1971-09-30

VACANCY

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, of Frank Duff Moores, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, by resignation.
Accordingly I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM ORGANIZATION FOR AFRICAN UNITY

Mr. Speaker:: May I announce to hon. members of this House the presence in our galleries of a delegation representing the Organization of African Unity, which is on an official visit to Ottawa. I particularly note the presence of the head of the delegation who is also President of the Assembly of heads of state of the Organization, His Excellency Modtar Ould Daddah, President of the Muslim Republic of Mauritania.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: To these eminent national leaders, including representatives of our sister Commonwealth countries of Kenya and Zambia, we extend a very warm welcome. We trust that their stay in Canada will be pleasant and fruitful.

Your Excellencies may be assured of the goodwill of all Canadians in regard to the African peoples represented by your organization.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Right. Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I should like to propose, seconded by Mr. MacEachen:
That Mr. Prosper Boulanger, member for the constituency of Mercier, be appointed assistant deputy chairman of the committees of the whole House.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table in both languages an Order in Council concerning the appointment and reappointment of parliamentary secretaries.



PROPOSED TRANSITIONAL PAYMENT UNDER STABILIZATION BILL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
This matter concerns the confusion caused by the propaganda put out by the staff of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) with respect to the $100 million transitional payment proposed under Bill C-244.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh):
That this House instructs Information Canada to inform the wheat producers of western Canada-now owed over $90 million by the government for storage costs under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act-that the substitute one-shot $100 million payment proposed under Bill C-244 will be diluted in its distribution among producers of oats, barley, rye, flax, rapeseed and other miscellaneous crops.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's proposed motion, moved as it is under the provisions of Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.

September 30, 1971
8296________________________________
Amchitka Nuclear Test EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



PROPOSED AMCHITKA NUCLEAR TEST-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of Standing Order 43 to move a motion. It is similar to the motion proposed yesterday by my colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson), and its urgency arises from the fact that within the next few days the President of the United States is to make a final decision on the proposed underground test at Amchitka Island.
The Canadian government and, more specifically, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), have already expressed Canada's reservations about this proposed test. At this time I think it is important that this House, opposition as well as government members, indicate to President Nixon that we are unanimous and united in our concern about this and any such future tests by any nation.
I would propose that this House formally record its grave concern at continued nuclear weapons testing, wherever such testing may take place; that it regrets the recent high yield underground test in the Soviet Union; that it expresses its hope that the United States government will reconsider its plans to carry out a test on Amchitka Island; and that it strongly reaffirms its support of the efforts being made in the United Nations by Canada and other countries to get international agreement to ban all underground nuclear weapons tests.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Essex. I must say that at first glance there does not appear to be a formal motion, unless I take the words of the last paragraph as intended to be the beginning of a motion. If this is the situation-the hon. member indicates that it is-then of course the motion can be put only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be unanimous consent.


Mr. McIntosh:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made by the United States Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. John Connally, in his speech to the International Monetary Fund this morning to the effect that the United States will be prepared to remove its 10

per cent additional levy on dutiable imports if other governments make tangible progress in coming weeks in dismantling their trade barriers and permitting the establishment of realistic currency exchange rates, has the Canadian government indicated to the United States government any willingness to make moves or negotiate in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not since the statement was made, Mr. Speaker; it has just come to our attention now. But the House knows that in the past few weeks, and even before, our ministers and officials have been telling the United States that the 10 per cent surcharge should not apply to us, and that we had already done the things mentioned in Mr. Connally's statement to which the hon. member has just referred.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, since Mr. Connally has indicated that the United States government is willing to negotiate regarding this matter on a bilateral basis with any country which so desires, is it the intention of the government in the near future to sit down in a session of hard bargaining with the United States government with a view to having the 10 per cent surcharge removed as soon as possible, and will the Prime Minister be willing to participate in these negotiations in order that Canada's position may have the best chance of being understood?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the confidence he has expressed in my negotiating powers.


George Harris Hees: It is a lack of confidence in your ministers.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: All I can do is repeat that this type of discussion has been going on for some weeks. I am not sure whether Secretary Connally wants to embark on a different type of bilateral negotiation, but certainly we have been making representations on our behalf to the United States for some time.


George Harris Hees: I have a final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Obviously it would be a good idea to get in touch with Mr. Connally to find out what he does mean. Is it not a fact that one of the principal reasons Canada has not been able to obtain an exemption from the 10 per cent surcharge is the very poor relations between Canada and the United States which this government has engendered during the past year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary question is in the form of an argument.



WITHHOLDING BY GOVERNMENT OF PAYMENTS UNDER TEMPORARY WHEAT RESERVES ACT-POSITION IN LIGHT OF REPORTED LEGAL ACTION

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: In the absence of the Minister of Finance I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of reports that four grain farmers in Saskatchewan have filed a motion in federal court in the city of Regina for a writ of mandamus to have the Minister of Finance implement the
September 30, 1971

provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, will he now instruct the Minister of Finance to implement the terms of this act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of doing that. Beyond saying that the Minister of Finance and other members of the government will obey any order of the court, there is nothing further to be said at this time if the matter is before the courts, as the hon. member has just said.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that this kind of action before the courts does not preclude the Minister of Finance from making the payments under the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



IMMEDIATE PAYMENTS UNDER TEMPORARY WHEAT RESERVES ACT-SPLITTING OF STABILIZATION BILL TO FACILITATE TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board whether, in view of the reports referred to by my colleague, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, he would urge the Minister of Finance to fulfil the requirements of the law under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and make these required payments immediately, and is he giving further consideration to splitting Bill C-244 in order that transitional payments can be made immediately?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members know that the situation is perfectly clear. We will indeed make those payments if a decision is made that we cannot proceed with Bill C-244 because of the obstruction of the opposition in not letting it come to a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



WITHHOLDING BY GOVERNMENT OF PAYMENTS UNDER TEMPORARY WHEAT RESERVES ACT-LEGAL ADVICE

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. In light of the Minister of Justice's admission of responsibility for omitting the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act from the Revised Statutes, can he inform the House whether he first advised the cabinet to withhold payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act?


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


An hon. Member:: Answer yes or no.


George Harris Hees: Don't be shy.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, since I could not get a response from the minister to my first question, may I ask another supplementary. At that time did he consult with his legal
Inquiries of the Ministry
advisers on the legality of withholding these payments to the prairie grain producers?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is asking me for advice I may have given within cabinet. I submit to Your Honour that I am protected by the rules of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McGrath:: You can't have it both ways, John.


An hon. Member:: The minister cannot hide behind any fifth amendment.


Mr. Lundrigan:: That's pretty weak, John.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Speaker:: I have recognized the hon. member for Bellechasse.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Could he tell the House whether production for the 1971 dairy season has been high enough so far to allow a sufficient production of cheese to satisfy the needs of the country, or whether the Canadian Dairy Commission has been forced to import a certain quantity of milk?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, no, the dairy commission will not be obliged to import any milk. Some specialty cheeses have come in for a long time but, I am happy to say that the domestic market in Canada has improved and that there has been a satisfactory increase in the price of cheese and of other dairy products.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the importance of more consultation with the provinces about rising unemployment and special programs to fight unemployment this winter, can the Prime Minister indicate whether further attempts have been made to arrive at an earlier conference date with the provinces in order that there may be effective collaboration and, hopefully, participation in programs that will be put forward to fight this serious problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the conference I instructed the secretary of the conference to make a renewed attempt at communicating with the provincial governments and provin-

September 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
cial premiers to see if some of the set dates some had objected to earlier were now open and if they had changed their minds and could come at an earlier date. I have done this just recently and have had no report yet.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In this further communication to the provinces, have the Prime Minister or his staff also made it clear that this conference will be specifically on special programs dealing with unemployment and that the federal government will be putting forward specific proposals for consideration, and perhaps even putting them forward before the meeting takes place so that the provinces may adequately consider the implications for their own responsibilities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I indicated to the premiers when I wrote to them, I believe on the twenty-seventh of this month or perhaps earlier-I do not remember the exact date-that this subject would be one of those we would want to see on the agenda. I cannot say at this time what agenda will be agreed to by all the governments, but I did put this proposal to them. Concerning proposals we might make on that item of the agenda, I can only repeat what I have told the House previously. If there is any action we can take sooner, we will take it sooner. If we have any announcements to make to the provinces, we will decide whether to put them to the provinces in preliminary documents or whether to put them to them at the time of the conference.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Could the Prime Minister indicate whether specific proposals have yet been made to the provinces or whether the federal government has yet responded to some of the specific proposals presented to the federal government over the last few months?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question will have to be more specific regarding what proposals have been put to us over the last few months. I am sure that a fair number of proposals might have come from a great number of sources. I cannot offhand answer yes or no to that question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a further supplementary and then recognize the hon. member for York South.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I will be a bit more specific and ask the Prime Minister whether there has been any response to important cost-sharing programs, such as welfare programs under the Canada Assistance Plan where there is a limitation on the participation factor, or whether there has been any response with regard to the Canada Manpower programs where there are some real limitations with regard to entry or re-entry into those programs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Assistance Plan is quite wide in its participation. I believe the Minister of National Health and Welfare has always indicated he is prepared to discuss with the provinces ways in which payments can be made differently if the provinces change their programs within the framework of CAP. With regard to manpower retraining, I am not aware of any proposals we have made to the provinces recently on that score.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of a letter I sent him last Friday, September 24. I was assured in a letter from one of his secretaries, Mr. Lawless, dated September 28, that my letter would be immediately drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister considered the suggestion in my letter that the government propose a motion with regard to the proposed American nuclear blast at Amchitka in order that there may be a multiparty expression of opposition to that test?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should have thought it would be obvious to the House that the government side is prepared to have such a motion put because I understood no one objected to the motions which were put yesterday and today by two of our members. If I understood correctly, the opposition to such a motion being put came from the Conservative benches.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that on earlier occasions there was also opposition from the government benches when members of my party moved similar motions, in view of the fact that a government motion would not require unanimous consent and could be put on the order paper and debated in the normal way, and in view of the importance of this question, I ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to place a government motion on the order paper with regard to the Amchitka nuclear test without waiting for unanimous consent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the House will realize that the position of the government has already been made known in the House, in the United States and in other forums such as the United Nations. On the matter of having a motion from the government which would be debated, I suggest that we would require some guarantee from all opposition parties that the debate would be relatively short.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand that the members of the New Democratic Party are in agreement with this. Indeed, the leader of that party in his letter to me said that perhaps the motion could be passed without debate or with very little debate. Certainly we on this side had hoped this would be so when the hon. member for Essex put his motion to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


James Aloysius McGrath: My question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Was

September 30, 1971

the department director in the province of Nova Scotia voicing departmental policy when he indicated in his speech of Tuesday last that there would be changes made in the application formula under the Regional Development Incentives Act with regard to grants to industries?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: Are changes being planned in the strategy of the Regional Development Incentives Act in response to the Prime Minister's request to the minister to come up with programs to help create jobs during the coming winter months?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, those are different things. If the Prime Minister has spoken of special programs for next winter, those do not necessarily have a link with the department's programs.


James Aloysius McGrath: Does the minister propose to change the formula for the application of the Regional Development Incentives Act in order to expedite the program with a view to having a crash program this winter to create jobs?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I believe a distinction should be made between the program concerning regional disparity, which is a permanent program whose purpose is to ensure better balance between the various economic regions of Canada, and programs that could be established to stimulate the general economy of this country.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I should like to address a question to the Acting Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In the light of the claim by Mr. Paul St. Jacques that the government owes perhaps a million dollars to its northern-based employees, and considering how much it already owes to the farmers of Canada, will the minister have an investigation made of this forthwith?	'



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I want to pose a question to the Minister of Justice similar to the one asked by the hon. member for Hillsborough. I ask the Minister of Justice, inasmuch as he is a staunch upholder of the law, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the action of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Inquiries of the Ministry
and of Treasury Board in denying Indian caretakers of Indian day schools their proper retroactive pay. This question involves at least 120 or 130 people and perhaps half a million dollars in back pay. Will the minister look into this situation from the point of view of justice to the people concerned?


John Napier Turner: The primary responsibility lies with my colleague, but I will take the matter up with him.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Having regard to the continuing crisis in the pulp and paper industry across Canada, a crisis which is worsening as further paper mills shut down their operations, would the Prime Minister direct that a meeting be convened between responsible departments of government, the Pulp and Paper Association and representatives of the labour movement to discuss the situation and, hopefully, to plan a course of action which would avoid further shutdowns with their adverse effect on unemployment figures and the economy generally?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Perhaps I could answer for the Prime Minister. I have already told the House the other day in answer to the hon. member that such a meeting between ministers and leaders of the industry has already been planned. It will take place in the coming week after more preparatory work has been done.


Jack Marshall: Taking account of the recent blows to the industry, particular in Quebec and Newfoundland, mainly due to loss of markets, is the minister considering the feasibility of establishing marketing boards under federal government auspices as suggested in some provinces and in some quarters?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am not in a position to confirm or deny any of those reports. I can only say that a number of suggestions, a number of possibilities, are being investigated by my department at this time.


Jack Marshall: A supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would the minister advise the House whether, having regard to the continuing layoffs highlighted by the recent announcements of Domtar and Bowaters, his department is examining the effects of these lay-offs with a view to introducing emergency training programs as a means of providing alternative employment for those who lose their jobs?


Otto Emil Lang: In connection with any lay-off, in the ordinary course an examination is made to see what alternative employment is available to the persons concerned, either with the company or somewhere else, as well as to deter-

September 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
mine in which cases training might be the most suitable alternative available for certain employees.



PROGRAMS TO ASSIST COMPANIES TO AVOID SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that a recent survey undertaken by Canadian Press shows there has been an alarming increase in layoffs caused by plant shutdowns, will the Prime Minister indicate to the House what specific programs the government has in mind to deal with this situation? I am thinking in terms of tax incentives which would assist the industries concerned and alleviate the prospect of severe unemployment this winter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have already answered in the House that the government is considering what programs it might implement to alleviate this situation. When a decision has been reached it will be announced in the House at the proper time.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Bearing in mind the growing lack of confidence in the economy, can the Prime Minister assure us that the statement which is to be made will be made in the very near future, perhaps in the next three or four days, in order that the confidence in the economy which seems to be lacking right now may be regained?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It will be made as soon as possible, if it is to be made.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
As some translators recently arrived from France and recruited by his department are now taking intensive training courses to improve their command of English, can he tell us since when has his department been hiring unilingual translators and whether Canadians are eligible for those jobs?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to answer this question immediately. As you know, this matter falls under the civil service jurisdiction. I shall find out what the situation is from the chairman of the Public Service Commission and transmit the information to the hon. member.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has it now been deter-

mined that a deficiency payment will be required with respect to hogs this year because of the low prices realized for this product? If so, what is the level to which the deficiency payment will have to rise in order to bring up the general level of prices for the year?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A calculation will be made at the end of the year. Certainly, if the price falls below 80 per cent of the 10-year average, a payment will be made. I can advise the House that the department is making the calculations week by week. The 80 per cent level of the 10-year average is $24.14, so if the price falls below that there will be a mandatory payment up to that amount at least.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for, jointly, the Solicitor General and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Have either or both of these ministers ordered special inquiries to be made with respect to the circumstances in which one Mr. H. Newton, head of the Black Panther movement in the United States, and two other United States terrorists whose names are on the prohibited list obtained entry into Canada, stayed here for a week and negotiated with the Chinese Embassy for permission to make a special visit to Communist China?


Otto Emil Lang: I have some information with regard to at least part of the hon. gentleman's question, though I do not have any confirmation of the entry or way of entry of Mr. Newton into this country.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I wonder whether the Solicitor General might have some comments to make on this matter as it affects the RCMP?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the fact that this person had any public activities in Canada.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of the Solicitor General's lack of information on this subject perhaps I should direct my further supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who at least seems to know something about it. Will extra precautions be taken at once to prevent further incidents of a similar nature occurring? This is hardly the time at which to further exacerbate relations with the United States.


Otto Emil Lang: Very full precautions are in fact taken at the present time in an attempt to ensure that those whose names are on the prohibited list are noticed as they approach the border and are dealt with in an appropriate fashion. It is, of course, difficult to do this in every case, bearing in mind that there are 37 million or so crossings each year.
September 30, 1971



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: My question would normally be directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but since the Minister of Agriculture has always assumed responsibility for farm machinery maybe I should ask it of him. The minister is aware that litigation is presently prohibiting the distribution of spare parts and fulfilment of warranties with respect to Russian tractors by the Canadian distributor. Can the minister tell us whether the government is seeking to find another source of supply for these parts, lack of which is causing ever-increasing hardship to farmers who purchased these tractors?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I shall have to take the question as notice. Maybe the hon. member ought to direct the question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.

Inquiries of the Ministry
in fact has taken place with the provinces before the enunciation of a policy?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am not yet in a position to say when the government will be in a position to state its policy. As yet, consultation of the kind referred to by the hon. member has not taken place.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice in days of yore to the Solicitor General as to where stands the matter of overtime pay for members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Hon. ]ean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General): The matter is still under study, Mr. Speaker, and it is such a complex one that we may well have to consult directly the members of the RCMP.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact that all those veterans who are double leg amputees and who have applied for the new exceptional incapacity allowances have had their applications turned down, and in view of the concern expressed about this matter at the Edmonton convention of the War Amputees of Canada, which I believe the minister attended, would he look into the matter in the hope that the intentions of the veterans affairs committee, parliament and the government will be carried out?
Hon. ]ean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):
Decisions of that nature are taken by the Canadian Pension Commission, Mr. Speaker, which is a quasi-judicial body. In any event, I shall be pleased to look into the matter and report to the hon. gentleman.
* *
*



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue in order to help the discussion of a forthcoming provincial election. In light of the criticism of the Ontario Liberal leader that the development of a foreign investment policy is taking too long and is being done in isolation from any provincial consideration, would the minister tell the House when we might expect publication of his report and whether or not consultation

* *
*



AGRICULTURE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Following his meetings with the Ministers of Agriculture of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, is the minister now in a position to make any statement as to the assistance that this government or the three governments jointly might be prepared to give potato growers, especially in those two provinces?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we had a very useful meeting and there were two or three separate avenues that required further exploration and co-operation among the three departments. I am very hopeful that this will be done, but there is no question in my mind that at least one or a combination of these three methods, which I do not have the time to spell out now, will be put in place and be of assistance to these growers.


John Angus MacLean: May I ask the minister whether he can assure the House that payments of interest and principal which may be due from the potato growers will not be pressed by the Farm Credit Corporation, at least in cases where financial distress exists, until the situation is clarified?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, that only requires a restatement of a policy that we now have in effect.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Could he advise the House whether the Quebec government has made representations in view of the difficulties which this industry is currently encountering?

September 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have had some communications with the Quebec government.



ASSISTANCE TO PRODUCERS IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES IMPORT SURTAX

Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the fact that agricultural products are among the hardest hit under the 10 per cent surcharge, and in view of the fact that the employment support bill will provide no direct assistance to agricultural producers affected by the surcharge, what assistance is the government considering giving specifically to help the producers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, it is not correct to say that Bill C-262 will not provide some assistance to agricultural producers. If the hon. member would look at the speech I made in the House on September 7, reported at page 7587 of Hansard, he would find a complete answer to his question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to hon. members that we are running short of time and I hope that we will not at this point renew the lengthy debate that took place in the House on this subject a few days ago.



WELFARE


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister inform the House whether the refusal of welfare officials in Cornwall to continue payments to persons with long hair constitutes a violation of the Canada Assistance Plan?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for a legal or quasi-legal opinion. I would not think that the question as asked is in order.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Then may I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister investigate the situation in Cornwall with a view to seeing whether or not there has been a violation of the Canada Assistance Plan and report back to the House?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



GRANT TO HAMILTON STADIUM FOR ASTROTURF- GOVERNMENT POLICY RESPECTING ASSISTANCE

Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and arises out of the $50,000 grant recently made to the 
stadium in Hamilton for Astroturf. Does this grant to Hamilton mean that there has been a change in government policy and, if so, will community arenas that want to instal artificial ice plants now qualify for federal assistance?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be aware that expenditures are made on capital projects out of the Fitness and Amateur Sport budget which go to various cities that win the winter games. As far as the Astroturf is concerned, we felt that this was meritorious and are applying this policy across the country in places where it can be shown there could be a tremendous increase in the utilization of such facilities for purposes of amateur sport.


Donald Craig Stewart: Then does the minister's answer mean that there is one policy for his own riding in Hamilton and another policy for the rest of the country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In view of the obvious lack of facilities in penitentiary institutions across Canada, as well as lack of personnel, would the minister make a statement on motions setting forth the government's position in regard to this matter?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I would be ready to agree to the hon. member's request, that is to state the broad lines of our policies concerning Canada's penitentiary system and to give a brief summary of what we have done and intend to do in the foreseeable future. This could be done next week.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE PARTICIPATION OF YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES IN DECEMBER MEETING

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister assure the people of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, who are also suffering from unemployment problems, particularly the Indian and Eskimo population of the two territories notwithstanding the statements of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the contrary, that representatives from their respective legislatures will be asked to participate in the forthcoming conference to be held in December?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will look into the matter, Mr. Speaker. I do know that at the constitutional conference some provision was made to have representatives from that part of the country sit as part of
September 30, 1971

the federal delegation or as federal observers, but I will examine the situation vis-a-vis the forthcoming conference.


Erik Nielsen: In view of the fact that the invitations that have been extended have referred to representation as an observer only, with really no participation, would the Prime Minister not consider that at a conference of this nature, which is at a somewhat lower level than a constitutional conference, participation might be had in the deliberations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I will give some thought to the matter. The hon. member will realize that these are federal-provincial conferences and that the Yukon and the Northwest Territories are not provinces.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the government taking any new measures to properly inform potential immigrants about the true economic situation here in Canada in light of concern expressed by the Quebec immigration minister that too rosy a picture of Canada is being portrayed?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is the constant endeavour of the department to ensure that most correct and up to date information is given to prospective immigrants. Difficulty does occur sometimes because of the time lag between when prospective immigrants visit our offices and come to Canada, but generally speaking the information given has improved in recent months and years.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: In view of the fact that the government is telling the people of Canada, and particularly the 500,000 unemployed Canadians, that unemployment is on a downward trend, is the same message of encouragement and comfort being given to potential immigrants?



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
As our television programs, at the time when children can watch them, are flooded with advertizing designed to sell them all kinds of gadgets, could the minister tell us if measures will be taken to stop the broadcasting of such massive advertising aimed at children and which ultimately puts pressure on parents?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the private broadcasters and advertisers and the CRTC and ourselves have been having a number of discussions on this subject, and I hope an announcement will be forthcoming in the very near future.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-COMPLETION OF EVALUATION-PROGRAMS FOR STUDENT EMPLOYMENT NEXT SUMMER

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. In view of reports that enrolment is now down in Canadian universities, could the minister inform the House when the evaluation of the Opportunities for Youth program will be completed so that we may know whether or not part of the reason students are not going back to university is because of financial need?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I must say I do not understand the relation the hon. member wants to establish between the data he has given and his question. I shall try to answer the question. I estimated the assessment report on the project would be ready by mid-October, and I do not think there will be any considerable delay.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Can the minister tell us whether or not his department is now co-ordinating and planning programs for student employment next summer?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the Department of the Secretary of State, as several others, contributes to the studies the government has undertaken in that regard.



FINANCE


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Has the government any immediate plans to set up a regional stabilization fund from which the provinces could borrow in order to spur economic activity in their areas, as I believe was recommended by the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. No immediate plans have been made to set up that type of fund, but the House will remember that last December we did have a proposal which permitted provinces to draw upon funds in quite a substantial amount, I believe $150 million. This was in response to a request

September 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
which I believe had been made by Quebec to have a regional development fund of the nature the hon. member is describing. So the general aspect of such a fund has been examined by the government. We have rejected certain approaches but have adopted others.



INVESTIGATION OF FAILURE OF BANKS TO PROVIDE GOVERNMENT GUARANTEED LOANS

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister investigate the situation with regard to government guaranteed loans which are supposed to be provided by banks and the dereliction of the banks in providing these loans to the small business sector of the community, such as small business loans, loans to fishermen and farm improvement loans?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I did not understand the question very clearly, but perhaps if the hon. member would repeat it or let it appear in Hansard I will try to have an answer on another day.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister tell us what action the government proposes to take in light of the accusation of the executive director of the Science Council that Canada's agricultural faculties are all second rate and that it is the fault of the federal government?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with either contention.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in light of his accusation that the federal government has been monopolizing millions in research funds and starving university researchers, is the government reviewing its spending priorities and policies in this area?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, you cannot answer a question when you do not agree with the premise on which it is based.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether there are any inmates in the federal penitentiaries who are still under sentence from either the warden or officials of the penitentiaries as a result of the Kingston situation?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to take that question as notice for the Solicitor General who has just been called out of the House for a few minutes.



ILLEGAL MOVEMENT OF NON-BOARD FEED GRAIN ACROSS PROVINCIAL BOUNDARIES

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the evidence of the selling of non-board feed grains at distress prices on the prairies, can the minister inform the House whether there is movement of nonboard feed grain across provincial boundaries contrary to Wheat Board regulations.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that question as notice.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


John Angus MacLean: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council if he can inform the House now what business the government proposes to place before Parliament in the immediate future and for the next week if possible?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will resume discussion of the tax bill. On Monday we will discuss the agricultural stabilization bill. Following that we will return to the tax bill.
I should say that in response to suggestions made earlier I would consider placing on the order paper a government resolution with regard to the Amchitka test if I could have some assurance that when it is called on Monday we would agree to limit the debate so that there would be an opportunity for one speaker for each party to speak briefly. If I could work that out I would be happy to put that motion on the order paper and probably call it on Monday.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter on that basis, and I am sure an agreeable formula for the debate can be arrived at.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I make two comments. First, may I say that we too would be glad to negotiate with the government House leader on this matter in the certainty that we can reach a mutually acceptable agreement. The second comment I should like to make is with regard to today's debate which is on a motion in the name of our party. I may say there have been discussions among the House leaders of the four parties and there is agreement that we will not seek
September 30, 1971

any change in the time limit provisions set out in Standing Order 58(13), but there is also agreement that no one ask for or be granted an extension of time so that as many speakers as possible might get the floor today.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


David Lewis: This House cannot tolerate any longer the economic policies of the government which have produced massive unemployment that threatens to become more serious this fall and winter; nor can this House tolerate any longer the government's failure to implement policies to reduce Canada's dependence on a single market and to assure a strong and independent Canadian economy.
Therefore this House calls for:
(1)	a large scale program, in co-operation with the provinces and municipalities, to provide jobs this winter for the growing army of unemployed;
(2)	immediate reduction in taxes, particularly for lower and middle income groups;
(3)	further government action to force down interest rates;
(4)	large additional funds for housing;
(5)	essential anti-pollution measures such as funds to municipalities to build waste-treatment plants and other necessary works; and
(6)	introduction of a program designed to protect Canada's future by redirecting trade so that it will not continue to be at the mercy of a single market and by restructuring the economy to free it from foreign domination and control.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the House and to the people of Canada that the present economic events in this country have highlighted two urgent facts facing the Canadian people. One is the unfortunate likelihood that unemployment this winter will be at least as severe as last year and probably a great deal more serious. We face the possibility of three quarters of a million or more Canadians out of work in the winter months unless steps to meet the situation are taken by the government without delay. The second fact, which the Nixon economic policies have underlined, is the danger facing our country's future if our economy continues under foreign control and our welfare continues to depend on the benevolence of Washington and of the multinational corporations. For years the NDP has warned of these dangers. At last their existence has been acknowledged by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). But there is still no suggestion of policies to free our economy from the straightjacket of foreign domination. I want to deal with each of those facts, as I call them, in turn.
I want to say to the Prime Minister, who is here at the moment, and to the government that as I study the situation I see that instead of presenting to Parliament a program to deal with the present unemployment crisis we
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
have had from the Minister of Finance pollyanna forecasts of which every one has proven wrong. I suggest on a study of the record that either the Minister of Finance should fire his forecasters or he should fire himself for being an easy prey to the defensive, bureaucratic optimism. On second thought, I think perhaps both should happen, the Minister of Finance should fire his advisers and someone should fire him for misleading the Parliament and the country.
When we face this emergency it is important to recall only a few of the minister's alleged predictions. On January 30, 1969, the Minister of Finance said "the latest monthly figures have fallen below 5 per cent", and having said that went on to paint a rosy picture for the rest of that year. What were the facts? The facts were that in October of 1969 the unemployment rate went beyond 5 per cent, that in May, 1970, it went over 6 per cent, and that from May until today it has stayed at over 6 per cent continually for 16 months.
Let me give a second instance. On November 12, 1970,- and hon. members and the people of Canada should listen to this with attention-the Minister of Finance said that unemployment had reached its peak. Everyone in this House knows that since that fatuous statement the unemployment situation has continued bad and has grown worse. On September 7 of this year the Minister of Finance said: "Unemployment will continue to decline". Unfortunately for Canada, one week later the Minister of Finance was shown to be wrong again.
I cite these examples-and I want to come to some statements made by the Prime Minister himself in a moment-because they underline the complacency and the insensitivity of this government toward the major problem that has faced the Canadian people for a year and a half at least. These are merely a few of the minister's pearls. It occurred to me as I was writing my notes that our Minister of Finance has not merely created a credibility gap, he has created a credibility desert. He can never be believed again on any of his statements about the future position of Canada's economy.
The Prime Minister himself and the government, particularly after the disastrous unemployment figures were revealed for the month of August of this year, went on a search to manufacture statistical excuses for the serious unemployment which we have seen in August, and that too in my submission is most reprehensible. I said the other day, in commenting on an answer which the Prime Minister gave me to a question, that he was playing games with the unemployment situation. It was true then, and the points I want to raise now underline the validity and the relevance of my statement.
The Prime Minister discovered, apparently for the first time, in answers to questions in the House in recent days and on a television program the other day that the young, the people aged 14 to 19, were particularly affected by unemployment in this country. Indeed, he said on a number of occasions that this was an unexpected development. I say to the Prime Minister I find that to be an astonishing statement. Indeed, as a member of this House and as a citizen of Canada, I find it embarrassing that the head of our government should make a statement so patently, factually wrong. If he found that to be an unexe-pected phenomenon, I do not know where he has been

September 30, 1971
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
living in the last few months. The facts are that in August, 1971, the number of unemployed between the ages of 14 and 19 was 132,000, and the percentage of unemployed it represented was 29 per cent. But in July, a month earlier, the number was 184,000 and the percentage was 35.8 per cent. In June of this year, two months earlier, the number was 197,000 and the percentage was also 35.8 per cent. In fact, the number and the percentage of unemployment in August among the group between 14 and 19 was lower in August than it had been in June and July.
If the Prime Minister's advisers had taken the trouble to brief him on this, he would have found that the percentage of unemployed among the 14 to 19 group has always been high in the month of August. In the years 1968, 1969 and 1970 they were a little lower than in 1971, and in the years 1965, 1966 and 1967 they were a little higher than in August, 1971. But always the number and the percentage of the unemployed in the 14 to 19 years group in the month of August have been a very large proportion. It is astonishing to me that he should find it an unexpected phenomenon that became evident only in August of this year.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Would the hon. member permit a question?


David Lewis: Certainly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I wonder if the hon. member realizes that I was talking about the participation rate of that age group, and the participation rate as compared between August of one year and August of the succeeding year? I wonder if he realizes that I was talking about the participation rate of that group in this August compared with the participation rate last August, which was substantially lower?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Prime Minister deal both with the proportion of unemployed in that age group and the participation rate, and I say to the Prime Minister that if he looks at the participation figures closely he will find that although the participation rate of this age group in August, 1971, was somewhat-not substantially-higher than in August, 1970, it really is not of very great significance when you consider that the participation of the total labour force was a little bit lower this year than last year. I suggest to the Prime Minister that it is not a new phenomenon, not a new development that was suddenly to be discovered, nor by any means was it the most important part of the development.
I am interested merely in underlining the fact that the government, instead of recognizing the severity of the unemployment crisis and saying, "It is bad; let us do something about it," is constantly looking for excuses, as indicated by either the pollyanna statements of the Minister of Finance or the astonishing and embarrassing statements of the Prime Minister.
If I widen this youth group, and I deal with unemployment among the ages 14 to 24, the following facts-I do not often cite statistics but it is important in this case to put them on the record-emerge. In August, 1971, the number unemployed between ages 14 to 24 was 240,000. Their proportion of the total unemployment was 52.7 per cent. In July, the number was 293,000 and the proportion

was 57 per cent. In June, the number was 313,000 and the proportion was 56.7 per cent.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as I was preparing my notes I remembered, without going back to Hansard, that each time I have referred to unemployment in this country- and I am sure I am right in saying that each time other members of my party as well as members of the Conservative party who have referred to this unemployment-I always pointed out that the largest group suffering as a result of the government's economic policies and as a result of the massive unemployment was the age group between 14 and 19, and the age group between 19 and 24. If I went back through Hansard I could find references to this group in my statements, and in my questions to ministers of the Crown at least a dozen times in the last 12 or 16 months. It is not an unexpected phenomenon. It is an obvious thing that has been happening for the last two years. On various occasions we emphasized that when you throw young people out of school and university into society without any future, any hope, you are creating great dangers for society. I have emphasized that this may be of particular relevance to the situation in the province of Quebec. I say it is not true that this is a new phenomenon, and let not the government try to peddle it as new and unexpected. To do that is either ignorance or dishonesty and, Mr. Speaker, I leave it to you and other Members of Parliament to take your pick.
The government has indulged in other excuses for the present situation. The Prime Minister referred to one of them. Members of the government have talked about an immense increase in the labour force this year. They have talked about increases in the participation rate. On the CBC program to which I referred the Prime Minister said, "There has been more job creation than there ever has been in our economy." Mr. Speaker, without going into the statistics in detail I say that those statements are wrong. They are statistically and historically false, and they are merely a shabby excuse for the government not having taken steps earlier.
If you study them, the statistics show that even when the employment picture was much better than it has been in the last few months, for example, from August, 1964, to August, 1967, when unemployment was somewhere around 3 per cent to 41 per cent, instead of being over 6 per cent as it is now, the growth in the labour force was much higher, and the participation rate was necessarily higher, otherwise we would have had more unemployment. And the number of new jobs created in each of those years was very considerably higher than the number of new jobs created during this present economic crisis.
The reason that I have referred to these statistics is that I want if I can, through you, Sir, through Members of Parliament, through the press-if they are interested-to nail down once and for all these excuses of the Prime Minister, of the Minister of Finance, and of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) as being false. They are statistically wrong. They are deliberate excuses to hide the inaction and lack of program on the part of the government. Let no one in Canada be fooled by any of these games played by an insensitive government during a highly dangerous and critical unemployment situation. It is obvious to everyone in Canada, except apparently the
September 30, 1971

government, that we face an emergency this winter, and the way to deal with the emergency is to have an emergency program to create jobs this winter. That is why the very first point of the motion I had the honour to move requests that the government immediately undertake a massive program to create jobs this winter.
That cannot be done by the federal government alone. In order to accomplish it, the plans of provincial governments are needed, and the plans of municipal governments. It is not possible for the federal government alone to create a sufficient number of jobs. That can be accomplished only if the provinces and the municipalities are given an opportunity, and are given the funds, the finances, to add to the works that are needed to create the jobs. And they need time, Mr. Speaker. This is why I have been so critical of the Prime Minister about the federal-provincial conferences. And I was delighted to hear this afternoon that at last he found it necessary, or he agreed, or whatever the term may be-if I understood his answers correctly-that he found it desirable to write the provincial governments and ask if they can now attend a conference at an earlier date than December 6 which had previously been agreed to by them.
I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister may have to leave the chamber. I am sure he has important work to do, but in the Prime Minister's presence I want to say that my impression of what he has been saying throughout the last number of days on this issue of the federal-provincial conference, from reading the letters that have been made public, is that at no time had the Prime Minister called the provinces to a special conference to deal with unemployment this winter. The Prime Minister called for a conference on non-constitutional matters, on general economic matters. Maybe one is necessary, but at no time did he say to the provinces, "We face an unemployment emergency this winter. We must have a conference on this point. I invite you to such a conference."
The Prime Minister has now left the chamber, Mr. Speaker, and I have to say in his absence that had he had the understanding and the sense of urgency that as the leader of the Canadian government he ought to have had, he should have issued such an invitation for an emergency conference to deal specifically and only with unemployment. I am confident that no government in this country, not even the government of Ontario which is in the midst of an election campaign, would have failed to come to such a conference if such a conference had been called by the Prime Minister of Canada. It is only because the negotiations were for a conference on general economic matters that the normal negotiations about a date and the normal considerations about convenience were taken into account. I am confident, and I repeat, that if the provinces and the municipalities had been called to a conference to deal specifically with the threat of severe unemployment this winter, as they should have been, that conference would now be taking place and not be delayed another day.
The reason for urgency in this regard is obvious to every thinking person. Indeed, you do not need full wit to understand this. Some of those who have less than full wit
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
on the other side could easily understand it as well. They must understand that no province or municipality could participate in a job-creating program for this winter unless the plans are made now. You cannot create jobs for November, December, January, February and March if the programs and plans are announced in October, November or December. You could create jobs for April, May, June and July of next year, but not for this winter at such a late conference. With the knowledge of the facts known to every member of this House and every member of the country, I charge this government once again with complete-perhaps that is an exaggeration-with disastrous unconcern about the unemployment crisis this winter, and I charge it with failure to take at least the initial steps to deal with it by bringing the provinces and the municipalities together to create the necessary programs.
There have been hints by the Prime Minister and other members of the government, and I have seen stories in the newspapers, which suggest that the government is considering producing a program designed, as the Prime Minister has said, to deal with unemployment this winter. If that is done without consultation with the provinces and municipalities it will likely be inadequate. If such an announcement is made, and if the program is at all adequate, I will be pleased and happy to welcome it on behalf of my party. Indeed, I hope the announcement will be made during this debate or, if not during this debate, that it will be announced within the next day or two. Every day's delay in the announcement of that program will make it more difficult for the provinces and the municipalities, as well as public and private corporations, to respond and meet the unemployment crisis this winter.
My motion sets out some other elements which are needed in such a program. I will not bother repeating them in my speech. They are not original suggestions, they have been made on many occasions, not only by me and colleagues in my party, but by other members and economists across the country. They include such things as reducing the income tax for the lower and middle income groups, lowering the interest rate, a massive injection of funds to build the homes which are needed across the country and a massive injection of funds to municipalities to fight pollution in their environment and to build waste treatment plants and other such things. All these things, such as forcing down the interest rates in this country, are known and must be done immediately. They are not original and I do not claim originality for them. They are urgently required and must be urgently applied.
The second point my motion makes and that I ask members of Parliament to take into consideration is that our present crisis is related directly to our dependence on a single market and to the foreign control of our economy. It is not only the unemployment crisis that is involved. That crisis was created by the government itself as a result of its phony war against inflation or its cruel policy of creating unemployment. Our government did that itself and it needed little help. It is now getting a little help from the Nixon economic policy. Undoubtedly, our unemployment situation is threatened further by the effect of the 10 per cent surcharge on the export of manufactured goods and some agricultural goods in this country.

September 30, 1971
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
This additional trouble we have and the general fear which faces Canada are directly tied to the fact that we are in a straitjacket of foreign domination over our economy. I am not saying that were we not in that situation we would not suffer some consequences as a result of the Washington policy. Obviously we would, and obviously every country in the western world has suffered from it, but we would not have the same situation we have in Canada, which is more serious and more frightening than in any other western country, if it were not for our ties to and controls by the United States economy. I appeal to the government and, if I may do so without being presumptuous, to the people of Canada, to awaken to the dangers and act now to start a new orientation for the Canadian economy so we may be free of foreign domination and free from reliance on a single market for our trade. I know this is a long term thing. This cannot be done in the course of a year or, indeed, in the course of five years. This will require a commitment over a period of years, but it must be started now.
The present emergency in Canada has underlined the importance of the problem, and this is the time to begin. This is why it is incomprehensible and heartbreaking to me that we are still waiting for a government statement on its policy on foreign ownership and a statement as to what will be done vis-a-vis the present situation and the threat of the United States economic policy extending beyond the 10 per cent surcharge to DISC and other protectionist policies. It is obvious that Liberal continen-talism dies hard if it dies at all. If this government continues in its continentalist mendicant poise toward the United States this country's political independence, as well as its economic independence, is in a very serious and precarious state.
The Prime Minister said the other day that if the United States wants Canada to be merely a source for its natural resources something will have to be done about the situation. Again I am astonished by the Prime Minister's apparent lack of understanding. I can hardly believe it because he is a highly intelligent and well-trained man and should understand Canada's economic position over the years. He says "if" the United States wants to use us as a resource source; it has used Canada as that and nothing else for decades. We have always played this role for the United States. We have always been the country upon which the United States has relied for its natural resources. It has yanked out our non-renewable resources and shipped them to the United States, in most cases without refining, smelting or dealing with them in any other way in Canada.
Foreign control and reliance upon the United States market for our trade has been a fact of Canadian economic life for literally decades in our history, and that the Prime Minister should still say "if" that is the case is an embarrassment which I as a member of this Parliament have to regret. We must start moving in a new direction. We must say to the people of Canada we are ready for new directions in our economy, and that as legislators and as a government we are ready to proceed in that new direction to set a national purpose in respect of our selfreliance in the Canadian economy, independence from foreign control and domination, and that we start that process today not next year or ten years from now. I am

confident that the Canadian people are ready to take that step. If that step involves some temporary dislocation, as it undoubtedly would, and some temporary costs, as it undoubtedly would, we have the ingenuity and capacity to reduce the dislocation and cost to a minimum and to do the things that are necessary for Canada's future independence.
In my last two minutes-I am informed that is all I have left-I wish to make two points. First, there are obvious steps that must be taken if we are to gain control of the Canadian economy. We must de-emphasize the export of non-renewable resources by removing the tax exemptions and holidays we are now giving to mining and petroleum corporations and by putting a surcharge on the export of oil and gas and similar, non-renewable resources that are in strong demand. We must step up the sale of agricultural and forest products. We must build labour intensive industries. We must rationalize our secondary manufacturing in this country. Above all, we must seek new trading partners, particularly in the developing nations of the world, by buying their commodities and extending to them long term credits. We must stop foreign take overs in this country. We must control foreign equity investment in this country and set up an agency to monitor foreign corporations and make sure that their actions are in the interests of this country.
My last point is this. The time has come for the people of Canada and the members of this parliament to renew their faith in our country. As one travels across this great country one never fails to be impressed. I never fail to be impressed by the immense wealth with which we have been endowed and by Canada's great beauty. I have never visited any other part of the world without feeling that there is equal beauty in this country. There is great wealth and great beauty, as I say. One never fails to be impressed by the great people that are in this country from coast to coast. A country as wealthy and as beautiful as this one, and with people as great as ours, can stand on its own feet. The time has come for us to do just that.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity of being associated with the motion in the name of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) which incorporates many suggestions that have come from official opposition members and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) during the last several months.
While reading a few notes in the course of the preliminary preparation for my part in today's debate, I came across a passage printed in Canadian Forum, back in May, 1964. It impressed me so much that I should like to put in on the record. The passage reads as follows:
Our politicians occasionally talk about unemployment, but neither the Federal nor the Provincial authorities have ever categorically declared that they would assume the responsibility of fixing the problem. In fact, the country awaits from all levels of government the elaboration of a new and adequate policy. Among other things, it is inconceivable that politicians should continue to dread budgetary deficits and that, even when resorting to them, they should continue to pay homage to the sacred cow of a balanced budget.
It continues at length in the same vein and then concludes as follows:
September 30, 1971

In effect, such policies would require either a readjustment of the external value of the dollar or a strong injection of foreign capital. Because devaluation and large scale investment from abroad are found to be unacceptable from the nationalistic point of view, the government rejects truly expansionist measures and relies upon ineffectual expedients.
That quotation comes from something that was written by the Committee for Political Realism, and the author was Pierre Elliott Trudeau.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Howard Lundrigan: That was back in 1964. At that time we heard from a Canadian who, theoretically and intellectually, identified with the problem he raised.
Lest anybody should mistake the concern of the party I represent and of other opposition parties regarding the unemployment problems of Canada, I should like to indicate the number of times that we have raised questions in the House since September 7 on the economic problems facing the nation. These have nothing to do with agriculture, nothing to do with regional development, nothing to do with fisheries and local problems. They had all to do with the national, economic problems facing the nation. For instance, on September 27 we asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his colleagues 23 questions on this subject. On September 8 there were 12 questions, right on this subject. On September 13 there were 26; on September 16, the day of the release of the highly unfavourable unemployment statitistics, there were 32 questions, for a total of 320 questions. That is the number of questions that have been asked from September 7 until the present-the figures include questions asked yesterday-on the economic problems facing the nation. If I had time, and I do not, I should have liked to catalogue all the displays of callousness that have come from the mouths of the Prime Minister and his colleagues in responding to these questions. We have had deceit; we have had distortion; we have had concealment; we have had pretence; we have had hypocrisy and insensitivity; we have had confusion and we have had pious fraud, as far as I am concerned, and deliberate deception on the part of the Prime Minister and his colleagues regarding this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: That is what we were given in response to 320 questions that we asked on economic problems facing all Canadians, and especially the half million people who are presently unemployed.
On September 16 a number of questions were asked about the hard core unemployed. The Prime Minister used that term, we did not. He seemed to be the one who identified with it. I am, of course, referring to the 106,000 people who have been unemployed for more than six months and who make up over 20 per cent of the total number of the unemployed. Let me read what the Prime Minister said when asked about what the government intended to do to help these people. As reported at page 7867 of Hansard, he said:
-I believe the hon. member is referring to the hard-core unemployed and my understanding is that their number has decreased rather significantly in the past month.
I should like to say that, if you take the "hard core unemployed" compared to all those who are unem-
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
ployeed, there has been a considerable increase in the number of hard core unemployed in the past four months.
Second, if the Prime Minister wants to present facts, let him give facts on unemployment as published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics in 1971. We can see that for the past year there has been a considerable increase in the number of hard core unemployed and in the number of Canadians unemployed. If you want to go back for five years the figures would be lower. The Prime Minister tried to decieve the Canadian people by saying that we had had a reduction in the number of unemployed. I do not doubt for a moment that if you allowed him to bring in his own statistics, he could prove that to be the case. Nevertheless, on September 16 questions were asked about the astounding increase in the unemployment figures for the month of August, the largest increase in that month since 1946. The Prime Minister's response, as reported at page 7864 was:
There has been the biggest surge in job creation ever in the spring and summer months, and this has translated itself into a lowering of the unemployment figures for people 25 years old and over.
Having heard the remarks of the man I should like to be able to trust, I looked at the statistics and learned, for example, that if one compares the figures for 1970 and 1971, one will see that there has been an actual decrease in in the number of people over 25 years of age in the labour force of one-half of one per cent on a seasonally adjusted basis. In other words, people over 25 during the period the Prime Minister was referring to were actually withdrawing from the labour force. Clearly, there must be a tremendous amount of hidden unemployment that never shows up in statistics. In the period in question, that is, between August, 1970 and the same month in 1971, the increase in employment among those people was only one-fifth of one percentage point on a seasonally adjusted basis. I think statisticians will agree that is hardly statistically significant.
I could quote more of what the Prime Minister said regarding unemployment among young people. On the sixteenth we raised questions about unemployment, and the Prime Minister suggested that there has been a cut in unemployment and that the only problem was among young people; that was where the unemployment situation was the most grave. I believe, in responding to a question by the hon. member for York South, he said that he was referring to the fact that unemployment has increased because of the "participation"-that is the word he used-of young people in the work force during the month of August. On that basis he is taking his consolation. In response to a general question on September 16, he said and I quote:
Therefore the addition in the figures is caused essentially, I would say, only by the people in the 14 to 24 age group. This is obviously very serious, but the cause of it is not too well known. What we do know is that the rate of participation has increased; in other words, the number of people who at this time of year usually withdraw from the labour force have not withdrawn in that age group. We want to see the causes and reasons for that before being able to prescribe remedies.
In answer to a similar question on September 20, the Prime Minister said and I quote:
The problem is with the teenage group which has entered the
8310

September 30, 1971
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
work force, or which has not left the work force after the summer period, at a vastly different rate from the past.
It is the teenage group. There is a tremendous amount of confusion. On the one hand, the Prime Minister does not admit the problem of unemployment. On the other, he says it is because of increased participation of the younger people in the labour force. He indicated it is the teenagers between 16 and 19 years of age. I can only conclude one of two things. Either the Prime Minister is deliberately trying to convey to the Canadian people some misconception of the whole problem or he is not aware of the fact that ever since the 1940's economists and demographers, or whatever these people who talk about Canada's growth are called, have been saying that the Canadian population will continue to expand through the period of the 1970s.
Everyone in Canada with any knowledge of the economy or of the population has been aware of this. I can only conclude that there must have been absolute ignorance if the Prime Minister has only now discovered we have an expanding labour force. Perhaps it is related to some of his domestic concerns or perhaps it is a deliberate attempt to deceive the Canadian people. The Liberal party can make up its mind which one it wants to choose.
When in Regina last year, the Prime Minister made reference to our expanding labour force. On December 3, as quoted in Hansard, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) made reference to the fact that we have an expanding labour force. In 1964, when we were beginning to get a recurrence of the unemployment problem, the then Prime Minister took consolation in the fact that we had an expanding labour force. In addition to these statements, people connected with the Economic Council of Canada, economists and Canadians from all walks of life, recommended that the government accept the fact that we have an expanding labour force and adopt immediate expansionary policies in order to remedy that problem. I challenge members opposite to deny that fact.
Anyone knowledgeable of the Canadian economy knows that the traditional economic models that can be applied to countries such as Italy, the Scandinavian countries or Britain, which have a relatively static labour force, cannot be applied to Canada. All Canadian economists recognize that when you have an expanding labour force you must have an economy which is growing, developing and expanding. How contradictory it is that in the past two years the government has insisted on cooling off the economy, cutting production, discouraging investors and discouraging initiative on the part of individuals, businessmen and, in fact, the whole business community, while at the same time recognizing that we have a growing country and a massively growing labour force. This can only be the result of absolute autocratic arrogance on the part of the people calling the shots.
The Prime Minister's office, the supergroup, autocrats, inner cabinet or whatever they are called, have shown tremendous arrogance. They know better than other parties, the Canadian people, the business community, labour people and economists. They are so damned pig-headed that they feel they know this or else they are ignoring what are the realities of the situation. Because of their intellectual seclusion, long years in universities reading books, and theorizing through Cite Libre, they are not aware of the realities of our country.

I wish to quote from the September 1969 Economic Council of Canada Perspective, 1975:
-the existing high rates of unemployment among young Canadians not only represent a waste of some of our most valuable human resources and a potential source of social instability, but also partly reflect a failure on the part of our society to bring young people quickly and effectively into active participation in the economic life of our country.
Dr. Haviland, a senior economist with the Economic Council of Canada, stated at the beginning of 1970 that we must have a real growth in Canada of 5.25 per cent a year just to keep the unemployment figures at their present rate, in other words to avoid having the unemployment problem grow worse. In 1970, the gross national product rose by only 3.3 per cent.
Another director of the Economic Council of Canada, Dr. Sylvia Ostry, stated in a detailed statement to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the same chamber which made a number of recommendations to the Prime Minister which have been rejected, that we need 2.6 million new jobs in Canada during the 1970s. Are we going to get 2.6 million new jobs with the kind of policies being advocated by the Prime Minister of this country?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Howard Lundrigan: We might get 2.6 million unemployed but we are certainly not going to achieve this increase in new jobs in the next decade with the kind of policies being advocated by this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: I referred briefly to the proposed federal-provincial conference. Even learned members of the press were deceived when the Prime Minister first made reference to this federal-provincial conference. Day after day he has referred to the conference. He is trying to give the impression to the Canadian people that this conference on unemployment is the result of his own initiative. The hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) placed that in proper perspective today. Day after day we have recommended an early conference specifically directed toward unemployment. The suggestion came, I believe, from Premier Davis of Ontario last year at the Victoria conference. The Prime Minister is trying to suggest that it is through his initiative that the conference will be held. This is absolute deceit, distortion, concealment and deception on the part of the Prime Minister of this nation. I hope that the Canadian people see what he is trying to do by misrepresenting the facts.
I wish I had a half hour to review some of the things we have recommended. In the 320 questions we have raised in this House, there have been numerous suggestions of a positive nature. Some of these were repeated today by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). Not one suggestion that we have made has received a sympathetic or even polite response from the Prime Minister. We have recommended immediate tax cuts, not tax cuts such as those contained in the tax package which has been almost a decade in the making. We recommended immediate tax cuts for the low and middle income groups; selective corporate tax cuts and the elimination of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, which my colleagues will also recommend. Because of the inability of the govern-
September 30, 1971

ment to forecast the unemployment problem with any accuracy, we recommended an economic forecasting unit. That has been sloughed off discouragingly and disparagingly by the Prime Minister. He also recommended a sort of band-aid approach to the problems of this winter. We recognize that you cannot get programs with long term effects off the drawing board and into active operation within a matter of days or weeks.
We have recommended the introduction of a winter works program and other similar approaches intended to keep people off welfare and allow them to continue their normal way of living during the coming winter. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has recommended special assistance to industries which find themselves in difficulty, through tax incentives, direct financing and the like. We have recommended to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang), who rarely appears in the House during debates on this subject, the removal of the three-year work experience clause governing the retraining programs of his department. We have recommended a consistent effort, together with industry, to end the system under which employees have to wait until lay-offs are announced before they can take advantage of industrial training programs. Many of these recommendations have had the support of the Economic Council of Canada. We have made numerous suggestions in the fields of housing and anti-pollution. If I had another 20 minutes or so at my disposal, I could develop the logic and reasoning behind many of these proposals, especially those which relate to tax cuts.
The frustration which is felt by members who are concerned about unemployed Canadians is mounting daily in the House of Commons because we cannot get the Prime Minister to recognize that a problem exists. I am sure this frustration is felt by members of the Liberal party as well as by members on this side. Unemployment goes against the life style of the Prime Minister. How can you be a swinger, how can you be happy-go-lucky, how can you do your own thing, travel all over the world and so on, yet be concerned about the little people who are unemployed? How can you be an elegant Prime Minister and at the same time be concerned about those who are unemployed, living in small rented apartments in Hamilton, Toronto and Halifax?
Of all the recommendations we have made, there is only one I should like to put forward now, in conclusion. It is that the Prime Minister, at the earliest opportunity, give the people a chance to replace him as the head of the government in order to bring some sensitivity and concern back into Canadian politics.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in the extremism of his rhetoric, in the extravagance of his proposals and in his total disregard for hard realities, the leader of the New Democratic Party has succeeded in surpassing even his own past excellent performances. I was particularly taken by his technique of disavowing the use of statistics and then proceeding to make outrageously inaccurate statements which could not possibly have been supported by statistics had he used them.
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
He has tried to convey the false impression to this House and to the Canadian people that the economy of our country is in deep trouble, an impression which is totally denied by the facts. He has tried to suggest that the substantial proportion of Canadian trade with the United States is somehow the result of the failure of government policies. The reality is that the high proportion of our trade with the United States is a very obvious and completely natural consequence of the fact that our country has had the good fortune to border on the richest market in the world. I am sure most Canadians are well aware, even if the NDP is not, that this factor has contributed substantially to our achievement of a very high standard of living.
In striving to gain political fortune from adversity, however, the leading Cassandra of the NDP has never allowed himself to be deterred by realities, and if adversity does not exist he seeks to invent it. Every difficulty he seeks to blow up into a calamity.
During the opening debate on second reading of the Employment Support Bill, when Parliament reconvened earlier this month, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) pointed out that virtually every major indicator provided clear evidence that the Canadian economy had been expanding at a steadily accelerating rate for almost a full year.


George Harris Hees: We never had it so good.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: While I shall avoid going over the same ground as the minister covered in his speech of September 7, let me recall to the House some of the highlights of the economic performance. During the first half of this year, the nation's real output of goods and services rose at an annual rate of 6.2 per cent, which was almost double the growth during 1970 as a whole. I can see why the hon. member for Prince Edward Hastings (Mr. Hees) disdains statistics, too. They just don't support his attitude. During the second quarter of this year, the real gross national product rose at an annual rate of 8.9 per cent, which was the largest quarterly increase in two years.
Consumer spending has paced the advance of our economy, with the increase of 4.3 per cent between April and June being the largest quarterly gain in several years. But other sectors of the economy have also contributed substantial strength. Housing starts in the second quarter amount to 225,000 at an annual rate and 243,000 in August, indicating a record number of starts for 1971 as a whole. Total capital investment rose by 5.7 per cent during the second quarter and business capital expenditures by 6 per cent.
Although the expansion has been steadily gathering momentum over a period of several months, I do not mean to suggest for a moment that we should relax or that there is not room for further progress, particularly in the creation of new jobs and faster progress in bringing down unemployment.


George Harris Hees: It is better than Alice in Wonderland.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: George, I imagine you are the only member of the House who has recently read "Alice".


George Harris Hees: That's a lot better than some of the stuff you are saying.
8312

September 30, 1971
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: As the minister told the House in his speech on September 7, a number of the new economic measures announced by President Nixon in mid-August obviously pose a serious threat to the strong growth under way in our own economy.
The upturn which has occurred in the rate of price increases this year is a further matter for concern even though it is due in no small measure to a rebound in food prices after the decline last year resulting from the supermarket price war.
As I said a moment ago, we are deeply concerned about the high level of unemployment. Despite the simplistic approach from members of the opposition, this is a complex problem. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of the steady expansion of the economy over the past year there has been a big increase in the number of Canadians with jobs. In August of this year there were a quarter of a million more people employed than a year ago. This increase of 3 per cent in Canadian employment during the 12-month period was more than three times the increase in employment in the United States during the same period and outstrips the performance of all other industrial countries. This performance is all the more impressive when it is recalled that during the early stages of rapid economic expansion a large proportion of the increases in output comes from the higher production of workers already on the job, rather than through employment of new workers.
Hon. members should know that unemployment among adults has declined over the past several months. The seasonally-adjusted rate of unemployment among those 20 years of age and over, who make up 86 per cent of the labour force, has dropped from a peak of 5.9 per cent in July, 1970, to 5.3 per cent in August of this year. In the case of men and women 25 years of age and over, who make up 70 per cent of the labour force and include most of the heads of households, the seasonally-adjusted rate of unemployment declined from a peak in July, 1970 of 5.2 per cent to 4.4 per cent last month. While I certainly do not regard these rates of unemployment among the more mature members of the labour force as being satisfactory, they do indicate that substantial progress has been made in alleviating the problem in this important and largest sector of the labour force.
In increasing measure, the core of our unemployment problem in Canada has come to be focused on youths 14 to 19. And even here the source of the problem does not stem from a slow growth in employment. In August of this year, employment of youths 14 to 19 was actually 50,000 higher than in the same month last year. This represented an extraordinary year to year increase in the number of teenagers with jobs of some 5 per cent. The source of the unemployment problem among teenagers results from a phenomenal increase in the number of these young Canadians who have entered the labour market in search of work. Let me hasten to point out, particularly for the benefit of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan), that I am not talking here about the increase that has taken place in the total number of Canadians among the population aged 14 to 19. That increase is, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has asserted,
quite predictable. What has never been predictable, and has always been subject to wide variation, is the number of youths 14 to 19 who will enter the labour market to seek jobs at any particular time.
This point is perfectly illustrated by the developments of the past year. During the 12-month period ending in August, the total number of Canadians aged 14 to 19 increased by 2.4 per cent. But the number of boys and girls in this age group who entered the labour force increased by 6.3 per cent, which is about triple the increase in the population of this age group. Because even this increase in jobs was not sufficient to absorb the still larger rise in teenagers seeking work, there was an increase in the numbers of this group without work last month on a seasonally adjusted basis. This increase was the sole cause of the rise in seasonally adjusted unemployment for all workers in August. It should be evident that the very sharp jump in the number of teenagers recorded by Statistics Canada as being in the labour market, and the associated degree of unemployment among this group, presents a rather special problem which will have to be attacked in a special way. As indicated to the House previously, the government is focusing on this question urgently in order fully to understand it and to deal with it effectively.
In the motion which he presented to this House, the leader of the New Democratic Party chose to paint a stark picture of a stagnating economy and rising unemployment. He chose to ignore the fact, evident to most informed Canadians, that economic growth has been accelerating over a period of several quarters, and that the problem of unemployment as it affects our mature labour force is declining. Under the circumstances it is not surprising that he also chose to ignore the very substantial fiscal and monetary stimulus which we have given to the economy. In these circumstances, the massive nature of his specific suggestions for increased expenditures and tax reductions will not be seen by the Canadian people as anything but irresponsible. But then, Mr. Speaker, in this House the hon. gentleman has always been in the happy position of being able to advocate extreme courses of action without having to take the responsibility for the consequences. I recognize that within his party he has found it necessary on occasion to resist the still more extremist "wafflers" in his midst.
There is in the motion before the House the suggestion that tax cuts should be implemented. I point out there is a bill before the House that does propose to implement tax cuts as of January 1 next, and we are hoping that it will be through the House by January 1. Under the tax reform measure, every married taxpayer whose income is derived from salary or wages will pay less income tax. Every single taxpayer in similar circumstances will pay less tax if his income is under $8,000. Every retired taxpayer aged between 65 and 69 inclusive will pay less tax, whether single or married. Every retired taxpayer over 70 will pay less tax under the new system than under the old system if he is married, and less tax as a single taxpayer if his income is less than $8,500.
In addition to that, the prospect is held out in the tax bill of progressive reductions in the marginal rate of personal income taxes on the first $500 of taxable income from 17 per cent to 6 per cent, and a reduction of the general

September 30, 1971

corporate tax rate from 50 per cent to 46 per cent by 1976. All of these tax cuts are in legislative form and we do hope that we will be able to get them through the House in time for the people of Canada who want them to enjoy them. Perhaps members of the opposition are getting messages from their constituents different from those received by members on this side, but at least we understand very clearly that the people want these tax cuts.
The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate searched Votes and Proceedings and Hansard to find how many questions had been asked on general economic subjects by members of the opposition since the House resumed on September 7. I, too, searched Votes and Proceedings this morning for the same period to see how expeditious has been the work of this House. Leaving aside the previous opposition day as well as this one, on the 16 days of government business that the House has sat since resuming after the summer recess the opposition has "co-operated" in helping the House get its work done by moving no fewer than seven motions to adjourn the House under Standing Order 26; three motions to adjourn the debate, each of which required a recorded vote and consumed something between half an hour and one hour; two motions to adjourn the House, each of which also required a recorded vote and consumed between half an hour and an hour of time.
On the other hand, the government has on three occasions attempted under Standing Order 6(5)(a) to extend the sitting of the House in order that business might be proceeded with expeditiously and so that time that has been wasted by hon. members opposite in procedural manoeuvrings might be made up, to the benefit of the people of Canada. On each of those occasions more than ten members of the official opposition and New Democratic Party have stood in their places to frustrate the work of the House.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member accept a question before he finishes reading his speech?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Certainly.


John Howard Lundrigan: Since there are only four or five minutes left, aside from the catalogue he has given could he, as official speaker on behalf of his party, tell us what the government proposes to do in response to the tremendous frustration manifested by the opposition which has forced it to move motions of this kind and to ask over 300 questions? What is the hon. member and his government going to do for the great number of unemployed Canadians?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: If the hon. member would clean the wax out of his ears or adjust his spectacles and read my speech, perhaps he will find the answers to some of these questions.
When I read the portion of the motion condemning the government for its failure to reduce Canada's dependence on a single market, I could not help recalling the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett's ill-fated attempt to blast his way into the markets of the world. It also brought back to mind the stillborn attempt to bring about a 15 per cent diversion of trade from the United States to Britain promised by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker)
Allged Failure to Stimulate Economy
when he was Prime Minister. Can the leader of the New Democratic Party do no more than seek to revive these abortive Tory efforts?
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that we have worked very strenuously over a number of years to open up markets for Canadian goods and services wherever they were to be found around the world. I do not recall that in the past that approach has brought much complaint from the NDP. We have participated actively in international discussions to bring about a multilateral reduction of tariff and other trade barriers. We have a large trade service to help Canadian producers take advantage of every potential opportunity for new and expanding trade around the globe.
While there has been a substantial increase in the volume of our trade with other countries, the proportion of our trade With the United States remains very high. Is the Leader of the New Democratic Party-and I hope his predecessor in office who is the only member of his party in the House at this time will convey to him my comments-seriously suggesting that we should have discouraged Canadian producers from seeking to sell their goods in the largest, richest market in the world right on our doorstep, a market very similar in character to our own? Is he suggesting that we should not have entered into special bilateral arrangements with the United States, such as the auto pact and the defence production sharing arrangement, which have enormously increased our exports to the United States market? If that is the case, I hope he will have the courage to make his stand clear to the labour movement, whose friend he claims to be.
The government is aware, as the Minister of Finance suggested to the House a few weeks ago, that we will have to give consideration to the nature of our trade and industrial policies if the protectionist measures announced by President Nixon last month prove to be part of a fundamental change in the direction of United States policy and a move towards restrictionism. It would be very regrettable if that were to be the case. The government believes that, given access on reasonable terms, Canadian producers could look to the United States to continue to provide a rich and growing market for our industries. All Canadians would be the poorer if our entry into that market should become restricted for any prolonged period of time, and that applies to restrictions imposed by the United States or restrictions gratuitously imposed in Canada in the form of such ridiculous suggestions as export taxes on some of our resources.
As the minister has made clear previously, we are of course deeply concerned about both the short and longterm threat to our economy that is raised by the new policies announced by the United States administration. Only two days ago this House gave approval to an important measure to minimize the immediate adverse effect on production and employment in Canada resulting from the imposition of the surcharge.


An hon. Member:: And the NDP voted against it.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Yes, the NDP voted against it. Of course they did. There are other measures proposed by the United States administration which could also have an

September 30, 1971
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
adverse impact on our economy and we are very carefully following the course of their consideration in the Congress. It would obviously be premature to take steps in this country aimed at offsetting the impact of such measures on Canada until we know whether and in what form they will be enacted. We have made strong representations to the administration about their proposals to the Congress. The Canadian economy is moving forward. It is moving forward in response to monetary, fiscal and specific economic policies that we have introduced.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: The United States economic policy and the international financial crisis have cast a shadow across our forward path. We are alert to this and have taken steps, as this House knows, to mitigate the adverse impact on Canada. This is a time for cool heads and responsible action. And that is the kind of action the country will get from this government. Action will be taken as required to deal with difficulties encountered by particular industries and sections of our economy. Should these developments threaten to slow down the economy, action will be taken to sustain the expansion which is now under way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Bellechasse.
Is the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate rising on a point of order?


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my point of order has to do with the allocation of time to members in the House. With the greatest respect to the hon. member who moved this motion, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) did not have time to offer any positive suggestions, which he said I should read in Hansard tomorrow when I have my glasses-which incidentally I don't need-I suggest he should be given an extra 20 minutes to make the positive suggestions he wants to offer to my colleagues-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Bellechasse.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is of vital importance for the future of our economy. In listening to the speeches delivered up to now, we have come to realize that hon. members have a special concern for unemployment and inflaton problems.
The motion is of a very general nature, but in the few minutes that I am allowed I should like to deal very briefly with the causes of this deplorable situation and show that the government is not taking the appropriate means to correct it.
It is a recognized fact that this government's economic policy has brought disaster to Canada. As a matter of fact, everyone knows that unemployment is there. Figures are quoted, but nobody agrees on them, so much so that the Montreal newspaper La Presse published an article entitled "Statistics are, it is said, lies under scientific cover". If this is true, the fact remains that thousands of Canadians are unemployed, although they would like to

participate in the development of our country and to make an honourable living.
A former minister of the present government, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), resigned precisely because he could not agree with this government's economic policy. He did not share the government's views as to the necessity of fighting inflation. He, and various other experts, proposed changes, just as we, Creditistes, have been suggesting extensive economic reform for a long time. Nobody listens to us much, but our principles are being adopted little by little, and I hope that eventually this solution-which, surely, is not asking for the moon- will be resorted to. It would not be heaven on earth, but it would at least solve many problems.
If our economic system was really good, it would give satisfactory results. A bad tree cannot bear good fruits. Our economic system has very good points, but it also has bad ones. We have to keep what is good and correct what is bad. What are the effects of our economic system? General displeasure. Let us discuss with people on the street, in service stations, in stores. We do not even have to question them. We only have to ask them: "How are you?" At first, they say that everything is fine. After a few minutes, we hear them say: "Well, I have a problem. I do not work. My business is in poor condition. The operations of my plant have been slackening".
People are complaining about the bad condition of our economic system which contributes to create inflation, unemployment, bankruptcies and disorder.
This government taxes people more and this increases the cost of living. Why does it tax? The financing system of the public sector is forcing this government to get us more into debt from one year to the other. One has but to read the annual statistics for Canada to realize that, year after year, our country, which is supposed to get wealthier, is getting deeper and deeper into debt. In order to pay for interest on this ever-growing debt, this government has to levy taxes from Canadians. We have reached the point where we are paying more than $2 billion a year in interest on the public debt.
Mr. Speaker, with $2 billion we could achieve great things in order to solve the problems that we are now facing. The increase in interest rates is a direct factor of inflation. Inflation is the main cause of the increase in the cost of living. These are related. Inflation does paralyze the economic sector of construction. All contractors say: "We are building less because we simply cannot borrow money at a reasonable rate". Since they are unable to borrow at a reasonable rate, they slow down their operations and hire fewer workers.
Inflation is a disincentive for businessmen with the result that numerous projects are postponed indefinitely. I talked with smart businessmen in several regions of Canada and they told me that they were postponing their projects because interest rates were too high and that decent profits were out of the question.
Even governments, especially the federal government, will not proceed with public works because of inflation. There are many requests for buildings and post offices to be erected in various Canadian municipalities, but pro-
September 30, 1971

jects are being paralyzed for want of money and because of inflation. Many problems for Canadians stem from inflation. Extension and construction projects for hospitals and some institutions are at a standstill and this is felt even in Montmagny where a heavy increase in unemployment is foreseen for the coming months due to the anticipated shutdown of the Chemcell plant.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, I ask the federal government to reimburse to the province of Quebec the millions of dollars collected by means of the so-called social development tax. With these sums, the Quebec government surely could pursue construction of public buildings such as hospitals, homes for retarded children and senior citizens; this could alleviate unemployment and increase the workers' purchasing power.
Unemployment stems from inflation. Unemployment erodes the over-all purchasing power of Canadians, which in turn dampens consumption of goods. A decrease in consumption creates overproduction, which then leads to a slowdown in the operations and often the shutting down or bankruptcy of industries.
Bankruptcies, while they may at times enrich some people, nevertheless impoverish many more. Victims are businessmen, traders, workers and the number of bankruptcies is constantly increasing. Businessmen are therefore concerned with this situation.
Recently, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce held a convention and the former president, speaking of government interference in the field of enterprise by way of taxation, of unduly high taxes which paralyze enterprise and hinder its development, expressed the following views:
The speaker also dwelt on the ubiquity, the meddling and interfering of federal and provincial governments in the Canadian economy.
It is the duty of business leaders, he said, to initiate more energetic action if they wish to prevent new legislation from putting an end to their operations.
They are already beginning to stir in their sleep. They need a lot of time to wake up. They must be shaken very hard to voice their fear in public. They are concerned about the future of their business.
I quote further:
Never in the past has the ability of Canadian businessmen to run their business in an efficient way, to develop it, to make a profit and to be competitive been so severely challenged by the labyrinth of laws.
To conclude he said this:
Many businessmen will give up and all the clever young people who could have been attracted will stay away from business.
Mr. Speaker, that is a very serious note of alarm that Parliament ought to take into account if it really wants to find valid solutions before it is too late.
I shall say only a few words about agriculture because we often have the opportunity to talk about it. In that area, producers are concerned about the situation.
Most farmers are in a plight. Hog producers for instance are having extremely hard times. Costs for electricity, telephone, feed, transportation, building materials and chemical fertilizers keep rising, adding to production costs. On the other hand, prices paid for hogs are clearly too low.
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
I was recently visiting a hog producer in my riding and he told me that it costs $11.50 to breed an 8- to 10-week-old piglet, while he cannot sell it for more than $8 or $9. Obviously it means that he suffers a loss instead of making a profit. Those who sell carcasses on the market are not having any better treatment and their income is insufficient.
Egg producers are not in a more enviable position because it costs 36 cents to produce a dozen eggs, and the average price is 30.8 cents a dozen. Therefore, from the standpoint of income these producers are hardly any better of than the unemployed, and yet they are compelled to work hard every day.
The motion of censure suggests that the government undertake winter works. In my opinion, these as well as summer works should be undertaken because it is cheaper to carry out water, sewage and road projects in summer than in winter.
There is much work to be done in almost all municipalities but these are in no position to go ahead owing to the high cost of the price of money.
So in April the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities submitted to the Canadian government a brief from which I would like to quote a few extracts so as to draw the government's attention on the merits of this resolution. I quote:
WHEREAS the difficulties and high cost of borrowing is one of the principal impediments to municipal capital financing, and WHEREAS there is mounting need for investment in such urban development programs as: urban transporation (including the acquisition of land for right of way), housing, pollution control, water supply, recreation facilities, industrial sites; and WHEREAS it is not in the national interest for our municipal governments to be obliged to compete with federal and/or provincial governments and private corporations in the capital market; BE IT RESOLVED that the Federal and Provincial Governments be asked to undertake, after consultation with the municipal associations, the establishment of a specialized municipal credit institution or institutions to facilitate municipal borrowing for capital works.
It ends up saying:
We ask as well how the Federal Government can extend interest free lending privileges to underdeveloped nations while refusing to extend those same privileges to underprivileged municipalities that are so numerous in Canada.
There, Mr. Speaker, is a resolution which should not only be carefully considered, but applied so that we may immediately help municipalities achieve their projects.
There was no alternative: we had to suggest that the government use the Bank of Canada to finance the public sector, or build public works which would help give jobs to the workers and increase the total purchasing power of the consumers. Public works add to the wealth of the people in that sense that they can use public property. In addition, as I have just pointed out, they increase the total purchasing power.
Sometimes we are told: That is not possible. So, why try to use an institution to this or that end? Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that the great Liberal leader, Mr. Mackenzie King, on September 23, 1935, in Saskatoon, at a time when there was an electoral campaign to be won, knew that the

September 30, 1971
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
people were aware of the situation. In fact, he said, and I quote an editorial:
The Liberal party believes that credit is a public matter which does not only concern the bankers-
I also agree with this-
-Capital flow should be related to the domestic social and industrial needs of the Canadian people.
That was true in 1935, and it is true now in 1971. He was very severe when he said, quote:
Once a nation loses control over its currency and its credit, it does not matter much who in that nation makes laws. Once in control, money lenders will ruin any country.
We are being lead to ruin-
-As long as control over currency and credit has not been restored to the government and acknowledged as being its most obvious and most sacred responsibility, any talk of democracy and Parliament supremacy is vain and futile.
We have ample proof of this: Parliament falls far short of supremacy, because it has to submit to the whims of high finance, which dominates the Canadian economy.
The Right Hon. Mackenzie King also stated, I quote:
If my party is re-elected, we will assert our monetary policy in the greatest battle between high finance and the people ever witnessed by Canada.
The great battle announced by Mackenzie King never took place. As a consequence, and because of a series of acts of treason, we are now close to ruin-
Mr. Speaker, I would say in conclusion that changes should be brought about in order to allow the whole population to reach a reasonable standard of living and the guaranteed annual income, which is possible in Canada. All there is to do is simply use the remaining crumbs of our rich resources.
If that is not done, I think we will be guilty of a great treason as a great economist once said and I quote:
He who strips someone of his clothes will be called a thief; and he who does not cover a naked man when he can do it, is he worthy of another name?
The Holy Scriptures contain a part which should make us think. Being Christians, we have the right to take our inspiration from them. There was a rich man and at his gates laid a beggar. All the beggar wanted was the crumbs which feel from the rich man's table, but the latter kept turning him down. And it came to pass that both died. But they were carried to different places: the rich man was in hell and saw Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said: "Father Abraham, send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame". But Abraham said: "Son, remember that in your lifetime you received the good things and likewise Lazarus the evil things. Now, he is comforted and beside all this, between him and you, there is a great gulf fixed: so that he which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can you pass to him, that would come from thence".
In these circumstances, one could derive pleasure from this situation. But I am serious when I say this. I mean that if we do not take the steps required to assure a minimum guaranteed income for each Canadian, destitution will continue to increase; it will widen the gap between men and contribute to enrich those who hold the credit monopoly and who can use it for their own pur-

poses, by refusing morsels to the less fortunate. The day will come when this destitution will give rise to agitation among the people, but it will be too late.
It is essential to work together to assure a minimum income to each Canadian citizen and we will thus have done our duty.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important that we continue to bring these motions before Parliament and the people of Canada in order to remind the people of the crisis with which the country is faced as a result of the attitude of the government. I was very disturbed that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) had the unmitigated gall to repeat the same ineffective, asinine speech that he gave the other day, attempting to lead the people of Canada into believing that we never had it so good.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I just used the statistics.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The parliamentary secretary is living in a dream world, and is using all his vigour and enthusiasm to entice the balance of the Canadian people into that same dream world. Earlier today when I read the list of government supporters who were thought deserving of Christmas presents by being appointed parliamentary secretaries, some 28 of them, I wondered what Christmas present the government was going to give the 750,000 Canadians who will be unemployed this winter. Regardless of whether or not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance knows it, there is a role for the opposition in Parliament. The survey which he made in respect of opposition motions was as academically untrue as that made by Dr. Roman Marsh with regard to the attendance of members during recorded votes. The 'parliamentary secretary was not honest enough to indicate the subject matter of all those motions. They were not introduced frivolously. They were introduced as a result of the economic policies of the government.
The Official Opposition and hon. members to my left have tried continually, and will continue to do so,-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: To adjourn the House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -to focus the attention of the Canadian people on situations that have been brought about as a result of the government's fiscal and monetary policies. I am very pleased that the hon. member for Gander-Twil-lingate (Mr. Lundrigan) has placed on record the attempts made by the opposition to help the government reach some conclusions about what it should do regarding unemployment and the state of the economy.
We on this side of the House believe we are in a crisis, but those on the other side believe we are only approaching it. As I listened to the parliamentary secretary telling us how good things are in Canada, I wondered whether he was aware of the latest report in the Ottawa Journal. I want to put it on record because it deals with lay-offs. It will show that the parliamentary secretary is definitely in a dream world if he thinks things are good, particularly when we look at the results of this government's fiscal
September 30, 1971

and monetary policies and its strategy in the fight against inflation. We see a frightening picture, and I do not use these words lightly. It reveals a stagnant economy, regardless of what is said, with an intolerable rate of unemployment and business failures.
It can be quickly concluded that all these matters spell disaster for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his government, and a tragedy for Canada and Canadians. Confidence in the economy is now absent, or at best a rarity. How can our quality of life be improved without that confidence? How can we reach full employment without that confidence and how can we reach full productivity? There is an alarming and ever-growing concern being registered by people from all walks of life and in every segment of our society regarding the frightening and bleak economic future of Canada.
In order to bring the parliamentary secretary back to reality, so he can see the picture as it is now painted, let me refer to some facts as reported in the Ottawa Journal of today. I quote from the front page which reads:
A cross-Canada survey by the Canadian Press shows lay-offs- some permanent, some temporary-hitting a wide spectrum of industries.
No industry appears immune because of size alone. Some layoffs involve 2,000 workers.
Let me put on the record figures in respect of the lay-offs about which we are talking to show that these do not hit just the large urban centres but small rural areas as well. At General Motors in Ontario and Quebec there have been 2,000; at Domtar, Trois-Rivieres, 650; at Toronto Telegram., 1,200; at Bowaters in Newfoundland, 350; the pulp and paper industry in New Brunswick, at Ste. Anne, Mackawic Pulp and Paper Company, 423; Scott Maritimes Ltd., Sheet Harbour, Nova Scotia, 310; Alcan Aluminum, Quebec, 300; Boyles Industries, Orillia, 112; Polymer, Sarnia, 60; International Nickel, Toronto, 50; Heywood-Wakefield, Goderich, 30; Savage Shoes, Galt, 125; TCF of Canada, Cornwall, 22; Courtaulds of Canada, Cornwall, 100; Domtar Fine Papers, Cornwall, 135; Chisholm Lacrosse Manufacturing Company, Cornwall, 110; Continental Insurance, Winnipeg, 40 and more at B.C. forest industries. How can the parliamentary secretary stand in his place and talk about this country being in such great shape? How can he attempt to impress upon the Canadian people that the country is in good shape?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: He never said that.


An hon. Member:: The fishing industry in Nova Scotia has just about been eliminated.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I heard someone say that the fishing industry in Nova Scotia is just about finished. Let me impress upon hon. members just what unemployment means. Let me reiterate what has been said on numerous occasions. Unemployment affects everyone. To those persons unemployed, it means loss of jobs and income. To the government, it means a loss in tax revenue and an increase in expenditures as welfare and unemployment benefits increase. The Prime Minister, in answer to a question the other day, suggested that those who are unemployed this winter could take advantage of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. He was being a little less than honest because he did not point out that there are
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
some 1.5 million people who are not covered by the unemployment insurance fund. I note the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) looking at me. I am sure he will indicate I am right when I suggest there are 1.5 million people who cannot take advantage of the unemployment insurance fund until January 1, 1972. This is what the Prime Minister did not say, and at the rate we are now going those 1.5 million people could be out of work this winter yet not be in a position to obtain unemployment insurance. It was for this reason I asked the Minister of Labour whether something could be done to move this eligibility date forward, keeping in mind the extremely serious circumstances we will be facing this winter. Perhaps the minister will say something about this later, because in this way these people could find some relief.


Mr. Mackasey:: In the guise of a question, Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit me to agree that at least one million people, including civil servants of the Tory province of Ontario, cannot draw unemployment insurance if they do not take advantage of the plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It won't be Tory then.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let me continue because the remarks of the Minister of Labour are not even worthy of a reply. I am surprised he would intervene in this very serious debate to make such a facetious remark. That should be beneath his dignity. To those who are employed, unemployment means reduced prospects for advancement and promotion. As a result of massive unemployment industries stagnate, and so do the prospects of those still working. For those not in the work force, such as students, wives, mothers and young people, massive unemployment reduces or eliminates the prospects of these people getting jobs once they enter the work force. Accordingly, Canada adds these groups to the unemployment rolls and loses the benefit of utilizing their talents and skills.
For the elderly and the poor, unemployment means increased hardships and/or premature retirement. An economy riven with unemployment has no capacity to increase its treatment of the marginal worker. Massive unemployment is the tip of an economic iceberg, and it causes our economy to suffer an irretrievable loss in output and income. I should like to repeat that the greatest asset of this country is its human resource and it is terrible to see that we have so many employable people who are not able to obtain employment as a result of the fiscal and monetary policies of this government. What is the government trying to do? It is trying to blame everybody.
A short time ago the parliamentary secretary blamed the opposition because they were obstructing and refused to pass Bill C-244. How can we discuss that bill when the government does not bring it before us?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It has been before the House since spring.


An hon. Member:: It has been before the House for 12 hours.


Mr. Ricard:: At least be honest.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As I said, the government is now trying to blame the opposition. It has in the past blamed numer-
8318

September 30, 1971
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
ous groups, organizations and individual people. The Prime Minister at a press conference on July 27 said:
But now with the very heavy quasi-monopolistic power exercised by the unions and by many of the industries, we can be in hard times and still the unions won't lower wages and the industries won't lower prices and the shareholders won't lower profits, which means you can have-well, you do have a worse trade-off.
The Prime Minister has lumped a number of people together who must take the blame. Let me read an excerpt from a federal government advertisement. It reads in part:
Canada's economic future is very much in your hands. Our economy depends on the private sector to create new wealth and employment.
The government is now blaming the Canadian businessmen and the workers. The latest organization upon which it has laid the blame has been the Nixon government. We must keep in mind that this state of affairs existed long before Nixon made his economic moves which have only been in effect for a month. I am sure the Canadian people will not buy the kind of garbage that has been thrown across the House from the government side. If you ask me who is to blame for this situation, I say the blame lies with the federal government in Ottawa. If I were the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney), and had made the two speeches he has made in recent days, I would hold my head in absolute shame after reading about the number of lay-offs I have mentioned today.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Surely, the hon. member is not serious.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That certainly is no laughing matter and does not call for facetious remarks from the parliamentary secretary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that bothers me about this government. They continually say they have a mandate. I admit it. For goodness sake, I say, use the mandate responsibly; use it to give confidence to the people of Canada. The business sector hesitates to make decisions. Why, Mr. Speaker? They do not know what the future holds.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Then, pass the tax bill.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is another farce and fraud. Mr. Speaker, I have continually asked the Prime Minister to stand in his place in the House, or do as he always does, go before the television cameras, and give a state of the economy address to the people of Canada. Let him tell them in all sincerity what we face, where we are heading, what will happen and what the government intends to do. What are the projections for unemployment? What are the targets for employment? We do not know the answers, those answers have not yet been given. These are extremely important questions. How can you develop programs and policies to fight unemployment without possessing a survey to indicate what the unemployment picture will be. Why does the government not tell me, the members of the House and the Canadian people what the unemployment picture actually will be this winter. The

government has the figures and it is reluctant to release them.
I hope the Prime Minister will answer the question I asked today regarding the types of policies to be established for those industries that are suffering and that will continue to suffer more drastically, because some relief must be given to them. I hope, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party suggested, that we shall have a statement within two or three days. With every passing day, the crisis becomes more pronounced. Surely, we are entitled to know the facts from the Prime Minister rather than from ministers whose competence is in question. Actually, the government's backbenchers question their competence. Let me repeat that-I see the parliamentary secretary standing up. I do not know for whom he is about to speak. According to the latest reports, it appears that there is a split within the caucus of his party. The good guys are on the "opposition" side and the bad guys are on the government side.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: We don't do things that way in our party.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have reason to believe that a revolt is going on among the backbenchers of the Liberal party.


An hon. Member:: No, no.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member is referring to the wrong caucus.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I see members on the government side shaking their heads. There is one thing for which I must admire them.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member's party is revolting.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If I am revolting, then so is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: No, no. The hon. member's party is revolting.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It does not matter what the hon. member said. I take objection to whatever it was he said, and if he wants to call that obstructionism that is fine with me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I know that there is the cut and thrust of debate, but I say in all sincerity that we are in very, very serious times. All that we on this side of the House are saying, with due respect to the government, is this: no matter what you have done or what you have meant to do, it is not good enough. We say that the government must come up with better answers and better policies. Not only must it bring forward better policies, but it must do that immediately, otherwise Christmas for some will be very, very bleak. Let the government listen not only to what is said by the opposition but to what is said by all segments of society. People are looking to the government for leadership in the formulation of economic policies that will bring about increased productivity which, in turn, will lead to greater employment. I am not being smart when I say this. I hope the government does that so that many people, and particularly those who do not have any hope, will have a merry Christmas.
September 30, 1971


Mr. Hugh M. Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I want to start off on a dispassionate note and suggest that it is fair to say that every hon. member in this House, regardless of the side on which he sits, is deeply concerned about the chronically high levels of unemployment.


Mr. Orlikow:: Except the Prime Minister.


James Hugh Faulkner: Not excepting the Prime Minister.


David Orlikow: Except the Prime Minister.


James Hugh Faulkner: If the hon. member really believes that, let him say it.


David Orlikow: I have said it.


James Hugh Faulkner: I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), and I really doubt that he believes that statement.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the parliamentary secretary a question?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, no, not now, if the hon. member does not mind.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary has the floor.


James Hugh Faulkner: The hon. member for Winnipeg North will have an opportunity to speak. I expressed doubt as to the truth of that particular statement. I do not believe the hon. member believes it. I do not think any hon. member really believes it. It may be politically advantageous to say it, and perhaps that is why it has been said.


David Orlikow: The Prime Minister said it himself.


James Hugh Faulkner: We are all concerned and frustrated about the problem and the difficulty encountered in dealing with it.The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) recited a series of sad and, in some cases, no doubt tragic lay-offs.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is all my point was.


James Hugh Faulkner: He conveniently ignored the fact that this country enjoys the fastest employment growth of any industrialized country in the west. That was not mentioned because that does not fit in with his theory.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is what we question.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I listened patiently to the hon. member, so perhaps he can extend to me the same courtesy.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Why not say that to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.


James Hugh Faulkner: This particular problem, brought forward on an opposition day, has been treated, I suggest, in a fashion which is less than satisfactory to me and, I am sure, far less than satisfactory to those people about whom the opposition seems to be concerned. The remarks made so far, and I will deal with the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) in a moment, have contained an appalling lack of constructive suggestions. Surely, an
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
opposition day is designed for the making of constructive suggestions by the opposition. Without question, we face difficult circumstances. Without question this problem is one of agonizing, personal dimensions for those people affected. The problem, obviously, has been compounded by recent events in the United States. There is the 10 per cent surcharge, the proposed job development credit plan which is now before the American Congress and, even more ominous than that, the proposal for "Domestic International Sales Corporations", or the DISC proposal.
All these compound the problem which we are all aware of and pose, I suggest, serious threats to employment levels in this country. Therefore, given this situation, the opposition could at least address itself to the sort of adjustments it would expect the government to undertake. One would expect that opposition suggestions would be responsible and precise, and that there would not be an insistence on a response to hypothetical problems. May I say that some of the suggestions made recently as to what we ought to do in the event of the DISC proposal going through Congress are not serious or responsible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What will the government do?


James Hugh Faulkner: The hon. member for York South, the lead-off speaker on the NDP motion, spoke for 20 minutes but it was not until the last two minutes-


Stanley Howard Knowles: He spoke for 30 minutes.


James Hugh Faulkner: For 30 minutes; that's even worse. It was not only the last two minutes, as will be recorded in Hansard, that he came to the point of addressing himself to the precise proposals that his party would recommend in the face of these difficulties.


David Orlikow: That is all in the motion.


James Hugh Faulkner: I am going to deal with that. We all acknowledge the difficulties, but it was not until the last two minutes of a 30 minute speech that the leader of the New Democratic Party came up with anything precise. In my judgment, the proposals he did make were thoroughly inadequate and not worthy of a motion worded with the strength of this motion. I will now turn to the motion.


An hon. Member:: Tell us what the government is going to do.


James Hugh Faulkner: The hon. member is asking what the government is going to do. The government has taken steps. I am going to deal with them. The hon. member has been in this House longer than I. He should know that proposals are not announced on an opposition day. These sort of gratuitous comments are not in keeping with the hon. member's understanding of the purpose of opposition days.
I now wish to deal with the specific motion before us. The first proposal is for a "large scale program". In his speech, the hon. member for York South made no mention of the dimension of that scale. He did not attach any money figure. He made a grandiose suggestion at a time when we face serious and precise problems.
8320

September 30, 1971
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
The second proposal is for an immediate reduction of taxes. Everyone in this House and the Canadian public know that there is a tax bill before this House which, by all predictions, is not likely to get through this House until some time in November because members want to debate it at length. This bill makes precise proposals dealing with tax reductions such as higher exemptions for senior citizens, the elimination of the 3 per cent surtax on personal income and a whole series of proposals dealing with employment expense allowances which would permit wage and salary earners to deduct 3 per cent of their income up to $150 a year. Also, child care expenses will be deductible up to $500 per child up to 14 years of age with a maximum of $2,000 per family. Some of these proposals also deal with deferment of transportation costs for members of the labour force who move from one part of the country to the other.
The set of proposals will take one million people off the tax roll, reduce taxes for 4,700,000 and generally accomplish the purpose outlined in this particular motion. No mention was made of this. No mention was made of the fact that the government is behind these tax adjustments and would like to get them through as quickly as possible. We believe the Canadian people are also behind them.
The third proposal deals with forcing down interest rates. This is also a general and attractive statement. No precision is attached to it. I will deal with interest rates for a second. As the hon. member for York South knows, in recent years there has been an expansionary monetary policy which has had a lowering effect on interest rates. What has been the effect? The most important effect has been that short term interest rates are at their lowest levels since the early 1960's. For example, the yield from 91 day Government of Canada Treasury Bills in last week's auction was 3.98 per cent. A year ago the yield was 5.61 per cent. Yields on 90 day finance papers have been in the range of 3.25 to 4.5 per cent a year, also substantially lower than levels in recent years. It is somewhat irresponsible to frame a strongly worded motion such as this and not say anything about what the interest rates should be. This is just a general statement about interest rates.
The approach taken by the New Democratic Party in this debate can only be described, and I am trying to be as generous as possible, as opportunistic and irresponsible. They know the government's record. How much further would they go? If they are talking about a fund for municipalities, how much money are they talking about? If they are talking about interest rates, how much lower should they be? The leader of the New Democratic Party did not say a single word on those points. He simply presented a broad set of proposals, all of which are attractive. He has not made any precise suggestions. I do not see how these proposals can be treated as other than opportunistic, irresponsible and a systematic attempt to play with a very serious and agonizing problem.
I now come to the fourth proposal. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Andras), a very competent minister, will be dealing with housing matters. The motion suggests large additional funds for housing. This is another grandiose statement, undisputably attractive. The opposition knows the government's record. They know the budget for housing this year is something like $942 million. If they are serious about this, how many more

million are they talking about? Why has the leader of the New Democratic Party not enough intellectual honesty and political courage to define precisely what he means by this rather grab-bag omnibus motion? He did not say a word about details. I again dismiss this as a general and attractive statement. It again is opportunistic and irresponsible because it fails to go beyond what the government has done in precise terms. Our budget is $942 million. We are aiming at 220,000 new housing starts this year. The government has paid particular attention to providing money for low income housing. Where does the New Democratic Party stand on this particular question? We have not heard a word about that. It has been dismissed in a way which is not worthy of the hon. member for York South. We did not hear a word about the $200 million that has been designated for experimentation and innovation to provide housing for low income families. There was no recognition of this imaginative proposal, not a word.
The fifth suggestion deals with money for waste treatment plants. In the past 10 years this government has spent $432 million to assist municipalities and others to build waste treatment plants. If the hon. member for York South is serious, and I hope he is, how much is he talking about? If this amount is inadequate, how much more would he put into it and from where would he draw the money? Would he increase taxes or shift money from other government programs and, if so, which program? Until we get these precise answers from that party, we can legitimately accuse them of being opportunistic and irresponsible for introducing a motion such as this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: The sixth suggestion talks about redirecting trade from the U.S.A. I find this particularly galling. The speech by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) was of the type that we expect from him. I have studiously avoided dealing with it. It was replete with unattractive adjectives and offensive. It was the type of speech which opposition members have often made containing snide, critical comments about trips abroad by ministers. No person has been subjected to more snide and critical comments than the Prime Minister. We know and the opposition know that the trip to the Soviet Union and the trip to countries in Asia were primarily designed to deal with expanding and diversifying our markets. They know that perfectly well. They have made snide comments about those trips, taken political advantage and exploited them. Yet they have the unmitigated gall to come before this House and, as part of an omnibus resolution, ask us to take steps to diversify our trade. This is an indication of the degree of integrity embodied in a motion before the House today. Let me deal with the trade question.


David Lewis: Let's hear you.


James Hugh Faulkner: The hon. member says "Let's hear you", and I shall be delighted to oblige him. Over the past decade, that is, from 1960 to 1970, total Canadian exports have increased from $5.4 billion to $16.9 billion, an expansion which is more than threefold. Exports to overseas
September 30, 1971

markets, that is, to markets excluding the United States market with which the hon. members opposite are so concerned, increased from $2.35 billion to $5.9 billions, or by 250 per cent. Exports to the United States have increased from $3 billion to $11 billion, an increase of 350 per cent. Among the major industrial countries, the most rapid growth in Canada's trade has been with Japan. Exports to that market have increased by 450 per cent. These are the facts. Yet the motion refers to the introduction of a program designed to protect Canada's future by redirecting trade so that it will not continue to be at the mercy of a single market.
As I say, trade with Japan has increased by 450 per cent. The hon. member for York South knows this to be the case, or, at least, ought to know it. But no mention of this aspect was made by him. Exports of manufactured products now comprise nearly two-fifths of our total exports as compared with 12 per cent a decade ago. The preponderant proportion of this increase has been in exports to the United States. Highly manufactured products now comprise about one-half of Canada's total exports to the United States, and the United States now absorbs about 85 per cent of Canada's exports of highly manufactured products. Again, the hon. member for York South knows this. I would have thought that since the new economic policy of the ited States is presently, in part, before Congress for consideration the House would have heard some suggestions from the New Democratic Party as to what Canada's posture should be. It would be helpful, not only to the Canadian people but helpful generally if it were recognized that there were some risks and difficulties attached to trade in any export market. They are not peculiar to trade with the United States. It could be that in future we will encounter similar difficulties with respect to, say, Japan, or the German market. We support the idea of diversification. Achievement in this area has been part of the government's record. But it is important to recognize that diversification alone would not eliminate the risks which are essentially involved in the export business.
I wish to deal with the situation as it is today, with special reference to the final point made in the resolution before the House. The implementation of recent United States measures, particularly the surcharge and the investment tax credit feature has introduced a disruptive element in the development of north-south trade in manufactured products. The Canadian government has remonstrated strongly against the application of these measures to Canada, not only in terms of damage to Canadian industries but also in terms of basic United States selfinterest. If it should turn out that these measures reflect a new and continuing intention on the part of the United States to frustrate the development in Canada of a mature and balanced structure, then clearly Canada must adapt to such a circumstance.
I do not believe we should respond to these measures until there is a much clearer indication that they will be approved by Congress. To me, it seems a symptom of the obsession in the minds of members of the New Democratic Party that they should ask the government to declare what its position would be in the event of a measure going through Congress. It seems to me that a mature party would not give way to an obsession of that kind. Yet this is
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
the approach opposition members are taking. In support of the general attitude being taken by the government, let me quote from a speech made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) in Houston, Texas, yesterday:
If we were now to find that United States policies were turning inward and that the United States considers it as in their interest to import our raw materials and our energy resources but to impede and obstruct the development of our secondary industries, we would have to take a very hard look at our whole economic relationship with the U.S. Indeed, in that case, we would need to fundamentally reassess our own trade and industrial policies. It would be an "agonizing reappraisal".
It would, indeed. We should not for one moment minimize the importance of United States trade. If the hon. member for York South had some single scheme in mind whereby Canadian trade could be directed away from the United States without producing the most serious consequences for Canada I should be glad to hear it. He should come to my riding, and I will get some of my steel workers to talk to him about the realities of the situation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary. I do so to advise him that his time has expired.


David Orlikow: We have now listened to two speeches from the government side. The first was from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney). I intend to ignore that speech because I know, as do most members of this House, that in the light of recent political trends in western Canada it is almost certain that that hon. member will not be back here next session.


An hon. Member:: Don't get political.


David Orlikow: I turn to the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner). He began by saying that every member of this House was concerned about unemployment. When I intervened to say that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was not, he chided me and suggested I was not telling the truth. Let me remind the parliamentary secretary that some 18 months ago, when the Prime Minister was attempting to deal with the inflation which was facing this country, he said he would not be deterred from pursuing his antiinflationary policies even if the country had to face unemployment at the rate of 6 per cent. Well, the rate is now 6 i per cent. I say, as I did when I interjected, that the Prime Minister does not give a damn about unemployment. The statement which the Prime Minister made was a heartless, unfeeling and uncaring statement by a man of wealth who never had to think about what it means to be unemployed, a man who, when he thinks of unemployment if he thinks of it at all, does so in terms of the kind of statistical gobbledygook we have been getting from ministers in this House.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) was here a few minutes ago. Before he came here he was president of the National Federation of Trade Unions. He understands the significance of the recent announcements of lay-offs by Domtar and Alcan. He must know, because he led these men in the strike at the end of which they gained recognition in 1941. The present Minis-

September 30, 1971
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
ter of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) knows what it means for a person who has been employed at relatively high wages to find himself out of work with payments due on a mortgage, or on an automobile or on a television set. He understands the uncertainty they face when they are laid off without knowing when, if ever, they are to be called back to work. Working people caught in a situation like that can look forward only to living on unemployment insurance until that runs out, and then going on welfare. Those other ministers I have mentioned may be concerned, but the Prime Minister has never been concerned about the unemployed. We have heard all kinds of rationalization. We have been told that the participation rate in the labour force is higher now. We have been told that the situation has improved, but that suddenly and unexpectedly there has been a sharp increase in the number of young people unemployed.
The facts are crystal clear. We need not take the word of Members of Parliament, or academic economists, or labour economists, or business economists: Statistics Canada gives us the figures each month. What do these figures show? For 16 months we have not had a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of less than 6 per cent. The government can squirm and argue, but nevertheless this is the fact and it cannot be wished away. In August 1971, we had 455,000 people unemployed, an increase of
7.000	over August 1970. This was the month before President Nixon announced his new economic policies which, according to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), will mean that if these policies are continued for a year there will be an extra 90,000 people unemployed.
We have been told that with the exception of unemployment among young people things are better. Just what is the situation as far as these young people are concerned? In August 1970, among the age group 14 to 24 there were
217.000	unemployed. In August 1971, there were 240,000 young people unemployed, an increase over the previous year of more than 10 per cent. We have been told that long term unemployment is getting better. If it were not unparliamentary, I would say that statement was a lie. Let me give the House the facts. In August 1970, there were 79,000 people in Canada who had been unemployed for more than six months. In August 1971, there were 106,000 people who had been unemployed for more than six months. Is this an indication that the situation is getting better? To me it indicates an increase in the number of these unemployed of 25 per cent or more.
We have also been told that the participation rate has improved. You can do anything with figures, Mr. Speaker, but at least this statement is true. In August 1970, the participation in the labour force was 57.9 per cent. In August 1971, it was 58.1 per cent, or 0.2 per cent better. These are the real facts and government ministers, and parliamentary secretaries who would like to be ministers, can argue all they want. The fact is that we have not done enough for the unemployed. One would think that by some accident, that through some act of God, Canada has the largest unemployment rate of any industrial country in the western world. That is not an accident; it results from deliberate government policy. I pointed out earlier

that when the Prime Minister inaugurated his anti-inflation policy he said that even a rate of 6 per cent unemployment would not deter him from his policy of restraint. Well, we have that amount of unemployment. In addition, this year we have a rapidly rising increase in the cost of living.
On the same day the unemployment figures for August were published, the Globe and Mail carried an article headlined "Cost of living, jobless rate up". I have said something about the jobless rate, and let me put on the record what this article had to say about the cost of living:
Official statistics on jobs and prices in Canada showed yesterday that high unemployment has stubbornly resisted the loosened economic policies that have permitted a new upsurge in the cost of living.
The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose in August to 6.5 per cent of the labour force. It was 6.3 per cent in July, slightly below the 6.4 rate for June.
At the same time, the cost of living went up 0.7 per cent, following a 0.8 per cent increase in July, pushing the total increase for the 12 months from August, 1970, to 3.4 per cent.
More than two-thirds of this rate of 3.4 per cent is attributable to the latter half of the year and the early months of 1971. We are now experiencing an increase in the cost of living at an annual rate of 5 per cent or more. I am simply saying that the government's policy regarding full employment has been a failure. The government's policy to combat rising costs has similarly been a failure. We have the worst of both possible worlds.
This afternoon we have had the same sort of speeches from the "juniors", the would-be ministers, the parliamentary secretaries, that we have had for a couple of years from the big chiefs.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: And you keep ignoring what we say.


David Orlikow: Let me put on the record a couple of the gems. The Prime Minister said on March 18 last in this House that the government had taken a series of steps intended to alter the course of the economic policy, but that some time must elapse before those steps could be fully productive. Then, he continued by saying he thought that all the economic indicators showed that the economy was moving. At the time the Prime Minister made that statement in March, 1971 we had an unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted, of 6.2 per cent. Six months later, in August, the unemployment rate had risen to 6.5 per cent.
Then, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), who is always so optimistic, said on November 12, 1970, that he had recently publicly suggested that on a seasonal basis unemployment had about reached its peak, and he expressed confidence that we could look forward to continued improvement. At the time he made that speech in November, 1970 the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment was 6.5 per cent. In August last, it was once more 6.5 per cent. Recently, the Minister of Finance said in this House, on September 7, in response to some comments made by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), that unemployment would continue to decline. He challenged the Leader of the Opposition to resign his leadership if the predictions made by the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that unemployment this year would not go below 6 per cent did not materialize.
September 30, 1971

I challenge the Minister of Finance, who has made repeated speeches in the House as well as statements outside the House in which he claimed unemployment was going down and that things were getting better, to follow the suggestion he made to the Leader of the Official Opposition, and if unemployment does not drop in any month for the balance of this year below 6 per cent, seasonally adjusted, that he resign his position. I say this because if ever there was a minister who has given the people of this country bad advice, it is the Minister of Finance.
We had a new, novel and ingenious explanation by the Prime Minister a few days ago of why the rate of unemployment, according to latest figures, was 6.5 per cent. The Prime Minister said that things are better all round; that it is only among the age group 14 to 19 that things are worse, and that this was a completely unexpected development that no one knew about. Economists inside and outside the government service have been pointing to the very large number of young people, a product of the postwar baby boom, who would be entering the employment market during the next few years.One does not have to consult professional economists on this subject; I have a column written by Douglas Fisher in the Toronto Telegram for December 11, 1970, headlined "Unemployment hits young people". He is talking about the unemployment figures published for November, 1970 and the article reads:
The breakdown for November, however, showed an inordinate increase in unemployment among the 14- to 24-year olds. This is what the opposition focused on, not the slightly-dipped rate.
This was not something unexpected. The government had every reason to know that the number of young people looking for work would be much greater than had been the case in recent years. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) says we have not put forward any concrete proposals. Of course, that is not true, like most of his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: The resolution we have put forward is pretty specific. It is as specific as any resolution can be in outlining the kind of program we think is necessary. We have gone into detail month after month in speech after speech concerning what is to be done. Last February the Premier of Manitoba showed his concern about unemployment, as the Prime Minister has not done. He announced a provincial program to meet unemployment, in so far as it could be done by the provincial government, in the province of Manitoba. I made a number of speeches in which I placed on the record the specific kind of thing the government of Manitoba is proposing. Let me summarize again for the parliamentary secretary, who said we were not specific, what the Premier said last February and what he proposed last week for the province of Manitoba.


James Hugh Faulkner: Never mind the Premier; what are you saying?


David Orlikow: I say that the government in Ottawa ought to follow the specific kind of proposals the government of
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
Manitoba has already produced. Then I will tell you what we say.
I heard someone just say the Premier of Manitoba is going off to Europe. That comes with ill-grace from a member of a cabinet which has done more travelling around than any other. The Premier of Manitoba made clear that the trip he proposed to make to Europe would be postponed or cancelled if the Prime Minister should call a conference when he would have been away. He will be at that conference next week, next month or any time the Prime Minister calls it. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) knows this.
What the government of Manitoba proposed last February, and implemented, was a program providing $70 million for public works' projects and an expanded housing program. The province of Manitoba spent $110 million in capital works. That is what the government of Manitoba did. The parliamentary secretary asks what we would propose, specifically. I will tell him what we propose specifically, but I say that this country is entitled to, and can have, full employment. It is the responsibility of any federal government to be, if necessary, the employer of last resort. The federal government has the responsibility of seeing that people are put back to work.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


David Orlikow: No. I have no more time than the parliamentary secretary. I say the federal government should inaugurate a program of putting 250,000 people to work for the four winter months. Who are those people? I am thinking particularly of people in Peterborough, Hamilton, Montreal and Quebec City who have been unemployed for so long. They are unemployed and their unemployment insurance benefits have run out. I am thinking particularly of the young people who have not worked long enough to qualify for benefit.
I say we ought to find work for 250,000 people. How can . we do it? I suggest the federal government should grant to the provinces and municipalities $250 million toward capital costs in order that the municipalities and provinces may build things which are necessary and which are not make-work programs. To do that we have calculated it would involve a wage bill of $500 million. I am suggesting that half of that $500 million, in other words $250 million, be paid by the municipalities and provinces and that the other half be provided by the federal government in the form of long-term, low-interest loans.
Need I tell the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State that 250,000 jobs provided in this way would have a dramatic effect in cutting back welfare costs which are beginning to strangle the municipalities of this country, including Peterborough. Need I remind the parliamentary secretary that 250,000 jobs would have a tremendous multiplier effect. He wants some specifics. I suggest to him that he remember and recreate a program begun by a Liberal government, if I remember correctly, under the then minister responsible for housing, now President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen).
I refer to a program which subsidized the building of houses in the winter by the payment of $500 per unit. Such a program would have a very dramatic effect in increas-

September 30, 1971
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
ing house building and construction this winter, and Lord knows we need it. That is the kind of specific program I have been talking about. It is common knowledge in Ottawa that the government will not just let things go. Even if the Prime Minister has no heart, he wants to be re-elected, so there will be a program. What will it be? It will be another program of job training.


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. Perrault:: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible to direct a question to the hon. member?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The parliamentary secretary may ask a question if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Raymond J. Perrault: I think it is very important that this question be asked. May I have unanimous consent?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair could ask for unanimous consent, but I suggest to hon. members that the House leader of the party of the parliamentary secretary and the House leader of the hon. member have indicated to the Chair a desire that as many members as possible speak. It seems to me that there should be no extension.
At this time I would read the proceedings of the adjournment motion.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)- External Affairs-Proposed Amchitka nuclear test-Possible reference by Canada to United Nations or International Court; the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Hai-dasz)-Bilingualism and Biculturalism-Representations by ethnic organizations-Policy statement on commission recommendations; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Temporary Wheat Reserves Act- Legal action to compel government to make payments under Temporary Wheat Reserves Act.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis:
-This House cannot tolerate any longer the economic policies of the government which have produced massive unemployment that threatens to become more serious this fall and winter; nor can this House tolerate any longer the government's failure to implement policies to reduce Canada's dependence on a single market and to assure a strong and independent Canadian economy.
Therefore this House calls for:
(1)	a large-scale program, in co-operation with the provinces and municipalities, to provide jobs this winter for the growing army of unemployed;
(2)	immediate reduction in taxes, particularly for lower and middle income groups;
(3)	further government action to force down interest rates;
(4)	large additional funds for housing;
(5)	essential anti-pollution measures such as funds to municipalities to build waste-treatment plants and other necessary works; and
(6)	introduction of a program designed to protect Canada's future by redirecting trade so that it will not continue to be at the mercy of a single market and by restructuring the economy to free it from foreign domination and control.
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will not surprise anybody by taking part in this debate since there is in the opposition motion a reference to housing. There is a simplistic reference to it. Even if we accept the bald assertion in this motion that the economic policies of the government have produced massive unemployment, which I certainly do not, I do not think the House accepts that one of the simplistic solutions is captured in these few words of the motion, "large additional funds for housing". That phrase certainly has a nice ring to it. Who would not, least of all a minister responsible for housing, call for large additional housing funds? But I think in the very best of circumstances this somewhat self-righteous and overly simplistic generalization hides and distorts what this government has done and is doing for housing in Canada.
Of course, we are always considering the provision of more funds for housing. I hope that if and when we do inject more funds into housing, it will be done with full recognition of the complexities of the housing market. I will say now that I hope we never subscribe to the idea that this is totally an economic regulator and thereby withdraw funds from housing for limited objectives, nor will we simply force-feed funds into housing solely to reduce unemployment.
What we do, what we have done and what I hope we will continue to do is to achieve the basic housing goals of this country and at the same time seek to maximize employment benefits generated by residential construction. Certainly that will be apparent in the 1972 program which will be announced in this House in due course. It will take into account the twin objectives of the government, housing and employment.
I think, also, that we would be very wise to recognize that the residential construction industry is now operating at its highest level in Canadian history. NHA insured mortgage loans approved during the first eight months of this year exceeded the volume for any previous full year in the history of the National Housing Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

September 30, 1971


Robert Knight Andras: I would say that this is a highly significant achievement. I think it is fully reflected in the actual 12 months' housing starts measured month by month from January, 1971, which at that time stood at 191,800, to a steadily increasing level in April of 203,800, in June to 220,400, and a further increase in July to 225,200. As of the end of August the actual starts in the previous 12 months were 230,000, which is by far the biggest record of housing starts this country has seen. I repeat that those are actual starts for the previous 12 months, and not forecasts. Speaking of forecasts, I would remind hon. members of the figures for August, which show that we were at the seasonally annually adjusted rate of 243,000. I think that heralds the continuance of a high performance during the winter, a performance of which we are not ashamed.
There is also reference in the resolution to this subject. In our CMHC sewage-treatment program, our achievement since 1968-69 is very real indeed. Federal outlays in
1968	for sewage-treatment facilities, loans to municipalities, were in the neighbourhood of $37 million. In 1969 they were $56 million and in 1970 well over $72 million. Indeed, in 1971 we will have committed $97 million.
I think these statistics reflect an upward and onward commitment to the housing and pollution control priorities of this government. The federal government's financial participation in housing since 1969 has increasingly been concentrated in the area of accommodation for those who cannot afford to obtain adequate shelter in the market. Here I refer to direct federal contribution. The
1969	capital budget of CMHC was set at $680 million, of which more than half, $359 million, was allocated for housing for low-income families and elderly people, while another $55 million was applied directly to accommodation for students. Of the balance, $170 million was devoted to direct CMHC loans to homeowners. This program began at that time to give special emphasis to the needs of those in lower-income brackets in areas outside urban centres where access to the private market was limited.
This activity in 1969 resulted in a commitment under the direct budget of CMHC which provided 27,470 dwelling units for low-income groups in that year. That trend was continued and expanded in 1970 when an unprecedented budget of $1,094 million was approved. It included several special programs. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) mentioned the $200 million innovative program, and there was an additional $240 million direct lending program inaugurated in late August of 1970. This year, 1971, again our direct CMHC investment in housing and related infrastructure will approach $1 billion. Of this amount, $789 million has been allocated to housing and virtually all of this sum is being utilized for housing for people in the lower half of the income scale.
I wish I had had the time to do more research and checking before coming to the House this afternoon. However, I think I remember when the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert)-who challenges me from time to time on housing-spoke in the standing committee which studied the CMHC estimates almost three years ago and said that the minister had better make a commitment to members of the House that he would invest at least $300 million a year in low-income housing from the CMHC budget. That figure was passed that year and we have
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
more than doubled it every year since. There was no mention of that in any of the comments of the hon. member. I think the credibility of that party would have been much higher if this kind of fact had been placed before us along with their criticism.
All this means that in the three-year period 1969, 1970 and 1971 we will have produced 117,000 housing units for low-income people. In other words, more than one-quarter of all the housing that has been produced annually goes, by deliberate direction, to those whose needs are most urgent. In those three years we will have begun, in terms of housing starts, 50 per cent more housing units for low-income people than in all previous years under the National Housing Act.
We were assured, on the private side of operations, in my consultations with approved lenders late last year that there would be a high level of private lender support, and this has been realized.
Our approach to 1971 has been taken on the basis that if we are to deal effectively with the variety of housing problems in Canada, and even within particular communities, we must introduce a flexible program and a more flexible use of instruments available to us under NHA. In 1971 we have been trying to exercise the increased flexibility which we began under last year's $200 million innovative program. This year, the CMHC capital budget commitment for federal initiatives of that nature in fact amounted to $451 million. Close to $100 million was allocated for a new program of assisted home ownership. Here we are utilizing reduced interest rates and extended amortization to get down, in some cases, to people with incomes a little in excess of $3,000, for the first time in a long time letting them experience home ownership.
I must say that most provinces are continuing to cooperate. They are providing various forms of assistance to complement federal efforts. These vary from interest rebates to homeowner grants with which most hon. members are familiar. The major elements of this program include interest rates which are now down to 7-3/4 per cent, and extended amortization to 40 years if the lower interest rate is insufficient to bring monthly repayments within the financial capability of the purchaser. About a quarter of the funds to which I have referred were committed in the first nine months of the year. We anticipate that projects will move into the "start" stage at a faster rate in the weeks ahead, providing for continuing on-site activity for many months to come, the many critical months to which hon. members are referring, in the winter of 1971-72.
Within the $451 million we allocated another $100 million to support the activities of non-profit organizations building rental housing for low-income families and individuals at rents agreed in the contractual obligation that goes with such loans from CMHC. That includes the section 15, formerly section 16, activities of the Quebec Housing Corporation. This section is used mainly for the provision of housing for elderly persons, for the handicapped and other disadvantaged people. Here again some provinces, but not all, provide assistance through capital or operating grants, and in these remarks I must recognize the very valuable contributions made by church

September 30, 1971
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
groups, service clubs, charitable organizations and many others who are co-operating with us.
For the first six months of this year our program of non-profit loans produced commitments for 1,085 units and an amount of more than $15 million for new construction. Many of the projects are moving into a position where starts can be effected in the later part of the year and will be very valuable in creating employment in the winter months.
As part of the section 15 activity we also arranged for close to $100 million to be used for projects in 28 centres across Canada using the proposal call technique. We did this on a considerably smaller scale in 1970 and were encouraged by the results. We are extending it this year to provide needed rental accommodation throughout the country. Close to 3,000 units and $41 million have been committed under this special program to date, which will provide for new accommodation in such centres as Vancouver, Regina, Moncton, Pointe Gatineau, Hamilton, Brantford, Toronto, Ottawa, Windsor, Halifax, Calgary, Sudbury, Winnipeg, North Bay and St. John's. I hear my hon. friend from Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) interjecting, but I do not see the name of his town on the list. In addition to these special efforts there is the direct CMHC lending program under section 58, formerly section 40, and a number of initiative and development projects where we are attempting new approaches in such areas as rehabilitation of existing homes.
So, Mr. Speaker, when we take into account all the lending activity under the National Housing Act for new construction, for the first six months alone we are talking about more than 70,000 dwelling units and close to 7,000 hostel beds, for an investment of close to $1 billion with many more projects in train now approved. I think that as a result we will have a record housing accomplishment this year. I think we can predict with conviction that 1972 will be another year of high production, with the housebuilding industry fully engaged. I also think that our low-income housing achievement in the 1969-71 period, which I fully intend to see carried forward into 1972 and beyond, is most gratifying. We will continue to thrust for an increasing proportion of our housing production to go into this area. I think it will be one of the thrusts that will serve to keep the housebuilding industry alive and fully active in 1972.
Having set some of those facts on the record, I wish to refer to some of the comments made by my hon. friend on this side of the House, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State, who asked some very pertinent questions as to the precision of the recommendations made by the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) and other speakers who used such fine phrases as "more funds for housing." I ask: How much more funds? Where will it come from? What programs will it displace? Where will it be placed, and what of the capacity of the industry?
All sorts of questions are left hanging in the air by hon. members opposite. These are questions that must be thrown right back at them. We will be delighted to receive constructive suggestions that go far beyond the superficial, in-favour-of-motherhood expressions contained in the motion before the House.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I ask the minister a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point is whether the minister will accept a question. He has a minute or two left. I note that he will receive the question.


John Howard Lundrigan: I ask the minister a question raised in the House a few days ago concerning a gentleman who is eminently qualified to speak on housing; I believe he is president of the Canadian national housing association. He made a statement at St. John's, Newfoundland, speaking on behalf of his association, and indicated that for a good many reasons, all of which were outlined, there will be a substantial increase in interest rates during the last quarter of 1971 which, despite the 225,000 housing starts predicted, means we will not get the full amount of housing that we should get.
Would the minister take his last minute to respond to that kind of criticism and indicate whether he is willing to make an effort to bring down interest rates and to reduce the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it would take another 20 minutes to answer the questions raised by the hon. member. I have not yet had an opportunity to see the remarks of which he speaks. I presume he is referring to the president of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, Mr. Shipp. I noticed some reference in the newspapers to his speech. Much as I enjoy the co-operation of that body, I do not share the premises contained in his remarks. I do not agree that we will see a fall in housing starts and a tremendous increase in interest rates during the next quarter.


John Howard Lundrigan: The minister referred to a Mr. Shipp.


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, I think that is his name.


John Howard Lundrigan: In his speech he referred to an impending increase in interest rates which might put a damper on housing starts. Has the minister any plans in mind to try to curb any increase in interest rates which will make it more costly and difficult for people to own their own homes? Also, will he speak for a few seconds in reply to the suggestion made by this party regarding the elimination of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials?


Robert Knight Andras: I do not wish to elaborate further on the 11 per cent sales tax question because on several occasions I have placed my views with respect to it on record in this House. But I may repeat that I would be glad to see it removed if somebody can tell me where the funds thereby displaced will come from, because I would like to get my share of them for housing just as other ministers want their share to meet their responsibilities. With regard to interest rates, I do not agree with the premise of the remarks made by the president of HUDAC.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey).


Mr. Downey:: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair, to resume the same at eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

September 30, 1971


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


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like permission of the House to revert to motions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree to allow the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to revert to motions for the purpose of making a correction, I believe it is?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the House for allowing me to refer to this matter as soon as possible.
A few hours ago I tabled an Order in Council providing for the appointment of 28 parliamentary secretaries, pursuant to the provisions of the Government Organization Act, 1971. I am advised that this number is based on a misinterpretation of the legislation under existing circumstances. This legislation is new and has not previously been applicable.
So there may be no question concerning the validity of the government's action in this matter, the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) has graciously agreed to decline appointment as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Revenue. This leaves the number of appointments at 27, which is the number that coincides with the strictest possible interpretation of the law.
I should like to add that the government and myself, personally, appreciate the co-operation of the hon. member for Laprairie.


An hon. Member:: He should be a Senator.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are starting to obey the law.


Mr. Bell:: There are so many parliamentary secretaries it does not really matter.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis:
This House cannot tolerate any longer the economic policies of the government which have produced massive unemployment that threatens to become more serious this fall and winter; nor can this
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
House tolerate any longer the government's failure to implement policies to reduce Canada's dependence on a single market and to assure a strong and independent Canadian economy.
Therefore this House calls for:
(1)	a large-scale program, in co-operation with the provinces and municipalities, to provide jobs this winter for the growing army of unemployed;
(2)	immediate reduction in taxes, particularly for lower and middle income groups;
(3)	further government action to force down interest rates;
(4)	large additional funds for housing;
(5)	essential anti-pollution measures such as funds to municipalities to build waste-treatment plants and other necessary works; and
(6)	introduction of a program designed to protect Canada's future by redirecting trade so that it will not continue to be at the mercy of a single market and by restructuring the economy to free it from foreign domination and control.
Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to take the floor after that earth-shaking announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I thought he might have said something in another vein, but I suppose he is still trying to solve the unemployment problem in his own way before calling an election. I am pleased that the Prime Minister is in the House this evening. It was regrettable that government members who were present this afternoon had to take so much abuse from hon. members on this side, because I think we all appreciate that they are not responsible for the mess the country is in.
The Prime Minister and what I might term his little power group of three or four make decisions in this country while the bulk of the members on the government side have to take the abuse. Any admiration I may have for them in this regard would be the same kind of admiration I might have for a flock of sheep.
When the Prime Minister came into the chamber this evening I thought we might have the good fortune to hear the announcement of an election.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Any time.


Cliff Downey: We would then see a group of unemployed Liberal Members of Parliament. I think it is time we put the present policies of the government to the test.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney), and the minister in charge of housing told us this afternoon how good things are. They referred to a lot of statistics in respect of housing and unemployment to show how good things are. As an hon. member to my left said, they gave us the old numbers game. But when you have been around here for a year or two you realize that statistics do not mean very much. They are adjusted seasonally and in any other way in order to make the picture look as rosy as one wants. I think it is safe to say that no one actually believes this government or any of its members.
Let me read part of a letter I received from a farmer in Kelfield, Saskatchewan, in which he complains about taking out a cash advance. It compares the announcement by the government with the legislation passed. He said he took out a $2,400 loan on the basis of a statement by Otto E. Lang as recorded in the July issue of the Prairie Grains Policy Progress Report. He took out a cash advance. I will

September 30, 1971
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
read from that report issued by the office of the minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang):
Repayments will be made at the same rate as advances. If, for example, the advance is made at the rate of 50 cents a bushel, repayment will be made at the rate of 50 cents a bushel as the grain is delivered.
The farmer I am talking about read that statement, took out the loan on the basis that collections would be made at 50 cents a bushel, but discovered, as he says in his letter, that repayments were on the basis of 95 cents a bushel, the maximum rate allowable under the legislation. Yet the ministry of misinformation, as I prefer to call it, puts out this garbage which does not coincide with what is going on.
Referring to our debate of the last few days with regard to the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, what has the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) said? On page 8276 of Hansard, for September 29, 1971, we find this entry:


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada recognizes that there is a debt due to the farmers of western Canada in the amount of $38.5 million.
Yet the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) stood blandly in front of the television cameras the other night and said that $60 million is owing under the Temporary Wheat Reserves provisions. Whom are you to believe? Let me refer to page 58:15 of issue No. 58 of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. Mr. Treleaven, assistant chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, is reported as saying:
The $60 million was due as of August 1, 1970.
Under questioning he went on to say, as reported at page 58:24:
-$30 million is the amount approximately that would be due on August 1, 1971.
Nevertheless, the Minister of Justice mentioned $38.5 million yesterday in the House. The Minister of Agriculture did not say anything in the House. He went in front of television cameras and made erroneous statements. Whom are we to believe? Obviously, the assistant chief commissioner of the Wheat Board. He has no political axe to grind. He has no fear of being defeated in an election. I would be inclined to think that the farmers of western Canada would believe him. We will see who the people of Canada will believe if this government wants to put its policies to the test.
The government, in the same vein, of course, has accused the opposition of obstructing passage of the stabilization program. It has been pointed out time and again that the stabilization bill spent 27 hours in committee. Until last week's debate only 12 hours had been spent in the House on that important bill which supposedly is to form the basis of farmers' incomes in the years ahead. We spent only 12 hours on it in the House, and the government cells the debate a filibuster.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


David Orlikow: You've seen nothing yet.


An hon. Member:: They can't stand it.


Cliff Downey: Some discussions on bills in committee have had face-saving value. Last year, when discussing Bill C-176, the Standing Committee on Agriculture saved the Minister of Agriculture from himself. It saved him from making, I hesitate to use the word, a fool of himself. At any rate, it saved him from himself in front of the Canadian people. If that bill had not been examined carefully and had been allowed to go through, I submit that the Supreme Court ruling of last summer would have rendered the bill useless. We are talking about an international trade war now, and we are worried about it. Yet if that bill under the aegis of the Minister of Agriculture had gone through, it would have precipitated the greatest interprovincial trade war imaginable. The international situation would have been as nothing compared with what might have happened interprovincially.
Government supporters have given a glowing report of our economy. They have tried to make their points from the right kinds of statistics. I recall, looking over newspaper headlines of September and October, 1929, that there were glowing reports then, too. Everybody said the economy would advance. That was the big point everyone made. There may have been little paragraphs on the back pages which indicated otherwise. But government and officials were saying that everything was fine. The same thing is happening today. Certainly, what the government says bears no relation to fact and to what is going on in this country.
I know the government is genuinely worried about the state of the nation today, but look at their priorities three years ago. Then they could have done something to avert the situation that is upon us today. What were their priorities? One of them was language, another was the bedrooms of the nation. Day after day we asked the Prime Minister questions. He did not answer, he just shrugged. That is the fashion now; if you do not want to do anything or say anything, you just shrug.
Then there is this business of skiing. I think the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) talked about the Prime Minister's trips and how necessary they are. I believe heads of state should get around and maintain relations with other countries-personal relations. It is this continual round of skiing events and the Prime Minister's participation in that type of activity when the economy and the country are going downhill that bothers people to whom I have talked. They are not bothered by his visiting other heads of state.
Anybody who has watched closely the reign of this Prime Minister must conclude that his policy has been to confuse and to divide. Look at what happened to the Post Office Department. When I first came to Parliament you could receive a letter from my constituency in two days. How long does it take now? It could take two days or two weeks. Look at what the white paper on tax reform has done to the country and you will understand why today there is no prosperity in the country. People have no faith in the government, they do not know what the government is about to do next and hence business is reluctant to invest because investment may come to nothing. I think businessmen prefer to invest in other countries or keep the money in their own pockets.
Look at our youth and you will see the policy of confusion at work. Only a few years ago our youth were being
September 30, 1971

told that business was bad, that they should "do their own thing" and that type of thing. Now the Prime Minister is saying to the youth of this nation that they should help business. He is telling them to go along with business and that it is necessary. That was not his message two or three years ago. Look at our present situation. It is the direct result of this policy of division and confusion. Whether there has been any point in the attempts to divide and confuse the nation we shall have to wait and see. Much has been said on the subject and according to some sources that policy may have been intentional.
Opinions on foreign ownership have continually been voiced in this House. This fact has been deplored many times by my friends to the left. Foreign ownership and capital coming into this country have been deplored in many speeches made in this House. It is not the matter of foreign capital that should bother Canadians. However, there is a situation we should seek to correct. It is the matter of foreign industry coming into Canada being financed by the Canadian banking system. Hon. members will recall the stir in the House created by the sale of Ryerson Press last spring. No Canadian firm would purchase it. An American firm purchased it and then borrowed 90 per cent of the purchase price from one of our chartered banks. If there are to be any consequential changes to improve the system, perhaps should begin by studying our Bank Act which was last revised in 1967 and should be revised again.
We must discontinue ranting and raving about the United States which, basically, is our friend. We should not have expected to receive preferential treatment when our ministers visited that country a short while ago. We have betrayed them, in their eyes. The United States is a fact of life on the North American continent that we cannot ignore. The only way, I am sure, we will have prosperity with this government is if they start printing money again which will make our currency even funnier than it is today.
Some time ago I looked through the Bank Act. I noticed with regard to deposit reserves that the ratio is something like 12 per cent on demand loans and 4 per cent on contract loans. Of course, this is averaged every month. The last time I inquired, the ratio was 6.12 per cent. With the deposits which the chartered banks in Canada now have, which I think amount to approximately $33 billion, they could issue credit of approximately $428 billion. Whether this monopoly to issue credit to this extent is realistic in terms of maximum benefit to Canadians is something that should be reviewed by the House.
In conclusion, until we have in power a government that will do something other than divide and confuse we will be in continual trouble.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, while listening this afternoon to the motion which we are now debating, I could not but think: This has already been seen, heard and repeated.
If there is in this motion a theme, a common denominator, it is the word "additional". This government is on the right track, obviously, but the motion states: Do a little
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
more. You are reducing taxes, the motion seems to say, for people with a low income and for those with an average income. Do some more. Interest rates are low, but take
-further action-
Housing is doing great, but vote -additional funds-
Pollution control is well undertaken, but build additional
-waste-treatment plants-
I was going to tell the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) that his motion was entirely lacking in originality, but in a rare moment of moderation, he has recognized this himself by saying-

There is not an original suggestion in this motion.

Those are his own words, Mr. Speaker. One must admit that the fact of being told by the mover of the motion that this has already been said many times will not encourage hon. members to take part in this debate.
In my field of responsibilities, however, especially with regard to foreign trade, I must admit that the motion is more provocative. That is why I am taking part in the debate tonight.
If the tone of paragraph (6) of the motion with regard to trade, and especially its first part, had been more in harmony with the rest of the resolution, the hon. member for York South would have said: "By redirecting trade in a more intensive and better way". If he had continued by saying "so that it will not be so much at the mercy of a single market", if he had used the same tone as in other parts of his motion, if he had made the distinctions appearing elsewhere, then, I admit, I would not have had anything to say. I would have agreed that Canada should continually strive to diversify its foreign trade in a more intensive and better way instead of reducing its American share. This would have been logical. In business as well as in other fields, it is a good thing to refrain from putting all the eggs in the same basket. This is peasant wisdom.
Mr. Speaker, I do not claim to be an expert in international trade. It is quite evident. Everybody knows that I am Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce because I am rather industrious and quite easy to deal with but in looking at this motion, I cannot help but think that it is ill-informed, extravagant, simplistic and pessimistic.
It gives the impression that Canada is always given the choice either of exporting to the United States or of exporting in the rest of the world, in short, exporting this or that, exporting manufactured products or raw materials. It is the impression it gives. It gives the impression that Canada may choose between exporting-


David Lewis: At the present time, we have no choice. That is the problem.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -renewable raw materials and exporting non renewable raw materials. But the hon, member has just said it himself-we do not have that choice, because Canada must export everywhere in the world all exportable materials, whenever the price is reasonable. Canada

September 30, 1971
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
cannot and must not try to favour one market more than another. It is a luxury we cannot afford and people working in such or such a sector would point out, I believe, to the hon. member that his proposition would not suit them very much.
The hon. member gives the impression that external trade is a tap one can turn on or off at will, a heating system one turns on in the morning and off in the evening. It is not that at all.
The resolution is also a defeatist one, because in the face of our present difficulties in our trade with the United States, the hon. member gives the impression that we must give up and export in the rest of the world, namely give up what we have and look elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, that is a defeatist attitude and it would be bad policy. It is not the one the government is taking and I do not believe it would be the one the Canadian people would approve.
In the present crisis, there is a struggle to engage in and as for me, I intend to pursue the government's efforts.
For the information of the House, I should like to comment on the efforts made in order to reach the valuable goals referred to in the motion, that is diversification of foreign markets. Later on, I should like to refer to the American market.
There is nothing new in trying to diversify our foreign trade and, this afternoon, the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) as a matter of fact mentioned results achieved in the diversification and enlargement of our foreign trade.
For the past ten years, Canada's foreign trade has increased three times that of the United States three and a half times; overseas trade, two and a half times; Japanese trade four and a half times, etc. The hon. member for Peterborough has also established the fact that such increase has not only happened with raw materials and semi-finished products, but also with manufactured goods, because ten years ago our manufactured goods made up 12 per cent of our exports, whereas now they represent 40 per cent of such exports. I know for a fact that a good portion of those exports are the result of the auto pact. That I know very well! However, I fail to see why we should dissociate the auto pact from Canada's foreign trade.
Efforts are made all over the world-as I have said before-in all sectors, through a great variety of means; I might say that we are using all commendable means to succeed.
Diversification is not easy to achieve. As a rule, when the minister or the government makes a special effort in South America, for instance, hon. members say in the House: You ignore Europe! Whenever an effort is made in Europe, we are told: You ignore the Pacific area! When we are selling wheat, they say: You neglect manufactured goods. When we sell manufactured goods, we are told that we are forgetting pulp and paper. This is indeed, an easy kind of criticism to level at someone and personally, I find it quite educational. Also, I often say that here as elsewhere there are conflicting interests; for instance, we have a legislation to promote textiles and clothing.
Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly you are aware that the textile people's interests are different from those in the clothing

business. For instance, the suit, skirt and shirt manufacturer must find raw materials at the lowest possible price and sometimes he will have to import. Obviously he is then acting against the interests of the Canadian raw material manufacturer.
Mr. Speaker, every day I get advice in the House. Some say: Stop all importations. Others urge me to sell more abroad and, above all, to protest against the Japanese and the Americans when they use protectionist measures against us. Each time I hear this contradiction I smile because this is the way I am made. I am a mixture of stoicism, Catholicism and-


David Lewis: -unfortunately of liberalism too.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -and also liberalism. But I believe that there is good Christian liberalism as there is also good Christian socialism particularly that of the Manitoba premier. I think there is also a good Jewish socialism represented by the member for York South (Mr. Lewis). I figure that nobody has a monopoly over intelligence and goodwill.
Mr. Speaker, I will try to deal with the government's efforts to increase our foreign trade with the other countries and mainly the United States. All departments and many Crown agencies are precisely devoting themselves to that. Why does the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) visit Japan-and we are all sorry for what happened to him-if not to increase our foreign trade with Japan in certain areas such as uranium? When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) makes a trip to China, or rather to Russia-I hope he will soon visit China-when he flies abroad it is obvious that foreign trade is one of his main concerns. Actually, as soon as he goes to Russia he is told to go to the United States, and as soon as he goes to the United States, he is told to go to Asia without considering that he has already been to the United States and Asia. Finally, he has gotten used to that kind of criticism and has resigned himself to it.
In my department, Mr. Speaker, we work unceasingly to broaden overseas markets for our Canadian goods. For instance, we are now conducting negotiations with Hungary, Australia, New Zealand and Columbia, and in a few days we will travel to Algeria, Zambia, the Philippines and so on. We are constantly endeavouring to obtain better conditions of access for Canadian products in these countries.
We are improving our methods and devising new ones. We have created "departmental committees". Ministers from various countries meet together. We have set up a committee with the United States and another one with Japan. A few days ago, we held a meeting in Toronto with the Japanese ministers and another meeting was held in Mexico City. An inter-departmental meeting with the ministers of Mexico will be held next month.
There are now so-called "mixed" missions. From early 1971, I have headed "mixed missions" to Germany, the USSR and China. This formula is advantageous. The mission is headed by the minister who is sometimes accompanied by parliamentarians and the mission in question includes officials and businessmen. This is one way of making contacts which otherwise would not be possible. It is sometimes enough that an embassy should call up the manager of a company saying that Mr. So and So is here
September 30, 1971

with a group headed by the minister-it can be me or somebody else of course-to open doors, which hitherto had remained closed.
It is a formula, Mr. Speaker, and we take advantage of it. Indeed we hope to have one soon in Algeria and Japan. I say all this, Mr. Speaker, so that the public in general, to which the hon. member for York South was addressing himself today, know also that the government is making efforts, that the idea of diversifying trade has not been born today in the mouth of the hon. member for York South, but that others thought of it before him.
I am even prepared to acknowledge that some of my predecessors, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings (Mr. Hees) for instance, have made serious efforts along those lines. It is not a new idea to try to diversify trade. Is it being done adequately? Maybe not. Therefore, we may be criticized on the means we are taking, but let us not be asked, as in the motion before us, for "introduction of a program designed to protect Canada's future by redirecting trade so that it will not continue to be at the mercy of a single market . . . " and so on, as if the hon. member for York South had just invented that yesterday.
That "introduction", Mr. Speaker, has already taken place. For instance, we have the "scientific and technological agreements" formula. That is another means of increasing trade. We seek to know the inventions, the breakthroughs of such and such a country, in order to take advantage of them, and we also draw its attention to imaginative technologies developed in Canada.
We are also committed by scientific and technological agreements with Belgium, the USSR, Germany, and we also hope to conclude similar agreements with other countries. Furthermore, we are trying to persuade Canadians to turn to the metric system more rapidly, precisely in order to increase our trade possibilities with countries where in most cases that system is in use.
Together with the USSR, we have established "workshops" comprising Canadian and Russian experts. There are six such "workshops" at the present time, and they meet once or twice a year precisely to seek trade opportunities between both countries.
We are setting up export consortiums. If there is a power dam to be built in Brazil, Zambia or somewhere else, consortiums are set up, which are associations of persons having material, services or knowledge they can pool so that they will be well enough organized in that country to offer a single project instead of 18.
We have opened lines of credit for some countries. We have said, for example, to the people of Iran: Listen, here is $100 million that we are going to lend you so you can come and buy from Canada. And they did.


An hon. Member:: Were they convinced?


Jean-Luc Pepin: What I am trying to do is show the efforts that are made. There are programs to help exporters of goods and services explore foreign markets. Here is a group of men who heard that it was possible to export in a country, Uruguay for instance, but to get down there, to make a survey and a submission, requires a lot of money in somes cases. A company can do that two or three times a year, but to do it five or six times is sometimes too costly. So we are going to help them and provide them
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
with 50 per cent of the expenditures envolved and if they get the contract they will pay us back the money we invested in that project.
The hon. member from York South said this afternoon that we should be making more credit, particularly to developing countries because they need it very much to pass orders. On the other hand, is he aware of the efforts made by the Export Development Corporation in that regard? In the period from 1966 to 1969 the corporation granted loans of approximately $50 million. Last year they totalled $96 million. In 1971 they were up to $400 million.
So, when the hon. member says that more credit should be granted to underdeveloped countries, all I can say is that this has already been done. Should one billion dollars be allocated for that purpose? Possibly! But this is where government expenditures must be shared between various departments; some must be left for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and for some other undoubtedly important departments.
Another thing, Mr. Speaker. As some people know, I am a former tennis player; in that game, as you know yourself-especially before you break a leg-one of the most important things, according to champions like Perry, Budge and Vines, is the followthrough, that is what happens after you have hit the ball. This is how a trajectory can be given to the ball. In our department, we are "obsessed"-this is the true word-by the importance of the followthrough. We are sending missions to Germany and China and we remain in contact with our trade commissioners; we call them back every two or three months to see what progress has been made, to encourage and stimulate them, to give them the information we have gathered and that they sometimes do not have. As I say, we are "obsessed" by the necessity for continuity, by the followthrough.
Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, we achieve fairly fantastic results which are not always recognized by this House. This is normal and I am not complaining. For instance, when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and myself returned from Europe where we had made certain representations to negotiate the enlargement of the Common Market and had obtained most interesting terms for pulp and paper producers, for the producers of Douglas fir plywood, for the producers of phosphorus, etc., I remember full well having complained that the members of the opposition were not paying attention to what I was saying. That is not very encouraging; yet,-
When we went to China, Mr. Speaker, we obtained three very important things. First of all, when they need wheat the Chinese will come to Canada first. That is an advantage other countries would have loved to have had: I obviously need not specify which countries they are. As we know, the Chinese came over the other day and bought 30 million dollars' worth more wheat than they had on their previous order which was prodigious as everyone will recall.
We have also obtained from the Chinese-I remember quite well that the word "consider" was used-that they consider the possibility of Canada making further

September 30, 1971
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
exports. In addition, we have obtained from them that each year they indicate what they intend to import the following year. Incidentally, in a few weeks in Pekin, there will be a meeting of Canadian and Chinese officials and the latter will tell us what they intend to import in 1972. It is a break-through and a considerable advantage.
The Russians have done the same as far as wheat is concerned. They told us that they were coming to Canada and they did so a few days after the Prime Minister's visit. But obviously few members opposite saw the connection between the two events. We are not complaining, that is normal. But one is surprised at being told to make greater efforts. I only ask the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) that if he is getting extraordinary inspirations from Yahweh, God or Jesus, he should enlighten us because we are extremely anxious to find new ways of expanding our exports to other markets than the United States, because we know as well as he does that we should diversify our external trade.
Mr. Speaker, there are many things I would like to say on that subject, but I shall only add this: We are now being told that we rely too much on the American market. We might also consider that it could get just as dangerous to depend on other overseas markets, if we were to follow the advice of the hon. member for York South.
To trade is to take a chance, and you have to take a chance, no matter where you trade. I think we try, as much as the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), to find the right mix, the best possible balance between our exports to the United States and our exports to the rest of the world, our exports of raw materials and our exports of manufactured goods.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words concerning the American market. Why do Canadians do more trade with the United States? As everyone is aware, we do about two thirds of our import and export trade with the United States. Why so? For a very simple reason-in fact, it is the most natural thing in the world. From a geographical viewpoint, we are Americans: it is, therefore, quite natural that we should do more trade with American than with Asian countries.
Our export goods are well accepted in the United States, corresponding to American fashions and customs, much better perhaps than they meet the requirements in India, the Philippines or elsewhere, because we belong to the same civilization, the same culture, the same way of life.
Our trading patterns-


Mr. Gleave:: You speak English, don't you?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, I do. Depending on the way I feel on the subject, I speak either mostly in English or mostly in French. Tonight just happens to be a night when I am speaking mostly in French.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Canada and the United States also have common trading patterns. There is also economic complementarity. Some Canadian products round out the

American arsenal, and vice versa. There is also much specialization between companies on either side of the border.
This afternoon I heard the hon. member for York South criticizing multinational corporations, but I should very much like to know what he intends to substitute for them. The trend toward multinationalism in industry and trade is general.
I feel there can be no going back. The trouble is that Canada does not have enough of those companies. I believe if we had more we would be stronger economically.
Moreover, there is the fact that the United States do not need preferential credits, dealers or foreign aid. That is obvious. And, Mr. Speaker, they are right there, they are next door, their market is a natural extension of our market. Exporters do what comes naturally. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is continentalism because precisely we happen to belong to the same continent. As far as I am concerned, I believe that the Canadian people consider the American market as a natural market for Canada, and I think that they consider it also as a stable one, made of sensible, distinguished people who above all do pay well and I do not think that the hon. member will be very successful in advising the people to export more to Africa or to the other developing countries. We do that as far as possible but it seems to me that, with regard to the economic future of Canada, it would be unwise to depend largely on the African or Asian market.
Mr. Speaker, we regret that the Americans do not take into account, especially at present, the special and unique nature of the relations between our two countries and, as far as I am concerned, I do not miss any opportunity-and I wished that the hon. member for South York did so more often-to draw the attention of the Americans to the unique nature of our mutual trade relations.
I was in Houston yesterday. I suppose that some hon. members would like to take note of my speech which, I think, is fairly good and where I show exactly the importance of economic and trade relations between Canada and United States. Only a detail, we receive 35 million visitors from United States.
Does the hon. member intend-no, surely not-


Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister but his time has expired even though the Chair has recognized him as the official spokesman for his party and has allowed him 30 minutes. Unless, of course, the House gives unanimous consent-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree to allow the hon. member to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with the second part of the motion moved by the leader of this party, as follows:
-nor can this House tolerate any longer the government's failure
September 30, 1971

to implement policies to reduce Canada's dependence on a single market and to assure a strong and independent Canadian economy.
I am sure there is no need for me to enumerate to the House the catastrophic effects which would ensue if the United States continued the 10 per cent surcharge on imports and retreated into some of the protectionist devices which are at present being discussed in that country. I agree with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) when he says that if these policies are continued it will be disastrous for Canada. The estimate of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), that it would mean a loss of at least 90,000 jobs in Canada, is probably too low.
It seems to me we must ask ourselves how we came to be in this predicament and what we can do to rectify it. We should begin by asking how we came to be in this very difficult situation. I suggest the reason Canada is more adversely affected by the United States recent action is because we have virtually become a United States economic colony. Ever since the end of World War II the Liberal party has been the advocate of economic integration with the United States. Whenever we attack the government for its continentalism we get the kind of hoary answer given to us this afternoon by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) who asked, "Do you not want us to trade with the United States?" or the statement of the minister who has just resumed his seat that it is only natural that we should trade with the United States.
No one quarrels with that. Of course we must trade with the United States because of our proximity. The late President Jack Kennedy, when he visited Ottawa some years ago, said of our two nations that "geography has made us neighbours and history has made us friends." But there is a great deal of difference between trading with a country and being owned and dominated by that country. There is a great deal of difference in the relations between neighbours and the relations between tenants and landlords.
Of course we support trade with the United States. But what has happened in the process of continentalism is that we have gradually been losing the capacity to make our own economic decisions in this country. It is not that the government has not been warned of the apparent dangers of allowing the economy to be dominated and manipulated by another country. When some of us have been making these statements over the years we have been attacked as being anti-American or Canadian nationalists. We have not been alone. Many newspapers in Canada, and other publications, such as the Toronto Star, the Financial Post, the Financial Times and MacLean's magazine have been speaking out on this subject for the last ten or 15 years.
People in the academic community have warned the government of what is likely to happen. As a matter of fact, a former Liberal Minister of Finance, Mr. Walter Gordon, tried valiantly in the years between 1962 and 1967 to do something about this growing encroachment by the United States corporate power on the Canadian economy. We know what happened to him.
In order to appease public concern, the Liberal government set up the royal commission headed by Professor Watkins. This commission reported in 1967, and nothing has been done. For the past two years the Minister of
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
National Revenue (Mr. Gray) has been making a study of foreign ownership and now we understand he has made a report to the government. We are still waiting for some action. Even the Leader of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario, Robert Nixon, the other day in a public speech criticized the government and said it had been too slow in dealing with this crucial matter.
The fact is that the chickens have come home to roost, and the chickens look very much like vultures. The Globe and Mail said in an editorial today that Canada now is in the position of being like a branch plant arguing with head office. In a television interview the other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said he was surprised that the United Sates wants to make Canadians hewers of wood and drawers of water. He need not have been surprised. Like Rip Van Winkle, he has just awakened to the world of today. They have been making us hewers of wood and drawers of water for decades, particularly since the end of World War II.
Instead of being aware of the situation, the Prime Minister has poured ridicule again and again upon those who have expressed their concern about the growing control of the Canadian economy by foreign investors. He has referred to them as Canadian nationalists and superpatriots. If we take the trouble to make a survey of the Canadian economy we find that foreign control has now reached the stage of economic domination. I shall not go over again the long, depressing catalogue of what the results of foreign ownership and control have been. Most members are familiar with it. In the last ten years the book value of foreign capital invested in Canada has doubled in size. The foreign ownership of the manufacturing industry is now 60 per cent of its total assets. Tobacco, rubber, machinery, transport equipment, petroleum, coal products and chemicals are all virtually in foreign hands to the extent of anywhere from 70 per cent to over 90 per cent.
The number of takeovers by foreign-owned and foreign-controlled companies has been increasing since the end of World War II, and the rate of takeover has increased sharply in the last three years. In 1945 there were 20 mergers in Canada. For the last three years there have been about 200 mergers a year, which has resulted in increasing control by foreign investors. Foreign ownership and control in Canada is the highest of any other country in the modern industrial western society. Two-thirds of the total investment in resource-based industries is foreign-owned. Three-fifths of the investments in manufacturing is foreign investment and four-fifths of that investment is American.
The United States investment in this country is growing rapidly. From 1945 to 1967 it rose from $5 billion to $28 billion and is now in excess of $30 billion. In 1955, American investment in this country averaged $500 a year. It is now in the neighbourhood of three-quarters of a billion dollars per year. This is so not only in the field of investment but in the field of technology. Some 95 per cent of the patents issued in Canada are registered to foreign owners, and of these two-thirds are owned by U.S. residents. Of the list of 25 leading countries in the world, Canada is first in the percentage of patents that are

September 30, 1971
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
foreign-owned and last in the percentage of patents which are owned by its own nationals.


An hon. Member:: So what?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member asks, "So what?" When patents are owned outside this country I ask my friend to stop and ask himself who he thinks controls the economic activities of our nation. Of directorships of firms which are 50 per cent or more foreign-owned, only 44 per cent are held by Canadian citizens. The result of all this is that the Canadian economy has become more vulnerable than that of any other country to changes in U.S. economic policies, and we have reduced our capacity to respond effectively to any actions taken by the U.S.
American investment has had two main thrusts. Their major concentration has been on resource industries. The subsidiaries set up in Canada are producing for the parent company. They are not seeking world markets, they are seeking to produce raw materials for their parent companies, supplies that can be cut back when they do not need them or when they find other sources. These are raw materials which are sold to the parent company at an agreed price, not the world market price, with the result that the profits are very small in Canada and the wages are 25 per cent to 30 per cent less than those paid in the U.S.
These subsidiaries have no incentive to process or fabricate their raw materials in Canada. That is why we have a large trade surplus with the U.S. and why we have between half a million and three-quarters of a million unemployed, because these extraction industries are capital-intensive and not labour-intensive. What we have been doing is exporting jobs by sending our raw materials to the U.S. and elsewhere to be processed and fabricated.
The second thrust has been to set up a branch plant economy in Canada which was designed largely to benefit from the Commonwealth preferential tariff. The result is that many of these companies are producing only for the Canadian, or at the very most the Commonwealth markets and have not been anxious to enter world markets in competition with their parent companies.
It is all very well for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to say that he is not against diversification. Of course he is not, and I compliment him on the efforts which he and his department have made to diversify Canadian trade. But to what extent can they be effective in diversifying Canadian trade when they do not control the decisions that are made with respect to diversifying trade? If the Canadian subsidiaries of American companies are prevented by their parent companies from energetically entering the world markets, then all the trips that the minister and his colleagues make to various parts of the world will not be effective in bringing about the kind of diversification which is necessary.
The result of this branch plant economy is that most of our research is being done now in the U.S. and most of the patents, as I have already pointed out, are held in the U.S. The crux of the matter is that ownership means the power to make the decision that affects the economic livelihood of the Canadian people. It means that if the demand at any time lessens, then of course it is the subsidiaries that will be cut back, not the parent companies. The economic

decisions affecting this nation are not made by Canadians. In the main they are being made by gigantic corporations in the United States, and they are not being made in the interests of Canadians. It is bad enough to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, but it is even worse when someone else decides how much wood you will hew and how much water you will be allowed to carry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: lapse into a state of lethargy. This crisis ought to teach us the lesson that we must begin in Canada to regain control of the Canadian economy. We must now begin to make our economy more diversified. We must begin to process more of our primary products in this country. The hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) warned the government about this in a recent speech when he pointed out that the whole tax structure of this country has been designed to give special assistance to the extraction industries which are capital-intensive, rather than to the manufacturing industries which are labour-intensive.
As a deliberate government policy we should be encouraging industries which create jobs, producing goods that will give our people work and opening up new markets for the products of our industries. If we do that, Mr. Speaker, this country will be much less vulnerable and we will be able to provide employment for our growing labour force. There is no use in the government complaining that we have the fastest growing labour force in the world and therefore it is very difficult to provide jobs. We have been warning the government for ten years that a quarter of a million young people a year are entering the labour market. We must now gear our economy so that it will expand at a sufficiently rapid rate to provide jobs, not only for those who are now unemployed but for the hundreds of thousands of young people who are entering the labour market each year.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As the hon. member concluded his remarks I was rising to my feet to say that his time had expired. As I said earlier today, because other members want an opportunity to speak I hope extensions of time will not be sought.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to touch on two points. The first is that I feel we need much more centralized economic planning, and the second concerns the youth unemployment problem. With respect to my suggestion that we need more centralized economic planning, it is my feeling that in the present situation we do not have enough planning at the centre and we do not have enough co-ordination among the many departments and agencies of government which produce economic effects.
There are a great many departments of government which do produce economic effects: for example, there is the Department of Finance, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Department of Transport, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Manpower and Immigration, and the Treasury Board.
I suggest that we should have a minister whose primary concern would be the co-ordination of the economic policies of all these departments and the development of general economic policies. I suggest that we should have a minister of state for economic policy who would undertake this task. I understand that at the present time the job is being done by a committee of ministers, the principal member of which is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) who is assisted by other ministers who have responsibilities in the area of our economy. I believe these ministers have other administrative concerns to occupy their time to the extent that they cannot concentrate
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
primarily on developing economic policies both for the long-run and the short-run.
At present we have the Economic Council of Canada, but it has basically a long-term role. For short-term economic planning we have two branches within the Department of Finance, the economic programs branch and the economic analysis branch. I suggest that a minister of state for economic policy should have jurisdiction over these two branches, which should be taken out of the Department of Finance, and that such a minister should report to the House for the Economic Council of Canada in the same way as the Minister of State for housing reports for CMHC. He would also be in a position to submit problems and programs to the Economic Council for long-term study and analysis.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the hon. member permit a question?


William Warren Allmand: Yes.


James Aloysius McGrath: Can I conclude from the hon. member's remarks that he no longer has confidence in the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) since he recommends a minister of state for economic policy?


William Warren Allmand: No, indeed. Mr. Speaker, I listened to several of the speeches made today. While I heard a great litany of the economic problems facing the country, I did not hear many positive suggestions to solve those problems. It is my impression that a debate like this should be one during which Members of Parliament put forward our ideas for discussion and consideration. Our ideas may not all be good, there may be shortcomings in them, but this is the place to express them.
One of the best speeches on economic policy that I heard in this House was made by the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans), a former minister. His was one of the most thought-provoking speeches made to the House in a long time. But it seems that all the opposition do is think in terms of personalities.
I think we would be much better off if we could have our discussions on a policy level-but instead we hear the kind of remark just made by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).
I said I intended to refer to two matters. My first point is that I think we need more co-ordination of our economic departments and a minister should be appointed whose prime concern is economic analysis and planning. The other matter I should like to deal with is youth unemployment; and I admit, as does the government, that this is a serious problem. The government has tried to develop a program to deal with the unemployment of youth. I would refer the House to the report of the Youth Committee entitled "It's Your Turn". I think this report has been much maligned. Unfortunately, the media has concentrated on two very minor aspects of the report, one dealing with the legalization of marijuana and the other with cadet training.
If one reads the report he will find that the principal concern of the Youth Committee was the problem of youth unemployment and most of its recommendations

September 30, 1971
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
relate to a program and policy to solve this problem. It is unfortunate that the report has been maligned and criticized for matters which are not dealt with principally. The analysis of the youth unemployment problem in this report is excellent. At page 15 of the report, in the summarization of the youth unemployment problem the following is stated:
-Canadian youth experience a consistently high rate of unemployment, even when the economy is at or near full employment;
-the variations in youth unemployment during the business cycle exceed variations in all other groups in the labour force;
-the ratio of the youth unemployment rate to the national unemployment rate has increased during the latter part of the 1960s and reflects a general deterioration in their employment prospects;
-there are distinct regional differences in the employment opportunities for the young.
The report goes on to analyse the reason for this problem among our young people-which is growing worse each year-and states that without any relationship to the general level of our economy, even when our economy is good things are not good for our young people. Let me suggest to the government and the House that we must do more for our young people in the way of giving them training, but not merely at the university level. A few years ago it was part of the Liberal party platform that we provide young people with 100,000 scholarships. That program was replaced by the Canadian student Loans Plan, which is a good one. I suggest that we reconsider a national scholarship program, but let it be a scholarship program directed not only to young people going to university and college but young people going into trade school, going abroad to learn different trades, professions, or the arts, including music and similar skills.
The scholarships should also be used in conjunction with industry and commerce so that young people can be trained while on the job. This would work in a way similar to the apprenticeship training program of the past. If we look back to the 1920s and the 1930s we will remember the apprenticeship programs. In those days employers were willing to hire young people under the apprenticeship program for a period of four or five years, during which they received training in all aspects of commerce or the industry concerned. They did not pay very much but they were being trained while working. When they finished the training program they were in a position to accept and carry out work responsibilities, which many of our young people are not prepared to do today.
We should provide grants directly to industry, business or to the young people in conjunction with grants to industry and commerce, to promote this type of training. Perhaps this could be done through tax incentives, grants or scholarships, but I think it is essential that it be done. This would not only help our young people, it would help employment generally by keeping young people off the labour market for a few years and giving job opportunities to older people who are raising families.
Let me refer to another very good suggestion in the Youth Committee report. The suggestion refers to a Canadian youth employment directorate. This would be a special directorate to assist the Canadian government in resolving the problems of youth unemployment. One of the principal recommendations of the report appears at page 168 as follows:

Therefore the committee recommends that the federal government set up the Canadian Youth Employment Directorate (CYED) to take immediate action in the following areas: a) in the area of structural youth unemployment, given the high ratio of youth to adult unemployment and the variations in success at finding a job associated with region, socio-economic status and ethnicity,
i)	the CYED act as an interlocutor in all governmental social and economic development programs to ensure that the specific employment problems of youth are taken into consideration;
ii)	the directorate undertake extensive research into the nature of youth unemployment with a view towards defining and evaluating the range of alternatives for public action;
iii)	the directorate establish, if necessary, direct programming to create viable alternatives to present training and retraining programs-
The report also suggests that we reconsider the three-year delay we have in our manpower training program which prevents young people benefiting from these programs unless they have worked for three years. Our government and this House must take a close look at this recommendation. It is one that has been made by others.
I do not wish to take up much time of the House as I know other members wish to speak, but my principal purpose in intervening in the debate was to make these two points. I shall repeat them. We need more economic planning and co-ordination, and I suggest we should have a minister whose sole responsibility is directed toward this end. My second point is that we should pay much more attention to the Youth Committee report "It's Your Turn", especially those parts of it which relate to youth unemployment. I think it is a good report in that respect.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, it was gratifying to listen to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand). I am pleased he is so trenchant in his views. Perhaps that is one reason his name was not on the list today. Perhaps he is too frank, forthright and realistic about what has to be done in this country if we are to get some action in respect of unemployment.
In 1968 we had a Prime Minister and a party which had all the answers. There was no problem they could not solve. The just society was around the corner. That corner was difficult for many people to reach. Many have fallen in the gutter trying to get there.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Right on.


Robert Carman Coates: Unfortunately, before we reach the end of this year many more people will have fallen by the wayside.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member is right on, again.


Robert Carman Coates: This government has shown, above all else, that it has no answer for any problem. The hon. member who spoke was quite right. He said there is not enough planning. My conclusion, having watched this government operating for three years, is that they do not plan at all. The cupboard is bare. It has been bare for three years. There are no plans and no alternatives. The government is bankrupt of ideas and of alternative programs for the people of Canada. Worse than that, the government does not even know what to do tomorrow. That is why today
September 30, 1971

we are not sure whether a federal election will be called next week, next month or next year.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: The hon. member is coming closer all the time.


Robert Carman Coates: They cannot make up their minds because they have no alternatives to place before the Canadian people. I have been a member of this House for some time and have watched governments operate. I have tried to appreciate the problems that cabinet ministers face, as well as some of the problems they encounter in running a country as large, diversified and complex as this. In 1957, when I first came to this House, the government I supported faced pretty serious problems it had not known about. There was the hidden report of 1957 that we did not know about. The Canadian people did not know about it either. The report told the government of the day that a recession was on the road and that we should prepare for it.
The previous government had not prepared for it. We had to prepare for it. We had to face the fact that there would be a recession, and there was a recession. We fought it by coming up with new, imaginative schemes for putting Canadians to work. We keep asking the present Prime Minister what programs and plans the government intends to bring forward to create jobs for people this winter. We are worried about unemployment. We know there will not be enough jobs around to keep employed all the people presently working. We want something to be done about this.
We did not do anything unique in 1957, but at least we did something. We employed people through the Department of Public Works. We made the Department of Public Works the main vehicle by which people were able to work during the winter months. We put many people to work. We improvised, I would say effectively, by producing a winter works program. We introduced the roads to resources program and considered the disadvantaged provinces, the prairie provinces. We brought out the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants under which we gave the governments of these regions more money which they could pump into the economy and thereby put more people to work.
These days members of the opposition direct questions at the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) day after day. They ask, "What are you going to do?" The Prime Minister says, "We will do something some day." We say to the Prime Minister, "You are running out of time; provincial governments are running out of time; municipalities are running out of time. If you do not tell them what you intend to do, how can they tie their programs to what you will do?"


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Absolutely right.


Robert Carman Coates: We want the government to produce a program that will provide jobs for people. That is what we are interested in today. We know, as the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has said, that many people will not enjoy a merry Christmas on December 25 if this government continues in its ineffectual and ineffective way. All the government says is, "Well, maybe tomorrow we will have a program for the unemployed of Canada."
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
I think we all like listening to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). We wish he were right about the stories he tells, stories that he got from "Alice in Wonderland."


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I see the hon. member is another reader.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The parliamentary secretary is in the same dream world as the minister.


Robert Carman Coates: Although the Minister of Finance may look into the looking-glass, we do not know what to say to our own constituents about how they are to survive this winter. More important, we do not want to see a repetition this winter of the sort of half-baked, ill-conceived summer programs this government has produced. I am referring to programs such as Opportunities for Youth. Surely to goodness the government will not try to introduce for the unemployment this winter the same type of program that it introduced for our youth this summer. Surely to goodness there need not be the nutty, "weirdo" schemes that under the aegis of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) were produced for students this summer. Those programs put into disrepute the government, the people involved and Members of Parliament.
It seems that the government is willing to gamble on anything in the hope of providing some sort of employment for somebody. That is what happened this summer and I do not think the members of this or any other opposition would be willing to go through that again. Yet we get nothing except lame and hair-brained excuses from the government. Perhaps part of the blame should be laid at the feet of members of the government. As I see it, Liberal Members of Parliament-this includes a great many members of the cabinet-have abdicated their responsibilities and allowed the growth of an oligarchy headed by the Prime Minister. He surrounds himself with people who are not elected, people like Marc Lalonde, Ivan Head and a great many more.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Oh, oh!


Robert Carman Coates: -who run this country.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That's a fact.


Robert Carman Coates: We in the opposition have suggested to cabinet ministers that these fellows are really the ones who are in control. It is nice to know that the Prime Minister can bring out lists and say, "I am promoting this fellow, that fellow and some other fellow to the position of parliamentary secretary, and those who are left I will make ministers or chairmen of committees so that everybody in the Liberal party will have a position."


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is shameful.


Robert Carman Coates: The Prime Minister says, "Really, though, when it comes down to power and control, the technocrats in my office and around me run this country." That is the situation we have arrived at in this country. Elected representatives, excepting the very favoured few whom the Prime Minister likes, have nothing to do with governing this country. The rest of them sit by and condone and accept this situation because the pay cheque at the end of the month is bigger, because the Prime Minister has appointed them to this, that or the other position or acknowledged that they should be chairmen of this, that

September 30, 1971
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
or the other committee, or ministers of state of this, that or the other department. But the technocrats have proven over three years that they do not have any answers to anything. They get large salaries, a lot of help and are well paid-and they know that we have a great deal of unemployment and lots of inflation.
It is time the Liberal party again took over the Liberal party and started producing some action and results. Let us look at a few facts-inflation, for example. We watched this government create unemployment, hardship and misery because they were fighting a great battle against inflation. What are the facts? The rate of increase in the consumer price index, January to August, 1971, is a little short of 5 per cent, 4.8 per cent to be exact. Last month there was a monthly increase in the consumer price index of no less than 7 per cent, or an annual rate of increase of 8.9 per cent. That is some battle! That is some victory! That is a pretty poor performance.
What about the Atlantic provinces? The Atlantic provinces are more adversely affected than at any other time in their history. The Prime Minister said that he was really going to look after regional economic disparity. The only way he has looked after it is by spreading it across the whole nation. That is not what we wanted to see. We wanted to see it eliminated, not spread. We do not want the cancer to go across Canada; we want to cut it out and eliminate it completely. But that is not the way it happened.
What about unemployment in the Atlantic region? Our people received really good news in August: they were told that 9.4 per cent of the people in the Atlantic provinces were unemployed! The same is true for July. In August, 1970, it was 8 per cent. It increased 1.4 per cent in one year. The sad fact is that the situation is no better in Quebec. Quebec keeps talking about separating. I do not know why we in the Atlantic provinces do not do the same. We face the same adversity as the people in Quebec.
What about Nova Scotia? We had a change in government in Nova Scotia. Things were going to be good with a Liberal government in Ottawa and a Liberal government in Nova Scotia. Oh boy, things were going to be good. This is how good things are in that province: in August, 1970, the rate of unemployment was 5.6 per cent. In August, 1971, it was 6.5 per cent, an increase of almost 1 per cent. The number of unemployed in Nova Scotia has increased from 14,000 to 19,000. The rate of unemployment has gone up from 5.1 per cent to 6.8 per cent.
We used to be proud of the fact that Nova Scotia had the lowest rate of unemployment in the Atlantic provinces. Now only Newfoundland exceeds us. If Nova Scotia continues with a Liberal government we will probably pass Newfoundland. I am sure we will pass them because in the very near future the clock will run out on the Premier of Newfoundland and there will be a Conservative government in the province. Things are bound to be better. They cannot be worse.


Mr. Gibson:: Oh, oh!


Robert Carman Coates: I have the great distinction of having the hon. "Hoot" Gibson hooting again. Every time I get up, he

hoots like an owl. He only comes out at night. He never says anything. He is not a very wise owl. As a matter of fact, he is rather stupid. I have never heard him make a speech. If he ever does, I will be willing to come here and listen.


An hon. Member:: That would be a waste of time.


Robert Carman Coates: I wish to give an example of what is happening in my constituency. For 22 years we had an engineering office of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. It looks after many things for the three Atlantic provinces, in co-operation with the federal government. It has been there since the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act was passed. It has been very effective and very valuable to the area. What does the present Department of Regional Economic Expansion intend to do? It is going to close this office. The department talks about bringing industry to the area, but it is going to close an office which contains more expertise and information than ever existed in any one body at any one time. Rather than try to keep these people working at a time of high unemployment, the department suddenly decides to lay off these 65 people. They are going to eliminate the problem of those 65 people being unemployed by putting them on welfare or unemployment insurance. That is the way they are going to correct the situation in the Atlantic provinces.
This government is bankrupt of ideas. It has been ever since it took office. They are a bunch of technocrats, most of them not elected, who are trying to run this country. The sooner we get rid of this government, the better the country will be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, if I had spoken earlier today I would have dealt with our position with regard to the United States, our industrial potential and our balance of payments, situation-but charity takes a little time and I do not have much time. It may appear that I am being rather ruthless with our party and the government tonight.
It is about time we got away from the state of shock into which we were thrown when the surcharge was announced by the President of the United States. It is understandable that for a time the surcharge will leave us a little shocked, not quite certain what we can do and hoping that it will disappear. The surcharge will disappear. We went to the United States. We asked for concessions. We did not get them. The newspapers said the surcharge might be lifted. Because all of these things might happen, I decided yesterday to go to Washington to find out whether we are going to be exempted or whether the surcharge is going to be lifted. I was told that I would never be able to get this information.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the highest officials and elected representatives in the committees of ways and means, finance, and rules. They laid out the whole program. There is no doubt in the world that the surcharge will be lifted. When? When the DISC program is passed, when the United States gets its own terms as far as world trade is concerned, as far as its economy is concerned and as far
September 30, 1971

as the monetary exchange situation is concerned. As far as Canada is concerned, they do not even know we exist.
One gentleman I spoke to in Washington said, "Mr. Otto, did you try to buy anything in Washington with Canadian money?" I said, "yes, I tried to buy something. The storekeeper who had been dealing with Canadians for 40 years looked at the money and said, I think this is Canadian money, isn't it? It is no good here'." I say without any rancour toward the United States that as far as they are concerned, we do not exist. They meant the surcharge to be applied against us. The DISC program is against us, everyone else is against us-and to hope that things will get better is absolute fallacy. This government has to come to the conclusion that this situation is with us. There are going to be no world trade agreements outside of a great favour by the United States. If they leave, they will leave in their favour. They admitted this. Kennedy is gone; the Kennedy program is gone. They are in a position where they must protect themselves against the onslaught of many other nations.
Let me deal with the DISC program. I wonder if Your Honour is aware of the awful results it might have for us. This program is designed, in brief, to set up a corporate tax haven in the United States for all export companies. Congressmen and Senators told me, "We know we have multinational corporations spread all around the world because they can get tax advantages by operating outside the United States. We cannot legislate to bring them back but we shall create a tax haven in the United States which will give them tax-free profits."
Mr. Speaker, there will be loopholes so wide that all the expenses can be charged against domestic production and all the profits counted against exports. No subsidiary company can possibly exist in Canada when the DISC program takes effect, unless they are out of their minds, because the advantages will be fantastic and every United States corporation which is responsible to shareholders will pull any of its subsidiaries right out. This will reduce our industrial potential by 20 per cent. This is a fact. I hope everyone will realize it is a fact because then we may be able to get on with a program without all these political repercussions, a program which will give us a chance to exist and to grow.
My time is running short, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that apart from pulling in subsidiaries, the United States move will result in an increased tendency among Canadians to invest in the United States. It is said it would mean a $100 million loss to the treasury, which is equivalent to $200 million profit by corporations, which is equivalent to about $3 billion in exports and, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has said, since we do about 70 per cent of our import and export business with the United States most of that export portion will be thrown on Canada, so we are in double jeopardy.
The first essential is this: the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) must tell Canadians that we can be independent of the United States. We can be industrially and economically independent. Let us wash away all this supposition that we cannot do something because we are merely 22 million people. This is the first time in our history that we have a Prime Minister with such a great following among
Alleged Failure to Stimulate Economy
Canadians. They will listen to him. If he has confidence, and I think he has, he will say, "We must expand our export endeavours, increase our research activities and develop our independence along worth while lines."
I see the house leader for the NDP is making a sign as if to cut my throat. I gave him an undertaking that I would be very brief and I hereby stick to that undertaking. The task now falls upon the Prime Minister to tell Canadians that we can do great things, that there is a great destiny ahead of us if we only have the will, without the help of the nebulous United States which will disappear as far as we are concerned, anyway.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) for permitting one of our party to wind up the debate on our motion. I do not know that I can do much better than he was doing.


Steven Otto: Maybe you should have let me finish.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I did not prevent the hon. member from finishing. All I will say is this. The action taken by the United States in imposing a surcharge against Canadian goods is forcing us to reassess our position. There were members on the government side who sought to bring about such a reassessment in days not long gone by. Some of us remember Walter Gordon. He brought in a financial policy which was designed to enable the Canadian economy to become less dependent upon the United States, an economy which was viable and able to protect itself. All of us recall perfectly well what happened to Walter Gordon. Since then we have consistently followed a policy which has made the Canadian economy increasingly vulnerable in the kind of situation in which we now find ourselves.
The economic policy which the government has followed since I came to this House in 1968 has made us increasingly vulnerable to measures of the kind taken in the United States. It has sought to make the dollar increasingly expensive. The Canadian dollar has been protected, and those who own Canadian dollars have been protected. But the worker and the farmer have been made the fall guys. If I had 20 minutes in which to speak I would fill in the background. The government has sewn us up piece by piece, month by month. As the hon. member for York East said, it is now time for them to come up with some of the answers.
Mr. Speaker, they do not have the answers. They have placed the Canadian people and the western farmers in a vulnerable position. I could see this coming. Anyone could have seen it coming right from the time the United States refused to renew commodity agreements-the sugar agreement, the wheat agreement. Now we are standing out in the cold. At no time have members on the other side produced a policy which would enable the Canadian people to survive as a community and provide for themselves what they need to enjoy, well-being, jobs and security. We are waiting for the government to come up with solutions and quit shadow-boxing. There was an excellent cartoon in one of the papers not long ago on this very subject.

September 30, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


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


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that the reply to my remarks will come from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Danson), so may I take this occasion to congratulate that courtly and courteous gentleman on his reappointment and say how pleased I was to see him on the survivors' list.
On September 16 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether he intended that the Canadian delegation would bring before the United Nations General Assembly the question of the proposed Amchitka nuclear blast or if consideration was being given to having the matter brought to the attention of the International Court. On several other occasions in the earlier part of this session I inquired of the government's intentions in reference to this matter.
The Prime Minister's statement that the United States had not accepted jurisdiction of the International Court was probably an unintentional exaggeration of the reservations made by the United States Senate at the time of the ratification of the United Nations charter, which of course embraces the International Court statute. The Connally amendment, which interposed a self-judging aspect on U.S. acceptance of court jurisdiction, was designed to give the United States the right to determine unilaterally whether a subject matter of litigation lies essentially within its domestic jurisdiction. This is not quite the same thing as a blanket non-acceptance of the court's jurisdiction.
There is insufficient time to discuss this important question of international law in this short debate, but it can be said that contemporary developments and concern for the universal environment, if I may call it that, have internationalized many aspects of national behaviour which were once regarded as purely domestic.
Since my question was asked, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has made his contribution to the general debate at the United Nations and discussed the very serious question of nuclear explosions. There can be little doubt that there is grave risk in the escalation of nuclear testing. The nuclear family is growing and the number of tests is dangerous. There may be some argument about the degree of fall-out danger, but there can be

no doubt that the world is a little more polluted and the environment a little more poisoned after each detonation.
This is why there should be continuing, vigorous protest against proliferating tests. I well remember the minister to whom I was parliamentary secretary discussing nuclear tests at the United Nations. The Hon. Howard Green always made the Canadian case with great clarity and with directness. He used to say, "We are against nuclear tests-period". So I agree with what I am advised the present minister said the other day at the United Nations. Not having had a copy of his address I must be general in my appraisal.
I believe we must be relentless in pushing for this final stage of the ban on nuclear explosions. It would be magnificent if the United States, which has given leadership in so many areas, were to set the example in this case and abandon its proposed Amchitka test, the test of a five-megaton bomb, a project which could so gravely affect the environment in such a broad area of the world. The project is called "Cannikin" and I hope that the United States will "can the Cannikin".
So serious is the situation that the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States has allegedly declared the test to be too dangerous to carry out. I must use the word "allegedly" because the report is secret under the imprimatur of the White House. But what we do know is that both Houses of the United States Congress have passed a bill banning the test unless the President gives his direct approval of it. In the House of Representatives the vote was 377 to 9 in favour of the ban; in the Senate no opposition was recorded.
The soul-searching and anxiety within the United States itself should surely prompt Canada to do its utmost to oppose this and all nuclear tests by all powers, and to push for international agreement that this particularly dreadful aspect of our modern technology be relegated to the discard of disuse.
We were shocked and astounded that the Prime Minister has not yet contacted the President on this matter and I hope that every effort will be made to do so. Speeches at international assemblies are important, but all channels of communication must be used to this end. This country must watch closely and make every effort it can to see that no opportunity is left untended that can push toward internationalizing a ban on this heinous aspect of our modern civilization. So we will watch what our delegation does at the United Nations now that our participation in the General Assembly debate is over.


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) for his very extravagant remarks. I believe he was as extravagant in calling me courtly as I would be if I called him portly, but I do appreciate the sentiments he expressed.
On the question of further representation to the United States concerning the Amchitka test, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) have both very recently informed the House that no decision had been taken at this time to make additional representation. The Canadian government acted very promptly as early as February 22 of this year to make known to the United States government in
September 30, 1971

unmistakable terms our serious concerns about the Amchitka test. The text of the note delivered on the instructions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs was tabled by him in the House on March 29, 1971. Further representations, of course, would not be ruled out if it were thought that Canadian views were not already appreciated.
In this case, however, there can be no doubt that the United States government knows our concerns very well indeed and that these will be taken into account when the final decision on whether to proceed with the test is made at the highest level. At the present moment, the situation is that President Nixon has not given the necessary approval for the test and there is room to hope that the United States will reconsider its plans, as Canada has already formally requested it to do.
Canada's position has been further strengthened by debate in this House, by questions such as this by the hon. member for Hillsborough and by virtual unanimity in this House in backing the government's stand in opposing these tests. I hope agreement will be reached among the House leaders so that we may proceed with a debate to express that unanimity this coming week.
Canada has been actively pursuing a ban on all underground nuclear weapons' tests for over two years now in the appropriate international forum, the Geneva Disarmament Committee, as well as in the last two General Assemblies. At the forthcoming General Assembly we shall again be registering our concerns about and opposition to all underground tests, including the proposed test at Amchitka, as well as continued tests in the atmosphere. These latter tests in fact represent a greater threat to the environment from radioactive fall-out than do underground tests carried out by the United States and the Soviet Union.
The Amchitka test question is, in one dimension, a bilateral problem between the United States and countries such as Canada and Japan which are particularly concerned about it. In the United Nations context, however, nuclear weapons testing is dealt with as a general international issue, involving as it does a very considerable amount of testing underground by both the two major nuclear powers and in the atmosphere by the two nuclear powers-China and France-that have not adhered to the partial test ban treaty of 1963. At the twenty-sixth General Assembly, Canada will therefore continue to work actively, along with like-minded nations, for the ending by agreement of all nuclear tests.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary's time has expired.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, since my question to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) on June 23, 1971, asking for information on the federal government's policy with respect to the recommendations of Volume 4 of the B and B Commission report, interested Canadians have been waiting with patient expectation for
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
a long-overdue policy announcement. The commission set up on July 19, 1963, was instructed to inquire into, among other things, the contribution made by the other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada and the measures that should be taken to safeguard that contribution.
Since that time the commission heard many briefs from organizations and private citizens, and on October 23, 1969, it presented to the federal government a report entitled "Book Four, the Cultural Contributions of Other Ethnic Groups". This report was then studied by various ethnic organizations in Canada who later presented their observations in the form of briefs to the Secretary of State. For approximately one year after that no official statement from the federal government was heard until September 12, 1970, when the Secretary of State delivered a speech at the Canadian Conference of the Arts in Toronto. I might add that the text of that speech was widely publicized and was favourably received by ethnic organizations in Canada.
I wholeheartedly endorsed in my public speeches the declaration which the Secretary of State made in that address, especially when he stated:
When we speak of cultural pluralism, we are making a fundamental choice for Canada both now and for the future, for we are talking about the development in Canada of a multicultural society. Canada is not a melting pot, and the government is opposed to any measure aimed at assimilation. It encourages all initiatives which have as their object the promotion and dissemination, along side the two main cultures, English and French, all other cultural values.
At this time I should like to say that the report of the commission dealing with the cultural contribution of other ethnic groups is an interesting and historic document deserving the serious study especially of the federal and provincial governments. Of the 16 recommendations in this report, ten are the responsibility of the federal government. I should like to urge that recommendation No. 14 be implemented as soon as possible. It deals with financial assistance to cultural and research organizations whose objectives are to foster the arts and letters of cultural groups other than the British and French. Furthermore, there is a great need to assist the ethnic groups of Canada in collecting and preserving their documents in the Archives of Canada.
Although six other recommendations deal with the teaching of languages other than English and French and are the direct responsibility of provincial governments, I believe the federal government should assist at least by providing funds for the publishing of language and history textbooks. Official bilingualism at the federal level in no way precludes the promotion and protection of other languages at the various provincial levels if other ethnocultural groups form a large enough body in these provinces.
I believe that retention of a language is an important factor in the evolution, development and expansion of a culture. Therefore, if any encouragement can be given to the teaching of more languages in Canada, it is important that such encouragement be given. That this encouragement is important is without question. That it should be provided I think becomes clear after one reads the 655
8342

September 30, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
paragraphs in volume IV of the B and B commission's report. We all proclaim equality of opportunity as an aim of the western democratic civilization to which we are committed.
I should like to urge the Secretary or State to appeal to his colleagues in the government to do everything in their power to assist in the preservation and promotion of the various ethnic groups making up the fabric of Canadian society. I believe that these efforts are worthy of our support because they can be defended on a realistic assessment of Canada as it is today. The very premise to the uniqueness of our Canadian plurality is based on the association of various cultural components in our society.
Identity does not just happen but must arrive out of a healthy, positive experience fed by tradition, current interest and future aspirations. Just as an individual person, to be healthy, must have a wholesome acceptance of oneself, so does a nation. Although Canada, which was inhabited by Indians and Eskimos, was first colonized by the French early in the seventeenth century and then by the British, immigrants from various other countries began arriving on Canadian shores as early as 1750. There was even a Canadian of Polish origin in Canada's first Parliament in the House of Commons in 1867.
The history of Canada truly is composed of multi-ethnic and multi-cultural contributions. This is Canada's unique identity. Financial support from all levels of government will be necessary to preserve and develop this identity. Furthermore, I believe that constitutional recognition should be accomplished explicitly in the future by a statement in the Canadian constitution acknowledging the multi-cultural nature of Canadian society and, implicitly, by adopting measures such as a bill of rights which would have the effect of protecting minority rights.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, first of all in reply I would like to pay tribute to the assiduous and continuing concern of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) for the interests of ethnic groups in this country. I assure him and the groups in question that the government shares this concern.
Originally, the hon. member raised this question on June 23 last. At that time the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) responded and pointed out that the recommendations contained in volume 4 of the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism were before the cabinet. The matter has advanced even further since then and I am optimistic that the government will be making its position clear very shortly. I hope, and in fact I am sure, that the hon. member and the ethnic groups will be pleased as a result of this thoughtful and careful study of a matter that is important to all Canadians.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, the other day I intruded myself, perhaps with some trepidation and timidity, into the question of the payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, and having received the answer that I did from the Minister of

Justice (Mr. Turner) I got my dander up. I thought it was about time members from other parts of Canada interested themselves in a rather delicate subject, because one can turn to the Bill of Rights passed by the British Parliament in 1689 and find therein that he will be-
-assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament-
That was the name of the game in those days-to see it never happened. Later in that preamble we find:
By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament-
That is the name of the game in Canada, because that is precisely what is happening here. We have been asked in the tax year six months removed to levy moneys for uses of Canada and under the statutes of Canada, and they have been diverted to other purposes: or at least now, since we do run at a deficit, we have been asked to say, "Oh, that was only a mistake. We have to use the money for some other reasons." Sir, that cannot be done.
The fight is joined because the farmers in western Canada have taken the measure of issuing a writ against the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and serving it on him. And yesterday, in the Toronto Globe and Mail, one finds at page 7 two assistant professors of the faculty of law at Queen's University, Kingston, namely, David J. Mullan and John D. Whyte, writing to say that they have written to the Minister of Justice asking him to give them the right to sue, to see that the law of Canada is obeyed. I talked to those two professors today, and they did not receive an answer from the Minister of Justice. I would have been awfully surprised had I phoned them and found that they had received an answer, and more especially if he had said, "Go ahead, boys; sue the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister of this country." But that did not happen.
We know the Minister of Justice, for all his posturing, is a lovely fellow, but he still has to posture because in the just society he simply cannot instruct the cabinet on what is the law and what their duties are. Let us take two cases in recent times. One was fought in the British Columbia Supreme Court, before Mr. Justice Norris, on October 19, 1960, where it was held;
It is the duty of members of the executive-
That is the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and so on.
-to obey the law, not to disregard it, and they must ascertain the law in order to obey it.
I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary here tonight. He is a nice fellow and I am delighted about his attendance, because I know he has the onerous job of representing a boss who did not have the guts to attend this evening. I quote further:
It is the duty of members of the executive to obey the law, not to disregard it, and they must ascertain the law in order to obey it. Matters of the practice and policy of the government or any department thereof cannot override the duty of obedience to the law, nor will it avail a minister of the Crown to say that he acted on legal advice where it turns out to be wrong.
September 30, 1971

We do not know whether the Minister of Justice gave advice that turned out to be wrong, because we do not have him here tonight. I am sure we will never hear his side of the story until his memoirs are published many years hence.
The fact is there is abuse of the law in this matter. There is a statute which obligates the government of Canada to collect money for a certain purpose. That money was not collected for this purpose. We have the Revised Statutes, and the fact is that the Minister of Justice decided to see that the law we are dealing with tonight was not included in those statutes. In addition to the case I have mentioned in of British Columbia there was a case some years ago in Quebec where Premier Duplessis directed the chairman of the Liquor Licensing Board to see that the bar licence of one Roncarelli of the city of Montreal was not renewed because the individual involved supported Jehovah Witnesses by signing bail bonds. The courts of that day had the guts to stand up, as I hope they always will, and awarded damages and substantial costs against the Premier of the province.
Finally, chapter J-2, section 4(b), provides:
The Minister of Justice shall
(b) see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with law-
He has not done that in this case. In section 5(d) it is stated that the Attorney General of Canada, which is the same individual, shall-
-have the regulation and conduct of all litigation for or against the Crown for any public department, in respect of any subject within the authority or jurisdiction of Canada-
It shall be written on the tombstone of the present Minister of Justice that because of the schizophrenia of the time he was supposed to do one thing but did another and that this finally caught up with him. I regret, indeed, having to say that in view of the appointment of the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to thank the hon. member for his kind words in respect of my appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the great Minister of Justice whom we have in Canada. In answer to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), yesterday the Minister of Justice said:
Mr. Speaker, the gentlemen concerned can take any action they want. Whether the courts will receive it is another matter.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Further, in answer to a supplementary question by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) the minister said:
I have not received any request for mandamus action. I would have to consider it when I get it. But the final result remains with the courts, as the hon. gentleman knows.
In fact, as the hon. gentleman knows, the minister was away in Saskatchewan during the weekend and Monday and Tuesday, and this matter was brought to his attention late yesterday. I think the hon. member must be aware of the commencement of proceedings in court yesterday. A notice of motion was filed in the trial division of the Federal Court of Canada by Pedersen, Norman, McLeod & Todd, barristers and solicitors, 403 Sterling Building, Regina, Saskatchewan. It is as follows:
BETWEEN:
The Attorney General of Saskatchewan . . .
Etc.
-	and -
William Surdia, of Assiniboia, Saskatchewan;
Clarence Lucas, of Mazenod, Saskatchewan;
Roy Ames, of Milestone, Saskatchewan; and
James Bradley, of Milestone, Saskatchewan,...
Applicants
-	and -
The Minister of Finance
Respondent
The first part of that notice of motion reads as follows:
Take notice that an application will be made to this honourable court on Wednesday, October 6th, 1971, at the hour of 10 o'clock in the forenoon, central standard time, or so soon thereafter as counsel can be heard on behalf of the applicants, at the Court House, at the city of Regina, in the province of Saskatchewan, for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent Minister of Finance to pay to the Canadian Wheat Board forthwith all sums of monies required to be paid to the Canadian Wheat Board by the respondent minister by virtue of the provisions of The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act of Canada, chapter 2 of the Statutes of Canada, 1956.
The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, being a distinguished member of the bar, will know that it is inappropriate for the Minister of Justice and others to comment on this subject at this time.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
8345

Friday, October 1, 1971.