1971-01-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43. My motion deals with a matter which I believe the House would like to have referred to the appropriate committee. I have tried to word the motion without incorporating any adjectives or argument in it. It relates to the announcement that some 15 public servants are to be dismissed from the exhibition branch of Information Canada, and another seven or so demoted, despite the fact that these people have obtained world recognition for the job they have done for Canada, their most recent achievements being at Expo '70.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That the proposed dismissal of some 15 public servants, and the proposed demotion of several others, by the exhibition branch of Information Canada, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates for consideration and report, and that the said committee be asked to make its report to the House not later than February I, 1971.
The reason for suggesting that committee, Mr. Speaker, is that it is the committee to which matters relating to Information Canada and also matters relating to the Treasury Board are usually referred. We suggest no debate, and we hope the House will accept the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. This motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Some hor>
Members: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous agreement and therefore the motion cannot be put.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Forreslall: 1.	Who owns the ships now tied up at the condemned Dartmouth Public Wharf?
2.	If privately owned, what revenues are being received by the government and how long will they be there?


Mr. Gerard Duquel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. The Dartmouth Public Wharf is restricted to the berthing of lay-by vessels due to its surface. Each of the following companies has one vessel using the facility; Shaw Steamships Co., Atlantic Salvage Co., and J. P. Porter.
2.	Shaw Steamship Co. are paying $50 a month as per Board Minute. Vessel is there all year except during seal hunting season. Atlantic Salvage Co.: Vessel to be sold or dismantled and will remain alongside awaiting such action at $50 a month. J. P. Porter: This is an old ferry boat, previously used in P.E.I.; it has left this wharf and is currently being used in the filling operation at Pier "C". When this work is completed the vessel will return to Dartmouth to be converted into a barge. Charges are $300 per month, due to larger size of vessel. During the utilization of this vessel at Pier "C" no charges are made because it is then considered as part of the contractor's equipment.


STUDY OF AVIATION TRAFFIC IN ATLANTIC CANADA
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Has a study by Professor A. M. Stevens and F. R. Wilson been completed of aviation traffic in Atlantic Canada, as commissioned by the Department of Transport and, if so, what are its recommendations?
2.	What is the cost of the study?


Gérard Duquet: 1. Yes. The final report is being reviewed by the Department and it is hoped it will be possible to make a decision as to its disposition before the end of January.
2. The total cost of the study was $57,000.

January 18, 1971
Questions


INDIAN ASSOCIATION OF ALBERTA PRESENTATION &quot;RED PAPER&quot;
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development make any arrangements to print or otherwise reproduce the transcript of any proceedings relating to a presentation made in 1970 by the Indian association of Alberta in conjunction with the National Indian Brotherhood which presentation was commonly referred to as a "Red Paper" and, if so, how many copies were printed or reproduced and at what cost?
2.	In what manner, and to whom, by quantity, were the said copies distributed?
3.	Are any copies in the possession of the Department and, if so, how many and at which locations?


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Yes. Twenty five thousand copies at a cost of $3,881.02.
2.	No copies were distributed. The Department complied with a request from the Indian Association of Alberta that distribution be withheld.
3.	The Department has in its possession only file copies at departmental headquarters.


TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS-R. DIXON SPEAS ASSOCIATES OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Robinson: 1 What is the job of the special consultants R. Dixon Speas Associates of Canada Limited?
2.	How long will this firm be engaged at the Montreal International Airport?
3.	What studies and projects is the firm presently engaged in by the Department of Transport and what is the estimated cost of each?


Gérard Duquet: 1. R. Dixon Speas Associates of Canada, Limited, is a company of transportation consultants, specializing in aviation matters. Since reference was made to the Montreal International Airport, it should be noted that the parent firm, R. Dixon Speas Associates, Incorporated, Manhasset, New York was engaged in planning work for the new Montreal International Airport (Ste Scholastique). They too are aviation consultants and are one of the very few companies in the world which specializes in runway and taxiway capacity analysis.
2.	R. Dixon Speas Associates, Incorporated, New York, conducted two studies at the request of the planning team developing the new Montreal International Airport (Ste. Scholastique). In their first contract, they were asked to analyze and evaluate several of the proposed runway designs. This contract ran from early Spring 1969 to August 1969. The second contract, an analysis of the new airport taxiway system, followed immediately afterward and ran until January 1970.
3.	Neither R. Dixon Speas Associates, Incorporated, New York, nor R. Dixon Speas Associates of Canada Limited are currently engaged in any projects for this Ministry.


CONVENTION CONCERNING &quot;CAUTIO JUDICATUM SOLVI&quot;
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Has Canada signed agreements concerning cautio judicatum solvit
2.	Does Canada intend being a party to the March 1, 1964 Convention of The Hague Conference concerning cautio judica-tum solvit


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. There is no record of signature by Canada to conventions concerning cautio judicatum solvi.
2. Canada only acceded to the Statute of The Hague Conference on Private International Law on October 7th, 1968. Our participation in that organization is, therefore, of very short standing. One aspect of Canada's participation in The Hague Conference will involve consideration of past conventions, drafted by that organization, having legal implications relevant to Canada. Among these Conventions is the Convention on Civil Procedure of March 1st, 1954, which, in Part III, Articles 17-19, is concerned with cautio judicatum solvi.


POLLUTION EMISSIONS FROM ENGINES OF LOCKHEED 1011 AIRCRAFT
Mr. Anderson: 1.	Has the Department of Transport conducted any test or will it conduct any test on the pollutant emissions from the engines of the Lockheed 1011 which Air Canada intends to put into service soon?
2.	What pollution emission criteria were applied by Air Canada in evaluating this aircraft?
3.	What pollution emission criteria will be applied by the Department of Transport when evaluating this aircraft for commercial use in Canada?


Gérard Duquet: 1. The Department of Transport has not conducted any test on the pollutant emissions from the engines. Tests to the satisfaction of the Department may be required to be made by the manufacturer or operator if standards being developed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) prove to be unacceptable to the Department.
2.	During the initial Air Canada evaluation of the RB 211-22 engine, Rolls-Royce Ltd. guaranteed a smoke visibility index number (at that time a Von Brand index No. 27) which corresponds to an engine exhaust which is invisible to the naked eye. Subsequently, the Ringelmann scale has been used and Rolls-Royce Ltd. has stated that the inservice aircraft will meet, or better, the smoke concentration related to Ringelmann No. 1, which again corresponds to an invisible exhaust from the engine.
3.	The Department anticipates that it will accept the engine emission standards which are being developed by the FAA, as standards to apply to the operators of this aircraft in Canada. Pending the finalization of these standards the Department is taking into account the smoke standard guaranteed by Rolls-Royce Ltd. for certificated engines. This guaranteed standard is likely to
[Mr. Duquet.)
January 18, 1971

be a more stringent standard than can be applied retroactively to all currently operated aircraft without incurring a heavy cost penalty to the industry.


AVERAGE LIFE SPAN
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 510-Mr. Mather: (Supplementary)
By province and territory, what is the average length of life of (a) females (b) males?
Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: A review of the answer of December 16, 1970 (page 2102 of Hansard) indicates that there may have been ambiguity regarding the interpretation of the term "average length of life". The figures quoted by DBS were for "average age at death" of those who died in 1969, this being their actual average length of life. DBS also routinely calculates various life table functions for the Canadian population and various sub-populations such as provincial and territorial. Two types of life tables are currently being produced: one, referred to as complete, are based on quinquennial censuses and are considered to be official; the other, referred to as abridged are based on population estimates and are prepared for analytical and research purposes. The life expectancy values at birth, sometimes referred to as the "average length of life", shown on the next page, are the latest available and, therefore, originate from abridged life tables. Life expectancy values are theoretical or expected and are based on the assumption that the population structure will not change and that the mortality experience on which the life table is based will remain constant during the life time of the cohort. The "average age at death" and the "life expectancy at birth" (average length of life) will be equal for a population where the births and deaths are equal for any period and where age specific mortality rates remain unchanged. The Canadian population structure and mortality patterns are changing; this is why the "average age at death" and "life expectancy at birth" are different. If it is assumed that the term "average length of life" means life expectancy at birth then the two tables attached show such figures for provinces and territories by sex.
Life Expectancy at Birth By Province, and Sex, 1968
Province	Male	FemaleNewfoundland	69.46	74.85Prince Edward Island	68.25*	77.20*Nova Scotia	68.55	74.93New Brunswick	68.36	75.38Quebec	68.12	74.54Ontario	69.08	75.96Manitoba	69.86	76.58Saskatchewan	70.55	76.89Alberta	70.51	76.25British Columbia	69.38	76.07
Questions
Life Expectancy at Birth By Territory and Sex, 1964-68 Territory	Male	FemaleYukon	66.32*	74.38*Northwest Territories	64.45*	66.52*
*Life Tables constructed for areas with populations of less than 100,000 persons are subject to wide fluctuations and considerable error because of the relatively small number of deaths in each age group for each sex; the above life expectancy figures for Prince Edward Island, Yukon and Northwest Territories should therefore be interpreted with caution.
The life expectancy figures for the provinces are based on 1968 mortality experience and June 1, 1968 post-censal population estimates. The life expectancy figures for the territories are based on the 1964-1968 mortality experience and June 1, 1966, Census enumeration of population.


REGULATIONS COVERING FLAMMABILITY OF MATERIALS USED IN AIRCRAFT COMPARTMENTS
Mr. Anderson: 1.	What regulations govern the flammability of fabrics and other materials used for the covering of seats in Canadian registered aircraft?
2.	Are all plastics used in the interiors of Canadian registered aircraft required to be non-flammable or fire resistant?


Gérard Duquet: 1. The applicable Canadian regulation for seat coverings in aircraft compartments occupied by either crew or passengers is specified in Part II, Chapter III, Paragraph 3.4.1, of the Department of Transport Engineering and Inspection Manual. For compartments where smoking is permitted the covering of furnishings must be at least flame resistant, (i.e., not susceptible to combustion to the point of propagating a flame after the ignition source is removed). All other compartments must be placarded against smoking. In addition to the foregoing, the following design requirements apply: (a) United States Federal Aviation Regulation 23, Paragraph 853, applicable to aircraft under 12,500 pounds specifies that all covering of furnishings in aircraft compartments must be at least flame resistant if smoking is allowed and flash resistant, (i.e., not susceptible to burning violently when ignited), if placarded against smoking, (b) United States Federal Aviation Regulation 25, Paragraph 853, applicable to aircraft over 12,500 pounds specifies all compartment materials must be self extinguishing after flame removal, i.e., flame resistant, (c) United Kingdom British Civil Air Regulations Section K4-3, Paragraph 6.1.2 for aircraft under 12,500 pounds and Section D4-3, Paragraph 9.2.2, for aircraft over 12,500 pounds requires all compartment materials to be at least flame resistant. The subject of flammability of fabrics has been the subject of discussions in ICAO. When the ICAO standard is finalized it will be adopted by Canada.

January 18, 1971
Questions
2. Plastics used in aircraft interiors for the lining of walls and ceilings, the covering of all upholstery, floor and furnishings are subject to the same design requirements specified in answer to Question 1.
Part II, Chap. Ill, Para. 3, 4. Smoking in aircraft: 3.4.1 For all civil aircraft certified in Canada, the wall and ceiling linings, covering of all upholstery, floors and furnishings in compartments in which smoking is permitted must be made sufficiently flame-resistant to preclude ignition by cigarettes or matches, and ash trays of the self-contained type which are completely removable must be provided. All other compartments must be placarded against smoking.


JOHN DOYLE-INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT
Mr. Coates: 1.	Has a decision been rendered on the claim by the federal government against John Doyle?
2.	What was the total amount of the federal government's claim and for what period of time does the claim cover?
3.	If a decision has not as yet been rendered, on what date is a decision anticipated?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. The
Exchequer Court of Canada has rendered judgment in respect of Mr. Doyle's appeal from his 1950 assessment and in respect of one of the issues under appeal from his 1954 assessment. The Exchequer Court dismissed both these appeals. Mr. Doyle has now filed appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada from these decisions of the Exchequer Court. The Exchequer Court has adjourned sine die the hearing of Mr. Doyle's appeal from his 1953 assessment and the hearing of the second issue under appeal from his 1954 assessment.
2.	It is public knowledge that a Writ of Extent was issued out of the Exchequer Court of Canada on July 8, 1963 for the sum of $3,410,130.90, and that the years involved in the appeals are 1950, 1953 and 1954. However, the provisions of Section 133 of the Income Tax Act prevent the disclosure of the amount of taxes assessed or owing.
3.	It is hoped that the remaining issue can be heard by the Exchequer Court during the Spring and that the appeals to the Supreme Court will be heard during 1971.


GREATER VANCOUVER-RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM
Mr. Maiher: Is consideration being given to the proposal of the Government of British Columbia that the provincial and federal governments contribute a shared 75% of the costs of a rapid transit system for Greater Vancouver?


Gérard Duquet: No, consideration is not being given to this specific proposal at the present time. The Department
of Transport has not received a request regarding this form of rapid transit financing.


INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE-CHANGE IN NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AS A RESULT OF USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: As a result of the use of computers by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, how many employees have been (a) laid off (b) hired?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: As a result of the use of computers, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has not laid off anyone, but since 1966 has hired an additional 28 data processing employees. The additional staff was required to process greatly expanded personalized promotional campaigns and to develop and maintain other computerized systems used in the Department.


SUSPENSION OF DBS PUBLICATION &quot;PRICE INDEX OF COMMODITIES AND SERVICES USED BY FARMERS&quot;
Mr. Soulham: Is it the intention of the government to suspend the Dominion Bureau of Statistics Publication of the Canadian Price Index of Commodities and Services used by farmers "until it has been updated to truly reflect the costs of inputs" as recommended by the Task Force group discussing goals?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics has suspended publication of current indexes in the series, Price Index Numbers of Commodities and Services Used by Farmers, pending completion of a comprehensive updating of the items, weights of items and the price samples of the index. The revision is expected to be completed early in 1971. In the meantime, current indexes are continuing to be compiled and are provided to users on request only, and in such cases users are advised of the need for the revision.


CANADA'S BALANCE OF INTERNATIONAL PAYMENTS
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	For each year 1955 to 1969, what were the total managerial fees, royalties, etc. (a) receipts (b) payments (c) net balance in Canada's Balance of International Payments?
2.	For the same years, what were the total interest and dividend (a) receipts (b) payments (c) net balance in Canada's Balance of International Payments?
3.	For the same years, what was the net balance in Canadian managerial fees, royalties, and interest and dividends, as a percentage of Canada's Gross National Product?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: Questions 1, 2 and 3 are answered by the table below:

January 18, 1971

Questions
CANADIAN BALANCE OF INTERNATIONAL PAYMENTS (Millions of dollars)
Question:	1.	2.	3.Business Services (Managerial fees, royalties, etc.)	Interest and Dividends1 2 3 4 5 6	Total Balance asYear	Receipts	Payments	Balances	Receipts	Payments	Balances	irer Oent of GNP1955	... 79	199	-120	161	473	-312	1.51956	... 95	230	-135	142	524	-382	1.61957	... 99	240	-141	153	594	-441	1.81958	... 97	247	-150	167	614	-447	1.81959	... 109	260	-151	180	671	-491	1.81960	... 121	273	-152	171	656	-485	1.71961	... 121	297	-176	213	764	-551	1.91962	... 129	329	-200	202	783	-581	1.81963	... 128	316	-188	230	860	-630	1.81964	... 149	339	-190	332	1,010	-678	1.71965	... 167	369	-202	322	1,086	-764	1.81966	... 182	443	-261	318	1,140	-822	1.81967	... 203	552	-339	295	1,211	-916	1.91968	... 204	598	-394	353	1,259	-906	1.81969	... 205	640	-435	414	1,345	-931	1.7
1 Includes interest on long-term bonds and debentures and intergovernmental debt, earnings on international reserves, dividends and profits of unincorporated branches.


DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICS-POSITION OF MR. O'HAVER
Mr. Rodrigue: 1 What are the duties of Mr. O'Haver of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics?
2.	What is his salary?
3.	Is he bilingual?
4.	Is he a Canadian citizen and, if so, since what date?
5.	Is part of his responsibilities carried out in the Province of Quebec?
6.	Does his position require the services of a bilingual public servant?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: 1. Mr. H. O'Haver is the Director of the Field Division of the Socio-Economic Statistics Branch of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. In this capacity he is responsible for directing all household and establishment field survey work of the department in such fields as labour force, prices, income, job vacancy; for collecting a wide variety of business reports and for providing local liaison with important respondents and users of DBS data; for advising and participating in the testing of Census techniques, in the development and
co-ordination of census field plans, and for directing census field operations. The actual field work is conducted out of a network of eight regional offices across the country each under the control of a Regional Director reporting to Mr. O'Haver at Ottawa.
2.	The salary range applicable to Mr. O'Haver is $19,084 to $21,687.
3.	Mr. O'Haver is not bilingual.
4.	Mr. O'Haver does not have Canadian citizenship.
5.	Some of the work which is done under his jurisdiction is carried out in the Province of Quebec by staff working out of the Montreal and the Ottawa Regional Offices.
6.	His position has not been identified as specifically requiring a bilingual incumbent.


ESTABLISHMENT OF A CANADIAN CONSUMER COUNCIL
Mr. Maiher: Is consideration being given to the request of the Consumers' Association of Canada for the establishment of a Canadian Consumer Council "representative of the consumer"?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: In accordance with the recommendations of the

January 18, 1971
Questions
Economic Council of Canada (Interim Report-Consumer Affairs and the Department of the Registrar General, July, 1967, p. 28), the Canadian Consumer Council, which by statute is established to "advise or assist the Minister," is composed of members "from all regions of the country and having a strong personal interest in consumer affairs," and includes "producer and distributor interests." Its members are representative of various sectors of the economy and different walks of life, including consumer organizations, law, trade unions, agriculture, manufacturing, retailing, credit unions and co-operatives.


STORAGE OF BUTTER 1969-70
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): As oi (a) October 31, 1969 (b) October 31, 1970, how much butter was in storage?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: The amount of butter in storage was:
Period	Stocks of Creamery Butter
(pounds)
October 31, 1969	106,784,000
October 31, 1970	116,746,000


STORAGE OF POWDERED MILK 1969-70
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): As of (a) October 31, 1969 (b) October 31, 1970, how much powdered milk was in storage?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: The amount of powdered milk in storage was:
Stocks of	Stocks of
Period Skim Milk Powder Whole Milk Powder
(pounds)	(pounds)
October 31, 1969	203,485,000	355,000October 31, 1970	155,852,000	225,000


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Roy (Timmins): Has the government given consideration to the effects created by the denial of Canada Pension Plan benefits to individuals who have not and cannot contribute for a minimum of five years to the plan and, if so, will the government (a) allow benefits prorated to contributions under five years (b) return the contributions by those who will not receive benefits?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: (a) and (b) Under the Canada Pension Plan anyone who has made a contribution is eligible for a retirement pension and consequently no minimum period
of contributions is required in order to be eligible for a benefit of this kind.
At present a person must have contributed for three years in order to qualify his survivors for benefits. This minimum qualifying period will gradually increase over a period of time.
At present a person must have contributed for five years in order to be eligible for disability benefits. This minimum qualifying period will also increase over a period of time.
When the Canada Pension Plan was being designed, these waiting periods were deemed necessary for actuarial and other reasons. Contributions which are required under ihe legislation are not refundable.
In developing the White Paper on Income Security the foregoing considerations were reviewed again and it was felt that no changes should be made in them. It might be noted that the great majority of Canadians have now contributed to this plan or its counterpart, the Quebec Pension Plan, for the minimum qualifying periods specified above.


AIR CANADA-BUTTER SERVED ON FLIGHTS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Is all the butter served on Air Canada flights produced in Canada?
2.	Is the butter bought after tenders are called?
3.	What was the quantity of butter purchased by Air Canada during 1969 and 1970?


Gérard Duquet: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: In so far as Air Canada is concerned, 1. Canadian butter is specified for all Company flights originating in Canada. Flights originating from foreign countries are provided with locally available butter for logistical and economic reasons.
2.	The Company contracts with independent caterers for meals to a defined standard, including the butter specification mentioned in Answer No. 1. The caterers choose which food to purchase, by contract or otherwise, including butter.
3.	As it does not purchase directly, Air Canada is unable to reply to this question.


CHANGE OF NAME OF DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICS
Mr. Mather: Has a decision been reached to change the name of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to include the word "Canada" and, if not, is consideration being given to such a change?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: Bill S-2 respecting statistics of Canada was read in the House a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on December 16, 1970. Section 3 of this Bill, if passed, would change the name of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to Statistics Canada.


January 18, 1971



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Orlikow: For each Crown corporation and agency since their establishment (a) who are the chief executive officers and the Board of Directors (b) when were each of the officers and directors first appointed and for what length of time (c) which officers and directors were reappointed and for what length of time (d) what annual salary or remuneration was given to each executive officer and director (e) what criteria was used in the appointment of the chief executive officers and the Board of Directors?
Return tabled.


MERCURY POLLUTION
Mr. Reid: 1.	What action has the government taken to provide scientific research in the area of mercury pollution since May 15, 1970, specifically the causes of the breakdown of mercury in waterways, and the possible means of removing the contamination from the waterways affected?
2.	What continuing program of scientific research has the government on all aspects of mercury pollution?
Return tabled.


EQUIPMENT OF AIRPORTS CONTROLLED BY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
Mr. Nielsen: By location, what airports controlled by DOT are equipped with (a) ILS (b) PAR (c) VASIS (d) ADF (e) VOR (f) runway overruns (g) runway grooving?
Return tabled.


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the attention of the House to question No. 606 which I should like to have answered. In view of the minister's own wish that more information be provided regarding his income stabilization program, perhaps he will look into this matter and answer the question as quickly as possible.


Mr. Jerome:: Mr. Speaker, I have made a note of the number and I certainly will look into the matter to see whether the question can be answered expeditiously.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the very alarming increase in the number of members of the work force who are having to seek recourse to welfare, for example, in Vancouver the number of single men is double the figure for last year, is the government now prepared to
Inquiries of the Ministry
bring in an interim revision of the rules relating to unemployment insurance with a view to reducing the qualifications so that those unable to qualify this winter because of existing rules will be able to get some benefit from the fund?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to welcome the Leader of the Opposition back to the House. This question was asked in his absence and I said at that time that the general subject of unemployment will be debated this afternoon. I expect that the Minister of Labour, who is directly responsible, will take this question into account when he answers.


An hon. Member:: You have said nothing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I express the hope that we will get some information from the minister.



FORECAST OF 1971 EMPLOYMENT TREND

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether, in view of the increasing unemployment in the country, for example, at the rate of 17 per cent in the Kelowna district, the minister has now revised his forecast of employment trends in 1971, or is he still predicting a reduction in the seasonal rate of unemployment in this country?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the forecast remains the same.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister what his forecast is? I ask this question in view of the boast he made during the past year that his forecast with regard to employment and unemployment was out by only a fraction of one per cent. Will the minister tell the House what his forecast is, because he has not told us yet?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that my hon. friend read the budget speech-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have read it.


Edgar John Benson: -in which I indicated the general outlook for employment this year.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT WHITE PAPER RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Since the revision of the payments and eligibility for unemployment insurance really depends directly on the government's willingness to supply additional funds, and since the government's own white paper suggested that the federal government would assume the additional responsibility if unemployment rose over 4 per cent, may I ask whether the govern-

January 18, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
ment is prepared at this time to make additional funds available so that the Minister of Labour can put into effect as of January 1 this year the recommendations which were made in the white paper for implementation later in the year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that that course would commend itself to the government. As the hon. member knows, we have been having discussions with the provinces about unemployment insurance as well as about other aspects of social security. We want to act in such a way as commends itself to the provinces as well as to the federal government.


Mr. Baldwin:: How about the unemployed?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the government is giving any consideration to emergency measures with respect to the unemployment insurance fund that would not involve the provinces, such as increasing the maximum from $53 a week to $100 a week and extending benefits for those who have already exhausted their eligibility until at least May 1 in order to see them through the winter months?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman may have forgotten that we have just increased unemployment insurance benefits.


Gerald William Baldwin: But the government has also increased the number of unemployed.



TORONTO-ACTION TO ELIMINATE DELAYS IN PAYMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIMS

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question that is supplementary to the first question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I direct it to the Minister of Labour. In view of the lengthy delays that have developed in the payment of unemployment insurance claims in the Toronto area, which has resulted in many of the claimants having to go on civil relief until their payments are sorted out-one case took seven months-is the minister taking steps to see that this regrettable situation is straightened out in the immediate future?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the premise and therefore I cannot answer the last part of the hon. member's question.


George Harris Hees: Would the minister be good enough to read what has appeared in the daily press almost every day since he went away? He will find out that what I have said is correct.



UNEMPLOYMENT-TORONTO-CREATION OF JOBS THROUGH EROSION AND POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECTS

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government been approached by the city of Toronto regarding direct job-creating projects
such as erosion and pollution control? If so, is the federal government prepared to extend assistance?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, no such approach has been made to me.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are eight or ten members who wish to ask supplementary questions. I must bring to the attention of hon. members that there is to be a debate on unemployment later this afternoon. I suggest that the question period ought not to be devoted entirely to this very important matter.



CALGARY-DELAY IN PAYMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIMS

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I will not preface my question with a premise. May I ask the minister to investigate seriously the situation in Calgary-it is similar to that which is said to exist in Toronto-in order to make sure that unemployment insurance payments, which are paid out of the Winnipeg office because of automation in the department, are made on time to the 20,000 unemployed in the city of Calgary and other places inasmuch as they did not receive their payments in time for Christmas?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: A question posed that way, Mr. Speaker, merits an answer. I will obtain this information from the UIC and report tomorrow.



HALIFAX-DELAY IN PAYMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIMS

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: We welcome the Minister of Labour back to the House to look after the problems of unemployment. Will the minister check with the Halifax office in the Atlantic area to determine the reason for the delays in the payment of unemployment insurance benefits?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is a legitimate one but similar questions were asked about Toronto and Calgary. Perhaps we might stop at Halifax. I do not think that much would be gained by hon. members asking the same question with regard to different centres all across Canada. The hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar on a supplementary.	.


Mr. Gleave:: I want to move to another subject, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Before doing so, the Chair might recognize the hon. member for St. John's East.



UNEMPLOYMENT-RECOMMENDATIONS BY MINISTER OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION TO ALLEVIATE PROBLEM

Mr. James A. McGraih (Si. John's East):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the special responsibilities

January 18, 1971

that the minister and his department have by statute for the creation of jobs and in view of the special responsibility the minister has taken for unemployment in cyclical areas like Montreal, what recommendation has he made or is he prepared to make to the government to alleviate the immediate problem of unemployment?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I made all the recommendations I thought necessary to the government.
As for those that concern the whole economy, I know they will be under discussion later today.



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PRESENT POSITION-PRODUCTION CONTROLS IN NEW INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT

Alfred Pullen Gleave: I have a question for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of newspaper reports of proposed changes and modifications in the outline of the cereal grains program issued by the minister some time ago, is the minister prepared to make a statement on motions on his present position as a result of his talks and discussions with farm organizations?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the position is the same as it was last week. Consultations and discussions are still going on. I have no further statement to make to the House at this stage.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: If the minister is not prepared to provide information on that subject, in view of the fact that negotiations toward a new international wheat agreement are commencing today, can he indicate to the House what Canada's stand will be with regard to production controls among the exporting countries?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that it would be very productive to analyse at this stage what our position may be in the course of the negotiations that will be taking place. However, the discussions are likely to deal more with the possibility of a new agreement in all its aspects, including price and supply, rather than with production policies in particular.



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS PROGRAM-INQUIRY AS TO ANNOUNCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: In view of the fact that some news reporters are able to learn more about the grain stabilization program from officials of the minister than members can learn from the minister, will the minister take the House into his confidence and state when he expects to be able to announce government policy on this matter? Also, will he indicate whether the government has made a decision to proceed with a plan?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, no further decision has been made other than what has been made known to the House. As I indicated in answer to the previous question, consideration of the issues is still going on. When we reach further conclusions and make final decisions, they will be announced.



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS PROGRAM-DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY PASTURES

Stanley James Korchinski: I have a supplementary question inasmuch as I raised this question about a month ago. In view of the information contained in his pamphlet, will the PFRA program, under which new land will be developed for community pastures, no longer be part of the government policy under the new program? In light of the information contained in his pamphlet, will the new government policy be that the pastures are not going to be opened up?


Otto Emil Lang: My difficulty is that perhaps there was a slight misstatement of what was contained in the original statement. The statement as put out is what we intend to do, what we propose to do.



ARRANGEMENTS BY FARMERS FOR STORAGE BY COMPANIES

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: In view of the fact that a senior official of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool has quoted the minister as saying that farmers could make private deals with grain companies to store some of their grain, without asking the minister to divulge the details of any policy he may be considering, will he inform the House whether it is his intention to introduce legislation that will allow such action to be taken by individual farmers?
Kon. Oito E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration): The quotation in question even purports to be a second-hand quotation of a quotation. However, a change in relation to elevators and their ability to store grain would not necessarily require legislation; it might be carried out by way of regulation or decisions by the particular bodies. Of course this question will come up as we move to new situations with perhaps more space available in the future than in the past.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize one last supplementary. The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley.



ADEQUACY OF FLOUR MILLING CAPACITY TO MEET POSSIBLE SALES

Mr. Rod Thomson (Bailleford-Kindersley):: Will the minister assure the House that sufficient Canadian flour milling capacity is available to produce enough flour to satisfy all possible flour sales to Russia or Cuba?


Otto Emil Lang: I think I can give that assurance. I certainly



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister concerning the Singapore Commonwealth conference. It refers to the reported statement of an aide to the Prime Minister to the effect that Canada "could care less about the Indian Ocean and would not mind if they pulled the plug." Can the minister tell us whether this officer was speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister who at the time was far away from Singapore, and is the Canadian attitude-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member could find some way of asking his question which would be acceptable procedurally. He knows quite well that he cannot ask the Acting Prime Minister or the government whether or not a statement made by an official outside the House represents government policy. The question might be asked in another way.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I put my question in that form because the Prime Minister was absent from Singapore and the official I mentioned was there. Can the minister advise whether it is in fact the Canadian attitude toward political and military events in the Indian Ocean area that "we could not care less"?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. Quite the contrary. When I saw this report I sent a cable and I was assured that whoever it was who spoke was not speaking on behalf of the Canadian government.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. If that is the case, does the Acting Prime Minister not feel it would have been a good thing for the Prime Minister to have done his job in Singapore instead of going off skindiving-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a question for the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, whom I welcome back at this time when the government needs all the strength it can muster. In light of the fact that statistical information shows that as high a proportion as two-thirds of those in penitentiaries were unemployed at the time they committed their crimes, has the minister
attempted or will he attempt to establish an inquiry into whether or not the recent sharp increase in crime is connected with the present high level of unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps this is a matter which the Minister of Justice should be given an opportunity to study.



MEASURES TO RESTRICT ACQUISITION OF WEAPONS BY CRIMINALS

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Justice; the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs took it as notice last week. In view of the fact that our laws to control possession of handguns and concealed weapons have not prevented criminals and so-called urban guerrillas from acquiring whole arsenals of deadly weapons, is the government giving consideration to taking further restrictive measures to curb the proliferation of weaponry which is seriously threatening our society?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Last year I met with officials of the Department of the Solicitor General, of my own department and of other agencies of government and asked that a review be made of the current situation, particularly the definition of restricted and prohibited weapons. I would think the new Solicitor General might well wish to report to the House at a future date.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Justice say that he looked at this last year because I asked a question at that time. Can he now assure the House that serious action is being taken, particularly in Montreal where the weapons were sold by war surplus stores to the criminals who did the kidnapping and may have committed the murder?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the full range of that premise but I certainly agree with the hon. member that the question is serious enough for a thorough review.
# * #



PROPOSED FLOODING OF SKAGIT RIVER VALLEY-RESPONSE BY U.S. GOVERNMENT TO REQUEST THAT AGREEMENT BE CANCELLED

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry is not in the House today following his conference in Washington. May I therefore direct my question either to the Acting Prime Minister or to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister indicate to the House what was the response made by the U.S. government to the minister's request that the agreement under which 6,000 acres of the Skagit valley in British Columbia would be flooded be torn up?

January 18, 1971


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: The question is taken as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, since the question is being taken as notice, perhaps I can ask the minister to assure the House when he replies to my question that the Canadian government will not permit flooding of the Skagit River valley to take place under any circumstances.



INFORMATION CANADA


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Information Canada. It has some reference to unemployment but generally to the principles of his department. In light of the announced dismissal and demotion of employees of Information Canada, will the minister be clarifying the priorities for Information Canada's budget in regard to personnel in order to offset the paralysing problem of morale in that department, let alone another statement on the Logo incident, not only in regard to the possible cost of a suit but also as to how much it will cost the government of Canada to implement this symbol-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -and I think they had better use black, the way things are going.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister should not attempt to reply to that question now but he might make a statement in due course on the question put by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley.


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I hope my reply will not be as confused as the question. There is no difficulty about implementing the announcement made some time ago with respect to the federal identity program; it is proceeding satisfactorily. As far as any staff reductions are concerned, it is the hon. member, among others, who has indicated that one of the purposes of Information Canada should be to bring about some tightening of personnel in this whole field of information. I hope we will be able to do that without the loss of very valuable people, and that any people from the Exhibition Commission who cannot be accommodated within Treasury Board's requirements for its operations will find employment elsewhere in the Public Service. None of these people has lost employment.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question. The only reason I was a little confused was the confused antics and policies of this fledgling embryonic department and its embryonic minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry


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


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to make sure that the minister understood the difference between "embryonic" and "imbecillic".


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


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Will the minister make a statement on motions this week clarifying some of the confusing policies and practices of Information Canada which, while we all have doubts about the efficacy of the program, now that it has been launched we would like to see get off the pad?


Mr. Sianbury:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's concern and would be glad to discuss it with him any time. Other hon. members have not indicated that they are experiencing the same confusion he is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINANCE


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the dampening effect that his original white paper had on the entire economy, and in light of the many requests being made for a review of the new proposed program that is being redrafted, will the people of Canada again have an opportunity to review the minister's latest proposals once they are redrafted?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the question is rather confusing. First of all, new proposals are not being drafted. What is being drafted is a bill to be introduced through a budget in the House of Commons. Not only will the people of Canada have an opportunity to discuss it but, more importantly, the bill must be discussed clause by clause in the House of Commons.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask the minister whether it is the intention to send a committee across the country again to hear representations from the people?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the only reason I can think of for that suggestion is my hon. friend wanting a trip.
s}:	Hs sfc



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Waller Deakon (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Acting Prime Minister

January 18, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
in view of the fact that the Minister of Supply and Services is not in the House today. In view of the fact that the employees of Canadian Arsenals at Mississauga have been given notice that they will be laid off work within six months due to the decision to close down the plant, thereby resulting in the possibility that 175 to 200 people will become unemployed, could consideration be given to postponing or deferring the closing of this plant, especially in view of the present economic situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will bring those representations to the attention of the minister.
$ ^ $


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. As the survival of the Commonwealth may well be at stake in the debate that will take place this week at Singapore, can the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that Canada will remain firm in its opposition to the British sale of arms to South Africa and will make it clear in the forthcoming debate that uncompromising insistence by Britain on its plans may well torpedo the Commonwealth?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there has been no change whatever in the position of the Canadian government. We have not been supplying arms to South Africa and we are opposed to the British government supplying arms. If the hon. member is asking me whether we will leave the Commonwealth if Britain supplies arms to South Africa, I doubt very much whether that kind of threat would be useful.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I did not make the suggestion put forward by the Acting Prime Minister. What I asked him to answer was whether in the debate Canada would make it clear and would state that the Commonwealth is in danger of being torpedoed by the continuance of Britain's plans to sell arms to South Africa?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset of my answer, we have no intention of changing our policy. The Prime Minister made that clear to Mr. Heath when he wrote to him and warned him about the danger of breaking up the Commonwealth. This remains our position.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question in like fashion to the Acting Prime Minister and also as Secretary of State for
External Affairs. Has Canada written to Premier Pompidou of France to protest the sale of arms by France to African countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when this question was put to me the other day I pointed out that France is not a member of the Commonwealth, and that it was in the Commonwealth connection that we wrote to the Prime Minister of Britain. As Secretary of State for External Affairs I have, of course, on behalf of the Canadian government expressed our opposition to the sale by any country of arms to South Africa, and that certainly includes France which is one of the suppliers.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, may I take this opportunity to draw to the attention of the Minister of Finance that he has apparently lost everything from his pockets but his money.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, on that question of privilege, I should simply like to say that if my hon. friend had been over here I would probably have lost my money too.


Donald MacInnis: Further to the point of privilege, if the minister is like the rest of us he should be taking his own money.
* *




Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
During the weekend I had the opportunity to meet a number of civic administrators who stated their concern about some unemployed who are unable to draw unemployment benefits. Could the minister say whether the government is now considering the possibility of concluding agreements with the provinces and municipalities, in order to organize winter works as soon as possible to assist those individuals?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that this question has already been asked but the Acting Prime Minister may care to answer it.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in the plans that were put forward by the government just before Christmas, a very large program of works was laid out, much of which will be implemented this winter. This is the most effective measure that could be taken. I quite agree that measures should be taken to deal with winter unemployment, and that is what we have done.

January 18, 1971



PROPOSED MARKETING OF RYE, FLAX AND RAPESEED BY WHEAT BOARD-REQUEST FOR VOTE BY FARMERS

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. What consideration, if any, is the government giving to the recent request of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool that the government conduct a ballot among farmers of the Wheat Board area on the question of extending the board's powers to cover the complete marketing of rye, flax and rapeseed?


Otto Emil Lang: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, when such a request is received it is given consideration.



WHEAT-ACHIEVEMENT OF EIGHT-BUSHEL DELIVERY QUOTA

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkion-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the minister's previous commitment in respect of an eight-bushel quota during the present crop year and in view of the fact that many points are on only a three-bushel quota, can the minister still carry out this commitment to the House?


Otto Emil Lang: As of today I think 41 of the 46 points are going on a four-bushel quota and there seems to be no difficulty in moving forward rapidly as the crop year proceeds.



MANPOWER


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. If he wishes to so indicate, perhaps he could answer in greater detail during the debate which is to follow. In view of the relatively small number of unemployed people who are able to make use of the manpower training programs as an alternative to employment, is the minister making plans now to revise many of the regulations which prohibit many unemployed Canadians from taking advantage of the programs?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in a program as large as the retraining program of course all aspects of it are continually under review. The number of people now receiving the training program is of course very high indeed. We have had a look at whether or not any changes would be an advantage having regard to the amount of money which is available for the purpose. At the present time we are satisfied that, given the training facilities and the amount of money which is available, it is serving its purpose fairly well.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that roughly only one out of every ten unemployed can take advantage of these programs and specifically in
Inquiries of the Ministry
view of the limit on the length of training that can be taken, is consideration being given to lengthening the 52-week period so that many people will not have to face unemployment simply because their time has run out under present training regulations?


Otto Emil Lang: As I indicated earlier, all aspects of the program are under consideration and this is certainly one which deserves continual consideration. The programs, of course, are not designed simply to put people who are unemployed into training but rather to offer training to those people who are unemployed where a training program is specifically indicated as the route back to employment for them.



RETRAINING PROGRAMS-USE OF CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN PROVISIONS

Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to the previous series of questions about persons being ineligible for manpower training. Are the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the Minister of National Health and Welfare giving consideration to increasing the emphasis on the work activity program section of the Canada Assistance Plan?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, discussions are going on between several departments and several provinces about the direction in which these programs should go in the years ahead. I look forward to these discussions leading to some fruit.



MINAS BASIN TIDES-REQUEST BY NOVA SCOTIA FOR REOPENING OF STUDY

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmoulh-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. I ask it in light of the tremendous enthusiasm of the newfound supporter of Minas Basin Tidal power. Has the government received any formal request from the province of Nova Scotia and for the premier of that province to reopen the study in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not having followed through on the answer I gave the other day. I did not have time to do so, but I will inquire today.



FORAGE INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR 1971-WHEAT ACREAGE REDUCTION

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the

January 18, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Wheat Board. Can the minister assure all concerned that the proposed incentive program to increase cultivated forage crop acreage on the Prairies in 1971 will not be tied to a reduction in wheat acreage as it was in 1970?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention whatsoever to tie any reduction in a particular crop to the forage incentive. The forage incentive as proposed would be directly in relation to increases in forage acreage over previous levels.



AGRICULTURE


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the incentive program to increase forage acreage in western Canada and thereby by implication the production of feed, will the minister review the present trade program in respect of the importation of beef from New Zealand and Australia to avoid a real conflict in policy?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this is constantly under review. There is no indication that there is a conflict of policy. Indeed, the projections indicate that a substantially higher increase in the rate of production of beef would have to take place to meet the demands of the North American market.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the minister charged with responsibility for Information Canada. In light of the government's policy which apparently requires a Canadian citizenship card for those citizens who immigrated to this country from Great Britain and other Commonwealth countries in order to obtain a Canadian passport, even though these people have resided in Canada for many years, and in view of the difficulty involved in obtaining suitable information, with resulting confusion, will the minister undertake the responsibility of making the excellent brochures on this subject readily available at post offices and other local federal offices for public use?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question is so urgent that it should not be placed on the Order Paper. However, perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member bringing this to

my attention. If there are not sufficient brochures available I will try to make sure more are made available, both in my capacity as minister responsible for citizenship and as minister responsible for Information Canada. I believe it should be pointed out, however, that there is no special requirement in respect of former British subjects. The requirement for passports to be issued by the Department of External Affairs is simply for evidence that a person is a Canadian citizen. The citizenship registration branch is willing to issue proof of that just as the vital statistics office of a provincial government is able to issue proof of birth.



FINANCE


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if the fact that he withdrew the tax bill last Thursday can give the people of Canada any hope that he intends to drop the 3 per cent income tax surcharge which he proposed to extend until the end of 1971?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker; it was merely a technicality. Usually the tax bill is not introduced until the budget debate is completed.



HIGHWAYS


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
It has been said that the federal government has granted $68 million to Quebec in order to create employment in that province. It has also been said that this amount will be used to build an expressway in Montreal, which would provide jobs for 1,400 workers.
Has the federal government made this grant of $68 million to Quebec for creating jobs or for building an expressway in Montreal?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the announcement was that the federal government had made available to the provinces a sum of $150 million, to be distributed in accordance with the employment situation in each province.
Accordingly, Quebec is entitled to $68 million of the total amount.
The use to be made of the fund is in fact left to the province so long as it tends to create jobs.
January 18, 1971


Martial Asselin: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Does the minister find logical that a grant of 68 million dollars to Quebec will create only 1,400 jobs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member invites the minister to express an opinion. In this sense I do not believe that the question is in order.



FINANCE


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In light of the rising unemployment crisis, will the government consider lifting the deferment of capital cost allowances on commercial building in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia so that construction can commence on some major-


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, will the minister wait until I ask my question, please?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Steve Eugene Paproski: In light of the rising unemployment crisis, will the government consider lifting the deferment of capital cost allowances on commercial buildings in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia so that construction can commence on some major projects to provide needed jobs, not words?


Edgar John Benson: If my hon. friend would only read the legislation he would see that it has already expired.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: My question is directed to the Minister of Justice. It is in reference to the damage done to the Peace-Athabasca delta by the W. A. C. Bennett dam. I was wondering whether the minister through his department had in mind the offer of any assistance to the towns on the Peace River and to the Alberta Metis Association which are planning lawsuits against the British Columbia government for damage done to the delta region?


John Napier Turner: I do not see
how I would be able to do that, Mr. Speaker, under the statutory duties given to me by parliament.


Paul Yewchuk: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We will be running out of time within a few minutes. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Athabasca on a supplementary question, but I would ask him to proceed quickly so as to give some time to several other hon. members who wish to ask questions.


Paul Yewchuk: My supplementary question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, could the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether the studies being carried out by the federal and provincial governments will include a study of the illegal aspects and implications of the Peace-Athabasca delta problem which has resulted from the dam construction?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
sH sH Hs



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: My question is to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and deals with the complex of forest products industries in The Pas, Manitoba, which were recently taken under trusteeship by the Manitoba Government. In view of the fact that the four companies involved are qualified for an aggregate of some $15 million in federal grants, can the minister say whether it is his intention to advance the money to any one of the companies should it meet the qualification deadline, even though the management has in effect changed since the original agreement was signed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is obviously an important one but normally it should be placed on the Order Paper. However, if there is urgency it might be considered at the time of adjournment.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Could he advise us whether he shared the undertaking of the Premier of Quebec to supply 100,000 new jobs in the province of Quebec within one year, or does he agree with the ministers of that government that this was merely a target figure?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt very much that the question is in order.



POSITION RESPECTING PROPOSED NORTHERN PIPELINES

Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Will he say

January 18, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
if the views of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich regarding an oil pipeline in Alaska or a pipeline in the Canadian north are those of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
sfc *	*



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: 
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, my department is only concerned with matters of pollution when it comes to giving industrial incentives. My department is not responsible for settling problems caused by pollution in Canada.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I take it from this that the minister is not concerned now with the Ottawa area?



FINANCE


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: My question is for the
Minister of Finance. In light of the unemployment situation and the slow growth of the economy, is the government giving consideration to removing or substantially reducing the 11 per cent federal sales tax on building materials at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is the minister now in a position to answer my question of last Monday as to whether the necessary Order in Council has been passed so that war
veterans allowance recipients who are also receiving the guaranteed income supplement will obtain the benefit of the escalation which will be in effect during January, February and March, pending the new rates and new ceilings which are to come into effect in April?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The documents have been prepared and are now before the Treasury Board. I am sure a decision will be made in time for the proposed increase.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister mean that it will be made in time so that the adjustment will be made in the January cheques?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, December 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson, that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (page 1808).
Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before this debate commences, may I say it is my understanding that we are to spend not only today but tomorrow on the budget debate. I think we have indicated that at this time we intend to direct our attention to the question of unemployment. May I make a suggestion which the government may take into account regarding the future of this debate?
These two days plus two more days will take up four of the days allotted to the budget debate. If during the course of the debate today the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) or the minister responsible would indicate that the government intends to bring in at once supplementary estimates covering certain proposals to deal with the unemployment crisis, including expanded unemployment insurance benefits and expansion of the Canada Assistance Plan, a program of works and certain selective tax reduction this party would be prepared to review its position with regard to the debate. If the government is prepared to indicate in this way, through supplementary estimates, that it will provide leadership, in this crisis we would be prepared to suggest that the debate may be brought to an end.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that that was not a point of order but rather a point of a debate. The hon. member may want to make that suggestion when he has the floor in the course of the debate which is to follow.

January 18, 1971


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the past few months I believe the only words we have heard repeated as often as the recommendations of my colleagues and myself with regard to fighting unemployment have been the stand-pat responses of the ministers of this government. There is, however, one difference developing daily in this situation. These same recommendations that we have been making are being heard from an increasing number of Canadians, including an increasing number of economic experts, not just from the opposition benches. So, it is becoming more and more apparent that if the government continues to stand pat, it may well be standing alone in the short term.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As to the terrible unemployment faced by hundreds of thousands of Canadians this winter, admittedly there is limited action that can be taken at this date. However, let there be no doubt as to who is responsible for these hundreds of thousands of Canadians being in this position this winter.


Some hon. Members:: Trudeau.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The stubbornness of this government in failing to act has been mainly responsible. At least let this government do what can be done at this stage this winter, and at least let it make the suggested changes with regard to unemployment insurance. Let us have an end to these stand-pat, complacent statements emanating from ministers of the Crown.
Looking a little further ahead, and recognizing the time factor involved in achieving a desirable level of employment in this country as well as the mess into which this government has put this country, the prime and major recommendation of the Progressive Conservative party is for the government to immediately implement selective cuts in taxation, including cuts in personal income tax of the order of 6 per cent or so.
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) brought in this budget on December 3, there was a general expectation that he would at least allow the 3 per cent surtax on personal and corporate income to expire as it was supposed to do, and as he originally stated it would. However, the minister did not allow this 3 per cent surtax to lapse, and the budget, with all its high blown phrases, became merely a means of extending the life of the surtax and in fact increasing taxes. In so far as the technical requirements, are concerned, the budget has no more reason for existing than this. Spokesmen for the government suggest that tax cuts would be inflationary. I do not for a moment subscribe to that philosophy under current circumstances, nor do many economists who are registering their objections to the present policies of the government. The Financial Times, for example, espouses a 10 per cent cut in personal income tax as well as cuts in corporate tax. An increasing number of economists and business people are calling for immediate tax cuts.
Let me say again that in present circumstances, far from a tax cut of this nature being inflationary, there is very good reason to believe that it would be anti-infla-
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
tionary. In fact, there is very good reason to believe that it might very well moderate the demands for wage and salary, increases which Canadians feel they need to offset the expected increases in the cost of living. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should abandon our concern about fighting inflation. I do not believe we have inflation licked. For example, I have been urging the government not to abandon sincere attempts to achieve voluntary wage and price restraints. The government got started on this program at a time when inflationary pressures were at their peak, the most difficult and very worst time to implement such a policy, and the program was in deep difficulty from the beginning.
The experience of other countries, notably West Germany, suggests that efforts to achieve successful economic guidelines and restraint policies, call it what you will, have a fair chance of success if they are based on consultation and co-operation among governments, business and labour rather than dictation from on high, and if they are instituted at a time when inflationary pressures are not too heavy. I say again that it seems obvious that rather than abandon efforts to achieve such a program at this time, this is the very time when the government should be redoubling its efforts to bring business and labour together to achieve a meaningful restraint program on a co-operative basis. Instead of this, the government has chosen to abandon its efforts. I hope nobody in the government is going to continue to give lectures to us on this side of the House about the importance of continuing the fight against inflation.
Another tax cut that could get a significant segment of our private sector moving ahead would be a substantial reduction or, preferably, the elimination altogether of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. This would give a very necessary and immediate stimulus to an entire job-creating construction industry. It is important, too, that if this government is going to fight unemployment effectively there must be some structure of responsibility. It is very difficult, looking from this side, to know who is in charge, or whether the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) is trying to spend one-third of his day fighting unemployment as well as handling immigration problems and problems in respect of wheat. From this side of the House there is no apparent co-ordination of government policy in respect of fighting unemployment, and it is urgent that someone be given the responsibility to fight unemployment rather than to have the divided responsibility we now see. Judging from the interest that he has shown so far, I hope that responsibility will not be given to the Minister of Finance.
The most optimistic forecast of Canada's economic growth for 1971, on the basis of the present budget arrangement, indicates that the highest expected growth rate will make no appreciable reduction in our present seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment. I have challenged the government a number of times to come clean and tell the country what its forecasts are in respect of unemployment for 1971. It has not accepted the challenge. Again this afternoon I sought this information and

January 18, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
I got an evasive answer. I repeat the challenge now, Mr. Speaker. I repeat the forecast, which I think is accurate on the basis of what I read, that unless additional and powerful stimulus is given to the growth of this economy, for this year unemployment, seasonally adjusted, will not be below 6 per cent.
During the past week I have been in the western part of this country and I should like to talk for a few moments about some of my impressions. At the outset of these remarks, I want to pay tribute to the personnel who staff the many agencies which are being pressed to the very limit in trying to serve the unemployed people in this country. I had the opportunity of meeting a number of these dedicated staff people, and I was impressed with their concern and the humane approach they are taking in trying to do their job. They are dealing, under pressure, with an abnormally high number of unemployed persons who would feel even more degraded by their circumstances were they being dealt with by case workers and counsellors who did not really care.
Some reports of my travels have given the impression that I was abusively greeted by a large number of people in Vancouver who, having no current eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits, were lined up to receive welfare assistance. That impression is inaccurate, and I think it is important that I clarify the details of this event. This has an important bearing on conditions in our country. Certainly, there were men in that line up who took the opportunity of my visit to speak out from anger to me. They are the men whose pride is hurting in a most unspeakable way. In addition to those men, and quite separate from them, there were a few vocal representatives of other groups who took advantage of the media coverage available to get their message across. All over the world today, people have become familiar with the techniques of abusive confrontation and the effectiveness of this tactic in gaining coverage. This effectiveness can hardly be minimized.
What concerns me about the nature of this kind of confrontation is that those indulging in it seem to have passed beyond the will or desire to discuss things. They feel that their only recourse and satisfaction lies in their organized ability to incite. I am, of course, troubled by this development because of the rejection and disillusionment that it represents. I caution the government, and I caution the people of Canada, not just to write off people in this state of mind as a disturbing nuisance. We must, to a large extent, endure some loud abuse and keep working at the problem.
By far the majority of the jobless Canadians I met in the line-ups at Vancouver and elsewhere have not reached that point of despair. They are trying to sustain their hope in the face of hopelessness. They are not the ones who have been making loud noises. Their anger and frustration is not visible on the surface. It is masked by whatever degree of pride they have left to display. To a casual observer, they would appear to have accepted their blows from a mismanaged and depressed economy with a reaction of sad resignation. But when you talk to
them, there is no mistaking that the same anger and frustration lies beneath the surface. They get their message across, too. It is delivered in a more restrained and quiet way, but the bitterness is there. They are shocked and frightened by what the government has made happen to them; and when they gather in welfare lines, hostels and manpower offices, I believe they are justified in directing bitter comment at anyone who sits in this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Minister of Manpower and Immigration was the object of some expressions of this bitterness when he spoke in Vancouver last Friday evening. In his response, he conceded that his government's policies had been a cause of unemployment; but then, to his great discredit, he tried to run for cover and shift a substantial portion of the blame to industry and labour. He said that industry must "foresee shifting demands and plan accordingly for its manpower development".
No one will deny that this is a worthy aim. No businessman in this country will quarrel with the minister on that score. But, surely, such a gratuitous piece of advice is nothing short of contemptible when its intent is to mislead and to place blame on somebody else. Industry in this country did not deliberately create unemployment. Labour did not deliberately create unemployment and the unemployed certainly did not create it. This government created it and this government must answer for it.


Mr. Muir:: The Prime Minister said that it did not worry him.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Certainly, as the minister indicates, industry is responsible for looking after its planning programs; but these do not exist in a vacuum. I remind the minister that for months and months I have been urging the removal of Ihe many uncertainties which the government has created in the Canadian economy. I have urged this because I know that industry cannot plan properly in a climate of uncertainty. Yet, in spite of all those months and months of cautioning and warning, the Minister of Finance has smugly refused to take any action. If we have reached a point now where industry is losing confidence in the good faith of this government, there certainly cannot be any doubt as to where the blame really lies. For the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to scold industry at this point and to ask it to act now without the government first doing its part, is more, Sir, than just putting the cart before the horse. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration is attempting to justify that kind of reverse arrangement after the Minister of Finance has wounded the horse and taken the wheels off the cart.
The prospect of a December budget brought fresh hope to many in the Canadian business community. Small businessmen in particular were hopeful of an indication that significant action would be taken by the government to stimulate the economy of this country. Their reaction to the budget which was actually presented by the Minister of Finance was, in many cases, a reaction of outrage. For many it meant that the Christmas message to a

January 18, 1971

further number of their employees would have to be one that would make them sick at heart. I talked with some of the jobless persons who got the bad news following the appearance of this so-called budget. They are not particularly mad at their employers who let them go. They are not blaming industry or labour for their situation. They know who has caused their jobs as well as their pride in being productive contributors to our Canadian society to be taken away. They know too that inflation is a bad thing and they want to be fair in assessing their treatment. Above all they know that they need hope to sustain them, and they know that this hope can only be offered by the government now scrapping this do-nothing budget and taking quick and effective action. That hope, Sir, will be necessary to sustain them over the long months that it will take the economy to recover, even if a tremendously stimulating beginning is made immediately. Yet, the government continues blindly to withhold the required actions.
Well over half a million Canadians right now are paying a deeply degrading price for this government's arrogance and economic incompetence. Those hundreds of thousands of Canadians have had to swallow their pride and take whatever assistance is available to them to provide food and shelter for another million and more innocent bystanders, the families who depend on them. Is this government now prepared to swallow some of its own false pride and take action? A growing body of respected economic experts says that it should. Industry says that it should; labour says that it should. Yet, I am afraid that because members in the opposition in this House say that it should, the prideful members of this prideful government may stubbornly continue on their ruthless course and be bent on saving political face at any cost.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Minister of Finance may continue to be proud of his one forecasting success. He smiles at us on television and lets us know that he was only a little bit out on forecasting the present dismal state of affairs in this country. He may continue to boast of the wonderful coming effects of his $2 billion turnaround and he may continue to gloat after achieving stellar price performance for the economy. But at what price, Mr. Speaker, and who is paying that price? It is not the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration may continue to tell us how it is "still reasonable to expect that the corner of unemployment has been turned." He says this, although well knowing we can expect a further 200,000 unemployed before the winter is over. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration may continue to lecture us in his patronizing way about "controlled recovery". But who is standing out in the cold and in need of more immediate recovery? It is not the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
The Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) may continue to treat with disdain and a verbal wrist slapping the warnings concerning potential unrest caused by unemployment that were expressed last week by both the Prime Minister of Quebec and his Minister of Labour.
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
But who has to live and make a living in the province of Quebec? It is not the Acting Prime Minister. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) may continue to pride himself on the policies of his department at a point in time when most of the country is a designated area. However, who has to travel Canada's designated cities and countryside in search of work? Not the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) returns to this country, he may again give us his word that unemployment is now the number one priority of the government. He may again tell us how inflation has been licked and how he will not lose his nerve in the face of six per cent unemployment and higher. But who needs the nerve to face a family and financial obligations without a job? Not the Prime Minister.
Seme hon. Members: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I fear anything I say will likely result in little action being taken by this prideful group of men who control and manipulate our economy. In characteristic style, I fear that they will complacently refuse any counsel but their own. There is every probability that they will stick by their mistake as long as people far removed from them are taking the lumps. Opposition argument and attempts at persuasion through debate seem to fall on deaf ears. All the arguments have been stated and all the warnings have been issued time and time again, but to no avail. My resolution to stick at it has been reinforced by the visits I have made this past week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Any one who has seen what I have seen would be moved by the human beings involved in this terrible situation. I appeal to the members of the government to go out among the people to see for themselves the effects of what they have done and are continuing to do. I plead with them to do that, if pleading is what it takes to satisfy their egos. I cannot believe that the human hurt, anger, frustration and degradation that is being massively experienced all over this land would not penetrate even their insulated minds and stir them to take corrective action now. The action that is needed is clear. A mounting body of expert opinion supports this.
There is no time left to sit in the comfortable chairs of cabinet impressing each other with figures, graphs and computer type language. There is surely no time left to remain smug about a hopelessly inadequate budget. There is no time left to alibi and defend an indefensible mistake in economic planning. There is only time to honestly recognize the mistake and to start correcting it. That time, Mr. Speaker, is right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I say to the members of this House, particularly the members of

January 18, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Lewis
the government, that the unemployment crisis in Canada, which grows worse every month this winter, is economically unnecessary, morally indefensible and socially disastrous. I accuse the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) of deliberately and unnecessarily creating inhuman misery for hundreds of thousands of Canadians. I accuse them of cruel and heartless policies which sacrifice the welfare of Canadians on the altar of outdated and irrelevant economic policies in a modern and industrialized society.
I accuse this government of placing an impossible burden on the hard-pressed municipalities of Canada which now have to meet welfare costs beyond their means. I accuse this government of thoughtless disregard of the young people of this country, too many of whom are suffering the frustration and degradation of idleness and hopelessness. In short, I accuse them of creating conditions which cannot help but be an obstacle to orderly progress and will invite restless disorder and revolt against our society. What is most distasteful of all is the indecent smugness and complacency of the government in the face of this critical situation, a smugness and complacency that only arrogant men are capable of in a situation such as that which faces Canada today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: The Minister of Finance complacently says there may be some difficulty now, but there is not a crisis. He says that everything is on the up and up. I say to him, tell it to the unemployed. Have the courage to tell it to the desperate young. Tell it to the men and women over the age of 40 who are out of work and who, in the best times, find it difficult to find a new job when they become unemployed. Tell it to the children of the unemployed who faced the Christmas holiday with doleful faces. Tell it to the hundreds of thousands of Canadian families who suffer from the policies which you so stupidly and callously introduced in this country.
There is no crisis for the Minister of Finance and his friends. Nor is there a crisis for hon. members of this House. However, there is a desperate crisis for hundreds of thousands of Canadian families and single men and women from one end of this land to the other. This situation, Mr. Speaker, is unforgivable in a country like Canada. We have riches which are almost beyond limit or description. Our people are industrious, loyal and proud. We have all the capacities to meet the legitimate needs of every section of this country. Instead of setting out single-mindedly to fight and eliminate poverty, this government deliberately set out to increase poverty in this country. It has succeeded. Instead of setting out to remove the glaring injustices and inequalities of our society, it adopted policies deliberately intended to increase those inequalities and injustices. It has succeeded.
With much fanfare, the Department of Regional and Economic Expansion was established. I do not think its policies will help Canada. Even those policies are incapable of being implemented in a general economic situation such as the Minister of Finance and the government have produced. This government, led by an insensitive techno-

crat, is the most reactionary and insensitive government this country has had for many years. I suggest that the unemployment situation in Canada is far worse than the unemployment figures show, and the figures are bad enough. Let me remind hon. members of them.
In December, 1970, there were 155,000 more people unemployed than there were a year ago in December, 1969. That represents an increase of 40 per cent in one year. In December, 1970, 62,000 more people were unemployed than in the preceding month, an increase in one month of some 14 per cent. But I suggest this is not a real description of the situation. The number of unemployed in Canada in December was not merely 538,000; anyone who reads the release from the Bureau of Statistics will notice that the labour force in Canada was reduced by 71,000 between November and December of last year, and the Bureau comments that this decrease is in excess of the usual seasonal contraction. What this technical language means is that many thousands of Canadians left the labour force in despair, young and old, male and female, and are no longer numbered among the labour force. The likelihood is that last month there were about 600,000 unemployed instead of 538,000.
It is certain that one month later the unemployment figure will reach about 600,000-that the actual number out of work is around 650,000 as we debate this subject today. It is certain that next month, and the month after that, unemployment in this country will go up to 700,000 to 800,000. The minister said the other day that this forecast is wrong, but I tell him that before the winter is out he will have to admit that not only are his policies wrong but that his understanding of the situation is limited, unimaginative and inadequate.
The range of unemployment in this country is not only the worst in the past ten years, it is worse than it was during the worst years of the depression. In this situation, the figures ought to be looked at again in order to see them from another angle. We have always drawn attention to this aspect but it is necessary to do so again. It is heartbreaking to note the number and percentage of the unemployed who are the youngest people in the labour force. No less than 19.7 per cent of the total of those unemployed are between the ages of 14 and 19. One in every five is younger than 19 years of age. Some 21 per cent of the unemployed are between the ages of 20 and 24. Taking these figures together, 40.5 per cent of the total number of unemployed are under 25 years of age.
What does this mean for our society? What does it mean for social conditions in a society where young people who leave schools and colleges to start out in life, perhaps to raise a family, are the ones who find themselves out of work, the ones who must face the despair and frustration of failure to find useful work to do? What does it mean in terms of the danger created for the orderly processes of society when circumstances such as these encourage young people to revolt, not only against their own condition of despair but against the society as a whole which has created those conditions? The danger is great, as has been shown in the Province of Quebec,
January 18, 1971

and it may be seen again not only in that province but in all parts of Canada.
The stupidity of the government's policy is greater even than I have described it when one thinks of what it has done to our total economy, and particularly to production. In 1970, the prevailing level of unemployment resulted in a loss to Canada's total production of about $5 billion. Between $5 billion and $6 billion were lost in the production of goods and services out of which $1 billion at least would have gone into the public treasuries to deal with situations which required to be dealt with. So, the stupid and insensitive policies of the government have produced havoc at both ends-havoc through the loss of productivity worth billions of dollars, and havoc through the loss of revenue available to federal, provincial and municipal treasuries.
When the government says this has been done to fight inflation it is talking not only nonsense, but criminal nonsense. I point out to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) that even his protege, Professor John Young, the chairman of the useless and almost dead Prices and Incomes Commission, admitted a couple of days ago that the price which has been paid in terms of unemployment in the fight against inflation has been far too high and is unacceptable. Dr. Young should have thought of that seven or eight months ago. We have not had any influence on the minister's thinking but had he tried he might have succeeded instead of failing in the task he undertook.
I say to hon. members that the unemployment situation and the state of our economy today surpass all the other problems which face this country and make it impossible to deal with those other problems. They make it impossible to deal, for example, with the threat of the FLQ in Quebec. They make it impossible to deal with pollution and the remodelling of our cities. How can this be done when there are hundreds of thousands of unemployed and a reduction in the production of wealth which could be channelled to these ends? They make it impossible for a government, which in any case has not the heart to do so, to improve the condition of the aged people, for hon. gentlemen opposite can now claim poverty even though this is the direct result of their own economic policy.
This government will go down in history as a government which instead of dealing with the social and economic needs of Canada arrogantly created a situation which it could use as an excuse for ignoring these needs. Unfortunately, in a situation of this kind, when a government has mismanaged the economy for a period of two years, it is not possible immediately to meet the unemployment crisis in any meaningful way. When the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) say to this House and to the people that there are no policies which could be immediately effective in reducing substantially the number of unemployed, they are right. But whose fault is this? Whose fault is it that no policies are available because of the time lag necessarily involved from the
The Budget-Mr. Lewis
point at which investment is made to the point at which it results in jobs? Whose fault is it that this time lag has been allowed to accumulate so that in January, 1971 very little can be done to reduce the number of unemployed which presently exists and which will increase in the months ahead? If the government had any consideration for the dignity and pride of human beings and was not so completely controlled by its technocratic concern with squares, computers, diagrams and excuses, then the government could do some things immediately in order to alleviate the condition of those who are suffering the misery of unemployment. I refer not so much to decreasing the number of unemployed but to alleviating their misery and hopelessness.
I understand that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mack-asey) will speak shortly in this debate. The minister has done a fair job in his department as head of labour relations and negotiation. He has frequently spoken with a voice that sounds almost progressive in its concern and sympathy for the condition of ordinary people. If this voice of concern is genuine and sincere, then the minister has an opportunity of proving it by introducing legislation in the House, either today or tomorrow, to provide for an immediate increase in unemployment insurance benefits to $100 a week. I suggest this step be taken on an emergency basis for the next three or four months. This will give the hundreds of thousands who are unemployed sufficient income immediately to live in dignity, even if their self-respect still remains hurt by having to be idle. If the minister's voice of concern and sympathy for the underdog is not only sincere but also courageous, then today or tomorrow he can introduce changes to the unemployment insurance regulations to extend the period for unemployment insurance benefits for those whose eligibility has already expired.
If the quiet and professorial Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) sincerely means some of the things he has been saying in the past two years, then he too can make an immediate contribution to alleviating the plight of many of our unemployed by changing the regulations governing manpower training and allowances. This would enable young people who have left school and college, who are therefore not in the labour force and have not been in the labour force for three years, to receive immediately the necessary retraining and allowances, thus providing them with some hope ahead, rather than the hopeless wandering across the country looking for work that is not available, in which they have been engaged. If the reason given by the manpower department for not taking this action is that the government has not provided them with sufficient funds to do so, then every member on the government side who has anything but partisan consideration for the unemployed ought to demand, along with every member of the opposition, that the government make more funds available to the manpower department in order that these improvements in manpower training and allowances be made immediately, at least for the winter months.
I am, of course, as concerned for the older unemployed as I am for the younger unemployed. Each time that the

January 18, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Lewis
Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has sneeringly tried to suggest that we are asking for these improvements for the younger unemployed at the expense of ignoring the older unemployed-and he has done that on a number of occasions-I have resented it, though I have learned to expect this kind of irrelevant, smart-alec remark from the Prime Minister, particularly in regard to important matters with which he cannot deal consicientiously in any other way.
Although we are as concerned about the older unemployed as we are about the younger unemployed, the fact is that there are too many younger unemployed. Some 20 per cent of those without work are under 19 years of age. When you introduce young people like this into an atmosphere of idleness and despair, Mr. Speaker, you are making it impossible for them to make the kind of adjustment to life, the sort of integration with objective conditions, that is required to make them good and loyal citizens. Instead, you are cheating opportunities for degradation not only at their present stage of development but probably in their future development as well. You are creating opportunities for revolt against the entire democratic process.
It is, therefore, right that we should be concerned about these young unemployed, this 20 per cent that is under the age of 19. It is also right that the government should immediately make funds available to assist this group. I say that the Minister of Finance, who I think is listening to me even though from behind the curtain, has a duty immediately to make available funds to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in order that he on his part may make immediate changes to the regulations along the lines I have suggested.
As I say, the government can take immediate steps, not to reduce the number of unemployed but to reduce the misery of the unemployed, by making grants available- not loans but grants-to the municipalities so they can meet the increased cost of welfare now facing them. If this were done, two things would happen. First of all, the municipalities would not come under a burden that they cannot possibly bear and be forced to go to the provinces to press for things that reflect themselves in the provinces' accounts, thus making it much more difficult for the provinces to obtain the necessary funds. Second, and more importantly, it would enable the municipalities to liberalize their welfare requirements and make welfare available to more people. It would enable them perhaps to be a little more generous in the amount of welfare granted, increases they cannot presently bear on their own.
It is possible for the government to do at least three things that would have some effect on the number of unemployed in Canada. No one claims they would have a large effect, but as I said on December 12 last, I think it was, even reducing the number of unemployed by 50,000 or 100,000 is an act of decency that no one ought to ignore. This could be done if the government were immediately to undertake with the provinces and municipalities a great many more works than the Minister of Finance has provided for, particularly in the area
of social capital, such as the building of schools, hospitals, sewage plants and all the other things that improve the quality of life of our people.
When my leader asked today whether the Minister of Finance had changed his mind about removing the 3 per cent surcharge, I wish with all my heart that the minister's answer had been "Yes, I have changed my mind". The minister ought to remove this 3 per cent surcharge instead of extending it to the year 1971. To a large extent this 3 per cent surcharge on personal income tax-I am not so much concerned about the corporations-falls on the lower and lower middle income groups of this country which would use every penny of this 3 per cent tax to purchase goods and services and, therefore, immediately stimulate the economy.
Finally, I suggest the immediate removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, especially for housing, though I warn the government that if it does this it should also take steps to make sure that the price of houses will go down and that the benefit of this reduction goes to the purchasers of houses instead of to real estate developers.
I must say I regard the Commonwealth conference as a very important conference. I hope with all my heart that our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will stand fast by the Canadian policy so far announced that we oppose the sale of arms by Britain to the despicable government of South Africa. But I say the moment that conference is ended, it is the duty of Canada's Prime Minister to come back home to take the necessary steps to improve the unemployment situation and end the suffering of the unemployed in this country. In view of this crisis, he ought not spend a single hour visiting anywhere else or amusing himself or doing anything in any other part of the world. His place is here to deal with a critical unemployment situation and the dangerous social situation which he and his government have created.
At the end of the war, 25 years ago, there was a great deal of discussion in Canada and throughout the world concerning the meaning of that war. Everywhere throughout the western world, after the defeat of the Nazis and Fascists, there was a determination in people's minds that the sacrifices of that war must result in a society which no longer suffered from the inequality, the misery and the unemployment which existed during the decade before the war broke out. At the end of that war, the Liberal party then in power produced a white paper in which the primary objective was a policy of full employment which must be introduced and maintained in Canada throughout the post-war period, said the Prime Minister and all his ministers. Like every promise of the party across the aisle, like every other social pretension of the Liberals throughout the history of this country, and like every other arrogant assumption of the rightness of that party throughout history, this promise of full employment which dates as far back as 1945 has been broken with heartless unconcern by this government as it
[Mr. Lewis.!
January 18, 1971

has been broken by other governments, both Conservative and Liberal, in the past.
I shall conclude by saying to hon. members that in one sense, with my social philosophy and social beliefs, I am not really surprised about what has happened in Canada. The total lack of public planning in our economy, the total reliance of this government on private enterprise to do the job for the Canadian people, the total failure to do anything about the allocation of investment in socially necessary areas, and the total unconcern of this government, the Liberal party and indeed the official opposition as well, about seeing to it that Canada's economy serves the needs of all the people of Canada and, in so far as it is possible, the needs of people in other parts of the world as well-these are the basic reasons for the failure of this government. The reliance of this government, and the reliance I suppose of the official opposition as well, on the large foreign-owned corporations in this country to be concerned with the welfare and future of Canada's economy in terms of human welfare and human wellbeing is responsible for the failure of the policies.
I say that, in addition to the specific suggestions I have made, the people of this country ought to demand a new approach, a new policy, greater public involvement in running the economy, greater public involvement in allocating investment and a determination to make full employment the first priority in any government policies.


Mr. Real Caoueite (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the present economic situation in Canada is alarming, even frightening and disturbing.
I just listened to the speeches delivered by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). The latter gave a brilliant account of the economic situation in Canada: 42 per cent of the unemployed are in Quebec, about 600,000 people are out of work in Canada; almost everywhere people do without the necessaries of life; the young are disturbed; heads of families over 40 are extremely concerned; the older ones are despondent; in short, misery hits an increasing number of citizens.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition as well as the hon. member for York South have very well described the present situation. However, there are solutions, and all hon. members, including the government members, know the wretched conditions in which too many citizens live.
Reference was made to misery among students, among the young who cannot find employment, among heads of families who lack the necessaries of life in their homes. All this is true, but there are reasons to that and the conditions tolerated by the present administration are exactly the same as those which prevailed in 1961, when Canada experienced the highest level of unemployment in its history. In fact, there were almost a million unemployed, while the Progressive Conservative government had 208 members and the highest majority ever held by a Canadian political party. And just the same, the fact
The Budget-Mr. Caouette
that there were a million unemployed doubtless contributed to the overthrow of the Diefenbaker government in 1962 or 1963.
Mr. Speaker, there are causes for this situation, and no action is being taken to eliminate them. Generally, the same causes produce the same effects. When the system is unrealistic, the whole population suffers.
Mr. Speaker, the first cause for the present situation is the government's failure to face its responsibilities.
Another cause is inflation, which has been talked about for the past two or three years. Two and a half years ago, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said: Because of inflation, I ask provinces, municipalities and school commissions to curtail all expenses. We will not improve services. We will put off projects of a national scope as well as the development of certain areas which are in trouble.
Mr. Speaker, hardly ten days ago, the same Prime minister was telling us: inflation? We have found it; it does not exist anymore. Yet, prices have remained the same and the number of unemployed has increased in the last month or two. Consequently, as regards this inflation we had two and a half years ago, the Prime minister was lying, or he is presently lying in the face of the Canadian people.
So, there was no inflation two and a half years ago and there is none presently. What Canada is suffering from right now is deflation, a lack of purchasing power in the hands of Canadian people to obtain products available in Canada. There is the problem that our country is facing.
Taxes are too high. We ask for a basic income tax exemption of $5,000 for married persons and from $2,500 to $3,000 for single persons. The government and the ministers laugh at us. This is absurd, they say.
Moreover, our financial system is stupid. Because of inflation and to fight it the chartered banks have been allowed to raise their interest rate from 6 to 9 or 10 per cent. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is aware of that. Either he was lying two years ago or he is lying to the Canadian people in the present crisis.
Mr. Speaker, although the Ralliement creditiste has been stigmatizing the stupidity of the financial system for 10, 15 and 20 years, our proposals are laughed at. We are told: The application of social credit would bring inflation. But inflation exists already and Canadians are asked to swallow that.
Mr. Speaker, the glut of goods today happens to be one of the causes of the unemployment situation in Canada.
The other day, I was pondering over statistics. Besides all the wages that are spent in Canada, our Canadian workers, from all social classes, owe the finance companies more than $12 billion. This is approximately half the amount of money now in circulation in Canada. We are told that to alleviate this situation, large projects will be implemented.
2500
January 18, 1971

The Budget-Mr. Caouette
To the employed workers of Vancouver, the Leader of the Official Opposition said recently: Gentlemen, let us reduce taxes to fight inflation. Let us reduce the tax of a poor fellow who has nothing in his pocket. How are we going to help him buy the products on the market? If he is not working, if he has no income, he does not pay taxes. What is the point in telling him that he will not pay any taxes? He is not paying any right now, because he is not earning enough money.
Mr. Speaker, those solutions are irrelevant, like poultices on wooden legs; the government refuses to face reality and then face the necessary reforms.
A few moments ago, I heard the Leader of the Opposition and the member for York South propose benefits of $100 a week for the unemployed. How are those who earn $65 a week going to react? They will be tempted to leave their job in order to receive $100 a week instead of $65, because they get less from their jobs than they would in unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a solution, and to take from those who have money in order to give to those who have none is not a solution either.
I said in English in Western Canada:

"taking away from the haves to give to the have-nots. In the end you will have all kinds of have-nots and no more haves in this country."

That seems to be the policy that is now applied. The intention is to tax those who have money to help those who do not have any. Even if we took one or two million dollars away from millionaires and the money were distributed among twenty million Canadians, it would mean a payment of ten cents to each one of them. But what would that achieve? Absolutely nothing.
The old age security pension has been increased by 42 cents a month. What a big increase!
Mr. Speaker, those are not solutions. The Opposition Leader was laughed at in Vancouver when he advocated tax reductions. What would that be worth to those who do not pay taxes or have not enough money to pay taxes? Nothing.
We are in favour of increasing unemployment benefits provided the employed are respected. If the employed are taxed so that money can be given to those who do not work and who thus receive more than those who earn their living, economic chaos will ensue.
We are aware of the present conditions. We know what are the causes and it is not by practising socialism that we will be in a position to restore the balance or respect the human being in the economic situation.
I have visited several socialist countries as I have already stated in the House. I have travelled in Russia. Highly placed people or union leaders in Russia work 46 hours a week. Everybody has a job. Full employment exists, that is true. Everybody works but the wages are

about half ours. In Russia, the monthly wages of an ordinary worker range from $45 to $55. The member for York South would not live there very long. What can one do with $45 to 55 a month? A Russian worker cannot buy a car that we pay $3,500 or $5,000 and which sells for $8,000 or $9,000 in Russia.
With $45 to $55 per month, one walks! This is exactly what happens.
Not television set, no radio, generalized poverty but within security. The freedom of the individual is entrusted to the state. The barber gives out a little ticket meaning: this belongs to the state. The taxi driver also works for the state.
Mr. Speaker, that is a system where security is gained at the expense of individual liberties. It is the same regime as that of my little dog: it has security, but in my home I hold the controls. It is exactly what I saw in Russia, Mr. Speaker.
Is this what we want in Canada? No. If achieving full employment as mentioned by the member for York South means that we will have to ask Canadian workers to accept salary cuts or a reduction in working hours so as to give jobs to everyone, I will have none of it. Two in the place of one with the salary of one only, that is the socialist solution which I will not accept.
The same reasoning could be applied to the two men standing besides a hole, each holding a small shovel, watching large trucks being loaded with a shovel-dredger. One says to the other: We are unemployed because a machine is used in our place. If that machine was not there, there would be jobs for 50 men like you and me, each with a small shovel. The other says: What for? The first answers: There would be work for more people. So, says the second man, 200 men with teaspoons could be used. Then, the same work would be done, the same trucks would be loaded, but 200 men would have jobs.
Mr. Speaker, the press people may laugh but that is the solution they have been advocating in their papers for years and years. That is socialism, in all its splendour.
Not only in Russia, but in Czechcoslovakia also, it is the same.
It is often said: What a splendid country Sweden is! Yes, it is a spendid country. Here is an example. I arrive there one day and I take a bus at a street corner. I note, it is true, that everyone is working, but freedom is in the hands of the state, and that of the individual is not respected.
Four people were at work there-a New Democratic Party member is starting to "sound off" a little because his party has no solution to offer-four employees running one bus: one selling tickets, another perforating them, a third driving the vehicle and a last one supervising the other three checking on whether they were doing their job properly. That was in Sweden.
Whether New Democratic Party members like it or not, it must be pointed out that during the big economic
January 18, 1971

depression and immediately after the war the Canadian province with the greatest number of unemployed was still Saskatchewan, under a Socialist government. For 17 years, people were leaving Saskatchewan for Alberta or British Columbia because they could no longer live in Saskatchewan with a Socialist government.
Mr. Speaker, is that the kind of government we want in Canada? No. What, then, do we recommend? We have a solution. It does not involve creating jobs, but consuming Canadian products. First of all, let us set up the consumer goods system in order to consume what is being produced, because there is too much of everything. Would it be advisable for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) to grant a $200 million subsidy tomorrow for the construction of a new shoe factory, when we already have too many shoes?
Is the clothing industry any better off? There is an overabundance of shoes, clothes, TV and radio sets, automobiles. Shall we subsidize the automobile industry? No. Because there are already too many cars and we would not know what to do with them.
In Western Canada, there are too many tractors, there is too much wheat and milk. We penalized milk producers because they were producing too much milk; they must not exceed their quotas. There is a glut of corn and potatoes in New Brunswick, in Prince Edward Island and in Manitoba. There is also a glut of butter and eggs!
The Prime Minister went to New Zealand and he said there: We will buy your eggs. Canadian farmers are not even able to sell theirs! There are too many chickens. Even now there is quarelling going on from Manitoba to Quebec because Quebec chickens are being dumped in Manitoba and Manitoba potatoes are being dumped in Ontario. The time of day is being spent dumping. The whole population of Canada is being dumped with that crazy system.
There is too much meat, beef, pork and chicken. What is lacking, then? New funds, new credits from the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, but not to build new plants or expand old ones to produce more: we already have too much.
What is lacking, Mr. Speaker? Purchasing power that corresponds to our production. What do the Creditistes suggest? We will be very specific in our proposal.
First of all, the Bank of Canada must be used-not the New York Bank, but the Bank of Canada-in order to use our credit and not American credit. A domstic economic organization must be set up in Canada without jeopardizing external trade. Americans are not interested in knowing what is the colour of the Canadian dollar or Canadian credit but rather what they can purchase in our country for one Canadian dollar. If we offer more goods for one dollar, they will be interested in coming here. Our dollars are not in circulation in the United States, in Sweden or in England. It is so true that if we go in the Southern United States and we show people a Canadian dollar, they wonder whose likeness appears on it. They wonder what currency it is, whether it comes
The Budget-Mr. Caouette
from Mexico. It looks like a Mexican peso. Even 25c. coins are not accepted by cigarette machines in the United States.
There are some solutions. They are not those suggested by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, who made a statement during the weekend.
Here is what one can read in today's Le Droit:
Marchand outlines federal policy Measures against unemployment
The Canadian Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, Hon. Jean Marchand, has said, over the weekend, that it was "really unfair" to claim that Ottawa is doing nothing to control unemployment.
We try something that fails, but at least we do something.
Speaking during the telecast "Les affaires de 1'Etat" of the CBC French network, Mr. Marchand has submitted that for more than one and a half years, the federal government has waged a systematic battle against unemployment in Canada.
Now that we have fought, the number of unemployed has increased by at least 100,000 during December. According to Premier Bourrassa's program, in Quebec,
100.000	jobs were to be created. Instead, we have had
100.000	layoffs; that is not at all what had been recommended. And the minister goes to Quebec and tells the people: "It's coming, we have been working on it for the past 18 months. Results are forthcoming. But in the meantime, things go from bad to worse. There is no solution because we do not have any money.
The minister also said, and I quote from the newspaper Le Droit.
said that during the past 18 months the government has injected well over $2 billion in our economy.
Injected where? Into what? Into the construction of plants that will manufacture goods that people cannot afford to buy. Into assisting people who happen to be in a precarious financial situation? This we did. V^e prevented people from toppling over because their products could not be sold. Then we injected into the economy billions of dollars which failed to allow the consumer to buy these goods, which will prolong the consumer's destitution and maintain these industries in operation for 18 months. Eventually, the minister will have injected those $2 billion to maintain the industries in operation but the Canadian consumer is ignored completely. The government forgets about him. Old age pensions are increased by 42 cents a month. The minister went on as follows:
There was an expansionist taxation policy_
Let us ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) whether there was an expansionist taxation policy. In what area? In what sense? Where has the field of taxation expanded? The provinces are always at a loss against Ottawa and all of them blame Ottawa without exception for this taxation system which prevents them from developing. The minister knows that.
-and an expansionist monetary policy,-
-with debts, of course. It was not credit granted by the Bank of Canada, but credit begged on bended knees

January 18, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Caouette
in New York and Washington, in order to get permission to develop our country, Canada. Then, we are surprised to hear people say: Our economy is controlled by Americans. Of course, and it is normal since they finance the development while we could use our financial institution, the Bank of Canada. I dare the Minister of Finance to deny this. We, in Parliament, have the power to use the Bank of Canada and to make it serve the provinces, municipalities and school boards to allow them to expand through interest-free loans such as those that are given India, China and other countries.
Instead of using the Bank of Canada, we make it a branch of chartered banks in Canada and then we go to New York and Washington and beg for money to develop the far North and the province of Quebec. We go there to borrow $75 million at a rate of 8f per cent during 25 years for the implementation of a Hydro-Quebec project in the province of Quebec. In 25 years we will have paid $200 million in interest alone and we will still owe the $75 million we have just borrowed. Mr. Bourrassa, who succeeded Mr. Bertrand, is to blame for that. Bitten by a dog or bitten by a bitch, what is the difference, Mr. Speaker? It is the same thing. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion said also, and I quote:
Mr. Marchand mentioned the selective measures used by the government to fight unemployment with regard to the old people-
How nice: the old people and the unemployed. But what marvellous thing were done for the unemployed? One single day does not go by without our receiving 25, 30 or 50 phone calls from people without work who are treated like intruders at unemployment offices. Their cases are not always solved by the regional offices; they are referred to Montreal where there are electronic machines. And when these do not work, the unemployed starve at the other end.
Back to the quotation:
_family heads; in areas whose growth is inadequate-
Talk about welfare! Big families are asked to live on $160, $165 and $170 a month. Has the minister a formula look after the needs of a family of seven with $175 per month? I would then listen to the minister and to the government. I continue to quote:
-in areas whose growth is inadequate-
I mentioned that a while ago; they are especially those which are helped.
shipyards, footwear industries, etc.
We have too large stocks of footwear. I will speak to The Manufacturers' Association next Monday in Sainte-Adele at the Chanteclerc Hotel. I invite the minister to come with me so that we may discuss together problems of the footwear and textile industries, of gold mines and the entire Canadian production. The newspaper also reports as follows:
The minister has emphasized that under the new plan ... the province of Quebec is now a designated area-

In fact, that is a beautiful quality.
-which will enable it to get grants amounting to $100 million in the next few years.
$100 million are taken from other Canadian provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be too long, but I wish to say in closing that the solution advocated by the Credi-tistes is as follows: first, instead of saying "increase the rate of benefits", we recommend the immediate distribution of a national dividend to each Canadian citizen, whether employed or unemployed. To make a distinction between the one who works and the one who does not there will be the difference of a salary, but every human person, the unemployed and the one on welfare alike, should be provided with the security of a guaranteed vital minimum. That is what is called the guaranteed annual income in scientific terms, such as those used by the government. We advocate payment of an old age pension of $150 per month, not 42 cents per day or $135 monthly. Such a pension would also be payable at 60, because at that age one is too old for family allowances and too young for the old age pension. The older person would receive a pension of $150 at 60 and his spouse, regardless of age, would also receive the old age pension. This would create purchasing power and enable people to acquire goods. Instead of doing away with family allowances or reducing them, they should be adjusted to the cost of living and family allowances should be increased, with the money coming from the Bank of Canada and not from my pockets. What we have in our pockets we need. So, why take it away from us?
The answer is to seek the money where credit is created, that is at the Bank of Canada. Why go to New York to ask Mr. Nixon permission to support my child, back home, in Abitibi? President Nixon never saw Abitibi in his fife but the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion did, as well as the Minister of Finance. As for me, I go there fairly regularly.
Mr. Speaker, why not use the Bank of Canada to grant interest free loans to the provinces, municipalities and school boards, in order to allow them to develop normally.
Then, a presalary should be paid to students. I am not the one who advocated this idea, it comes from United States. Rather than have to ask $2 to his father who earns $75 a week and has five or six children to support, the student should receive a presalary and therefore be saved any embarrassment. Instead of letting him fooling around as he does now, without knowing where to turn, we must organize his spare time, give him some guidance and guarantee him his right to live in our society.
Why do young people rebel? Because they are refused the right to live within our society. Since they cannot find a place for themselves in that society, they attempt to destroy it. That is precisely what is happening.
But where would this presalary paid to students come from? Out of my pockets? Certainly not, because I need what I have in my pockets. I am sure the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) also needs what he has in his pockets.
January 18, 1971

However, there is no reason why we should not get the credits required from the Bank of Canada, based on Canadian production, not on the moon or the planet Mars. Canadian production reached $77 billion this year, whereas we receive $55 billion. Economists object to the Creditiste theory, claiming that there must be a depreciation of production for income tax purposes.
That is quite obvious. The man who does a lot of business will try to effect a maximum depreciation in order to pay a minimum of income tax. That is obvious. Everyone understands, and so does the minister. But what does the depreciation result in? In the present surplus, surplus goods now standing on shop shelves.
And to prove it, you see, all our national income has been spent. Stores are still full of goods. Plants are operating on a slow-down basis because the goods they manufacture cannot be sold and this situation creates unemployment. There is the problem.
Then, where does depreciation hit us? On the shelves of our stores. The Bank of Canada must be used to distribute purchasing power by means of a compensated discount, or by a national dividend that would permit the consumer to buy the goods piled up in our stores.
Once the shelves in our stores become empty, the plants resume operation and unemployed workers are put to work. Then, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion will be extremely pleased to see the Canadian consumer back to work.
Instead of subsidizing plants, let us subsidize consumers; they will put the plants back into operation when they buy the goods manufactured by the plants. We will then experience a sound economic system fit for human beings and in which every Canadian citizen will feel secure in his own country while preserving in its integrity his own personal freedom. That is what we have been striving to accomplish for so many years.
Mr. Speaker-


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take advantage of the kindness of my colleagues.
That is the solution the Creditistes have been proposing for many years. I will be told-as I was on Sunday afternoon on channel 10-that this has never been tested anywhere. That is true, but things are going wrong everywhere!
If our solutions would be tested somewhere things would perhaps go better again. If they are not good, then
The Budget-Mr. Mackasey
we simply discard them. We are convinced that the present system is not good, but the Canadian people have to live with it.
Some citizens still praise that system. If prosperity is brought to one area, nobody looks elsewhere where there is misery. Mr. Speaker, the solution to the present problem rests with the economic system. We must resort to an economic solution in order to safeguard personal freedom and personal security. This is what the Creditistes wish for.
I appeal to the Minister of Finance, to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, to the Prime Minister of Canada who is now travelling in India, Pakistan and Singapour, in short I appeal to the present government, for a more human economic system, a system which will enable young people to develop, to understand things better, to get training, to choose a course in life, and which will give Canadian fathers and mothers the assurance of raising a normal family in a normal system.
And for our older people, the assurance of security and independence for their later years. This what the Creditistes have been urging for quite a long time without any partisan spirit. Let the Liberal Party take on these concepts and I am sure that my colleagues from the Ralliement creditiste and myself will fully support it in giving the people of Canada a political system that will ensure security and freedom for everyone.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I participated in a similar debate on the budget a few weeks ago, probably on an amendment of the New Democratic Party. When listening to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and other speakers, there was something all too familiar about their participation today. In the weeks since the budget was first introduced into the House, none of the speakers from whom we heard this afternoon have been able to find any fresh material.
I presume that the purpose of the debate, asked for by the official opposition, is to justify the fact that the Leader of Opposition had suddenly discovered unemployment and the problems which unemployment brings to the less fortunate people of this country.


David Lewis: And the government.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There is my friend. He always provides me with the cue I want. I listened to the speech of that would-be-leader of his party. I compared his radical statements with those he made when he confronted the waffle group. If any one is in a dilemma, it is the hon. member for York Centre-


David Lewis: York South.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I suspect the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) will be unemployed following that convention, but he will always be welcome in the House. He has the audacity to speak about ordinary people as if he were an ordinary person, and therefore, should know something about the subject.

January 18, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Mackasey
One of the themes, which has permeated the debate, certainly the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, is a concern with the plight of the unemployed. I would be much too partisan if I pretended that his concern for the unemployed of this country were superficial or new found. The record of the Leader of the Opposition when he was the premier of Nova Scotia indicates that he does have a social conscience and does care for the people. I take issue with the Leader of the Opposition and others who presume that concern for the unemployed people of this country is limited to the Opposition. This is not so, Mr. Speaker. We do not need a lecture on what unemployment does to a country. No one on this side of the House is happy with the rate of unemployment.
Some speakers have said that we must look back to the great depression to remember unemployment. We do not have to look back that far, Mr. Speaker. We need only go back 10, 11 or 12 years in order to remember unemployment in this country. Some newer members in this chamber do not remember the debates of 1962 and 1963. I wish to deal with the rate of unemployment in those years, but not to be highly partisan because this is not a partisan debate.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member said "oh, no". I wrote down some of the adjectives he used, such as stupid, arrogant. He suppressed the hope that the Prime Minister would not stay away to amuse himself. The hon. member does not know how to be nonpartisan. He does not think this subject is worthy of being nonpartisan. He is now in the unfavourable position where everything he says in the House of Commons will have some bearing on the events that will take place in the months to come. He is on the horns of a dilemma. His position is not unlike the position adopted by his party toward the problems of Quebec. At one time, they could hide behind the communications wall. Now, there is instantaneous communication and, events in Quebec can be reported ten minutes later in British Columbia.
In 1958, when the Conservatives were in power, the national rate of unemployment in this country was seven per cent. That was not in the hungry thirties, it was only 12 years ago. In 1959, the rate of unemployment was six per cent; 1960, seven per cent; 1961, 7.1 per cent and 1962, 5.9 per cent. I think we are interested in regional figures. The rate of unemployment in 1958 in the Atlantic region was 12.3 per cent. In 1959, it was 10.9 per cent; 1960, 10.5 per cent; 1961, 11.2 per cent and 1962, 10.7 per cent. I put these figures on the record, Mr. Speaker, not as a partisan Liberal, not because I want to engage in this type of debate, but to emphasize the fact that we do not have to go to the hungry thirties to remember unemployment in this country. We only have to go back to the last time the opposition party happened to be in power. When the opposition party was in power, they were faced with problems of an inflation which they inherited. What did they do about it between 1958 and 1962, other than fighting with the Bank of Canada? They ran the unemployment figures in this country to a consistent seven per
cent figure between the years 1958 and 1962, then the Canadian people put them out of office.
I do not want to be dishonest and say that we are not concerned about the December rate of unemployment which was 6.6 per cent. That is not a very nice figure. It does not give me any consolation when I compare it with the 1960 figure. In 1958, today's official opposition had just come into office and their financial policy did not have time to take effect. By 1960, midterm, it had a chance to take effect. The actual figure for unemployment in 1960, and I can give seasonal figures because they are similar, was 8.2 per cent for the month of December. As a matter of fact, the Tories had an interesting year in 1960. In January, 1960 the rate was 8.8 per cent; February, 9.6 per cent; March, 9.7 per cent; April, 8.8 per cent, and right down the line to December when the rate was 8.2 per cent.
But, of course, it is no consolation to the unemployed of today to know that Canadians were in a much more precarious position in 1960. In December, 1962, when the opposition was still in power, the rate of unemployment was 6.3 per cent. It may be interesting to note that when we took over the figure, by years, dropped to 5.1, 4.1, 3.5, 3.6, 4.6, 4.7, 4.7, 6.5. If there is any doubt in anyone's mind as to whether we can lick unemployment, that doubt should be dispelled. We were faced with unemployment when we took power in 1963. We did something about it then, and we are doing something about it now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Last night I watched the Leader of the Opposition on television. I have also watched other people on television. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will participate in this debate tomorrow. He will show that he made the proper adjustments to his policy as far back as March. He will indicate that we are about the experience an effective stimulation of the economy.
There is one thing missing which would help this country to take off again. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about this as late as February of last year. I am referring to the psychological effect of confidence in this country. If investors, foreign and domestic, who look to Canada as a place to invest their money and stimulate the economy over the next decade, read some of the speeches of gloom and doom which were made this afternoon, they would be damned fools to spend a nickel in this country. Fortunately, they know that the record of Canada is good. They know that we are going to take off again. They know that we are on the right track financially.
We need a bit of confidence, not only from the people of Canada, the bankers and industrialists, but from members opposite. They should understand that the fate of this country depends to a great extent on the future prosperity of the future of this country.
All of us should get together to examine the problem of unemployment. I have not been in the House all that long but, in my view, there is one basic difference between the plight of the unemployed in 1970 as com-

January 18, 1971

pared to 1960. I live in a residential constituency of the island of Montreal. It can be quite adequately described as a workingman's district with railway, Northern Electric and aircraft workers. They suffer unemployment to an unprecedented degree when the economy pulls downward. I remember their plight in 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962. Where did they go in 1960? Unemployment insurance benefits were very low in those days as compared even with the present benefits. There was welfare, where welfare existed, but what other programs were on the books to look after the unemployed between 1958 and 1962? There were none, Mr. Speaker. No winter works program, no Department of Manpower, no manpower program. There was no Canada assistance program, no Canada pension plan, no Quebec pension plan. There were no mobility grants, no medicare except in the Province of Saskatchewan and we must pay tribute to hon. gentlemen who belong to the New Democratic Party for that. In fact, there was very little unemployment in Saskatchewan because most of the people were on their way to British Columbia. Statistically, that is so. In any event, there was very little for the unemployed in those days.
The greatest thing we can do for the unemployed is, of course, to provide jobs for them and this should be the prime objective of the present government or of any government. Increasingly, an educated work force demands this, and will continue to do so. But at least we can console ourselves with the knowledge that today the unemployed can turn to some programs. Daily during the question period some people in the opposition laugh at the manpower training program. I do not have to defend the record of that program or of my colleague, the hon. minister responsible for it. However, I looked up the statistics which reflect a program which exists today but which was not in existence during the great depression when the Tories were in power between 1958 and 1962.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister a question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I did not interrupt the hon. member and I am not running for any office, so just leave me alone.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: An intelligent response on the part of the minister.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am glad the hon. member has judged me to be intelligent. Coming from him, I consider it to be a real compliment. He is quite a judge.
We spent on manpower training in 1969-70 no less than $245,044,076, a staggering sum of money when we realize it comes out of general revenue. This sum was not placed at the disposal of the unemployed ten years ago. As my colleague mentioned today during the question period, the manpower program not only helps the unemployed by providing a weekly income but it trains unemployed
The Budget-Mr. Mackasey
persons to be able to take advantage of the economic upswing when it comes in the next few months.
Since 1960, as a result of prodding by many members of this House-I think it is fair to say they were representative of all parties-we have seen the introduction of the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan. These were not around in the days of 7 per cent and 8 per cent unemployment in 1960. Many regard the Canada pension plan as merely providing a pension at the age of 65 for those who contribute, but those who know the act better realize that it provides an income for people who are prematurely retired from the work force as a result of disability or illness or other circumstances. This program was not around when unemployment reached its highest peak in the sixties but it is one to which the unemployed will be turning increasingly as the plan reaches maturity in the next few years.
There are other programs such as medicare which are of enormous assistance to the unemployed. I have already paid tribute to the NDP for introducing it first in Saskatchewan. It has now been extended across the country and it removes a tremendous financial burden from the shoulders of those least able to pay the cost of hospitalization and medical fees. It is another program which did not exist when the Conservatives were in power and we had a 7 per cent unemployment rate in 1960.


An hon. Member:: A forward looking minister.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: All kinds of insurance-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Tories came in 1958. Come on!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I did not quote the really bad figures, though I could have done so. I thought 1960 was a good year to quote because hon. gentlemen opposite had had two full years to introduce their economic policies and bring down the unemployment rate. What did they do? Unemployment reached the rate of approximately 7 per cent at a time when there was no manpower program to help the unemployed, no medicare except in one province, no mobility grants to help those who had the necessary skills to move to places where jobs were available. There was no ministry of regional economic expansion capable of directing money to parts of the country which needed it more than others; there was no Canada pension plan, no Quebec pension plan. In short, in 1958 and 1960 there was no alternative but to go on welfare. This is not the case today, because a Liberal government had the foresight and the courage to introduce social legislation between 1963 and 1970 which can now be used for the benefit of those who are temporarily unemployed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Just in case I have been too modest with regard to the accomplishments of this government when describing medicare, we ought not to forget that hospital insurance legislation came in during 1957 or 1958 when the leader of the Liberals in the other place was

January 18, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Mackasey
the Minister of Health and Welfare. I think it was back in 1957. But this action was taken before our government was replaced. As I recall, the opposition party never saw fit to enlarge that program so as to make it even more meaningful, as we have done since 1960.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I thank hon. members opposite for their help. They have really been a great help to me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When will you tell us what you intend to do now?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will tell the House tomorrow-


An hon. Member:: God help us.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will tell you what I recommend. Let us not panic or take advantage of this situation in such a way as to make the people feel we are in a depression of the kind we were in between 1958 and 1962. We are not. The Minister of Finance took the proper steps six or eights months ago. They will bear fruit in the early spring, and from then on the number of unemployed will be reduced. The opposition cannot have it both ways. As late as last February, the Leader of the Opposition was talking about the detrimental effect inflation was having, particularly on people living on fixed incomes. One of the statements that he made-this is reported in Hansard though I do not have the page; however, I read everything that the Leader of the Opposition says in debate- was to the effect that we would have to go back a long way to find a country that is in a worse position psychologically than we are today. Having made that statement, what has been the thrust in the debate today of the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), and even of the leader of the Credi-tistes, who gave us a dissertation on Sweden, the evils of socialism and all the benefits of "funny money"? There has been an almost fiendish glee at the predicament they think the government is in-the high rate of unemployment, gloom and doom.
Since the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) reduced the interest rate and freed the money supply in this country, there has been ample money in the banks of this country for investment, borrowing and economic expansion. But we must get over the psychological hurdle first. If I were a businessman sitting in the Gallery today listening to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and of other speakers, I would ask what kind of country this is. I would say to myself: "If they have no more confidence in our future than that displayed by their speeches, why should I invest my money in such a country?" I think all of us, the opposition as well as the government, have a responsibility to create the right psychological climate for investors to invest. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out in February, psychology is a very important weapon in the fight against unemployment and the lack of investment.
I have been sitting here since two-thirty listening to speeches in the hope that someone would bring forward a blueprint. But when I heard the Leader of the Opposition repeating some editorials, then I knew there was nothing new in his approach. He talked of reducing income tax in the hope that some money would find its way into the economy sooner or later.
The hon. member for York South made it very clear today that he would reduce taxes, but only personal income tax not corporation tax. Somehow this would stimulate the economy, and so he wants it all ways. I presume the hon. gentleman must have been hampered by the shortness of time in his interview last night, because today I expected him to expand on the kind of programs he would introduce if he were head of the government. He said that perhaps he would take off the building tax since our housing starts are not going to break any records with or without the tax. Certainly, the sales on building materials in no way has impeded our housing starts for this year.


An hon. Member:: They are 20 per cent short this year.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Not because of this tax. We are now reaching our target because we have injected into the economy the money necessary for the construction of the low cost housing which the people need. Built in the right part of the country, this housing will do a lot to reduce inflation and to create a surplus of housing in those areas.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what it is about my mannerisms that so upsets the opposition members today, though they seem to make more sense sitting down than when they stand up to make speeches. However, this is not unusual for hon. members on the other side. If hon. members think I have not much to say, then I am continuing this debate as it began two hours ago. What has disappointed me in this debate is that there has not been one fresh idea put forward by any member of the opposition as to how he would tackle the problem of unemployment. That is, of course, apart from the representative from the Creditiste party.


Gerald William Baldwin: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Peace River is rising on a question of privilege.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, before this debate commenced I rose and suggested that if the government would see fit, through the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp), to bring in supplementary estimates-and I indicated at least four specific items-we would be prepared to suggest that the debate be abandoned. I have not spoken in the debate; I simply raised a point of order to make that suggestion.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I said "new suggestions", and the hon. member has not made a new suggestion in the last ten years. His only answer is that we spend more
[Mr. Mackasey.)
January 18, 1971

money, though he does not tell us how we should spend it. He is a member of the party which a couple of years ago complained about the size of the deficit of this government and the effect that it was having on pushing up interest rates in Canada. Interest rates were being driven upwards and therefore this affected investment and borrowing. Hon. gentlemen opposite now want it both ways. As I say, they are barren of new ideas. I was referring to new, refreshing ideas.
Once again the Minister of Finance will emphasize, as he patiently did a few weeks ago, the steps that he has taken during the last six months to stimulate the economy of this country. He will review the funds that he has placed at the disposal of the provinces amounting to $150 million. He will remind hon. members of the drastic decrease in interest rates that has been characteristic of our banking system during the last few months. He will remind hon. members of the injection of money into the housing field. He will mention the $50 million put at the disposal of the unemployed this winter.
Hon. members have talked about extending benefits to the unemployed during winter. Surely, they should know that even under the present scheme benefits are extended on a seasonal basis during the winter. The requirement for eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits in this country are relaxed in order to extend the period of coverage. Virtually any member of the work force is eligible for seasonal benefits if he is laid off during the winter months. So, this is not new; it is already in operation.
It has also been suggested that we should introduce some new programs. The hon. member for York South suggested the immediate payment of $100 a week to people in receipt of unemployment inusrance benefits. I know what the hon. member meant; he meant to a maximum of $100 a week-I do not think the leader of the Creditistes made that clear-or two-thirds of salary up to a maximum of $100 a week take home pay. The unemployment insurance commission plan is designed to do more than simply turn over money to the unemployed. It is designed to co-ordinate the efforts of the departments of manpower, health and welfare, labour, the Unemployment Insurance Commission and other social agencies across the country that have a common interest in the work force of this country.
I would be insulting the members of this House if I suggested that unemployment could be solved immediately; that we can continue to compete with other countries that are highly automated. To do this we must first rationalize the textile industry in Quebec, for one, which is so labour-intensive that it will price itself out of existence if it does not automate. Automation may, of course, cause some unemployment, at least temporary unemployment, until this new automated industry becomes competitive with that of other countries.
This is a process now going on in the textile industry, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) mentioned some months ago. The minister may or may not have mentioned that he is also studying the shoe industry. Where Canadian industry is fully automated
The Budget-Mr. Mackasey
and has the economy of scale that the auto and steel industries have, then Canadian workers are as productive, in some cases more productive, than their United States or Swedish counterparts. But this requires new thinking on the part of governments. It means, at times, having the courage to create temporary unemployment intentionally.
It takes a great degree of courage for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to say to the textile industry of Quebec: "If you want to survive you must rationalize your industry. You must accept automation and technological change. You must let us help you rationalize your industry, even if this puts 50 per cent of the workers in the textile industry out of work temporarily". Because this kind of automation is the key solution to our problem. We must make the transition from labour-intensive industry to highly automated industry or this country will not survive in the export market. Certainly, we cannot survive simply by exporting primary products. Our production must be competitive and we must expand our exports of secondary products. This will result when we automate labour-intensive industries such as textiles and shoes.


An hon. Member:: Where are the new ideas?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: They are newer than the hon. member.


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


An hon. Member:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Well, I cannot satisfy everybody at once.


An hon. Member:: Talk about the seventies.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I rarely can understand what anyone says when he talks in his sleep. If the hon. member wants to talk in his sleep, he should go outside. It takes courage sometimes to create unemployment. We have created unemployment in the textile industry and we will probably create it temporarily in other industries as we automate and as we rationalize these industries.
So far as the Unemployment Insurance Act is concerned, it should be before the House fairly soon. The co-operation of the particular committee which was seized of this problem, and which met during the summer months and early fall, was commendable. I gather its report was fairly unanimous. If my review of the recommendations is accurate, the report endorses most of the proposals in the white paper. July 1 is the
2508

January 18, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Mackasey
target date in respect of the legislation and with the usual co-operation of the House I visualize little difficulty in meeting that target date. The new plan will, I believe, provide not only more moneys for the temporarily unemployed of this country, but will provide a better education for people where education is a problem or is the root cause of unemployment. This should help young people as they enter the work force for the first time. Several members, quite properly, alluded to these people. The government will have to look after the older people who are affected by automation. This will be done through other plans such as the TAB program which was introduced simultaneously with the auto pact. When we rationalize the auto industry it will be up to the government to do something for the people who are displaced because of age or because of an inability to adjust to the new plan so that they will be able to finish their days with dignity.
In conclusion, let me say I take no consolation in the high rate of unemployment, but I am consoled by the fact that although the number of unemployed people in 1970 has been relatively high it has been much lower than in the period between 1958 and 1962 when the Tories were in power. The people now are better off because they have at their disposal not only manpower programs, the Canada pension plan, the Quebec pension plan, transitional benefits, mobility grants, but also additional jobs because of regional and economic expansion. Together with others, these are programs designed to help the Canadian people as a right and not as a privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) is rising to ask a question, but since the minister's time has expired it would have to be asked with unanimous consent of the House. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would merely ask the minister, since he referred to the manpower training plan, whether he retained in his mind the fact that those who are in receipt of allowances and are receiving training are not included in the figure of 538,000 unemployed. If they were considered as unemployed, another 100,000 would have to be added to that figure.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has made my point. The 1960 figure would be 100,000 higher because there was no manpower program in those days. In setting up the proper department, we had the vision to provide the proper measures to take 100,000 people off the unemployment rolls and give them up to $108 a week under certain circumstances as well as provide them with an adequate upgrading of their skills and their education where necessary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising to ask a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister also agree that, in addition to having high unemployment
in Canada, in 1971 we have the highest cost of living this country has had for a great period of time?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Well, the Leader of the Opposition today mentioned the very tools we used to combat inflation. He suggested that one thing we must not do is lose track of the need to continue voluntary restraints in wages and prices. I think these were his words. In other words, he endorsed precisely the policies introduced by the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, before I see the hon.
member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin), perhaps hon. members would permit me to deal with the notice required in respect of the adjournment proceedings this evening.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Pen-ner)-Canadian National Railways-reduction of passenger service in Northern Ontario; the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton)-Wheat Board-production and receipts policy-statement in budget respecting stabilization payments; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-Trade-development of U.S. markets for Atlantic provinces' products-transportation facilities.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson, that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (page 1808).
Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the speech that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) just delivered.
Even with my great admiration for the minister, I must say that his speech is the weakest he ever made since he became Minister of Labour and that it merely amounts to an attempt to justify the government's incompetence in dealing with unemployment.
When a Minister of Labour feels the need to uphold the government's position, to refer to the previous

January 18, 1971

administration, namely the Progressive Conservative administration, and to compare unemployment figures for 1958, 1960, 1962 with the present statistics, this shows that the government is unable to come up with a solution to solve the present unemployment problem.
The minister says: We, in the government, need the understanding of the population and of the members; we seek their suggestions to solve the unemployment problem. I could retort to the minister and to the government members that we have been making suggestions for a year and a half. However, every time the opposition has made representations or suggestions and a problem was settled, the government hastened to say. The opposition had nothing to do with that, we on the government side found the solution.
In this house we have often said and I say it again: the government was elected to administer the country. It is not up to the opposition, but rather to the government, to solve the problems now facing the Canadian people.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if we analyze the speech delivered by the Minister of Labour, we find that the government offers no solution but acts as if it did not care a hang about the problem and the required solutions.
The opposition has been talking about unemployment We can recall that from 1958 to 1963 when we were in power, the former prime minister or the former hon. member for Essex-East used to ask questions to the government about the unemployment situation.


An hon. Member:: But there was no unemployment at that time!


Martial Asselin: There was and it may have been the reason behind our defeat in 1963. It also explains why this government will be defeated in 1972 unless they find solutions to cope with this national problem.
Some hon Members: Hear, hear!


Martial Asselin: But recalling the past will not solve our problem. We must look ahead and the government should be able to tell us the kind of solutions they are considering.
In September 1970, the Economic Council of Canada warned the government about the unemployment situation, as we can see on page 21 of the report titled:
"Performance and Potential mid-1950's to mid-1970's", and I quote:
We regard recent and current rates of unemployment as unacceptably high. Canada probably now has the highest rate of unemployment among the more industrially advanced nations, even after allowance for the differences in the bases for unemployment estimates. The current rate is about double the medium-term target for Canada suggested in our Sixth Annual Review. The building up of unemployment to such high levels reflects a very considerable enlargement of burdens and hardships imposed on individuals and families. It also reflects a considerable waste of human resources and a large economic cost to the whole society.
23786-18i
The Budget-Mr. Asselin
All that can be found in that report.
Reducing this high level of unemployment must therefore be considered-in human, social and economic terms-as a matter of the highest priority.
What is the present situation? As a Quebec member I would like tonight to describe the present situation in Quebec.
At the time of the last provincial election, the Quebec people were given false hopes. Seconded by the federal Liberal party, Mr. Bourassa stated that in 1971 he would create 100,000 jobs. This was a fine electoral slogan. The unemployed who heard that promise could think that among those 100,000 jobs there would surely be one for him. The Liberal party got into office in Quebec thanks to it.
It was said that if the Liberal party was elected in Quebec while a Liberal government was in power in Ottawa, there would no longer be any problems for Que-bekers. Everything would be fine. What is the present situation in Quebec? We have there 197,000 unemployed, i.e. 8.4 per cent of the working population as compared to 7.2 per cent in November and 6.7 per cent for the same period in 1969.
In Quebec, the number of unemployed has increased by
31.000	in one month only and this is exactly half the unemployment increase for the whole of Canada.
The City of Montreal has 2,000 more unemployed than last year at the same date. There were 62,346 unemployed at the end of December. In 1970, only 10,000 jobs have been created in Quebec as compared to 50,000 the preceding year. And the Union Nationale government of that time was no good. It has created 50,000 new jobs in 1969. It is reasonable to hope that this total will reach
14.000	when December figures will be known. In the first eleven months of 1970, there were 10,000 new jobs and
23.000	new unemployed due to the fact that there were
33.000	more people in the labour force.
Such a statement of affairs makes responsible people think because it is a dark picture and it brings people close to desperation. In short, this situation is intolerable in a country such as ours.
We are talking about 25,000 young jobless in Montreal. Many of them are educated.
One of the most modern education systems has been introduced in Quebec. I agree on that point. But the present government forgot one other principle: when providing retraining and trying to educate the young people, we must also find employment opportunities for them. This has not been anticipated!
This is why when we are in our office or in our constituency, people come to ask for employment. They are almost desperate when they realize that conditions are worsening from day to day with no prospective solution to their problems.
Without making any practical suggestion, the Minister of Labour merely blames the previous administration even though the unemployment rate is higher at the present time.

January 18, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Asselin
It is not surprising then to note that there is turmoil and dissent in Quebec. It is not surprising that the Quebec Minister of Labour, Mr. Cournoyer, stated not long ago: If conditions do not improve, the number of persons bent on revolution will increase! If we do not take all possible steps if we do not face the conditions and reality, what worries me is that we will never have enough policemen to control the reactions of those victims of our system.
He is not the only one to say such things. The Quebec premier, Mr. Bourassa, said last week that he was concerned and questioned the possibility of creating 100,000 jobs. He did not propose any solution, neither did he say what measures his government might adopt in order to remedy the situation.
Also in the province of Quebec, leaders in industry are sounding the alarm. Mr. Daoust, for instance, said that a disaster is imminent when one finds an 8.4 percent rate of unemployment in Quebec, and that 11,500 permanent jobs were lost last year.
Last night, I read in the papers that such an important concern as SOGEFOR was laying off 800 workers. This concern is made up of four plants which have cost the public and private sectors $9 million.
When we know that 52.8 per cent of business bankruptcies reported in Canada take place in Quebec and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) feels satisfied with the steps taken by his government until now to correct the situation, I say that the government shirks its responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, what are the causes of such a situation? Obviously some will say it is the October crisis, but the October crisis did not come out of the blue. On the contrary, it had roots; unrest existed before but the government had not been wise to it.
The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was saying this afternoon that the main cause of this unrest was the fiscal policy of this government. In this regard, I would like to have recorded in Hansard a statement made by Claude Ryan of the newspaper he Devoir, in the January 18 1971 issue, in connection with the fiscal policy of the government, which reads as follows:
With regard to public finance, the Trudeau government has followed one of the most reactionary policies . .. Obsessed with the idea of a balanced budget, it has forced provincial and municipal governments, by driving them to deficit budgeting through its fiscal miserliness, to increase their debt abroad-
The government has also-
-withdrawn from the private sector such a large share of the national product that this sector has lost much of its punch-
-at the expense of the majority of workers. Thus-
-numerous categories of citizens, who depend more directly on government allowances, have been reduced to an income level close to poverty.
Mr. Speaker, if our country is to survive, the time has come to return to a more dynamic concept of public finance. I continue to quote:
The government should offer new incentives to economic agents whose decisions and creativity are essential to economic development.
For almost three months we have been asking the government to re-establish the winter works program so that instead of making people dependent on welfare funds or unemployment insurance as the present government wants to do, paying them measly allowances, they may be provided with jobs.
Many of our welfare recipients are not interested in welfare grants. A large number of them are on welfare because they have to be. Most of them would like to have jobs.
Why did not the government re-activate the winter works program? It will be said that the system produced fraud. This is obvious. But it is possible to pass legislation to prevent it. It is more interesting for a person who is engaged in winter works, in a municipality, to earn $15 a day than to receive a scanty allowance of $150 a month. He is less inclined to idleness and passivity.
Mr. Speaker, we made suggestions to the government. When we asked it to remove the 11 per cent tax on building materials, why did it turn a deaf ear? It would have been possible thus to provide work for the unemployed. People would have sold more manufactured products.
When the government was requested to drop the 3 per cent surtax, what did the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) answer? It had been imposed for one year only. The Minister of Finance maintained it.
I heard this afternoon the leader of the Ralliement creditiste (Mr. Caouette) speak about taxes, the 3 per cent surtax; it is his party that voted in favour of maintaining the 3 per cent surtax in 1967-along with the government.
Mr. Speaker, when when will the federal government give up part of its jurisdiction to the provinces so as to permit them to use the best economic means to face their situation?
This afternoon I put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (M. Marchand) who answered that the federal government had given Quebec $150 million to fight unemployment. Then we are told that from those $150 million, $68 million will be earmarked for the building of roads in Montreal. How many jobs will this create, Mr. Speaker? Fourteen hundred jobs for $68 million! The building of roads entails expropriations, the purchase of land; judiciary and extrajudiciary expenses have to be paid. Then, is it logical to grant $68 million to fight unemployment and create only 1,400 jobs in Quebec? I am not blaming the Quebec government for accepting this money and for building roads in Montreal but I suggest that it is illogical that only 1,400 jobs should follow.
I am taking the floor because I represent a riding where unemployment is at its peak and 25 per cent of

January 18, 1971

the labour force is idle. When the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion claims that the granting of subsidies is creating employment I say that they are not distributed proportionately throughout the province, since several ridings of the Lower St. Lawrence region and the North Shore have received nothing.
We have made representations. At Sacre-Cceur, in my riding, a card-board plant has been set up by the C.F.U. and the farmers have invested several thousands of dollars into it. Government help is necessary and we need a few million dollars. We called on the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. We were sent back to Quebec to inquire whether the Quebec government would agree to the proposal. Mr. Speaker, this cardboard plant at Sacre-Cceur could provide jobs for some 1,500 people.
To what use were put the grants from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion? Indeed, such grants have helped some industries, but have jobs been created in numbers as large as was hoped? Have the unemployed benefited from them to the maximum? It was said today that automation and technology have entered the labour market. Formulas should be found to directly help a worker find employment. And this is the challenge that this Parliament and especially this government should meet considering the tragic situation facing us at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, there is also need for a more thorough selection for retraining among the labour force. In that respect, huge amounts of money are being lost in my own constituency and in several others in the province.
In my constituency, housewives are attending seventh grade classes, to receive $60 per week of course. The housewife hires a babysitter for $15 per week, and she earns $60 per week while retraining. For what purpose does she need retraining?
Retraining courses should be more rigorously selective, to prevent the taxpayers' money from being wasted in such a shocking way.
Mr. Speaker, the government's employment policy and fight against unemployment have failed. They resorted right off to a long term policy. What is being done? Were there consultations with the economic councils and Chambers of Commerce of each area? Those people, Mr. Speaker, have studied all aspects of the situation. They spend hours and hours examining economic conditions in their area and find solutions to their problems. The Minister of Economic Regional Expansion as well as the Department of Labour should immediately have a mobile team meet the responsible persons from those regional economic councils as well as the Chambers of Commerce to seek advice from them on projects that could be launched immediately in order to alleviate unemployment in Canada and especially in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, another way would be to ask this government whether they are really willing to fight unemployment. A federal-provincial conference on unemployment problems should be convened immediately, a conference
The Budget-Mr. Kaplan
which municipalities' representatives could attend so as to find solutions to this acute problem. When an emergency occurred in Quebec, emergency measures were passed. Unemployment has now become an urgent issue and the government should take the steps available to them to cope with the situation.
Should the government, in spite of all our suggestions, Mr. Speaker, persist in not making rapid, urgent and efficient decisions in order to fight against unemployment, it will show that this government was not sincere when they talked about war on poverty, that the prime minister's "just society" slogan was merely window-dressing and that the government was not ready for action. In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I say that if the necessary steps are not taken in order to cope with this problem, this government will be very severely judged by the Canadian people on the day of reckoning.


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, it is an understatement to say that the time has come for us to shift primary emphasis in economic strategy for policies of restraint to expansionist policies. In the budget address, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) was pleased to note how well Canada has succeeded in containing inflation. Perhaps we have succeeded too well.
Since we are a relatively thin economy which is dependent upon foreign trade more than any other country in the world, we cannot afford to have a rate of inflation which exceeds that of our trading partners, making our goods uncompetitive. On the other hand, it is not good for us to have zero inflation when inflation gallops ahead in countries which are our suppliers and our customers. If we have zero inflation, or an acceleration too far below that of the rest, we find, especially with the long-term capital inflows which Canada generally attracts, the balance of payments pressures pushing our dollar upward. Thus there is the possibility of as much damage in this direction being caused as accelerating prices would cause. The hardness of our dollar, in which the minister took such pride, can be as much a problem as inflation itself. This, for example, is the testimony of the pulp and paper industries.
The target, I suggest, is to have only slightly better performance than the others. It is easy enough to say this, but the implication is that our policy has to be that of hitting a moving target whose momentum can only be guessed, and of having to fire the shots well ahead of time. This, I feel, shows how tough the job of formulating price stability policies can be. No one has to be reminded that fiscal and monetary price stability policies which have been pursued have implications on economic growth and employment and that in some areas the results produced by the government's policies have been unacceptable, especially if one considers the regional implications.
It is too simple and too misleading to focus on one economic performance target at a time. When ministers of finance assess the performance of the economy and make their periodic prescriptions, they must do so in terms of a number of goals and not just shoot at one.

January 18, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Kaplan
These important goals include full employment, reasonable price stability, sustained economic growth and a stable balance of payments.
Looking at the problem around us in the Canadian economy today we can see how difficult it can be for the government to meet the challenge of finding that balance. Why is it so hard? The measure of the challenge has a number of dimensions. They are: First, the apparent cyclical nature of a free market economy. Second, the extent of our dependence upon foreign influences over which Canada has no control, both in the international market for capital, long and short term, and in the international market for commodities and goods. Third, the division of jurisdiction over the public sector in our federal system, with its implications for taxing, borrowing and spending. Fourth, the lag between the occurrence of economic events and the collection of sufficient information to permit them to be seen. Fifth, the lag between the taking of corrective action and the coming into effect of such action. A final element is the limited number of measures which the government has chosen so far to adopt in order to achieve the economic performance goals. This is the aspect of the problem on which I wish to concentrate.
The present administration has increased the number of measures that it is prepared to adopt, but not far enough. Fiscal and monetary policies have been relied on, and their regional and sectoral impacts have been sharpened by this government more than by any of its predecessors. In addition, more effective measures to increase the geographical and occupational mobility of labour have been devised and heavily financed. Rationalization of industries, agricultural, industrial and financial, is taking place to some degree, with important government intervention. Hopefully, more will take place through an improved competition policy which has been promised for this month. There are efforts to improve the workings of the marketplace through better consumer information.
The budget that we are debating, Mr. Speaker, calls for a direct stimulation to the economy. The Minister of Finance has referred to it as a $2 billion shift in direction. Some critics would like to see the government spending more, and spending it faster. In addition, there are calls for sweeping tax relief. I ask, what are the implications of this about-face which is indicated in economic policy? After buying price stability by paying so high a social cost in unemployment-a toll which may get worse before it gets better-is the government going to abandon the inflation battle without taking precautions against the recurrence of inflation? The hard fact is that for all the experience of the last 18 months we are launching the economy into a phase in which there will inevitably be increased pressure on prices, which will heat up the economy, and yet we have produced no new tools for cooling it off. The government's defence to this charge is that the expansionary policies chosen are more selective than expansionist policies have been in the past. I submit that these assurances are not entirely convincing.
Canada, Mr. Speaker, needs a policy of selective controls on prices and incomes. We need machinery to con-

trol prices, to control rents, to control wages and to control incomes. Jawboning does not work, public pressure does not work, guidelines do not work, and voluntary formulas have failed for want of volunteers. We need a system of controls, and so far this government, which has been very determined in its economic policies, has not had the guts to propose one. Especially in dealing with the labour sector, the government has not yet shown the kind of courage which will achieve results. Of course, a system of controls presents its own problems.
Firstly, it should be recognized that a free market is preferable to one with controls. The Gallup polls recently taken tell us that the public is prepared to accept price controls. But how much public understanding is there of the implications? One of the fundamental values in our society is the free bargaining process, labour being free to bargain for the price it is to be paid for its services and producers being free to determine the goods which they wish to produce and the prices they will seek to obtain. Whatever policy of controls we adopt, its ultimate objective should be a return to the free market. Second, selective controls are inevitably unfair because they permit the sectors which are not selected to continue to exercise whatever market pressure they can, and in the state of our present marketplace this can be considerable. For this reason, a package of controls would have to be selected on a basis which would be politically acceptable to a broad cross-section of the Canadian people.
It seems clear that the danger area in the economy today is wage pressure. This is demonstrated by the price performance of labour in the market in the past year of economic decline. Historically, the labour market has responded like other markets to pressures of supply and demand. More recently, labour, especially unionized labour, has ceased to be a dependent variable in the economic picture. Wage increases are an inexorable, independent variable: they tend to move independently, irrespective of market forces.
In contrast by no stretch of the imagination can corporate profits, however measured, be considered the culprit in today's inflation. Notwithstanding this, I cannot imagine an imposed control on labour costs being acceptable or successful without some control on rent, which is one of the greatest and fastest growing expenses of the average Canadian. Again, justice would require some control over the incomes of the professionals who serve the public and of management personnel, particularly in the key industries which might be chosen for wage control. A third consideration is that the controls must be used on a short-term basis.
It can be seen that permanent price and incomes controls could not be selective. They would have to be comprehensive, otherwise there would be a damaging distortion of the economy as resources moved from the controlled to the uncontrolled sectors. Further, the longer the term of the control period, the more complex the machinery would have to be. Inevitable inequities, which may be sustainable on a short-term basis, would have to
January 18, 1971

be ironed out by reviews and appeals as the term lengthened.
A final problem that I want to touch on is the need that such machinery be established and put into place quickly when it is required, complete with the bureaucracy needed for administration and policing, and the necessity of communicating quickly to all individuals affected a clear understanding of their responsibilities. For this reason, I would propose that Parliament enact a kind of economic war measures act, that is to say, that a control system be legislated but not put into effect for the time being.
Let us have a proposal from the government that can be considered by Parliament, interested groups and the public at large. Let us improve it as a system through the process of public participation; and then let it sit on the shelf for implementation if and when special sectors or regions of the economy begin to heat up as expansionary policies now being debated take effect. Then when the powers are required to be put into place, there will be the public understanding and acceptance which is necessary to make them work, and there will be an effective method of breaking the spine of the inflationary spiral.


Mr. Frank Moores (Bonavisia-Trinily-Conceplion):: Mr. Speaker, the budget speech shows vividly that the government and its advisers do not realize what is going on in the economy of this country. In view of the unemployment figures recently released, the budget speech, which when presented was an admission of the uncertainty of the government on the unlikely course of economic developments in Canada, has now shown further the grossly inadequate appreciation that this government has of the economic situation.
The budget, Mr. Speaker, is the product of a man who really does not know where the ball is going to bounce. It offered no immediate stimulus to the economy. It was based on an assumption that the economy will swing up. In the most recent unemployment figures, as has been reviewed by my colleagues, we have seen the numbers of persons unemployed leap to the highest point experienced in Canada in ten years. What was the reaction of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to this situation? It was the usual verbal platitude, "that new measures included in the budget... would start to take effect in the near future". I would like to know what the Minister of Finance means when he uses the word "start". When does he intend to start? It is obvious that he has not started yet? How does he intend to start? There is certainly nothing in this minibudget to allow for even a ministart-and what is required is very much more. It would seem obvious, Mr. Speaker, that this government has only one economic transmission, start, stop and reverse, but obviously no ahead.
At the end of last December there were in Canada
150,000	more people unemployed than at the same time a year ago. In total, 538,000 able-bodied Canadians were unable to find work. This figure of 538,000, Mr. Speaker, is the number of people eligible for work, but a great many others are affected and affected directly by these
The Budget-Mr. Moores
people not being able to find employment. Taking the average number of dependants per worker in Canada, we have between 1,700,000 and 1,800,000 Canadians, men, women and children, directly suffering the cruel effects of unemployment. This means that the number of people directly affected by unemployment in Canada today is more than the population of any province in Canada with the exception of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. In fact, it is more than the total population of the three Maritime provinces.
The present situation has been reached as a direct result of government action in certain areas, and inaction in others. At no time have we seen planning with wisdom, or even reaction, once the crisis was obvious. Even now, when the crisis is upon us, what is the government's position? The Acting Prime Minister noted that the government had predicted a steady reduction in unemployment and now says, "We have no reason to change this forecast". He further indicated that the government has no immediate plans or new crash programs aimed at easing unemployment.
I think it is now quite obvious to even the most complacent Canadians-except the government, which seems to be the most complacent of all-that this government is incapable not only of planning with any degree of wisdom but of even carrying out any worth while plan that may be offered by others. We have a situation facing Canada that approaches the catastrophic, and it is handled by the Acting Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the other ministers with all the initiative we have come to expect from computerized inertia. Successful programs and accurate forecasting have never been the government's strong point, yet members of the cabinet are quoted as remaining optimistic about the economy and are sticking by earlier forecasts predicting a steady reduction in unemployment. This afternoon we heard the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) say it took courage to create unemployment. He seemed to be proud of it. I say it will take wisdom to correct it, and this is what is lacking.
We have been advised that the ranks of the unemployed have risen by 13 per cent since the end of November-40 per cent above the figure at this time last year. And still the government remains optimistic. What does it take to persuade the government to accept the reality that a very real crisis faces the country and that something must be done about it? We need a great deal more than we have witnessed lately, which one could almost call government by extrasensory perception.
One of the characteristics of the government since its election is that it has treated people as if they were numbers: it has depended upon the computer to provide the answers, when what is needed is realization that Canadians are individuals, individuals with human emotions. People cannot be computerized, nor can their emotions. By failing to recognize this, the government has been responsible for the cruelest neglect and waste of the greatest resource a country can have-the people themselves. The government deliberately ran down the econo-

January 18, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Moores
my in order, we are told, to fight inflation. What we have seen is the fighting of inflation at any cost-and the cost has been far too great. The unhappy feature all along is that the government has been behind the play; it was late getting on to inflation, and late getting off. It took so long to recognize the situation that it had to go for the overkill.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was quoted as saying on December 23 that inflation had been licked. Inflation may have been temporarily subdued, Mr. Speaker, but for the Prime Minister of Canada to encourage the public to believe that inflation has been licked is misleading. Wage increases during the last six months cannot but be reflected in price increases in 1971. The bond market, which is the best indication of the government's handling of the economy, exposes the Prime Minister's statement that inflation has been licked. Rates for long-term lending are still very high, and the long-term security yield has budged almost not at all.
The treasurer of the Ontario government, Mr. Mac-Naughton, called upon the federal government on December 7 to expand the output of the economy, to stimulate the economies of high-growth regions. He warned provincial and municipal governments that they would be forced into incurring higher levels of borrowing and/or tax increases if Ottawa continued its policy conducive to low average growth. One step the Minister of Finance should have taken immediately was the ending of the 3 per cent surtax. Canadians expected him to announce tax cuts to stimulate the economy. Instead, he imposed an additional tax, as it were, by retaining the surtax.
Canada cannot afford continued excessive unemployment. The Economic Council estimates the country has lost $3 billion in production because of high unemployment levels. The government accepts this inhumane, disgraceful fact with complacency. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) was quoted on January 2 as saying he would accept an unemployment rate of 6 per cent, or even a rate as high as 10 per cent. No Canadian should accept this, Mr. Speaker, and any representative of the Canadian electors who does should resign.
The supplementary estimates approved in the closing hours before the Christmas recess are another indication of the direction of economic policies of this government. Sixty-nine million extra dollars were needed to finance the public debt because the government had been forced to borrow more than was originally intended. Fifty-one million extra dollars were needed for payment to the provinces under the Canada Assistance Plan because more people were on dole, had been forced on dole, than was expected.
What the government does not realize, apparently, is that once the economy has intentionally been slowed down, it cannot be stimulated again by words alone. People who a few years ago were expanding and developing the economy as entrepreneurs have become frightened of government policies and are reluctant to begin again where they left off. You cannot just turn a switch and change the mood of the people. Something much more positive and meaningful must be done to get
the economy going again. A great many businesses have slowed to a walk. The easing of interest rates on money probably means they will not actually go bankrupt, but neither will they develop to the extent which is required. Speaking of bankruptcy, I say that mental bankruptcy seems to be the forte of this government. It is vital that hon. gentlemen opposite admit they are wrong, if only for the sake of the people they were elected to serve.
The stark statistics of unemployment are the most eloquent comment which can be made on the failure of the government's economic policies. The Minister of Finance cannot, or will not, offer the slightest hope that the worst may be over. Neither can he fall back upon some statistical rationalization by saying that the seasonally adjusted rate is improving. It rose last month, and there is every indication that later this winter these figures will become much worse. Yet the government carries on in the same optimistic vein, predicting that things will get better soon.
Regardless of what the government may say, unemployment is the direct result of its economic mismanagement. Surely members opposite must realize by now that their policies are altogether inadequate. I plead with the Minister of Finance to be honest and truthful with the people. We must tell the people the truth about the seriousness of unemployment, and the government should release its forecasts showing how bad it is likely to get. Only after first admitting the gravity of the situation will we be able to find a solution for it.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Frank Duff Moores: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying at six o'clock, before the government can find a solution to unemployment it must appreciate the enormity of the problem facing Canada. Trying to curtail inflation by creating unemployment has not worked in other countries and it will not work in Canada. The government's policy of deliberately creating massive unemployment to stem inflation is wrong. It is easy for me to criticize lack of action by this government over the past year or so, but the future is what is important now. Where do we, as a nation, go from here? What can we do to initiate a policy that will not only correct the present situation but ensure that a similiar situation does not happen again in the years ahead?
It is essential that we implement tax cuts, as was outlined by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) today, and it is imperative that the Minister of Finance give consideration to making these tax cuts immediately for the good of this country. Even doing this now will

January 18, 1971

mean that it will take time before the effect is fully felt, but it is imperative that it be done now in order that the situation does not get out of hand. The over-all Canadian economy must be put back on the track, and it is the duty of this government to take the first step by acting now.
High unemployment affects all Canada, but particularly the have-not regions. In my province of Newfoundland the situation is very much worse than in any other province in Canada. At the end of last August, the provincial department of social services and rehabilitation revealed that 93,000 Newfoundlanders were receiving assistance from that department. That in itself indicates that almost 19 per cent of the population are on social assistance. The recent unemployment figures show that
68.000	men, women and children in Newfoundland are directly affected by unemployment. This, in a province with just 500,000 total population, is a staggering statistic.
One notices in the statistics for all of Canada that
8.940.000	was the number of people in the work force in November, 1970, and 8,329,000 was the work force in December. This is a drop of 611,000 people in the work force in one month. The minister shakes his head, but these are the figures published by the department. These
611.000	people find it impossible to get work, and after many calls to manpower have just given up in frustration. Many of this group live in areas such as Newfoundland where work opportunities just do not exist. Their dropping out of the work force is now shown in the unemployment figures. I believe that if an accurate assessment were made of the Newfoundland work force, it would show close to 20 per cent of our population presently unemployed, and this figure will increase as the winter progresses.
The Premier of Newfoundland does not even admit that we have an unemployment problem. As a matter of fact, a short time ago one of his ministers said on a television program that a "wave of prosperity" was sweeping across the province. No problem will ever be solved if those in authority do not first realize that it exists. In Newfoundland the government is forecasting a miniboom for next summer. If this occurs, so much the better. But the question should be asked: What about next winter? What we are seeing in Newfoundland is the creation of temporary jobs of a seasonal nature, with virtually no consideration being given to long-term prospects. The Premier is introducing a master plan-or, as some prefer to call it, "The master's plan"-at an economic conference he has called for February 4, 5 and 6.
Any plan for Newfoundland would have to include heavy inputs of money from the federal government. Yet last Monday in this House, when asked if any special plan was being prepared for Newfoundland, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) admitted having no knowledge of such a plan and afterwards intimated that he did not have any knowledge of the
The Budget-Mr. Moores
conference. This is the type of harebrain scheme we have come to expect from the provincial government in Newfoundland. There are promises and more promises, but very little is accomplished.
Newfoundland is badly in need of a plan for its future development. It needs a great deal more than the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has provided to date. An infrastructure for industrial development is being established. No one can say that services are not required nor that they are not desirable, but they will be meaningful only if the people who are to use them have the opportunity to earn enough to maintain a decent standard of living, which is not the case at present.
A short while ago the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council met with the House committee here in Ottawa. They suggested that Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland be included in the incentives program of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which is to be made available for primary industries. I agree with this and believe it is very essential. The federal government, with approval of the provincial government, has a wrong order of priorities. The problems of Newfoundland are very different from those of Montreal. The type of urban, bureaucratic thinking we have had to date will not work in Newfoundland.
The Atlantic Advisory Council was commissioned to undertake a study in Newfoundland to determine why the regional incentives program is not working. It is not working, and the minister and his department are aware of this. I hope when they find the answer they will come up with something that will be workable in our province. To date the program of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has created very few permanent jobs in Newfoundland. The reason is that the department responsible for that program has ignored the resource development of our province which many people, including myself, feel is by far the top priority if we in Newfoundland are to establish our identity. Our people must develop an excellence in what they know, and they must develop the industries that are natural to their situation. It is not reasonable to expect Newfoundland to develop a sophisticated industrialized base. The people of Newfoundland have not been trained for sophisticated industry. Our people have a knowledge of the industries with which they are familiar. The people of Newfoundland want the industries to become better than they already are.
The future of rural Newfoundland must include the development of the resource industries and the establishment of an excellence in respect of these industries. It makes no more sense to establish an industrialized base in Newfoundland whereby our people would have to become involved in scientific training, than it does to ask the maitre d' of the Queen Elizabeth Hotel to operate a chainsaw. We must develop our primary industries, which would include direct assistance to small operations based on raw materials such as fish, lumber, minerals, agricultural products, and so on. We are witnessing a program that will create part-time jobs while what we must have is full-time employment.
January 18, 1971

The Budget-Mr. Osier
Our people must be given the opportunity to contribute to this great nation. Regardless of the Premier's attitude there is in Newfoundland a reawakening of the people who want to opt in. Our people in Newfoundland are basically peaceful, but they are becoming fed up with government mismanagement and misinterpretation both at the federal and provincial levels. They want opportunities. They want to play their part in Canada and not be treated as second-class citizens. It is the responsibility of the federal government to develop programs that will realistically help develop provinces such as Newfoundland. It must be realized that the people in these areas will never have the same degree of affluence we find in large Canadian cities. However, the degree of affluence must be increased so that the people can live decently and enjoy the many advantages their locations provide.
The province of Newfoundland has a great future. The resource potential is greater than that of the other Atlantic provinces put together. This resource potential must be exploited for the benefit of all the people and not just a few, as is presently the case. As I said earlier, the people of Canada cannot be treated as just so many numbers. Each individual and each region is different, and all in their own way have a contribution to make. This has not been appreciated by the present government, and it must be if our country is to have the destiny which is rightfully ours, from Newfoundland to British Columbia.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member a question. It is not in any way in criticism of what he said. If I heard him correctly, he indicated there had been a decrease in the labour force of 611,000. I heard this figure and I am sure it is wrong. The change in the labour force, on a seasonally adjusted basis, was
65,000	and on a non-adjusted basis it was 79,000.


Frank Duff Moores: What is the actual figure?


Edgar John Benson: I just gave it, if my hon. friend would listen.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand the minister asked a question. If the hon. member wishes to reply, he may do so.


Frank Duff Moores: The information I received this morning from DBS would indicate that the figure for November was 8,940,000 and the figure for December was 8,329,000. After having made a mistake a few days ago, I am sure the minister would not want to make another one now.


Edgar John Benson: I would simply say I have not made a mistake.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would hon. members resume their seats? I believe we are entering into an area of debate; it is not a matter of question and answer. I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier).


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before entering into this debate I should like to clear up
a small matter. I am a great admirer of the province of Newfoundland. I have visited it only once, but from what I have seen it would appear to be an intriguing place. However, there are not eight million people in Newfoundland; therefore, I do not know how eight million people could be involved.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would hon. members
resume their seats?


Frank Duff Moores: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the hon. member that Newfoundland did join confederation and I was talking about Canadian and not Newfoundland figures.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It does not really matter whether we are talking about eight million people, 800,000 people, 80,000 or eight people in Newfoundland who are unemployed and who find difficulty. The point is that no one on either side of this House has the slightest reason to rejoice when there are unemployed people in Canada. Therefore, I do not think our intent or either side of this House differs greatly.
It rather appalled me that the only constructive criticism I have heard so far today on this subject has come from the government side of the House and not from the opposition side; yet it seems to me the opposition should be the ones to criticize constructively. So I would like to add my little bit of criticism, after saying that I must agree with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) that much has been done since the last time we had a bad unemployment problem in this country. Much has been done to make this grievous problem less grievous for those who are suffering from it. But much more must be done and we must reach the time when we do not have unemployment at all.
For a moment I would like to consider the country as a whole and ask, as one who comes from a non-central province, are the dice loaded in this confederation of ours? I think they are. I think the central provinces control the House of Commons, and therefore they must control the caucus of any national party that has gained power in the House of Commons. The Fathers of Confederation anticipated this. They supposed they would be able to have the regions represented equally by setting up a Senate to which they would give regional responsibilities. But the Senate does not represent regions, and because Senators are appointed it is very hard for us to convince anyone that the Senate represents anyone at all.
Even if the Senate were truly to represent regions, then the Fathers of Confederation did not allow for western Canada becoming part of confederation later, and we have never had the right number of Senators to represent our region in confederation up until today. So I say there is something wrong in confederation; there is something wrong at the seat of power. The federal government always derives all its power from the centre, because the federal government gets its power solely by representation by population, which cannot help but be

January 18, 1971

detrimental to those living in Manitoba, Newfoundland or anywhere else that is not at the centre.
To solve the problem of unemployment and many other problems, we need constitutional reform. I will not talk tonight about constitutional reform. We also need reform of the rules of the House of Commons, which does not necessarily call for constitutional reform. We are not a unitary state, and it is ludicrous for us to go on into our second century pretending that to embody unitary machinery for our government, which is good enough for Britain which is a unitary state, is good enough for us. It is not good enough for us. We need constitutional reform. But be this as it may, in recent years there has been a new concern for true federalism in Canada and a new concern for the unemployed and the unemployable, as the Minister of Labour pointed out this afternoon. The present government has shown very encouraging signs of heeding this concern in both directions, so that some day Canada may provide equality of opportunity for all its citizens no matter where they live or under what circumstances they happen to have been born. Surely that is the good thing toward which we must always work.
I want to illustrate what I am talking about. I picked up the Globe and Mail of last Friday and found on page 1 two important articles on the subject of pollution. The first article said that the lower Great Lakes and portions of the St. Lawrence River already constitute a serious health hazard, thanks to industrial and human pollution. Canada's share of the clean up costs would be around $211 million, in 1968 dollars. The second article said that rapid urbanization and industrialization will accelerate this trend. Within 30 years, more than half of Canada's population will have become concentrated in the St. Lawrence valley and the lower Fraser River valley. So there will be a very serious pollution problem in two beautiful areas of Canada. Does this have to be so? We as Members of Parliament can do something about it if we really want to.
During the holidays I read Pierre Berton's book "The National Dream". I think it is a very interesting book and I would like to paraphrase one thought in it. He said that before confederation, Canada was a country whose population was trapped in the prison of the St. Lawrence lowlands. Now, 100 years later, does it make any sense to sit idly by while the average Canadian needlessly and mindlessly reimprisons himself in that same St. Lawrence Valley and fouls his prison irrevocably in the process?
It is my contention that the latest budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will, unwittingly I am sure, add its little contribution to the process of fouling up this prison that is being reconstituted in the St. Lawrence valley. All of us surely must decry this process and the fact that it is continuing. This budget may also tend to add to another form of pollution, which is mind pollution, namely, regional discontent that any thinking person who is interested in Canada as a whole must equally abhor.
Let me tell hon. members why I think this is so. In the minister's budget speech I heard no less than six observa-
The Budget-Mr. Osier
tions and statements indicating his and the government's concern for the principle of equality of opportunity for those living in Canada's various regions. I found, however, that in the specific measures the Minister of Finance proposed, only about a third of them seemed to me to have any direct bearing on the aim of narrowing the regional economic differences which presently exist. Yet it is in regional differences of economic opportunity that the root causes of our present grave unemployment problem are to be found.
Forgive me, Mr. Speaker, for illustrating this statement by being very Manitoban in my approach to the subject. In the latter part of 1969 it became clear that the main impact of the government's anti-inflation policy was being felt in Ontario, British Columbia and the Prairies. There were other problems in other places, but they had been continuous or were consistent. These were the ones that showed up as aberrations at that time. Demand was certainly excessive in Ontario and British Columbia, and the government was right when it attempted to cool things in these two areas. Perhaps adverse results on the Prairies, which might not have derived from this policy, could be blamed on the world wheat glut. Well, today the Prairies are selling wheat again. But when we look at the latest unemployment figures we find that the Prairies, Ontario and B.C., in that order, have experienced the greatest percentage of unemployment increase, compared with the increase in December of last year, of any of the provinces.
The Prairies are trying to diminish their relative dependence upon agriculture. For its part, my own province has made real progress in this direction. Manitoba's figures for 1968 reveal that while agriculture accounted for only $480 million, manufacturing was $1,052 million, and mineral productivity was up to nearly $200 million. This should be a healthy trend, one toward which we are all working and one that we hope to accelerate, but our markets for manufacturing are as follows: Some 37.8 per cent of Manitoba's markets are in the rest of Canada, with Ontario and Quebec together being by far the largest portion of these customers, to the extent of roughly 20 per cent. On the other hand, our foreign markets amount to only 5.5 per cent of our manufactured production. In other words, we depend to a large extent on the very markets that the federal government has been trying to cool, while our manufacturers, unlike those in other places, share only marginally in the benefits of Canada's booming export trade.
But if you look at the corresponding figures for Ontario and Quebec, you find that their manufacturers depend upon sales to the rest of Canada to the tune of a mere 13.2 per cent as compared with our 37.8 per cent, far less than either their domestic consumption or their exports to foreign lands, which together account for some
86.6	per cent of their production. We in Manitoba consign or export only 62 per cent. Thus, Manitoba is far more vitally concerned with prosperity in central Canada than one might at first suspect, and Ontario for its part is far less concerned with the west. Here we see a fundamental

January 18, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Osier
change from the days of long ago, and here we see that when you diminish activity in Ontario and British Columbia to fight inflation, Manitoba's prosperity is bound to diminish. Other parts of Canada may have needed deflation last year, but we certainly did not need it in Manitoba.
Now, I should like to look at some population figures for a moment. In 1911, the Prairies had 18.5 per cent of the population of Canada and enjoyed 12.2 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. In 1931, that figure had gone up to 22.6 per cent and Manitoba enjoyed 22 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. In 1951, that figure had gone down to 18.1 per cent of the population, with only 18 per cent of the representation in the House of Commons. In 1968, Manitoba had dropped to
16.7	per cent of the population, with only 17 per cent of the representation in the House of Commons. It is quite clear that Manitoba and the Prairies have slowly dropped in relative importance, both in population and representation. This has happened since the mid-1930s, and our net migratory figures back this up. Between 1951 and 1956 Manitoba lost 185 people. From 1956 to 1961 Manitoba lost 4,360 people, and from 1961 to 1966 it lost 28,960. Unofficial figures show that this trend has continued from that point.
These facts reveal that trade links within Canada no longer pull east and west, if you look at this matter from the viewpoint of a westerner. They do not seem to bind the east and west together as they did in days gone by. Canada's trade centres are important, but Manitoba's relative trading position within confederation is diminishing all the time. At one time the population of the Prairies was growing and providing domestic markets for the centre. It grew and provided domestic markets for the centre until the 1930s, but it has been steadily declining as a market in recent years. So has the muscle of the Prairies in the House of Commons been declining. At the same time, the importance of the external market for the central province has been increasing steadily.
Thus my figures show, Ontario may be prospering by exporting goods from Canada, but we are exporting chiefly our unemployment problem. We in Manitoba have been an exporter of people for years. We export them to Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. That is why our seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment is only 4.3 per cent, well below the national average. Our unemployment problem is relatively much less severe than it is in many places, but there is very little consolation in this because the people we might otherwise have available to employ have simply left and swollen the ranks of the unemployed in other parts of Canada. When times are good these people have left Manitoba, they have added to the population problem in Ontario and B.C. and they have contributed to inflation in the areas to which they have moved. Then the federal government has taken antiinflationary measures that inevitably clobber Manitoba and some other provinces as well. Manitoba was clobbered last year as an unintended by-product of federal government concern to keep our exports competitive and to keep inflation from taking hold in central Canada. Now we find when times are not so good, the federal
government comes along with remedies based on total unemployment figures at above 4 per cent, which inevitably benefit chiefly the provinces which caused the trouble in the first place but presently have the highest number of unemployed.
Very few measures proposed in this budget will help to improve Manitoba's relative position in confederation, a position, as I have said, that we have seen slowly being eroded over the last 20 years. Some of those measures will apparently worsen that position. By themselves they are good measures and I will certainly support them, but they show little evidence of truly federal thinking, and federal thinking is required today as never before. One chief objective of a federal state must be to bring into balance the elements that make up the whole. This is the stated objective of the government that is presently in power. We must never forget this objective. To achieve it we must return to our earlier preoccupation with the national axis we have built, the axis that flows east and west. If we fail to do so, we are nothing as a nation. Furthermore, we must deliberately foster policies that will move our surplus population into the west and into the north.
Immediate hope for a change must lie in the activities of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I was glad to hear the minister say that upward of $300 million will be spent in 1971-72. But I would like to know what yardstick will be used to allocate these funds. If unemployment is the sole criterion, the money will evaporate as far as Manitoba and some of the other provinces are concerned, because we have exported our unemployment for years. On the other hand, if the yardstick is to be equitable economic opportunity for all regions, which is the stated objective of this government, we in Manitoba will be able to retain our hope for the future of Manitoba and Canada as a whole. Regional economic expansion, coupled with measures already being taken to get Prairie agriculture on a sound, longterm basis, may then become something that is truly effective as we go into our second century.
I have in mind regional economic expansion, plus rationalization of agriculture. A third vital measure which I propose is a regional stabilization fund. Some machinery must be devised so that monetary and fiscal policy can be regionalized in this federal state, and provincial fiscal policy can then be used for purposes of stabilization. I am heartened to know that various ministers of finance are devoting some thought to this problem. I repeat, some way must be found to stimulate or hold back the economy in a specific region without affecting the Canadian economy across the board.
Dr. Andre Raynauld of the University of Montreal proposed such a scheme some time ago. He is a very respected economist. It would seem to me that the federal government has accepted some of his suggestions, at least in part, by creating a loan fund of $150 million for provincial public works. But by making actual unemployment figures the sole criterion, the government has made it impossible for the fund to contribute to fiscal planning on a regional basis, which is what Dr. Raynauld was

January 18, 1971

talking about in the first place. Yet that is one key element in any progress that Manitoba and several other provinces vitally need.
The prime, long-term objective of this or any other federal government must be to work toward a more equitable distribution of income and employment opportunities in Canada as a whole. We must never forget this fact. I have spoken about Manitoba but no doubt my remarks apply to other areas as well.
I commend the minister for his budget. I hope that his next budget in March and his new tax bill, for that matter, will show more aggression toward the question of regional disparity. Then we shall be able to look forward to a Canada in which it is no longer necessary to turn the St. Lawrence valley and the lower Fraser River into a polluted slum, for then, Mr. Speaker, there will be equality of opportunity for Canadians everywhere, no matter where they may choose to live.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, the performance of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) tonight in answering an opposition member's question reminded me of a cartoon in today's paper in which the caption reads, "You will feel better when you are seasonally adjusted". I am sure that the unemployed who are walking the streets do not care if we are talking about actual or seasonally adjusted figures. They know they are unemployed, they know there is some reason for their unemployment, and they know the government is not doing anything to help them.
Canada today is a computerized society in which there is unemployment and underemployment. Apparently, most of our problems are fed into computers and before taking decisions the government consults its computers. It seems that the government is not prepared to ask sociologists what the trouble is in this society; it would rather feed some facts into a computer and try to obtain answers that way. It is high time that people realized our society is being controlled by computerization. Until our people realize this, the situation will not be corrected.
Some who have no knowledge of the matters concerned are trying to bring about change. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has substantiated the fact that Canada has the worst unemployment figure in the western world. That is nothing to be proud of. Apparently the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says, "It is normal to have unemployment." I suggest that the Prime Minister-who is overseas riding turtles, or whatever it is he is riding-ought to be more concerned about Canada. I am sure that we do not disapprove of an individual's recreation or relaxation. However, we want our Prime Minister to stand up and be counted before the nations of the world. His conduct in going off on a weekend when dynamic questions must be settled in the world, was disgraceful, to say the least, and it is hightime the people of Canada told this government that they want the Prime Minister to stand up and tell the rest of the world where we stand on certain questions.
The Budget-Mr. Skoberg
We may well ask ourselves who has created the long queues across Canada for unemployment insurance benefits. Who has made queues outside soup kitchens the norm? The other day I saw the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) on television. He was outside a soup kitchen in Vancouver. No doubt he could tell many stories about what he saw in that city. Other members of this House could also recount what their constituents have told them. As a matter of fact, the day before yesterday I learned of an individual, 50 years old, who worked all his life. Now, because he cannot find employment, he must stand in the soup line. He has raised a family and now he is humiliated and is asking himself what has happened to him in this society. It is high time situations like his were corrected.
We must not do what the Prime Minister is suggesting. He is suggesting that only by creating unemployment can Canada fight the inflation that is besetting it. One man alone cannot create the confusion we see around us. The Prime Minister is surrounded by many people who advise him. I understand that he has his own little hierarchy which operates independently of the cabinet. The people in this hierarchy tell the Prime Minister what he should do.
I cannot for one moment imagine the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), who spoke this afternoon, really saying what is in his mind, because he merely parroted certain words and phrases. We do not expect the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) or the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) to say, "We are not concerned about people". This makes me wonder whether it is not the Prime Minister's hierarchy that is prepared to do away with the pride and dignity of individual Canadians and to curtail their civil rights, as happened recently.
This afternoon the Minister of Labour suggested to my colleague, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), that those who are taking manpower retraining are not effectively shown among the ranks of the unemployed. He tried to suggest, in my opinion, that those who are receiving manpower retraining should not be included among the ranks of the unemployed. Yet I have heard of situations across this country, Mr. Speaker, in which people who tried to obtain manpower retraining were not able to obtain it because they had not been on the labour force for a sufficient number of weeks. In other cases, people were not eligible to be paid relocation costs because they had gone out and obtained jobs on their own. I think these are matters the minister ought to look into.
Only last night the editor of one of the Montreal newspapers called Canada the "the publicipatory" democracy of Mr. Trudeau, and I agree.
According to well-documented figures and facts mentioned this afternoon, it appears that unemployment in this country has increased by 40 per cent since last year. We know that these figures do not necessarily tell the whole truth, because many of the unemployed will not go down to the unemployment insurance offices and be classed among the unemployed; neither will they go to

January 18, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Skoberg
offices offering social aid and place themselves in a humiliating position. Many people across this country are parroting the phrase: things could be worse! But I suggest that if one examines the facts he will see that things will be worse. The facts show that they will be worse, and this government has told the House of no plans for making them better.
I now turn to the situation in Saskatchewan. The Liberal Premier of that province makes much of the fact that unemployment on the Prairies, particularly in Saskatchewan, has not increased appreciably. I know that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, is a personal friend of the Premier of Saskatchewan. I also know that he would like to try to educate the Premier of Saskatchewan. That feeling seems to be mutual as between them.
The Premier of Saskatchewan has suggested that unemployment in his province stands at only 2.5 per cent. The Dominion Burea of Statistics says that it stands at
4.7	per cent. The DBS says that in 1969 only 16,000 persons of the combined work force were unemployed in Saskatchewan, and that in 1970 the figure remained at
16.000.	Yet according to DBS figures, 4.7 per cent of the people were unemployed. The Premier prides himself on his figures; they look good. But the export of unemployed to other parts of the country is nothing to be proud of. I suggest that the Premier of Saskatchewan had better look at the situation across the country so that he may know what it is all about.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


John Leroy Skoberg: If it is not too long.


Otto Emil Lang: I wonder, in the matter of the export of unemployed from Saskatchewan to British Columbia, whether the hon. member has included the leader of his party.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: That is a truly sarcastic
response. The minister sounds just like a professor-no brains, but all smart talk.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I realize the minister's position. He is a friend of the Premier of Saskatchewan and he wants to protect him in the coming provincial election. Of course, that is not why the minister is worried. He is worried about what may happen in the next federal election. He may face problems of his own in Saskatoon-Humboldt, Saskatchewan.


Frank Howard: He may even go back to the university.


John Leroy Skoberg: As the leader of the NDP (Mr. Douglas) suggested, he may not be back here. I wish to deal with some of the problems in the province of Saskatchewan. On October 1, 1968, the population of that province was
926.000.	On October 1, 1969, the population was 956,000,

and on October 1, 1970, the population was 933,000. There was a drop in the population in Saskatchewan of 23,000 at a time when there also should have been a normal national increase of 10,000. There are 33,000 people who should be living in Saskatchewan today but who are living elsewhere. This is attributable, mainly, to the Premier of that province and Liberal policy. It is no different in Saskatchewan than it is at the federal level, even though they may like to divorce each other. We have seen that happen. There has been quite a lot of discussion about abortion, and I am sure one applies to the other.
e (8:50 p.m.)
In a four month period, 7,000 people left Saskatchewan. What does this mean? If these 33,000 people had remained in Saskatchewan, it is estimated that the unemployment figure in the province would be in the vicinity of 9 per cent. The Premier of that province was interviewed by Charles King of the Ottawa Citizen on December 11, 1970. Mr. King was on a coast-to-coast expedition to catch the Canadian mood. The Premier was interviewed with regard to the general mood of the province. Mr. Thatcher is quoted in the article as saying as follows:
We had our depression here last year. Now we have the lowest unemployment in the nation-only 2.5 per cent.
The article continues:
Premier Thatcher thinks it is a tragedy that Prime Minister Trudeau doesn't pay more attention to the west if for only selfish political reasons.
I do not know if the minister from Saskatoon-Humboldt is aware of the fact that for selfish political reasons he could swing some of the central Canada wealth to western Canada. We have heard about how much money went into wheat input, but there has not been very much encouragement with regard to most of the province. Mr. Thatcher was asked by Charles King what he planned to do in the future. Mr. Thatcher said it will then be time for someone else with new ideas to take over. Although he had not made up his mind, it may be his last election to fight. The article reads:
"And when I go, it won't be to return to Ottawa or accept a Senate appointment."
I understand the Premier of Saskatchewan receives a federal pension. The article continues:
"I've got 10,000 acres running with cattle, and when the weather gets cold, I can always take a holiday in the south. What more can I ask?"
I ask Premier Thatcher whether he would consider passing a little of the 10,000 acres over to the 33,000 people who found it necessary to leave that province. The time has come to look at the situation to see whether we are really concerned about the population. Are we concerned about co-operating with certain people, or with the people in general? In my opinion, this is not being done. I believe the situation in Saskatchewan also holds true so far as the federal government is concerned. The Thatcher Liberals have not used all the money avail-
January 18, 1971

able for public housing. I do not blame the federal Liberals for this. If there is unemployment in Saskatchewan, and the government has not used all the money that is available, who is to blame for the unemployment in that province?
When do the Thatcher Liberals start planning their winter works program? In the middle of the winter the Saskatchewan government decides what to do. Hon. members know that nothing can be accomplished with planning of that nature. The hon. member who spoke before me was quite concerned about the problems of Manitoba, even though he had some good words for that province. The province of Manitoba started to plan its winter works projects last spring and some are being carried on at the present time. The government of Saskatchewan allocated the grand sum of $15 million for winter works. In Manitoba, $74 million was allocated. If the government of Saskatchewan is trying to create employment in this way, I say that province has the wrong government. I am sure something will be done about this situation at the next provincial election. Some of the announcements made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) and other ministers with regard to establishing new projects were as a result of the pressure put on them by opposition members. Pressure was also applied by many thousands of people in today's bread lines. The government knows there is no way that the announced programs can begin this winter.
There will be a very opportune time before the next federal election to lower the unemployment figure. The government knows that by lowering the unemployment figure they can possibly get back in the good grace of the people of this country. I have confidence that the people of this country will remember the length of time they spent on the unemployment rolls and trying to get a bowl of soup. They will remember when the government brought about unemployment. It has been suggested that the Prime Minister is gearing all these programs for a federal election. The Prime Minister has stated we must now fight the economic ill-unemployment. Why has he waited until now? Not very long ago a businessman told me he would be happy if there were a line of unemployed people stretching from his doorstep to the street so that he could pick who he wanted. I wonder whether the federal government and the Treasury Board are using the same philosophy?
This afternoon the Minister of Labour spoke about people getting together, and gloom and doom. I wonder whether he has talked to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. They claim that law, order and pollution are all top issues. I wonder whether the minister has told them not to preach gloom and doom or we may lose some of the carrots hung out by some corporate enterprises. This is another situation wherein the unemployed are not being considered.
There have been many recent news releases and observations in connection with Information Canada. I do not know whether the government is trying to adopt the philosophy of Canadian National Railways, Canadian Pacific Railway and other companies in connection with
The Budget-Mr. Skoberg
contracting out. Information Canada does not hesitate to unload people with many, many years of government service. One such individual is Mr. Stranks. A newspaper article concerning Mr. Stranks reads as follows:
In the past year Mr. Stranks feels the branch has been cutting back on expenditures and "generally tightening up the operation" to meet Treasury Board edicts that it pay its way-
Mr. Stranks charged that Information Canada was following the government hard line so closely that it was sacrificing talent to its budget goal.
"No computer or accountant can tell you the people, the talents and the experience you will need. It can't evaluate related strengths in various fields."
The computer is trying to take over from human beings who are needed in today's world. There is no consideration whatsoever to social issues. In the nineteenth century there were what were called robber barons. They accumulated everything that they could without any regard for mankind or the social and economic concerns of the society in which they operated. We see this today in the actions of the government. There are robber barons in the transportation system. The president of the Canadian Transport Commission is a typical robber baron. I understand that he has one philosophy with regard to the operation of the Canadian Transport Commission, that is, to do away with anything he considers to be not in the best interests of the fast buck process of the railways. As far as I can figure out, the only criterion under which the CTC is operating now, under the direction of its president, is to make sure of a dollar where-ever you can, without worrying about service to the people.
We saw a typical example of this in connection with the recently announced abandonment of trains 7 and 8. The railway company called it a curtailment because they hoped that by doing so they would avoid having to hold a public hearing. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) told us the other day there would be a public hearing. We shall have to wait and see. But under this proposal about 57 men on the work force will be directly affected. In addition there are whole communities which will no longer be served under the proposed arrangement-communities where the primary source of employment is the railroad. Again, we will find one factor affecting another, one abandonment leading to another right down the line.
Across this country from Newfoundland to Victoria, passenger trains are being abandoned. The Transport Commission and the Minister of Transport himself have initiated research projects in this connection but these projects have not been completed. I am sure that had they been completed they would have shown that some of the abandonments should never have taken place.
I see from a news release that the Minister of Transport the other day announced the automation of the Canadian portion of the world wide ICAO aeronautical,
January 18, 1971

The Budget-Mr. Skoberg
fixed telecommunications network. The report stated in part:
Not only has the adoption of this automated system provided improved message transmission standards, but savings in the order of $500,000 a year have been made by the department through reductions in office space, equipment and personnel.
Again we find arrangements made designed to bring about reductions in the number of personnel employed, without any provision for the social climate in which these people live. Similar considerations apply to the CNR servo centres which are being introduced across the Canadian railway system. My information is that as many as 4,000 jobs will disappear with the implementation of these centres. The plan is proceeding, apparently, without any thought being given to the situation of communities which used to have services provided along the line. Again, workers are being told: You are through, fellows. You have been here for 20 years, but too bad.
Most of us have read about the large amounts of money which have been put into the bilingual program. I am a firm believer in a bilingual program, but it makes no difference whether an individual speaks six languages-if he is unemployed, he is unemployed. Millions of dollars are being spent today on language training, and in the end the people who have been able to take advantage of this training find themselves still unemployed. I agree 100 per cent with the leader of the Creditistes when he said some time ago that the bilingual program should start at the bottom and work up to the top.
There is a need for people who are able to speak two languages in this country, but there is also a need to make this possible under a system from which everyone will benefit. It should not be brought in in an atmosphere where individuals in government departments and elsewhere are more concerned about that program than they are about an employment program. The recent settlement with General Motors is an example. The language issue presented no difficulty when the workers were given job security. When people from coast to coast have the opportunity to work, the rest will work itself out. But this does not appear to be the way in which we now operate in Canada.
On May 4 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the following question:
In view of the Prime Minister's assurance to Mr. Bourassa of Quebec that he would help him to meet his pledge to create 10,000 new jobs in that province by the end of 1971, can the Prime Minister give a similar assurance to the Premier of Saskatchewan who in 1964 promised that 50,000 new jobs would be created within four years?
Of course, Mr. Speaker, you correctly said "Order, please," as you did today, and the question was ruled out of order. The people of Quebec and Saskatchewan know that political promises of this type can do more harm than anything else to the unity of a nation.
I also note that the Quebec Minister of Labour said recently that the province faces more social unrest and political instability if mounting unemployment there is not checked. A news report states in part:
Asked whether this would mean revolution, he replied: "Well, if you want to put that type of word in my mouth, fine. It leads to revolution, certainly not evolution."
I would ask hon. members to recall what others have said as far as revolution and evolution in that province are concerned. The Quebec Labour Minister recently made the statement I have quoted, that perhaps there could be revolution. But has he been brought up under the provisions of the public order bill which was recently before the House? Not long ago the leader of the Liberal Party in B.C. said there could be blood running in the streets of British Columbia. What are these people saying? When one person tries to warn the government about social and economic problems in the country he is accused of trying to bring about an insurrection. But what is the government really doing about its friends, Liberals, who make the same kind of statements on television and in the press?
I turn from those unfortunate remarks, in my opinion, by the Minister of Labour of Quebec and the leader of the Liberals in British Columbia, to the activities of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is also concerned about wheat. One special interest of his is retraining. He has tried to chase the farmers off the land so that he can retrain them, I suppose. I am sure this is why the Prime Minister put these two jobs together. The minister has not yet told us how he intends to put to work the farmers who have been chased from the country into the cities, but we know they will have to take on the lowest jobs there are. No better example of his approach could be found than the proposal for a production and grain receipts policy. In a description of these proposals, on page 20, I find under the subheading "Encourage adjustment of farm units to more efficient sizes", the following:
The problem of farm consolidation is one which is not peculiar to the prairie region and which, perhaps, is less critical in this region than in other areas of Canada. It is therefore believed that it would be inappropriate to propose programs for the prairie region to deal with the consolidation issue in advance of the availability of programs to deal with this problem in Canadian agriculture generally. Such a general plan is in preparation.
I can only say that I hope the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, who is responsible for this proposal, will tell the people what it is all about. If he does not tell these people, then they are the ones who will become unemployed. Corporate farming will become consolidated and many more people will join the family of unemployed in this country. I urge the minister not to make a hasty decision with regard to this program, and to take into consideration those people who will be affected.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Sullivan).


Mr. Gordon Sullivan (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, since this is the budget debate I intend to speak about the cost of our medicare program, because if we do not do something to alleviate the cost we will find ourselves unable to afford medicare whether or not we have unemployment. It is to be hoped that this government will take a long, hard look at some of the rampaging costs and questionable services that have arisen as a result of our present health care philosophy. Undoubtedly, much good

January 18, 1971

has been achieved by this government's medicare program, but we must examine whether or not this good is sufficient when we consider the cost.
In 1957, Canada spent 3.23 per cent of the gross national product on health care and occupied third place in health care costs throughout the world. By 1966, Canada was spending 4.55 per cent of the gross national product, passing the United States, New Zealand, Great Britain and Norway, on health care costs. The cost of physicians' services rose from $271 million in 1957 to $605 million in 1966. According to the task force on medical care, in 1970 it is probable that Canadians paid just over $1 billion for physicians' services, out of a total personal health bill of $4.7 billion. If we project this forward to 1980, it is estimated that total costs for health care will be nearly $14 billion, with hospitals taking around $10 billion and physicians' services around $4 billion.
It is our responsibility to see that these costs are controlled without sacrificing our ideal, which must be to provide good medical care to each and every Canadian. Ideally, all Canadians should be protected by a health care program which a truly universal scheme would provide. In some provinces-I am speaking specifically about Ontario

this admirable quality has not been achieved. It is reported that approximately 98 per cent of Ontario's population have health insurance coverage. Some have hospitalization without medical care, and some medical care insurance without hospitalization. Two per cent does not seem very much, but in Ontario it amounts to around 140,000 individuals. If these people fall ill, with hospital beds at $60 to $100 per day and medical and surgical fees as they are, this amounts to a real catastrophe for their families. The people without coverage fall into four main categories. First, minorities in ethnic groups, often with language difficulties who do not understand the necessity for application forms. The complexities of having their premiums subsidized in part or in whole when necessary completely eludes them. The second group comprises youth who want no part of establishment premiums, transient tobacco field workers and various other "travellers" with no fixed addresses. Often these people are in poor health and need more care than the general population. The third group is those people who believe they are covered but when sudden illness strikes find to their horror that they are not. Neglect of the last premium notice, errors in billing, change of address and human forgetfulness account for this group.
The fourth group is the young, newly married couples who are not planning a family and are anticipating good health. To them, the monthly $11 for hospitalization and $11.80 for doctors' bills seems a waste of money. No doubt many of them do not require health care, but an emergency appendectomy or an automobile accident without insurance coverage is a staggering blow to their already meagre resources.
In our examination of our health care philosophy it is hoped that we all remember that it is twofold. We must not only insure people against financial hardship arising out of illness, but it is incumbent upon us to prevent the
The Budget-Mr. Sullivan
illness itself. The degree of our victory over such diseases as typhoid, diphtheria, and in our own time tuberculosis and poliomyelitis, came not from advances in health care schemes designed to pay doctor bills but from our ability to prevent disease.
Setting aside for a moment all of the humanitarian aspects and human suffering caused by illness, let us consider how many dollars and cents can be saved by prevention. Let us take cancer of the lung as an example. It is, as hon. members know, the most common form of cancer in the male. Leading authorities agree that it is 85 to 90 per cent preventable by proper health education to eliminate cigarette smoking. The addicted unbelievers here should carefully reread the report of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs on tobacco and cigarette smoking, presented by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) in the 1969-70 session. The pamphlet "Smoking and Health" from the Royal College of Physicians of London, England, also emphasizes the importance of prevention of this form of cancer.
Let us suppose the disease is not prevented and for a moment follow the usual course of treatment of a lung cancer patient. First, diagnosis must be made. This usually entails hospitalization, repeated sputum examinations by cystologists, multiple X-ray studies and tomogram studies by radiologists, and a bronchoscopic examination. To decide whether opening the patient's chest is warranted, a lymph gland biopsy under general anaesthetic is carried out. If all is favourable, a few days later removal of the lung or part of it is done. This is a long, difficult procedure. Two or three days or more in intensive care with highly trained nursing care, oxygen, respirators and chest suction, etc., follows the surgery. Massive radiation treatment at great cost, usually with the cobalt bomb, is given before or after surgery, and often both. Recurrences are common and a long lingering decline in a nursing home or hospital is usual. Approximately 5 to 6 per cent of all people with lung cancer survive five years.
Forgetting about each one of these unfortunate patients for a minute, let us consider how many thousands of dollars each one requires for such attention, and with so little to show for it in the final result. It is no wonder vast sums are paid for health care under our present system. As matters are now, the first line of defence is prevention of disease, early intervention and health education, and this lies with the general practitioner. In 1955 there were 9,800 general practitioners in Canada and 4,800 specialists, making a total of 14,600 practising doctors. The population of Canada was 15 million. In 1965 there were 10,000 general practitioners and 9,400 specialists, for a total of 19,400. The population was 19 million. Between 1955 and 1965 the population increased by 18 per cent. In these ten years, the number of specialists increased by 94.6 per cent but the number of general practitioners increased by only 4.1 per cent. These figures demonstrate the increasing lag between population growth and the number of family doctors.
In view of these facts, it is apparent that government spending must be more firmly directed toward producing more general practitioners to keep pace with the increase

January 18, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Sullivan
in population, and away from the expensive post-graduate training for specialists. This is the only way day-today family medical care needs can be satisfied. With each passing year hordes of eager, well trained neurosurgeons, orthopaedic surgeons, internists, neurologists, and so on ad infinitum, finish post-graduate courses, and each year there appears to be less and less need for them. In a country with the population of Canada it is unwise for each and every one of our medical schools to be an assembly-line factory, producing every variety of specialist. Canada simply cannot afford to support these comparatively unnecessary training programs with federal funds. The over-all doctor-population ratio in 1957 was .79 per 1,000 population, and in 1966 it was .86 per 1,000 population. So if the surfeit of specialists could be diverted into general practice, the family doctors who now have too little time to spend on prevention of disease and education of patients would be better able to perform these functions.
A general practitioner who sees anywhere between 30 to 60 patients in his office in one day has little time for health care or education. Since this is of prime importance, it follows that much greater emphasis must be placed upon the development of larger graduating classes to general practitioners. The old-time family doctor on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week-friend, counsellor and father to his patients-is fast becoming a legend of the past. The bell is tolling for the passing of the individual, competitive practice of medicine. The game has become too complex and too complicated. Doctors themselves are recognizing this is a practical way. To provide good grassroots medical care, clinics should be encouraged and geographically scattered to allow easy access to all our people. These should not be large nor burdened down with non-productive administrative personnel.
Basically well trained nurses, laboratory technicians and other paramedical personnel would assist the physician in his work by performing many of the routine tasks. Each clinic would have access to the services of certified specialists when deemed essential by the family doctor. Home care programs by visiting nurses, with house calls being made by doctors when required, could eliminate much unnecessary hospitalization. Hospitals could then devote themselves primarily to the care of the more seriously ill. Non-productive administrative staff that has nothing to do with the actual care of the patient would be trimmed to a minimum. Teaching of doctors and nurses, and whatever training of specialists is necessary, would be carried out at a few large university hospitals.
I shall conclude by quoting the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) who said that local doctors' groups in their discussions and examination of our health care system should keep an eye on duplication of services, should look for ways in which we can take a more balanced approach to health care and should make recommendations regarding more efficient operation of the system, as well as continue to improve the quality of our health care system.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker could I ask a question of the hon. member?


Gordon Joseph Sullivan: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mark Willson Rose: I was very interested in the hon. member's concern about health care and health costs. I ask whether he sees perhaps a diminution of health costs under medicare or under the various other schemes we have across Canada, and whether he would recommend that doctors abandon the very costly fee-for-service basis of charging for health care.


Gordon Joseph Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the hon. member was not listening to me. I certainly think they should abandon the fee-for-service.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieite):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate which I can only term most important under the present circumstances.
I assume that the aim of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in his last budget was the reduction of unemployment, which has developed into a very serious problem both in Quebec and in the other provinces.
This situation of course is getting more and more critical and people are losing confidence in the government because of the increasing climate of unstability.
Catchy slogans have been dreamed up, such as "just society" and "Quebec at work for 1971".; The government seems to have lost control of this situation, and I must simply recall that in 1968 the number of unemployed was near 300,000 whereas today there are about
600,000.
In spite of the tremendous amounts of credit injected into the economy of various areas, and especially into that of Quebec by the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), that action apparently was not enough. In fact, we still hear day after day about industries folding up or about substantial reductions in the number of workers in various Canadian industries. Obviously, the injecting capital as was done by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is necessary, but in my opinion it is equally important that the existing industries be protected and I think that the government's hesitation in limiting the import of certain goods that we produce in Canada accounts for the closing down of a certain number of plants and for the substantial reduction in personnel.
Several members have spoken before me and they all have quoted statistics which are becoming more and more tedious to listen to. I think that during this debate it is not enough that we should know what is happening. It is also our duty to submit suggestions liable to promote government action and this, not only in order to regain the confidence of the Canadian people, but to provide jobs for an impressive number of unemployed. We are all

January 18, 1971

committed to seeking the solutions they need to earn their living honourably.
Of course, this could be an opportunity to express only strict criticisms of the government. I still believe it to be the duty of all members to seek solutions. The government, if it shows a minimum of broad-mindedness, could accept good suggestions in order to improve this increasingly critical situation.
I cannot help mentioning the situation prevailing in Quebec.
I imagine that other hon. members will take the liberty of discussing what they are most interested in, that is the provinces they represent. As a member from Quebec, I cannot refrain from deploring the present situation in that province.
No doubt the recent budget is very acceptable to Quebec, since an important part of the funds provided will be available to that province, but one must not believe that such injections of capital into Quebec will, in the short run, correct the situation. One must be sufficiently honest to admit that their effect may be favourably felt next summer. With regard to the present situation, it is enough to refer to a statement that the Quebec premier made only ten days ago admitting his deplorable inability to create 100,000 jobs. In fact, it is the second time that we hear the "song of the 100,000 jobs".
I was very disappointed to learn over the weekend that the development of the Sainte-Scholastique Airport which could create 100,000 jobs will only give employment to 22,000 at the most by 1985, according to the statistics supplied by the civil servants of the province of Quebec. We had been brought to dream of this extraordinary project and the majority of people on the North shore were very happy, as 22,000 jobs is a very acceptable and even necessary thing at the present time in the province of Quebec.
But why was this figure exaggerated to reinforce the slogan of "100,000 jobs"?
I would imagine that all municipalities situated near Sainte-Scholastique and those on the North shore were most satisfied to hear that this project was going to provide 100,000 new jobs. Yet sober statistics indicate that the real number is but 25 per cent of this figure.
In April, last year, we heard another promise of 100,000 jobs. With the pitiful failure that ensued, Premier Bourassa must have been hard-pressed (bourasse) by a great number of newspapermen for a good reason, over the past ten days. So, I ask all members from the province of Quebec to come to the aid of the Quebec government and to make it realize that some help from the federal government is obviously needed. I will not let the Quebec government accuse the federal members of being responsible because this promise is proving to be impracticable.
As I said, that slogan was exaggerated. Some now suggest that it was not a promise but that conditions were dramatized. It was not necessary to make such a
The Budget-Mr. La Salle
promise to dramatize conditions; they were then dramatic enough.
I will make some suggestions, because I said that I would not merely criticize. We could make this government responsible for all the evils which Canada is now experiencing. It would be unfair to do so because some members have shown their goodwill.
Besides hesitation created an atmosphere which further deteriorated the situation. The responsibility of those in power should nonetheless be recognized. As for us, for the last two years and a half we have been trying to make suggestions which more often than not are unfortunately rejected.
We must be realistic and honest enough to recognize that the government is unable to check unemployment at present for several reasons. If unemployment is out of hand, we should be honest enough to admit it. I feel that the people insist that we tell them the truth.
In these circumstances, I believe that the federal government should seriously consider calling together representatives of labours unions, businessmen, industrialists, Boards of Trade, certain service clubs, as well as of provincial governments, in order to discuss this problem.
That meeting has to take place urgently so that a solution may be found. It is obvious that the government does not have a solution, and that it cannot find one.
Thus it has to address itself to experienced people and to let them know that this meeting is called in the interest of industry, of financiers and the government, in short of the whole population.
I trust the businessmen. I trust those who have been active for many years in industry to give advice to the Minister of Finance as well as to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and to hon. members.
Such a meeting would first prove the good will of the government with regard to this problem. Such a meeting would prove to the union members and their leaders, to the business world and the population as a whole that we are in earnest about trying to find a solution once and for all.
We could pretend that the present government, in charge of the future of Canada, has found a solution. While the Canadian people waited, it was realized that the government has not really found a solution, that it should ask for the help of experienced men, of businessmen. It must interest them directly so that we might find again the stability which is absolutely necessary for the survival of Canada and the betterment of its people.
Such a meeting might enable us to find solutions for processing our natural resources, here, on Canadian soil, something our governments seem to have overlooked in years past.
It seems to me that in the last few years the government applied itself to improve social measures when it would have been more urgent to improve conditions for industry. Therefore, it would have been possible to create

January 18, 1971
The Budget-Mr. La Salle
new jobs through research and development of new products.
Now, to turn to another subject, should we seriously consider paying the old age pension at 60? I would not know exactly how many persons of that age would qualify. I believe it would be more profitable first to set up an increased pension for people 60 and over.
With an adequate pension to live on, they would make room for thousands of young workers who are now getting benefits out of social legislation. It is inconceivable that so much energy should be wasted in Canada. It is also important to provide jobs for those who are able to work, in order to be able to pay an adequate pension to those who deserve to take a rest. The government should remember this suggestion.
We should also consider the need for student employment next summer. I have had the opportunity, recently, to ask the minister a question in this regard and he answered that he would make a statement in due time. I suggest that the time has now come. In fact, students are concerned about finding a job next summer and I think that a conscientious government should consider the possibility of providing students with summer employment.
Of course the government could consider apportioning a few million dollars more to this end but I think it is high time to restore a climate of confidence in this country.
We must consider giving all our students the possibility of earning a minimum income during the summer season and the government should set up a work program to be assigned to these youth in various fields and departments. It is too late to wonder about what we are going to do. The government must find a solution so that young people will be able, next summer, to earn enough money to complete their education.
As these new skilled workers are entering the labour market, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce should consider the possibility of creating as many specialized positions as possible.
Everybody must be given an opportunity for education, but it is not less important to create as many new jobs. It seems that this has not been the case so far and that our leaders have not taken due account of this situation.
In taking part in this debate, I take the opportunity to urge the government to come back not to reason, but to a more serious approach to these options, to these suggestions.
We must also seriously consider offering alternatives to all those who will eventually have to give up farming. Willy-nilly, a policy was established; it means dissuasion compelling some farmers to leave the farm. In some cases, when the operation is not profitable, consolidation is necessary to achieve profitability. I would be shortsighted if I asked the government to make sure that all the farmers will keep their farm and get enough subsidies to live on.
However, a minimum of organization is required. A number of operations should remain, provided they prove profitable. Considering such a policy, now more and more common, a government is bound to carry on a program affording those forced to relinquish their land and operations an alternative other than social welfare. Unfortunately, for some years, this is all that could be offered them. I hope that our suggestions will be accepted. We have already been urging the government to a sufficient extent.
As concerns construction, it affects a large part of the labour force in Canada. Again, I beg the government to seriously consider repealing the 11 per cent tax on building materials.
The government should also be invited to study the possibility of granting a rebate on mortgage interests commensurate to the income of the individual contemplating ownership.
Could we not also think of a short-term building policy, of paying a premium to all those who want to buy property within a year or two? Such a measure should be followed by capital investments but how can we contemplate this in view of interest rates now prevailing? How can we launch a short-term building program with monthly rents of $130 to $150? This is why it is most important to eliminate the 11 per cent tax on building materials as it would markedly decrease the price of a house and we should also set up an interest refund policy in proportion to the salary of the would-be buyer of a house.
Since the minister in charge is in the House, I will take advantage of this opportunity to draw his attention to the speculative loans which he permitted in certain regions last fall and which were welcome. These loans enabled the average contractors to benefit from anticipated loans and the small contractors to give jobs to some workers.
I agree that the government could and should normally keep at the disposal of contractors a significant amount of money. On the other hand, with the elimination of this distasteful 11 per cent tax and the adoption of a lower rate of interest, manufacturers of building material and officials of carpenters' and of other trades' associations might be encouraged to increase salaries.
Maybe a meeting between the minister and the representatives of all the construction trades associations should be considered in order to come to a 2 or 3-year agreement. There could also be an agreement on the suspension of the right to strike and the wage freeze. Thus the minister seeing the willingness of the people concerned in the building industry, could accept the provision of additional funds for the creation of a short term construction program.
I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that those suggestions will arouse the attention of the minister. I hope the government will approve such a policy for the good of those who wish to own a house.
I also wish to avail myself of this opportunity to voice vigorous protests to the government for having terminat-

January 18, 1971

ed the winter works program. We already criticized severely the government for that. The abolition of winter works shows more than ever this year what a colossal error was made and how costly it is for most of the areas in Canada. A serious study of the desirability of certain works should have been made. On the other hand, a selective system was essential as to the kind of works and the municipalities as well as the provinces should have been given a certain form of guarantee. Keeping the winter works program as regards certain public services and buildings would have enabled us to cope with unemployment. But as the government did not want to understand anything, we must now recognize that the situation is more critical than ever.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government to vote credits for the construction of sewage treatment plants in several Canadian municipalities. We want to fight pollution, but what are we doing to help the municipalities build them? As long as we continue to talk pollution, we are wasting our time. The municipalities in need of sewage plants cannot afford them; they are already overburdened with debts. The government should, in conjunction with provincial governments if need be, grant the required funds for the construction of sewage treatment plants and thus fight against pollution while creating new jobs.
I want to remind the Minister of Finance that considering the debts of municipalities, it would be opportune to grant them low-interest loans. Almost all municipalities in Quebec must spend 33 per cent of their budgets just to amortize the interests of existing debts. Large sums of money will have to be appropriated so that these municipalities may redeem their debts at a reasonable interest rate. Whether we like it or not, the way things are going it is unthinkable to let municipalities operate as they do now.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot conclude without a few words about the future of the tobacco industry. I had the opportunity to discuss the matter briefly last week when speaking to an amendment to the crop insurance legislation. I hope that the government will seriously consider the future of the tobacco industry.
I met during the weekend some tobacco producers of my area who represent 90 per cent of Quebec cigarette tobacco producers. There are still more in Ontario. They are already concerned because the government plans to introduce a bill to prohibit all publicity concerning tobacco.
I hope that the government will first pass a legislation to prohibit the entry of drugs in Canada and the use of marijuana. How can we win the people's confidence if there is talk of prohibiting any publicity relating to tobacco, an industry which brings in millions to the Canadian government? So, the mere fact of raising this question leaves people puzzled, and rightly so.
On the one hand, the Minister of Agriculture keeps on, and I commend him for it, investing huge sums in the
The Budget-Mr. A. Lambert improvement of certain tobacco soils in Canada, and, on the other hand, the Minister of National Health and Welfare makes sure to inform all the people that if they keep on smoking, they will die.
Thus, this contradiction will do nothing but widen the credibility gap among the people. Let us therefore be serious and practical; let us not allow drugs into Canada as it is being done right now, and we will then be able to consider seriously, rather than condemning the tobacco industry, undertaking studies to help the people understand better the use of tobacco. There is certainly a lot to do in that connection, and in regard to a number of other products as well.
I venture to think that Parliament, in all honesty, will have the courage to take a stand and show sincerity, if we are to really regain the public's confidence and establish a favourable climate. In this way, all financiers and businessmen will come to trust Parliament again and believe that it is possible to find a solution to the unemployment problem so that we may know better times. I hope that this two-day debate will not have been useless, that the time for words has come to an end and that the government will take some concrete measures for the good of the Canadian people.
The Canadian people will be able to regain confidence in this Parliament, if we tell them the truth and if we take action.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, 1 think that it is my duty to take part in this debate in order to offer my co-operation. I call upon the government to apply solutions to the serious problem of unemployment and to all other resulting problems.
This afternoon, I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey). From this speech, I kept in mind three main points.
First, he said that in the banks, there was much money awaiting borrowers. Everybody knows that! I am convinced that those who need it more are more aware of it, because it happens very often that businessmen, industrialists come to Ottawa-as was the case last week-to meet officials in order to avail themselves of certain pieces of legislation to offer bankers guarantees allowing them to borrow money so as to carry on their operations.
Mr. Speaker, we know there is a lot of money around somewhere. Everyone knows that banks have the privilege of coining the nation's credit and that is what we are fighting. We consider that is abnormal. 1 will try to prove that within the few minutes available to me.
Would it not be democratic for the Bank of Canada, the people's bank, to have the power and the duty of coining the nation's credit? What is the nation's credit? In my opinion, the nation's credit is a product of people and of activities of all kinds. It is the product of the work of Canadians, whether they work in construction, in a shoe factory or in a garment industry, whether they are professionals, providing professional services to those who require them, businessmen, industrialists or members of Parliament. In my opinion, a nation's credit is

January 18, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
made up of all their activities and thus we can live in society, making use of goods and services exclusively created by Canadians.
The trust that, as the member for Bellechasse, I may have in society is what makes me call on a tailor, tomorrow, and buy a suit if I need one or to call on a doctor to get medical care. This trust in society is what makes up a nation's credit.
If this is what the credit of a nation really is, why should we let institutions cash in on this credit, this wealth of the people, created by the nation, and then lend it to us at high interest rates? Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, would the distinguished deputy whip of the government party confirm by a nod of his head that we are to go on with the budget debate tomorrow and thus continue the discussion on this very serious matter that is of interest to all Canadians?


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Speaker, I am nodding my head. Yes, we shall continue the debate tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. nember will yet be Prime Minister.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago in this chamber I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) to intervene on behalf of northern Ontario to dissuade Canadian National Railways from its callous and ill-advised decision to cancel trains No. 7 and No. 8 which presently provide essential passenger and express service in a part of this nation which the Bishop of Moosonee has called "-Canada's cutting edge". In a letter to the Canadian Transport Commission, the bishop wrote as follows regarding the decision to cancel these trains:
comes as a heavy blow to those who live in the communities along the line as well as to those who try to serve them in varying capacities. These communities may be small, but they do contain people whose only access to the outside world is by rail. If I have learned my history right, the principle upon which the railway was built was to weld Canada into a nation by serving such people in isolation. It is a sad day if we change such a worth-while base to that of economic expediency.
At a time in our history when we are trying to unite our nation, we have a publicly-owned railway eliminating services which are essential for the orderly develop-

ment of our rich natural resources. Federal and provincial governments are offering incentives to industry to locate in slow-growth regions, and meanwhile a heavily subsidized Crown corporation drastically downgrades its services in one of these very regions that governments are trying to help.
On previous occasions this House has heard reference to the Mid-Canada Development Foundation, an organization with a plan for the rational development of Canada's habitable mid-north which is fabulously rich in untapped forest and mineral wealth. Canadian National Railways have encouraged this concept and have acted on the advisory council of the foundation. When you consider how the CNR operates across northern Ontario, and when you witness the poor quality of the service they provide, it is easy to conclude that they are in no way an active participant in the plans and projects to unite and develop Canada.
The CNR, in its defence, argues that profit and loss have dictated their decision; that these trains are money losers and serve no useful purpose. Crews working these trains think otherwise. Despite the downgrading of the service on Nos. 7 and 8 to a single coach in which one cannot even purchase a poor cup of coffee and a stale sandwich, these trains frequently travel filled to capacity, with some passengers having to ride in the baggage car while others are left on windblown station platforms due to lack of space. There is not much room in the baggage cars either, because they carry express, especially perishable goods destined for isolated communities along the line and for shipment further north by air.
The railway company argues, further, that its so-called "Super Continental" will assume the workload of trains Nos. 7 and 8. Those who know consider this to be a very bad joke. From December 1, 1970, to January 8, 1971, the "Super Continental" ran on time only once. Over this short period of time it was late for an accumulated total of 200 hours. This performance clearly points out that had trains 7 and 8 not been operating, there would have been many days when daily service would not have been available in many northern Ontario communities. On some days the "Super" was as much as 16J hours late on its eastward run. If it takes on the work of train No. 8, we may expect it to be a day or more late, in which case this transcontinental service will be reduced to milk run status. Perhaps that is part of CNR's grand design, to downgrade this service as well and at some future time apply for its cancellation also. To some it seems clear that the CNR wants out of the transportation business altogether.
The public attitude to the CNR across northern Ontario is one of anger and disgust, employee morale is at an all-time low, and the service provided ranges from poor to none at all. My constituents have asked for a public inquiry into the situation, but the railway transport committee is not so obliging when the service is only a reduction rather than an absolute cancellation-a neat little game of semantics.
CNR officials were ordered to inform the people of the alternate service to be provided, and they travelled shamefacedly across the north like thieves in the night,
January 18, 1971

avoiding as many people as possible, especially railroaders who know the truth of what is happening. I ask the minister to find some way to launch an inquiry into Canadian National's services across northern Ontario. Perhaps the time has come for a major shake-up of CN's top-level management, because whatever they are doing it has nothing to do with serving the public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate fully the genuine concern and interest of the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) regarding the reduction in rail service in his area. A similar question was raised January 13 by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), and I might add that further representations were directed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and to the Canadian Transport Commission which has responsibility in this subject under the Railway Act. I assure the hon. member that the minister has informed the railway of the representations which were made here in the House.
I think it should be made clear, Mr. Speaker, that the action which the CNR is proposing in this instance, effective February 1, is a reduction of service, not a discontinuance of service. The railway is entitled, subject always to the provisions of section 315 of the Railway Act relative to adequacy and suitability of accommodation, to take care of traffic offering, to effect reductions in service on its own initiative, without the approval of the Canadian Transport Commission. Since approval of the Canadian Transport Commission is not required, there is no requirement for a hearing. The minister dealt with this distinction a year ago, on January 12, 1970, to be exact, when in reply to a question by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) he said:
I have to emphasize that where it is only a reduction in service there is no legal mechanism which can be employed. Where there is a discontinuance the Canadian Transport Commission has indicated it will hold hearings on such discontinuances.
With respect to this particular reduction in service, Canadian National has given assurance that if trains Nos. 7 and 8 are no longer operated, every station now served by those trains will be served on precisely the same basis by trains Nos. 1 and 2.


An hon. Member:: Worthless!



WHEAT BOARD-PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-STATEMENT IN BUDGET RESPECTING STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, on December 8 I addressed the following question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson):
In view of statements made in the House last week by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board that payments under the grain stabilization plan will not be made until after the end of the crop year, could the minister throw some further light on the statement contained in the budget speech that cash stabilization payments would be made next spring and summer totalling $100 million?
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The minister's answer was:
I checked that statement with the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and he agrees that the statement is fair and reasonable.
Thus I am happy to see the minister in charge of the Wheat Board in his seat tonight and I understand he is going to reply to my representation. I asked the question of the Minister of Finance on December 8 in view of two paragraphs contained in his budget speech which I should also like to place on record. As reported at page 1742 of Hansard, the minister said:
Much of the same stimulus would flow from new government proposals in quite a different area. I refer here to the grain receipts stabilization plan outlined to the House five weeks ago by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. If that plan is enacted and made applicable to the 1970-71 crop year as recommended, it will involve cash stabilization payments to western farmers next spring and summer totalling over $100 million. This would be the net payment contributed by the government to stabilize 1970-71 receipts. There would, of course, be important offsetting savings in government expenditure by the elimination of the temporary wheat storage payments which have been shown to be an inefficient form of assistance. However, the immediate effect of such a stabilization plan would be to put much needed cash into the hands of the farmers next spring.
The largest part of this flow of cash would go to Saskatchewan, where the provincial economy has been hardest hit by the decline in grain marketings since 1968. Large numbers of farmers in both Alberta and Manitoba, however, would also be helped. Taken together with the much higher grain sales and the prospects for further improvement, this early injection of cash would give a significant boost to the entire Prairie economy.
The immediate impact of the minister's statement in his budget speech was a series of headlines to the effect, "$100 million for western grain farmers". These headlines, of course, ignored the very big "if" in the minister's statement, and I think this was to be anticipated. It was underlined this afternoon by the minister's refusal during the question period to confirm that a basic decision had been taken to proceed with such a program. If he wants to confirm that now, I shall be very happy to hear it. These headlines also ignored the elimination of the temporary wheat storage payments and other expenditure reductions which would be effected as a result of the proposal.
I suggest that the Minister of Finance did a disservice to western Canada by giving the impression that a $100 million gift was going to the Prairie grain farmers. This was sloppy thinking and sloppy drafting. I was concerned about the reference to "payments to western farmers next spring and summer totalling over $100 million" because it implied payments before the end of the crop year on July 31. I suggest that this would be impossible unless some sort of complicated advance system were worked out.
Thus, on December 4, as reported at page 1755 of Hansard, I asked the minister in charge of the Wheat Board the following question:
In view of statements in the budget address last night concerning the grain stabilization proposal, could the minister indicate if it is the intention of the government, on the adoption of such a proposal, to arrange for payments under the stabilization plan to the farmers during the spring months?

January 18, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, the proposal indicates a hope to have a payment made for the current crop year. The final determination of the payment, assuming the legislation required is in place, would of course require figures which can only be final at the end of the crop year so it would likely be made in the fall, but it is envisaged that payment of up to $100 million might be made.
The reference to "might be made" was certainly different from the implication of the remarks of the Minister of Finance in his budget address. I suggest that his budget speech is inconsistent in referring to payments to western farmers next spring and summer totalling over $100 million, in view of the statement of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board that payments would likely be made in the fall. I also suggest that the statement in the budget address was unfair and misleading because it gave the impression that $100 million of new money would be injected into the western economy. This is a false statement, for the reasons I have already indicated.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) is in the difficulty of having to find something to complain and worry about in face of a very good proposal for Prairie agriculture. One must also bear in mind his well-established desire for not saying anything very praiseworthy about anything the government does for this sector.
The proposals which were made in this House in late October were, of course, proposals. They were proposals for the purpose of discussion of detail or principle with the agricultural community. But they did convey a clear indication that if put into force they would involve a payment of approximately $100 million to the Prairie farmers for the current crop year. That is the way the situation still stands. Both me and my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), in answering questions
made it abundantly clear that a number of factors require to be settled before the payment in fact is made. These proposals must become a firm policy statement and, indeed, parts of the proposals very clearly would require legislation for them to be brought into effect. In looking at the question of a stabilization fund we have looked at the possibility that over the long haul it might well be wise to have interim payments in the course of a crop year, rather than have the whole of a possibly large stabilization payment wait for. the end of the year.
Oftentimes the shortest cash position will be in the middle of a crop year, which by definition is falling below the previous five-year average. Since we are in that kind of year this year, it has also occurred to us that would be one possible way to deal with the situation now. But, of course, the "ifs" in this circumstance become much more complicated because we have not only to settle the proposals but we must have the legislation in place in time.
The hon. member's difficulty, of course, in terms of specific questions relates to the fact that he asked me one in one term and the other in different terms. My answer clearly indicated that I was focusing on the issue of the final determination of any final payment and the possibilities and probabilities of the payment being made. It is, of course, both in my mind and in the mind of the Minister of Finance, extremely unlikely that the reaction of the farm community will be such as to stand in the way of our going ahead with these proposals. Indeed, I hope in fairly short order we will come before this House with the firm proposals we hope to put in place and which we see as very greatly benefiting agriculture now and in the years to come.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20
p.m.


Tuesday, January 19, 1971