1971-06-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second and third reports of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders-Mr. Forget.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief statement to the House concerning a confirmed case of typhoid aboard the Liberian freighter Birtie Michaels which is presently berthed in Thunder Bay, Ontario.
The United States Public Health Service authorities have informed my officials that a suspected case of typhoid contracted by the wife of a crew member has been confirmed. This occurred at Chicago, Illinois, and following a full health inspection the vessel was cleared for passage to Thunder Bay. On arrival at Thunder Bay on the night of June 1, the Birtie Michaels was held at anchor pending a full investigation by federal, municipal and provincial health authorities.
On the morning of June 2 the ship was boarded by federal and municipal health officials, the crew medically examined, and the food, water, eating and sanitation facilities thoroughly checked. None of the crew were found to have symptoms or signs suggestive of typhoid. However, two crew members with minor symptoms not specific to typhoid have been removed to the Port Arthur General Hospital for observation.
Following the examination the ship was allowed to proceed under strict surveillance to its berth to load its cargo. The crew are confined to the ship and are being medically examined daily, and will not be allowed ashore until released by federal and municipal health authorities.
I wish to assure the House, the people of Thunder Bay, and indeed all Canadians that every necessary measure is being taken to ensure the safety and health of the crew of the Birtie Michaels and of all Canadians. At the same time I would like to acknowledge the assistance and co-operation of the U.S. Public Health Service, the
Ontario Department of Health, and the local hospital, medical and harbour authorities in Thunder Bay.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the brief statement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerning the confirmed case of typhoid aboard the Liberian freighter Birtie Michaels which is presently berthed at Thunder Bay, Ontario. According to the statement, it was reported by the U.S. Public Health Service that they had discovered a case of typhoid in the wife of a crew member. This occurred at Chicago, Illinois, and after a thorough investigation the vessel was cleared for passage to Thunder Bay.
My understanding is that this boat came from Spain, having sailed on May 7, 1971, with a crew of 24. On May 19 the ship arrived at Montreal where the woman was given treatment by a physician but she was still ill when the ship was passing by Detroit. At Chicago she was placed in hospital and is being treated there for typhoid fever.
The necessary checks on food and drinking water on the boat were done. Rectal swabs were taken and no symptoms or signs of typhoid were discovered. The boat was allowed to proceed to Thunder Bay where it was again rechecked thoroughly by the Canadian authorities, provincial, municipal and federal, and the ship is still being kept under surveillance.
This would appear to be a case where the infection was picked up on or before the boat left Spain and presents a minimum of danger to the Canadian people. It is, however, a little disturbing to note that references to typhoid fever are creeping more and more into the news when proper sanitation and vaccination can control it.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister a question relating to our position during the discussions in Lisbon regarding NATO. Is it still a prerequisite to the holding of a European security conference as far as Canada is concerned that a security arrangement must be made with regard to West Berlin? Is this still a prerequisite in the view of the Canadian government, as it was last December when the NATO council took this position?

June 3, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Righi Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I can only attempt to answer the question in the very same terms that I answered it a few days ago: it is not a prerequisite in the sense that we do not feel that the Berlin question must be settled finally before even sitting down to discuss mutual and balanced force reductions in Europe. However, we do feel that before a conference on European security can usefully be held we will have to know that there are conditions for progress which have been achieved. One of those conditions for progress is that we should know there is some palpable and possible solution to the Berlin question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question for the purpose of clarification. Then it is no longer the position of the government of Canada that there has to be a security arrangement regarding West Berlin before a European security conference would be appropriate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know if the Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the Berlin question would have to be settled finally in every way before we would sit down to discuss other questions with the Soviet Union.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, Mr. Speaker. What I am asking the Prime Minister is whether the position of the government of Canada and the position to be taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the NATO conference is the position that Canada took last December along with our NATO allies or whether this position has been changed, as I believe the Prime Minister has just indicated to me that it has been changed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that it has not been changed.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister on a related matter. Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs recommending to the foreign ministers at NATO that an envoy be sent to eastern Europe to investigate Russian proposals for mutual troop reductions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the view has been expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that such an envoy should be sent.



WELFARE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising out of various speculations that have taken place. Can the minister inform the House whether the question of jurisdiction over social security and welfare is on the agenda of the meeting of welfare ministers to be held
next week, particularly in view of the demands of some provinces that they have full jurisdiction in these fields?
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): The matter of social policy is on the agenda Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. 1 would guess that the meeting of ministers of welfare would discuss social policy; that would not be very revealing. I asked the minister whether the question of provincial or federal jurisdiction in the fields of social security and welfare is on the agenda in preparation for the constitutional conference?


John Carr Munro: The jurisdictional aspect of social policy is not an item on the agenda, Mr. Speaker. We will be talking in terms of the various policies we have enunciated in the white paper and the suggested and proposed changes we might have to offer to meet some of the views advanced by the provinces and other people generally.



JURISDICTION OVER SOCIAL SECURITY AND WELFARE- DISCUSSION WITH PREMIER BOURASSA OF INCLUSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE AGENDA

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Did his recent discussions with the Prime Minister of Quebec with regard to items to be discussed at the constitutional conference touch upon the question of jurisdiction in the fields of social security and welfare and, also, will the Minister of National Health and Welfare be accompanying him to Victoria on whatever date the conference may now be held?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is yes.



DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCES OF FURTHER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO CITIES

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of reports that cities in various parts of Canada, because of the financial squeeze in which they find themselves, are cutting back on the categories of people who can get welfare, will the government discuss with the provinces the raising of the percentage which the federal government pays under the Canada Assistance Plan to meet the costs of welfare?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are coping with that in other ways. I must remind the House that the meeting in Victoria is to be primarily a constitutional one and that the meeting of ministers of health and welfare previous to it has been asked to report to the constitutional conference. The discussion in Victoria will revolve mainly around constitutional matters. What will be discussed between the welfare ministers would be, I think, couched in those terms.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.

June 3, 1971

In order to facilitate the task of the delegates to the conference which will soon be held in Victoria, could the Prime Minister ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to state clearly the views of the federal government on the Castonguay report dealing with powers in social matters before the conference or could he make that statement himself on behalf of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose that the hon. member is suggesting to the Prime Minister or to a government representative that they should make such a statement before the conference. That statement could not be made at this time, but rather on motions.



PRELIMINARY STUDY OF CONDITIONS BY MINISTER PRIOR TO MINISTERS' CONFERENCE

Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether, in preparation for the conference with the provincial ministers next week, he has conducted any preliminary studies himself as to welfare conditions across the country and as to the adequacy of welfare programs, and has satisfied himself of the extent to which Canadians may be suffering as a result of inadequate welfare programs?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, yes, I have looked at all those matters mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Several hon. members are seeking to ask supplementary questions. Before returning to the subject and recognizing, among others, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, the hon. member for Charlevoix and the hon. member for Oxford, the Chair will first recognize the hon. member for Portneuf.

The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Portneuf. The House will return to the subject in a moment.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Did the Canadian Mink Breeders Association make representations recently about its financial difficulties and in the affirmative, does the minister intend to make a statement to the House soon to announce the measures he is considering to help it?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I believe representations were made by this association but not recently. I believe they were made about five or six weeks ago. I do not intend to make a statement in the House soon.
Inquiries of the Ministry



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT BY PREMIER THATCHER- GOVERNMENT POSITION

Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Will he, as announced in this morning's papers, be taking into consideration the request by the Premier of Saskatchewan for postponement of the Victoria conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I shall certainly be taking that request into consideration, but I am not sure I can accede to it. I have initiated consultations to establish whether it can be done, but it now seems it would be quite difficult at this date to alter arrangements agreed upon concerning the Victoria meeting.
Finally, after my consultations, I shall send a reply to Premier Thatcher and I shall be glad to communicate it to the House.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: A supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister say whether the premier of Saskatchewan was aware of the date of the constitutional conference before he called the provincial election?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member is not expecting a reply at this time to the question he has asked.



WELFARE


Mr. W. B. Nesbiti (Oxford):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that seasonal unemployment benefits ran out at the end of May and this will involve additional heavy welfare costs for the provinces, is the government considering at the present time giving special assistance to the provinces to meet these extra welfare costs because of the seasonal benefits having expired?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government's position has not changed since the Minister of Labour dealt with that question some time ago.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: My question is for the Prime Minister. What initiative is Canada taking within the Commonwealth or the United Nations to bring to a successful conclusion the very serious problem in Pakistan with reference to the possible resettlement of the many millions of refugees now flooding into India?

June 3, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Beyond saying that the matter is under very active consideration, that we have had reports from our High Commissioner in Pakistan, that the department is doing what it can, and that the government has indicated its willingness to assist in solutions when they are found, there is nothing I can add of a more positive nature at this stage.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I ask the Prime Minister if the government intends to take the matter before a Commonwealth body or an appropriate United Nations body hopefully to bring about a settlement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot answer at this time, Mr. Speaker.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether consultations are being undertaken with the United Nations, through United Nations agencies or with the government of the United States and the United Kingdom with a view to the political settlement of this tragic affair?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am afraid I cannot answer that question either, Mr. Speaker. I will refer it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.



POSSIBLE ADMISSION OF GREAT BRITAIN INTO EUROPEAN


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasfings):: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the imminence of Great Britain's entry into the European Common Market and as the only assurances that have been made public regarding the continued entry of Commonwealth products into the British market have dealt with those of New Zealand, will the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House what assurances he has received regarding conditions of entry of Canadian products into the British market once that country enters the ECM?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Good Lord, Mr. Speaker, I have talked about that on such a number of occasions! The hon. member for Calgary Centre asked me for a global report. I have promised this to him. I might well do so on the budget debate and intend to give a full account of these matters, but I cannot-I know you are about to stop me, Mr. Speaker-discuss the whole issue in one minute.


George Harris Hees: I asked for a statement on motions. The minister has obviously not given any answer at any time. I have a supplementary question. The monthly breakdown between crude, semi-processed and manufactured products is normally made available about a week earlier than this each month and is now almost impossible to obtain. Is the holding up of that report due to the fact
that exports of manufactured products have fallen off during April even more than in the sharp fashion they did in the early months of the year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that answer might be given by the minister when he makes a statement on motions or whenever he makes a statement to the House, as he indicated when he replied to the original question.


George Harris Hees: Would the minister not take the first opportunity on motions to do this, that is, the next time he is in the House, rather than waiting for the budget debate or some time next fall, next spring or next year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will find the reference in Hansard, but 1 gave this information about 10 or 15 days ago. I reported that for the last month about which I was talking at that time, probably April or March, the percentage of manufactured products in our exports had gone up to 40 per cent.



SUGGESTED PROVISION OF ACCOMMODATION FOR TRAVELLING STUDENTS IN MOSS PARK ARMOURY, TORONTO

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that many students will be visiting Toronto this summer, thereby creating a serious accommodation problem, would the minister contact Toronto city officials and indicate that the federal government is willing to help these young people to find accommodation by making available the Moss Park Armoury?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: We have received no indication from the Toronto authorities that there is any need for the Moss Park Armoury. I would have to check to see whether or not, as last year, the facilities will be in use in connection with the student summer militia program.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
Hon J. A. MacLean (Malpeque): In the absence of the Minister of Transport I would direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the fact that the board of directors of Air Canada has postponed its decision with regard to the purchase of Tri-Star aircraft until June 10, can the minister assure the House that these directors are fully aware of the importance of making the purchase in a way which will provide the maximum of employment in the Canadian air industry having regard to the high rate of unemployment in the industry at the present time?
Jean-Luc Pepin: I am quite sure they are aware of that, Mr. Speaker.

June 3, 1971



THE CENSUS


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Can he tell the House whether legal action will be taken against the persons who refused to fill out the census form because it was received in the official language with which they are not familiar?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, indeed, that question is important. The Commissioner of Official Languages took up the matter with us and, last Friday we published a communique from which I would like to quote the following extract, if I may:
-those persons who have been unable or unwilling to fill out the questionnaire because they received an English form instead of a French one, or vice versa, need not fear that they have broken the law. A census representative will visit them after June 1 if the form was not returned. The householder will then be given a form in the official language of his choice.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I address my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister assured the House that he would have a security check made on Jean-Louis Gagnon, the head of Information Canada, but has never informed the House as to the findings, would he consider tabling for the information of hon. members the comprehensive report which was made for the cabinet following this security check?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There was no such comprehensive report made for the cabinet. This was a report made just for myself. A question was asked on the subject more than a year ago, I believe, and I replied that I had checked, and that a security check had been made and I had been assured that there was nothing in this case to look at with alarm.


Robert Norman Thompson: I asked the question only because it had been brought to my attention that such a confidential report was prepared very recently. I should like to know whether we could not have the same assurance as the right hon. gentleman has given to members of the cabinet, even though he says no report has been made.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can assure the hon. member, although I might perhaps be divulging cabinet secrets, that this matter has not been discussed in cabinet for more than a year as far as I can remember, and there has been no report of the nature the hon. member has suggested.
Inquiries of the Ministry



BARLEY-ALLEGED HIGHER PRICE TO EASTERN FARMERS

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board.
On May 26, the minister took notice of the question I was asking him and part of which read as follows:
The Canadian Wheat Board is said to have recently sold for export 100,000 tons of feed barley at a price of 93 cents a bushel, F.O.B. Churchill, and my question is: Why do Eastern Canada cattle farmers always have to buy their feed barley at a price higher than that set by the Canadian Wheat Board for export purposes?
Is the minister in a position to answer that question today?


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: As I informed the House when I answered this question on a previous occasion, it is not customary to comment upon the particular prices of transactions between the Wheat Board and any buyer. This is information which is confidential to the buyer and the seller. But I also indicated there was automatically a wide differential between prices in the St. Lawrence ports and in Churchill because of the difference in transportation costs. I have no information which suggests to me there is any alteration in prices as between one area of destination and another. As far as I can tell, prices of feed grain moving out of Churchill and of feed grain leaving the St. Lawrence area reflect differentials which are justified by the difference in the cost of transportation.



IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF TRANSITIONAL ACREAGE PAYMENT APART FROM STABILIZATION LEGISLATION

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: have a question for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that an overwhelming preponderance of the evidence advanced by witnesses representing western farm organizations before the Standing Committee on Agriculture this week during the sittings in connection with Bill C-244 was to the effect that the proposed $100 million transitional acreage payment should be made at once, rather than awaiting the passage of the complete package of legislation because of its controversial nature, would the minister consult with his cabinet colleagues with a view to making this emergency acreage payment at once?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the hon. member is bringing before the House the substance of a debate which took place when the bill itself was before us. He is also bringing before the chamber deliberations which are proceeding in the committee on agriculture, and I wonder whether a question in those terms is in order. However, since the question has been asked, perhaps the minister might reply briefly and we will then go on to the next subject.
6322

June 3, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: As indicated previously, the various parts of Bill C-244 are all related and the $100 million will be paid out to farmers as soon as that bill, with all its provisions, including the provision for the repeal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, becomes law.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has his department investigated the reasons a plant owned by the Imperial Oil Company, which has received a $10 million grant under the government's incentive program, is selling fertilizer in Plentywood, Montana, at $86 a ton while selling it in Canada at $106 a ton? If not, will the hon. gentleman undertake to have such an investigation carried out?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If the hon. member will give us some evidence of this, I will be glad to look into the matter.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether any damage has been done to the air base at Moosonee by the recent fire? Would the minister also tell us in what way troops have been deployed and used to protect the municipality?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I understand it there has been no actual damage, at least up the present time, to any of the facilities at Moosonee. The principal participation of the Department of National Defence there has been to fly in a bulldozer from Petawawa and firefighting equipment from North Bay to assist the local authorities to extinguish the fire.


William Arnold Peters: May I ask whether the fire is now contained? If not, is there an imminent danger to the base at Moosonee?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The last report I received was that the fire appears to be under control. We have been watching the situation very closely because of the proximity of the fire to the radar base.



IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since there are now some 6,000 appeals pending before the Immigration Appeal Board, does the minister intend to bring in the promised amendments to the Immigration Appeal Board Act before the end of this session, or must we expect to see this continuing sore get bigger over the rest of the year?


Otto Emil Lang: In view of the heavy legislative load before the House I have some doubt about our ability to deal with this matter before we adjourn, as things stand at the moment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow a supplementary, but I invite hon. members to be as conservative as possible in regard to supplementaries because we will soon be running short of time.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, it is rather difficult for me to comply with your request but I shall attempt to do so. My supplementary is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would the minister introduce the legislation prior to the adjournment so that we may study it during the summer?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think we might give consideration to that. The alternative, of course, is to hold it in order to make any last minute improvements to it; but I will certainly give the matter consideration.



AIR CANADA


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmoufh-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that I should have liked to direct to the Minister of Transport but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Would he investigate a copy of a brochure produced by Air Canada, and appearing on the front page of at least one Canadian newspaper today, which indicates in no uncertain terms that Canada begins with French-speaking Quebec in the east and ends at Vancouver in the west? As a matter of fact, I am getting a little fed up with this.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of reports that the Department of Finance will launch a $1 million publicity campaign in support of the new tax reform bill, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government plans to undertake such a public relations campaign?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention to have a public relations cam-

June 3, 1971

paign to support, as I believe the newspapers put it, the budgetary measures of the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Fairweather:: A million dollars would not be
enough for that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: After the bill has been discussed and hopefully passed by the House and becomes law there is provision not for the Department of Finance but for the Department of National Revenue to conduct a campaign to explain to the taxpayers how the new tax law-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Explain to the taxpayers how to make out their tax forms.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I see the opposition is not interested in knowing how the taxpayers' money is spent.


Mr. Crouse:: Neither are you.
^



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister with reference to the question of the constitutional jurisdiction over social security and welfare. Can the Prime Minister say whether in his discussions with Premier Bourassa he and the Prime Minister of Quebec have come to any understanding?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can truthfully answer that question only after the event. I cannot say now whether there will be an understanding reached in Victoria or not. I hope that as a result not only of my meetings with the premier but the meetings of the Minister of Justice of Canada with the premiers and Attorneys General of all the provinces in the past several months there will be an understanding in Victoria.



INDUSTRY


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce; it is not the same question that was dealt with on Tuesday. Has there been any discussion between his department and Ford Motor Company of Canada with regard to the phasing out of their Windsor foundry and the transfer of this work and the jobs to their new plant at Flat Rock, Michigan, and is his department discouraging such a move?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, an explanation was provided by the company about the move and I reported on that very shortly in the House the other day.
24107-50J
Inquiries of the Ministry YOUTH



OVERSEAS STUDENT EXCHANGE PROGRAM-APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AND APPROVED

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration a question relating to the international student summer employment exchange program. Can the minister inform the House how many student applications have now been accepted under this program following the information he gave the House on May 17 that only 1,000 out of something over 3,000 had then been accepted?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to get another up to date figure.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-BREAKDOWN OF GRANTS BY PROVINCES

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State whether any breakdown of the moneys under the Opportunities for Youth program has been made on a provincial basis? If not, will such a breakdown be made and will it be made public?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Stale):: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, every time a project is approved and a subsidy is granted to its originators, we take into account some criteria as to the distribution across the country and we record those figures. However, I intend to inform the House of this distribution when we reach the end of the funds earmarked for this program so as to avoid any misunderstanding; the House will thus be in a position to assess the balance of this distribution according to the criteria set up when this program was initiated.


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the fact that once action has been taken no representations can be made by members of the House of Commons or by provincial governments in regard to the provincial distribution of the budget, would the minister undertake to make available now figures regarding what amounts have in fact been spent provincially? Surely to goodness that is not too difficult for the minister. Would he do it now?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I have been misunderstood by the hon. member. I indicated that all the funds had not been spent so far while he assumes they have. I said I would give-


Some hon. Members:: Ah, ah.


Gérard Pelletier: Then I must be the one who did not
get it.


John Howard Lundrigan: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

June 3, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me there is some difficulty in communication at this time between the minister and the hon. member. I hope that the question can be asked and answered briefly because, as I suggested a moment ago, we are running short of time.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State is guilty of selective misunderstanding. May I ask him whether he will now make available to the House, today or within the next couple of days, the actual amounts of money expended in the form of a provincial breakdown of the expenditures.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I fail to appreciate the hon. member's innuendoes, particularly since they are unfounded. I answered his question, whether he liked the answer or not is none of my business.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister.
Would he indicate his reaction to the recent statement by the premier of Ontario to the effect that it is the socialist philosophy of the federal government which has brought the Canadian economy to a standstill and that it is about time that the citizens be given a chance to work? Have the Prime Minister and the government found a way to reply to the charges made by this high authority?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the best answer I can give is to send him back to back with the leader of the New Democratic Party.


David Lewis: I thank you.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and it arises from recently published railway passenger policy. Has the Department of Transport taken note of the recently reported intention of Canadian National Railways to discontinue all of its Ottawa-Toronto passenger train service, and of the damaging nature of such action to economic and social interests and to services to the general public?


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


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Transport but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary, or to the acting minister, or even to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to restore the government subsidy to Northumberland Ferries Limited, the removal of which a short time ago resulted in a very substantial increase in ferry rates between Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia?


Mr. Speaker:: While the matter is being considered the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Annapolis Valley.



BROADCASTING


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of certain statements yesterday about the proposed sale of cablevision interests in Quebec, has there been any change in federal policy prohibiting the issuance of broadcasting licences to agents of the Crown in the provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe the sale to which the hon. member refers is in any way an encroachement upon those policies as they presently exist.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Secretary of State. In view of the cabinet directive of June 4, 1970 pursuant to Section 27 of the Broadcasting Act, which prohibits the CRTC issuing licences to Her Majesty in right of any province or to agents of Her Majesty in right of any province, I wonder whether the Secretary of State has recommended to the cabinet a change in this directive so that educational radio and television stations in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan which were affected by the directive can now apply and perhaps obtain similar licences?


Gérard Pelletier: We are
studying this question, Mr. Speaker, and we discussed it with two of the three provinces concerned. One has yet to be consulted and after these discussions we shall perhaps indeed find it advisable to bring suggestions to the attention of the Cabinet, but this has not yet been done because these discussions are still in progress.
June 3, 1971



PROPOSED SALE OF CABLEVISION INTEREST IN CANADA -DISCUSSION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL MINISTERS

Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State.
With regard to the proposal which the Quebec government, through the General Investment Corporation and several companies, must make to the CRTC on June 28, would the minister indicate whether he has discussed this particular question with his Quebec counterpart and if not, is he in a position to say that the federal government does not object to this project?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, my Quebec counterpart has asked me not to reveal the specific questions which we discussed this morning. He wants our conversations to remain confidential until they are brought to an end. I would simply indicate that according to the terms of the transactions in question, if we are talking about the same ones, no controlling interests of a provincial agency are involved, and as far as I know, the provincial agency will not file an application with the CRTC at the end of the month, but I repeat that this is only from what I know about the project.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the minister aware of the publication in the Dutch press of advertisements encouraging people to come to Canada and containing the words, "Canada, a land of employment and housing", when in fact the reverse is more likely the case? Would the minister look into this promotional effort?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Could he tell us whether Bruck Mills Limited have advised his department of their plans to shut down their plant in Montreal, a situation which would involve in some way or other 250 people now employed there?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of a previous action by Bruck Mills Limited but not of the one referred to in the hon. member's question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
Is the hon. minister aware of the fact that this company has already received incentive grants totalling over $800,000 from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for modernizing their plants and that this has all the appearances of an assault on the public purse?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE DISCUSSION OF UNION OF SMALLER PROVINCES AT FORTHCOMING MEETING

Mr. Jack Muria (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Since there has been considerable discussion of the proposal that the smaller provinces should unite to form more viable political units, is the government intending to discuss this proposal at the upcoming constitutional conference in Victoria?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker; we do not expect to raise it but it is possible that some provinces might want to bring forward this subject.



THE CENSUS


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Did the minister's department stress that students, if available, be hired for census-taking and did this recommendation go out from his department to those in charge of the hiring of census workers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered this question. Census-takers could be students. There was no objection to that. But I have already pointed out it was for a very short time and many students were not interested in view of that fact. I have also reported to the House that a number of students will be employed during the summer in putting together the information obtained by the census.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. I would ask the Prime Minister whether he replied to the request of the Ukrainian "Set Them Free" committee regarding the liberation of the historian Valentyn Moroz and the writer Sviatoslav Karavanski?

June 3, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure if that is the name of the committee that asked to meet me but I am meeting with a committee representing the Ukrainian Canadians on Monday when I will take the occasion to repeat to them what I said both on radio and in the House on the matter of the Ukraine.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. In view of the Prime Minister's cosy connection with Kosygin and the latter's forthcoming visit to Canada, will the Prime Minister intervene personally to request the liberation of these two intellectuals from unjustified imprisonment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I did not intervene during my recent visit to the Soviet Union. I would have to hear a great deal more representations-perhaps that will happen Monday-from the official representatives of the Ukrainian Association of Canada before considering such representations.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to address this question to the Prime Minister. In light of the alarm of the minister of health services for Alberta over the current rigid federal-provincial shared-cost programs which doom to failure provincial medical plans, is the federal government considering another more flexible system of federal support for hospital and medical care programs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will refer the question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who had to leave the House to meet with his opposite number in the Ontario government.



POLLUTION


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of housing. Now that it appears the minister will be carrying the ball on the question of Eddy's, after three government ministers have already fumbled, can the minister say whether he is going to stick to the 1975 deadline?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, there never has been a 1975 deadline officially endorsed.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister say, deadline or not, whether he is going to close down Eddy's or just clean up the river?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would make no such statement at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have run out of time. I believe the hon. member for Red Deer is rising on a point of order.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise on a question of privilege in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but in view of the statement the Prime Minister made during the question period and in view of the great concern of many Canadian people with regard to the security of this nation I must inform the Prime Minister that I have a letter in my hand dated March 12, 1971, over the signature of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which reads in part:
I would like to point out that as a member of the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the hon. member can indicate what his question of privilege is. I have pointed out to hon. members on a number of occasions that their suggested questions of privilege are rather far from being legitimate questions of privilege. The hon. member has the floor for one purpose at the present time and that is to indicate to the Chair that there is a question of privilege. I would hope he can indicate this as soon as possible.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is simply that I think the House deserves an explanation tomorrow because of the fact that the Prime Minister can hardly be expected to do so today, but I must quote one sentence from this letter in order to point out why I ask this. The key sentence in this letter is:
For this reason-
That is the allegations which have been made in regard to Mr. Gagnon.
-a comprehensive report was drawn up for the use of cabinet only-
I hope you will understand that I cannot release this material, for the same reason that security checks on all people remain secret. It would be an invasion of privacy and against the principles of this government if we were to give out information on such reports.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether that is the one sentence to which the hon. member referred. The hon. member is reading the letter and making a speech. Again, this is not a question of privilege. I suggest to him that we will all be here tomorrow and if he wishes to pursue the matter he can ask questions to try to elucidate or clarify the apparently difficult situation to which he refers. But I do not think that that constitutes a question of privilege.


Robert Norman Thompson: My question of privilege relates to the fact that there was obviously misinformation given to the House today by the Prime Minister. I am only asking that he clarify this tomorrow, in the realization that he cannot be expected to give this type of information today in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. That is my question of privilege.

June 3, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a question of privilege. If I am required to make a ruling, I suggest to the hon. member that he has perhaps a very legitimate question which might have been asked today or could be asked tomorrow. It might have been asked today if I had had an opportunity to recognize the hon. gentleman on a supplementary question. Perhaps it would have been easier. If the hon. member had caught my eye, I would have recognized him. He has now asked the question and he can assume he will get a reply in due course.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps I can answer the question in part today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this is the wish of the House. However, I have made a ruling that there is no question of privilege, and we have gone beyond the question period. I think that this could wait until tomorrow.


Mr. MacLean:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Malpeque but I believe there is another question of privilege or point of order, or some point.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I also rise briefly on a question of privilege to point out that the roster system, as established by the Prime Minister-and I wish to make this point while he is still in his seat so his attention will be directed toward it-is inoperative and defunct. I asked a question originally intended for the Minister of Transport, who was unavoidably absent from the chamber, so I directed the question to his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Quebec East. Apparently he is not present either, so I received no response to my question which was one of vital and national interest to all members of the House, and particularly to many members on the government benches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Similarly, my colleague, the hon. member for Cardigan, asked a question concerning marine transport and ferry service. There was no one present to answer his question. My question related to the reported cessation of the CNR passenger service between the capital and Toronto. Both questions are of vital interest to many members. The roster system, as proven, is not giving us service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This might be a legitimate grievance, but again I hesitate to say that there is a question of privilege. Perhaps it is more of a point of order or a grievance which might be raised by the hon. member at the appropriate time. But I suggest to the hon. member that this is not a question of privilege.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



WEEKLY STATEMENT

John Angus MacLean: Before orders of the day are called, I would ask the acting government House leader whether he would make the usual statement regarding government business for the week ahead.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no, not that again.


Thomas Miller Bell: Here goes the summer.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is obvious that I have returned by popular request.
Now that I have the lively interest of hon. members, may I draw their attention to yesterday's Hansard at pages 6314 and 6315 which incorporate a special order with regard to the sittings of the House commencing next week and for the two following weeks.


David Lewis: One following week.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes. The business will be as follows: tomorrow, next Monday, Tuesday evening and Wednesday, if not passed before, we will take government order No. 53, the Canada Development Corporation, government order No. 71, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, and government order No. 75, amendments to the Judges Act.
Under the order just mentioned, Tuesday will be an opposition day under the auspices of the NDP, culminating in a confidence vote at or about 6 p.m., and on Thursday, and on Friday, again if necessary, we will take government order No. 61, the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I wonder if I might ask the acting House leader whether the real House leader is just having a well earned rest after the defeat in Central Nova.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova) moved:: That this House records its deep concern upon reviewing the government's continuing repudiation of its duty to establish full employment programs, and the consequent failure by the government to establish programs and policies which will give young Canadians the opportunity to enter the labour force.

June 3, 1971
Employment Programs
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Minister oi Finance (Mr. Benson) was not in the House when the motion was read. I had hoped he might come back, although I think he has gone for a smoke behind the curtains-


An hon. Member:: May he burn.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And he disappeared in a cloud of smoke.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Any government that is so insensitive to the economic needs of Canadians should follow the normal course, that is shrug its shoulders and resign so that others may bring help to this country. For the past three years we have given this government a chance, we have tried to make suggestions to them. However, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance and their colleagues have blindly stumbled on bringing more unemployment and more inflation to the economy of Canada, thus bringing the country to the brink of ruin.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Louis-Roland Comeau: As has been stated before, the economic policies of this government are inhumane, inefficient and completely incomprehensible to a small backbencher like me.

Mr. Speaker, today's motion draws attention to this problem in a rather formal way. I am deeply concerned about the fact that thousands of Canadians are unable to find jobs.
According to the April statistics-the most recent available to us-more than 280,000 young people were looking for work, this total represents 42.3 per cent of all the unemployed.
Even if, by themselves, those statistics appear alarming, the situation is worse still, because they do not take into account, for instance, the students and family heads, aged 25 or over, who wish to provide for their families.

The economic problems of this country related to employment bear repetition. This is why I have no hesitation at all in moving the type of motion that I have today. Maybe the government will realize the situation and give some humble consideration to the unemployed when it presents its budget on June 18.
Right now let me warn those Liberal backbenchers who will partcipate in this debate, who will be looking for plums within their own party and who will tell me that, even though I am the mover of this motion, I have made no suggestions to correct the problem, that I am quite humble in my approach. I do not have the capability to present proper suggestions for the government to follow simply because I do not have behind me all the public servants upon whom the government can rely to propose the type of suggestions that should be proposed. With the thousands of public servants that it has at its disposal, I suggest the government should have been able to do something about the problem by now.


An hon. Member:: What about your research staff?


Louis-Roland Comeau: Somebody asks about our research staff. I point out that Liberal members also have a research staff, but I suggest that if Liberal backbenchers do not start speaking out on the needs of the country, then after the next election they, too, will find themselves unemployed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Roland Comeau: The leader of my party-


An hon. Member:: Where is he?


Louis-Roland Comeau: Where is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)? Oh, I see him here. I am glad he is here. But where is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson)? Where is that great philosopher? The leader of my party-


Mr. Mahoney:: Where is he, anyway?


Louis-Roland Comeau: I hear the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) yapping again. He is one of those who is suggesting to the Minister of Finance the kind of policy that we are following. We are in complete chaos because of the suggestions that the hon. member sometimes makes.
Members of my party have made suggestions that the government should establish full employment programs, but the fact is that nobody in the government listens. It is my job to point out the difficulties faced by Canadians and it is the job of the government, not mine, to govern the country accordingly.


An hon. Member:: The Prime Minister is leaving.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I hope he will come back. ['English]
Oh yes, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will speak later in the debate, and I am sure the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) will participate. The Minister of Finance will say, "Look, my suggestions will come before you on June 18." He will tell the country on that day how he is going to save it from the current economic crisis. But the thing that bothers me most is that the government absolutely does not want to listen to anyone. Prime Ministerial word games have replaced serious discussions about unemployment. The Minister of Finance represents nothing more than the king in his counting house counting out his money, while he tells the peasants to live on $30 a week.
There is one fact that needs to be stated time and time again. It is that Canada needs full employment and a budget which will restore a healthy growth to our economy. Without economic growth, we will not be able to provide jobs for our young people, for the university graduates who are coming into the labour force. What has the government offered in the past three years to expand the economy? It made some money available. Forty-two cents have been given to our old age pensioners, the equivalent of seven postage stamps now but soon

June 3, 1971

to be the equivalent of only six. The government has offered absolutely nothing to the unemployed family man who is between the ages of 25 and 65 years, and nothing to the young executive who came out of university, worked for a company, and now finds himself unemployed.

Nothing at all, Mr. Speaker. The government offered nothing to these thousands of people except the 10 per cent increase in unemployment insurance benefits last January. The government has not even been willing to help the municipalities offer more welfare benefits to these people; now, cities are cutting their aid programs.

According to the 1961 census 50 per cent of all Canadians are below the age of 25 years. What has the government offered these people? What has it offered students looking for work in order to raise enough money to enter university in the fall? Finally, the government made a revelation. One fine day, on March 16, the Opportunities for Youth program was divulged. Five ministers called a press conference and told us what they were going to do for young Canadians.


Mr. Bechard:: Sixty-eight million dollars.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Sixty-eight million dollars, the man says. Some of my colleagues will talk about that $68 million later and show the ridiculous way in which some of it has been spent. Included in that $68 million mentioned by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard) is the expenditure for the European Exchange program, subsidized tours for those who can afford the fare there and back. Kiosks are being opened along highways so that our transient youth can gather information and travel leisurely. There is also an athletics scholarship program applicable to a very special 600 or so, and after consultation with the provinces, or supposed consultation with the provinces and municipalities, hostels are to be provided where transient youth may find accommodation. It is becoming obvious such consultation did not take place because we are finding that municipalities have no funds for these hostels.
Then, to offer our young Canadians a boost and give them an incentive, the government has made $25 million available to be administered by the Department of the Secretary of State. I do not want to deal with it at length. Other members of my party will put that program in proper perspective, but so far as I am concerned it is nothing but a political program. It has very grave political tinges to it. I submit it is not administered objectively at all, and consequently is not helping young Canadians who may need this type of program most.
The answer to all this should be clear, Mr. Speaker. You cannot help a group of people, a certain age group, until you have a full employment program, such as I referred to a few minutes ago. In the type of economy that we have these days, you cannot merely put $68 million into a program and expect that will solve the problems. In a similar vein, you cannot expect to do
Employment Programs
anything about regional disparities unless the economy is growing at a reasonably rapid rate.
We know that growth is not an end in itself, but that it must be pursued in order to solve our grave social problems. It is economic slack which makes it difficult to pursue pollution abatement programs. Everybody, and particularly our young people, are upset about pollution. But we cannot deal with the pollution problem unless we have the money to deal with it, and in order to have the money to deal with it we must have the proper growth programs. Pollution abatement programs are expensive. This is particularly the case, as has been highly publicized, in the pulp and paper industry. Economic slack forces people to disrupt their way of life and neglect their higher goals in order to search for employment. If the budget which will be presented by the Minister of Finance fails to expand the economy properly, the government will argue that its policies are designed to return the economy to its potential gradually to avoid the risk of more inflation. A quick return to full potential is dangerous, but the government's apparent concept of gradualism is surely inadequate. First, we need an economic plan which will produce a growth rate which is higer than our potential so that the economic slack will be taken up and sufficient jobs created to absorb the large influx into our labour force. Then, and only then, can a gradualist policy be introduced.
What has happened since the Prime Minister took office? The Liberals have set out to curb inflation by creating mass unemployment. This policy, regarded as nonsense by many economists, might be justified by its results if inflation had been cured. But it has not. The inflation spiral is back and the unemployed have never left us. The Prime Minister has failed where he should have succeeded, on the inflation battlefield, and has succeeded only in creating a great army of unemployed.
In December, 1970, the Prime Minister announced that unemployment had become the foremost problem facing the country:
. .. we have won last year's victory, the one against inflation. It is obvious from the statistics of the past two months that inflation no longer exists in Canada.
Some victory! As has been stated previously, inflation in Canada during the first quarter of 1971 soared upward by 1.2 per cent, the largest advance for this quarter in over a decade. Unemployment remains uncomfortably high at 6 per cent; it has stayed above the 6 per cent mark for 11 months.

Problems are increasing day after day. There is no indication that the economy of the country is developping to its full potential. The level of unemployment is still at 6 per cent and the cost of living is ever increasing. The number of workers is rising rapidly and requires the creation of more new jobs. By 1975, the number of jobs needed will go from 1.3 to 1.4 million. In order to develop the economy to its full potential, that increase must run to about 6 per cent.

June 3, 1971
Employment Programs

Where do we go from here? Many suggestions have been made and there will be others. The Progressive Conservative party advocates an immediate espousal of the economic goals enunciated by the Economic Council of Canada. We demand immediate action to return the Canadian economy to a path of full employment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Louis-Roland Comeau: What does the Prime Minister propose to solve the problems created by the mushrooming labour force? On his recent Niagara Peninsula tour the Prime Minister announced that in a free society people had to be prepared to accept trade-offs, and consequently the emphasis should be on getting jobs for Canadians who want to work, a shorter work week, much earlier retirement, delays in young people entering the work force, and less pressure to get women working. Such a theory is in glaring contradiction to the present practices of the government. Consider the unemployment insurance legislation to provide unemployment benefits for pregnant women as an incentive to them to return to their jobs! Obviously, the Prime Minister is not laying a basis for new government policies, but rather is using scare tactics to convince the public that the weapons he ultimately chooses to fight employment are the only desirable means for combatting the problem. The essence of such a ploy is that it admits of only the extremes, and implicitly rejects the possibility of any middle ground.
It is not possible that a lesser degree of unemployment and a low degree of inflation could co-exist in a free society? All kinds of suggestions have been made in the last couple of years about how this objective could be achieved and I do not need to repeat them. I only need to point out to the Minister of Finance that if he would listen and try a different course every now and then he may find that the results would not be worse than the results of some of the policies advocated by the government. Such a course might be worth while.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Louis-Roland Comeau: There are many respectable economists who think that such co-existence is indeed possible, and who also maintain that the Prime Minister's economic policies up to the present have been as disturbing as these new scare tactics. In its zealousness to get Canada the first prize in the 1970 international competition against inflation, the Liberal government pursued policies that earned for Canada the international booby prize for unemployment and also one of the poorest records in reaching potential gross national product.
Something has to be done, Mr. Speaker, and in view of the fact that the budget is to be presented within a couple of weeks, I hope this debate today will indicate to the Minister of Finance and the government that it is time to try something new, something that will give this country full employment. Canadians will not settle for anything less. Students who are graduating have been told along the way, "You go to university and we will take care of you". Now, they find that we are not able to provide for
them. The situation is frustrating to Canadians of all ages, those over 65 and those in the middle age group. Within the last couple of years, we have passed legislation forcing Canadians to retire at 55 years of age. These people are forced out of the labour force and cannot come back because of the situation that exists. Just last night there was a program on television about executives in the 35 to 50 age group who cannot find employment in their line of work, or in any other line for that matter.
We cannot go on talking about the constitution forever. We cannot blame everything on the constitution. We cannot go on being academic, pretending that we are living in a university or that we are lecturing to university students. As politicians in this country we have to be practical, and we have to face the problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Louis-Roland Comeau: There is no need for me to review the events of the last two or three years, Mr. Speaker. We only have to look back at the legislation that has been passed. The Criminal Code has been amended about 150 times; we have talked about this constitution; we have talked about many things, but the government has not once listened to suggestions for getting the economy moving and getting people back to work. I hope the Minister of Finance will not be too proud to admit his failures, but will want to listen and, when he presents his budget on June 18, will want to take the measures necessary to correct the injustices that have been caused by this government in the last couple of years.
Other members of my party will talk about different aspects of this subject. Some will deal with-


An hon. Member:: With the facts.


Louis-Roland Comeau: -the opportunities for youth program. Others will talk about university graduates, the labour force and so on. I end by repeating what I said at the beginning. We need full employment so that we may offer Canadians generally, including our young Canadians, a chance to make a decent living in this country. I have not participated in debates on the economy for some time. I have tried to give this government a chance. The situation has become more and more frustrating. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I, as a private member, and my party cannot condemn this government enough for the policies it has followed in the last three years.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whiiby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion moved by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) and to offer my congratulations for his forceful and frank speech. It was needed. It was a speech that presented the problem faced by this country in a very adequate fashion indeed.
The single most important source of discontent and disunity in this country today is that presented by the current levels of unemployment. In recent weeks there has been, throughout Canada, a mounting criticism of welfare spending, a mounting criticism of spending in education and an increased criticism directed at the pro-

June 3, 1971

posed new levels of unemployment insurance benefits. There has been in recent days, as indeed there was today in this House, an implicit criticism of the increased amounts of federal money going to the province of Quebec.
It is important to note that all this criticism being heard in our country is not coming from the traditional conservative sources alone in Canada. It is not simply coming from the lawyers, doctors and professional people in general. It is now emerging from those who may appropriately be called the ordinary people of this country. Professionals and businessmen have always opposed the significant use of public capital, either to redistribute income or to create new public enterprises, and especially have they been critical of all forms of welfare assistance. However, it is a new phenomenon in Canada that significant numbers of ordinary people have joined in this criticism. We are now hearing criticism from miners, auto workers, loggers and farmers-in short, as I said, from the majority of the people of our country. I suggest this is a profoundly important development. It could lead to much more internal conflict and disunity in the country than the supposed forces of separatism within the province of Quebec could generate.
What is the reason for that, Mr. Speaker? Cynics like to say that the true selfishness of the average man in society is coming to the fore and being revealed at last. That is the reason behind this criticism, they think. I think that view is wrong. Ordinary people in Canada, as well as ordinary people elsewhere in the world, harbour a real concern about the well-being of their fellow countrymen. They are truly concerned and want to make sure that their fellow countrymen do not suffer. Average people do not resent some welfare burden and some education costs. What they resent, and resent increasingly in Canada, is the scale of that burden and the scale of those costs. They resent the fact that they work long and hard, yet must finance the tax rolls which are required to assist not a few but hundreds of thousands of their fellow countrymen.
Welfare costs, Mr. Speaker, are skyrocketing. Cities across the country from Vancouver to Halifax are experiencing increases in their welfare costs ranging anywhere between 100 per cent and 300 per cent. Education costs are increasing because of the large proportion of relatively young people in our population. Consequently, property taxes on homes often owned by working people have increased; certainly, the income taxes that such people pay are going up to pay for these needed expenditures. They are continuing to go up. As a consequence, disunity of serious proportions is a real possibility in this country. If unemployment is not reduced to the 3 per cent level very soon in Canada we could experience one of the greatest social crises in the history of our country. I do not say this in any loose fashion. Workers in Canada will be pitted against fellow workers. English-speaking Canadians will be pitted against French-speaking Canadians. I say this not in any "scary" fashion. I say this because I am concerned about the real consequences, social and political, of such a crisis which would affect
Employment Programs
the unity of this country and the viability of a federal government.
Many speakers in debates during the past few months who have spoken from this side of the House and, particularly, who have been members of this party have made positive and general criticism of the government. They have suggested that its preoccupation with inflation is economically insane and socially irresponsible. I do not intend to repeat their arguments. I should like to suggest a couple of concrete steps which might be taken now to reduce unemployment levels in this country.
First, if this government is really concerned about unemployment, it could propose what might be called a housing charter for Canadians for the 1970's. It should make such a commitment now, saying that by the end of this decade no Canadian in any province of this country will be without adequate housing. By the end of this decade it should be the case that every Canadian will regard housing as he now regards secondary education. It should be the case that housing will become a social right, and a legitimate and real expectation, of every person in this country. A citizen should come to regard housing, in short, as he now regards secondary education. We look on secondary education as a matter of right; if there is an increasing need in education, all we do is expand our present facilities. We do not, I repeat, we do not permit any youngster in this country to do without secondary education. However, we now permit many of our citizens, indeed, they number in the millions, to do without adequate housing.
The government could make such a commitment. It would involve expenditures that are in the billions; I candidly concede that cost. This is not an Utopian scheme. I am not saying that within one or two years all the housing needs of our people should be overcome. I am saying that by the end of the decade the problem ought to be overcome. The government could consider both housing and unemployment and solve both problems.
What would be the effects of such a commitment on unemployment? First of all, the obvious effect would be that bricklayers, painters, carpenters, electricians, plumbers and all the unskilled workers involved in house building would be given work. The less obvious consequence is that steel, aluminum and plastic workers who make products which go into houses would find jobs. It would also affect truck drivers who deliver products and assembly workers in plants across the country involved in making prefabricated housing of all sorts. They would also find employment.
The third category, perhaps the least obvious beneficiaries, would be auto workers, store workers and owners of movie houses. In short, virtually every other category of worker in this country would benefit because his goods and services would be purchased as a result of people being employed in the building of houses. For a long time, economists have said that if you really want to employ people and get the maximum output in terms of men

tion-we would presume-that education and retraining can be purchased in the same perfunctory way the housewife buys her weekly groceries.
The major criticism in this report, and it holds true today just as it did a year ago, is that the forecasting, planning and training arrangements are grotesquely inadequate. For this, the minister must bear the responsibility. There is no effective co-operation between the federal government, which is responsible for the executive and financial aspects of the training, and the provincial goverments which provide the facilities. In short, there is no integration of planning. The result is that countless Canadians are being trained for jobs which do not exist, while jobs which do exist go unfilled for lack of trained people. The result is we see in our ridings hundreds of unemployed people entering courses to be trained as plumbers, or electricians or bricklayers in the full expectation that when they complete their training they will be able to find jobs. But no jobs exist for them because the economic forecasting has been inadequate; the planning has either been non-existent or carried out in a slipshod fashion.
I should like the minister to provide the House with some information enabling us to compare the efficacy of our manpower training program with those of Sweden and Japan, for example. I should like him also to produce figures relating to the economic productivity in those countries as compared with our own. I believe, then, he would be able to appreciate the solid advantages of an effective manpower training program. The point is that manpower retraining represents no net cost to the people of Canada in the long run because it leads to a more productive labour force. There have, of course, been some good results flowing from manpower retraining-


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


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House give permission to the hon. member to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: I thank hon. members. The point I was making initially was that the general economic direction the government is taking is bad, that it is a major source of disunity in this country, that it could lead to clashes between worker and worker, between French-speaking Canadians and English-speaking Canadians. This danger should not be under-estimated. I tried to show that if the government were to seize on one major economic objective to provide a large number of jobs and simultaneously deal with a serious social concern, it should embark on a housing program the like of which this country has never seen, one which would result by the year 1980 in housing having become a social right just as secondary education is now assumed to be a right.
I look forward to hearing the observations of whichever ministers intend to take part in the debate. I shall be
Employment Programs
curious to see whether they are prepared to meet the challenge which lies before us or to follow the example of two of their former colleagues who recently decided that, because of their interest in these matters and their concern for the average Canadian, they ought to leave the ministry.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, this motion proposed by the opposition once more points out how important it is for the government to solve the unemployment problem, to find solutions for the economic and financial problems facing us. Thus we have an opportunity to express in the House the more and more widespread dissatisfaction among the Canadian people, especially in Quebec, and particularly in my own area of the St. Maurice valley.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot insist enough on the urgency of that situation and we cannot stress enough how pressing it is to find not palliatives but final solutions for these problems which affect our people.
Through what we read in newspapers and hear and see on radio and television we notice that everybody deplores the present situation. More and more frequently newspaper headlines point out the seriousness of the situation: "Nine thousand additional unemployed" proclaimed a headline some weeks ago. "The biggest increase in unemployment in 13 years". "Quebec still leads", wrote another newspaper later. "23,000 more unemployed in the province in 1970."
Mr. Speaker, how far this is from the promises made in the spring of 1970 by the present premier of Quebec!
In a newspaper, one could read: "17,000 Montrealers laid off in 1970."
In its January 13, 1971 issue, La Presse published an article headlined "Only 10,000 new jobs last year."
For the past few months, Mr. Speaker, newspapers have been full of this type of headlines.
In the face of this situation, what argument has been advanced, what were the solutions advocated?
A Canadian Press feature on May 8, 1971 stated regarding unemployment: "Trudeau admits failure."
Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to quote this excerpt from the Canadian Press:
The Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, said last night that unemployment had been the most serious failure of his government during its three years in office.
The Prime Minister, interviewed on the C.B.C. television program "Format 60", admitted that unemployment was partly due to the fight against inflation which his government waged last year and won, in his opinion.
"The fight against inflation has been a success but it has contributed to the unfortunate increase of unemployment," he
said.
The Prime Minister, who was interviewed by reporters, maintained that the government however had to check inflation to attain the objectives of the just society.
According to him, it is generally the small worker, the widow, the mother, the welfare case who are the victims of inflation since they get less for their dollar then.

June 3, 1971
Employment Programs
He added that, given another chance, he would no doubt act in the same way, but there would be less unemployment.
He recalled the appeals for co-operation addressed to all social levels by his government last year in the thick of his fight against inflation and said that he did not get the co-operation he had anticipated. "Voluntary co-operation was not a great success", Mr. Trudeau said, adding that should another inflationary thrust occur the population, both workers and employers, might co-operate better.
Mr. Speaker, that quotation from an article shows that far from being about to find solutions, we see them becoming increasingly remote since we admit that nothing can be done. That is hardly encouraging for the population which, in the meantime, continues to stagnate, to have a hard time making both ends meet and to complain about its administrators.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, this government does not want to recognize that this problem does exist. They say there is no solution.
But when we of the Social Credit try to oblige, if necessary, the government to consider potential concrete solutions, we just cannot accept-and our constituents are becoming increasingly dissatisfied-that the government brush away the solutions we are suggesting, that is increasing the purchasing power through easier credit and providing easier credit terms for industries. We claim that this would be very well received among the population and that this would also be a long-term solution to unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that if we wish to arrive at full employment several solutions are required. One of these days we will have to admit that the benefits of modern scientific progress, of automation, of technology, should be orientend toward the well-being of the population.
Having recognized the fact that we should not frown on progress, if the machine replaces man we will have to consider increasingly the development of programs to create a society with more and more spare time and less and less work.
Therefore, if we wish to reach full employment, we should seriously consider the possibility of reducing the working hours of each worker, while providing him with a sufficient income so that he may enjoy a minimum of well-being if not of comfort.
Mr. Speaker, this could be done immediately. I would like to give quite a striking example, that of the Post Office Department. We know that a great number of people have been complaining about slow mail deliveries for a year or two. Everybody is wondering why with such a high unemployment rate we are unable to obtain at the Post Office, for example, a sufficient number of jobs to avoid the present delays.
It is absolutely abnormal, for example, that a letter from Ottawa to the Champlain constituency 200 or 300 miles from here would take a week, 10 or 15 days to reach the addressee. We are given as a reason that some mail services do not operate on Saturdays and Sundays.
Mr. Speaker, if this is due to a lack of employees, enough should be hired by the Post Office Department to give a constant and continuous service, even on Saturdays and Sundays, precisely in order to promote a very good postal service while increasing the number of jobs.
If some people are against working more than 40 or 44 hours a week, and I certainly understand them, so much the better! Let us give others the opportunity of working during the remaining hours of the week. For instance, it might even be advisable to aim at having 200 people work 20 hours a week instead of having half that number work 40 hours.
All those possibilities should be considered but sooner or later-and of course I prefer that it be sooner than later-we shall have to find real solutions. We shall have to reach the true causes of this situation.
We shall only find them when we analyse the real potential of the country, based on all kinds of natural resources and on our potential of human intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, when we realize that we are one of the richest countries of the world, with a population of 23 million people spread out over an area greater than Europe where there are 600 million people, and that Canada is bigger than the United States with their population of 200 million, it is inadmissible that we should meet poor people while, theoretically, they are the richest in the world.
But, in order that this unheard of wealth may really be put to use for the citizen, one must reach the very logical proposal that it is a matter of making financially possible what is physically possible. Some have said and continue to say that it is merely a slogan but on the contrary, Mr. Speaker, it is a sensible and economically logical principle. And if ever this principle were to be applied, with all the raw material that we possess, the manpower that we have-and nobody can deny that because the most serious problem in Canada at the present time is that too many workers are chasing too few jobs-we would be surprised at the results. Since we possess all that, Mr. Speaker, what else do we need to put to use and develop these natural resources that are now available? The only thing we are running short of is money to finance these projects. Then why not take time and see that all those things that are physically possible become financially possible?
I have said time and time again that bridges, roads, hospitals, or anything else for that matter, are not built with bills and coins but rather with materials, labour and engineering. With these three elements, why bring in the money element? Piles of dollars cannot support a bridge; this is not the way to do it, Mr. Speaker. Better to use concrete, steel, for these materials are much more appropriate. Is that what we are short of? We have the world's richest iron ore mines in Northern Quebec. We have the human resources ready to go to work, thousands of unemployed people who ask nothing better than to work for the well-being of all our population.
There is no lack of it. Therefore, the only thing missing is the firm will to give the individuals of this country the opportunity of putting their intelligence, their strength,

June 3, 1971

in short their potential at the service of all their fellow-citizens.
And this, Mr. Speaker, can be done. This is no utopia, this is no dream; it is merely coming back to a sound economic policy, an economic policy of pure common sense. And we shall settle these problems of full employment and unemployment only when one and all will finally be able to contribute to the production of what this country needs, because it is perfectly ridiculous to accept blindly the principle that if we cannot produce at a lower cost than the United States, Europe or other countries of the world, we should not produce at all but buy from these countries.
If we were to follow this theory to its logical conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we would end up living on U.S. welfare for we all know that it is difficult to keep up with U.S. productivity in many areas of industrial activity, even if we take only prices into account. Thus, if automobiles are less expensive in the U.S., let us stop building them here and buy them across the border instead.
If textile products are less expensive in Japan or in Europe, let us close down all our factories and import these goods!
If a pound of butter is cheaper in New Zealand, we should penalize our own producers and buy the cheaper butter down under.
With this sort of reasoning, Mr. Speaker, Canada would stop producing anything in a few years. It is a nefarious theory and prices are only relative. What counts is the product we can get for the money we have.
The absolute value of money does not mean but its relative value does since we can buy goods with it. That is why a sound economy must return to sound basic principles, principles that are logical. And those are that money should serve all the citizens, the whole society.
When unemployment reaches frightening proportions, and we are stuck with it, it should not be tolerated, all the more so when we realize that we import a significant amount of our consumer goods. If Canadians made those products, part of our unemployment problem would be solved. But when our policy is based exclusively on ups and downs, on the mathematical acrobatics of the relative value of the American dollar, the Canadian dollar, the French franc or the German mark, in short, when we are concerned about exchange rates before caring about the possibilities and the production potential of this country, that is when we talk about inflation, unemployment, and come to incomprehensible economic dilemmas, knowing all along that Canada does not lack anything.
Mr. Speaker, of course there are solutions; there will come a time when it will perhaps be less necessary to find them than to accept them-since some have already been suggested-and we will support without reservation any measure which would help our citizens, which would spark their spirit of initiative, which would help all those who can to improve the production and which would at the same time help the consumer buy that production through increased purchasing power. That is the solution, Mr. Speaker-
Employment Programs


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


René Matte: One minute more and I could be through, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree to let the hon. member finish his comments?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


René Matte: I thank my hon. colleagues, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to add, in concluding, and this will only take a few seconds, that the famous unemployment and full employment problem is serious especially when we note that our young people are particularly affected. The problem becomes urgent and cries for a solution when we find that thousands of young people enter the labour market not only for the summer months but also after they graduate and that they cannot find any work. If this trend continues Mr. Speaker, catastrophe will obviously follow, because the 20-, 21-, or 25-year-old will no longer accept to be patient and he will not admit that his country's government can lead him to such a dead-end. He will not admit either that, with his initiative, with the potential existing in this country, he can be unemployed.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the resolution which has been put down for debate today deals with the problem of unemployment among our youth in particular, and suggests the failure in some ways of the government to deal, with this problem as well as some repudiation of responsibility by the government in connection with this problem. I should like to note, first of all, that while the resolution deals with unemployment among our youth, a great deal of the time of the members was spent on the economic situation generally and unemployment generally, and was not essentially related to the resolution. This, of course, was a consistent performance on the part of members opposite in this House who have chosen once again, each in his own way, to express their gloom and doom views concerning the state of the Canadian economy and where it is going.
I understand why they wanted at this time to put down this resolution once more. It is of course, only a short number of days before the budget will be presented, a time when the government can more fully indicate its assessment and its prediction about the economy of Canada as well as its view about what should be done at this time consistent with that assessment and prediction. This is probably also the last opportunity the opposition will have to take a kick at that particular cat because of the increase in employment in this country which is taking place in the current days and which will be revealed when the next figures are released. At that time they will turn their attention to other issues or different aspects of this issue. This same group, of course, not many months ago, treated inflation as the single most serious problem facing the government and, indeed, the government itself agreed.

June 3, 1971
Employment Programs
The resolution puts its finger, in a couple of words, on one very interesting point which hon. members opposite have blurred over very badly, and that is the question of what a government must and can do and what this federal government in particular can do and is doing about the economic climate, about the total aspect of the situation which influences employment and unemployment in this great country of ours. The government in Canada can and must do something to attempt to create the kind of climate with a long term impact in favour of stability and growth. It was a recognition of this responsibility which led the government to recognize that, unmindful spending and unmindful increases in the money supply which did not take into consideration their serious impact upon the economy and therefore the serious threat to our whole future, must not go on endlessly. We have gone through a period, probably due to minority government, when more of this has gone on than ought to have gone on. It is true that even then it did not reach the nearly disastrous heights of recklessness which had been reached by the previous Conservative government, but it was serious enough to create conditions and attitudes which had to be overcome.
The important thing which this government can and must do is to create an economic climate which is responsible, and which creates as much stabilizing effect as possible, so that those great free enterprise sectors of the economy will seize every opportunity to invest and to develop the growth in this country which is possible. It is with this view in mind that the government has considered both the problems of inflation and the problems of unemployment, and will continue to do so. It is in this light that the government must make a responsible assessment of what can be done in terms of fiscal and budgetary policies, in terms of increasing the over-all money supply, in a responsible way.
The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadfcent) urged what he called serious deficit financing. Of course, the government in Manitoba, which he lauded so much, has, as I understand it, a slight surplus budget. But what I suggest the government must engage in, and has engaged in, is a responsible policy of deficit financing, responsible having regard to the amount of money which can be made available in a budgetary and non-budgetary way to meet the situation of the moment.
It is interesting to note that all three hon. members opposite who have spoken joined together in adopting what is essentially a social credit policy that somehow or other there is an unlimited amount of money, without regard for the impact upon the economy of having that money available. The fact of the matter is that there is available in Canada a significant amount of potential consumer spending. There is a significant amount of credit available for investment, and what is needed above all is a determination on the part of the great private sector to go forward on the basis of its confidence that the government will continue to attempt to create an
atmosphere which is as stable and responsible as possible
to assure the growth which this country requires.
It is that kind of policy which has led this country to a performance which in almost every way is better than that which one finds in the United States, although our economies are almost inextricably linked in terms of the cyclical impact of changes in the development and growth of that great economy to which we export so much and from which we import so much. Every small change, therefore, in the large economy has an impact upon our economy. The atmosphere of growth really presents a great challenge to the private sector, and it is one which I hope will be taken up very soon in developing a climate of employment about which hon. members opposite spoke so much.
The resolution deals specifically with the problem of unemployment among our young people. This government has been very concerned indeed about the factors in the present logistical situation in Canada which creates greater problems of unemployment for our young people. These factors have been drawn to the attention of hon. members before, but they bear repeating. The rate of growth of the labour force in this country has been accelerating at a faster pace than in any of the countries examined, all of whom are members of the OECD. For instance, during the 1957 to 1970 period, this rate of growth has averaged at 2.7 per cent per year, compared to the next highest rate of growth acceleration of 1.7 per cent for the United States. This has resulted to a significant extent from the very sizeable group of young people between the ages of 14 and 19 at the beginning of the period and the ages of 20 to 24 in the latter part of the period. The result has been that from 1957 to 1970 our the United States has grown by less than 25 per cent, and the United Kingdom by approximately 5 per cent.
This is a result in particular of the growth in the labour force among the young people. It is true of course that as a result of this fact the participation in unemployment of our younger people, of those under 24, has grown in recent years. In 1961, for instance, of the unemployed -and I remind hon. members opposite that when the Conservative government was in power at that time unemployment was very high indeed-64.8 per cent that year were in the 25 to 64 age bracket. In 1970, 53.1 per cent were in the 25 to 64 age bracket. To offset this decrease, the bulk of the increase took place in the 14 to 24 age bracket, and this was a direct result of the fact that this group had increased so rapidly in the intervening years, at a more rapid rate than in any other country. This has created and does create serious problems in that the economy has to absorb in its ordinary patterns of growth increased numbers of persons entering the labour force. These factors are to some extent approaching a levelling off area so that the challenge to the economy in the years ahead may not be so great. But it does remain true that there are serious issues here of what sort of education, and the extent of education which should be offered to our young people, the system through which it should be offered to them, and the basis upon which training and programs should be made available to them.

June 3, 1971

We do, of course, offer a great deal of training to our young people in the manpower training and retraining programs. In the 1970-71 year preliminary figures indicate that of a total of full-time trainees benefiting from the program of 275,118, 250,000 were persons under the age of 25 years. It is, of course, a serious challenge to our nation as a whole to know how best to adapt the training to the needs ahead. In our retraining programs we try in every possible way to examine the employment needs, the job prospects, and to relate the programs to these. Of course we do not do as hon. members opposite might seem to be suggesting, turn the tap on and off quickly and automatically whenever any apparent or slight surplus seems to occur in one particular area. We have viewed the longer term needs, and have tried to adjust the labour force and the training programs according to those longer term needs.
I would like to say to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) in this connection that the general level of co-operation between the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the provincial governments in connection with planning for training is very good indeed. There have been some areas of difficulty in this matter of co-operation, but progress is being made step by step in developing better reaction to the needs of the future. There is no doubt in my mind that we must continue to expand and improve the information we have available about the job opportunities, the labour needs, the technological forecasts, and their future implications, and that we must try to give this information as much as possible to the individual person seeking it in order that he may choose his own career.
I suggest this as the logical approach in a democratic country, but also perhaps as a logical place for the federal government to attempt to find a role where education is generally within the field of provincial governments. I am really suggesting that it may not be possible to develop any perfect over-all plan centrally which leads to particular kinds of training for our young people for specific job opportunities, but rather that by giving the best possible kind of information they themselves may exert their demands on institutions that lead to appropriate training and education as a result. Indeed, it is true that has been the ordinary way of development of educational patterns in this country, that is to say, a responding to demand for training places rather than any broad and comprehensive thinking by individual institutions about their role in the country's over-all employment pattern.
In the present period, not only do our training programs attempt to serve the needs of the young people but, of course, we have developed special services in terms of placement offices in an attempt also to deal with their special needs. Indeed, while the motion deals with the special problem of employment of young people, hon. members opposite quite naturally in effect ran away from that basic part of the motion because in response to the special needs of this group, recognizing the special size of the group entering the labour force, this govern-
Employment Programs
ment has mounted very important special programs to deal with the problem.
I refer to the total of perhaps about $68 million which is being devoted to their special employment needs during the course of these summer months alone. There is a narrow line here of judgment about how much should be done or can be done for a particular group, a narrow line which finds hon. members opposite still urging us to do more, but a narrow line I know we could have so easily crossed in their view, so that they would have criticized us for over-emphasizing services to this group rather than under-emphasizing.
Hon. members opposite have referred to housing as a special category of activity which can be emphasized. They do this, of course, in the face of figures which show that we may be having an excellent year indeed in terms of housing and housing construction in this country. It is a serious problem, a need to be filled, and it is also a serious challenge and opportunity, in terms of employment and indirect employment throughout the economy.
Again, in the field of public housing, this government has been doing a tremendous amount to improve the availability of housing to those who need the housing so very greatly and for whom previous programs were not adequate. In the last two years more in the way of public housing will have been done than in the whole previous period of the program. This represents a very clear concern for the needs of the people of this country, and particularly of those who may be less fortunate than those people who can control and claim from society a higher and higher share of the available goods. I am speaking, of course, about this chronic and constant problem of those with power in this country who can claim in the way of compensation for their services, whether for labour or for capital, more than they ought to claim on reasonable grounds, and who therefore contribute to the inflation problem which has to be overcome in other ways.
In the examining of employment figures, Mr. Speaker, and figures of unemployment it is popular to compare figures for one period with another, and figures for one country with another, and this is done frequently without very much precision about what has changed or what is different in the comparisons. Between countries in particular very frequently the thing being examined is different. The questions being asked in terms of unemployment and employment are different. In terms of periods of time, even within this country of our's, there is a great deal of change in any three year, five year, or ten year period, in terms of the demands and the attitudes of the people of the country. These things must be borne in mind in comparing periods of unemployment with previous periods of unemployment.
Without much doubt there is a greater tendency today for many members of families who might not, in a previous decade, have sought to enter the labour force, to do so. This reflects itself in the fairly revealing analysis of families with unemployment problems, or families in which there is some unemployment. If in April, for

June 3, 1971
Employment Programs
instance, there were 529,000 family units in which an unemployed person was to be found, in 318,000 of those units some one, two or three other members of the family were at work at the same time. This represents perhaps a change in the nature of the demand for work in our society, and it also represents some significant difference in the way in which that employment or unemployment burden falls upon the people who are involved.
There is no doubt that in dealing with the economic situation generally we must continue to do what we have been doing in terms of watching the economy very closely, in terms, as of the last 12 or 13 months or so, of turning around this situation very dramatically by something like $2 billion in total additional infusion of capital into the economy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Do you think you're in the circus?


Otto Emil Lang: Hon. members opposite laugh. I know that the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) has conceded he knows nothing about the subject, and has no experts to advise him, but I believe hon. members opposite generally share that view. They seem to ignore-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair feels that hon. members should allow the minister to complete his remarks and also permit other hon. members to listen. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang).


Otto Emil Lang: It is very surprising, Mr. Speaker, to find that hon. members opposite still do not choose to recognize the important effect upon the economy of several billions of dollars of turnaround in fiscal and monetary policies in the course of the last 13 months or so. The hon. member for South Western Nova admitted his inability to offer very many positive suggestions to solve the problem. He says he cannot because of his lack of resources but of course this will not stop him or his colleagues from proffering elaborate criticisms of whatever is done in the next several weeks when a further statement will reveal what this government considers should be done in an attempt to continue to move in a responsible way toward growth in the economy.
We must maintain in our sights the responsible development of policy in order that the growth of this country and the attitude toward growth be established for the future. It would not solve anything to simply turn back to those nearly disastrous days of spending without regard to the impact upon inflation. This is not in the long-term interest of the country and does not reflect the attitude of those people who must make the decisions. We must re-establish a belief in the responsibility of government, not seeking short-term political ends but seeking to do those things which are economically sound. In the development of this country, we must not only think of today or the political consequences which hon.
members opposite are so concerned about, but we must think of the long-term benefit.
We must continue to do better than some of our neighbours and some of those economies which influence us very greatly. We can and will create an atmosphere for growth in this country, notwithstanding the gloom and doom so popular among hon. members opposite which attempts to inhibit the progress of those who make the decisions. I say to them that this is a time to have confidence in this country, confidence in those who make the decisions for the investment that will provide jobs for the great numbers entering the labour force. This is a country of which we can all be proud and of which most Canadians are proud; it is a country which will grow and develop and these short-run problems will be dealt with by programs which are right for the short term and also for the future of this country.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I think we have all been interested and entertained when listening to the Alice in Wonderland speech just delivered by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang). When listening to him one would think that we were living in a country where the economy is booming, where the government had great foresight and was conducting the affairs of the country in a first class manner. Instead, we are, in fact, living in a country where unemployment today stands at 7.8 per cent of the work force, where inflation has been rising during the last three months at an annual rate of 7.2 per cent, where taxes are the highest ever known in this country, where the Dominion Bureau of Statistics has described the economy as being at a virtual standstill, and where the government is obviously at a complete loss to know where it is going or how to deal with the problems facing us.
As we all remember, at the beginning of the year the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and other ministers advised us that unemployment had turned the corner and that inflation was licked. Obviously, these ministers have no idea where they are going, where they have come from or what they ought to do next.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: The minister made one statement with which I completely agree and I am sure we all would, so I jotted it down. He said, "The government must create confidence to stimulate the private sector." Of course, that is what the government must do, Mr. Speaker, but in the next few minutes I intend to show that the policies followed by this government have been doing exactly the reverse.
The principal reason that the economy of this country has not been expanding fast enough to come anywhere close to absorbing our rapidly increased work force is a lack of confidence in the future of the economy in the minds of the businessmen of Canada. This lack of confidence has caused them to put off the decisions which they otherwise would have made to expand their opera-

June 3, 1971

tions, thereby increasing production and increasing employment. Why has this lack of confidence developed? The reason is exactly the same as that which caused the hon. member tor Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) and the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) to resign. Incidentally, they are the only two members of the government who ever owned and successfully operated their own businesses and thus have an idea of the practical realities of practical economics. What caused them to resign is exactly the same reason that is causing this lack of confidence in the minds of businessmen across Canada today. I refer to the increasing conviction that the ministers of this government responsible for economic policy have no idea what policies are needed to enable business to expand, to increase sales, to increase production and thereby increase employment.
Businessmen in the business community generally have become disenchanted in several fields and the first is the determination of this government to continue to fight unemployment by increasing public expenditures instead of lowering taxes, thereby putting more money in the pockets of the people to enable them to buy more of the things they need and in this way stimulating sales, production and jobs. We have been urging the government not to follow this policy for a very good reason: that we had some experience with this policy several years ago when we were the government. In June, 1957, when we took office we inherited an economy that had been running downhill for a full six months-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Tell us about 1963.


George Harris Hees: -and already had considerable unemployment which was rising at a sharp rate. We tackled this problem by the accepted method of the day, Mr. Speaker, the same method the government is using today to try to fight unemployment.


Otto Emil Lang: In four years you hit a new low.


George Harris Hees: We found out, and they will find out, that although this method of trying to combat unemployment by increasing public expenditures is a satisfactory one for creating jobs in the short run, it is completely unsatisfactory in the long run for two very good reasons. The first is, as we found and they will find, that the capital cost of creating a single job is so high that it is impossible to employ more than a relatively few people for any long period of time; the second is that once the public works which are sponsored in this way are completed, you are right back where you started with the unemployed people still on your hands.
We found, Mr. Speaker, that the only practical way to combat unemployment was to stimulate the economy. The simplest way to do that, Mr. Speaker, of course is by lowering income taxes, putting more money into the hands of the Canadian people to buy the goods that they need and thereby increasing sales, increasing production and increasing jobs on a permanent and growing basis at no cost whatever to the treasury of the country. To make such a program of tax reduction effective, I believe that the Minister of Finance, in the budget that he will present on the 18th of this month, should be prepared to
Employment Programs
bring in a deficit of up to $1 billion. He ought to bring in a worth-while tax reduction so that the economy may be stimulated in an effective, important and worth-while way.
These tax cuts, Mr. Speaker, will pay for themselves many times over in the years ahead in three ways. First of all, considerably more people will be working and paying income tax instead of drawing unemployment insurance or direct relief. Secondly, there will be considerably greater amounts of products sold, thereby making possible a far higher intake of commodity taxes. Thirdly, increased production which will result from lowering these taxes will reduce overhead per unit of production. This will make possible more profits to tax and also make possible higher corporation taxes.
Another reason for this lack of confidence that is holding back the economy today is the fear of the implementation of two proposals in particular contained in the white paper on tax reform. The first of these is the proposal to cancel the 21 per cent tax rate on the first $35,000 of profits and to replace that with a flat 50 per cent rate. This measure was introduced a number of years ago and has been maintained by all governments since, and for the very good reason that it is extremely useful to small businesses from two points of view. The first of these, Mr. Speaker, is that it makes it possible for small businesses to obtain the capital they need for expansion out of profits. If they have to pay 50 per cent or 50 cents on each dollar from the first dollar that they earn and are not able to accumulate capital as they did, the only alternative will be for the businesses to go to the marketplace and borrow money at a very high rate of interest. The rates of interest will be high because those businessmen will not have been in business long enough to have acquired a good credit rating. As a result, they will be charged very high rates of interest in the money market. People in small businesses today fear that the Minister of Finance will implement this proposal in his budget. That has been their understanding for quite some time and that has had a very marked effect on the production of jobs in the country.
The other reason that the 21 per cent tax rate is important to small businesses is that the rate is very helpful in persuading young men to take the important step of leaving the comparitive shelter and security they enjoy in working for an established firm and going into business for themselves. Our country, or any country for that matter, needs many new businesses to be created each year by young and aggressive men with drive, determination and perseverence. If those young men who are considering going into business for themselves, and leaving the shelter and security of the firm for which they have worked, realize they will have to pay in tax 50 cents on every dollar from the first dollar they take in, they will be far less interested in making this very risky move. They may not make a success of the venture, they may have to go through a number of years of lean picking and they will have to go through the usual trials and tribulations connected with a business establishing

June 3, 1971
Employment Programs
itself, so this tax rate will cause them to hesitate. If they decide they will not go into business for themselves, there is nothing we can do about it. They just will not start new businesses. That has happened today in a very large number of cases. It was with these considerations in mind that this 21 per cent tax rate was first introduced. It was realized that if owners of new businesses could keep 79 cents of every dollar, up to the first $35,000, they would have a good chance to accumulate capital, to expand that business, to make good profits and to make a good livelihood. Therefore, this slowdown in the creation of new businesses is very serious. That slowdown has produced a slowdown in the creation of new job opportunities, which is very serious indeed.
The second item that the Minister of Finance is proposing in the white paper which is causing a great deal of alarm is the proposal to tax unrealized capital gains. That proposal, Mr. Speaker, is so unworkable, so unrealistic and so unfair that it hardly deserves to be considered in a serious place like this chamber. Consider this: the Minister of Finance has told the people of Canada that he will name "V Day", which is Valuation Day. Then, on that mysterious day, everyone in the country, whether he be a businessman, farmer, storekeeper or anyone else, will be investigated by a great army of valuators. Where they are all to come from I do not know. This will be a mysterious procedure. Everything we own will be valued. Then, five years later this army of locusts will descend on us again and look over everything we own. Then, they will sit down and say, "Your holdings are worth so much now; they were worth so much less five years ago. You owe the government some money as a result of the increased value of your holdings." Of course, those gains may not have been realized; the people who are to be charged for those gains will have nothing with which to pay those taxes, and so I say that that proposal is completely unworkable, unrealistic and unfair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: This kind of thing has caused people generally, and people in the business community particularly, to lose confidence every day in the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and in all those around them as men of business sense and practical, economic knowledge. This is a very real reason for losing confidence.
In order to restore confidence, the Minister of Finance should announce that he intends not to introduce these two proposals either now or in the future. This would be of great help in restoring the confidence of the business community. However, Mr. Speaker, that is not the government's plan. The government's plan is quite different. The government plans to make this coming budget of June 18 an election budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: You watch it, Mr. Speaker. When it comes down on that night, only attractive items will be included
in the budget and all the unattractive things will very conveniently be left out until a later date. I will have something to say about that later date in a moment. You will see in that budget tax improvements for the people who earn up to $9,000 a year. In order to pay for those tax improvements, the minister will introduce a capital gains tax on realized capital gains. That has been expected for quite some time. But there will be no mention of any tax increase for people in the middle income brackets. There will be no mention of replacing the 21 per cent tax on the first $35,000 of profits with the 50 per cent flat levy. There will be no mention at that time of the proposal to tax unrealized capital gains.
Why is that, Mr. Speaker? I say that the government's plan is simply and strictly a political plan. They have no reason to believe from what their economists have told them-and I know this to be a fact-that next winter is to be any better from the point of view of employment or inflation than was last winter. Probably it will be worse. They have no intention of going through another winter such as the last one and endure the battering they got from the opposition and citizens of Canada, and hold an election next spring.
Here is what they are going to do. During the summer they will have this high priced group of public relations people that has been mentioned this afternoon going around the country and building up the government in every way they can. During the summer the weather is warm; people take holidays; jobs are always more plentiful. Everyone feels better at the end of the summer. At the end of the summer, around about September 1, this government, on some pretext such as that the opposition is holding them up or they want to get some kind of assurance from the people of Canada that the people are in favour of constitutional change, and so on, will call an election. The Prime Minister will certainly find an excuse and he will call an election.
He intends to call an election about September 1, or at any time before the end of October, before the next bad winter sets in. Then the plan is, and this is a fact, for the Minister of Finance to bring in the tax increases for people in the middle income brackets. The 21 per cent tax will go out and the 50 per cent levy will be adopted. The tax on unrealized capital gains will be introduced. The people of Canada will get this entire package after the election, which the government hopes to win. God help us if they ever do. I am convinced that they will not, but if they ever do, this is what they intend. This is the government's plan. There is no question about that.
This budget will be what might be called a window-shade budget. The government intends to pull up the shade for a few months this summer, let in a little sunshine, have everybody happy and, after the election, if by some mischance the government should win, that shade will again be pulled down and the people of Canada will find themselves in the same financial and economic darkness as they are in today.

June 3, 1971


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise him that his time has expired. He may continue if there is unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Harris Hees: Thank you very much. I appreciate the courtesy of my fellow members. I assure them I will only be one more minute.
It is very important that management and labour know that the government means what it says and has the courage to bring in mandatory price and wage controls if there is no adherence to voluntary guidelines. Labour and management leaders across the country have told me that the one thing they do not want is mandatory controls. If they are convinced that the government will bring them in if voluntary guidelines are not obeyed, these guidelines will be obeyed. That is what the government must do.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that there is a great deal to be done to bring unemployment and inflation under control. The government should have started to take these steps a long time ago. We have pointed out what these steps are. We continue to urge the government that they must act now. It is imperative that these steps be taken without further delay.
Employment Programs



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 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 Vancouver -Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Manpower-Alleged discrimination against women in training programs; the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe)-Inquiry of the Ministry.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Comeau:
That this House records its deep concern upon reviewing the government's continuing repudiation of its duty to establish full employment programs, and the consequent failure by the government to establish programs and polices which will give young Canadians the opportunity to enter the labour force.
Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, ordinarily one congratulates a member and thanks him for bringing a motion before the House. However, today, the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) has to be congratulated on his acting ability. Seldom have I heard so many tired platitudes and trite cliches strung together in such a tone of righteous indignation as we have been treated to by the hon. member.
We have been blessed because the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) has given us a preview of what is likely to happen. Had the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) known that his work was being done for him elsewhere, no doubt he would have been here today. However, the choice of the subject today finds the Minister of Finance very close to a budget and hence, in a practical way, precluded from taking part in this debate.
During the series of debates that we have been treated to on opposition days throughout the winter and spring seasons, various ministers have described the active, effective programs which their departments are conducting to improve the employment opportunities of Canadians generally and young Canadians in particular. These programs are important, substantial, practical and effective, but the fact remains that in our free enterprise country, the major opportunities to solve economic problems, including the provision of more employment, lie in the private sector. There is a distinct limit to the results that government can attain directly.
This is not to say that additional government interventions in the economy would not be possible. Whether

June 3, 1971
Employment Programs
they would be effective in achieving the desired results is debatable. What is not debatable is the fact that massive new interventions, as some advocate, would take us closer and closer to a different economic system than the free enterprise system that has, by and large, served us so well and has permitted us to enjoy a standard of living and of personal freedom unapproached by nations practising other economic and political philosophies.
In Canada's free enterprise economy, optimum results do not automatically flow from unilateral government intervention. Rather, they result from a combination of public and private decisions, actions and policies when the public input, the government's contribution, creates and maintains the economic environment within which the private sector can make and execute sound decisions.
Canada's economy is not isolated from those of its trading partners, nor from those from whom it receives capital, but we have shown that we do have an important measure of room in which to pursue independent policies with success. That is not to say that we can have our cake and eat it too, for example that we could pursue more vigorous anti-inflationary measures than other countries while maintaining relatively fewer on the public payroll and have less unemployment then them.
It would be most helpful if we could know in advance the degree of vigour with which other nations are going to pursue their economic policies and the measure of success with which they are going to be content. Not knowing these facts in advance means that we are bound to get a bit out of phase from time to time and there is no doubt that Canada's relatively greater success in executing its economic policies can and has on occasion created as well as solved problems. Nevertheless, we must aspire to a balanced economic policy that is best for Canada and hope that, in the long run, our trading partners will do equally well for themselves and thus for the entire economic community of which we are a part.
I have said before and I do not mind saying again that certainly we have more unemployment than we would wish and that is, unquestionably, a personal tragedy for those caught up in it. That would be equally true if Canada's unemployment, seasonally adjusted or otherwise, were 1 per cent or less. This element of personal tragedy is real and will always be real regardless of all the effective measures that governments at all levels have taken to assist the unemployed and to reduce unemployment.
Employment is high, too, and this is no tragedy. Canada's work force is growing faster than the work forces of most other western countries. This growth rate has been about 3 per cent per year for the last three years-last year it was 321,000 workers, or 4 per cent-which means that a great many new jobs have to be created in Canada every year just to keep the unemployment figure-in numbers, not percentages-the same. Last year, employment in Canada, the number of people working, rose faster than that of any other industrialized nation, the United States among them.
We are accused of deliberately creating unemployment to beat inflation. That is arrant nonsense. It totally ignores the unemployment which would have followed from lost exports had inflation been allowed to continue in Canada. Our 1970 merchandise trade surplus of $3 billion was due in large measure to our superior price performance and by all traditional measuring sticks that meant over 200,000 jobs; over 200,000 more employed Canadians. The inflation problem common to all western nations has not disappeared and Canada must, and will, pursue economic policies designed to maintain our relatively better performance over the long term.
An area in which we are suffering from no shortage of expert advice is that of wage and price controls. We are indebted to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) for a renewed offering today. It is the main thesis of a number of prominent critics of the government's economic policies that the only way in which inflation can be satisfactorily contained at the same time as an acceptable employment level is maintained, is by the institution of an incomes policy, price and wage controls of some description.
The hearings presently being conducted by the Senate Committee on National Finance certainly provide ample academic and theoretical support for any position one wants to take on this subject. The eminent British economist, Sir Roy Harrod, is reported and quoted as advocating an incomes policy, compulsory if necessary, although he specifically said he was talking about Great Britain and the United States and that he would not like to venture an opinion about Canada. Dr. Richard Lipley, another distinguished British economist presently incumbent at Queen's University was questioning the acceptability and viability of an incomes policy in a free market society, except perhaps on a voluntary basis over the very short term. He also concludes that the incomes policy operated in Great Britian during the late 1960's had, in fact, been inflationary.
Mr. J. Douglas Gibson, an eminent economist from the private sector, sees the answer to be reduced taxes with a consequent increased deficit which he admits would, in itself, be inflationary. He acknowledges that Canada's unemployment problem is different from that of most other countries in that we have rising employment, which is simply not keeping up to the increase in the work force. Mr. Gibson encourages actions which would tend to reduce the exchange rate of the Canadian dollar, while economics professor A. D. Scott of the University of British Columbia contends that the rising exchange rate has neutralized the imported element of our inflation.
It is not my intention to pursue in detail the proceedings and evidence being elicited in the Senate Committee. I have merely cited a few examples to illustrate the diversity of expert opinion available to those who must ultimately decide. Meanwhile we find the Economic Council of Canada advising us that its mandate extends only to medium and long-term matters and constantly reminding us that its comments are directed in accordance with its mandate, to the medium and long-term. All

June 3, 1971

the while they are admonishing and reminding us of their medium and long-term functions, they are being quoted as an authority on immediate and short-term solutions which is precisely what they deny advancing. The Senate Committee proceedings certainly establish that there is ample room for bona fide disagreement on economic policies. Under that circumstance, deliberate distortions of the position of the Economic Council of Canada appear inexcusable, even in the interest of political expedience.
What really concerns me now is not the criticisms of the state of the Canadian economy or of the government's economic policies, but rather the uncritical acceptance of some of the remedies proposed. The danger is not that Canadians will accept the critics' assessments of the state of the economy, because if that is as far as it goes, actual performance will soon prove them wrong. The danger is in going a step further and accepting their prescription-a controlled economy. A controlled economy is what is really being talked about whether it is called "mandatory price and wage guidelines.", "a comprehensive prices and incomes policy with teeth", "selective price controls" or "compulsory and binding arbitration". We find spokesmen of the left who would not for a moment interfere with the right of the worker to get what he can out of the economy by collective bargaining advocating price controls, rent controls, ceilings on interest, limits on capital return and so on. We find spokesmen of the right, who would not for a moment interfere with the right of the entrepreneur to get what he can out of the economy by free operation of the market, advocating compulsory arbitration, labour courts and other state pre-emption of the collective bargaining process.
We find all sorts of people advocating controls of other peoples' prices, never their own. And we see, in the middle, a government which has to ensure that the economic system works, which has to balance the various claims on production, which has to establish and preserve the economic environment in which the fair share of each and every one of those claimants can be maximized by increasing productivity. The real danger to Canada from those preaching exaggerated views of the state of the Canadian economy lies not in their selling those views but in selling the view that exaggerated remedies are desirable, even essential. These suggested remedies will never be desirable. I hope they will never be found to be essential.
Canada operated a controlled economy during the war. We established a Foreign Exchange Control Board whose function it was to control exchange dealings and international capital transactions. Its real job was to advise upon methods and to execute policies to conserve Canada's balance of United States dollars. It found that to make its work effective it had not only to control and manage regular international transactions, but to call upon the government to limit imports ruthlessly, to realize on Canadian assets in the United States and to borrow heavily in the U.S. market. We have heard, in recent weeks, arguments in the House of Commons that because of the current pressure on our dollar as a result of our move into a positive balance of payments position, which
Employment Programs
is the reverse of the wartime problem, it would be highly desirable for Canada to establish an interim foreign exchange control system.
During the war we also set up a Wartime Prices and Trade Board responsible for the whole field of price controls and consumer protection. It started out with selective controls, dealing only with the necessities of life, rents, fuels and a selection of foods. Within two years it covered all goods and services and was enforcing a price ceiling. For a number of items, prices management alone proved inadequate and physical rationing was implemented to assure a fair distribution at the administered prices. By late 1942, there were, in operation under the Wartime Prices and Trade Board, a wool administrator, a coal administrator, a sugar administrator, a hides and leather administrator, an oils administrator, a rent administrator and some 85 other administrators, complete with staffs of varying magnitude, all concentrating their efforts on the price management of particular commodities and services. I would hesitate to estimate the number of suggestions I have heard in recent months that this, that or the other price, be it bank interest, rent, dividends or particular commodity or service prices should be subjected to ceilings-in other words, that we need selective price controls.
The National War Labour Board, during the war years, started by administering wages and bonuses, but very soon found it had to assume centralized control of all labour policy, not just that which came under federal jurisdiction. In addition to controlling the federal conciliation service and enforcing the federal Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, it controlled provincial labour policy through nine provincial boards under the chairmanships of the nine provincial ministers of labour. Again, I cannot estimate the number of times in recent months that demands have been more for wage controls in particular industrial situations. Needless to say, they do not usually come from the people who suggest rent or dividend limitations.
I have left out of this litany the numerous boards and agencies concerned with procurement and production of weapons and so on, and the various agricultural boards whose main purpose was to supply food to Britain. Their function was peculiar to war. The three I have described-the foreign exchange control board, the wartime prices and trade board and the national war labour board-are the three that dealt directly with the areas where advocates of controls today see those controls as necessary-the external value of our dollar, the prices of goods and services, and wages and other labour costs.
In addition we had an excess profits tax, and that, too, is something frequently suggested today by those who see the need for the government to limit business profits. Another proposal is mandatory guidelines that would limit the profit of business to the long-term capital return actually experienced in a particular industry. One might greet these suggestions with more enthusiasm if one felt that limitation of initiative-a resignation to doing no better than in the past; a static business community- would be in the national interest.

June 3, 1971
Employment Programs
In wartime it was legally possible for the Canadian government to deal with every phase of the Canadian economy. Daily orders in council under the authority of the War Measures Act disposed of the most minute economic details, most of them items clearly within the constitutional competence of the provinces. Today's proponents of controls have religiously ignored the constitutional issue. If they are serious, if their advocacy of controls is in good faith, they have the obligation to answer this question: What is to be the legal basis for the action by the federal government which they propose?
Assuming a legal basis can be found, will controls work? During the war we had a massive national consensus, a will to win, a willingness to sacrifice. Even with that we, and for that matter every other country whose economic experience lay in free markets, had our grey and black markets. Does that national consensus exist today? I think not. If it did, the support for voluntary restraint would have made the efforts of the Prices and Incomes Commission a greater success. Current experience in countries with controlled economies and, indeed, established traditions of controls would tend to confirm that, without the support of a national consensus, mandatory economic controls do not, in fact, work well. Like so much other socialist dogma, the fact bears little resemblance to the theory.
The lesson of our wartime experience is that selective measures very quickly become comprehensive; that continued successful regulation of a given activity depends on the regulation of an increasing circle of decreasingly related activities, that general guidelines breed detailed directives; that simple, broad objectives evoke complicated, detailed controls. The lesson of our wartime experience, if we care to recall it, is that Canada with a controlled economy is a very different Canada from Canada today. It is not one to which those who care to remember would cheerfully return. Let us keep that in mind when aggravation with the uneven operation of our economy tempts us to cry "crisis" and to demand direct state intervention.
The government has not rejected the possibility that specific controls, within its lawful competence may be needed and that particular intervention when collective bargaining processes break down may be unavoidable. I, personally, doubt that controls would produce the benefits that their advocates envisage, but I have no doubt whatever that their cost would be paid in terms of individual freedom. Some unevenness in the operation of the economy is the price that Canadians pay for a great deal of personal freedom in our economic decisions. To date it has proved a price well worth paying. Given the will to make our free economy work, we can continue to enjoy that freedom; but that will must be shared by all sectors, government, business, labour. Immoderate demands on the economy by any sector may very well confront us with a very different economy and a very different way of life than we have heretofore enjoyed.
The Minister of Finance will be bringing down his budget two weeks from tomorrow, on June 18, barring some major unforeseen event. I understand that it is
intended that the six day budget debate will commence the following Tuesday, June 22, and, allowing for the St. Jean Baptiste Day holiday, will terminate on Wednesday, June 30. We will, in the budget and ensuing debate, be in a position to discuss the economy in a prospective, rather than retrospective, way.
Meanwhile, we will note with interest any and all responsible suggestions forthcoming from all sides of the House during today's debate, as we have noted and considered those made during earlier debates on economic issues. I do hope, however, that in advancing ideas all hon. members will bear in mind the facts of Canada, including in particular the fact of the fastest growing labour force in the free world; the fact of a free enterprise economic system that an overwhelming majority of Canadians want to see strengthened and preserved, not subverted and destroyed; the fact of our partnership in an international trading community and capital market; the fact that there are legal limits to the legislative power of the federal Parliament and to the executive power of the federal government.
The government cannot, in making its budgetary decisions, divorce itself from these realities. Suggestions that ignore these realities, whatever their credentials in abstract theory, are grossly irresponsible, and the more highly placed their proponents are, or are imagined to be the greater the element of fraud, deceit and political expedience in exploiting them.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I ask the hon. member two very simple questions? First of all, was he speaking for the government in making his remarks? Secondly, has he seen any contingency plans that the Prime Minister and several other ministers, namely finance, labour and external affairs, have referred to nationally? If he has not, perhaps he can say why all of these remarks by these hon. gentlemen about contingency plans for the control of prices and wages were uttered, in view of the speech the hon. member has just made?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I did note in my speech that the government had not rejected the possibility that controls would be required in emergency situations. Certainly, in response to questions here in the House the Minister of Finance has indicated that since these controls have not been introduced, obviously the government does not deem that the emergency they are designed to meet in fact exists.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau), for introducing the motion today, one which is very timely in view of the critical situation of student unemployment, to say nothing of unemployment generally. Everyone recognizes that the student unemployment problem has reached critical proportions: almost two million of our young citizens, approximately ten per cent of the population-a portion of our population to which we will look for the future leaders of this country-are denied employment opportunities because the government

June 3, 1971

has not been able to plan to cope with the basic need for employment in our country.
I can understand such a situation arising if an emergency came about suddenly. But since the government was aware in years past that the problem would recur, that this need would arise each year, it should not have failed to provide the leadership to cope with the situation, having been warned by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the Economic Council of Canada, and especially having been warned by every member of this House of Commons.
As long ago as last September the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) warned the government of a recurrence of this situation when at the last minute the government introduced some makeshift program to provide student employment. Instead of starting to plan at that time for the following year, the government simply hoped that the problem would run away. Instead of consolidating its position, making an assessment of the situation, learning some lessons from its previous errors and making some improvements on the 1970 program, the government was content to rest on its laurels.
In March of this year, it produced another program which was too late to provide an over-all plan to benefit the greatest number. Instead of starting last fall, after the 1970 program was completed, to plan for this year and introducing a program early enough, what has happened? True to form, the government announced its 1971 program on March 16 with deadlines for submission of projects too soon thereafter. As a result, proper communication of information to those areas where the need was greatest was denied. True to form, this government made its usual announcement about how concerned it was about unemployed Canadians, especially students, which sounds wonderful over the news media but produces, in fact, too little too late. The announcement by the Prime Minister was of the usual type. He repeated, as he does too often, the concern his government has for all Canadians in need.
It is worth while repeating some of his words about this government's concern for the almost two million students who would be seeking jobs and the rest who would be in search of other equally meaningful summer activities. It is in the national interest, he said, that the wishes of as many persons as possible in each category be accommodated. He also said that the advantages of summer employment are so obvious, however, in terms of self-support, of broadening of outlook, of acquisition of new skills and experience that every effort by governments to assist is justified. The Prime Minister further said that there is equal justification for assisting students who do not seek work but who want to occupy their summer vacations in undertaking other rewarding and worth-while activities. That may be wonderful speech writing, Mr. Speaker, but there has been little in the way of meaningful action. When these words were being uttered to the country there was not one bit of planning in progress to set up the administrative support to get the program in motion.
Employment Programs
I visited the offices of the Opportunities for Youth program just before the deadline for submission of projects. They were still setting up the offices in a makeshift manner. There was only one telephone. There was no office space and there were no desks. They were running around like a bunch of-well, I don't know what. Only days before the deadline for the submission of projects some Manpower centres were still not aware of the program. Mr. Speaker, there are places in this country where the people still are not aware of the Opportunities for Youth program despite all the public relations experts and the advertising agencies. It makes me wonder what Information Canada has been doing all this time.
As recently as three weeks ago some Manpower centres in this country had no details of the student militia and civilian employment programs. Ever since the program was announced it has progressed by accident rather than design; and the credit for the little progress it has made is due to the staff who have worked under the most trying circumstances because of lack of fundamental preparation on the part of the government. Despite all the fanfare about and expression of the good deeds of the government, the whole point of the problem was missed.
The aim of the exercise is to provide employment opportunities for the students of our country who need money in order to further their education. They need money because financing their education creates hardship for parents who cannot afford it. It is as simple as that. If they can provide the $67 million to finance such a program, all credit to the government. If the money is hard to come by-which I appreciate-and the government cannot provide enough to assure everyone a job, then the solution is again simple. Every last copper of the $67 million should have been directed toward helping those who cannot afford to pay for their education.
It is fine for the government to provide programs whereby students can travel Europe. It is fine to provide moneys for students to hich-hike across Canada to learn about our great country. But when so many of our youth are denied an education in our affluent society because they cannot afford it, then for the love of God let us consider what our priorities are. If the government refuses to recognize the fact that there are five million poverty-stricken Canadians because of senseless priorities, then let us direct our spending to help educate the children first. If we want to teach our youth to stand together and understand together, let us introduce meaningful participatory programs wherein we can use their knowledge and direct their understanding to useful purposes by helping those who are unable to help themselves.
Our great country was built through the hard work of our parents and their ancestors and we have produced some pretty good citizens. Let us continue on that course and give students some responsibility to help us, and not send them on the road because we want to get rid of them, with the camouflaged excuse of believing that they are gaining something which will make them better Canadians.
6346

shameful accommodation. I agree that millions of dollars are being poured into housing for those in the low-income bracket, but a great portion of our population cannot even afford the down payment or cannot afford to take advantage of lower rates of interest to build a home, because they do not have a copper.
We should further expand student training through the militia and mobile command bases to teach leadership and to establish programs oriented toward community participation. We must also think of those who had to cease being students because they could not afford to go to school and who are now walking the streets because they cannot get a job to enable them to go back to school.
There are many questions still not answered although the deadline is almost upon us. I should like to ask the government why the information was so late in going out. I should also like to ask why the government did not stand by their pledge that regional unemployment would be used as a measure. Where do the regionally disadvantaged provinces stand with regard to the allocation of funds? Down at the bottom of the list, as usual. What about the critieria regarding the financial need of students who will be left out in dismay and discouragement, which defeats the purpose of the program? What are the criteria now? They are in bound volumes in offices, and try as we may it is impossible to find out how many projects were submitted from the various regions where the need is greatest. On what basis are projects rejected, cut back or accepted? How do we get the answers for our constituents on the progress that is being made with the projects they have submitted?
I wonder if the government would give members of the House of Commons who are interested and concerned an opportunity to visit the secretariat. We are invited to many meetings and dinners, but I would like us to be invited to the secretariat to see what progress is being made with regard to the projects that are submitted by our constituencies. I do not know whether the government is listening when somebody is trying to be helpful but I hope they will realize that it is most important that they decide on the priorities. This is most important, so that we can ensure the success of our objectives to the most important segment of our society, namely, the youth of our country.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in participating in this debate because some positive things should be pointed out. First of all, we live in the greatest country in the world. We have the greatest potential for the future and we have policies to develop it. The only two countries in the world which have a higher standard of living are Sweden and the United States, and I ask members of the House how many of them would change their positions to become citizens of either of those countries.


John Howard Lundrigan: We are talking of the 650,000 unemployed Canadians.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I will get around to that subject. Recently a minister resigned from the cabinet. We have heard
Employment Programs
comments about this from across the floor of the House. He advocated the philosophy that our resource-based industries should be developed at a slower rate, that they should not receive tax concessions in regard to their profits. Hon. members do not seem to realize that these industries are pouring money back into the economy and hence creating jobs. I should like to ask the hon. member advocating this philosophy how he justifies it at a time when many of our mining communities sole source of employment is our natural resources, when economists are telling us that we should be making use of our natural resources for the employment of our people. His concept does not make sense.
What are the policies of the government to create employment? We have greatly expanded ARDA facilities in the last few years, together with the provinces. I am very critical of the way in which ARDA projects are administered. The province of Ontario, like the other provinces of Canada, administers ARDA projects-in this case it is a Conservative government-but on very few occasions are members of the government of Canada invited to participate in the opening of projects or developments in the rural parts of Canada although the federal government provides 50 per cent of the funds.
I should like to cite an example where we provided 50 per cent of the money for an ARDA project in my constituency which is the provincial constituency of Renfrew South. I have received several telephone calls from people who wonder where the ARDA funds are for this project which employed people during the winter months. I telephoned the ARDA people in Ottawa and telephone calls were made to Toronto. To everybody's amazement, it was discovered that the cheque was delivered by the provincial member to the industry concerned. It was taken out of his pocket and handed to the person to whom it should have been sent. It was not even handed to him in an envelope-and it was dated a month earlier than the date it was received.
If hon. members opposite want to refer to the politics in the Opportunities for Youth program, there are cases such as this that can be demonstrated by their counterparts in the province of Ontario. Why should a cheque be a month old when it is delivered to a business which has kept people employed during the winter months when unemployment is extremely high? I repeat that 50 per cent of this money was federal money.
Another thing we must do in the field of education is promote far greater participation by Canadian intellectuals in our universities and in other places of education such as our technical schools. By no means should we encourage people from other countries to come here and take up teaching positions. I support 100 per cent any policy that is aimed in that direction. Another thing which is happening today, largely because of the high cost of education, is the cutting back of teaching staffs which in turn puts a larger number of students in the classrooms. This is creating unemployment at the teaching level. Of course, education is under provincial administration.
24107-51J

June 3, 1971
Employment Programs
We are in an era which probably has the highest number of students in Canadian history. Predictions are that the number of students will decline somewhat but at present we are going through the bulge period. This is why the government has tried in many ways, particularly last year and this year, to provide employment opportunities to students during the summer months. It is difficult to find jobs for all students but there has been more input by this administration into student employment than by any other government in Canadian history.
I also commend the private business sector and the many firms which are employing students during the summer months. We should not give the impression that it is the duty of the government of Canada to employ all our students in co-operation with provincial governments and municipalities. I commend businesses, be they small or large, which have made employment openings in their operations for the youth of the country.
Many commendable student employment programs have been accepted this summer, in spite of the criticism of some. There is always criticism, because no one is perfect in this world. I am extremely proud of one program in my area which is designed to provide recreation for mentally retarded children and adults. When it was first mooted it was suggested the project could not be accepted because it involved bus transportation, but eventually the policy was made flexible enough to include transportation for worthy projects such as this.
I well remember my university days, hitch-hiking along the roads of southern and northern Ontario looking for summer employment. I know on a first-hand basis what this is like. At that time we did not have a student loans program. Hon. members will recall that the student loans program was initiated under the administration of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson in co-operation with the provinces. It has proven very successful and has been continued with greater support by the present government.
If you are starting a business, Mr. Speaker, you need a great deal of what is known as bridge financing to carry you over the difficult period when there is no income coming to the firm. I think the student loans program is the bridge financing for our youth today, because the government not only pays the interest up to and including six months after a student graduates from university but picks up the tab for those who for one reason or another do not pay back the loans. The program enables students to continue at university and receive an education.
There is one strong suggestion that I wish to make to the government. It is that in order to assist students-as I say, the largest number in Canadian history-over this difficult period when some of them cannot find employment, the government should place more emphasis on guaranteed student loans in order to bridge their being financed through university and in cases where there is real need, where parents cannot contribute, the policy should be made more flexible with the government backing higher loans for individuals, particularly in cases where students have not been able to make much money during the summer months.
We hear a great deal today from the treasurer of the Province of Ontario who feels that if Ottawa persists in many of its present policies then perhaps the province should opt out of some cost-sharing programs. There is one definite project I would like to see the province opt out of, and it is in the field of housing. At present the federal government is putting up 90 per cent of the money that is being poured into provincial housing corporations across Canada, with the provinces providing the remaining 10 per cent. But at every public housing project you see a notice which reads: This is another housing project by the province of so and so. No mention is made of the contribution by the federal government.
I would gladly agree with the treasurer of the Province of Ontario: let us pay the other 10 per cent and let the people of Canada know that not only is the federal government willing to pay 90 per cent of the cost of this housing but it is willing to pay 100 per cent, and have the program brought under federal jurisdiction. Let us get out of this game of petty politics.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was discussing the federal-provincial housing program with which I disagree. To follow up the comment made by the provincial treasurer of Ontario to the effect that they may want to get out of some cost-shared programs, I hope this does not mean that it is his intention to introduce in Canada a policy of economic separation on a provincial basis.
The industrial complexes of central Canada, British Columbia, Alberta, etc. are being called upon and will be called upon in future to hold this country together economically. Wherever the tax base is, that is where the tax dollar must come from to help Canadians in other parts of the country and to keep the country on a sound basis. We must not forget that the have-not provinces use their money to buy goods from the industrialized areas of Canada and therefore deserve some return in the form of the tax dollar.
We have been talking about youth employment and employment in general, but one matter that seldom comes up in debates in this House is that of employment on the farm. We hear a lot of criticism about Bill C-186 from the Conservative party and others in the House.


An hon. Member:: It is Bill C-176.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You should learn the lesson.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: This bill provides for the maintenance of employment of young farmers in the rural parts of this country. In a statement in the Ontario legislature in

June 3, 1971

support of this bill, Hon. William Stewart, provincial Minister of Agriculture, said:
Mr. Speaker, if I may continue, I suggest that had the national marketing legislation now before the House of Commons been in effect, in my opinion the problems we now face across Canada would not have occurred, as far as interprovincial marketing problems are concerned.
Now as I understand it the national bill, Bill C-176, will be introduced for third reading in the House of Commons in the very near future. I am advised by the office of the Minister of Agriculture of Canada that the bill has passed the Standing Committee on Agriculture stage, has been returned to the House and will be proceeded with.
When it is passed it will provide the legislative authority at national level, but it must be complemented and supplemented by an exchange of power with the provinces. Here, Mr. Speaker, I wish to assert that I have assured the office of the federal Minister of Agriculture that we in Ontario will introduce the necessary amendments to our Farm Products Marketing Act to bring it in line with the national legislation, to provide for the reciprocal exchange of the necessary legislative powers.
That is the opinion of the Tory party of Ontario, Mr. Speaker, so they disagree with many members of the opposition in this House who have spoken on employment in agriculture. I have many things to say on the subject of regional economic expansion, but there is not time and I shall reserve my remarks on this subject for the budget debate.
There has been a great demand across this nation and in this House for an assessment of future policy on energy and national resources, although certain members obviously do not treat this as a very important subject. On May 26, the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, through the government House leader submitted the following motion:
That the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works be authorized to study the oil and gas industry in Canada with particular reference to the ecological implications of various modes of transporting the product; and that in the conduct of such a study, the committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada during the week beginning June 13, 1971, and during the adjournment of the House.
At three o'clock that very afternoon, Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that we had agreement to go on with these oil and gas hearings and to continue them at a later date with organizations interested in the ecological effects this industry had on the environment. However, at a quarter to six I received word that there was opposition from the official opposition of the House of Commons. I might say-my statement will be backed up by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange)-that on that afternoon we had a conversation with the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: At that time he said it would not be satisfactory to him because he was worried lest the young offenders bill came before the House that week.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my understanding that the hon. member's time has expired.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He may continue, even if he is out of order.
Employment Programs


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The suggestion has been made that the hon. member should be allowed to continue because others have been granted extensions. That is entirely up to the House, but there should be unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Stanley Howard Knowles: For two
minutes.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Even though the hon. member has been out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) suggests that even though the hon. member is out of order he should be allowed to continue.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I thank Your Honour and hon. members for accommodating me. As I was saying, the hon. member for Calgary North said, in the presence of the hon. member for Northwest Territories, that he did not want the hearings to go on that particular week lest the young offenders bill should come before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must say, on reflection, that the aside of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe was perhaps to the point. The hon. member should take into account that we have a motion before us. This is not a general debate on the budget. It is not a throne speech debate. Hon. members cannot roam all over the field and air, at this time, all their grievances in respect of hon. members on the other side of the House, the government or anyone else. If the hon. member is to be allowed to continue his remarks beyond the time allotted to him, he should adhere to the rules and limit his remarks to the matter before the House, namely, the motion of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau).
I did not think the remarks of the hon. member would produce the result they did. I will now recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang)-


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say that in my opinion the gas and oil pipeline industry and the natural resource industries are important employment factors. They are important to employment not only today but in the future. In that way I wanted to relate the matter to this debate. The question of employment is one not only of temporary but of long-term importance. It is a very serious question at this stage. It is a question in which all hon. members of the House are interested. It was in this light that I wanted to put my remarks on record. I apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, if I did not make myself understood.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member does not have to apologize to me. I appreciate the point he was trying to make. I suggested that the hon. member could conclude his

June 3. 1971
Employment Programs
remarks with the unanimous consent of the House. I assumed, having in mind the comment made a moment ago, that the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hopkins) had come to the conclusion of his remarks and that is why I called on the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, when I listened to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) extolling this afternoon the good conditions which exist in this country, I wondered in what never-never land he has been living. It is obvious, in light of the heaviest unemployment this country has seen for more than ten years, that when the minister asserts this country is doing well, he is simply ignoring the facts. I feel rather sorry for the minister and cannot help remembering that he is one of those members who, among several others, was elected by a small plurality of votes in the last election.
I hope that he has simply taken leave of absence from his former position as dean of the law school of the University of Saskatchewan because I feel, in view of the government's inability to deal with unemployment and the problems of western farmers, that when the next election takes place the minister will be back in Saskatchewan, hopefully as dean of the faculty of law at the University of Saskatchewan.
In April of this year, the last month for which we have figures, 659,000 people were unemployed, compared with
544.000	during the same month in 1970. That represents 6.7 per cent of the labour force calculated on a seasonally adjusted basis, and 7.8 per cent calculated in actual terms. In April, 1971, unemployment in the Maritimes rose to 75,000 from 66,000 in April, 1970. In Quebec, unemployment rose to 234,000, compared with 203,000 in April, 1970.


An hon. Member:: Somebody else has used the same figures.


David Orlikow: I hear an hon. member interjecting that another hon. member used the same figures. I would think that a party with the heavy representation from the province of Quebec which the government party enjoys would be very concerned about there being so much unemployment in Quebec in April, 1971. In Ontario, unemployment rose from 145,000 in April, 1970, to 205,000 in April of this year. In British Columbia, unemployment rose from 58,000 in April of last year to
72.000	in April of this year. In the Prairie provinces it rose fractionally, from 72,000 in April, 1970, to 73,000 in April of this year.
The motion before the House speaks of the deep concern of Canadians that the government's policies are failing to give young Canadians the opportunity to get jobs. If one looks at the statistics in the labour force survey from which I have quoted, one will see that the unemployment situation in respect of young people is desperate. One can see how much more acute the worsening economic outlook has made the problem faced by Canada's young people.
The figures show that in April, 1971, 130,000 people between the ages of 14 and 19 were unemployed, compared with 111,000 in April of the previous year. In
April, 1971, 151,000 young people between the ages of 20 and 24 were unemployed, compared with 113,000 in April the year before. Is it any wonder that the people of Canada are incensed? Is it any wonder that a traditionally Liberal constituency like Brant went over to the NDP in the by-election held on Monday of this week? Is it any wonder that the constituency of Trois-Rivieres was saved by a hair from going Social Credit in another by-election held last Monday?
The problem of employment for our young people will get much worse before it gets better. Dr. W. R. Dymond, an economist at the University of Ottawa and a former deputy minister in the Department of Manpower and Immigration, has put together an easily verifiable set of figures which make it clear that unemployment will not normalize as the economy revives. According to an article which I have in my hand, he said:
In particular, youth unemployment seems fated to be a continuing problem unless direct and concrete policies to combat it are pursued.
He brings forward immense and interesting statistics.
Between 1960 and 1970, Canada has experienced an 11 per cent increase in unemployment over all age groups. But the age group 14 to 19 years has experienced a 43 per cent increase in unemployment; for 20-24 year olds, the comparable increase is 49 per cent.
Dr. Dymond points out, as reported in the article:
In I960, 1,400,000 Canadian workers were between the ages of 14 and 24. By 1970, that number had risen to more than 2,000,000.
Not only are there more young Canadians looking for work, there are more better-educated young Canadians looking for work. The combined rate of increase of post-secondary graduations-that means including community colleges and technical schools-has been of the order of 450 per cent.
In addition to this, Dymond points out that the increase in professional and technical immigrants has been about 360 per cent over the decade.
We know the plight of students who need to work this summer if they are to return to school, university or community college next fall. We know that a large percentage of the close to one million who will look for jobs will not find a job or will get one for half or less than that of the time they have off between school terms. We know the tragedies being created every day by the failure of the government to firm-up its plans for student employment this summer until a time just over a month ago, so that many who were counting on government programs still do not know today, June 3, whether the projects from which they hope to get work will be approved. That is a disgrace. The delay in planning and decision-making by the government can only be characterized as criminal.
We have to face an even more serious problem. University graduates looking for permanent work are having difficulties which we have not had in this country since the hungry 1930s. The president of the Chemical Institute of Canada reported last week that over 50 per cent of the graduate engineers completing their courses this year have so far been unable to find work. Dr. Dymond dealt

June 3, 1971

with the problem of university graduates in the speech to which I referred a few moments ago. He pointed out that this is one of the most serious problems facing the country. It is not only a problem of students but graduates of universities and community colleges who are looking for permanent work. Dr. Dymond said:
The overwhelming governmental emphasis on-forestalling summer student unemployment-to the almost complete exclusion of the more fundamental problem of unemployment among graduates, means that the problem has either fallen through the cracks of federal provincial jurisdiction, or that the ordering of governmental priorities is seriously distorted.
This is not the opinion of a person who can be simply dismissed as not knowing what he is talking about, nor is it the opinion of a partisan politician. It is the opinion of a former assistant deputy minister in charge of manpower programs for the federal government. Dr. Dymond further pointed out:
-the "combined rate of increase of post-secondary graduations -that is, graduates of universities and community colleges- has been of the order of 448 per cent. ... Employment of this group has increased .. . about 200 per cent over the decade." . ..
In other words, barring a miracle of sorts, there is no way that all our young graduates are going to find jobs in the near future ...
-Dymond says that the university graduating class of 1971 is about 75,000, some 7 per cent more than graduated in 1970.
Dr. Dymond pointed out that the community colleges have increased their graduating classes by about 15 per cent over last year. It is virtually impossible for these people to find jobs. I have come across a number of cases in my own city of Winnipeg-I am sure I am not alone in this experience-of people graduating from universities and returning to community colleges for further education. Why? Because there is no work and because the community college will, hopefully, give them a more specifically directed kind of training than they have had. What a perversion of the original objectives of a community college, for some who has received university and postgraduate training, the most expensive training in education by the most qualified people in this country, to return to the community college for further education because they cannot get work! It is a disaster and a disgrace. As I said a few moments ago, it is a crime against the young people of this country.
No country in the western industrial world has the rate of unemployment which we have in Canada. In Great Britain, the rate of unemployment a couple of weeks ago was just over 3 per cent. We know that in the local elections and by-elections which took place in Great Britain last week the British people demonstrated very clearly, by overwhelming victories for the Labour opposition party, that they would not stand for 3 per cent unemployment. I say to the government that the people of Canada will not stand for 7.8 per cent unemployment which we had in April of this year.
The government brought about this high rate of unemployment because of its fear of inflation. This afternoon we listened to the speech of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. He dealt with the dangers of inflation. The government's policies of restraint kept the cost of living increase to less than 2 per cent last year. As we
Employment Programs
predicted at that time, and as the economists are now telling the Senate Committee on Finance every day, no country can avoid what is a world wide phenomenon, namely, worldwide inflation. In the first four months of 1971 there was an increase in the cost of living in Canada of 1.8 per cent. If calculated for the year 1971, that is an increase of 5.4 per cent in one year. Moreover, there is no indication that the rate of increase in the cost of living is slowing up.
This year we have the worst of both possible worlds, high unemployment and high inflation. Economist after economist appearing before the Senate Committee on Finance has been condemning government policies. Professor Barber, head of the department of economics at the University of Manitoba, in testimony which he gave a few days ago told the Senate committee that last year we lost about $8 billion in production because we were operating with over 6 per cent unemployment for the whole year. I do not know Professor Barber's politics, but he cannot be very anti-government because the government appointed him to head the commission to study the high cost of farm implements.
What can be done? I say to the members of the government that they ought to make full employment the No. 1 priority in Canada for 1971, not full employment two, three or five years from now. A full employment program can be financed by genuine tax reforms. Members who wonder where the money will come from should look at the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Duvemay (Mr. Kierans), former Minister of Communications, when speaking to the Canadian Economics Association. This speech was reprinted in full today in the Montreal Star. They will see that in 1968, the last year for which figures are available, according to the calculations of the hon. member for Duvernay the metal mining companies in this country made a book profit of $1,707 million though their taxable income amounted only to $222 million. In other words, they were taxed on only 13 per cent of their profits. Other mining companies showed a book profit of $374 million but their taxable income was assessed at only $120 million. They were taxed on 32 per cent of their profits.
The manufacturing industry paid tax on 64 per cent of its book profits, and the retail trade paid tax at the rate of 90 per cent of its book profits. The money is there so we ought not to hear the story that we cannot afford to do the things which are required in order to create full employment. We need to reform the tax system, but I do not have much hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will propose to do so when he brings forward his budget this month. We need to make those who can afford to do so pay for what is required in this country, the mining industry, the oil industry and the gas corporations which, as I pointed out, do not pay their fair share of taxation.
We ought to pump money into the economy, not by adopting Social Credit theory which the Minister of Manpower and Immigration suggested we were advocating but by increasing the income tax exemption to $2,000 for

June 3, 1971
Employment Programs
a single person and $4,000 lor a married couple. We should pump money into the economy by increasing old age pensions. The 42 cents-a-month boys opposite are worse than the six bucks Liberals of 1957-and we all know what happened to them. The government should accelerate the programs of public housing and aid municipalities to carry out long overdue projects such as putting sewage disposal plants into proper order; it should aid the provinces to fight pollution.
I wish to close by suggesting what the government should do to help graduates from universities and community colleges who are unable to find the employment for which they have been trained. At the present time we are leaving this problem almost entirely to private enterprise and it may be two or three years before some of these highly qualified graduates are able to find work.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand that the hon. member's time has expired.


David Orlikow: May I have one more moment, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is seeking leave to continue for one more moment.


David Orlikow: I believe the government should consider taking steps to subsidize the employment of university graduates until they can be absorbed into the economic life of Canada in the regular way. In other words, the government might pay a subsidy to private companies which could not see their way clear to hire the graduates who are now ready. The other suggestion is that the government give consideration to extending tax concessions, not to enable companies to acquire more equipment, as we are now doing, but to take on students for a transitional period, probably a year or two, until they can find the work for which they have been trained at great expense to the people of Canada.


Jack Burnett Murta: In speaking on this motion, Mr. Speaker, criticizing the government for allowing the unemployment of our youth to reach such high proportions, I want to put special emphasis on the situation which exists in the Prairie provinces. Although the problem of the unemployment of our youth is nationwide, it has some peculiarities pertaining to the Prairie provinces which I think deserve mention. The situation in the prairie provinces in this connection can only be described as very serious. This summer, the unemployment of students only complicates the difficulties which students from western Canada have been facing for the last five years.
The prairie region is in a state of transition. The poor economic situation has not only been disastrous for the farmer but also for farm-related industries. The effect of this drastic loss of prairie farm income has multiplied, leaving the whole western economy in a state of depression. The demoralizing effect of this situation on the youth of western Canada is obvious. Permanent jobs are hard enough to find, but the opportunity to obtain summer employment, which is vital to so many students
if they are to continue their education, is for many non-existent.
Graduates from our universities are unable to find work locally so they must seek it elsewhere. The brain drain which results from this lack of opportunity will seriously hinder the development of the west and of the north. Our highly trained technicians and engineers, our doctors and lawyers, our agricultural and mining experts are forced to leave. The people who are so necessary to the development of the west must have some inducement if they are to remain.
Students wishing to attend universities from the rural parts of the western provinces are faced with very serious problems. All institutions of higher learning are situated in the cities. When a rural student commences university training he is faced with the higher costs of city living. This puts him at a disadvantage compared with the city student who is able to live relatively cheaply with his parents. On-campus living accommodation is usually very limited and for the student who cannot afford to meet such costs there are very few alternatives. Invariably, accommodation which is within reasonable reach of the university is at a premium. Rents are high and there is often a certain amount of unfair discrimination practised by landlords against students. Because of the large numbers of students needing places to live near the university, there is an extreme shortage of suitable accommodation. Students who do not have sufficient financial resources are forced to find accommodation a long way from the campus.
In addition to the practical difficulties facing students there is the problem of adjustment. For the young person who has never experienced city life, to be thrust into an urban environment with no transitional period often leads to disaster. This factor alone accounts for the higher percentage rate of failures among first-year rural students in universities when compared with those from the cities.
The rural student has always been at a disadvantage, but the disadvantages are even greater in a year when their fathers who are farmers can ill-afford to help finance their education. The annual cost for a rural student attending university is at least $2,500. Even with full government bursaries and student loans it is very difficult for the rural student to obtain this sum. Government-founded and financed universities are supposed to be universally accessible in this country. This may be true in theory, Mr. Speaker, but it is certainly not true in fact. Money is the determining factor and, as is usually the case, the student is at a disadvantage. Because of this disadvantage the rural student must earn and save more money than the city student.
In this respect the rural student is also at a disadvantage. Summer jobs for students in the rural parts of the Prairies are simply non-existent. The rural student must seek his summer job in the city or in the northern mining communities. Once again he loses the advantage of living at home. If a student has a four-month summer job he will spend $500 or more of his earnings for board and

June 3, 1971

room. On top of this the northern mines have cut back on student hiring.
Jobs in the cities for rural students are, as I have already mentioned, at a premium. One must come to the conclusion that there is indeed a crisis for the rural student this year if he wants to further his education. Many will have to drop out and some will undoubtedly join the ranks of the permanently unemployed. Once a student has dropped out, he often finds it quite difficult to get back into the university system.
To meet this serious situation the government has made an ill-fated attempt to provide summer jobs for students. The program must be judged a failure because it has not met the basic need of a summer student, which is to make money. Under the Opportunities for Youth program the per capita grant seems to average out well below $1,000. For the rural student who is lucky enough to be a participant, this is a grossly inadequate sum. If the student is able to take advantage of home living this figure might be reasonable, but as one can see by the Secretary of State's releases the vast majority of grants have been to students in urban areas.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) might reply that he has received few applications from rural communities, but I submit that this is the fault of the government rather than of the community. I know of one instance in my home constituency where Manpower did not have the information available for local organizers until four days before the submission deadline. Even at this late date the Manpower officer could not give any specific details. Several rural groups have not yet been notified whether or not their project has been accepted.
Officials of the Opportunities for Youth program have declined to make a province by province breakdown of the funds allotted. Last week in the Globe and Mail one spokesman was quoted as saying that such a breakdown could create unnecessary charges of favouritism, especially in the prairie and Atlantic regions, and he indicated that there were logical reasons for the breakdown. It seems to me that these officials should be made to account for the division of the money spent. Prairie students have just as high, if not higher, a level of unemployment as the rest of the country.
There are drastic faults in the Opportunities for Youth program. The program was announced shortly before the commencement of the spring examinations and the students who were deeply involved in study had little time for detailed development of a program to meet approval. The desired criterion needed for approval of a project was not made known. The Manpower officers were not given the information needed to answer local inquiries. Of course, in Ottawa the office seemed to be under total disorganization. Letters of inquiry went unanswered, officials could not be reached and the telephone often remained unanswered.
However, this government's announcement saved them from a temporary crisis. It put up an illusion of concern and action. Surely another crisis will come in September when thousands of university students find they do not have the cash needed to return to school. The govern-
Employment Programs
ment should prepare for this situation now. We cannot afford to deny this opportunity to our youth to further their education simply because of the government's lack of foresight and imagination.
I have a number of suggestions as to where the federal government might begin. In the first place, the government must take seriously the problems of student unemployment and of aid for financing education. They cannot ignore or shrink from this problem or shrug it off as a provincial responsibility; the federal government must become involved. If in the future the government is going to organize a program such as this year's Opportunities for Youth, the program should be designed to meet certain objectives. The first objective should be to provide the participant with an opportunity to earn enough cash to help finance his education rather than just to provide summer spending money.
The program should aim at being productive in nature. Projects are simply a waste of money if the participant is not doing something useful or if he is not making some contribution to society. Of course, this type of government employment can only be created with long-range planning and a good deal of organization.
The Canada Student Loans Act needs revamping. This act which makes interest-free loans available to students was enacted in 1964-65. Since then the cost of living has increased 30 to 35 per cent and tuition fees have risen correspondingly. It is time for the government to reexamine the $1,000 yearly maximum a student can obtain under the plan. Perhaps it should consider raising the yearly maximum to $1,500 or $2,000 and its total aggregate to $7,500, instead of the present $1,000 and $5,000 levels. It is also time for the federal government to lay down more equitable guidelines for the distribution of these funds. Presently a means test is employed and, as is the case with most means tests, it is greatly abused. Guidelines should be issued to the provinces each year on the administration of the plan. The loans should be graded and increased each year with allowances made to meet the increased cost of living.
The Americans have been experimenting with a new type of loan plan for students which makes allowances to compensate for poor summer jobs and increased costs. It is called the Pay as You Earn plan. This program is not as rigid as the Canada student loans plan and is presently administered in several universities in the United States. I am not advocating that the Canadian government adopt this kind of plan but it is certainly the type of plan that bears looking into.
The program is also unique in that it puts the onus on the student to pay for his own education rather than rely on various bursaries. The program makes available all the money needed for the student to continue his education. Repayment is financed by what might be described as a long-term mortgage, the borrower paying a small percentage of his income for a period of 20 or 25 years, depending on how the plan is worked out. This repayment figure by the student who fulfils his obligation would compensate for those who are unable to pay because of disability or other reasons.
6354

June 3, 1971
Employment Programs
The Americans have found this program very successful because of its flexibility. It would require government administration because of the great initial cash outlay required, but it would be self-paying and could even be profit-making. It is at least worth investigating. I am sure that students would not object to a better-implemented student loans plan. Students do not mind taking out loans if they have an opportunity to repay them. Most students are responsible and will not default on their obligations, but new needs must be met by new loan flexibility. It is to be noted that such a plan in the long run could take the pressure off the taxpayer. More importantly, however, this program would provide the extra funds needed in years of great student unemployment such as this, with the increasing cost of living and other expenses.
We must also, Mr. Speaker, consider the plight of the university graduate in this country. The great increase in enrolment in postgraduate schools is proof of the feeling among graduates that their time is better spent trying to further their education than trying to find permanent jobs. It is estimated by the Technical Service Council that professional openings are down 30 per cent nationally, with a 17 per cent increase in those seeking jobs.
The Atlantic provinces, followed by the Prairies, have the greatest reduction in job openings. To blame this situation on an increase in the number of graduates is ridiculous. The present situation can only discourage those with aspirations to attend university. A developing nation such as Canada cannot afford to discourage its young people in furthering their education. This situation must fall back on the tragic economic position in which the federal government has placed our young people this summer. The class of '71 must be questioning the value of education. For the past two decades a tremendous emphasis has been put on education. Our young people were told that a degree would guarantee them a worth while career and a higher standard of living. Whether or not this is true, it is what they have been told. Now many graduates will tell you that a degree is worthless.
In the last decade the number of graduates has greatly increased. For example, in education and engineering, doctorate degrees have increased by 1,014 per cent and 895 per cent respectively. Those with a doctorate degree face an unemployment problem just as serious as that of anyone else. The plight of the graduate student must be attributed to the slump in our economy. Industry will not hire and train young personnel in the present economic situation. The solution for the graduate is the same as the solution for all unemployed in this country. Our economy must be stimulated and expansion and industrial growth must be encouraged. Until this happens, our educated young will be denied an opportunity to use their newly acquired skills.
So far as the student who is still attending university is concerned, his problem will only be solved with long-range government planning and programs. Government aid must be more flexible to take into account regional disparities and the disadvantages of the rural student. In short, we must strive to make a university education
universally accessible. The standard of living and quality of life in a country is directly related to the educational opportunities the country offers its young people. If we fail to provide these opportunities we will surely hinder the development of our industry, our economy and our Canadian culture.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us states that this House records its deep concern upon reviewing the government's continuing repudiation of its duty to establish full employment programs, then it goes on to talk about young Canadians. In the first instance I should like to talk about the word "repudiation". So far as I know, the word means to disown, reject or refuse to admit. In my view, the government certainly has not refused to admit it has any responsibility or duty in connection with creating employment in this country. One might, depending on his political position, I suppose, and his personal view feel that the government has not done enough in terms of creating employment in Canada. I should like to speak to that for a moment and review some of the problems, because I do not think most of them are capable of simple solution as many would have us believe.
This is a big problem. As a responsible government we must begin to look at the problem in its proper context to see the long-run effect of the actions we will take. First of all, when we look at the large influx of new people into our labour force we realize the magnitude of the problem. It is reported in a 15-year projection from 1967 to 1982 that Canada will introduce more young people into its labour force than the total number in Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom. When we bear in mind that the population of these three countries is 180 million people and the population of Canada is 22 million, we realize that we are going to inject into our small labour force more in that period than these three countries combined; we see that we are inheriting a problem which is of enormous proportions which will be difficult to deal with if we only look at that aspect alone.
It seems to me we are reaping a problem resulting from the fact that past governments did not plan in a long-term way for solutions to the problems of our generation.
I am happy to say that I am convinced this government is looking at our long-range problems. It is high time some government did. We began to look at the over-all economic position, at our trade policies and our industries in an effort to find ways of rationalizing them. We began to look at the way our people are being trained and provided with the education necessary to fit them into the work force, and in the meantime we have provided our young people with activities to keep them busy. For instance, this year we are spending $68 million in this area alone. We have slowly begun to solve these long-term difficulties which I defy anyone to solve by some quick, mystical, magical solution. On the other hand, there is the rapid rate of technological change not only in Canada but in the world. We are not unique in this respect. Our country, however, more than many others has had an agrarian economy for many years and we now see a

June 3, 1971

great influx of people from the farms into the urban areas, which places more and more pressure on the industrial side of the work force.
I think we must remember that the Second World War is over and that today we see the results of the baby boom. I do not complain of this but I do not think we looked at the question early enough in an effort to find a solution.


An hon. Member:: Who didn't?


Norman Augustine Cafik: The governments which came before us. One cannot really expect this government to be able to find instant solutions to these difficult and complex problems. I do not think we serve the interests of ourselves, this institution or the people of the country when we suggest there are simplistic solutions when there are not. We are indeed living in a very challenging period. We have to consider basic problems such as foreign investment in this country, whether this is good or bad and to what extent it is good or bad. We must rationalize our industrial complex and, if I may digress for a moment, I think the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce through its many programs is doing a great deal to achieve that objective.
Under this government we instituted the auto pact. I believe no one can really doubt that this agreement has been a great economic step forward. I think we must take similar action in other areas and then, hopefully, we will in part find long-term solutions to the difficulties we face. Ad hoc solutions are not really the answer; they will not give us something of real, lasting value. But that does not mean that in the long run we can just sit and look at the unemployment rate as it is in Canada today. We must not do that if we are to fulfil our responsibility as a government in this country. Because of the tremendous psychological effects of unemployment, in human terms, we must none the less take ad hoc measures that will give us some immediate, if only temporary relief until we have determined the root causes and arrived at root solutions to these problems.


John Gilbert: Give us some ad hoc solutions.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I intend to do just that. I do not think it is good enough for us to increase welfare benefits or to increase unemployment insurance payments. These are good and necessary in these times, but I think we must do the only thing that will give dignity to the people who are unemployed, and that is to give them work. We must also arrange our priorities in such a way that this becomes the first order of business for this government in the immediate future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: Now you are talking. Sock it to them.


Norman Augustine Cafik: It seems to me that if 6 per cent of this country's territory were invaded by a foreign power, we would bring all our resources together in order to bring that land back to this country and the kind of effort that
Employment Programs
is put forward in wartime would be repeated. Why should we not think that 6 per cent of our population who are unemployed are an equally serious problem, requiring the same kind of urgent solution? I have some suggestions as to what may be done. I realize that I am not an economist. I am simply one who is concerned with the serious and urgent problem that we are discussing tonight.
First of all, we must continue the present course of deficit financing whereby we are putting more money in the economy than we are taking out of it in order to stimulate it. But I do not think that is enough, because we have been doing that for some months and in my simple view it does not seem to be reaping the kind of immediate benefits that many of us had hoped for.
Secondly, we have to assist this course of action by having some meaningful tax cuts in our next budget. In this way we would further stimulate the economy of this country and assist through the private sector those measures which we are taking in terms of government expenditures.
Thirdly, I think we must take steps to end business uncertainty and to give the business community a degree of confidence which I think some of them have lacked in the last year or two as a result, to some degree, of the experiment that we conducted in participatory democracy involving the white paper on tax reform. I think that this government was very courageous in embarking on this novel approach to tax reform. I am hopeful that in the long run the approach that we have used will bear the kind of fruit we hoped from having a good tax reform. But it has had an unpleasant by-product, to some extent at least, in that it has disturbed many very productive people in our economy who are in a position to make the economy go forward or go backward, and it has given them a feeling of no confidence.
I think that in our next budget, when we introduce the bill on tax reform we should settle that problem once and for all. But of course it depends to a large extent on what is in the bill and I hope the minister will bear these factors in mind when the budget is presented, as I am sure he will.


John Gilbert: You are making sense.


Norman Augustine Cafik: We must recognize that we as a government do not control our economy completely.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: June 3, 1971
Employment Programs
merce. First, if we are going to create a condition of confidence in our business community we should set up an industrial development co-ordination and consultation branch. The reason for this is that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has many programs to help finance and assist business, but largely they are not well known or understood and many of our small businesses which can do something positive frankly do not have the expertise, the legal help or other assistance required to know even where to go. I believe that we should set up one central body to whom all businesses could go to obtain aid from the government to help them develop their industry domestically and externally. If we set up such a co-ordinating body I think it would serve a very useful purpose and at the same time show we wish to help them.
I also want to suggest that as an ad hoc, short-run and, I believe, effective measure we should set up an Employment Stimulation Fund. I am not an economist but I would propose that it be financed by $200 million cash, with about $800 million in guaranteed loan capital. The object would be to give grants and/or loans directly to the business community in direct relationship to the number of useful jobs they can create.


John Gilbert: This sounds like welfare.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I believe that if we were to encourage small businesses in this manner to hire 10 here and 20 in another place, and this were repeated by thousands of businesses across Canada, very rapidly many of the 650,000 people who are unemployed in this country would be put to work. If implemented this would have an immediate effect. In my view, the kind of action I have suggested would help create a state of confidence and security in the people of this country and a realization that we are doing everything in our power to make this country move ahead. But even more important we will assure ourselves that the kind of free system which we all cherish will survive to serve future generations. I am concerned that if we cannot solve this central problem of unemployment, then this country and our institutions are in for a bad time indeed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the previous speaker. I will not deal with economic problems except to say that about a year and a half ago steps were taken by the government to dampen the inflationary process. The increased taxes that slowed down the economy had a tremendous effect in designated areas, destroying the impact of industrial incentives. The unpleasant truth is that the economy is at a standstill. An increase of 200,000 in the number of unemployed in 1970 cost the economy of the country $2 billion. Profits are down; and, Mr. Speaker, if taxes are not reduced and employment does not increase over the next three months, the outlook is grim indeed.
Now I wish to deal with a special problem, the employment of university students. Three years ago the universities of this country were running at a cost of over $600 million and there were over 300,000 full-time, winter university students. These figures do not take into account the investment in buildings and equipment which runs into billions of dollars. Many university buildings are used only eight months of the year, which is two-thirds of the time. They then stand idle for the remaining one-third of the year, wasting the dollars that are invested in them.
The total cost of education today in Canada runs around 10 per cent of the gross national product. Can we afford the non-utilization of these buildings for one-third of the year? Would it not be much better to pick out the professions where there is a scarcity of trained men and keep the students at school, instead of letting the buildings and equipment stand idle while the students walk the roads?
I will choose the profession about which I probably know the most, the medical profession. There are just over 20,000 doctors in Canada and just over 10,000 of them are general practitioners. Figure it any way you like, we have the worst ratio of any of the countries of the world with our standard of living. The Russians have one doctor to every 500 people, yet Russia is supposed to be backward. Even the United States, our neighbour to the south, has a much better record.
Over and over again the scarcity of doctors and the difficulty people have, if they move from one place to another, to get a doctor to look after them has been brought to the attention of the government. Their only hope is the emergency ward of the hospitals which, generally speaking, are grossly overworked. In the hospitals which have no interns, the doctors must supply someone from the practising doctors. In one small hospital alone they had over 1,800 emergency cases in a relatively slow month. I have heard estimates of how short we are in this field-probably 15 per cent to 20 per cent in the general practice field. Most of the hospitals have no interns yet, Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago hospitals of similar size had two to four interns. Is this progress?
What is happening now is that doctors in many hospitals are overloaded with histories, forms and bureaucratic control. Much of the work could be done by house doctors and interns and so relieve the workload of the doctors. Partially trained paramedical personnel is not the answer. The Feldsher system in Russia, after many years is gradually being phased out because of too many wrong diagnoses and too many referrals. The same thing would happen in this country. The doctor's workload could be cut probably by 20 per cent if red tape, forms and bureaucracy in hospitals did not take up so much of his time. There should be interns in hospitals where they have sufficient patients. But to get the interns they must have doctors, and to get the doctors there there must be medical students and medical schools.
I have asked the federal government to co-operate with the universities, to provide the funds to finance the four months that the medical schools stand idle. In this way a doctor could have the same training in four years that now requires six years. But the government did not move. It turned a deaf ear to the people who cannot get

June 3, 1971

adequate medical attention. Even the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) acknowledged this. He stated his fears at a meeting of the Canadian Hospital Association as follows:
While the inadequacies in the distribution and delivery of health services must be removed, we must not in achieving this goal create a two-class medical system.
The variations in availability of health services between the disadvantaged and the affluent in our society must not be perpetuated by making paramedical support available to the lower economic sectors in our population in order that physical specialists may more readily devote their attention to those more fortunate. We must assure that all health care arrangements live up to the expectations of all the sectors of our society.
I agree with the minister 100 per cent. The only thing I wonder is why year after year he promised some action and we had none. He went on to say that we could train some paramedicals who could put in a few sutures, look after simple fractures, colds and flu, which would free 50 per cent of the physician's time. I am reminded of the story of a doctor travelling on an airplane. The fellow next to him asked the doctor what he thought about paramedical personnel and the doctor replied, "I will tell you. I want a fully trained pilot to run this airplane. I don't want the hostess running it. But if I have to take the hostess in his place, then I certainly don't want a committee running it, and that committee would be the government."
There are 5,000 students today in our medical schools. They are all needed. Doctors are in very short supply because community after community is going without a doctor. Yet because of the laissez faire attitude of this government, which brought in medicare, it now refuses to co-operate in providing the medical doctors that are so necessary. Yet members of the government promised quality of care. Now they even talk about deterrent fees. Who will this deter? It will be only the poor, for whom medicare was supposedly brought in to help. Isn't that going around in a circle?
It is a disgrace to keep doctors in short supply and then criticize the service they deliver. This is something that can be cured. McMaster University and Calgary University have three-year courses. They are running all summer. They are doing this with scholarships, bursaries and by other means. Having forced medicare on the provinces, why doesn't the federal government accept responsibility for providing the needed doctors? Here it is, the month of June, and only two medical schools turning out doctors who are admittedly in short supply.
It is seven years since the Hall commission pointed out the increasing need for doctors. We on this side of the House have asked the minister to operate the medical schools all year round until we catch up. Year after year the minister has promised to take this matter up with his counterparts in the provinces, but there the matter stands to date. I have only raised this problem dealing with one of the professions, Mr. Speaker, but I know there are many other problems.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with this opportunity to say a few words on this
Employment Programs
opposition motion which urges the government to balance the economy adequately but fails to advocate solutions to the problem.
We are faced with a catastrophic economic situation, and we have been trying to settle this issue for several years. Nobody ever manged to tackle it, except through bloody wars and revolutions. When 50 to 60 per cent of the population are destroying everything in sight, the others can work. Others can be put to work. But when there is no such thing, it is impossible to balance the economy and nobody, not even the greatest economists, the greatest exponents of the system, those who find that everything is well, who are very well paid, have everything they need and are not faced with economic problems, nobody can find an adequate solution. These economists should be independent and their solutions are hardly worth being adopted or considered, since they do submit such solutions year after year and the situation is going from bad to worse.
Our economy is being gradually upset, our population is dissatisfied and misery is growing worse. Young people are finding it harder every day to find jobs. The more we produce economists and technicians the more our economy is thrown out of balance.
We are certainly not running short of engineers, technicians, economists, nor of Conservatives, Liberals or New Democrats. For years, we have had all these types of people bent on solving this problem but none ever succeeded. On the contrary, it is getting worse than ever.
If we want to solve our present economic problem, we shall have to resort to the same solutions that have been previously brought forward when we tried to solve the economic problem. To do so, governments must resort to deficit financing. Investments must be made through loans. A lot of deficits have to be accumulated to allow the citizens to live a little, or to achieve a kind of economic upsurge, and after going into debt for two, three or four years and creating an economic upsurge of sorts, we are forced to intervene. Financiers come to governments and say: For the last four or five years, you have had deficit budgets but if you are unable to balance the economy or your budgets, you are not good trustees. We will finance the grits if the tories are in power and vice versa, but it all means: Solve the problem. The grits will make people believe that the former administration was bad, that it had accumulated deficits at all levels and that there must be an end to that. In short, that budgets have to be balanced.
So the next government, in order to balance its budget, will increase taxes and create trouble for the population. Within two years, the people will again be steeped in unemployment and an economic slump. They will no longer be able to make investments because of all kinds of restrictions.
In order to balance the budget, the government will bow to all the demands of high finance, permitting it to control the nation's economic blood at will. The government will thus plunge the whole country or the whole

June 3, 1971
Employment Programs
world into depression, since the economic system is the same throughout the world.
Mr. Speaker, not one government went out of its way to seek real solutions to the problem, because like causes produce like effects. We have always acted like that and we never succeeded in solving the problem.
The Conservative members blame the government through all sorts of means, but they do not propose any practical solution other than asking the government to show losses, to present deficit budgets in order to enable Canadian citizens to live decently.
The New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservatives request full employment. In order to obtain full employment, it is necessary to invest money and to invest, it is necessary to borrow money. When a man borrows money he gets into unimaginable debts, for he simply cannot refund more money than he gets in the first place. If we borrow money, we have to repay it, plus the interests which have never been put into circulation-something nobody ever thinks about!
Mr. Speaker, there are interest rates of 9, 10, 15 and even 25 per cent. They are of no concern, they please everyone, and even the NDP is happy with them. They are not considered excessive.
But when financiers go up the financial scale, banks and financial institutions make unbelievable profits. They increase their assets by billions of dollars each time. Unfortunately, they do not pay the taxes they should. Unfortunately, they build up alarming reserves that paralyse the Canadian economy, that paralyse the financial situation of every citizen. Not one Conservative, Liberal or NDP member makes a protest. No one asks that those who do not pay taxes be made to do so. There are two or three tax schedules. There should be only one and everyone should be taxed equitably. If we did this, we would introduce a bit of logic into the settlement of our problems.
When I look at newspaper headlines, I realize that there are 9,000 more unemployed in Canada, which is the greatest increase in unemployment in 13 years. In the field of unemployment, Quebec remains at the top; it had 23.000 more unemployed in 1970. Here is the type of headlines one can read in the newspapers: "Quebec is said to be satisfied with the number of unemployed", "17,000 Montrealers laid off in 1970", "Only 10,000 new jobs created in Quebec in 1970","75,000 new jobs per year must be created in Quebec from now till 1975", "250 employees laid off at Lachute", "Closing down of another plant in Ville St. Laurent".
Mr. Speaker, a while ago I could hear a Liberal member say that the government should establish a type of financial agency to finance industry. But industry needs neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives to lend it money. What industry requires is a means to profitably market its products. If industry finds an outlet for its product on, it does not need the help of the government.
On the other hand, if industry does not succeed in selling its products it has to store them in warehouses and call on financial firms with the famous form 88 authorizing loans to industrialists or the financing of
industries' stocks or inventories at an interest rate of 12
p. 100.
This increases the cost of products and does not help to sell them. Every warehouse is filled to the rafters and new loans are requested from banks to further boost production; yet the problem does not exist at the production level but in distribution.
Instead of taxing or overtaxing the consumer, he should have more money to spend. Then governments will not need to worry about the operation of industries. Industries are operating as long els consumers have some ready money to buy the products.
If the production of industries is increased but remains unsold, what will happen? At the present time, many industries in Canada have received government grants. They operated during six months, a year or two with those grants, after which they were compelled to close down.
I know one in my constituency which received a $700,000 grant from the federal government. It operated six months, but it is now closed.
What was the use of those $700,000? The industry is unable to sell its products. Warehouses and yards are full of unsold products. Now, what will happen? What is the use of those grants? They are useless.
I would like once for all that we open our eyes and our ears in order to find solutions to the problem.
Solutions are easy to find and enumerate. The cost of living must be reduced, not raised. Products cost too much and do not sell well because there are too many taxes.
Taxes must be lowered, and if that is not enough, governments should issue credits to reduce production costs, give compensated discounts in overproducing sectors. If we cannot sell the products because they are too expensive in spite of discounts, then we shall lower the prices of goods and thus re-establish the true value of the Canadian dollar. Besides, we shall be able to compete with other countries. Otherwise, our products will no longer be competitive, considering our present economic system.
Wages and taxes keep going up. The higher the taxes the more problems there are, and the higher the cost of goods the less you can sell them. The higher the cost of goods, because of increases in salaries and taxes, the less money the taxpayer has to buy what he needs.
There are still needs to be met. But they cannot be met by restricting credit, by levying taxes, by accepting that our governments pay overly high interest rates to financiers who exploit the people. The people are fleeced for ever more, so that the interest can be paid to the financiers. But the people are sent packing!
They say here that we are on the brink of revolution. We know that is true.
One can read this in La Voix de VEst for January 16, 1971, and I quote:
In the last few years, it has been said and repeated hundreds, thousands of times that unemployment is the worst evil in Quebec.
But saying it over and over again will not remedy the situation. Nobody cures an illness by proclaiming from the housetons

June 3, 1971

that he has it. Instead he looks for a medication likely to cure it. The Premier and the Minister of Labour seem alarmed by the crisis through which Quebec is going.
According to the latest figures, unemployment has reached 8.4 per cent, its highest rate since last fall.
Mr. Bourassa does not hide the fact that the number of unemployed has reached a really disturbing level, while Mr. Cournoyer does not hesitate to predict "a revolution" if unemployment keeps on increasing at that rate for a few years.
Mr. Bourassa stated that "Clearly one must not try to disguise the truth."
For a long time truth has been disguised and poultices put on wooden legs, and yet uneasiness continues, in fact it keeps getting worse.
I read further:
The Minister of Labour stated "If the situation is not corrected, the number of revolutionaries will grow. If we do not take all necessary steps and if we do not face up to our responsibilities,
I am afraid we shall not have enough policemen to control the behaviour of those who will have suffered under the system."
Mr. Cournoyer's words came as an echo to those of Mr. Fernand Daoust of the Quebec Federation of Labour who had previously stated "it is going to blow up soon if enough jobs are not created".
Those statements are not liable to inspire confidence but rather to encourage opposition parties which have nothing to lose to reject all responsibilities on the government.
You only need to read the explanations given by Messrs Levesque and Parizeau to get an idea of their objectives. Three weeks before the Chambly election, they have a first class reason to go and fight the government.
It is of the utmost importance that our administrators should become more responsible and settle once and for all this economic problem, for it is high time that we adopt a definite position. Whatever positions we have taken until now have been all wrong and have failed to cause any improvement in the situation. All this medicine that was provided could not prevent the cancer from persistantly gnawing at our economy until its final destruction.
The problem is more serious than is suggested by this motion submitted by the Conservatives. I wonder whether it was brought up merely for the sake of filibustering, but this motion should definitely be one of the most serious ever considered in this House. It should be discussed most seriously and I suggest grudges and party politics be set aside in order to find a genuine solution to the economic problems of the day. These problems are serious and there is not much time left to try and find solutions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner).


Mr. Penner:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have been sitting here all evening and have consulted a number of hon. members of this House. Apparently quite a few hon. members have done considerable research into the subject being discussed and are prepared to speak this evening. However, as a result of our limited time they will not be able to do so. This sort of
Employment Programs
thing happens frequently, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if it is not time to break with tradition and allow hon. members to file speeches that they have prepared for the record, as is done in some legislatures.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member should know that it is within the discretion of the Speaker to recognize an hon. member. The Chair is trying to be as fair as possible in giving various representatives in the House an opportunity to make their speeches. This question cannot be discussed in the House. The only procedure under which the hon. member can raise that point is by moving a motion to be heard in place of another hon. member.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I certainly was not charging the Chair with discrimination or even suggesting that the Chair was discriminating against any party in the House.
I believe implicitly in the fairness of the Chair and am not questioning that at all. I recognize that the Chair has a difficult task in choosing hon. members to speak.
I will not attempt to make my speech tonight. I was attempting to suggest that since there is insufficient time for all hon. members who wish to speak to be heard, there might be unanimous consent to allow some of my colleagues who have prepared their speeches and who obviously will not gain the floor tonight to file their remarks and have them printed, as if spoken, in Hansard. There is precedent for that practice even in this House because unanimous consent is granted to parliamentary secretaries and the House leader to file long-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair has listened to the point raised by the hon. member with sympathy, but the rules of the House do not permit him at this time, when the hon. member for Thunder Bay has been given the floor, to make a speech or to attempt to solve a problem of procedure. If the hon. member wishes to solve that problem he should do so by moving a motion or by suggesting to the Committee on Procedure and Organization that the rules of the House be changed. As far as the Chair is concerned, there is no precedent for the hon. member's suggestion and there is no possibility of tabling speeches in this House. The hon. member for Thunder Bay.


Mark Willson Rose: I rise on the same question of privilege. I do not wish to try Your Honour's patience-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair is not in a position to argue the matter with the hon. member and has no alternative but to recognize the hon. member for Thunder Bay.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member that I would be quite prepared to file my speech, but if that is not allowed I will "file it down" so that others will have an opportunity to speak.
It is well known that during the decade of the 1960s there was a period of seemingly uninterrupted and even uninterruptible economic growth. During that period the

June 3, 1971
Employment Programs
gross national product increased by 65 per cent in real terms, while at the same time the population of Canada increased by 20 per cent. A substantial real gain in the standard of living took place in the period 1960-69. The increase in gross national product attributable to inflation, however, almost equalled the real growth over this decade. The economy had begun overheating and there was a very dangerous degree of instability. The pressures of international price competition and internal imbalance required deliberate action.
In 1970, the Canadian economy became engaged in a cooling-off process. The severity was in sharp contrast to the preceding decade of growth and prosperity. Talk of breaking the inflationary psychology was coupled with a deliberate monetary and fiscal policy. Set against a stated conviction that relative price stability is a prerequisite for sustainable economic progress, Canadian monetary and fiscal authorities were faced in 1970 with the realities of persistent inflation and regional disparities. Policies initiated in 1969 to relieve inflationary pressures were, as we unfortunately know, reflected in higher unemployment rates and a general economic slowdown, particularly in the second half of 1970.
Despite the abundance of economic advisers both within and without the government service, we have not yet learned how to exercise fiscal and monetary policies in a satisfactory manner. I do not mean this to sound arrogant or disrespectful, but if some of our very bright economists had experienced a little hunger, or if they had undergone the insecurity of being without a job, they might have been able to break through that mental barrier which seemingly militates against the utilization of new, creative and, above all, effective economic policies.
I do not pretend to have the answer to that complicated problem, but certainly the repeated swing from inflation to high unemployment is not the way to run the economy. If government economic advisers do not have the answers to these difficult and awkward questions, they should be relieved of their duties or given other tasks, and perhaps some of our graduate students who are without work should be given a chance to resolve this dilemma or at least to make an attempt to do so. I return to the situation as it now exists. The slower pace of consumer spending and rising unemployment led federal government authorities to initiate a fiscal policy of moderate and selected expansion in 1970. Total expenditures of the federal government were increased by about three-quarters of a billion dollars directed toward regions of slow economic growth and high unemployment, toward housing and manpower training.
As the trend of more moderate price increases became established a series of expansionary fiscal policy measures were gradually introduced in the third and fourth quarters of 1970. Additional funds were directed to the provinces for social insurance, the student summer employment program and housing projects for moderate income families and relief of regional unemployment. The forecast of a budgetary deficit of $320 million for 1970-71 instead of the originally planned $250 million surplus dramatically demonstrates a reversal of the federal fiscal stance. The expansionary effects of this fiscal
policy have not yet had the anticipated impact but there are hopeful signs of an upbeat economy.
Many economists are certain, and I share their optimism, that the Canadian economy is in a good position to take off during the second half of this year. For example, they predict an 8 per cent surge in the gross national product, 5 per cent of it real growth. In view of quite recent statistics, that appears to be somewhat overly optimistic. However, if they are anywhere close to being right it is cause for cheering.
A report on Canada in a recent issue of Business Week stated that from Vancouver to Halifax businessmen see Canadian consumers loaded with cash and poised to start spending. They say the result could be a buying spree that would lift Canada's economy to near boom levels by the end of 1971. For many, the money is certainly there, although unfortunately not for all. Wage settlements averaged 9 per cent last year while inflation was held at 3.4 per cent. An enormous increase in the number of women in the labour force has significantly boosted family incomes. Last year, 25 per cent of all Canadian households boasted incomes of more than $10,000. That statistic rather astounded me but I think it is accurate. That is up from only 2 per cent in that category just a decade ago.
Seven per cent of personal income is going into bank accounts, double the rate of eight years ago. As a result, banks bulge with nearly $17 billion in savings. Economists expect Canadians to break out those nest eggs soon for everything from homes to automobiles to televisions sets. Some retailers already report signs of the change. One adviser to the Canadian Bankers' Association predicts that consumer outlays in general will jump 8 per cent or more this year. Stepped-up government spending and the prospect of another record year for exports add to the rosy glow. Canadian businessmen anticipating the rebound plan to boost plant and equipment outlays by at least 10 per cent. If the forecasters are right, Canada will bounce out of the business doldrums faster than the United States. The pile-up of funds in the banking system has eased the money pinch. Mortgage rates have dropped and housing outlays are expected to jump 15 per cent this year. Heavy industry is getting ready to expand. Canadian oil men look forward to a bubbling year.
Complementing this brighter domestic outlook are strong export prospects. Canada's 1970 exports of $16.7 billion, double those of five years ago, ranked Canada as an exporting nation ahead of France and a little behind Japan. Farm products and raw materials racked up the largest export gains last year and may do so again. The world is still short of nickel. Sales of the 1970 grain crop were worth $878 million. Estimates for the 1971 crop will likely top that by $400 million and perhaps by as much at $500 million. Farmers are planting 20 million acres this year compared with only 12 million last year.
Canadian exporters are continually seeking out new markets, and doing rather well, I might add. The United States still takes 65 per cent of our exports but this figure has declined from 71 per cent in 1969. By contrast,

June 3, 1971

exports to Britain rose by 33 per cent last year, exports to Japan by more than 25 per cent and to the Common Market by more than 40 per cent.
I doubt if there is anyone today who would seriously suggest that we should leave the economy to the so-called natural forces of the marketplace. In the interest of building a sound and healthy national economy, there must be government planning and involvement. What concerns me is the fact that bureaucratic tinkering with the economy is often so inept, so lacking in expertise. There is a desperate need for new methods of regulating and controlling the economy in the best interest of all citizens, not to the detriment of some, particularly those who find themselves unemployed or who are obliged to live on small incomes, and to the undue advantage of others. My plea is that the government should continue to seek ways of making the economy work for the wellbeing of all, to make it buoyant and, above all, to keep it steady.
To this end, fresh approaches are desperately needed and a heavy obligation falls upon those who are propounding economic theories and suggesting ways by which monetary and fiscal policies can be exercised by government much more effectively than has been the case in the past.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the greatest service the government could do for the youth of Canada would be to bring under control as quickly as possible the problems arising from unemployment, inflation and the value of the Canadian dollar on the international market.
Governments at all levels are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to educate our young people. They, in turn, are giving up many years of their lives in the belief that having benefited from advanced training and education they will be able to find a meaningful role in our society. The alarming fact is that many young people are failing to find an appropriate place in our society. Hence the motion before the House today. I suggest it is because the government, despite its mass of advisers, has failed to solve the fundamental economic problems affecting our society.
We are faced with one overwhelming issue at the moment. An attempt has been made to assure us that at a given moment the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), with the help of his advisers, will bring about a new era of prosperity. Apparently that era is to begin on Friday, June 18, soon after five o'clock when the minister tables his long-awaited budget in the House. Many knowledgeable people in the financial community fear he will seize this opportunity to introduce monumental changes in our taxation system.
I maintain this is a very risky time to be introducing monumental changes into our taxation system. The Canadian economy is ill-prepared to meet such changes. The prospect that these widely debated white paper proposals on taxation are to be translated into legislation covering 1,000 pages is causing unease in our financial community.
Employment Programs
Unemployment is very high; the figure of 7.8 per cent was mentioned a short while ago. The minister was hard pressed to find a reason for its failure to decline in April, when it should have declined, and finally told us the weather was responsible.
Then there is the burden of inflation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said last November that inflation had been licked, but this is far from being the case and this year's figure could well reach 5 per cent if the present trend continues. Another factor to be taken into account is the strength of the Canadian dollar, which has created problems for the pulp and paper industry and for agriculture in western Canada; grain prices have been effectively discounted by 10 per cent or more.
It would seem the government intends to give the Canadian public, particularly the industrial and financial community, the summer months during which to digest the material which has taken government experts years to prepare. It is, of course, only to be expected that the government will seek to make its package as broadly attractive as possible by removing 750,000 to one million Canadians from the tax rolls by increasing basic tax exemptions. By this means they hope to convince people less able to meet the burden of taxation that, since taxes have been cut for them, the measures which will inevitably be directed against the private sector of our economy are justified inasmuch as they would enable the government to avoid a deficit which would otherwise be incurred.
The proposed legislation is far-reaching and there has been little consultation with the provinces. To my mind this is one of the greatest weaknesses in the government's approach. The proposals the minister has in mind will downgrade the role of private capital, downgrade the role of the smaller businesses, so vital in our far-flung rural areas remote from large cities, and downgrade the role of the provinces. They will increase the importance of the public sector of the economy, particularly that part of the public sector which is controlled by Ottawa. The proposals have been opposed by a number of the provinces including Ontario and, latterly, Quebec. Ontario,' Alberta and Quebec are insisting upon the right to function fully within the jurisdiciton granted them by the Constitution, the right to get out of shared-cost programs and other projects which they believe are too costly to be undertaken.
I say with all deference to the Minister of Finance that the economy will be badly served by the introduction of massive changes in our taxation system at a time when it is suffering under so many other difficulties. The provinces surely deserve and require prior consultation before such measures are proposed. This is particularly important in view of the growing and rightful insistence by our larger provinces on opting out of shared-cost programs as one means of decentralizing and neutralizing the effects of a massive, entrenched bureaucracy in Ottawa. All the evidence suggests that Ottawa is a very long way from knowing what is best for the economy, and we can only share the misgivings of the provinces.

June 3, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, one of the worst things about sex discrimination is that it is so prevalent it is never noticed unless you are a woman and come up against it. Because the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) a short time ago refused to accept my assertion that there is discrimination against women in the manpower training program, I wish to take this occasion to draw certain examples to his attention.
First of all, and most obviously, it is the name of the program-manpower training. It is just as though it were reserved exclusively for humans of the male gender. It completely ignores the fact that one-third of the labour force is composed of women.
In the second place, the legislation establishing the program is discriminatory, such as the provisions of the occupational training act to not permit full-time household responsibility to be equivalent to participation in the labour force in so far as eligibility for training allowances is concerned. The report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women calls for an amendment to the act to make this possible. I have had a bill on the order paper for two sessions, to the same effect. Surely the minister should lose no further time in bringing forward such an amendment, which would do much to cut down the discrimination against women as far as manpower-and womenpower

training is concerned.
Third, the status of women report states on page 197 that "occupational segregation by sex is being perpetuated in the occupational training for adults program" and gives a table to show clearly that manpower offers the bulk of women trainees low-paid work like hairdressing, clerical and sales jobs and trains few, if any, in management courses. No doubt Manpower is up against the traditional attitudes of employers who take it for granted that men should be the office managers and women the filing clerks. But instead of accepting these discriminatory and old-fashioned attitudes. Manpower should be trying to influence employers in the new direction of accepting individuals according to their ability and not according to their sex.
When the discrimination of age is added to the discrimination of sex, the result is catastrophic for a woman. Here is a case from Vancouver involving a sole-support mother, the kind that would be called the head of the family if we had a more enlightened census form. She is 38 years old with three children, the youngest seven years old. She has a grade 12 education. She has been registered with Manpower since 1969. They phone her every three months asking if she is available for
clerical work. She is, but the six-week brush-up course they gave her was not enough. Every time she talks to the Manpower counsellor she is advised to stay on social assistance. She wants to work.
Another Vancouver sole-support mother has several teenagers. She wants to train as a practical nurse. But the Manpower course would require her absence from home for three weekends out of four. Quite properly, she feels that she cannot abandon the teenagers for that length of time. She considered taking a medical clerk's training course but found that it would keep her away from home from three o'clock in the afternoon until ten o'clock at night-again requiring a long absence from her teenagers, this time during the period of their homework and bedtime. Obviously, these Manpower courses are not planned with the needs of women in mind, and yet a great many perfectly normal women have children whom they must support and care for. In neglecting to plan for their needs, Manpower is practising discrimination of a real and cruel kind.
Women make up almost 35 per cent of the labour force, yet last year 80 per cent of the people trained by Manpower were men; only 20 per cent were women. To overcome this discrimination I would suggest to the minister that he involve women in planning courses more adapted to their needs than is the case at present. If he did so, it would not take him long to find there is a necessity for arranging for part-time courses and hours that fit in with the responsibilities of caring for a home and children.
He would discover that sole-support mothers with children could be a tremendous source of part-time work in human services such as school aides, information centre aides, child care centre aides, part-time workers in recretational centres and a host of other jobs that society requires urgently today. Future job fields like these could take such women and their families off social assistance and allow them the right to stand on their own economic feet and to contribute their abilities to the community. And not only sole-support mothers: mothers with small children should be enabled to take courses which would allow them to retain their skills in their pre-marriage occupations so that when their children are grown and have left home they can resume their work in the community.
This sort of thing is what I believe Manpower should be working at under the heading of "unfinished business". Until it does so, it is open to the charge of discrimination on grounds of sex.


Mr. Charles L. Caccia (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the points raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) can hardly be dealt with in the short time allocated this evening. If the hon. member has some alternative suggestions for renaming the present Manpower services, we would be interested in examining her ideas.
With regard to the three-year clause, the hon. member has a very valid point which the department has made an object of study. Something ought to be done about

June 3, 1971

assisting women who wish to re-enter the labour force after having performed a very valuable function in society at home.
With regard to occupational segregation by sex in Manpower training courses, this could not be ascribed to wilful discrimination by the department. There must he reasons of an educational nature or of a practical nature. However, if the hon. member wishes us to investigate whether there are ways to improve the training courses she has in mind, and the possibility of offering other types of courses to women trainees, we will be glad to do so. But basically, when on May 14 the hon. member inquired why so many more men are judged to be helped by training courses than women, the answer is that it is because there are many more men who apply at Canada Manpower centres for assistance and training courses. Approximately 67 per cent of all those who apply at Canada Manpower centres are men, compared with 33 per cent who are women.
This alone gives an indication of the greater utilization of Manpower centres by men. From this follows the fact that the number of men referred for training represents 74.5 per cent, compared with 25.5 per cent for women. Again, this is a reflection of the clientele breakdown between men and women. The present figure of 25.5 per cent is an improvement over the figure of 22.7 per cent in 19-68-69.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but his time has expired.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, as reported on page 5856 of Hansard for May 17, 1971, I asked the Acting Prime Minister the following question:
Considering the lack of balance of our economy, could the minister who has a great experience and knowledge of economic matters tell us if we are at the beginning of a new period of economic expansion or if we are faced with an outlook of unduly long economic decline?
Mr. Speaker, we have an unbalanced economy and the people of Canada, especially businessmen, are disoriented. They do not know any more what they are heading for. Every time I meet businessmen, they ask me: Do you know where we are going? Do you know whether we shall experience a new economic start, or whether this will keep on? We are ready to give up, we cannot carry on anymore. We are overburdened with taxes of all kinds and we have to support workers, pay them unemployment insurance benefits, provide them with pension schemes.
The manufacturer and the businessman who employ workers are forced to pay for all these things, beside health insurance for these people. This is terribly costly and boosts production costs. Their production costs must decrease.
I know some industrialists who sell their production at less than 15 years ago and who have to assume those tax
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
increases and the various charges imposed by our economic system, in order to provide their employees with some guarantees. This increases production costs. We must reduce production costs on account of the mad competition prevailing on the market place. In such circumstances, several manufacturers went bankrupt and gave up, and we are aware of several others who are on the brink of quitting, because they can no longer make it. Therefore, they want to know whether there is any hope. They get in touch with administrators to find out whether they should give up tomorrow, lay down their arms or stand fast a bit longer. For the layman, I for one, it is rather difficult to provide a reply, because we do not hold the reins of administration, and we see the government carry on while debts, taxes and unemployment rates go up all over.
Some industrialists still believe in exports but if we export we must import for practically the same amount, so that does not change anything. Instead of selling Canadian products, we are selling Japanese products and that, on account of trade exchanges with other countries. Some intelligent manufacturers will say: What good are exports to us? Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) solve the problem through exports, now that we are in a bad position to export? As a matter of fact, our products are too expensive; labour and the cost of living are too high. Salary raises in keeping with the rise in the cost of living, affect production costs. Therefore we cannot compete with industrialists in other countries because our prices are too high.
How can we solve that problem?
That is one of the reasons why I asked that rather general question, to which nobody replied. That is the reason why I am asking it again tonight and I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to the minister what kind of a solution he could suggest that the citizens could find bearable.
Should we let them nurse some faint hope by saying that the economy will start up again, that the problems will be solved and that they will be able to keep on operating their firm? The current trend is toward centralization and private firms disappear at an alarming rate.
Industrialists are leaving the private sector with much difficulty. It is hard on them. Centralization is more and more necessary and private firms are disappearing even though-and there is supporting evidence-they can certainly produce at a cheaper cost than the public sector.
Never will a state enterprise produce as cheaply as the private sector. Many Quebec people-I do not travel much in the other provinces-are against centralization because it does not solve the problem but only increases production costs.
And to create employment two or three workers will be needed instead of one. Where one man can now do the work, after everything becomes centralized three men will be needed to do the same amount of work.

June 3, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Those are the questions industrialists and businessmen are asking themselves and they would like to know it they can rely on some sort of protection because the private sector is dying.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the government and the Bank of Canada inaugurated an expansionary period in the Canadian economy in March, 1970. The effects of this stimulus began to show in the rates of seasonally adjusted unemployment last September, and while there have been minor fluctuations since then the unemployment trend has been downward, and notwithstanding the surprising jump in April it is expected to continue downward throughout the year. There have been three other occasions since the present labour force survey began when the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate took a sharp upward jump. On all three occasions the following month's figures fell back and the improved trend continued.
Seasonally adjusted unemployment figures are an important economic indicator but they are not the only one. Housing starts, manufacturing shipments, new orders, chartered bank general loans, industrial production, seasonally adjusted retail trade figures and exports are among the indicators that support the contention that we are not just beginning but are, in fact, well into a period of economic expansion.
The hon. member referred to a lack of equilibrium in the economy. I am not too sure what he means by that and I am afraid his comments did not clarify the implications of the term. However, Canada's is a free enterprise, not a controlled economic system. As I said in the debate this afternoon, a certain unevenness in the functioning of the economy is the price Canadians pay for a great deal of personal freedom in their economic decisions, and to date it is a price most Canadians have felt has been worth paying.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.19 p.m.

Friday, June 4, 1971