note of the word "cost".


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I may, Sir.


Mr. Speaker:: I should bring to the attention of the House that the hon. member's time has expired. The question could be asked and the answer given only with the consent of the House. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In order to keep the record straight, I wonder if the hon. member is not aware that the Minister of Finance did not announce tonight a reduction in corporation tax of seven percentage points and in personal income tax of three percentage points, but rather a reduction in the tax payable by 7 per cent in one case and 3 per cent in the other? Would not the
The Canadian Econony
hon. member like to correct what he said, and then perhaps rethink the results?


M. Ervin Pringle: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I accept the hon. member's explanation. I know that he is very careful about these things, and if the percentages are as he says, I accept that. So far as I am concerned, it is an improvement to take a percentage off the amount of tax payable rather than change the rate of taxation. I hope I have not challenged the hon. member to another question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member not realize that that is the most regressive way in which to make a tax change?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed very much the speech of my hon. friend from Fraser Valley. I hope he will not be upset if once in a while I am critical but, like him, I believe time is running out, and perhaps I will have to depart from adulation from time to time. It has been a most interesting evening. It is not often we talk in this chamber at five after one o'clock in the morning. There are some interesting features about it. When I was called to the telephone half an hour ago I found that there were more cabinet ministers appearing on the television set in the lobby than there were in the House. I only hope the CBC is thinking carefully about what they are doing when they respond to any cabinet ministers who want to address the nation, and not give an alternative group the opportunity to do so, especially when one considers that the assembled opposition happens to represent more people than the government group does in this House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This was CBC and CTV both.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I trust this will be reflected upon by those who are the denizens of this particular part of the media.
I am a great believer in political parties. No democracy can function without them. But it is interesting, and I admire those who can do it, that on a night when a special debate is called because unemployment has reached the lowest and most disgraceful figures-they are high actually but they are low in terms of public approval, the worst figures in over a decade-those supporting the government preen themselves on with great satisfaction and stand up, one after another, saying how wonderful things are. I should think that all people of compassion and concern would be sorrowful that the economy of this great country is in such a state that we are breaking records in unemployment.
We have seen tonight a display by a government without plan, without direction, without compassion, and most certainly without humility. And after their errors, repeated errors year after year, a little humility might be a saving grace. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has indicated the acceptance of new formulae, new to him, but which have been advanced time after time by those who sit in this chamber speaking for the opposition parties, and never the suggestion, never the courtesy, of saying, "finally we will accept those suggestions which you have given us to deal with the economy."

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy
I think it is time the people of Canada had their attention directed to the service which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in this Parliament has rendered time after time when great economic questions have faced this country. He has been the first man to sound the clarion call of truth. He was the first man to see the fallacies, the nonsensical ingredients of the white paper. He was the first man to see the errors in the estate tax legislation, and he was the first man to point out the inequities and the vacuity of the government's program in reference to unemployment.
One thing did not surprise me tonight. I have grown accustomed to a situation where each time the Minister of Finance makes a speech he presents a new budget. This is nothing new. This is becoming part of the new system of fiscal flexibility, I suppose. It has been said, and well said-


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is the first time a budget has been presented under Standing Order 26.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Our expert on the rules, the venerable, learned and hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) points out that this is the first budget that has been presented under Standing Order 26. So. to that novelty I pay whatever tribute such a novelty deserves. But while in fairness, and one wants to be fiar, the government is rustling up some sense of urgency, its members have not ruslted up a sense of shame. They seem not really moved by the power of the terrible figures which are being visited upon the people of Canada tonight. I say that there is not really too much sensivitivy, because I have read carefully the minister's statement, and I heard it. An interesting portion was his collation of the unemployed. He said, and I quote:
No doubt the explanation is complex. Those who are recorded as unemployed include:
-men and women who have lost their regular employment;
-teenagers of age 14 or older who have decided not to return to school;
-college students who, for the time being at least, have dropped their courses;
-women who have decided to seek work;
-a large number who are seeking part-time work;
-some who are drawing unemployment insurance and some who are not;
-some who are drawing welfare benefits and some who are not. My God, he has everybody there but nonagenarians, and there are not too many of those around even in these healthy times. So it is this group, the young, the old, the people who want jobs, the people who don't want jobs, just about everybody, who comprise the unemployed. The situation has become largely like regional disparity. If the whole country is depressed you don't have to single out any one particular area. But, Mr. Speaker, I happen to come from an area that no matter how far the rest of the country depresses, our area still seems to be a little worse off because of the government which is not at the head of affairs. The Atlantic area economy is one which is used to getting the short end of the stick, used to figuring prominently in all those economic indices which are bad, and at the bottom of the list of all those that are good. We are 
growing used to that, but this does not mean that we are getting to like it.
The other day I was impressed by APEC's statement, and I understood the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) had not read the report which reads as follows:
The Atlantic Provinces Economic Council has produced a scathing indictment of the federal government's regional development efforts.
In its fifth annual review, published today, APEC assesses the 30-month record-
Thirty months, not a bad length of time.
-of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and its predecessor agencies set up by Ottawa to reduce economic disparities in Canada.
It does not call DREE a failure. But the tone of the report comes close to giving this impression-
We Maritimers are given to euphemism. We don't quite call it a failure.
The considerable degree of ministerial discretion allowed in the allocation of federal funds makes DREE susceptible to political manipulation-
Finally-and I think this is very germane to a debate such as this-the Atlantic provinces Economic Council report goes on to say:
The impact of DREE during its first years has also been reduced by national policies designed to dampen inflation.
You remember

a high degree of unemployment would be acceptable because we were going to fight inflation and drive it around the corner. It seems we are living in a circular city, because we never got inflation around the corner. The report continues:
In spite of suggestions that the region has been shielded from the full extent of these policies, APEC says the federal government's record of balancing economic policies has not been good. It believes, also, that inflation has not been halted, only postponed.
I say that when today's figures show 10.3 per cent unemployment in the Atlantic provinces, this is intolerable and not the kind of thing that any government supporter could preen himself about.


Robert Muir: It is 25 per cent in some areas.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Yes. That is the average for the whole area, a figure which is much higher than it has been for months. I say to the government that its national policies are exacerbating the problems in the Atlantic region and that the things it is doing add to the raw unemployment figures. The government is going about the Atlantic provinces closing down operations and the very thing it should be doing something about, regional disparity, is closing down the DREE office in the Atlantic provinces. The figures nationally are bad enough, but the figures regionally are worse. I say it ill-behoves anyone to score political marks with the economy of this country in its present state.
I am sorry that I do not have any issues of the Chilliwack Progress here, but I have an issue of the Toronto Telegram and I naturally subscribe to all that is said in an article by Dr. Gillies, the dean of administrative studies at York University, one of the most eminent economists this country has ever produced. On October 12 he wrote:
October 14, 1971

Given the shocking performance of the Canadian economy in the past few years-in some respects the worst of all industrialized societies-it is not astonishing that increasing concern is being expressed about the way economic policy is formulated in Canada.
Amen!
The question is, therefore, not simply whether the Canadian political process works, but whether the particular government in power receives proper advice about economic alternatives. In short, is the system for providing economic information to the decision-makers a good one?
Thoughtful Canadians who have watched the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) come out with the most preposterous forecasts, the most far-fetched prophecies and ill-designed projections time after time, will wonder at the state of this country's economy. We would have been in a mess long ago had it not been for the fact there was a certain viability in our nation and in our people. But we have reached the stage, and every statistic is showing it, where poor government is making a poor economy and where the poor economy is injuring and weakening our nation. How long can this continue? It is a serious mess, a serious situation.
I agree profoundly with all that was said by the hon. lady from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) who must have picked up much of her wisdom when she was married to a distinguished son of Prince Edward Island.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: She was correct in her appraisal of what the government is doing. However, I am not going to traverse ground which was well covered by my colleagues tonight. Another thing that fascinated me about the Minister's statement tonight was his closing paragraph:
Mr. Speaker, the economy is strong and growing. The measures I have proposed today are designed to keep it that way.
Anybody who can say that can belong to a government which says the Americans do not understand our problems. How can anyone in the United States or anywhere else believe in the credibility of the Minister of Finance? The very night, when unemployment is at its worst in over a decade, he stands up without a smile on his face, without a joke on his lips and says the economy is strong and growing. He is a glaring example of his own incredibility, and I hope that incredibility will lead to his departure from the job in which he has given an incredible performance.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, as you may
well understand, I could not remain silent in the wake of the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in view of the prevailing economic situation.
I had the privilege of listening closely to the statement of the Minister of Finance as well as to the succeeding speeches of the leaders of the opposition parties. I must admit very objectively that those leaders made very valid criticisms. I must also acknowledge the seriousness of the economic situation, and I think that it was urgent for the government to make those statements and also that it is our responsibility to seek solutions in order to improve the lot of the Canadian people.
The Canadian Economy
I shall not dwell any longer on unemployment statistics. They have been dealt with often enough. We are all aware of the fact that unemployment plagues our economy. Our Canadian economy is in jeopardy, regardless of what the minister may say. He has insisted it is "strong", that it will continue to be so. He was perhaps verging on exaggeration.
On the other hand, I must recognize, in view of the statements of the Minister of Finance and the commitments made by the government tonight, that the government deserves praise for its efforts.
One can always say it is too little and too late. Yet, it must be recognized that large amounts of money will be spent on improving the difficult situation we are now witnessing.
I am always happy to see someone trying.
In the circumstances, I am of course gratified by the statement made by the Minister of Finance. It would be quite simple to repeat, as so many others have done, that the measure unfortunately comes too late. I must still admit that opposition party leaders, among them the leader of the Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Stanfield) and the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) have brought forward excellent suggestions and well-founded criticisms.
I must also recognize that for several months party leaders have been recommending that funds be allocated to remedy the prevailing situation.
I believe party leaders were not wrong to express their criticisms and that the Minister of Finance has also shown wisdom by announcing the measures which I hope will be likely to improve the situation. Will it be enough? Only somebody with the gift of second sight can answer that.
I keep turning back to the thought that since effort is always rewarded, I should rejoice when people attempt to improve a really complex situation.
I feel that we have been looking for a long time for some instant solution which would ensure greater well-being for the whole Canadian community. Such an easy answer would be rather surprising.
I met recently with a number of my constituents in order to discuss the needs of my constituency, as well as the present economic situation. I have had occasion, in the past year or so, to suggest to the government that it consider introducing a policy designed to lower to 60 the age of eligibility for old age security pension.
I know that the remarks I have already made certainly have not been noticed by the government as much as I would have wished. Indeed I had discussions with enough constituents of mine to ascertain the merits of that idea and, after having got certain figures which proved that from 350,000 to 400,000 workers were between 60 and 65,1 think the government was wrong in seeking the instant solution. Some political parties have perhaps forgotten that there is a simple solution, one which is perhaps too simple to be valid, but I remain convinced that we must consider the possibility of giving the old age security pension to people of 60 and tonight I would like to take the opportunity to submit that proposal to the government.
8726

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy
In my opinion it would be very easy to reduce unemployment by about 70 per cent. But several millions of dollars will be spent to try to implement the proposals made by the Minister of Finance. I fully agree that the government should make all possible efforts and have millions of dollars available, but I wonder if the problem should not be dealt with more seriously by considering the possibility of granting the old age security pension to people of 60.
When referring to a policy liable to create from 350,000 to 400,000 jobs for young people, which would enable them to earn a living and take advantage of a well-deserved retirement at 60 after 30 or 40 years of service, we must at the same time consider the possibility of increasing old age pensions.
Some hon. members may say that I have talked about this policy before. It is not an innovation, nor an invention, but I do intend, as I said a few weeks ago, to repeat it as long as the government will not give it sufficient consideration.
Since this policy could create a social climate much more acceptable than the one we are experiencing today,-I believe it is up to the government to apply it. An old age security policy to provide the first payment at 60 would help to create between 350,000 and 400,000 jobs for the young people who are waiting and costing the government so much. I am wondering if it would not be desirable to take this proposal into consideration due to the importance of this debate. As a matter of fact, this solution would not require an enormous amount of money, since the cost of the 700,000 unemployed is extremely high. Must we repeat that it would be a transfer to allow people 60 years of age to have an income of at least $100 a week?
We did not hesitate to vote for the new unemployment insurance program providing benefits of up to $100 a week. We know full well that several people receive welfare benefits of more than $100 a week and I still cannot understand why the government would not consider the possibility of giving people 60 years of age well deserved vacations, thus reducing the present unemployment by 70 per cent.
Perhaps we shall have to admit that it is not easy to put aside 350,000 to 400,000 workers? Must we ask the government to envisage, for instance, a voluntary pension, a voluntary old age security program for the next six months by making payments of $100 a week to those pensioners? We could find in less than six months 200,000 persons at least who would be interested in leaving their job, since they would be sure of getting a sufficient income. People, 60 and over, would thus continue to be an asset to society since their income would be enough to allow them to take those trips they dreamed about for so long and to live decently.
And in the next six months, let us suppose that such a pension will necessarily be granted to people of 60 thus curing in 12 months this disease called unemployment which is hurting so unfairly the Canadian economy while creating an unfavourable social climate.
I take it upon myself to repeat this request to the government but considering the efforts it has made over the last two years I am not among those who would take this opportunity simply to blame the government saying that it

has not done anything. We know very well that for a year and a half now the government has, for instance, spent millions in order to improve the situation. However, one must admit that the expected success has not materialized. I wonder to what extent those responsible in this government are ready to admit that they have not succeeded in providing the better standard of living and the stability that all Canadians and both opposition and government members want.
I take this opportunity to invite the government to consider seriously the possibility of granting the old age security pension at age 60, because, in my view, that would be the least costly solution as we would be providing work for 350,000 to 400,000 persons who cost a great deal to the government. We could also raise the amount of the old age pension, as this is necessary would ensure a sufficient income to those people aged 60 and over. That would give new hope to the young who are waiting for jobs. They are disappointed, and this creates a difficult social climate in Canada.
Events that occurred last year surely demonstrate that the government should hasten to do something which would represent a true solution. Statements by the Minister of Finance tonight were in good faith, and I support them, I am pleased with them, but I wonder just how much they are seeking this cure-all solution that no one, I think, has in this Chamber. It does seem that they have not succeeded in finding a proper solution.
I would therefore restrict myself to a few comments in the hope that the government will consider suggesting a solution. I was expecting tonight that the Minister of Finance would in his speech refer to this policy which I have at heart, because of the opportunity I have had of talking with people in this age group and I know how happy they would be if they were to retire at the age of 60, provided they are assured to obtain from the government the bare necessities of life.
In addition to all the suggestions made by the minister involving several millions of dollars, I dare hope that far greater and far more serious consideration will be given to the housing problem.
I think that the statement mentioned $113 million to be divided among the ten provinces. This is more or less important, but how many hon. members would like to see the 11 per cent tax on building materials eliminated? What mattered was not so much making available millions of dollars for excessive loans to middle-income people. One must recognize that a growth in the building industry would bring about a solution to unemployment. That could be made possible with better loans, an extension of the reimbursement period, as long as the interest rates remain at the same level.
How many hon. members have suggested that the tax on building materials should be eliminated? I for one had the pleasure of making such a recommendation. All those interested in this matter should get together with the government and set up a true policy which would restart the building industry and give work to thousands of unemployed. The government should meet those people immediately.
October 14, 1971

I was happy to learn today that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) have decided to meet with spokesmen for certain unions and a certain group of businessmen. A few weeks ago during the debate on Bill C-262, I had the opportunity of requesting a summit meeting, acknowledging that nobody had miracle solutions. I asked the government to arrange a conference with unions, management, economists, businessmen and industrialists so that they would join their efforts to find a solution which might be the best one under the circumstances, and admitting that the economy is in a bad predicament.
I would not dare saddle the government with the sole responsibility for our current economic situation. However, I must acknowledge that since we have not found that miracle solution everybody is looking for, it might be possible to find an acceptable solution by following the advice of experienced businessmen, after agreements with employee and employer unions. This would be a way of bringing home to the public, to those unions or organizations that it is important to join hands to try and find a global solution rather than being satisfied with criticizing the government and, especially, rejoicing over the difficulties that it is now experiencing.
I have listened carefully to the speech of the Minister of Finance and I was disappointed to see that some hon. members were happy to witness the problems the government is facing, whereas we know very well the price the Canadian people will have to pay to get them settled. We might do well-I must repeat it-to ask the members of the House to suggest interesting solutions that the government could keep in mind in order to provide for the well-being of people and iron out present difficulties.
I must recognize that certain opposition members and even some of their leaders, recommended the reduction in personal income tax a few months ago. Now the government does just that. As some people criticized the government for it, the delay was a costly one, but I nevertheless recognize that the government realized the situation and is making efforts to deal with it.
I also recognize that projections made a few months ago were refuted by events. I believe now the government should not be ashamed of recognizing that some projections were wrong and that they surely need better qualified economic advisers.
I should not like to deprive other members of the opportunity to speak. I will limit myself to those few comments, in the hope, in the event I did not shed any light-I am not qualified for that-of at least having made suggestions worthy of greater attention on the part of the government.


Mr. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to take part in this debate. I consider this a very important matter and one of great concern. In particular, it is of great concern to the riding that I represent. We have a great deal of unemployment in my riding. Many people who live and work there are now out of a job. We have great concern about this. It is a riding where the United States surcharge is affecting manufacturing and industry in general to a great extent. It is a riding where there is a great deal of uncertainty about the future. We have a great deal of concern for
The Canadian Economy
these people. It is a riding where businesses and corporations have been phasing out because of circumstances over which they have no control.
I represent these working people. I have concern for them. The party of which I am a member also has concern for them. As a matter of fact, the Liberal party of Canada has always been known as the workingman's party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Kenneth Robinson: That is true, in spite of what members of the New Democratic Party may say. They may represent the big unions but they do not represent the working people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Kenneth Robinson: This government has concern for the people. It wants to help people, reduce unemployment, provide jobs and curtail inflation. For two years we have been trying to do this through the Prices and Incomes Commission which has been successful in part with their voluntary restraints. They received support from every sector except the New Democratic Party and the big unions.
What did the members of the NDP say? They said, "No, we are not going to support Canadians in this venture- not one bit. We want everything we can get out of the economy and we are going to take it. We do not care who suffers." Even though this may be at the expense of the unorganized, the pensioners, widows and orphans, they could not care less. They want to have their cake and eat it too.


Robert Muir: There is no cake with Trudeau.


William Kenneth Robinson: This is a flexible government. It is flexible to changes in the economy and changes in society. It is ready, willing and able to make tough decisions. It made a tough decision today when it in effect pumped $1 billion into the economy.
I was disappointed with the approach taken by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). His whole attitude was one of "I told you so." He did not have anything constructive to say. He made no suggestions, only destructive criticism. One can have nothing but contempt for this kind of approach. What did the leader of the New Democratic Party have to say? It was the usual gloom and doom approach of too little, too late. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that $1 billion is a great deal of money to be considered as too little.
This government realizes the time has come to prime the economic pump, and you don't do that with a thimbleful of water; you use a whole pailful if you want results. That is what the government is doing. The government means business. It prefers to take action and take it effectively.
The leader of the New Democratic Party talked about the 7 per cent corporate tax cut. He seemed to think this was a terrible thing. In effect, he said it discriminates against private individuals who receive an income tax cut of 3 per cent. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, where do the jobs come from? Who creates the jobs? The NDP cannot fool

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy
the people into thinking they create the jobs. The people know that jobs are created by industry. They are not taken in by the hypocrisy of the NDP and its philosophy. We want to prime the economy and that is exactly what we are doing. I believe the steps taken will prove effective. We want jobs.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: For whom?


William Kenneth Robinson: We want to create as many as possible in the labour sector. That is exactly what we are doing. I should like to compliment the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) for his thoughtful in-depth approach to stimulating all sectors of the economy. I would say that $1,070 million will provide economic stimulation. It certainly is not any band-aid approach. In effect, it is a complete bandage. Added to the $80 million we approved the other day, it will certainly give confidence to the business community, stimulate the economy and create more jobs. The program outlined by the minister is far-reaching and objective. It is no death-bed repentance of Benson as has been suggested. On the contrary, it illustrates the determination of the government to resolve the fiscal and economic difficulties brought about by the United States surcharge and other factors.
The program is imaginative and diversified. It provides for immediate relief projects as well as for long-term benefits. It provides help to municipalities and provinces. It helps industry and business. It helps the untrained worker, the trained worker and the unemployed. It provides for on-the-job training, a new concept to help the worker in this changing technological age. The government takes cognizance of the fact that we live in a changing world, a changing society. We live in a society with changing values, in a complete era of change. This government is heedful of change when change is needed. It is also capable of making big decisions when big decisions are needed. I am sure the big decision made today to stimulate the economy with $1 billion will stimulate the economy to the benefit of all Canadians.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard a very interesting speech from the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), one which will certainly well qualify him to be No. 28 on the list of parliamentary secretaries, whatever the precise figure may be. You can always live in hope, just like the unemployed in this country.
The hon. member said the government was not taking a band-aid approach when it brought forward this program of economic stimulation tonight. I agree with him. It is not a band-aid approach. But, unfortunately for the people of Canada, they have just about bled to death before the government could find anything to put on the wound. That is the sad thing. One has to look at the situation today and compare it with the situation three and a half years ago when the government went to the people of Canada and talked about a just society, talked about the elimination of regional economic disparity, talked about streamlining Parliament, talked about doing all the things that were great and wonderful for the Canadian people. And the Canadian people bought it.
What did the government do? First of all, they came back and streamlined Parliament. They took almost all

the power away that the opposition has possessed in the past, so there was no problem left for the government in passing the legislation that it is desired to pass.
The next thing we found happening was that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was manufacturing a super bureaucracy, a bureaucracy that has now grown to the point that he has 81 people on his personal staff, according to the last answer I received on the subject, at a total cost in excess of $800,000 to the Canadian taxpayer, and that the Privy Council Office had a staff of 206 people at last count at a total cost of in excess of $2.5 million annually to the Canadian taxpayer. The technocrats were put together. The super bureaucrats were put together. They were going to produce a new and vital type of government which was going to solve all the problems faced by the Canadian people.
What do we find today? We find ourselves in a position where we have the highest unemployment rate in a decade. We find ourselves in a position where a government, which a year ago was creating unemployment, now does not know how to stop it from continuously snowballing and snowballing to a point where we can very easily have three quarter of a million to a million unemployed before the winter is over. They deliberately created it.
I was pleased to listen to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) speaking tonight. Tonight, the minister condemned the policy that last year he said was courageous when the Prime Minister said we could live with an unemployment rate of 6 per cent. He said: Never again will the government endeavour to create unemployment to combat inflation. We knew what it was like to face a recession, because when we became the government in 1957 we inherited a recession. We knew how hard it was to stimulate the economy. We told them not to put the brakes on because if they did it they would get themselves into a situation from which they could not extricate themselves. Now, we find that the government has to pump over $1 billion into the economy in the hope of alleviating what is snowballing into probably the worst economic recession since the dirty 'thirties.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Depression.


Robert Carman Coates: Recession, depression, it does not really make any difference what you call it. For a great many people in this country it means nothing but misery and suffering. With this tremendous staff the Prime Minister has around him one would have thought that before now we could have had something original in the way of programs to stimulate the economy. When one examines what this government is proposing, one finds it is exactly what the Diefenbaker administration used between 1957 and 1961 to stimulate the economy. Dress it up any way you want, it is exactly the same thing. But the sad fact is that these proposals should have been put into effect last April, not today-certainly at the latest last June when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) brought down his budget.
We have now reached a point in this Parliament where the credibility gap of the Minister of Finance is wider and deeper than the Grand Canyon. There is no way that any Canadian can put faith any longer in what the Minister
October 14, 1971

says. His usefulness as a member of the executive has been spent. As a matter of fact, it was spent a long time ago. The only way this government can hope to revive any of its credibility is to have a cabinet shuffle and remove the Minister of Finance at the earliest possible moment. I hope that when the Prime Minister holds his press conference tomorrow he will tell the Canadian people that the government of this country is going to have a new Minister of Finance. As a matter of fact, if he told us we were going to have no Minister of Finance we would be better off than keeping the present one.
Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether he would use some of the 287 people he has on his staff to re-examine the policies under DREE, to see whether there was not a better way of implementing programs that would assist in eliminating economic disparity which has now spread across the whole nation. No longer is it unique to the maritime provinces and parts of Quebec; it is everywhere in Canada. The Prime Minister replied to me, "Well, I will speak with the President of the Treasury Board and see if I can get some more staff". No doubt the Prime Minister was trying to be sarcastic and was inferring that I was asking questions about his staff.
I think the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) made the best suggestion. He suggested it would be of value if the Prime Minister were willing to add at least two people to his staff-a psychologist to help him understand. what is going on in the world and a psychiatrist to help him understand what his government is doing. Even if this cost the taxpayer another $40,000 it would probably be a good idea to take on this extra staff. Then, hopefully, we would get some programs and proposals that would benefit the unemployed of this nation.
Looking at some of the proposals that have been made, I note that among other things the government is providing $100 million for projects to be developed through municipal and community organizations. I wonder what type of program this is going to be. I would hate to think that this winter we are to have a repetition of the Opportunities for Youth program of this summer. I think that as much as the Canadian public wants to see unemployment alleviated and the government go to almost any length to achieve that end, it would rather see something better than the screwball schemes that were incorporated in the Opportunities for Youth program this summer which brought discredit to our young people, many of whom were enthusiastic, dedicated and objective in their ideas. I hope there will be a better type of screening apparatus set up by the government regarding the proposals that will be coming forth from community organizations as to winter works projects.
No one objects to the pump-priming the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) talked about. But we do object to the fact that these proposals are made now rather than last April, May or June at a time when provincial and municipal governments would have been able to dovetail their programs with the federal scheme, thereby allowing for a concerted effort to meet the high rate of unemployment which today is very much in evidence in every province.
We are now in the position where many of the programs that are being undertaken will not effectively come into operation until next spring. The fact is that the unem-
The Canadian Economy
ployed will be unemployed all winter whether or not the government endeavours to do anything about it. This is a pretty sad situation for many people. Many of the unemployed already have been unemployed for four months and they face another three or four months before they have any hope of there being employment opportunities.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) displayed his knowledge of urban affairs in an excellent contribution this evening. He pointed out the great dilemma of the big cities of Canada in the field of welfare and asked where they will get the money to pay welfare to people who require it during the winter. All welfare budgets in the big cities have, in the minds of the financiers, gone beyond all comprehension. They do not know where to find the money they require. They cannot go to their taxpayers for more. I hope that some of the $1,070 million that is to be pumped into the economy will find its way into the treasuries of the municipalities of the nation to assist them to meet welfare payments which they are forced to make to people who cannot find work even if they want to work, as most of them do.
I think the best way to describe this government is that it is one that swallows itself. It said one thing yesterday, and this evening it goes off in the opposite direction. We are happy to see it go in the opposite direction because certainly its former policies were going in the wrong direction. In fact, we are not sure that the government is even competent to implement the policies and programs it is proposing.
I should like to take a moment to describe a situation that very clearly indicates just how two-faced this government has been, and compare yesterday with today. Among many of the things that are described as ways and means of combating inflation is a much broadened manpower program.
On April 30, I received a reply to a letter that I wrote to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) on March 19. In that letter I asked the minister to assist me in increasing the size of an upgrading school in the town of Amherst sponsored by Manpower. I wanted it doubled in size because I knew there were many people who required upgrading in my constituency, who desired it, and who would then be in a position to take vocational training and then enter the labour market. This would not do them much good now, but at least they would be qualified. I asked the minister for his assistance. He explained to me in a long letter why this could not be done. He said, in effect, that in November 1970 additional funds became available for the training of the unemployed in the winter months, and another 15 trainees were referred to training. They terminated their courses on March 26, 1971. He said: As this program is now terminated, the number of trainees is again based on regular allocations and presently 45 students are attending upgrading courses.
In other words, there was no way in which I was going to obtain any more money from the manpower program to assist the unemployed who wanted upgrading.
The situation in the town of Springhill was exactly the same. The member of the legislature for Cumberland Centre wrote me enclosing a letter from the Springhill Chamber of Commerce. They wanted an upgrading

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy
course established in the town of Springhill similar to that which existed in Amherst. This is what the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) wrote to Mr. Raymond M. Smith, M.L.A., and to William B. Harroun, secretary of the Springhill Chamber of Commerce. The letter is dated May 27 and it reads:
This is further to my departmental Assistant's letter of May 7, 1971 about occupational training in the town of Springhill.
At the present time a basic training for skill development school with a capacity of 45 trainees is operating in Amherst. A large proportion of the trainees at Amherst are from Springhill. There is a backlog of clients for the basic training for skill development course in both Springhill and Amherst and they will be provided with training as quickly as possible. However, it is not possible to establish facilities to accommodate all those requiring training at the same time.
Some training is being provided at the Cumberland County Regional Vocational School in Springhill on a second-shift basis. Officials of the department will discuss with the province the possibility of increasing the training offered at this school. It is not considered desirable at this time to recommend to the province that additional training facilities be established at Springhill. It is felt that the Amherst school will be able to adequately service the area.
Maybe now at this late date the Minister of Manpower and Immigration will reconsider his decision.
I want to put this second letter on the record as well because it comes from the minister's departmental assistant. It is about one of the many people who were trying to secure this training. This is what it said:
This is further to my letter of August 10, 1971, concerning Mrs. (Geraldine) Babineau (Rushton) Springhill, Nova Scotia.
The report I have received from the Amherst Canada Manpower Centre indicates that the number of persons who wish to take basic training courses in Springhill is much greater than the number of training places made available. In such circumstances, it becomes necessary to establish a stand-by list of those persons who cannot be referred to training as soon as they register.
Mrs. Babineau's name is entered on such a list at the Springhill Canada Manpower Centre and she will be notified as soon as a training place becomes available. Regretfully it is not possible to state a specific date on which a course will be available to her.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I do so to advise him that his time has expired.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say a few words about the economic situation, the government's projects and the conditions to their implementation.
The government has been made aware of the economic conditions. It decided to act against unemployment increase, to react to distressed requests, cost of living increase and economic imbalance. All those things made the government respond in the proper manner.
I do not want to take too long at this late hour. I shall go straight to the point. I would not like to repeat what the previous speakers said, because so many things were said. Figures were given; I shall not go over them.
The economic stagnation will get worse. We will lighten the tax burden insofar as we will let this government accumulate huge deficits and let our institutions go heavily into debt and pay exorbitant interest rates to big business.
But never, in this chamber, did those responsible put the finger on the real economic ailment. The economic situation will go from bad to worse; we will have to spend billions, which will create awful deficits at all levels of government, especially for the federal government.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) says that we will accumulate in 1973 a deficit of $2.6 billion, whereas we already have one of $1 billion for this year. And in 1972, we will have one of $2,600,000,000, with all the programs and all the tax exemptions that are being granted to the people. To enable the people to breathe a little, increased deficits will be allowed. Through those conditions alone, we will succeed in balancing the economy. The economy will become more and more unbalanced and those programs, tax increases, higher debts and increased deficits will never foster a balance of the economy.
The people will never be satisfied in this wealthy country. We could profit therefrom, provided that we drive the Canadian people to the wall. When some advantages are granted to Canadians, the time comes where they must be removed, after some relaxation of the economy. It is then necessary to impose restrictions on credit and to increase taxes to again balance the budget.
I warn the government: the economic measures taken today will not last long and we will accumulate frightful debts we will be unable to pay. I must tell the Canadian people they will not enjoy for long the advantages of this policy which it is claimed will save everyone.
To hear the economists and politicians talk, and in particular the Minister of Finance, the entire Canadian society has been pulled out of stagnation, is once more on a stable footing. That is nothing but sham; that is a lie. On the contrary: the Canadian people are being plunged into appalling stagnation which will have disastrous consequence within a few months.
When a new government comes to power, it will be said logically that it will have to balance its budget. A government that has a deficit and that unbalances the taxpayers' budget to balance its own, establishes an unbalanced system, which has no reason for being, and those who accept this are totally wrong. This error will continue if those salvaging bodies, the benefits of which are acclaimed today, are maintained.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people, those who do not understand our economy, who do not know where we are going, who are not aware of our responsibilities and of the consequences of the actions taken, believe that this makes sense. There are even members here who in my opinion are not aware of the consequences that that will bring about. As a matter of fact, that will not settle in any way the prevailing unbalanced economic problem.
Mr. Speaker. I would urge the government to bring in real social measures, to lower the cost of living. I would ask them to reduce taxes, to decrease interest rates, to issue new credit without interest in order to cure the present economic uneasiness. That would be real social measures, real economic measures, real measures designed to balance our outmoded economic system. It is completely off balance and those measures will never balance our unbalanced economy.
(Mr. Coates.]
October 14, 1971

Mr. Speaker, I will not go any farther tonight, because I think that I have said enough.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, we have been listening to a lengthy dissertation about the economic problems which face Canada. Tonight, we saw the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) come out with a budget which cannot really be answered in a normal and formal budget debate. That is perhaps why we still find ourselves here debating the pros and cons of the economy, and the worth and strength of the measures proposed by the Minister of Finance.
Many people have said that the minister is reducing personal income tax by 3 per cent and corporation tax by 7 per cent, providing $340 million for municipal projects in something like a modern winter works program, and coupled with this, job retraining. To really understand Canada's economic plight one can quote the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) who said something to the effect that never again should any government try-I wrote down what he said-to control inflation by fiscal and monetary measures which bring about high unemployment. We all well remember the Prime Minister's famous statement that he did not care if he brought about 6 per cent unemployment, that he could live with it, and the people could either take it or lump it. He was going to cure or control inflation.
But in studying the economy one has to take a quick look at what really did happen. From 1965 to 1968, Canada had the highest rate of inflation in the western world. The Prime Minister then took over and he became obsessed with the idea of curing inflation. On several occasions, the Minister of Finance boasted that from 1968 to 1970 Canada had the lowest rate of inflation. So, we were experimenting, and I agree with the Minister of Labour that never again should a government use a cruel, blunt tool in such a fashion as to bring about unemployment.
Finally on May 30, 1970, the Minister of Finance had to float the Canadian dollar because he, too, had been obsessed with the idea of stopping inflation, and he found there was just too much pressure on the Canadian dollar. This came about partly because the white paper on tax reform frightened the economic community in Canada. Has the confidence of the economic sector been restored? That is the question we really have to ask ourselves. Up until tonight, it certainly has not been restored. We would like to think that it can be restored, but when one hears about the Gray Report, and what the government is going to do to foreign corporations and foreign investment in Canada, one wonders. We do not know whether that report is shelved or written into Bill C-259. I believe a lot of it is written into Bill C-259. That bill still has the economic community of Canada somewhat worried.
We have been through what might be called an exercise in tax reform that has lasted between eight to ten years. The country has become worried about it. The tax reform bill is 700 pages long. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance filed 100 amendments. Now today, before we have even finished study of clause 1 in committee of the whole, the minister brings in a budget of quite mammoth size, turning loose over $1 billion more in our economy. But all the
The Canadian Economy
while the very tax legislation that we are going to study is going to increase taxes by $850 million.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: That is sheer nonsense, and you know it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. parliamentary secretary must have just wakened, Mr. Speaker. In any case, the business community has not got confidence in the Canadian government. It is worried and frightened. Its members look ahead, as did Mr. Filion in his speech in Quebec not so long ago. He asked what do we see? We see the American surtax, and this government trying to get into a trade war. Apparently, we are going to use all our options.
That reminds me of a former premier of Alberta who did not call an election for June. He said he was keeping all his options open. In fact, he was closing his options, and in fact that is what the government is doing with regard to the American surtax measure. Members of the government brought it on themselves, and it is too bad the Canadian economy will have to suffer because of their thoughtless action.
In January, 1970, the Prime Minister made his famous statement about 6 per cent unemployment. Tonight, he went out of the House of Commons laughing, and said to the Minister of Labour, "Bryce, you had better look after it; you won't need any help." Then, he went out laughing about 7.1 per cent unemployment and the measures which the Minister of Finance hopes will be of benefit. The 7 per cent reduction in corporation tax will not be immediately felt in the economy. In fact, it may take some time before it is ploughed back into business, into job creation, because of the loss of confidence in the Canadian government shown by the business community.
Money today is leaving Canada. It is not a question of foreign investment in Canada anymore. We are now in a position where money is leaving Canada. Canadians are looking for a place more secure than Canada in which to invest their money. In a country so rich in natural resources that, to me, is nearly a sin. It is because people have lost confidence. They are looking ahead and they see the labour code introduced by the Minister of Labour. The labour code bill introduced by the Minister of Labour is frightening business. Now the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) has introduced a competition bill, which also frightens business, a bill under which he is going to set up a seven man tribunal, appointed for ten years, answering to nobody, ruling authoritatively on both sides of a question, dealing with business amalgamatioris, foreign investment, and the whole role of Canadian corporations in Canada. I do not believe this will really benefit the unemployed.
The Minister of Finance can come out with all the job retraining programs he likes, and with all the municipal programs he likes. After a while people will be retrained, but there will be no use in being retrained if there are no jobs. There will be no jobs unless the country grapples with the fact that the business community has to have confidence in the government. The government has to pay attention to the country and show some concern and interest. This government has failed to do that.
Just last week we were debating whether the government should pay the $60 million to the farmers. If they

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy
had wanted to establish an acreage payment program, the bill might have gone through. The Minister of Finance said the farmers could not have it both ways. He said, "You take the $60 million or the $100 million; we haven't got the money". All of a sudden the government has a billion dollars when last week they did not have $60 million. In order to manage a society and in order to manage an economy, you have to be sensitive to every little condition that may arise in every region. You cannot operate as insensitively as the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with his cold, callous attitude toward many Canadians. You must be concerned.
Two years ago the government should have primed the pump. There are few people on the government side in the House of Commons who know anything about pumppriming and pumping water. Once the water stops flowing it sometimes takes a prime to get it going again. The government shut off the pump.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Sheer nonsense!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is always nonsense to the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) who is so knowledgeable. He has an air of arrogance, but I know deep down he really is not.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) said that the unemployment rate is no higher than it was in the sixties. But we had the Governor of the Bank of Canada controlling the money supply in 1960 and part of 1961. Our money supply did not increase at all, it shrank. We had high unemployment because there was no money in the economy.
The Minister of Finance admitted that the money supply is growing at a faster rate than ever before. In other words, they are creating money to cut down on the number of unemployed. But when the community into which the money is poured has no confidence in the business climate created by this government, the money is of no real use. That is why we have over 7 per cent unemployment today. The government has destroyed the confidence of the country.
In his speech the Minister of Labour said that everybody should be afraid the NDP is going to take over and things would be worse. I am not afraid of the NDP or their philosophy-how can it be worse?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: At least they have a chance.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: How can it be worse when you have a government that is not interested in the country or the people?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: You have no alternative.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Now, we have this very nice person from Calgary South with so much knowledge expressing an opinion which again shows that he must be a very arrogant person. I know he is not, but he gives that impression and I wish he did not. My constituency borders his and I would like to think that we can be compatible some of the time.
The economy is in a poor state today because the government has deliberately destroyed confidence in the business world. Somehow or other more interest must be shown in Canada and what affects the economy. When

this is done maybe some confidence will return and we will see a reduction in unemployment next summer. I noticed that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance would make no predictions for this winter. The Minister of Labour suggested that savings are at an alltime high. They are, and people are not reinvesting. The white paper on taxation started this fear in the business community and the attitudes of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister contributed to it, as did the Competition Act and a number of other things.


John Leroy Skoberg: At two thirty in the morning, Mr. Speaker, I am sure everyone is wide awake-[DOT]


An hon. Member:: On this side anyway.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: That is the only time you wake up.


John Leroy Skoberg: I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) and the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) referred to the Prices and Incomes Commission it seemed strange that the Minister of Labour and his parliamentary secretary were not applauding. Those members blamed the labour movement for not being involved with the Prices and Incomes Commission. Anyone who has looked into the situation realizes that the labour movement was prepared to go along with the commission if it had added the third ingredient, profits, and if it had added dividends and interest rates. But the commission had only two ideas, prices and incomes. The other things did not matter.
I was very surprised that the hon. member for Fraser Valley East and the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore, who pretend to be supporters of the workers of this country, would attack these people as they have tonight. I believe they should look into the record when they compare the labour movement in Canada to that in the United States. They suggested that the labour movement in Canada was not prepared to co-operate in an effort to stabilize the various aspects of the economy that affect every person in this country.
I have heard considerable talk tonight, Mr. Speaker, about generating money and jobs. We have had considerable debate in this House for the last two weeks concerning the prairie agricultural economy. We heard tonight that if so many millions of dollars are put into the economy it will generate jobs and provide an uplift for the economy generally. I suggest that if the sums the government now talks of had been made available earlier, if the government had paid out $100 million under the so-called acreage payments, if it had paid out the $95 million owing to the farmers under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, and if it had paid out the $70 million that ought to have been available under a two-price system for wheat, $1 billion would have been put into the economy. That would have created many jobs for manufacturing industries in central Canada and would have brought untold benefits to the Canadian economy.
Somehow we are hung up with the idea that money put into the western economy does not generate many job opportunities elsewhere. I suggest that the economy of
October 14, 1971

western Canada is as important as that of central Canada and the economy of eastern Canada, in exactly the same way, is important to the economy of central Canada.
I think we have all heard of the local opportunities programs. I read about it two or three weeks ago in one of the editions of Labour News. It is said that local opportunities programs will be initiated and that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) will probably have jurisdiction over them. I think the kindest thing we could do to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is unload from his shoulders some of the jobs that he now has.


Mr. Benjamin:: There we have lost opportunities.


John Leroy Skoberg: I suggest that the present load the minister is carrying is big for him. We know what has happened so far as Manpower is concerned. We know that in many cases people cannot undertake more than 52 weeks training at one time. In some instances they must wait before undertaking another period of retraining. Some people do this for three years. Some people who have been able to continue training under manpower training programs for up to two years have tried to get a few extra weeks' training but have been told that no money is available. Tonight we heard that extra money is to be made available for the retraining of people. I think the minister will agree that such manpower programs are needed and that they will bring about the results we all desire.
In addition to these responsibilities the minister also answers in this House for the Canadian Wheat Board. That alone is a full-time job. It is passing strange that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) does not have responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board. It seems to me that the minister is on the chopping block and that they are trying to spread one minister around too far. He cannot possibly do an adequate and satisfactory job in the many areas for which he has responsibility.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He is expendable.


John Leroy Skoberg: All members of the House know that the minister's immigration responsibilities take up much of his time. One may rest assured that he cannot therefore deal satisfactorily with all the additional programs for which he is responsible. If the programs announced tonight are to be successful, I suggest that responsibility should be shared by another minister. Perhaps his parliamentary secretary could help. I submit, again, that it is not possible for the minister who has been given responsibility for these programs to do a satisfactory job with regard to them, and his failure will dishearten the people of Canada who expect good results.
Some hon. members have said that regional committees will be established under the Department of Manpower and Immigration. We have seen such regional committees throughout Canada and have noted that some regions received tremendous benefits whereas others received practically nothing. There ought to be an equal distribution of the benefits of this whole program. It is not good enough having a job acceleration program in one part of the country if you completely forget about the rest of the country. I am sure that all hon. members are aware of this problem. Unless the government corrects what is wrong, 24319-64
The Canadian Economy
such programs will do more to disunite this country than almost anything else.
We heard the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) speak of the various programs for which he is responsible. I give him full credit for some excellent legislation that is now before the House, or will be before us, touching labour problems. At the same time, I draw to his attention a situation involving Canadian Pacific Railway. It has been suggested that the Canadian Pacific will be cutting back on certain facilities. As of today there is to be a cut-back with regard to 25 porters and a reduction of between 20 and 25 dining cars. The company also is to reduce the size of the transcontinental "Canadian." There will be two sleeping cars operating between Vancouver and Montreal and Vancouver and Toronto.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame.


John Leroy Skoberg: Not long ago we were under the impression that we were adopting a new transportation policy. The head of the Canadian Transport Commission is only concerned about economics and not about service to the public. We thought the commission had decided that there would be adequate main line passenger service, but we are now advised that this service will consist of about eight cars operating on the Vancouver-Toronto-Montreal runs. The commission's decision will mean a loss of job opportunities. Before making that decision it ought to have undertaken research into the matter. It is not good enough to say that we will provide money for certain fields of transportation.
We are all concerned about STOL, or short take-off and landing aircraft. Yet when you talk to Europeans about STOL aircraft service between Ottawa and Montreal they say the idea is absolutely nuts. The United States, to use an example, is pouring millions of dollars into ground transportation facilities. I hope that any amounts we spend on transport will include moneys for research and development to make use of existing facilities. Think of the operation of a STOL aircraft carrying 12 people, and compare that with a transport operation utilizing present facilities. Many additional jobs could be provided under a suitable transport program. Whether that is asking too much, I do not know.
I wish to raise another area of concern. I am sorry that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Andras) is not here at 2.40 in the morning to listen to me. I point out that our entire land assembly program is a complete shambles. The minister has many times suggested that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation adequately serves the needs of the country. How can he say that in light of the many applications for student housing coming from the universities and colleges of this country? Those applicants are told that no money is available for them. This type of building program could create a tremendous number of job opportunities.
If the minister is truly concerned about urban development and wishes to provide houses for as many people as possible, why is money not made available for land assembly and why is there not legislation that will provide for the expropriation of land now in the hands of land speculators? If the minister is concerned about these areas, he should do something. He should try to bring

October 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy
about co-operation that will enable citizens in the lower income brackets to avail themselves of some of our land.
We can talk all we want about creating jobs. This is one of the main purposes of the program. Some members have said that we should not criticize the 7 per cent and the 3 per cent. This is one of the areas where people who have it will get more, and those who do not have it will end up with less. The shots are being called outside this country. Makeshift policies are being developed with regard to Japan and Russia, among other countries. Makeshift policies will not work in this country unless we are able to call the shots. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is not prepared to indicate to the House what he intends to do in this other area, these makeshift job opportunities will not be successful. The whole thing
hinges on the fact that the shots must be called in Canada. You cannot call the shot in one area and expect any real development in another.
We hope some of the provisions and suggestions made tonight by the Minister of Finance will have a rub-off effect. There must be meaningful planning on a regional basis. All the talk and rhetoric we heard tonight will do nothing to strengthen the economy of this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel)::