1971-03-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in the two official languages-Mr. Clermont (on behalf of Chairman).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: In
accordance with Standing Order 41 (2) I wish to table in the two official languages part IV of the report of the Royal Commission on Pilotage by Mr. Justice Yves Bernier.


An hon. Member:: Is that the last volume?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: One more to come.


Mr. Greene:: A momentous day.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Is there any possible way we could mark today as a special red letter day to celebrate the fact that this week the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism and the Royal Commission on Pilotage, two of the longest and most expensive commissions in Canada's history, have concluded their work?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that the hon. member's proposition is premature. There is still another volume to come on pilotage.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleion) moved: that the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented to the House on Tuesday, March 16, 1971, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I need the unanimous consent of the House in reference to a bill dealing with air piracy. The bill is on the notice paper but does not appear on the order paper because I had not filed it in time. I have spoken to the house leaders of the various parties and am assured that there would be unanimous consent if you would ask for it on my behalf.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member requires the unanimous consent of the House in order to obtain leave to introduce a bill. Is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
* * [DOT]



CRIMINAL CODE


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: for leave to introduce Bill C-231, to amend the Criminal Code (air piracy).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I can be very brief. There have been two incidents of air piracy in Canada recently, one that did not amount to a crime because the party in question changed his mind. This bill would apply where an aircraft is unlawfully seized in Canada and sets down in a foreign country, or is unlawfully seized in a foreign country and sets down in Canada. There are other terms and conditions set out in the bill, but its purpose is to amend the Criminal Code in reference to hijacking or air piracy.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
March 19, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my questions were intended for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who is supposed to be here today, but I am sure the Minister of Finance will be able to answer them in any event since they come within his general area of concern. Is the government directly, or through the Prices and Incomes Commission, reinstituting any efforts to achieve a program of voluntary wage and price restraints or have such efforts been abandoned?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minisier of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to refer this question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, when we recently met with the Canadian Labour Congress I indicated that in future as the economy moves upward, and it is starting to move upward now, we would have to worry about the problem of inflation arising again and the economy getting overheated, and I invited members of the CLC to submit any ideas they might have with respect to co-operation between labour, government and management.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the government preparing a plan involving wage and price controls, either selectively or generally, to be introduced in the event of inflation continuing at an unacceptable rate?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, the government is studying and has been studying for quite some time the matter of voluntary or compulsory controls in case they might have to be used at some time in the future. No conclusions have been reached up to this time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister has said that the government is conducting studies. Would he be prepared to table any such studies conducted by his department or to request that any study conducted by the Prices and Incomes Commission in the area of compulsory wage and price controls be tabled?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would have to consider the matter.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the oft-stated responsibility of the provinces in this matter I should like to know whether there are continuing discussions with the provinces of proposals with regard to wage and price controls and, in view of the importance of such discussions, whether the minister will make a statement on them or perhaps release any studies as requested by the Leader of the Opposition?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet reached the point where I think it would be useful +o have discussions with the provinces directly, although the general problem of future inflation and the efforts that must be made by all governments in order to make sure that there are no serious ups and downs in the economy are discussed with the provinces every time I meet with them.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-DISCUSSIONS WITH COMPANY PRESIDENTS-OWNERSHIP-DETERMINATION OF RATES

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development arising out of the press statement that the minister is planning to meet the presidents of the seven companies involved in the Alyeska project to discuss an alternative Canadian route. Is the minister going to meet this group and is the Canadian government actively promoting the construction of a pipeline from Alaska through the Canadian Arctic and Canadian midwest to the United States?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, next week my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I will meet here in Ottawa the people most directly involved in Prudhoe Bay oil reserves for preliminary discussion of the alternative solution for routing Alaska oil through the Mackenzie valley. The government therefore does not intend to make concrete proposals.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the minister's statement recently that certain guidelines have been laid down and in view of the discussions which are about to take place I should like to ask either of the ministers concerned whether, if such a pipeline is constructed, it will be entirely under American ownership or will there be some Canadian participation? Will there be participation by the Canadian government in the ownership of such a pipeline from Alaska to the United States through Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: There has been as yet no definite decision, Mr. Speaker, but if the hon. member reads the guidelines carefully, he will see that we intend to protect Canadian interests and ensure that Canadians will have the opportunity to participate, if they want to do so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have read the guidelines, and the minister said the other day that one of the guidelines was that such a pipeline would be a common carrier. I should like to ask either of the ministers, who will determine the rates for such a common carrier and, particularly, who will determine the rates for Canadian input or output in such a line? Would this be under Canadian jurisdiction and, if so, what minister or agency would be responsible?
(Mr. Woolliams.l
March 19, 1971


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, negotiations have not yet begun on this matter, so it would be premature to discuss it.
We say in the guidelines, that it should be a common carrier, as the hon. member said, and we shall be discussing this in the future. We do not have a definitive policy on this matter; however, there will be no pipeline if development of Canadian resources is not allowed.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-ECOLOGICAL STUDIES-PUBLICATION OF RESULTS

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the government invited the Science Council to participate in the ecological studies and will the minister make known the results of these studies before taking a formal stand on this pipeline?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as early as 1969 an interdepartmental task force was formed and one of the subcommittees under that task force was set up specifically to study ecological questions which they have been doing very comprehensively, as have various government departments, agencies and the private sector itself. Whether or not these studies should be made public at this time or at the time an application to construct a pipeline is made is something we will have to take under advisement.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Since the minister is meeting with these people on Monday, will he be taking a formal stand with the industries or people concerned, and will he have the reports on the ecological studies before making a decision on the pipeline proposals?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, of course the two decisionmaking bodies on the question of the safety of the ecology are the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which has the primary responsibility, and the National Energy Board which has an equal responsibility in approving or disapproving a pipeline application. Whether or not it is in the public interest to make the various studies public before such an application is made is something we will consider.



DELAYING OF CONSTRUCTION START ON TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE PENDING FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS ON MACKENZIE VALLEY ROUTE

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Can either of the ministers responsible advise whether they now have a definite assurance from the United States that the Prudhoe Bay to Valdez pipeline will not be undertaken until negotiations have been continued and furthered in relation to the Mackenzie Valley route?
Inquiries of the Ministry
Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any such assurance. This is an internal matter for the United States of America. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has made Canadian concerns known in regard to marine shipping off the British Columbia coast. I thing all authorities in Washington are aware that we should like consideration to be given to the Mackenzie Valley route, subject to Canadian rules and Canadian decisions, before the Valdez decision is made, but certainly we cannot bind the United States government to await that decision.



PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-REPORTED POTENTIAL LOSS TO BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHING INDUSTRY

Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker,
may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In connection with the meetings he is to have with American oil interests and prior to the conclusion of those negotiations, would he seek from his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, for his information and for the information of the House an assessment of the report emanating from the United States Department of Commerce that an oil tanker route off the west coast of Canada would result in a loss of $100 million per year to the west coast fishing industry?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has said, this is team work and we are in constant contact with the Department of Fisheries and Forestry which supplies us with certain technical data concerning fishing in the Mackenzie River as well as in the Pacific Ocean.
I believe that Department is now studying the report of the U.S. Department of Commerce on how the establishment of a maritime route between Valdez and the United States might affect fisheries in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North on a supplementary question and then we will move to another subject.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-SUBMISSION OF ECOLOGICAL GUIDELINES TO COMPANY PRESIDENTS

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. When the minister and his colleague meet the representatives of the oil companies on Monday to discuss the possibility of an oil pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley, would they take with them whatever guidelines, preliminary or advanced, that the officials working on guidelines to protect the environment have prepared so that the companies will know that if they are interested in building a pipeline

March 19, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
down the Mackenzie Valley they will have, at least, to meet the standards which have been worked out at the present time?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we intend to do that. I have said many times that we need another summer of research on the tundra to determine the effect of a pipeline on the permafrost.


An hon. Member:: Who said that?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have said that many times.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister should have taken an interest long ago.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member is just becoming interested in this matter now. We have been interested in it for two years and next year will be the third year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister, but I suggest that perhaps we are entering the field of debate. I will, of course, allow the minister to complete his answer. As I said a moment ago, we will proceed to the next subject after the minister has completed his reply. I take it that the minister has completed his answer.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Real Caoueile (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the right hon. Prime Minister, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Finance.
In view of the difficult situation in which the northwestern area of Quebec finds itself, where mines have stopped operating thus creating an alarming unemployment rate, does the government intend to take steps so as to help find immediate solutions to this serious problem, and is it presently conducting discussions with the provincial authorities so as to help this region?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we have not been approached by the province of Quebec in this regard.



SHIPPING


Mr. Roberi Simpson (Churchill):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In reply to a question from the hon. member for Mackenzie on Tuesday, the minister mentioned that some of the top people in the insurance fraternity from the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada would be touring the St. Law-
[Mr. Orlikow.l
rence seaway. He also mentioned they would be thoroughly briefed with regard to the Hudson Bay shipping route. Can the minister say how long these people will be in Canada and whether those interested or involved in shipping through the St. Lawrence seaway have been given an opportunity to speak to these people?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, other than the representatives of the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Department, I am not at all certain just how many others have actually met with the group. I know that they spent the last two days on an icebreaker in the St. Lawrence. I will be meeting with them at lunch hour today. I have not yet met these gentlemen. I hope they will return later this year for a firsthand look at the Arctic, but in the meantime we are briefing them fully on it. As far as I am aware, in the first instance their schedule does not permit exhaustive discussions with private parties, nor can we require them to do so. Nevertheless I feel they will get a very thorough and comprehensive awareness of the exact situation.


Robert Simpson: The minister also mentioned that these people will be invited back later to have a look at shipping through Churchill. Will the minister make every possible effort to see that the officials of the Hudson Bay Route Association and the officials of the Port of Churchill Commission have an opportunity to meet with these people?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to do that. The reason it is not being done at this time, as I am sure the hon. member knows, is that there is not much point in having a firsthand look at the Arctic at this time of the year. We have to wait until shipping actually starts.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I wish to ask the
minister whether the information garnered from the trip of the Louis St. Laurent into Hudson Bay in December and also the trip of the Manhattan into Arctic waters will be turned over to these companies for their analysis?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have indicated we will make available to them whatever data we have to convince them that there is not what might be described as extreme or extraordinary hazard involved in ice navigation with the assistance we can now render. Our argument is that rates should be substantially lower on that account.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: My question is for the
Minister of Finance. Has the minister received representations from Premier Bourassa within the past week or ten days urging that the government of Canada abandon the principle of integration in the forthcoming tax legislation? If so, what was his reply?
March 19, 1971


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have received any such representations in the past 10 or 15 days, although the matter was raised by Premier Bourassa at the first ministers' conference when speaking to me.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: My
question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns the perilous situation in the Middle East which has worsened in the last few days. Would the Acting Prime Minister tell us what representations Canada is making, or has made, particularly to Egypt but also to Israel with a view to bringing about some agreement?


Mr. Andre Ouellel (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government-
{English]


John George Diefenbaker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to a minister and I have the right to be answered by a minister and not by a parliamentary secretary. If the minister cannot answer me, he can give an answer next week. Parliamentary secretaries are not for the purpose of answering questions that deserve the attention of ministers who travel all over Africa profligately spending Canadian money.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieite):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President-


André Ouellet: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I apologize to the member for Joliette. The Parliamentary Secretary is rising on a point of order.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, there is no provision in the Standing Orders which prevents a parliamentary secretary from answering members of the opposition.
I would have been in a position to reply to the right hon. member, but if he wishes to await the minister's return from a very successful trip to Africa, the latter will be here on Monday and in a position to answer the right hon. member if he really cares to get an answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I want responsible answers from ministers, not from unresponsible secretaries.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Inquiries of the Ministry



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I would like to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
I shall refer to the letter of Messrs. Dunton and Gagnon of the Commission on Bilingualism and Bicultur-alism in which this is clearly stated:
We hope the government will be in a position to encourage the continuation of studies on fundamental problems of the Canadian duality.
Can the minister say today whether the government intends to make arrangements for the continuation of those studies and for the presentation of a report to the House?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we have not reached any final decision up to now, but the hon. member may rest assured that any decision will be announced in this House.



DEFINITION OF TERMS &quot;FRANCOPHONE&quot; AND &quot;ANGLOPHONE&quot; AS APPLIED TO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question on this subject which should perhaps be addressed to the President of the Treasury Board or Acting Prime Minister. In view of the conflicting statements yesterday in connection with the definition of "Francophone", the statement made by the Prime Minister in the House on February 2, who said it was not based on racial origin, and the statement by the Secretary of State, who has the responsibility for implementing the government's policy, that it does depend on the mother tongue, would the Acting Prime Minister be prepared to tell us what the policy of the government is on this very interesting and topical subject?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would prefer, given a preference, that this debate be conducted in the committee rather than on the floor of the House, but I think it is well understood that the term "Francophone" or "Anglophone" refers to the origin of the mother tongue of members of the two large linguistic communities in the country.


Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask the minister whether the policy aimed at creating a balance between Francophones and Anglophones in the public service in the next few years has been suggested, in view of the reports of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in all policy-making, we have taken into account the recommendat.ons of that Commission.

March 19, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we should go on to another subject. It the hon. member for Annapolis Valley has a further supplementary he will be recognized, and then I will recognize the hon. member for Moose Jaw.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was not able to ask my supplementary earlier because my colleague had one. Is there any relationship between the decision of the commissioners of the B and B Commission not to proceed with the fourth and fifth volumes of their report and certain remarks by Premier Bourassa at the conclusion of the last federal-provincial conference which would indicate there may be a move away from the original basic principle of the whole B and B concept?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am not familiar with the motivat'on of the commissioners on this subject, but if it interests the hon. member I will inquire of them.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Given the fact that Canadian Pacific officials have admitted that even on the basis of a greatly extended passenger train they cannot meet the effective demand for places on the Canadian in the summer months, and given the fact that the CPR has announced that it intends to operate a train of limited size this coming summer, can the minister tell us how the government intends to move Canadians who are being urged to travel this summer by every means possible?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That is much too complicated a question for me to try to answer in a few words. I will take it as notice and try to answer the hon. member later.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that perhaps the question should be asked in a different way? He might inquire of the minister whether a statement will be made. I agree with the minister that it would not be in order for him to make that kind of general statement at this time.


John Leroy Skoberg: Very well, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister tell the House whether he will make representations to the Canadian Pacific to have this train remain as it is at present operated?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It would seem to me that the basic requirement is that there should be facilities offered commensurate with the traffic offering.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If there is traffic offering, obviously the way in which it should be accommodated would be to provide adequate service.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: My question is to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as President of the Treasury Board responsible for the Public Service Commission. As the press release by the Public Service Commission on March 15 was unclear in two specific areas, would the minister tell us approximately how many students will be employed directly by the Public Service this summer and, second, what will be the deadline dates for applications for career-oriented positions and for noncareer-oriented positions?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. I should like to correct one slight misapprehension. The President of the Treasury Board is not responsible for the Public Service Commission nor does the commission report to Parliament through the Treasury Board. This is a responsibility of the Secretary of State. To answer the two specific questions which were asked, as announced by the Secretary of State on Tuesday, it is anticipated that federal Public Service hiring will be at approximately the same level as in 1970, that is, about 23,500 students. With respect to the distinction between career-oriented and non-career-oriented jobs, the Public Service Commission issued a poster in late December, 1970, to all universities, community colleges and CGEPS outlining the procedure the students should follow in seeking summer employment. This poster stated that the deadline-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the minister, while giving important and relevant information to the House, is making the kind of statement which should normally be made on motions. It seems to me the minister is going beyond the requirements of the question put to him by the hon. member for Ontario.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Would the minister state specifically what are the deadline dates for those two types of position?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker. For the career-oriented programs the poster announced a deadline of February 12, 1971, but the commission is still accepting applications in this field and will do so until March 26, 1971. With respect to the non-career-oriented jobs, there is no deadline.



MANPOWER


Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Can the hon. gentleman tell us when we may expect, and when the students may expect, to receive the further release the government proposes in connection with the Opportunities for Youth program which was announced only in
March 19, 1971

a general way and at a very late date in any event? When can we expect the guidelines so that students and local associations will know how to apply and what they may apply for?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the Department of the Secretary of State is working intensively on this and I would hope the guidelines would be available very soon.



ATOMIC ENERGY


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister received an application from the British Newfoundland Corporation
to build an uranium enriching plant in Canada and is the government, in view of the job potential of such a project, prepared to expedite the necessary policy decision?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I have received an application but I note from press reports that the Prime Minister's office has been notified of the interest of that company in uranium enrichment. As early as last December I indicated the government's interest in this question. There is, of course, no technology available outside the United States at the present time. We will certainly consider the Brinco representations along with any others, and whether if Canada should go into the field of uranium enrichment it should be done in partnership with some agency. Eldorado Nuclear a government-owned company, and other proposals would be considered and we would go into the matter in such a manner as would be in the best interests of Canada.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's answer which indicated that a policy has been formulated on this subject, is the minister prepared to direct Eldorado to enter into discussions with Brinco with a view to facilitating their application?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, we are willing to enter into discussions with anyone. As I said before, I point out that no one actually has the technology. It is available only in the United States. In so far as the government having a policy is concerned, we of course have indicated our interest but there can be no clear policy when there is no technology available to Canada at the present time.



PROPOSAL BY BRITISH NEWFOUNDLAND CORPORATION TO BUILD URANIUM ENRICHMENT PLANT-GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which is supplementary to previous questions concerning the Brinco proposal. Since $950 million would be involved, which is a lot of money, and
Inquiries of the Ministry
since it appears foreign companies might enter into the project because it is likely foreign capital would be needed, I should like to ask the minister what the guidelines are at the present time in reference to such a project or is another decision to be made on an ad hoc basis as in the case of Home Oil?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the minister should be allowed to cite the guidelines to which the hon. member has referred unless he can do so very quickly. I have some apprehension about this. I would think that normally this kind of a question should be answered by way of a statement, but if the minister can give a brief reply we might hear it and then go on to another subject.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there are no guidelines as such because, as I said, there is no technology available. Each application would have to be considered on its merits, with the maximum of good to Canada and the maximum of Canadian content as clear criteria.



PROPOSAL BY BRITISH NEWFOUNDLAND CORPORATION TO BUILD URANIUM ENRICHMENT PLANT-PARALLEL DEVELOPMENT OF FUNDY TIDAL POWER

['Mr. Speaker, the sale of Candu reactors of course has been going extremely well in the domestic market and we have sold a test reactor to Taiwan, but certainly sales in world markets have been difficult, not because of the capability of our product but because of ancillary benefits given by our competitors. This whole question certainly is one which will shortly require review.']
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will he give consideration to the possible parallel development of Fundy tidal power in view of the fact that this plant could be constructed in approximately the same period of time and on completion it would require two million kilowatts of electric power?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any comparison has been made to date of these various projects but certainly, as I believe I have indicated to my hon. friend, my instructions are that despite the increasing cost of energy globally and domestically, the fact is that the Fundy power project is still not economically feasible and it would not be in the interest of the Maritimes to foist expensive energy on them. But we are prepared to continue reviewing the study with the provinces, as I have indicated to my hon. friend.



Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister which he may wish to take as notice. Is Canada involved in a foreign aid scheme with Argentina in concert with the United States, is Canada paying a substantial portion of the cost of this project and is one of the terms of the project that all the machinery and equipment concerning the project must be purchased in the United States?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I will accept the invitation of the hon. member.

March 19, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry ATOMIC ENERGY


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the difficulties Canada has had in selling nuclear reactors, would the minister tell us what steps the government is taking to improve our competitive position?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the sale of Candu reactors of course has been going extremely well in the domestic market and we have sold a test reactor to Taiwan, but certainly sales in world markets have been difficult, not because of the capability of our product but because of ancillary benefits given by our competitors. This whole question certainly is one which will shortly require review.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance in respect of the presentation of a budget and a financial review. Has the minister made up his mind yet whether he will present a budget in the normal way, what will be its timing and will this budget be divorced entirely from the massive tax changes he intends to propose?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes. The timing has not been decided at the present time. The answer to the second part of the question is that this has not yet been determined.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. The other day in answer to a question regarding the opening of a diplomatic mission in Zambia the Secretary of State for External Affairs advised that such a project was on his list and he hoped it was on the list of the Treasury Board too. May I now ask the President of the Treasury Board if Zambia has not made it and only Algeria has?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman would not want me to anticipate announcements which should properly be made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion but in his absence and because of the urgency perhaps I might direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the very large-scale unemployment on Cape Breton Island, would the minister consider having the Cape Breton Development Corporation embark on a major program, thus providing an infrastructure in conjunction with the municipalities, and also a program of pollution control measures in Sydney Harbour, which would have the double-barrelled effect of creating employment and solving a severe and continuing problem?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to pass on this representation to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Acting Prime Minister for his reply. I have a supplementary question. In light of the concern expressed by the Metro Alliance for Development at Sydney and the Catholic Social Services Commission at Halifax who have sent an open letter to the Prime Minister regarding the unemployment situation in Cape Breton, and in view of the statement by the Prime Minister in the House yesterday that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is constantly considering new initiatives, would the Acting Prime Minister and the cabinet give immediate priority to this most serious problem as unemployment in Cape Breton is at least twice the national average?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman the cabinet will be giving the consideration to the unemployment problem which it unquestionably merits.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might direct a question to the Solicitor General. My question relates to a young lad of 14 years of age who only a couple of days ago was fed into the educational system for criminality, namely, the British Columbia Penitentiary. I should like to ask the minister what plans exist for the salvation and rehabilitation of that young fellow?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly look into the matter which strikes me as rather odd in view of the young prisoner's age.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I too am astounded both by this case and the fact that the minister did not

March 19, 1971

know about it. May I ask the minister whether there exists in a general sense, and whether it would apply in this particular case, a liaison with the provincial governments to ensure that people of this age are not sent to penitentiaries regardless of the circumstances?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, we will first have to check and see whether a competent tribunal applied the law. If so, we surely cannot intervene in contradiction with it.
Still, if that young man is in prison, we are dealing with a concrete case, and we will certainly consider what steps can be taken for his rehabilitation.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a question and at the same time commend him for his announcement that from now on Indians will be consulted and not have policies imposed upon them without their consent. In view of the new policy which has been adopted by him I should like to ask him whether he intends to place the treaties with Indians made prior to 1867 before Parliament so as to legalize their effect, the Supreme Court of Canada having decided some years ago that those treaties are not binding and have not been binding since 1867 on successive governments?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this is a technical problem which I shall be pleased to study. I will see whether this treaty should be tabled in the House. I should like to study every aspect of the question before giving the right hon. member an answer.



TRANSPORT


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: have a question for the Minister of Transport. My question refers to the recent study and consultations conducted by the minister and his officials with the premiers and officials of the Prairie provinces with regard to the excessively high freight rates prevailing in that region. Can the minister advise the House what, if any, positive results have been achieved through these consultations?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Only that the negotiations or talks are continuing. I think I can say that progress has been made. I outlined earlier that the technique decided upon was to look at isolated and specific industries or products that were being affected, and this work is now being done. I will report when there is something definitive to pass on to the House.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



INQUIRY AS TO ACQUISITION OF NUCLEAR SUBMARINES TO PATROL ARCTIC

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: My question is for the Minister of National Defence and arises out of a statement by the maritime commander in Montreal. Does the department intend to acquire nuclear submarines for the purpose of patrolling the Arctic?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Not at present, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: My question is directed to the minister in charge of housing. Can the minister tell the House whether the government will accept the proposal made by the Canadian Construction Association that the preferential rate of 7| per cent be applied automatically in the case of low income family housing independent of the number of units being built?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: The lower interest rate to which the hon. member refers is applicable to sections 16 and 35 of the Act. One is public housing and the other is so-called limited dividend housing, and the rate applied is now 7J per cent. I am not sure whether the hon. member is implying that a further extension of that application be made to other methods of home acquisition.


Walter C. Carter: Will the minister say whether the government would consider reducing interest rates and giving a preferred rate to individual home builders in the low income bracket?


Robert Knight Andras: We did some experimental projects last year along that line, so obviously we are taking a look at



POST OFFICE


David Orlikow: I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Post Office. With regard to the announcement that new postal codes will be implemented which will result in the elimination of about 75 per cent of manual mail sorting by the Post Office, have the employees and their unions been advised of the details of the program and will any possible reductions in personnel or changes in working conditions be discussed with the employees and their unions well before the changes are implemented?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister without Portfolio):: thank the hon. member for asking me this question

March 19, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
because it gives me the opportunity to clarify the press release in which it was said that 75 per cent of the sorting would be eliminated by the machines. What the director of mechanization said exactly is that these letter machines will be able to sort only 75 per cent of the letter mail.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce relating to the chemical industry and in particular to the minister's response to a question which I directed to him on March 11 wherein he indicated that the government was working on the problems affecting the Canadian chemical industry. Is the minister prepared to advise the House whether in fact a program is being developed to overcome the problems of the Canadian chemical industry and whether the details of such program will be announced in a statement on motions?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: There is such a study going on. That is well known to that industry and I will report on it in due course.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can the minister indicate to the House when he may be prepared to make a statement on motions with respect to the type of program that is envisaged in this study?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I cannot do so at this time, but the purpose of the study would be to try to remedy the basic reason for the difficulties we have been experiencing in the chemical industry, that is, a lack of wider markets which makes it very difficult to be internationally competitive from Canada.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Centre):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think you will find that there has been an agreement among the four parties with respect to the length of speeches in today's debate. The agreement is to the effect that the first or principal spokesman for each party be allowed 30 minutes but that all other speakers be limited to 15 minutes. You will also find that the four House leaders or whips are in agreement that no member should ask for extended time in view of the large number of those who wish to speak today.


Mr. Francis:: I wish to confirm that this is the understanding. There is a number of members on this side who hope to participate, and we particularly welcome the comments of the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Mr. C6te (Longueuil) .3
noon)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That this House condemns the government's failure to institute the economic planning necessary to bring about economic growth, full employment and price stability, and particularly its failure to present adequate programs to provide jobs for those bearing a disproportionate share of the current mass unemployment, such as young people seeking permanent work and students who will be seeking summer employment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the economy of this country is in an unholy mess. The government's restrictive monetary and fiscal policies have produced a veritable nightmare of high unemployment accompanied by rising prices. To verify this statement, one has only to look at figures which were published yesterday by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics with respect to the current unemployment situation. In the month of February this year, the actual rate of unemployment was 8.1 per cent or 675,000 persons out of work. I think even these figures are suspect. The estimate is that the number of persons in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits and claiming benefits is in the neighbourhood of 782,000 persons, and I have never been able to accept the government's argument that the number of persons in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits does not represent the number of unemployed persons. As a matter of fact, there are more unemployed than those in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits because there are many persons who are not eligible to receive such benefits.
But whether one takes the figure of 675,000 or 782,000, one still has to add the 70,000 to 100,000 unemployed persons who are taking training under manpower training programs, so that we are talking about a figure of somewhere between 750,000 and 850,000 persons in mis country who are without work at the present time. The significant thing is that despite the measures which were introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in March, 1970, the actual rate of the unemployment in February of this year is 149,000 higher than it was in February a year ago. The unemployment rate in February 1970, was 6.5 per cent and it has risen to 8.1 per cent in February, 1971. The seasonally adjusted figure has risen over the same period from 4.8 per cent to 6.2 per cent. What is most significant of all is that in terms of the number of persons unemployed, the figure in February this year is the highest since March, 1961, and the rate of unemployment is the highest since March, 1963.
I am not interested in playing the numbers game as to whether unemployment only went up one tenth of a point whereas, if it had not been for the government's programs, it might have gone up two tenths of a point. I am not interested in arguing whether the corner has been turned and whether unemployment is not going
March 19, 1971

to continue to rise. What this House has to be concerned about is that unemployment in this country is not responding to the policies which the government initiated with a view to curing the unemployment situation, and the government seems to be taking this for granted. There is no concern on the government's part that unemployment, seasonally adjusted, stays at around 6.2 per cent, or that the actual figure is in excess of 8 per cent.
In the Toronto Star of February 24, 1971, there was a report that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), addressing a $50 a plate fund raising dinner in the city of Montreal, said:
Unemployment is something Canadians will just have to learn to live with.
Of course, I presume he was speaking of other Canadians, not of the ones who had paid $50 a plate to hear him make his speech. Mr. Speaker, those individuals are not likely to be concerned about unemployment. It is not likely that they will suffer the privation, the humiliation, and the hardship of unemployment. It may even be that some of the Prime Minister's friends are not averse to seeing a considerable amount of unemployment because they view the situation with some equanimity. There is some advantage for them if the people who work in their plants know there are two or three unemployed persons out at the gate who would like to get their jobs. This helps to keep the labour force more docile.
At the beginning of the government's attack on the problem of inflation, the Prime Minister said that the government would be prepared to accept 6 per cent unemployment. What disturbs those of us who are in this party is that the government is coming to accept an unemployment figure of between 5 per cent and 6 per cent as a permanent condition in this country. What ought to be the concern of this House is not just what the unemployment figures are from month to month, but what are the long-term prospects of substantially reducing unemployment and attaining full employment for the people of Canada.
Dr. Arthur J. R. Smith, the Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, has pointed out that if we want to reduce unemployment to 4 per cent in one year-and may I interject that is a higher figure than the Economic Council itself has said would be acceptable, because it put the figure at a maximum of 3 per cent-we would require an economic growth rate in constant dollars of 10 per cent; that to reduce unemployment to 4 per cent over a two year period would require a growth in real output of 7J per cent; and that to get unemployment down to 4 per cent in three years would require a growth in real output of 6f per cent.
I have asked the Minister of Finance to say what he estimates our growth rate will be this year. He has refused to say. He says he will make some estimate in his budget. We will await that with great interest. The fact remains that none of the economists whose predictions I have read indicate we are likely to have a growth rate in real terms of 6| per cent this year or during the next three years. I notice that the Bank of Montreal is predicting that unemployment will remain close to 6 per cent in 23966-681
Economic Growth and Employment Situation
1971. This estimate is based on its projection of an increase in real output of 5 per cent. The Institute for Quantitative Analysis of Social and Economic Policy at the University of Toronto has forecast a 6 per cent growth in real terms, but with unemployment averaging over 6 per cent for this coming year. Mr. Douglas Peters, the Chief Economist of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, has forecast a slight decline in unemployment, but says, "It is not likely to average less than 6 per cent in 1971."
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, what this House has to face up to is whether or not we are going to be satisfied to settle down in Canada to an unemployment figure in the neighbourhood of 6 per cent. One of the dismaying figures presented yesterday in the report of the DBS is the growing number of unemployed persons who have been unemployed for a considerable period of time.
We are developing a hard core of unemployed. Of those who have been unemployed from four to six months the number is up 29,000 between January and February of this year, and up 48,000 from February of 1970. For those who have been unemployed for over six months this number is up 9,000 between January and February of this year, and is up 56,000 from February of 1970. This is the group that constitutes a hard core of unemployed who could become permanently unemployed unless remedial action is taken.
Another disturbing feature in the figures which were produced yesterday shows that the number of young people under 25 years of age who were unemployed in February of this year reached the astounding figure of 318,000. The number in this category is up 113,000 from the same month in the previous year. Mr. Speaker, I submit that any country with 318,000 of its young people unemployed-almost half the unemployed are under 25 years of age-is headed for trouble. People of my generation remember that in the depression of the thirties young people put up with a good deal of unemployment and deprivation. I do not think that this generation will be as patient and I am not prepared to ask them to be patient if the government is not going to do anything about the fact that almost half of the unemployed in this country are under 25 years of age.
The government has brought down a program for these young people but it is a paste and scissors job, ill conceived and ill considered. Some parts of the program are fine for looking after young people-hostels and kiosks to keep a register of hitchhikers, trips overseas and trips across Canada. There is nothing wrong with such projects, but they will do nothing to provide jobs for young people who have to earn money in order to go back to school or university next year. Neither will they do anything to provide jobs for the young people who are seeking permanent employment.
The economic morass in which we find ourselves is the price we are paying for the government's bungled attempt to wage war against inflation. All of us agreed that inflation had to be stopped but the government consistently refused to take the necessary measures. We in this party advocated such things as a redistribution of

March 19, 1971
Economic Growth and Employment Situation
income, expansionist policies to use to full potential the output of our economy, and investment controls to see that investment went into job creating projects and undertakings with a high social priority. We advocated a prices review board to see whether price increases were being artificially stimulated or were the result of genuine economic pressures. We said that if the prices review board was not adequate, we were prepared to support mandatory selective controls provided these were applied to all forms of income and not merely to wages and salaries. The only minister who has said that something like this has to be done has been the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey). In this House he said that some other way must be found to cope with inflation than deliberately creating unemployment.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that despite the price we are paying for the fight against inflation, we have not stopped it; inflation has not gone away. I should like to quote a sentence used by the Prime Minister as reported in the Globe and Mail of December 24, 1970, because I am sure it will go down in history as one of the gems of Canadian parliamentary wisdom. He said, "inflation no longer exists in Canada".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Inflation has not gone away Mr. Speaker. Inflation is only simmering for a while. The rising cost of living was temporarily forestalled largely because of the unpegging of the Canadian dollar but it is simmering and is beginning to boil again. The cost of living rose in January and February, and if it continues to rise at the same rate for the rest of the year there will be an increase in our cost of living of 5 per cent. The fact is that the government is caught in a dilemma, a dilemma which is inherent in an unplanned economy. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have coristantly warned the House, as they warned the Canadian Labour Congress, that too great an expansion of the economy could result in further inflation.
The Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Rasminsky, has just issued his report to Parliament in which he says the same thing. He has warned the government against setting an unrealistic target for economic recovery and over-heating the economy again in the process. Mr. Speaker, those who accept the idea of an unplanned economy are asking the people of Canada to accept one of two alternatives; either we have full employment with inflation or we have price stability and unemployment. This is a horrible choice to ask the Canadian people to make. As a matter of fact, because of the half-hearted measures which the government has implemented we now have both unemployment and rising prices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The New Democratic Party contends that we do not need to accept either alternative, that it is not necessary to have inflation because we have full employment nor is it necessary to accept unemployment as the price of price stability.

In its first annual review, the Economic Council of Canada set forth goals for the Canadian economy. They said it should be possible to maintain an annual growth rate in terms of 5J to 6 per cent per year, that it should be possible to keep unemployment at 3 per cent or less and it should be possible to keep price increases at 2 per cent or less. The Economic Council of Canada was not only setting forth desirable goals, Mr. Speaker, it was setting forth possible goals. I want to say to the government that they would do well to listen to the recommendations made by Dr. Arthur Smith and the Economic Council of Canada rather than the conventional wisdom of Mr. Rasminsky, the Governor of the Bank of Canada. In referring to the desirability of having growth and full economic potential without inflation, Mr. Rasminsky says that this is an extremely ambitious goal, and that it is not realistic. If the government accepts that advice, they will have to oscillate constantly between periods of economic slack and unemployment on the one hand, and periods of full employment and galloping inflation on the other. This would take us through a constant series of booms and busts with the booms getting shorter and the busts getting longer.
I hope the government will listen to the recommendations made by Dr. Smith, because he has set forth programs by which it is possible to use our full economic potential to provide reasonably full employment with, at the same time, relative price stability. The government's failure to accept these recommendations and to implement such a program is the reason that Canada is in the unholy economic mess that it is today.
We, in the New Democratic Party, have contended from the beginning that we must plan the Canadian economy; that people were not made for the economy but that the economy was made to supply human needs. We contend that we dare not leave the direction and manipulation of the economy entirely in the hands of those whose sole aim is the maximization of profits. This road leads to disaster, as we have already discovered. It is completely wrong to assume that, left to its own devices, the corporate structure will produce the results which we want. We have put forward from time to time a number of proposals by which it would be possible to have in this country relatively full employment and, at the same time, reasonable price stability. We have urged the government to introduce an expansionist program. If inflation is too much money chasing too few goods, we ought to be using our productive capacity to produce more goods instead of artificially creating a slack in the economy.
We have called for a redistribution of incomes. It is perfectly apparent that since 20 per cent of the people of Canada live below the poverty line and another 20 per cent live in a state of deprivation, the best way to stimulate the economy and provide full employment would be to create purchasing power in that segment of the economy. Dr. Smith of the Economic Council has constantly urged on the government the need to use
March 19, 1971

mechanisms for creating effective demand. The government has ignored this advice again and again. The government seems to think that it will stimulate the economy if it keeps making grants to corporations, two-thirds of them American controlled. What we really need is to put money into the pockets of low income groups of this country, so that they have money with which to buy goods. When they are able to buy goods, industry will expand its plant to meet the effective demand of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We have called for greater Canadian control of the economy. We believe that unless we exercise a greater measure of control over the economic decisions that affect the welfare of the people of Canada, it will not be possible to plan our economy in the way that is necessary. We have said that if inflation threatens, there are mechanisms that can be set up by which we can make sure that inflation will not take its toll from the people of this country who live on fixed incomes. Always, the Minister of Finance says, "Where are you going to get the money?" Again, Mr. Speaker, the Economic Council has pointed out that this country, because of the slack in our economy, is failing to avail itself of $5 billion a year of potential production which we are capable of creating. Dr. Smith said that we are losing roughly $100 million a week in production which is not being created as a result of the government's policies.
I say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that some of us have gone through this traumatic experience before. In the 1930's in this country we had large scale unemployment, unused productive capacity, an economy that was stagnant and a populace that was suffering. In those days we heard the same story from the government of the day, which was a Liberal government. The argument was that we lacked the money. We could not interfere through the public sector. It was up to the corporate structure to create jobs. We argued that if Canada ever went to war, we should not only find the money to stimulate the economy, but that we should do the necessary economic planning to give the economy direction. That is what happened. Many Canadians forget what happened. They ought not to forget.
They should remember with pride that when Canada entered the war, the economy that had been entirely stagnant became dynamic. We not only put a million men and women into uniform, fed them, clothed them and armed them, but we produced goods we had never produced before. We expanded our economy. We built the third largest merchant marine in the world, and manned it. We not only fed, clothed and housed our own people; we fed and equipped our allies. To prevent profiteering and inflation, we imposed price controls. We did all this without borrowing one dollar outside Canada. We did it with the efforts, the labour and toil of the Canadian people, because we planned our economy.
The New Democratic Party is saying to the government that if we could plan the economy in time of war,
Economic Growth and Employment Situation
when a large part of our production was not going into non-consumer goods, it would be much easier now to plan the economy in a war against poverty and unemployment in order to provide jobs for our people and a high standard of living for all Canadians. This country, Mr. Speaker has tremendous potential. Canada is like a great, blinded giant that has been handcuffed and bound. What it needs now is leadership. That leadership has not been forthcoming, and for that this government can be justly condemned.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, once again during the present session we are discussing the economic and social policies of this government. We are doing so at an appropriate time, that is to say, very shortly after the appearance of the statistical reports that give us some knowledge of the results of the government's policies in fields in which it claims at least to be interested and at a time when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and his associates are considering, presumably, the forthcoming budget.
Yesterday we heard figures from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics concerning the unemployment situation in February. Those figures were reviewed a few moments ago by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. They show that whereas one year unemployment in Canada had reached the already unacceptable level of about 6.5 per cent, this year the figure had climbed to a level of 8.1 per cent. Notably included within this total mass and massive unemployment which government policies have created is that group of Canadians referred to in the motion we are considering today, the young people of Canada.
That unemployment among those under the age of 25 should be raging at a rate of over 13 per cent is a continuing sad state of affairs. That it is running this high at a time when the student youth of the country are about to flood onto the market seeking summer work is nothing short of a tragedy. Repeated attempts have been made by the opposition to persuade the government to come to grips with the problems of both elements in the youth group, the student element and the regular labour force element. The students finally have received the announcement of the government's plans for them. There are aspects of these plans that have merit. I must certainly take issue, however, with the long delay that the government indulged in before making its announcement. Even now, we do not have any details, any terms of reference or any guidelines about the major elements in the government's proposals for student employment, its opportunities for youth program.
Most of the announced programs simply repeat what has already been done in previous years. No thoughtful person can begin to understand why it took the government so long to do little more than produce a copy of previous programs. Certainly, participation in the programs will be less because of this delay. The consequences and results of that participation will be much

March 19, 1971
Economic Growth and Employment Situation
less effective. For the non-student jobless youth ol Canada, the government's response is so far consistent with the response it has been giving all the other employed in Canada, a sickening, deafening silence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The figures released yesterday show that the number of men and women who have been unsuccessfully seeking work for more than four months has jumped from 225,000 in January to 263,000 in February, a 17 per cent increase in one month. This is hardly something of which we can be proud. These people are sometimes called the hard core unemployed. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) used that expression yesterday when he tried to suggest that a seasonally adjusted improvement had taken place with regard to the hard core unemployed. That performance by the Prime Minister was a strange kind of intellectual exercise. It may have created some confusion, and it certainly carried no conviction. I sometimes wonder where the Prime Minister gets his statistics. Can it be the same place where he gets his policies? The statistics are as accurate as the policies are effective. That is not saying very much for either one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In short, they are god-awful. They are both examples of the incompetence that has become the trademark of this government. I am digressing, Mr. Speaker.
I was saying that the term "hard core unemployed" is often used to describe men and women who have been without a job for four months or more. Personally, I do not like to use that term. I think it is a degrading and inhumane way to sum up a great deal of human misery. I do not like to use it because it is somewhat reminiscent of the term hard core criminal. I suspect that some people who use the term hard core unemployed do so to relieve their own consciences.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Come on.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Like habitual drunkards or habitual criminals, these are people whom we can slough off, people who must shoulder the blame for their condition of joblessness. In the vast majority of cases, I do not accept that description of those who have been looking for work in Canada for four months or more. We are talking about the destruction of human dignity resulting from conscious economic policies on the part of this government.
That is why I did not cry "hosanna" when the February figures showed a jump of 7,000 over those of the previous month. That may not be very many, but it is
7.000	too many when we consider that there were already
668.000	Canadians looking for work before. There are now 675,000 in the same boat.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Could I respectfully ask when there was a reference to 7,000?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The reference was to the increased number of unemployed Canadians reported by DBS for the month of February compared to the month of January.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Will the hon. member tell me what the figure was for 1969, the average for the past three, five or ten years?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will be happy to refer to the report of the DBS. The increase in the absolute number of unemployed is reported to be somewhat less than has been usual for the past number of years. I do not make any secret of that any more than I make a secret of the fact that the increase between December and January in absolute numbers was substantially larger than usual. As a matter of fact, according to DBS the seasonally adjusted rate has remained the same.


Jean-Luc Pepin: If I can continue my questioning-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the minister or the hon. gentleman, but I must bring to the attention of the minister that we have agreed on a time limit for speeches. Perhaps we should allow the hon. gentleman to complete his speech.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister will have lots of chances to make his speech.


Mr. Bell:: The minister thinks he is back in school.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am very happy to debate these questions with the minister on very factual terms. I hope this is the basis on which they will be discussed by the other side of the House. This unemployment is hardly a matter for pride. It is hardly a matter for complacency. I have already stressed the human side and I have also stressed the economic aspects. This country cannot afford mass unemployment. Mass unemployment is a sign of economic sickness as well as of human misery. It weakens the will to fight inflation. It is about time this government recognized that fact.
The simple fact is that yesterday's unemployment figures show that a full year after this government claims to have embarked on a course of economic expansion, the unemployment situation is substantially worse. Certainly, there has been some growth and there will be more. In the face of growth in other developed countries, especially Japan and western Europe, and with the resulting increase in our exports, it would take a government of staggering incompetence to achieve total stagnation in this country.
There is no indication whatsoever that the modest growth we have been experiencing, as well as what is forecast, will substantially reduce the mass unemployment that exists in this country beyond the normal seasonal decline that happens every spring and summer. As the leader of the New Democratic Party reminded us,

fMr. Stanfield.]
March 19, 1971

we need a 5 per cent rate of real growth each year simply to hold our own and to prevent unemployment from getting worse.
To put the icing on the cake, the government cannot now even claim that it has succeeded in the only domain in which it was for a while claiming to have achieved something. As the leader of the New Democratic Party mentioned, the Prime Minister told us on December 23 that inflation had been licked. It no longer existed in Canada. We have also been properly reminded that the figures for the first two months of 1971, if extrapolated and continued for the year, will indicate a 5 per cent rate of inflation for this year. In other words, the balance sheet of the government right now involves the worst of both worlds, sustained mass unemployment and renewed inflation. We must ask ourselves whether all the suffering among the unemployed, brought on deliberately by the government as part of its fight against inflation, has been in vain.
This government's economic policies have failed. I suggest it is high time to face up to that fact. I do not wish to be immodest, but as Leader of the official Opposition in this House, I have the right and duty to remind Your Honour of the appeals that I have made to this government here and all over Canada. I have urged this government to use any pause in the inflationary spiral, any temporary truce, to mount an appropriate defence against the inroads of inflation. I have urged this government to use any period of grace to bring Canadians together to consider methods of controlling the vicious spiral that faces us. This is also the view of the Prices and Incomes Commission and, as I read his report, the view of the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
This government made a half-hearted attempt to achieve a program of voluntary restraint at precisely the time of greatest inflationary pressure, a time when such an effort could least likely succeed. When it did get a temporary respite in inflationary pressure, as a result of the massive slowdown and the increase in the value of the Canadian dollar, it abandoned its efforts to achieve any such policy. We are now seeing the results. As far as unemployment is concerned, I have urged the government to use its enormous powers to encourage expansion of the economy and the creation of jobs in order to avoid the human suffering that is taking place. This is sapping the will of the people of this country to continue to fight inflation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In its questionable wisdom, the government rejected this suggestion as well. In short, this government has done neither of the things I have urged. Neither has it suggested guidelines at a time when there might have been a chance of their acceptance, nor has it effectively used its power to curb mass unemployment. In other words, it has failed.
If I believed in plots, Mr. Speaker, I might say that this government has done its best to strangle the Canadian
Economic Growth and Employment Situation economy in the interests of God-knows-what bureaucratic plan. But I shall be kind. I will simply say that the present mess is a result of incompetence at high levels- incompetence, lack of foresight and lack of imagination. The government must at least plead guilty to this unholy trinity of mistakes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A major factor in the government's failure has been its stubborn refusal to take steps to allow the private sector to participate effectively in the process of getting the economy moving swiftly again. I will mention two examples of this failure. By creating and maintaining a climate of uncertainty in the field of taxation, it has discouraged investment decisions. By refusing all demands to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes, it has kept the economy in a government-issue strait jacket. Its policy of trying to channel recovery almost exclusively through government expenditures has neither reduced unemployment nor stopped inflation. All it has done has been to restrict economic growth and increase the tax load. Its insistence, despite earlier promises, on re-imposing the 3 per cent surtax on personal and corporate income is an example of both these aspects of government policy.
Inflation is a continuing problem; that is clear. But the war against inflation will not be won by curbing economic growth. On the contrary, it is only in a healthy, growing economy that inflation can be properly fought or that there will be the will to fight it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Selective tax reductions would stimulate the production of goods and services; they would encourage employment and would therefore cut down on unproductive welfare costs. Doing all these things would, in present circumstances, constitute positive measures both in the fight against unemployment and in the fight against inflation.
Specifically, selective personal income tax cuts at this time would have an anti-inflationary effect. This is because allowing wage-earners to retain a larger net proportion of their salaries would help to relieve pressures resulting from excessively high demands for wage increases and also because reduced unemployment would relieve pressures on government expenditure and, therefore, on government taxes at other levels. Surely, even this government must see that this approach would be anti-inflationary. Does it not see where its policies lead? Is it not clear that the mushrooming welfare costs which result from high unemployment drive up the level of municipal and provincial taxes? Is it not obvious that one effect is greater wage demands from people who want to at least stay even in net terms? Meanwhile, those on fixed incomes-the little people the government always talks about helping-are worse off again.
Let the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) try to argue against that as a fact of life, one which his own policies have produced. The Minister of Finance is not here today

March 19, 1971
Economic Growth and Employment Situation but he has expressed interest in my speeches on other occasions and I am sure he will read this one. He has attacked the opposition for making proposals, which he claims are unrealistic. Perhaps he should look closer to home. Our policies have not been proven correct or incorrect, because they have not yet been tried in Canada. The minister's policies have been tried and they have been found wanting. Our policies may have not been proven, but his policies have already been disprov-en. Perhaps he should now begin to look elsewhere; or, if he doesn't want to, someone in the government had better start looking, and soon.
This is a government which likes to develop a reputation for crisis management. First, develop your crisis, then play the role of the White Knight. For example, neglect to use the period of reduced inflationary pressures to properly mount a campaign of voluntary defences against renewed inflation. That is called "letting the crisis build". The next scene in the manufactured melodrama will feature a reluctant, but obviously needed move toward wage and price controls. Then, after blaming everyone else for their own shortcomings, they set up a bureaucratic jungle in which they can hide indefinitely. Make no mistake about it. The word "control" may have a nice, simple ring to it, but it hides a forest of arbitrary decision and potential injustice that should give pause to any realistic administrator.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I thought you were in favour of it at the beginning of your speech.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If the minister will follow me carefully, he will have no difficulty. I say that no group in Canada would be unhappier about the imposition of controls than would organized labour. I have said this to the leaders of organized labour and suggested to them and others that it is most important to labour that we achieve voluntary restraint based upon consultation and co-operation. I say the same thing to those in business. We should at this time be giving voluntary restraint a good try in order to avoid the necessity of resorting to compulsion.
The Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Rasminsky, has issued a warning against overheating the economy. With great respect, it seems to me the economy is a long distance from being overheated. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has also said, as reported in the press, that the task of maintaining full employment without inflation is an extremely ambitious one. The report in today's Globe and Mail continues:
Indeed, it is not realistic, "to suppose that general financial policies are capable of being so finely tuned that there will always be precisely the minimum amount of slack in the system necessary to keep inflationary pressures in check, never more and never less."
When he refers to it as an extremely ambitious task, and unrealistic, I would agree. One does not expect perfection, but I say there is a great difference between missing a bid to achieve perfection and one's judgment in respect of the kind of massive unemployment we have today. The discontent with the present policies of the
government are not confined to me. I notice that in the other place a resolution has been adopted asking for an investigation. A Senator, in sponsoring the resolution, if I might quote his words, said this:
I might say that our potential is probably one of the highest of the countries in the free world. However, in exercising fiscal and monetary policy in the past while attempting to achieve the potential growth of the country, we have found ourselves bouncing between high inflation on the one hand and unacceptable unemployment on the other. We agree that these extremes are bad in themselves but, what is worse, they affect the very potential itself.
Presumably those sponsoring an examination in committee hope they can give the government some proper advice. As I said earlier, I do not believe we could achieve our objectives just through monetary and fiscal policies. I believe my view is supported by the Governor of the Bank of Canada when he urged further discussions between government, business and labour to examine the close relationships between prices and incomes and of the role open to each group in exercising restraint. I hope the ministers present will bear in mind the remarks of the Governor of the Bank of Canada in that regard because compulsory wage and price controls would present a host of new problems.
Yet I think this is clearly the way this government is heading, despite the lessons of the past. But what else can one expect from an administration that looks on tinkering from on high as the answer to every problem. What else can one expect from a government that has adopted a policy, for example, of manipulating the economy in a way that has it operating at $80 million a week below its potential. That kind of old fashioned simplistic manipulation has led us to the point where one of the most serious problems in the country's economy today is a widespread loss of confidence in the ability of the present government to solve, in any human or competent way, the problems of the Canadian economy. Any satisfactory improvement in the unemployment picture will occur only when the private sector feels confident enough to adopt expansionary measures of its own. That confidence can be generated only in a climate of reasonable economic certainty and good faith.
My colleagues and I during the past year have spoken volumes urging this government to change its attitude and remove the uncertainties that militate against the creation of such a climate. We have been joined in this urging by a growing chorus, representing virtually every reputable independent body of economic opinion in the country. In response, the government has not made one effective move. Another budget is due shortly. After the ineffective document that went under that name last fall, the Minister of Finance has another opportunity to do something constructive. He has an opportunity to show us whether he plans to change his present complacent course or whether he plans to continue it even further. This coming budget is of vital importance because it will set the tone of the economy for the next year. It must, therefore, be a budget that will result in stimulated activity and stimulated confidence within the Canadian economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 19, 1971


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, we are not so much asking the government to stimulate the economy as we are asking this government to adopt policies that will permit the Canadian economy to live up to its own potential, which it has not been doing precisely because of policies that have deliberately made it run at a slow and halting pace. It is time now for this government to give some indication it has some confidence in the Canadian economy. It is time for this government to halt its go-it-alone approach and allow the economy to show what it can do. It is time for this government to get off the backs of the Canadian people and let them get on with the job. This, in turn, might allow the government to regain some of the confidence it has forfeited by its refusal to encourage industry to participate in economic recovery.
Now more than ever, I call on this government to follow a policy of selective tax reductions in the personal and corporate field. Now more than ever, I call on it to reduce or eliminate the 11 per cent tax on building materials. Now more than ever, I call on it to do away once and for all with uncertainty in the tax field. And I call on it to do this by adopting a reform that restores economic incentive, a reform that is a positive response to the expansionary mood in the country. I have said before that time is short. I say it now more urgently than ever. There are already predictions that next fall and winter will rival the period that is now ending in terms of economic hardship. That cannot be allowed to happen. If the government fails again in its upcoming budget, if it fails again to adopt effective policies that will both show and produce confidence in the Canadian economy, then it will once again have failed the Canadian people and will have done so at a crucial time.
This country cannot afford another winter like the present one. Now is the time to take steps to ensure that this does not happen. If this government has learned anything from its past mistakes, it must take these steps. If this government has learned anything from its mistakes, it will act to clear away the confusion over its economic policies in general, its tax policies in particular, and get off the backs of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock I now leave the Chair. The House will resume at two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to take part in the debate on the important matter now before us and this for several reasons which I will endeavour to explain as clearly as possible.
Economic Growth and Employment Situation
I think all members will agree that our idealistic young Canadians should be given the means to reach their legitimate objectives.
The fact that a small number of young people were led to take part in various demonstrations, at times noisy ones, often gives us a bad impression. Today's young are not revolutionaries but more determined than those of previous generations. That comes from the advantages they derive from information media, which make them more conscious than previous generations of the problems awaiting them. The main concern of most young people is to know in what kind of a world they will live as adults.
From 1929 to 1939 particularly, our politicians succeeded in making the people accept their administrative blunders and in bringing the generation of that time to resign themselves in spite of a situation they called a world wide economic crisis. However, the people realized that it was rather a crisis created by the financiers. Nobody can deny that at the origin of such a crisis was the behaviour of the directors of the stock market in the United States, with the result that the only thing the people in power could tell those who wanted work and wages was: We have no money.
Yet we know what happened in 1939. All the necessary money was put in circulation. We had to have a war to get things going. That example should have been sufficient to show the deficiencies of the financial system that has the power to launch wars and crises as it wants.
In economics as well as in internal economy, goods are the property of the state or of the individual as the case may be, provided there is no outside interference. As soon as financiers interfere in a transaction, the state or the individual's property right becomes illusory. For instance, the state borrows in order to develop or establish such or such public service, of which the financing and lending people will be the first masters, as they are, anyway, of the individual who borrows to buy a property or some goods.
So as to progress, our governments must take actions to benefit the people. But such actions turn against the people because instead of financing these beneficial actions themselves, the governments have to borrow where they can and then tax and even overtax their people to pay back capital and interest.
I am alluding to the industrialists who live from their profits, to the shareholders who receive dividends, to the professionals who receive fees, and to the workers who earn a salary. They are all hit hard by taxes levied by the government which is itself at the mercy of the financial system. So, in order to survive, the industrialist increases his profits, the shareholder asks for higher dividends, the professional increases his fees and the worker asks for a higher salary to compensate for the increasing prices of consumer goods or professional services.
Why is the financial system in the hands of a few individuals who control the economic life? Such control should be in the hands of the state who would then be able to claim it is the master in the country and not the slave of such a system. The individual is the victim of

March 19, 1971
Economic Growth and Employment Situation
this financial slavery, but since he is kept unaware of it, he does not protest too much.
Also we unfortunately find that economists consider normal a financial system which keeps plunging countries and individuals deeper and deeper into the red, while militants prone to denounce anything, fail to blame that financial system which is at the very root of the crises, wars and unemployment that we now exeprience.
Up to now, protest has too often been unproductive. Protest should be aimed at our financial system if we want order to prevail.
The Canadian people live in a country where each citizen could at all times be comfortably off. But by reason of an inadequate financial system, Canada is constantly facing various crises. Because the funds necessary for full development of the country are lacking, on account of the sort of blockade imposed by our present monetary system, unemployment, surtax, strikes, inflation, designated zones and slums are the misfortunes, to name but a few, befalling the Canadian people.
I have here an article that was published in the newspaper Montreal-Matin on December 14, 1970, written by Mr. Maurice Huot and entitled "From taxes to genius". Referring to notes dating back to 1962, the writer established that Mr. Graham Towers, former governor of the Bank of Canada, had stated, and I quote
-that the burden of taxes imposed on Canadians by all levels of government Is too heavy.
We have now reached the end of 1970 and can it be said that, in that respect things have changed very much?
In 1962, Mr. Towers remarked that the Canadian gross national revenue from taxes at all levels of government amounted to about 26 per cent of the total money supply, that is approximately the same as in the United States, which meant that the Canadian people, with a much smaller population than in the neighbouring country, paid ever so much more taxes.
Nobody anticipates in Canada a significant tax decrease in the near future for citizens in general-[DOT]
-All experts agree that one way to reduce unemployment is obviously to foster the establishment of secondary industries able to create employment. But unless they enjoy a series of exemptions, industrialists are not encouraged to establish or develop industries whose taxes will erode profits-
Jobs will only result from an economy where profit is promoted in terms of investments and risks. Nobody wants to work for the sole purpose of paying more taxes to the country. For leaders to find all the solutions to economic problems by always levying more taxes shows neither much imagination nor know-how, but to boost the economy without additional charges would prove that talent, if not genius, has entered Parliament and that is what one is entitled to expect from our leaders-
Regarding the problem of unemployment, our leaders will have to show better proof of administrative wisdom in order to clarify a situation which is sometimes unclear in the area of immigration.
Before inviting immigrants to come and harvest crops, the Department of Manpower should ascertain the number of available Canadian workers. By offering them the same advantages, we could lower the rate of unemployment at home and provide income to the students and the unemployed.
I appreciate that many supporters of the present financial system see an increase in population as a means of taxing a greater number of citizens. One does not need to have a diploma however to understand that a country where thousands of workers are unemployed cannot solve this problem by increasing its population through immigration. This is not the only instance of the absurdity of the regime, but in view of present circumstances, this policy is highly detrimental.
We should also mention the question of distribution of employment notices to students in Canada. These notices should be posted in every Canadian university and distributed to all Canadian students in the United States.
At present, in Canada as well as in the United States, a student has to seek a job on the American labour market. I have here the photostat of an American newspaper where you can see advertisements for vacant positions for science and anthropology professors in Canada. Many Canadian students, uninformed about openings in their own country, are replaced by American students in important positions.
The following appeared in the Montreal newspaper La Presse of January 21, 1970:
So many American university professors immigrated to Canada in the late sixties that in one year only they have taken 84 per cent of the jobs in Canadian universities.
This problem is becoming increasingly serious. I am for a good neighbour policy towards our friends in the south, but it seems to me that we should provide Canadian students and graduates with every opportunity of getting the best positions in their own country so as to stop the migration from Canada which sometimes does take place. I emphasize this because I have been told that it will be very difficult for Canadian students, even those who are studying in the United States, to be informed of all job opportunities in their country. They often have to seek them on the American labour market through either professional associations or professional journals.
Such information should be made available to students in social sciences or other scientific fields before winter sets in and job offers should be more effectively advertised throughout Canada. University administrations should be urged to have these job offers distributed all over the country and also in the United States. The Canadian government could set up an agency responsible for supervising this distribution of job opportunity notices.
There is also much to be done in the field of physical education. Rs sphere of action cannot be limited to sports and similar endeavours. Research is needed to improve living conditions. The human character in the individual must be safeguarded. Good tools are required to prepare the next generation and future civilization. Physical education must take its place in the field of training.
I am not unmindful of the efforts made by various departments recently in calling the attention of the people and the members of Parliament on a variety of programs for employment and trips for students. It is fitting to commend those who are responsible for these initiatives. However, while recognizing the merits of

March 19, 1971

these various programs, we have to come to the conclusion that they are palliatives and I hope that we will continue by all means possible to improve the situation.
La Presse of Thursday, January 28, 1971, featured an article by Mr. Maurice Giroux, which says:
The Liberals will study a crash anti-unemployment program.
Three main items were supposed to be on the agenda of the meeting scheduled for February 5, 6, 7 and 8, 1971 in Quebec City. They are the following:
-an immediate decrease in personal income tax;
-a decrease in corporate income tax in return for job-creating
projects;
-a step-up in major federal and provincial projects.
These crash recommendations were made by economist Andre Raynauld, a Universite de Montreal professor who will be the special guest of the Liberal party during this important convention before the 1972 general election.
From the government order respecting the Income Tax Act, i.e. Bill C-225 which was recently debated in the House, I take it that the economist's recommendations concerning the elimination of the provisional 3 per cent surcharge have not been considered, since the situation is still the same.
The motion moved today concerns a current concrete problem, since the latest statistics prove that the spectacular unemployment rate among the young is practically twice as high as that for workers aged 25 or more.
This problem is all the more important as unemployment among the young is one of the deepest causes for dissatisfaction, because it challenges the government policy which for years has been incessantly emphasizing the need for a more educated labour force, better qualified for the tasks which are awaiting them in today's world-wide competitive system.
Now, today's youth surely realize that the promises of a better life, a stronger economy, higher salaries, more reasonable consumer prices, greater affluence and prosperity were merely electoral promises destined to remain unfulfilled, and made solely to ensure votes.
That is why I believe that the utmost consideration should be given to this very alarming situation of the educated young who cannot make use of their energies, capabilities and skills. Means should be found to amend government policies, which are now leading to chaos.
It has always been stated and rightly so, and I say it again, that economic growth is greatly influenced by the degree of general education of a population and by the degree of technical and vocational training of labour.
As early as June 1, 1910, on the initiative of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the then federal Minister of Labour, the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, proposed to the governor in council the appointment of a royal commission to inquire into the industrial and technical training institutions and into those that should be established for the same purpose, as wel as on methods of technical training used in other countries.
Economic Growth and Employment Situation
The inquiry took the Commission to all Canadian centers from the Atlantic to the Pacific, where some form of industrial teaching was carried out, as well as to the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Germany and other European countries. The Commission first submitted a temporary report on March 28, 1911, that it finally completed in 1913 with a four volume report totalling 2,551 pages. Unfortunately, there was no follow-through.
Regarding education, the Commission has made no specific recommandations, no doubt because it obviously considered the problem as one under the jurisdiction of the provinces.
However, the commissioners could not hide their enthusiasm and they commented favorably on measures adopted in certain countries to extend schooling or, at least, to force young people who drop out of public school to attend vocational training institutions.
The commissioners report states, among other things, that in four fifths of German states, that is in all cities of more than 10,000 people, attendance at a school of vocational training is compulsory for young people between the ages of 14 and 17. The commissioners note: "We are surprised to see no young people of either sex idling about on street corners or wandering aimlessly on the sidewalks in the evening". Those suggestions could have been put into practice.
Let us remember that it is not by mere chance or by a stroke of fate that Germany has become one of the most industrialized powers of the world, that its workers, technicians and scientists have succeeded in building the economic and military power that democracies had to fight on two occasions.
In Germany, as I stated a while ago, the imperial government, before the First World War, compelled young people not yet 17 to attend professional training schools. The lectures were given most of the time in the evening and as for organized trades, they came under the responsibility of the guilds.
Great Britain was lagging behind Germany, but public opinion was warned. In the Manchester area, in 1907 and 1908, out of a population of 3,974,000 inhabitants, 105,503 were attending night school. But this did not seem sufficient because an advisory committee which has analyzed the situation made the following recommendations: Each employer who has young employees under 17 years of age should be compelled, under the law, to allow them to attend refresher courses during the periods set under the regulations of the local authorities of the area in which those young people are living or working; to supply, on request, to the local authorities, the names of those employees.
In addition, to ensure regular attendance of the students at the vocational schools, in those areas where attendance is compulsory, it should be forbidden, under penalty of a fine, for any employer, in the trades concerned by the regulations applying to the area, to employ or continue employing any young boy or girl who does not periodically produce a card bearing witness to the
4432

March 19, 1971
Economic Growth and Employment Situation
fact that he or she has attended the training course in accordance with the local regulation.
The report of the Royal Commission of 1910 also mentions the existence of similar laws in certain states of Germany where vocational schools must be set up in every community where more than 40 boys from 14 to 17 are working in industry or commerce. Those schools are either industrial or commercial, or both, depending on the needs of the community. Every youth between the ages of 14 and 17 is required to attend school and local authorities may require him or her to attend vocational school till age 18 if he has not reached a sufficient level of education or training when he reaches age 17.
This is a good way to educate the young to ready them for the labour market. From this survey-which surely involved the spending of several thousands of dollars- our administrators should have reached the greatest possible number of agreements with Canadian manufacturers, thus compounding theory with practice.
There would thus be a higher percentage of our young people who would be quite readily accepted on the labour market since they would be in a position to demonstrate that they have acquired, in the course of their education, a sufficient experience and that their services will be appreciated.
This method would have yielded much better results than advertising open positions abroad and encouraging immigration to Canada, since we would have had a good supply of skilled manpower right here at home to meet the needs of our industries.
In the past, when a student left school after seven or eight years of learning, he was readying himself to face the unknown. He knew that once he had found a job, which was not always easy, he would have to work hard to make his way. He knew particularly that there would still be many things to learn in order to attain an enviable position.
Now, it is different. After about fifteen or more years of learning, our young people leave education institutions with impressive diplomas and an edifying stock of knowledge. They expect that we will welcome them with open arms. But frequently, a Ph.D. and a master's degree open no doors.
And especially these last few years, a number of new faculties have been created, but apparently we have failed to ensure that those branches of learning would provide a living to the students. For instance, what would be the purpose of having young people take history, sociology or any other science, if the most brilliant graduates have to be content with jobs completely removed from their qualifications and knowledge?
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that government autorities will finally take the proper attitude in the circumstances, in order to provide young people with job opportunities consistent with their education.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the
Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) for yet another opportunity to report, in a play-by-play fashion, on the growth of the Canadian economy, its strength and its relatively superior performance as compared to the performance of other free industrial nations during the past couple of years, superior growth, strength and performance which continue to this day and show every sign of continuing at increasing rates throughout the year. This has been a play-by-play report because, since the finance minister's December 3 budget, there have been 61 sitting days. During that period, we have had a number of opportunities to discuss the economy during private members' hour and the adjournment debate. We have had a six-day budget debate; we have had a better than three-day pseudo budget debate during the committee of the whole and third reading stage of Bill C-225, the budget bill; and this is the fourth of seven allotted days that opposition parties have given over to debating the state of the economy. In all, about 14 days has been spent on this subject, a figure approached in this session only by the 11 full days so far devoted to the government organization bill.
The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Stanbury) responsible for citizenship will deal at length with summer youth employment programs. Incidentally, Sir, I ought to say at this time that he will be the principal spokesman for this side of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member should not downgrade himself.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: This is something that the opposition parties, in spite of the motion, have already neglected. The fact remains that in our free enterprise economy, the basic solutions to economic problems lie in the private sector. I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) would agree with me when I say there is a limit to the direct results that public sector action can achieve. Optimum results flow from a combination of public and private decisions, public and private action and public and private policies when the public input creates the economic environment within which sound private business decisions can be made. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my remarks to the general economic climate in Canada, to the economic environment in which Canadian business lives now and in which it will for the foreseeable future be making its decisions.
In the first place, as a result of the government's firm leadership last October, Canada will, in the political sense, continue to be a safe and secure place to do business. Indeed, some parts of Canada will be even safer and more secure than have been regarded as being in the recent past.
The obvious question arises: will Canada continue to present itself as not only a safe place but an hospitable place to do business? I suppose that the business community sees two particular areas of concern here, the first in the results of tax reform and the second in the results of the foreign investment review. As to the first, the area of tax reform, there really is little to be said right now. The government's decision will be known

March 19, 1971

within a very few weeks and Canadians, including the business community, will be able to assess its effects. I would remind the House that one of the stated goals of tax reform has been, throughout, "steady economic growth and continuing prosperity." Unless that goal is achieved, the other major goals cannot be achieved. Without economic growth the goal of equity will be defeated, because the sheer weight of taxation could itself become unfair. Without economic growth, a continuing recognition of modern social needs cannot be achieved, because an economic short-fall will limit our means to satisfy existing social needs, much less cope with new or expanding needs.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in the principal conclusions to its report on the tax reform white paper, expressed its concern in the following terms:
That preservation of an economic climate favourable to growth must be a central consideration of Canadian tax policy.
This House of Commons committee report is one of the very important inputs in the decisions that the government is presently taking. The government recognizes that when it invited public participation in the tax reform process, it also undertook an obligation to take that participation into account. I am confident that when the income tax amendments are introduced, those who took part in the tax reform process will be satisfied that they have been heard.
The question of foreign investment policy seems, timewise, to be somewhat further from resolution. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) has had this matter under specific review for some time. It is a study for the cabinet. Whether the cabinet already has it or, if not, when it will be getting it is not known. Of course, do we know how long the cabinet will take to study it-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Years.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: -or whether they will choose to implement all or any part of it and, if they do, how long that will take. So, in one sense, the situation with regard to foreign investment policy is not as clear to those seeking answers as is that with regard to tax reform. On the other hand, it is clear from what he said in his television interview in Regina last month, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is not falling for the illusory beauties of economic nationalism. We can be confident that the foreign ownership policy will be realistic, geared to the encouragement of economic growth. In addition, foreign ownership policy will be selective, recognizing that, desirable as it is that Canadians own more of their own businesses and resources, we cannot do everything at once. It will be prospective rather than retroactive and will be positive, emphasizing investment by Canadians in Canada rather than discouraging investment by others.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Those are not the sorts of measures the
government has already taken.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: There are simply too many strong, positive and definite economic factors at work in Canada's economy to allow lingering doubts about tax reform and
Economic Growth and Employment Situation
foreign ownership to deter strong, positive and definite business decisions.
Freeing the Canadian dollar from its fixed rate of exchange with the United States dollar has had an adverse effect on some of our export industries, particularly those whose sales contracts expressed their prices in United States dollars. On the other hand, the decision has given us an important measure of independence from the influence of U.S. domestic economic decisions and has been a contributing factor to the superior success of our economic policies during the past year, as compared with those of any other western industrial nation.
Certainly, we have more unemployment than we would wish and this is a perfectly legitimate and respectable point for opposition politicians to take up and trade upon, as long as in so doing they do not undermine confidence in the Canadian economy by convincing anyone that today's unemployment is a national disaster. If they do that, they will have performed a great disservice to Canada and to all Canadians, including our unemployed.
It is, of course, a personal tragedy for those caught up in it and 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. While there were some 149,000 more unemployed in Canada at the end of February this year than at the end of February, 1970, there were also about 172,000 more people employed in Canada. This is not a tragedy. Canada's work force is growing faster than the work forces of most other western countries. This growth rate has averaged about 3 per cent per year for the last three years. Last year it was 4 per cent, 321,000. This means that a great many new jobs have to be created in Canada every year just to keep the unemployment figure, in numbers, not percentage, the same. Last year Canada's employment figures, the number of people working, rose faster than those of any other industrialized country, the U.S. among them.
Economists are practically unanimous in making predictions as to Canadian economic prospects. There has been a substantial increase in gross national product this year, most of it real. Last year real economic growth was 3.3 per cent, less than the 5.1 per cent of 1969, but better than that of the U.S. which actually dropped 0.4 per cent. The stage is set for a major increase in real output, and a substantial increase in consumer spending. Wages and salaries went up last year while inflation was held down. About 7 per cent of personal income went in to bank savings accounts which aggregated almost $17 billion at year end. There has been a substantial increase in retail sales. Last year's gain was only 2 per cent. Retail inventories are thin as a result of last year's tight money and consumer restraint. The shoppers are getting ready to buy and merchants are scrambling to increase their inventories. Automobile and other durable sales will pro-

March 19, 1971
Economic Growth and Employment Situation
mote significantly more business growth than in 1970. There will be a substantial increase in capital plant and equipment outlays. This is the announced intention oi Canadian industry, led by steel, a key indicator.
Interest rates, both short and long term, have fallen to acceptable levels. The 10 per cent figure was unquestionably something of a psychological barrier to many users of capital, particularly long term users. There will be a substantial increase in construction, led by housing and pipelines, as lower interest rates combine with personal savings to stimulate the non-public area and as massive government assistance in the low cost housing area continues. There will be some increase in pipeline construction as pipeline systems rush to supplement already overtaxed capacity.
There will be another substantial increase in exports following upon last year's record. Gas and oil exports will be among the pace setters and prices for these exports will be up. Prospects for grain sales reversed themselves during 1970, as the world grain inventory shifted from surplus to shortage. Nickel and coal are other certain leaders. The defeat of the projectionist revival in the U.S., as the misnamed trade expansion act of 1970 died with the last congress, should give exporters a boost in confidence. We have to watch the European economic community carefully, particularly as the U.K. negotiates its admission, but protectionism has had a setback which we can hope signals a change in trend.
An improvement in the mix of our markets is also a positive sign. The U.S. is still our largest market by an overwhelming margin. In 1970, it took 65 per cent of all Canada's exports, but that was down from 71 per cent in 1969. At the same time exports to the U.K. increased by a third, to Japan by a quarter and to the European economic community by 40 per cent in 1970 over 1969. These are very healthy trends. It should be remembered also that the U.S. figure is made up in part by the results of the continental free trade agreement on automobiles and parts. None the less, the U.S. is and will continue for the foreseeable future to be our largest customer by a wide margin. We can rejoice in the fact that geography has placed us next door to the world's largest market and equidistant between the next two largest, western Europe and Japan.
Rapid growth in the labour intensive Canadian-owned service industries will continue. They now account for some 35 per cent of our gross national product and, within 20 years, two thirds of our output will flow from those industries, a fact ignored by economic nationalists in their preoccupation with goods. Canada's is, in fact, a service oriented economy. Public spending by all levels of government will be a positive, expansionary factor in the economy. Federal expenditures are expected to run at 7.5 per cent in fiscal 1971-72 over those in the current year. Provincial budgets all indicate increased outlays. Finally, our price performance will continue to be most favourable when compared with our principal competitors. Canada's relative success in bringing its price inflation under control has been impressive. This is acknowledged by all objective observers, including the OECD and the International Monetary Fund.
The Canadian economy is sound. Our dollar is strong, some would say too strong, but that is perhaps more a commentary on the relative strength of other currencies than our own. In spite of the gloom and doom from some quarters, in spite of the very real personal tragedy of our unemployed, Canadians are confident of that soundness and strength. Their confidence is reflected in a buoyant stock market, in plans for capital expenditures, and in all the other personal and business decisions that Canadians are making today.
In closing, I would like to quote briefly from the lead paragraph of an article that appeared in the February 13, 1971, issue of Business Week:
-Canada is sitting pretty, Ottawa's successful anti-inflation policies and an export boom staved off a U.S. style recession last year and put the Canadian economy in position to take off in 1971.
Canadians are well aware of a very significant difference in the outlook of those whose function is to talk about the economy, mainly journalists and opposition politicians, and those whose function is to do something about it, the business community and government. That difference has been clear throughout the ongoing economic debate. Canadians are firmly on the side of the doers.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, the main point at issue is whether we have a viable economy in this country which is able to effectively use the resources and the people who produce the goods. We need an environment and social structure which will be acceptable, not one which is subject to the very severe dislocations which have occurred in this country during the past two or three years. These dislocations are becoming worse. Instead of facing a situation of unemployment and economic dislocation, which might be regarded as temporary, we are facing circumstances which have lasted so long that they are becoming chronic to the point at which we are accepting a continuation of unemployment and discussions centred on the number of people who are unemployed, the percentage level of unemployment and the fraction by which it may decrease or increase. These fractions are not really relevant to the mass of the Canadian people or to the students who are mentioned specifically in the motion before us.
A student from Saskatchewan wrote to me the other day after applying to the regional office of the Public Service Commission in Alberta asking for a job. The officials wrote to him that it was useless for him to apply in Alberta for a job because, under the arrangements which had been made, Alberta was the headquarters for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and there would be no jobs for people from other localities until the people from Alberta had been looked after. I should like to read a few lines from the letter which was written to me on this subject.
In recruiting students for summer employment, positions in a particular locality are filled by students from within that locality, with the exception of positions in the National Capital Region in which case applicants from any region are considered.

March 19, 1971
COMIviuNS UiL,rsATES
I trust this is the information you require.
I shall read only a few phrases from the letter which the student received.
Only if there does not appear to be a sufficient number of qualified students in Alberta will your application be considered.
The Minister without Portfolio may have some comments to make on this point. I take it from these letters- I do not see how I could draw any other conclusion-that the government has balkanized all the regions of Canada, and those who are fortunate enough to be in regions where job opportunities are available can get jobs. However, those who are in regions where there are no job opportunities will never get jobs. I do not wonder that this student from the University of Saskatchewan complained bitterly about the situation. Imagine cutting off many Canadian students from job opportunities with the Public Service Commission in Alberta, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, just because they do not live in the region. This is the way the government runs the country and spreads the misery around. The hon. member who spoke a while ago congratulated us on taking a respectable stand. The best thing the government can hope for is that the people it is abusing and neglecting continue to take a respectable stand. Representatives of the government should tell us at this point what they propose to do to meet the situation.
Ministers talk about private industry, but private industry is not providing the jobs. The government is pumping money into the capital structure of private industry by way of grants and so on, because private industry is no longer willing to take the risk of locating in certain areas. The ultimate is happening in Saskatchewan. Not only are we putting up the money for industry, but the government of the province is preparing to pay half the wages of students if they can find an employer, up to a maximum of $150 per month. I do not know what will happen to the ordinary worker in Saskatchewan under this system. I suppose a business which is offered a student at half price will be glad to use his services if he can swing a pick and shovel or drive a tractor or a "cat" well enough. I can foresee a certain amount of dislocation arising from that situation. But this is the sort of thing we find under a government which is unable to put the economy in order and use the resources of the people we have.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They don't know how to use the people.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: That is absolutely right. Let me tell hon. members what is happening in the grain industry. The government is proposing, under the stabilization plan, to take a 2 per cent cut out of the gross revenue from sales. Here is an industry which is struggling to survive and which will survive, in spite of the government, because it is a viable industry. The government brings out this plan and says it will take 2 per cent of the gross to put into the program. At the very least this will amount to 6 per cent of the net which, in effect, will be a 6 per cent tax on the net returns of an industry which is already working on a very narrow margin.
Economic Growth and Employment Situation
I suppose any economist would say that if we really want to get the economy rolling we should reduce taxes as a means of making more money available to activate the business cycle. But the reaction of the government is in a completely contrary direction. It says: Oh no, we shall take 2 per cent of the gross and sink it into a fund to gather dust; we shall take 2 per cent of the farmer's purchasing power away from him. Then, the minister responsible for the Wheat Board comes along and says: we have been carrying part of the storage charge; we shall stop doing that, and the farmer can pay for those services, too. What is being accomplished? The government is progressively reducing the already limited purchasing power which farmers possess. The government is looking toward a contracting economy, not an expanding economy, and if anything else happens it will be in spite of them and not because of them.
In its decisions and in the carrying out of its policies in the past, the government has stumbled from one mistake to another. The first action it took when the farmers were in trouble was to double the amount which could be received by way of cash advances. As a predictable result, farmers are now, two years later, trying to pay back these cash advances out of a limited income. The last white paper report to the government of Saskatchewan indicated that the average farmer owed between $1,000 and $1,200 which he was trying to pay back at a time when the value of his products had fallen. In short, the government has done the reverse of what it should have done. Hon. members who sit on the treasury benches opposite instituted the Lift program. They pressured farmers into taking acreage out of production and allowing the land to lie idle, as a result of which the production of wealth from grain in the Prairie provinces declined. How in the world anybody but the Liberal government could believe a country could become rich by not producing is beyond my comprehension.
The government has established an extraordinary structure in the grain industry. I do not know how they can find their way around it themselves. There is EXCAN. They have persuaded the three wheatpools and the UGG., to establish an export agency which is supposed to be working to increase sales of grain. There is also the Canada Grains Council which was dreamed up when this government came in. The government is providing a small subsidy and I predict there will be more. This is really a consortium of the grain exchange interests in Winnipeg. This agency makes trips to various parts of the world to seek export opportunities and comes back and reports.
In addition we have the Canadian Wheat Board, which is a grain marketing agency and should be used for this purpose. I do not know why the government created these agencies and divided up the responsibilities. Maybe some day we will be told the reason. I can see that in two or three years from now we might have several agencies overseas, from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as well as the Canada Grains Council, and then we will try to get these people to appear before the

March 19, 1971
Economic Growth and Employment Situation agricultural committee to tell us what they are doing. It will probably take a Philadelphia lawyer to figure it all out.
I have touched briefly on the circumstances with which we are faced in the employment field and in the agricultural field. As I say, instead of moving in a clear direction we seem to have adopted a method of spreading the misery around through a profusion of agencies of government departments and the grain trade so that people fall all over one another's feet and do not even know whose feet they have tripped over. Then there is balkanization in various areas to make sure that somebody from Saskatchewan will not be going to Alberta to take a job away from someone in Alberta who badly needs it. I suppose the same gimmick will be used in Ontario that is being used in Alberta by the regional offices of this government. Mr. Speaker, perhaps some day this government will improve a little or, more fortunately, we might be able to get rid of it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister without Portfolio responsible for citizenship.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Hear, hear!


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for his welcome to this debate. I also thank the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) for raising this subject today. I am only disappointed that they did not put forward constructive criticisms concerning the program which was announced this week in the field of summer student employment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We are waiting to know what the proposals are.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: The general economic situation has been ably dealt with by my colleague from Calgary. As this House knows full well, the rapid growth of inflation has been arrested and there are indications that our economy is now on an upward swing. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics yesterday reported a very slight and somewhat smaller than usual increase in the number of persons unemployed. While there were 7,000 more persons without jobs-and when anyone is without a job this is to be regretted-there were 9,000 more with jobs.
We all know that the labour force is the largest in our history and, indeed, one of the largest and fastest growing in the world. This fact, combined with inflationary pressure, has presented the government with unique economic problems to solve. I see no indication that anyone in this House could have faced such circumstances more resolutely or imaginatively than this government has. If the growing vigour of the economy was to absorb with reasonable and increasing speed those seeking permanent work of a conventional kind, as I believe it will, it was of the greatest importance that the government should intervene to assist substantially the private economy in the task of absorbing the enormous number of young people who will be seeking employment during the summer months. It was precisely because we wish to allow young and old who are seeking permanent employment-to the extent that that phrase is applicable in the modern world-to be assisted and protected in that search that the government has introduced a great variety of special student programs for the coming summer.
Hon. members are aware that the situation of employment and the attitude toward work and its value has changed since the 1930s. We are aware that the young in this country, as in other countries, for some years have been trying to tell us someihing about values, purpose and the proper aims of society. We must be aware that it has been the young to a very large extent who have reminded us of the dangers of unbridled pollution, the needs of the poor and deprived, the value of increased participation by individuals in their own affairs and the necessity of moving resolutely toward a just society.
I would remind members of this House, as I have been reminded, of three basic facts. First, there are a great many tasks to be undertaken and accomplished which the private economy does not automatically support. Second, there is a great deal of youthful energy, imagination and determination in this country which is waiting to be unleashed, provided it can choose outlets that seem valuable and deserving and in which pay or remuneration is only a secondary consideration. Third, there are many young people who do need money or do not need as much, and a program of activities had to be found which would provide for a variety of valid personal goals.
This is the meaning of the government's new student employment and activities program for this summer. It offers conventional employment at reasonable rates of remuneration for those who wish it. It provides unconventional employment at reasonable remuneration for those with sufficient imagination and courage to create it. It also provides the way to accomplish a variety of social goals for those whose imagination and devotion to Canada is as important to nourish as are their incomes. In this program we are offering a challenge to the voluntary capacities of our citizens, particularly the younger citizens, that has been unmatched since the general mobilization for war in 1939. If we have been searching, as have many modern societies, for what the American psychologist William James called "the moral equivalent of war", we believe we are taking a substantial step in that direction. New and important goals for Canadians are being matched with the enthusiasm, energy and will to accomplish them.
So that the scope and nature of the summer '71 program will be clearly on record, I should like to review briefly its various components. The Department of National Defence proposes to provide employment for some students who will undertake regular summer militia training of both an elementary and continuing nature, and also for some who will enjoy special training in first aid, hunter safety, bush survival, search and rescue, water safety, watermanship, adventure training, leadership and instructional techniques. I think many will agree that these new and imaginative opportunities offered by our armed forces are most welcome. The Department of National Health and Welfare will provide opportunities for development of young athletes, for studies of drugs abuse and for a very important study by the

March 19, 1971

young of facilities available for athletics in Canada. Native peoples will be encouraged to take part in projects, particularly in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
The Department of Manpower and Immigration now has 110 special Canada Manpower centres for students in 83 cities and towns throughout Canada, compared with 23 centres in 66 communities last summer. I can assure the hon. member who just spoke that young people from all parts of the country will have ample access to job opportunities through these centres. Municipalities and interested organizations are co-operating in the establishment of the student centres. They will be manned by 374 specially trained students and will have the effect of relieving the pressure on regular centres which will be engaged in their usual heavy seasonal tasks. As well, the department has negotiated employment for some 3,200 post-secondary students in other countries.
For summer employment in the public service of Canada students are invited to apply directly to the Public Service Commission or through the Canada Manpower centres. The utmost effort is being made to ensure that the positions available will result in the maximum value both to the students occupying them and to the government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister has limited time, but would he permit a question?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I will be glad to receive the question at the end of my statement, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not want to be rude, but I wonder if the minister, instead of rereading press issues of a few days ago would fill in some of the blanks in the opportunities for youth programs for which we are all waiting and for which some of us have stayed in the House.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I thank the hon. member for his interest, and I welcome it. Under the direction of the Department of the Secretary of State there are a number of programs, including the Opportunities for Youth Program. For those who intend to travel in Canada individually, as many certainly will do, the government is enlisting voluntary organizations to man small information and service centres. We all know the extent of hitch-hiking in Canada; no one can drive along any highway in the summer without being aware of it. With our program of support for locally sponsored hostels this year and the placing of kiosks at strategic points along the highways, the government hopes to reduce unnecessary risks and anxieties on the part of both the young and their temporary hosts in Canadian communities.
An increased amount is available also for group travel for those who wish a more planned and directed experience organized either by governments, as in the case of the Young Voyageurs Program, or by voluntary organizations. The department will allocate increased sums of money for summer language training on a co-operative basis with provincial governments and universities. Obviously, if we are to live up to our ambitions as a bilingual
Economic Growth and Employment Situation society, young Canadians need all possible resources to learn a second language as early in their lives as possible.
I would like to stress the fundamental principle of co-operation with other levels of government inherent in these programs. We are not simply providing money for provinces or municipalities to spend on our behalf or on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada; we are establishing an unprecedented degree of co-ordination with these other governments so that the great variety of programs being undertaken this summer and a great variety of sources of initiative may complement one another and contribute a maximum multiplier effect. Consultation has been carried out with all provincial governments at both ministerial and official levels. Administrative arrangements have been established to ensure utmost co-ordination within the federal government as well as with other authorities.
The Youth Opportunities Program, to which we have allotted $15 million, represents a unique challenge to the voluntary sector. The Leader of the Opposition is interested in the criteria on which proposals from voluntary organizations will be evaluated, as I am sure all hon. members are. These have been forwarded to all Canada Manpower centres, to citizenship branch offices and to almost 5,000 voluntary organizations in Canada.
In general, we are directing our attention to involving the young and those associated with them in creating, managing and evaluating their own projects. The value of this approach lies in the fact that young people will not only have an income but will discover the requirements for managing and accomplishing objectives in an organized, responsible manner. This experience will provide young people who take the opportunity with practical work experience but it will also provide for many needed additional services in communities. I am convinced that the new perspectives which young people will bring to situations, coupled with their imagination and energy, will produce many useful and exciting new programs. This program is a vote of confidence in the abilities of Canadian young people.
Projects will be selected and approved on a variety of criteria: first, the number of jobs created and their cost; second, the number of people who might benefit or take part; third, the involvement of young people in planning, carrying out and evaluating projects; fourth, creation of new services, programs or activities. Emphasis will be given to projects in which worth-while and useful jobs are proposed and in which jobs would not have otherwise existed. Because of their need for support to continue their education, emphasis will be placed on providing jobs for post-secondary students and those about to enter post-secondary institutions. The benefits to students in terms of both income and experience will be assessed.
A fair regional distribution of benefit will be attempted, based on regional need. About 100 proposals are already being analysed: for example, a proposal by a group of blind students aided by law students for a study of the rights of blind people in areas in which there might be discrimination against them; a project proposed by a group of young people in a small rural community to develop a recreation and day camp program for chil-

March 19, 1971
Economic Growth and Employment Situation dren in their area; a proposal from a group of students studying television production at a community college for a series of media workshops which will involve up to 25 additional people in each workshop; a proposal from a group of archeology students to carry out a number of archeological digs, with support and supervision of an archeological society. Also included are proposals by national voluntary agencies for projects of water safety, recreational programs, mental health services and special research projects associated with universities.
As hon. members can see, voluntary organizations in Canada have not waited, and did not feel they had to wait for announcements by the government. Their initiative has been reflected in proposals already received by a number of departments. These proposals are under consideration and within the past two days some 500 further inquiries about the program have been received by the Department of the Secretary of State.
I hope that hon. members, to whom the Opportunities for Youth documentation is being sent, will encourage this kind of voluntary action. I hope that the word will go forth from this House and from other centres of government within Canada to all citizens, to voluntary organizations and to young people in particular, so that they will respond to this challenge and join in the partnership of imagination, energy and achievement that the government hopes to develop with them. It is a challenge to citizen activism of the most constructive kind, the kind that builds nations and strengthens democracy.
D.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister indicate who will decide what projects will be proceeded with? He indicated that this is a matter of students evaluating their own projects.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: A secretariat has been established in the Department of the Secretary of State which, with the advice of an interdepartmental committee, will analyse proposals and process them as rapidly as possible in consultation with provincial and municipal authorities.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask who will make the decisions?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: The decisions will be made by the interdepartmental committee as projects are analysed. That process is already in the course of action.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could the minister tell us the personnel of the interdepartmental committee and whether or not any applications have been submitted to it?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that there have been 100 or so applications or project proposals received. As a matter of fact, the development of the program arises partly out of the expressed interest of the voluntary organizations in devising and carrying out programs themselves. The interdepartmental committee has representation from the most directly concerned departments. The secretariat of the Department of the Secretary of State also has seconded to it members from other departments.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the minister does not have the names of the persons on the committee, can he say what departments will be represented? I understand there would be the Department of the Secretary of State, Treasury Board and Citizenship. Can he give us some idea what groups will be represented, if possible the names of the persons who will be on the committee, and tell us whether any of the projects have yet been approved by the committee?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: No projects have yet been approved, Mr. Speaker. I cannot give the hon. member the names of the individuals on the interdepartmental committee, but certainly the departments most directly concerned would include the Department of the Secretary of State, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Manpower and Immigration and Treasury Board.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Who will be the chairman?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I cannot give the hon. member the name of the chairman but I would be glad to discuss that with him later.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Could the minister indicate whether or not the interdepartmental committee has yet been established, and when will we receive the criteria governing the Opportunities for Youth Program? Can we receive these today?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I hope so, Mr. Speaker. The application forms and a memorandum with those forms have gone out to each of some 5,000 voluntary organizations that might be interested in making proposals, and to regional offices of the government. I have asked that similar documentation go to Members of Parliament and I hope this is available to the Leader of the Opposition immediately.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the committee been established?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Yes, the committee has been established.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair notices that the hon. member for Yorton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) have questions and I will recognize them. I think in view of the fact that the minister is the chief government spokesmen, it would be in order to do so. I might mention that we are using the minister's time, because the time allotted to him under the special order made earlier today has not yet expired. It will expire in about three minutes and after that I would not want to recognize any more members on questions.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not mention anything about youth hostels. Could he enlighten us on what plans the government has and whether or not it is consulting municipalities on the use of high school auditoriums?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I did mention that we were prepared to support local initiative in this field.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No armouries?

March 19. 1971


Mr. Slanbury:: As the hon. member knows, last year in response to demand tor emergency federal assistance with hostel accommodation the most readily available federal facilities were offered and staff was organized from Ottawa for these facilities. This year we are adopting quite a different approach. We are prepared to give financial support to local initiative in the supplying of hostel facilities. We feel that there are facilities more appropriate than armouries in most communities, and we already have many indications of interest from municipalities and voluntary organizations which are assessing the facilities in their communities, organizing them and will be receiving some financial assistance from the Department of the Secretary of State. But, Mr. Speaker, the federal government will not be operating hostels.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: May I ask the minister under what provision or regulation of the Public Service Commission in Canada-I am quoting him-positions in a particular locality will be filled by students from within that locality? Under what provisions of the Public Service Act will that be done?


Richard J. Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I do not presume to answer on behalf of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang), but I understand that he has dealt with this question. Perhaps he could deal with it further the next time he is in the House during the question period. I might add that the suggestion on the part of some hon. members in the Conservative party that the government is somehow passing the buck by attempting to respond to citizen initiative seems to me a most unconservative attitude. Bather than this government attemping to impose its ideas of worth-while programs on the young people of Canada, we are attempting this year, really for the first time, to show that a government of Canada can respond to citizen initiative and can recognize that there is a third force in Canadian society, other than government and industry, which provide an important impetus to our society. There is a voluntary citizen force, and we think it can be a much more powerful and productive force in this country if we respond to it.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) the 675,000 Canadians who are without jobs may sleep a little easier tonight, but he is obviously ignorant of the facts and is unwilling to accept the true story of what is happening in Canada. He has either been exposed to his wealthy oilmen friends in Calgary or has come down with a severe case of "Bensonitis". His having been recently appointed as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), I suspect that the latter is true and he is suffering from "Bensonitis".


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That's a fatal disease.


Walter C. Carter: Yes, it is fatal. The hon. member and his colleagues talk about economic growth, the strength of the Canadian dollar, how sound the economy is, the end of inflation and the decline in unemployment. Yet while
Economic Growth and Employment Situation these words are being uttered, more people become unemployed. Indeed, the unemployment rate has been steadily increasing for several months. After battling inflation at the expense of the average wage earner, the poor and unemployed, the government has given up the fight.
D.m.)
At the outset they deliberately created unemployment to beat inflation. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) admitted this when they stated that they were quite prepared to allow unemployment to rise to an almost unprecedented high figure in order to wage their so-called war on inflation. They have lost that battle and are unable to respond to either the inflation that has been plaguing the country or the challenge of unemployment. While pretending to be fighting for the little man, in the last two years the government has refused to provide adequate help for him or his family if he is unemployed.
Members of this party have asked for emergency benefits and for reform in the regulations under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The mayors and provinces have followed this lead and made the same request. In its stubborn way, this government has refused to heed the suggestions, as it has refused to heed the problems facing the average Canadian who today finds himself among the
675,000	without jobs.
The bill to increase unemployment insurance benefits now before this House is a reform measure which will have its effects in the long term. It can only be regarded as a rearguard action to cover the Prime Minister's retreat from the battlefields of unemployment and inflation. We have asked for reform of the Canada Assistance Plan, and the provinces and cities have echoed this. In its present form the plan is absolutely insensitive to the difficulties of the different regions of Canada.
The government has argued that the private sector must expand and create new jobs, yet the government has refused to bolster the confidence of the private sector by spelling out its tax reform intentions or by ending its policy of passing the buck to labour and business when it comes to inflation. By refusing to lift any of the present tax burdens, the government is preventing the economy from rising from its present despair. For example, the 3 per cent surtax has been maintained and the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials has also been maintained. The government does not even entertain the idea of selective income cuts for middle and low-income groups.
I think it has become fairly evident to most Canadians, but more especially to the 675,000 unemployed, that the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance refuse to recognize the problems facing the nation. This is particularly true with regard to unemployment and the various statistics published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. They have obviously succeeded in fooling themselves. I should like to inform them, however, that they are not fooling the Canadian public in general nor the large number of people out of work. I can certainly tell them that they are not fooling the 15.2 per cent of the workers in my province of Newfoundland who find themselves

March 19, 1971
Economic Growth and Employment Situation
looking for jobs. Those people are not being fooled nor are their families, some of whom will probably go to bed hungry tonight.
The more we reflect upon what is happening in Canada, Mr. Speaker, the more we realize what a strange twist fate has taken with regard to this government. The Prime Minister and his colleagues campaigned vigorously in 1968 on the promise of a just society and an end to regional disparity. It is strange indeed that a government which campaigned on these promises should have taken the opposite course.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Equal poverty for all!


Walter C. Carter: It has taken off in the opposite direction. It is a known fact to all but the Liberals, who are unwilling to admit to anything which might reflect on their leader or their party, that the economy is amiss. This government finds itself in a tailspin from which it is impossible to recover. In light of the arrogance and the stupid determination of the Minister of Finance and his leader to create unemployment in order to battle inflation, and in light of the consequent suffering and misery of a large number of Canadians through illogical and insane policies, I feel that the minister would do the Canadian public a great favour if he would offer his resignation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter C. Carter: As a matter of fact, I will go a step farther and make the same suggestion to the government and to the Prime Minister. If they have any sense of decency left, or any concern for the plight of the Canadian people, they should step down and let somebody else fill the breach-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Who could that be?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That's what they asked in 1957.


Walter C. Carter: -and let them do the job of which the government is obviously incapable.


An hon. Member:: Don't worry McBride; you won't get the chance.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, this government and its leaders are bluffing themselves. They are being dishonest with themselves, with the Canadian people and with the House of Commons.


Mr. Paproski:: Shame!


Walter C. Carter: I represent a part of Canada known as an economically depressed area, one of the have-not provinces of this nation. Today we have reported unemployment of 15.2 per cent and I would suggest that at least another 5 per cent could be added to that figure because of the way this government has been juggling and gerrymandering the figures to cover their mistakes. It is impossible to take the figure given by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics without a grain of salt, so I say that although my province is reported to have 15.2 per cent
unemployment I think it is reasonably safe to say it is probably closer to 20 or 22 per cent.
This is a sad commentary on a nation supposed to have one of the highest standards of living in the world. It is also a sad reflection on a government that campaigned on and boasted of its desire and ability to give a just society to all Canadians and to end regional disparity. The unfortunate thing is that the people being hurt by these policies are the poor, the average man, the man who earns a living with his hands and eats his lunch from a lunch-basket instead of some posh restaurant. The fishermen, the miners, the factory workers, farmers and the ordinary man on the street suffer from this government's illogical and insane policy.
I contend that if the Minister of Finance and his colleagues have any concern left for the Canadian people they should tender their resignations and let somebody take over who can do the job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
* (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Arnold Pefers (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the Minister without Portfolio in charge of kids outline his summer program for students. I have read all the stuff he has put forward and, frankly, do not understand it. I am not sure how one would go about applying for these benefits: I am expected to tell the young people and I am not sure myself how to go about it. Having listened to the minister say that there is to be set up another cabinet committee, that people will be hired to undertake studies, that agencies will be set up and that eventually they will tell us how to go about filling out forms, and so on, it looks as though we are making this a long-term project and that the kids will be drawing their old age pensions before we solve the problem.
Would it not be nice-if the government is really interested in cleaning up the environment-if it permitted the young people, in conjunction with municipalities all over the country, to undertake clean-up projects? I am not prepared to say what those projects should be. What about cleaning up the Ottawa River? Surely we could allow the kids to clean up the Rideau and Ottawa Rivers. That would give them something to do. They could pump it out, dig it out or shovel it out. The way things are going, pretty soon we will be able to shovel out the Rideau River anyway.
Surely we could help our students to work in conjunction with the municipalities and do something constructive and worth while. Not long ago I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene), who has some responsibility in this area, what a certain committee set up several years ago to deal with this matter had done. He was not sure what committee I meant and did not know what it had done. I was referring to an agreement between Quebec and Ontario regarding the Ottawa River.
Several years ago a bunch of young people came to my office. One of them was the daughter of a deputy

March 19, 1971

minister whom I knew. She was a very nice young lady and led one of the university groups in this country. She wanted to get some money to take a number of students to Mexico. For some reason they had not been taken into CUSO. They wanted to go on a project in Mexico and provide sewage and water services for an Indian village. How they heard about the Indian village, I do not know. How they thought they knew anything about sewage and plumbing, I also do not know; but they had an idea about it. They asked for help and I was influential in getting that help. It was not from the government. The government would have said, "We belong to the international organization that supports CUSO: If we were to support this other organization the Mexican government would say we were interfering in their affairs. They did not ask us, and we cannot help."


Jean-Luc Pepin: Maybe somebody asked them, "Do you know anything about sewage?"


William Arnold Peters: Maybe. In any event, the Canadian government did not help them. These young people displayed initiative and I was influential in helping them to obtain assistance from the Colonial Coach Company which supplied a bus and took them to Mexico. Before going they went around Ottawa and scrounged plastic pipes, pumps and what have you from merchants. They went down. When they came back they looked as if they had been to hell and back. Most of them had a tropical disease. Most of them went down there and suffered severely. The young lady I was interested in and who made the original request came back and spent several months in hospital. She had picked up all sorts of germs while working on the project. The point is that these young kids were willing to live in huts and in primitive conditions among the Indians of Mexico. If they could do that, surely they could help in our municipalities. Surely our municipalities make use of them. In that way our kids could clean up our environment.
It may be sad that some airports were built under make-work programs, but they are still there. We built them by paying a wage of ten cents a day, a package of tobacco a week and a pair of jeans and sometimes a shirt every two months. It is true that these were make-work programs. Some might say they were degrading. But at least the people accomplished something. Look at what was accomplished with the Tennessee Valley Authority. Look at the dam that was built. Sure the people were living on welfare; sure, it was a make-work program- but the people were able to do something and so maintain their dignity. Many young people today have not had the opportunity of working. Maybe they don't want to work. I suggest that at least we should give them the opportunity to do something worth while. The good they will be doing will benefit them in the future and we too will benefit.
The minister should become familiar with such programs. Sure, we can send kids down to Manpower centres. That is where you get the big runaround, although they are supposed to handle your problem. A young fellow went to a Manpower centre in my area and they
Economic Growth and Employment Situation said to him, "Come back next week." He said, "I can't; I live in Kirkland Lake." They said, "Oh, you are from out of town. You can go to the data centre and get two weeks' work." This year I managed to get four job opportunities for him and he is having a hard time deciding which one to take.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Things must be looking up.


William Arnold Peters: The Manpower offices are not the place to send these people. They cure nothing. I sometimes wonder how in the world they help young people at all. In the final analysis, many of our young people will have to create their own jobs and decide to solve their own problems. All I am asking is this: If the young people get together with the municipalities and decide on undertaking some pollution control, will the government provide the necessary money to the municipalities? We could put all the students in the country to work along the Rideau River. If we do not do something soon and spend some money, we shall be able to scoop it out by hand. If it were cleaned up the Rideau could be a waterway that would be a credit to Canada. Basically, it would take a small amount of money. Employing young people in that way is better than seeing them travel across the country.
Does it not strike you as disgraceful that 3,000 young people will agree to make milk stools in Toronto that nobody will buy? True, they are being given the job- and they are taking dope as well. Nevertheless, youngsters who take dope do not begin as addicts. They have been making milk stools which will not be sold to anybody. These young people are not stupid; they are not from mental hospitals; they are not incapable. Many of them have come from universities-and they are to make milk stools for cows that are not milked by hand. Isn't that a sad commentary on what we as adults have tried to do for our young people? Is this considered a worthy project for young people to undertake?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It reflects the government's interest in young people.


William Arnold Peters: I shall read the minister's speech. I am awaiting the next edition of his remarks, because without question there will be another edition. After that I shall speak and we shall tell the kids what their responsibilities are. I shall probably be able to carry on with the next chapter of my dissertation after that edition.
About a week ago the CBC presented a television program that was criticized by many people in my area. The program pointed out that one-fifth of Canada's people are being deprived of the necessities of life; they face a situation in which there is no hope, no future and no solution. The only solution for these people is welfare. The program was concerned with Mr. Rohmer's concept of the mid-Canada line. The hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) and others can scream bloody murder and claim that the CBC program was a misrepresentation.
I am not arguing that CBC should not have presented that program. I am only complaining that the corporation did not suggest a future for these people. In its presentation it did not have the courage to suggest what the

March 19. 1971
Economic Growth and Employment Situation alternatives ought to be. It did not even present concepts involving pie in the sky, if you like, or Utopian ideals which at least would have pointed the way to the solution of the problems of the area. The CBC is not doing a job if it portrays over television to the other four-fifths of Canada how poorly we live in the mid-Canada area. We have been exploited, abused and disadvantaged over the years and no solution has been offered.
I picked off my desk a copy of the regional disparity program of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which is supposed to solve this problem. Two of the programs were in Granby and Drummondville. Does Your Honour agree that those are the disadvantaged areas of Canada? I have visited Granby. That area has a viable agricultural industry; the people in the area are not seriously disadvantaged. I do not say they do not need this program. 1 am not opposed to it. However, I suggest this kind of project cannot take place in only one-fifth of Canada, the mid-Canada corridor.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Why not?


William Arnold Peters: Because there is no one to support it. We have allowed the exploitation of that area by the mining and forest industries. There is nothing left. They have taken their marbles and gone somewhere else to play. This is the point I am trying to make. The television program showed the tarpaper shacks and run-down businesses. These businesses existed as a result of the mining industry for 40 years. My objection is that we are not offering them any hope. The minister is not prepared to attract industry to that area. We are losing millions of dollars every year. The minister is not prepared to have a pulp mill established in the area which would employ 500 or 600 people as well as an additional 500 in the bush. This would pay. I am sure it would not be a losing industry, otherwise I would not suggest it.
There are 500 to 600 miners in that area. The television program also showed Cobalt with its shacks. There has not been a substantial amount of money since they owned the Canadian hockey team, the Habitants. There are
20,000	to 30,000 people in that area. No real future is being offered to the many who have remained there. We are now losing a smelter for the reasons which I have already outlined. The federal and provincial governments have not indicated that a smelter will be installed in that area. This would employ 400 to 500 silver miners and keep the mines in operation. The CBC pointed out that this area is and will remain devastated. It was suggested that the people can move from the area. The farmers and miners do not want to move. People who have lived there for several generations do not want to move away from the forest industry.
I suggest that the program is a disservice to Canada because it does not provide an alternative for the disadvantaged people of that area. Many of the hard-core unemployed live there. Welfare recipients in the area are capable of and willing to work but refuse to do so because
of the policies of this government and its neglect of the mid-Canada area.


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to follow the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), with his series of half-baked ideas, because I would like to submit a half-baked idea of my own for the consideration of hon. members.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Which half is baked?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I say half-baked because I am not certain of the full implications of the problem on which I intend to focus. I confess it has shaken some of my own thinking about the dynamics of economic growth and the kind of economic strategy we need to achieve full employment. Let me begin by noting the achievement of a "hard dollar" as evidenced by the government's inability to hold it at the discount which was established over eight years ago. I fully agree that the dollar fixed at 92.5 cents U.S. had to be abandoned. The government could not afford to hold the dollar at so substantial a discount. It had over $4 billion invested in maintaining the discount. It was a subsidy to our export industries which Canada could not afford to maintain, under growing pressure, however worthwhile it seemed.
The government likes to refer to the upward movement of the dollar as evidence of the confidence of the world in our economy. Of course it is a vote of confidence. This movement was not achieved by accident. It was the result of doing the so-called "right things" and I agree that they are the right things: first, fighting inflation and achieving better results therefrom than our trading partners; second, stressing exports and, third, attracting capital to invest here. None of these things are easy to do. All are worth doing. The government and private sector achieved them together and did them well.
The question I am asking is whether the sum total of these three admittedly good things can be a bad thing for the economy. I submit that in the aggregate it has become a bad thing, or at least new measures are necessary to make this aggregate a good thing. Let us consider for a moment the international monetary transactions which are creating the hard dollar. All these transactions, private and public, are totalled in our balance of payments.
Our balance of payments account is made up of three general categories, trade accounts, capital accounts and invisibles. Throughout our recent history we have had a net negative balance of trade, that is to say, we have imported more than we have exported-so this account has always been in deficit. It should be noted, also, that there is an important difference between the goods we export and the goods we import. Unlike the United States, Japan and France, to take three examples, the goods we export have tended to be primary products with a low labour content, while our imports have been manufactured goods with a high labour content. We ourselves are not able to consume the sort of goods which generally we export.
If trade had made up the total of our international payments accounts we would have had, as a result of the


March 19, 1971
annual deficit, a dollar which steadily declined in value. This would have made Canadian goods cheaper in world markets, and imports into Canada more costly, so that currency market forces would have driven us to import fewer consumer goods. In such a condition our standard of living would have been adversely affected. If we had begun to produce for ourselves the goods which we were importing, their cost would have been greater because we lack the national market to achieve economies of production on an economic scale. We might have achieved such economies of scale by finding international markets for our manufactured goods, but this would have been difficult because of the international protectionism of the high tariff walls which have existed to protect foreign domestic markets from manufactured goods.
We might have scaled these walls, but only if our consumer goods production costs, which are largely labour in the final analysis, had been kept low. The problem, as you can see, becomes a circle and supports my original view that such a situation would have meant a lower standard of living for Canada. Fortunately, Canada never had to face this economic scene because our balance of payments was not made up only of the trade account. There was the capital account as well, which historically always offset our trade deficit. This account reflects the balance of capital inflows and capital outflows. Here we always had a positive balance to offset the negative trade balance. This account reflected the willingness of the outside world to lend money to Canada and to buy and invest in Canadian assets and businesses. This capital inflow has developed our economy, brought resources to market and put Canadians to work. Of course, foreign capital has been supplemented by a growing contribution of Canadian capital.
Much is being said these days about foreign capital versus local capital. Political careers are being built on this issue, and judging from the experience of Hon. Stan Randall, the former minister of trade and development in Ontario, careers are also being destroyed over it. I do not want to take time in this debate to repeat my own position, which I have already put on record in Hansard, but for this monetary argument I have to note that no one I have heard speak on the subject, from the most fervent ideological continentalist to the most desperate provincial premier representing a depressed region and seeking only to produce work opportunities for his province, feels it is better to use foreign capital than to use local capital.
The sum of what is said at the extreme right of the spectrum of opinions is that there is no difference between foreign and domestic capital, or that if there may be a difference we need foreign capital anyway because we do not have enough domestic capital to.produce economic growth. The point which I am trying to develop is that there is indeed a difference between foreign and domestic capital, an extremely important monetary difference and one which is quite apart from any arguments based on nationalism.
Economic Growth and Employment Situation
Getting back to my review of the three elements which make up our balance of payments, there is, thirdly, the invisibles account. This reflects international travel and shipping costs, but for Canada it is largely made up of interest payments, dividends, royalties and management charges. Here the balance has always been negative. That is to say, we pay out more than we receive from abroad. Fortunately, because of our continuous economic growth invisibles never fully offset our positive capital balance. Foreign capital has continued to flow into Canada at a far greater rate than the return paid on capital already invested here. Contrast our position with some Latin American countries where foreign debt service alone exceeds all other international transactions. In summary, the invisibles account represents a small offset to the positive balance in our capital account.
Summing up so far, the Canadian dollar did not constantly fall in response to our trade deficit because of the capital account positive balance. It was the continuous capital inflow which permitted us to pay for our imports which, I noted, have tended to be largely consumer goods for which our own production could not be economically substituted.
The remarkable development which has occurred in the last two years has been the disappearance of the traditional Canadian formula for balancing payments. I believe that few people in Canada recognize the implication of our new situation. I suggest that the government has not yet adequately come to grips with it. The new situation has been referred to as a "reverse exchange" crisis. The source of this crisis is that our balance of trade has finally become positive, an event which any eighteenth century mercantilist would regard as an absolutely good thing. The business community is proud of it and the government is very proud of it.
Judging from market predictions for our natural resources in world markets, there will continue to be a positive balance into the future so long as we want one. But in coming to this point we have run up against an inexorable monetary law. When the balance of payments is positive in capital and trade, and not fully offset by invisibles, the Canadian dollar goes up. We are today in exactly the position we were in when the dollar was released from 92.5 cents Canadian. The government has, again, a $5 billion investment in keeping our dollar below U.S. parity. This investment is a subsidy to exporters and to domestic manufacturers of goods which compete with imports. But I do not see how the government can hold the tide of pressure caused by the net inflow.
There was an article this morning in the Globe and Mail which called for the dollar to be pegged at somewhere close to 92.5 cents. This request is sadly naive. It is asking the government of this small country, in effect, to risk all our resources to support the United States dollar. It would make our dollar the biggest bargain in the world, and foreign speculators would descend in hordes to take advantage of the government subsidy. It is impossible to fight the fundamental, long-term prospect of disequilibrium with a subsidized dollar.
I propose to the government an approach toward solving this disequilibrium crisis based on the analysis I have

March 19, 1971
Economic Growth and Employment Situation just made. But before I do that I wish to review why it is a bad thing to have our dollar shooting upward. In general terms, the answer is obvious. Ask the producers of primary products. They sell in world markets and in U.S. dollars. The disappearance of the discount has cost them between 6 and 7 per cent in gross sales revenues which is, of course, serious. But, where it really hurts is in our secondary manufacturing industry. It hurts, first, because the dollar climb makes imports cheaper in our domestic market and, second, because it makes our exports less and less competitive in foreign markets. In this connection, I believe the dollar movement is a great factor in the current unemployment situation in the Canadian manufacturing sector, the closing of branch plants and the general deceleration of domestic production than any other factor, including the government's past restraint policies.
The irony of it all is that the very inflow of investment dollars which provides some opportunities and jobs in Canada is helping to tip the balance further against the industries which have the best hope of offering employment to our growing population: or at least-and this is an important qualification-some of the foreign inflow has this effect.
The argument of those who feel that capital has no nationality is rebutted by the simple fact that when foreign capital inflows push up the dollar, as they do when there is a trade surplus-as there is now-a domestic dollar invested in Canada is indeed better than a foreign dollar investment, because the domestic dollar invested provides jobs and production without putting upward pressure on our dollar, while the foreign investment dollar, under present circumstances, does press our dollar upward and helps destroy markets, domestic and foreign, for Canadian manufactured goods, thereby adversely affecting job prospects. The same irony exists in connection with our export trade surplus, based as it is on primary products and given our positive balance in capital accounts. In effect, the mercantilist conventional wisdom is reversed.
Let me ask and answer the question: What good does it do us to sell so many primary products abroad if all we get is foreign dollars which push up the value of the Canadian dollar and close our factories because foreign-manufactured goods become, thereby, much more attractive to us? It is possible for us to achieve a viable economy based on such an economic strategy, that is, one based on the export of foreign natural resources? Such an economy can mean prosperity for our country but it is a prosperity based on sharing revenues which are earned by only a minimum of labour.
So long as the resources last, a small population in Canada could receive the revenues and buy goods from abroad, more or less like the royal family of Kuwait living on some kind of gilt-edged welfare plan. But we could not provide employment for a growing population or long-term economic stability. And Canadians do not project for themselves a future as a small country, living on depleting natural resources, exporting population and primary products.


An hon. Member:: Time up!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the indulgence of the House in order to conclude my remarks. I have almost finished.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


@Acting Speaker: The hon. member does not have unanimous consent. The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the motion introduced by the New Democratic Party regarding the unemployment problem which concerns all members of this House. It is not the first time that the opposition parties have introduced a motion on this evil of modern times.
In view of the adverse effects of this situation, it is of course difficult to remain silent when we have an opportunity of expressing certain constructive views. I should like above all to convince our honourable friends, the government members.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Where was the hon, member yesterday when we were discussing the matter of textile products?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is asking whether I was in the House yesterday during the debate on textile products. I am a member of a committee which for the last three weeks has been studying a bill which is just as important, Bill C-176, and owing to its significance for my constituency, I want to tell the minister that I was not wasting my time.


Jean-Luc Pepin: See you on Monday, then!


Roch La Salle: I will certainly discuss the matter if I have an opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the current situation and of the various opinions which have been expressed, and recognizing the evil that unemployment is, I must point out the failure of the government to solve this problem.
I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the government has not done anything but we know for sure that it has not done enough.
Of course, members of the opposition are taken to task for their failure to make positive suggestions. All opposition parties made very good suggestions in the House. We regret, of course, that the government too often turns a deaf ear to our proposals.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Go on. Give us a brief summary of that.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity, like several others, to deplore the failure of

March 19, 1971

this government to deal with unemployment. Under the pretext of fighting inflation, they have deliberately created that situation. I will refrain from quoting figures since we can see them daily in the press and in Hansard. However, I still believe a responsible government should create a human, receptive, safe atmosphere that encourages investment-something which has been lacking these past six years because it has not been fostered.
Does the full blame rest with the government? Is this situation due to present economic conditions not only in Canada but throughout the world? One thing is certain, the situation is getting worse instead of improving.
For my part, I asked a couple of ministers as well as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether it would not be possible to call an emergency meeting of all those in Canada involved in the economy, i.e. representatives of unions, of industry, provincial governments and federal government. Such a meeting is obviously necessary. The reply I received was merely that they did not see the necessity for it. But the government which says it is responsible should at least have the courage to recognize that it has not found the answer. Does anyone know the magic solution? Maybe not, but I think that we would at least have a chance of finding a valuable and profitable one for all society if we were to call a meeting of all those interested in the economy.
Thus we could prove that it is in the interest of financiers, of the responsible people both at the labour and employer levels to meet and try to find a solution. Management, faced with the good faith of the government- which has yet to be demonstrated-would invite everyone to co-operate more directly with the government; they would certainly be pleased to offer their co-operation and to advise the government on labour matters, because it seems that the government needs such counselling. In fact, I think that industrialists, financiers and union experts might advantageously give advice to the government.
This is why I suggested some time ago that the government should seriously contemplate the establishment of the old age pension at 60. As thousands of workers are in the 60 to 65 age bracket, I think it would be profitable to contemplate seriously this possibility which, at the same time, would open job opportunities to thousands of young people since 40 per cent of the Canadian unemployed are under 25. It would be normal, humane, and just, I think, to allow some 300,000 workers-this total represents the number of workers aged 60 to 65-to retire so that the young might find jobs, because they at least want to work. The older workers deserve a rest and an increase in the old age pension.
Who would pay for this? That is the question we shall be asked. At the present time, a person who lives on unemployment insurance benefits and social welfare allowances costs approximately $100 per week to the taxpayer. This amount could be paid to those entitled to the old age pension and this would be less expensive than to grant social welfare allowances to 700,000 or
800,000	unemployed people, as is now the case. Then I
Economic Growth and Employment Situation imagine that this measure could partially settle the present unemployment problem.
I hope that the government will seriously consider this proposal and that there will be an end to the charges that our remarks are nothing but negative criticism. I believe that this policy should be seriously studied and applied if we are sincere when we say we wish to solve the unemployment issue, as this policy could create a favourable social climate. In fact, it would permit our citizens to retire at 60 on a decent income.
Mr. Speaker, I should like also to deal for a few minutes with the program put forward this week regarding students. The minister deplored earlier that the hon. members did not dare approve this program. Of course, I readily recognize that this program is desirable. But is it enough? No, unfortunately, considering that almost one million students will be seeking employment this summer and that the plan provides opportunities for 500,000 students only, since our budget is approximately $14 billion and the money allotted to these programs amounts to approximately $57 per student. We might have done better.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Private enterprise will have to pitch in.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, we will surely need private enterprise, and that is why I thought the government would call as soon as possible a meeting of business leaders who could advise the authorities quite objectively, thus enabling them to get good results.
Mr. Speaker, I feel it is up to the government to provide jobs for students next summer.
I deplored recently the government's failure to give an objective answer to the resolution passed by the Young Liberals Convention concerning the creation of a civil corps which would have enabled those young people to find employment, a responsibility which, besides, rests with the government.
Then, the refusal to seriously consider this resolution is unfortunate and surely alarming for the students. This civil corps would have allowed the government to put a certain number of young people at the disposal of municipalities where they are urgently needed.
For instance, this summer, some small municipalities will need young people of both sexes as counsellors at playgrounds and summer camps. All they can do is hire one or two counsellors for 500, 600 or 1,000 school-children, and that is not enough.
I think that as members of Parliament, it is our duty to ask the government to set up such services.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Why not vergers?


Roch La Salle: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is not serious, which is unfortunate because I feel this debate should be really serious.


Jean-Luc Pepin: While we are at it-


Roch La Salle: In any event, Mr. Speaker, I am also thinking of all that could be done to fight pollution.

March 19, 1971
Economic Growth and Employment Situation
A while ago, a member of the New Democratic Party mentioned very simple work in conjunction with the development of our land, our rivers, our towns and cities.
Some of our streams could be developed in order to attract the tourist trade, and with most interesting financial results. Should the matter be fully looked into and the required facilities be provided in order to promote such projects?
I sincerely hope that my brief remarks will prompt the government to take constructive action. I am not one of those who only make negative criticism. On the contrary, it is my responsibility to suggest certain measures but it is up to the government to listen to us and take action. In this case, we might hope that the Canadian people will regain their confidence in their governments, because at present, that confidence seems to have lessened. Of course, up to a certain point, governments are right but, in my opinion, members of the opposition must keep challenging the government if they want it to have a better understanding of its responsibilities. The members' participation in the drafting of legislation would result in a better quality of life and in a better climate for all Canadians.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. First of all, as it is the day of the New Democratic Party and that they were very nice when they let us discuss our motion last Tuesday, I will try to be as brief as possible.
I wish to commend the New Democratic Party for the motion it has introduced today. It supplements somewhat the statement made on March 16, 1971 by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he announced his employment and activities program for students.
When listening to the Prime Minister making his announcement, I immediately understood that it was a statement well structured and oriented towards an ideal to be achieved. Besides, he said in his statement that everyone must have an ideal, but that the problem lies in achieving it. I wish to draw hon. members' attention on these points today. The problem we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker, is very important since it affects the young generation. No one in this House could remain irreceptive to its implications.
We understand the government's difficulties with unemployment. There are approximately 700,000 unemployed and thousands of people on welfare. Soon, nearly
990,000	of the 1,800,000 students from our schools will be unable to find employment. We recognize that this is a very serious problem for the government.
This problem must be faced and all members of this House should partake in a collective effort to solve it in the best possible way.
I take exception to the fact that the government once more is late this year in applying his programs. I am afraid our conclusions might be the same as last year. The programs had been introduced too late and approximately 60 per cent of the students, during their holidays-at least in my area-kept looking for work, with the result that by the end of their holidays, they were
nowhere near their goal. They could earn absolutely nothing. This is the situation I dread again this year, on account of this delay.
Right after the statement from the Prime Minister, three students from the University of Ottawa happened to be in my office. I told them: According to the Prime Minister's statement, you have to inquire from the departments, since there is nothing definite; he only told us that four departments would look after the operation of the program and that eight or nine categories of jobs would be created.
At that point we started phoning the Departments of the Secretary of State, National Health and Welfare, Manpower and Immigration. We were referred back from one department to the other. They said: At the present time there is nothing definite or clear. Call the Manpower office.
So I did. At both Manpower offices in my area, they replied: Mr. Gauthier, we know no more than you do about it. Whatever we know we learned through the newspapers.
We would be justified in asking ourselves some important questions. This is why Information Canada has today forwarded to me a synopsis of programs set up by the four ministers who will be concerned with providing jobs to students.
The hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) will be able to spend approximately $29 million for the implementation of four separate programs: Opportunities for youth, Transient youth service, Group travel and Language training. The same will apply to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) who will seek to establish training camps for athlete-students and to the manpower offices where youth centres will eventually be established.
I contacted the offices in my riding and was told that a student had been asked to handle qualified candidates and they are still wondering whether they will find any.
I believe that we will have to contact these offices immediately in order to staff them adequately. I think that in the riding of Roberval which is fairly large, there are only two manpower centres. Five students per office would not be too many to try and administer the proposed program.
Hon. members will note that I am not criticizing the program directly; I am simply criticizing the delay in its introduction and at the end we will know whether it is effective or not.
Such a program should have been introduced, as some professors believe, at the beginning of January so as to enable school authorities to let the students know about it so that they would be well-informed at the end of the school year.
Unfortunately, everything will be done quickly, everybody will run and people will realize that no organization was selected to find employment, to organize groups of workers, which will be the cause of great difficulties.

March 19, 1971

The Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned with pollution and drugs. I had thought of two or three organizations that could investigate the drug problem, for instance, in my constituency. An inquiry could also be made on pollution. That would be of interest for the groups of young people entering the community, who would find an opportunity to do useful work.
I have here the publication of the Public Service Commission. I should like to have certain things clarified, especially that part of the publication where it is said:
Students from universities, CEGEPS and community colleges in provinces other than Quebec can choose between two methods to apply for summer employment in the Civil Service of Canada.
-either through the Civil Service or the Manpower Department.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the minister to the use of the words "in provinces other than Quebec". I am wondering what we can tell our young people if Quebec is excluded. I would not know if this means that Quebec has its own organization. Perhaps there are university centres in Ontario as well as in Quebec, but I should like to have this matter cleared up, namely, where should our young people be told to direct their appl cations?
In fact, I intend indeed to try and find out, in my own region, everything that might help the young in order to implement this program, as I have already started to do. Every home, every board of trade and every municipality will receive, during these coming days, a copy of this publication in order to give our region a chance and publicize the programs made available to people by the department. I think that such is the work of a House member, and this is why I shall probably have discussions with the hon. minister in order to insure the implementation of this program.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up the time of the House, because I know that several other hon. members have also remarks to make. I would like simply to say, in conclusion, that we are satisfied with this plan, because it will enable us to call upon all young people so that they may take part in a constructive endeavour instead of being allowed to wander about throughout their holidays, not knowing what to do with their hands.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of my colleague, the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan). Because of the firm agreement which we had on time limitation, he was not able to complete his speech. But knowing the interest of other hon. members I shall try to anticipate what he might have said had he been able to complete his speech, and if I make extensive use of some notes I hope this will be overlooked by hon. members opposite.


James Aloysius McGrath: This is a dangerous precedent.


Thomas Miller Bell: Where did the speech come from originally?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member for Don Valley is capable of producing original speeches himself, and this is
Economic Growth and Employment Situation one he produced this afternoon. The hon. member said that Canadians want an increase in population and a sophisticated manufacturing economy with which we can express a distinctive life-style and generate economic autonomy. We do not want, therefore, to be locked into a natural resource export situation. Then he might have gone on to state the dilemma which our economic strategists-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. I have no objection to the hon. member reading a speech, but I am sure he would not want to attribute the whole of his speech to somebody else.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to complete a few remarks that were being made by the hon. member for Don Valley and which will be the basis of my personal comment. I hope there will be no objection to my doing this.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The hon. member may proceed provided he follows these remarks with his own comments.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member was stating the dilemma which our economic strategists must face. We know that the export of primary products and the import of foreign capital each separately create job opportunities, but operating together they are pushing up the cost of our exports in foreign dollar terms and closing down our manufacturing economy. In this context, the problem is how to achieve the most important goal of all-the growth of job opportunities. Four solutions have been suggested. Two steps in solving the problem are obvious, if not necessarily easy to apply, and the government already is working toward them. First, we must try to achieve better utilization of our own capital. Remember that when we invest our own capital to create jobs and products, we do so without hardening our dollar. This is one of the main focuses of the work of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is also a justification for the establishment of the Canada Development Corporation and for the negotiations to keep Home Oil Canadian.
Second, we have to try to get dollars out of Canada, if this can be done without affecting job opportunities here. This part of the reasoning, which presumably, lies behind the recent lowering of the rediscount rate of the Bank of Canada and the fairly rapid response of the private banks in lowering their rates, indicates indeed that some shift-out of Canada of short-term capital was justifiable. This has taken some pressure off our dollar, but there is a limit to how far we can go and the disequilibrium is by no means corrected.
Third, and this is something not yet adequately understood by the government, we could try to impose a higher labour content in our exports. We are making some headway in this area but more will be needed especially if we are to satisfy the less-developed regions of Canada that the struggle to provide job opportunities will not be confined to urban manufacturing but will be fostered on-site or close-to-site in respect of areas con-

March 19, 1971
Economic Growth and Employment Situation cerned with primary production. This is surely a condition of viable federalism.
Fourth, we need a policy to assure that the foreign capital which comes to Canada will not just add to the hardening of our dollar but will provide a high prospect of productive employment for Canadians. There are, of course, other dimensions to a policy on foreign investment which I and others have raised before in this House and will not refer to today. What I have tried to show here is that there is even a monetary reason for a foreign investment policy.
So far as we know, the government has proposed no comprehensive policy on foreign investment, but I am also impressed with the complexity of the problem and the necessity to think through all the implications before assuming responsibility as a government. I look forward to the policy being put forward by the government as soon as possible. Meanwhile, considering our reverse exchange crisis, I think it would be highly desirable to establish an interim foreign exchange control system which could be administered by the government or the Bank of Canada and which could have the effect of taking some of the pressure off the Canadian dollar; that is, the pressure which has been created by the movement into a positive balance of payments position.
It would be the job of the administrators of the control system to give and withhold approvals of currency exchange conversions based on the considerations which I have enumerated this afternoon-to keep domestic borrowers from going abroad for funds to achieve only marginal savings when there would be undesirable balance of payment effects, to retain foreign takeovers, which offer substitution of ownership only, but to permit foreign investments which meet positive growth criteria.
This is an interesting point of view, Mr. Speaker. I followed the hon. member's contribution to this debate. In a previous statement he indicated that he favoured a system of wage and price controls. Today he has added the suggestion of foreign exchange controls because of the strength of the Canadian dollar, and that its adverse affects should be considered. The language of the motion before us is interesting. It attempts to condemn the government for failing to institute the economic planning necessary to bring about economic growth, full employment and price stability. In framing this motion, members of the opposition have added the failure to achieve stable exchange rates and a stable balance of payments situation. These are elements which economists try to study in order to give guidance to public authorities. The problem of Canada today is to balance these multiple objectives. To the extent to which a government achieves one, it frequently sacrifices another. In the point of view of the official opposition and the mover of this motion, this is quite easy. To the extent that government achieves price stability, it can be condemned in respect of the unemployment question, and vice versa.
The thought that I would like to leave with hon. members this afternoon is that this problem is not unique to Canada. It is one which is a challenge to conventional

economic wisdom throughout western society. There is no clear guidance given by economists on how to achieve these goals. Government has to take responsibility for policy. It cannot retreat through a maze of mathematical calculations. The government has to live with the elements of instability.
Mr. Speaker, I am one who does not believe that the solution lies in the direction of expanding controls. I am a little older than the hon. member for Don Valley and I remember World War II very well. I remember the control systems devised in that period. I know that although we had rent controls we had to pay money for the key to an apartment. I know we wanted for many things, and we had ration books. These things caused problems in the marketplace. I know that society can make controls work, but at a price. In many ways the nature of society is altered. This problem is not to be considered lightly, and I feel that we still have the challenge of trying to work things out within the framework of institutions that have done very well, before undertaking alternatives as drastic as those proposed by my colleague.
This government has acted within the framework of conventional economic wisdom and has tried to do the right thing. We have tackled the problem of price stability, but the difficulty is that when we do the right thing we suffer the consequences. By maintaining stable prices and a reputation as a good place for investors we have created an unstable exchange situation. To the extent to which we create upward pressure on our dollar, we create a situation where it is difficult to achieve regular employment objectives. By following policy we have achieved certain objectives, but have created a situation where we cannot achieve others.
To the dimension in which my generation studied economics has to be added the dimensions of a new generation which may be different. We were greatly impressed by the eminent economist Keynes; the word "Keynesian" meant a great deal to us. The government must follow monetary and fiscal policies, and to this we have now to add another dimension-it must have economic intelligence. We have to guess what our major trading partners will do, and we have to arrange our monetary and fiscal policy so that we will do a little better.-but not that much better-in the way of price stability than our trading partners. The problem of controlling inflation, creating high levels of unemployment, stable exchange rates and desirable rates of economic growth is a challenge to western society. Indeed, today western Europe is showing symptoms of this kind of malaise.
The government has done many things to attempt to deal with the problem which is the specific issue of the motion-unemployment. I could enumerate the measures which have been announced. On March 17 the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) announced in this House a series of contracts for Canadian shipbuilders. This was the result of a program, instituted by the government last fall, of subsidy for vessels of foreign ownership as well as Canadian. This program involved contracts of $64 million for ships to be built, two at the Port Weller drydocks in St. Catharines, three in Quebec and others in Saint John, New Brunswick. This program
March 19, 1971

will provide a great deal of employment and is the result of a very specific policy to achieve this end.
As described by the previous speaker, we have announced a number of programs to assist students this summer. There have been a number of specific measures proposed, but time limits me from going into detail. This is a result of the wisdom of conventional advice being put forward by those who have special responsibility in this matter, Mr. Speaker. I look to the economists in the universities and elsewhere in Canadian society who are free to assess the problem and give advice. They have a great job to do, and the challenge is as much with them as with anybody else.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: After listening to the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), Mr. Speaker, I have the impression that we do not have many problems in this country. When we solve one problem we go ahead and create another one. He seemed to say that in order to solve the problem of high costs and inflation we have to create unemployment, and then to solve the problem of unemployment we have to create higher costs and more inflation. This is the type of conventional wisdom with which many people are becoming fed up. It is smug, upper middle-class Liberal rhetoric and is not helping the poor or the unemployed, the people on fixed incomes or old age pensioners.
It is very easy for us in this House to pat ourselves on the back. I think that too often many who sit in the seats of power do not know what the world is like outside. How many of these people have been out there? How many know what it is to go hungry and not have enough money to buy clothes for their children or live in a decent house? I do not think they know about these things. It is very easy to treat people as statistics, ledgers or files. It is easy to look at this country and the world in terms of gross national product and unemployment rates going up or down half of 1 per cent. We seem to forget the human element of society, and the hon. member for Ottawa West has once again demonstrated this.
Yesterday the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson), a Liberal member, was talking about some of these things. I think he knows about these matters better than some of us on this side of the House, because he sits in the Liberal caucus. That Member of Parliament claims that he is being shoved aside by the establishment on the government side of the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: Shame!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He says he has been informed that the government is removing him from membership of the joint parliamentary committee that is to investigate pollution in the Arctic and elsewhere. He says that all they want around here are people who will stay in line, who will lick boots and who will keep their noses clean. I think that just about sums up what many people are starting to think about the government of Canada. It is very smug, very complacent and somewhere up in the clouds.
Economic Growth and Employment Situation
Yesterday the unemployment figures were released for the month of February. I notice that many government members seemed to take great satisfaction from the fact that unemployment went up by only a few thousand as compared with the previous month. Yet still over 8.1 per cent of the Canadian people are unemployed: there are
675,000	people registered as unemployed. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the complete story, that thousands of people in Canada are unemployed but are not registered in the unemployment figures. Many of these people have families. If you were to add them all up, I am sure you would find that over two million people in Canada are affected one way or another because of our high rate of unemployment.
Let us look at two or three instances of unemployment in the country. We find that unemployment has gone up in Quebec; it now stands at 10.4 per cent of the labour force. In Atlantic Canada it stands at 11 per cent of the labour force. You can talk about national unity and about one country, but I suggest that if this country is to stay together, all regions must be equal partners within confederation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Liberal party have talked much about cures, about ridding Canada of regional disparities and of making this country united. That government has done more to destroy unity in this country and to set one region against another than any government in our history. Factors like the 10 per cent unemployment rate in Quebec are causing this disunity. Is it any wonder that many Quebeckers are saying today, "Maybe we should consider getting out of confederation".


James Aloysius McGrath: The unemployment rate is 15.2 per cent in Newfoundland.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My hon. friend says that the unemployment rate in Newfoundland is 15.2 per cent. It stands at 11 per cent in the Maritimes generally. That is completely unforgivable-the Canadian people should not forgive this government for deliberately creating unemployment as a means of fighting inflation. It has done so deliberately. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) boasted in this House on January 20 that the government has created unemployment. He said, as recorded at page 2507 of Hansard:
It takes courage sometimes to create unemployment. We have created unemployment in the textile industry and we will probably create it temporarily in other industries-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It also takes a lot of stupidity.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My leader says that it also takes a lot of stupidity. Economists have said we have probably lost $5 billion in production as a result of high unemployment in Canada. This means that governments in Canada, federal, provincial and municipal, have lost between $1 billion and $1.5 billion in tax revenue. They would have gained that revenue if the people had been working and producing. The people of Canada do not want handouts; they do not want welfare. They want opportunities to work.
Since I have only a few moments left, may I say a few words about another group of people which is taking the brunt of the government's unemployment policies, the

March 19, 1971
Economic Growth and Employment Situation young people of Canada. We have discovered that almost half the unemployed are under 25. They are the ones who are supposed to be building the country for tomorrow and who will be tomorrow's leaders. If they cannot find work, is it any wonder that many of them are turning to what we call an undemocratic way of changing society? Is it any wonder that some of them are questioning the contemporary ways that the hon. member for Ottawa West talked about so proudly a few moments ago?
We have to find work for these people. There is no reason why we cannot do so. We have all the resources we need, all the technology, all the educational skills and all the educational know-how. We need government priorities and programs that will put people first. The government has announced a policy under which it will employ young people. According to the government, nearly one million students will be joining the labour force between now and the end of June. What will happen when all these people join the labour force? Even more will be unemployed. Even more will be frustrated because they will not have the chance to make a few dollars in Canada and make a contribution to this country.
The program that the government announced contained a few points that were good. But why was the program not announced earlier so that community organizations and others could undertake planning and participation? It seems to me that the program announced by
the Prime Minister is to be administered on a completely ad hoc basis. It has come too late and will do too little. I think much of it is mere tokenism, for the benefit of the young people of this country. The time will come when the young people will demand action and results.


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I could say many more things, Mr. Speaker, but my time has almost expired. I conclude by saying that it is very easy to sit around here and be complacent, to say what great people we are, what a great government this is and what great members we are. It is about time people who said that came down from their ivory towers into the real world that is outside this chamber.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. As it is five o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), the debate on the motion before us is deemed to have come to an end.

I wish hon. members an enjoyable weekend. Sunday, for sure, is the first day of spring-March 21. This should gladden hon. members' hearts. However, having followed the weather forecast, I say "Beware the Ides of March," keep warm, keep home, enjoy a pleasant weekend.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.