1971-03-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Otio E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table under Standing Order 41(2) copies in both official languages of the report of the Canadian Grain Marketing Review Committee.



TABLING OF LETTER FROM MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE TO MR. HAMILTON OF BOARD OF GRAIN COMMISSIONERS

Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a copy of a letter I wrote to Mr. Hamilton of the Board of Grain Commissioners dated February 26, along with a copy of his letter consenting to have it tabled.



WEATHER MODIFICATION IDENTIFICATION ACT


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry) moved: the first reading of Bill S-ll (from the Senate), to provide for the obtaining of information respecting weather modification activities.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MOTIONS TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 NATIONAL SECURITY PUBLICATION OF BOOK BY SECRETARY OF STATE ON QUEBEC CRISIS

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration.
This matter concerns the printing and publishing of a book by the Secretary of State, one of Her Majesty's Privy Councillors, who is sworn of the Privy Council and charged under section 11 of the British North America Act with the duty of aiding and advising Her Majesty in the government of Canada. Last October, Her Majesty, acting on the advice of Her Privy Council, proclaimed the War Measures Act. Under that act and its successor
act, the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, Her Majesty has laid criminal charges against a number of citizens and these charges are now before the courts. The book purports to state certain facts upon which the Secretary of State based the advice he gave the Crown to invoke the War Measures Act. The proclamation of that act directly involved this House by way of a resolution of this House and a successor act. It has led to criminal charges which are now pending and therefore involves the courts.
Whether the comments of the Secretary of State are accurate is irrelevant, Mr. Speaker. The point is they should not be published as representing the views of the hon. gentleman as distinct from those of the Privy Council, of which he was and is a member.
This matter so concerns our constitutional system, regarding both Parliament and the courts, that it must be urgently considered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has given the Chair the notice required under Standing Order 26. May I point out to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that to a certain extent the form of the statement submitted to the Chair and the presentation of his motion to the House are out of order. If he will refer to Standing Order 26, he will read the following, and I quote:
A member wishing to move, "That this House do now adjourn",-
-shall give-
-to Mr. Speaker.. .prior to the opening of a sitting, a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed.
Furthermore, section (3) of the same Standing Order, specifies, and I quote:
When requesting leave to propose such a motion, the member shall rise in his place and present without argument the statement referred to in section (2) of this order.
I see that the practice generally followed by hon. members has been to keep to a general statement of the matter to be discussed under Standing Order 26, and this without substantial argument.
To that extent, it is possible for me to think that the motion is perhaps defective. I mention this aspect of the matter only to invite hon. members to follow as well as possible the general practice pursuant to Standing Order 26.

The point made by the Leader of the Opposition is that the views of the Secretary of State should not be published-and here I quote the hon. member's statement-

March 25, 1971
Publication of Book by Secretary of State "as representing the views of the hon. gentleman as distinct from those of the Privy Council, of which he was and is a member."
I doubt very much that the hon. member's motion, in the terms he has proposed, would meet the requirements of Standing Order 26(1). In my view, the motion relates to the conduct of a minister and to that extent it is excluded from the operation of Standing Order 26.
I refer the House particularly to Standing Order 26, sections 16 (e) and 16 (f), and I respectfully suggest that the motion raises a substantive matter which can only be debated on a distinct motion under notice. I must therefore rule that the proposed motion of the Leader of the Opposition, being essentially of the nature of a censure motion and as a substantive motion, it cannot be put and considered under the provisions of Standing Order 26.
I might add that a similar notice has been filed with the Chair by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands which is perhaps different in some respects. I invite the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands to indicate the terms of his motion.



PUBLICATION OF BOOK BY SECRETARY OF STATE ON QUEBEC CRISIS-PUBLIC ORDER (TEMPORARY MEASURES) ACT

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the publication of a book by a member of the government which has called into question the grounds on which Parliament was asked to enact the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, and the need for this House to discuss the desirability of asking that this act be rescinded forthwith.


Mr. Speaker:: As I said a moment ago, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has given due notice of his intention to request leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to debate the matter stated. I have also indicated to the House that the substance of the proposed motion arises from the same circumstances which were referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, although there is a distinction between the two proposals.
I remind hon. members at this point that the business of the House for today is a supply motion. After we have dealt with the routine proceedings of the House, we are to consider a matter which has been brought forward for consideration and debate by the House. This might make it even more difficult than in ordinary circumstances to grant the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition and that which is proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.
In this instance, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands seeks a debate to consider-and I quote his statement-"the grounds on which Parliament was asked to enact the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act and the need for this House to discuss the desirability of asking that this act be rescinded forthwith." The
question raised by the hon. member is obviously of great importance, as was demonstrated by the lengthy debate which took place earlier this session on the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act. In arriving at a decision whether or not to accept a motion under Standing Order 26, in addition to the factors to which I referred when considering the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, the Chair must take into account opportunities within a reasonable time for debate. It seems to me that such opportunities will occur within the reasonably near future, and for this reason I must decline to accept the motion put forward by the hon. member.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he knew the Secretary of State was preparing a book on the Quebec crisis for publication and whether he indicated approval or disapproval of the publication of such a book?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I knew that the book had been prepared before it was effectively produced and I ensured that someone in my office checked the book to ensure that no erroneous facts were stated as far as we could see. I did nothing to prevent the publication of the book.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Are we therefore to assume that it is quite in order within the right hon. gentleman's government for members of the cabinet to publish, while remaining members of the government, their personal views with regard to important decisions taken and recommendations made to Parliament, as well as the facts justifying these decisions or recommendations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It would depend, really, upon the contents of whatever book was published and whether or not it infringed some of the rules of cabinet solidarity or the oath of office, and so on. But surely there is no objection to a minister expressing his views on public events upon which everyone in the country has been expressing views in the past months. Surely it should not be left only to those-surely it should not be left only to those-


An hon. Member:: You have said that a couple of times.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, but I repeat it as long as I cannot get attention for what I am saying. We think it is normal for those who want to support public order in Canada to express their views as well as those who want to disturb it.


An hon. Member:: Touche.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 25, 1971


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is all very well for the Prime Minister to try to skate around the question. I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether we are to assume from what he has said that the opinions expressed in the book are really the opinions of the government although set forth as the personal opinions of the Secretary of State? If this is not the case, is it permissible within this government for ministers to express their personal opinions about important decisions even though those opinions may differ from those of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The final words, of course, condition the whole question. If the opinions differ, if they are fundamentally opposed to government policy, the minister is, of course, not free to express such opinions. But that is really begging the question. I do not see there is much difference between the written and the spoken word in this regard. Ministers have made speeches on various subjects. It is my practice to try to ensure, before they are delivered, that someone checks them for content.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Oh, oh?



PUBLICATION OF BOOK BY SECRETARY OF STATE ON QUEBEC CRISIS-SUGGESTED ROYAL COMMISSION TO EXAMINE FACTS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Since there appear to be serious discrepancies between statements made by the Secretary of State regarding the events of last October and the statements made by some of the ministers of the Crown at that time, and since there will continue to be controversy as to the actual facts leading up to the invoking of the War Measures Act, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he would be prepared to appoint a royal commission-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Bell:: More suspense.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -to look into all the facts and the relevant data leading up to the invocation of the War Measures Act and the passing of the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, surely this is a frivolous suggestion. If there are passages in the book which are repugnant to the principles of cabinet solidarity or the principle of the oath of office, I would be happy for anyone to point them out and it would then be the duty of the government to take action. I cannot understand the concern of the opposition that this particular minister has expressed himself in writing, whereas all the time ministers are expressing themselves verbally. I might add that there is abundant precedent for ministers in office in the United Kingdom publishing books on crises of the day while they are in office, and I cannot particularly get excited about this instance.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Prime Minister appears to be answering the question of the Leader of the Opposition and not the question that I asked him. Since there are serious discrepancies in the facts as alleged by the Secretary of State and other ministers of the government, would the Prime Minister be prepared to set up a royal commission so as to give the Canadian people the actual facts as to the events leading up to the invocation of the War Measures Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not in any way concede the premise that there are serious discrepancies in fact, but even if there were I would also concede that it happens from time to time that ministers take different positions on different matters. The fundamental question is whether a minister has dissociated himself from government policy on a fundamental matter or has not. My belief is that this minister has not, and this is why I suggest that the proposal for a royal commission is a frivolous one.



RESCINDING OF PUBLIC ORDER (TEMPORARY MEASURES) ACT-OPPORTUNITY FOR DEBATE

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further supplementary. In view of the fact that the statements made by the minister seem to call into question the grounds upon which the government asked Parliament to enact the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, is the government now prepared either to rescind this act or to provide for a day's debate in Parliament when the views of the members of the House may be canvassed with respect to such action?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, both the Minister of Justice and myself have answered this question at different times. The House knows that the act expires of its own accord by the end of April unless the House wants to prolong its operation. I believe it is not the desire of the leader of the New Democratic Party to prolong its operation. Therefore there is no intention on the part of the government to provide a day's debate to discuss this question. We have said that if the act is withdrawn by proclamation the House will be seized of the fact. We have also committed ourselves to placing before parliament the whole subject of public order in cases analogous to the one which occurred last fall, and this subject matter will be brought before parliament in the near future. At that time, of course, the opposition will have an opportunity to state its policy, and the policy it would follow in cases when people are trying to destroy our democracy. We will have ample debate at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PUBLICATION OF BOOK BY SECRETARY OF STATE ON QUEBEC CRISIS

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister challenged the Leader of the Opposition to produce anything in the nature of a complete contradiction of cabinet solidarity.

March 25, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Which leader?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is there anything that can be done to silence these prospective parliamentary secretaries?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I have the book here and I ask the Prime Minister this question. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister says that what is written has received the imprimatur of his approval, I ask him whether these quotations that I shall place before him, giving him the pages, do not in fact represent a complete contradiction of cabinet solidarity? The first is from page 127; and my translation reads;
Personally I am not convinced that serious troubles would have occurred automatically if exceptional measures had not been taken.
That is quotation No. 1. Number 2 comes from page 93:
For the reasons I have expressed in the preceding chapter surely it was not a popular insurrection that the federal and provincial governments were afraid of?
Then a little later -


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the right hon. gentleman, but I was hoping that he would not read too much of the book. The right hon. gentleman has given two quotations. As we all know, even that is somewhat irregular, but in any event the right hon. gentleman has indicated the basis of his argument.


John George Diefenbaker: Not yet.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the right hon. gentleman will not quote too much of the book.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister issued a challenge, and I, as a member of this House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: -am entitled to answer him-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: -by asking him whether or not he approves of what is written.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the point made by the right hon. gentleman. I am just suggesting that there has to be a limitation somewhere. However, for the moment the hon. member for Ontario is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this commercial for the sale of the minister's book has proceeded far enough and it is time we got back to the main feature of the hour, the questioning of the government on matters of national interest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is perhaps not a point of order. I think we might allow the right hon. gentleman to ask his question. He was placing the foundation of his
question before the Chair and the House. I assume this has now been done and that we will hear the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would not begin to give all the quotations I have because the book contains one of the biggest messes that I have ever read. I quote one more excerpt because the Prime Minister said he approved of the book. At page 59, I find this:
In the first place, it seems to me important to recognize that the FLQ never tried to seize power in Quebec on the occasion of the October crisis.
I doubt that its members, even the most visionary, have ever had this intention in the course of the eight years of existence of their movement.
Does the Prime Minister accept those views as representing the type of views that he placed before the country on behalf of the government last October, that insurrection was here and they had to act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, of course that is not a position the government ever placed before the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Cabinet solidarity has been broken.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. Prime Minister has the floor.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let them write books, Mr. Speaker. Had I been allowed to finish my phrase I would have corrected the hon. member and said that it was never the position of this government that there was an insurrection and we had to act. If the hon. member would refer to the law and our text he would see that it was apprehended insurrection which was the basis of our action.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. members say "oh, oh", but surely there is a difference between insurrection and apprehended insurrection.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As regards the quotations which were brought before the House by the right hon. member, perhaps he would allow me in reply to quote another well known author, Mr. Voltaire, who said-


John George Diefenbaker: Is he a member of this House too?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see that bicul-turalism has a long road to march if the hon. member does not know who Mr. Voltaire is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He said, Mr. Speaker-
(Mr. Diefenbaker.]
March 25, 1971


John George Diefenbaker: Never mind what Mr. Voltaire said. Answer the question. We are interested in what the Secretary of State said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if we might return to the rule book. I believe the hon. member for Charlevoix has a supplementary question.

The hon. member for Charlevoix wishes to ask a supplementary question.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question-
(English]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I had not finished. I think I should be allowed to finish my answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Prime Minister might complete his reply when we have heard the supplementary of the hon. member for Charlevoix.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I thought that the hon. member for Charlevoix was going to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. I do not want to interrupt the latter, but I think that while quoting Voltaire, we may be straying somewhat from the question asked by the right hon. member for Prince Albert.
I would invite the right hon. Prime Minister to answer as briefly as possible the question of the right hon. member for Prince Albert, and then I will recognize the hon. member for Charlevoix.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The quote is very short, Mr. Speaker: "Give me five lines of an author that I can quote out of context and I will guarantee that I can have him hanged."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PUBLICATION OF BOOK BY SECRETARY OF STATE ON QUEBEC CRISIS-REPERCUSSIONS ON PERSONS CHARGED UNDER WAR MEASURES ACT

Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice.
Considering that, under the War Measures Act, several people are before the courts in Montreal, has the Minister of Justice considered the possibility that the book published by the Secretary of State may cause them irreparable wrong? If not, would he consult his legal advisers as soon as possible and make a statement to the House about this?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to read the book and have no comment to make until I do.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question.
Could he tell us whether the Secretary of State has a right to sell his book and pocket the profits or whether this is simply a routine task which becomes government property?


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Secretary of State a question.
So that he may abide by certain recommendations of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism and enable opposition members to express constructive and logical comments, does the minister intend to translate his book into the language of Shakespeare?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Having come from Voltaire to Shakespeare, we will now recognize the hon. member for Timiskaming.

I believe the hon. member for Timiskaming has a point of order.


Mr. Peiers:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this seems to be an adjunct to the debates we had previously in the House and in view of the growing interest in this document, I wonder whether the Secretary of State would be willing to table it so that it could be made an appendix to Hansard and hon. members could have an opportunity to study it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The translation might not be prepared for tomorrow.



MOTIVATION OF SECRETARY OF STATE IN WRITING BOOK ON QUEBEC CRISIS

Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the hon. Secretary of State.
Since the Prime Minister has said a moment ago that every minister was free to inform the people and ought to do so, I should like to ask the hon. Secretary of State what were the main reasons which moved him to write a book on the October crisis rather than giving every day information which the public obviously required on this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: I venture to break in at this moment. The hon. member is asking the hon. Secretary of State to indicate his reasons for writing a book. I do not think that the question, in those terms, is acceptable.

The hon. member for Egmont.

March 25, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Egmont-

Is the hon. member for Joliette rising on a point of order?


Roch La Salle: I asked that question, Mr. Speaker, because the crisis ended six months ago and Canadians are entitled to know-and we realize according to a book recently published that the minister knew much more about it than we thought-why he wrote that book instead of releasing this information from day to day to the public?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is putting an argument forward in order to justify his question, but I do not think that under the standing orders the question as asked is acceptable.

I think I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that we will have to make a decision very soon on whether we want to devote the whole question period on this important matter. We have used some 20 minutes already. I have no intention to limit the questioning but we should give some thought to whether we might reserve some of our questions on this subject for tomorrow.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.



SUGGESTED REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER PERMANENT LAW AND QUEBEC CRISIS

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the book published recently by the Secretary of State and the recent speech by the Minister of Justice, both indicating continuing concern for those who have either failed to understand the events of last fall or have not appreciated all the circumstances, in view of the Prime Minister's suggestion that there will shortly be some reference placed before a committee of the House with regard to possible permanent measures which might be taken in place of the temporary public order law, and because of the conflict over the exact events of last fall, is the government giving consideration to making the reference to a parliamentary committee such that it will cover not only an examination of the kinds of laws necessary to deal with apprehended insurrection or other forms of possible civil disorder but also the specific events of last fall in view of their importance not only to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is perhaps more in the nature of a speech. I wonder if we can now assume there is a question mark after the last word.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I take it the speech was in the form of a representation and we will consider all possible ways of bringing this subject before Parliament and the hon. member will find out how it is done when the move is made.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for York South rising on a supplementary?



WAR MEASURES ACT-PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION TO THOSE ARRESTED AND RELEASED WITHOUT CHARGE-DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I have a related question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might accept a related question.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question related to this subject to find out whether he has been in consultation with the Attorney General of Quebec concerning the criteria on which compensation is to be paid to certain of those persons who were arrested and released without any charge! If so, could he table the criteria which are to guide the Quebec government in paying compensation?


John Napier Turner: The only communication I have had related to the statement that the Attorney General of Quebec made before the National Assembly, and I will be glad to have that statement tabled, with the consent of the House, when I bring it to the House.


David Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Justice whether the federal government is working with the Quebec government in this field of compensation in view of the fact that it was this government that invoked the War Measures Act and the regulations under it as well as this parliament that passed the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, and also whether anything has been done to destroy the fingerprints and other alleged criminal records of those innocent Canadians who were arrested and later released without charge?


John Napier Turner: I can read a paragraph from the letter of the Attorney General of Quebec to me dated March 16 when he referred to the declaration that he made before the National Assembly. It reads as follows:

You will note that this statement points out that the police forces will soon he instructed to return to the people concerned, their pictures and fingerprints, when they have not been prosecuted or found guilty.


Mr. Speaker:: There are a number of supplementary questions. I suggest to hon. members that I might return to them in a moment, but first we might give an opportunity to the hon. member for Temiscamingue to ask his question.

March 25, 1971


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago I put a specific question to the Prime Minister by way of a supplementary on a specific point related to the subject matter under discussion. You, Mr. Speaker, went on to recognize other hon. members. I think it is important that a supplementary question be placed next to the original question.


Mr. Speaker:: 

NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Real Caouelle (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, after having called upon Voltaire and Shakespeare, I think you are right in finding it proper to call upon the member for Temiscamingue.
In view of the statement that Mr. Rene Levesque made yesterday in Regina, to the effect that some Canadian armed forces units based in Quebec are teeming with separatists, is the Minister of National Defence aware of the existence of separatist elements in the armed forces units based in Quebec and is his department inquiring to see whether Mr. Rene Levesque's allegations are true?


Hon. Donald Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I had the opportunity to say that we had complete trust in the Canadian armed forces, particularly the French-speaking units. But in Ottawa a few days ago, Mr. Levesque talked about a strait jacket and to me his comments tend to indicate that his friends are the ones who should use a straitjacket on him.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence.
With regard to the question of the hon. member for Temiscamingue, I should like to ask the minister whether, even if he were to admit that there are separatists in the army, he feels that on those grounds they are not entitled to be members of the Canadian armed forces?


Mr. J. M. Forresfall (Darlmoulh-Halifax East):: I wonder if I may direct a further question to the Minister of National Defence. Would he erase from the minds of all
Inquiries of the Ministry
Canadians in a definitive way the implication or import of Mr. Levesque's statement? Rather than treating it lightly, would he give us a definite indication whether or not there are indications from studies that have been made of the presence of separatists in the armed forces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. member knows, the question of security in the forces is kept under review at all times, and I repeat what I said a moment ago to the Leader of the Creditiste party, that we have no reason to believe that the statements made are accurate or indeed that there is any penetration whatsoever of the Canadian Armed Forces.



In reply to the hon. member for Joliette, I should like to say that, to my mind, it is not possible to be a member of the Canadian armed forces and a separatist at the same time.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: I would like the Minister of National Defence to assure us that he is taking legal steps to safeguard the good name of all French-speaking people in our armed forces, who serve loyally and do a wonderful job for us, against the slanderous statements of this chuckler from east of here who poses as a political leader.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I can only reaffirm what I have just said, that we have no reason whatsoever to believe that there is the slightest support for the accuracy of the allegations which Mr. Levesque has made now on several occasions.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of National Defence.
In view of the statement made in the House by the Minister of Labour during the debate on the War Measures Act to the effect that members of the FLQ should not be mistaken for members of the Parti Quebecois, could the minister reaffirm that those who would be acknowledged as members of the Parti Quebecois would not be accepted in the Armed Forces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for a separatist to take the oath of the Armed Forces and at the same time be a separatist.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Ontario as the last member to ask a supplementary question on this subject. We are still on supplementary questions to the first question. We are not proceeding very expeditiously.

March 25, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Norman Augustine Cafik: Would the Minister of National Defence take steps to provide to Mr. Levesque an opportunity to supply the names of such alleged separatists in our forces, in other words, ask him to put up or shut up?


An hon. Member:: Take your own advice.



STATEMENT BY PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO MINISTER OF FINANCE ON SHIPMENT FROM ALASKA DOWN BRITISH COLUMBIA COAST

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, may I point out first on the same subject that I think the book of the Secretary of State must now be in the second printing of the paperback edition in view of all the publicity it has been given here so far.
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Can he say whether his parliamentary secretary was indicating government policy or perhaps the lack of it when, according to a press report, he said that despite all the talk Alaskan oil will be moved by ship down the British Columbia coast?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that it is not in order to ask the minister whether his parliamentary secretary is expressing government policy when he makes a statement either inside or outside the House. The hon. member for Egmont has a supplementary question, I believe.
* sis *



NATIONAL SECURITY


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: My question is to the Prime Minister and it is a supplementary to my earlier question about a general reference to a parliamentary committee with regard to events last fall. Will the government give consideration also to allowing various members of the cabinet to appear before the committee both as private persons and as cabinet ministers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We generally find a way of making our position known to the House and to the country, and I would think that the purpose of this committee, whatever terms of reference it has, would be to elucidate opinions from the opposition on the position they would take to improve the laws of our country to meet any threat to our democracy.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: That was a nonsense answer.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice in
respect of this matter in the knowledge of his great appreciation of his over-all responsibilities. Was he consulted fully on these events, did he approve of such action, and is he happy to remain a member of a cabinet that does such things?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond with a last supplementary on this subject. In fairness to other hon. members I suggest we might go on to another subject.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: My supplementary is directed to the Minister of Labour. Considering the lack of jobs in the country, the lack of attendance in the House because of the roster system and the length of time it takes to write a book, has the Minister of Labour objected to the Secretary of State moonlighting as a cabinet minister and will he recommend his dismissal from the cabinet?



INDUSTRY


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the recent problems of Rolls Royce of Great Britain, the apparent limitation on the development of the SST in the United States, and the consequent repercussions on the entire Canadian aircraft industry especially in employment, can the minister indicate if the government is now taking the advice of the Science Council of Canada and actively encouraging and promoting the manufacture and sale of STOL aircraft where we still have an international lead in development?
Kon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, the government did not wait for the recommendation of the Science Council before giving support to STOL aircraft industry in Canada. When my estimates come before the committee I shall be very keen to report on what has been done in terms of research and development and support for international marketing for different companies in the STOL aircraft sector. Short of that, I can repeat what I have already said, that we are looking at this matter further and we will see if we can help it further. Again we are giving a lot of support, and 1 shall be delighted to report on that in due course.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of what the minister has just said I wonder if he can indicate whether the government is actively involved in a program of development of export markets for STOL aircraft?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisier of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Very deeply, Mr. Speaker. I had a letter two days ago from the president of de Havilland thanking the government profusely for that support.

March 25, 1971



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS RECEIVED, CRITERIA APPLIED

Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorkion-Melville):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that applications for the Opportunities for Youth program are now being received, can the minister inform the House how many have been received and what criteria are used in approving or rejecting them?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, we have received a good many applications. I could not quote any number for the member's information. As far as the requirements are concerned, these are described in pamphlets distributed to hon. members. In my opinion, to give the details in answer to a simple question would take up much time.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the statement issued by the Canadian Student Liberals that the government's summer job program is ill-planned and does not solve long term needs, can the minister state whether the government is formulating long-term plans for student employment next year?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that as asked the question is argumentative. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-ALLEGED CONFUSION IN PROVISION OF INFORMATION

Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a supplementary question on the same subject for the Minister without Portfolio who I do not think has been distracted by attempting to write a book. I should like to ask if he has any explanation, in light of the statement he made in the House last Friday that clear instructions had been given to Manpower offices in regard to the Opportunities for Youth program, for the confusion which seems to exist even in the minds of student Liberals in regard to this program?


Mr. Marshall:: On the Opportunities for Youth program-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member. I believe the Leader of the Opposition is rising on a point of order.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order and with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question. There is great confusion and I want to give the minister and the students a chance for enlightenment.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is confusion, as I gather from the hon. gentleman's question, in the minds of the young people of a specific party, I wonder whether a question asked in those terms is in order.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I ask the minister whether he proposes to take any specific steps to clear up the confusion that seems to exist in the Manpower offices and that students say they have run into in seeking information about this program and how they apply to participate in it?


Hon. Robert Slanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I believe I did say that material was going out to Manpower offices on that day. Since then I found that some of it went out on Saturday to Manpower offices, but material did go out to all by the end of last week.


An hon. Member:: Where is it now?


Mr. Stanbury:: Of course, it is not delivered at the same time everywhere in Canada.


Thomas Miller Bell: We all know that.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: As far as students are concerned, Mr. Speaker, the student Liberals, like many other students in the country, have responded very positively and favourably to the Opportunities Youth program.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-PROVINCIAL QUOTAS FOR MILITIA TRAINING-PROVISION FOR INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF

Jack Marshall: have a question for the Minister of National Defence regarding the Opportunities for Youth program. In view of the extension of student militia training to include armouries which are mainly administered by militia units, will the minister announce as soon as possible the quotas for provinces to ensure that district headquarters will be able to request logistic support and instructional staff from regular army reserves to maintain the training program?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall keep that representation in mind.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has his attention been drawn to a letter being sent out by the National Film Board of Canada indicating that requests for films cannot be met because of the great demand and limited staff of that department? Will the minister look into this to make sure that those who are waiting for films are not kept waiting and will not receive this kind of reply?


Gérard Pelletier: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.

March 25, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



INQUIRY RESPECTING INTEREST-FREE LOANS TO FAR EAST COUNTRIES

Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Complon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Concerning the Canadian delegation headed by Mr. Gerin-Lajoie, could the minister tell the House if the $25 million subscribed to the Asian Bank plus the $200,000 for a special assistance fund and the help given to India, Singapore, Viet Nam, Malaysia, Thailand and Frenchspeaking Africa, which amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars, will be the last loans granted without interest?


Mr. Speaker:: The Secretary of State for External Affairs seems to want to take the question as notice. For the moment, the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Edmonton West.



TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE-CONSULTATIONS WITH UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the statement made yesterday by his colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources following discussions by cabinet ministers with representatives of the United States oil industry on the subject of the Alaska pipeline, can the minister tell us whether the government is considering or has considered a formal approach to the United States government in order to get this question settled once and for all so that we can get some credibility with regard to the whole question?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I announced in the House some weeks ago, plans are being made for consultations with the United States government about the problems of the west coast pipeline. I assume that in that connection there will be quite adequate opportunity for discussion of all phases of the situation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I can if the minister tell us if these discussions are to take place within the next few weeks or is it several months or next spring?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hope it will be very soon indeed. The officials concerned are establishing the place and the machinery for discussions right now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period has just about expired. Perhaps the Chair might be allowed to recognize the hon. member for St. John's West and then pursue further questions tomorrow.



FINANCE


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: My question is for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Is it the government's intention to try to reach agreement with the provinces on full employment and growth targets for their 1971 budgeting?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we have periodic meetings with the provincial treasurers and ministers of finance to discuss the economic situation and the general outlook that governments should take toward the forthcoming year.


Walter C. Carter: Can the Minister of Finance tell the House if the Bank of Canada has asked the government not to pursue any further expansionary policies for 1971, for instance, a tax cut and, if so, what is the position of the government on that question?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada does not usually tell the Minister of Finance what he should do with regard to fiscal policy and therefore such representations have not been made.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, perhaps I might be permitted to ask a question of the President of the Privy Council. Will he indicate what business the government proposes to put before Parliament in the next few days, and possibly for the next week?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we propose to call the government organization bill and following that probably the unemployment insurance bill first and then the Canada Labour (Standards) Code bill. After consultation, I might try to work in third reading of the textiles bill and the report stages of the weights and measures and the investment companies bills, but that would be done only after consultation with other House leaders.



TIME LIMIT ON SPEECHES ON BUSINESS OF SUPPLY MOTION

['Yes, Mr. Speaker.\nI simply wish to inform the government House leader that in view of the importance of cigarette tobacco in the constituency of Joliette, our people are not in any great hurry to see a bill to restrict the use of tobacco come back to the House.\nAlleged Failure to Improve Economy']
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order, I think there is agreement with regard to today's debate along these lines: that the first spokesman for each of the parties shall limit his speech

March 25, 1971

to 20 minutes and that all other speeches shall be limited to 15 minutes. If there is agreement, perhaps that could be made an order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is our understanding.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is agreement, it will be so ordered.



Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before we leave the question of the business for the ensuing week, may I put a question to the government House leader. As he knows, we reached agreement concerning time limits on the proposed bill having to do with cigarette advertising. Can he tell us whether the bill will be before the House at an early date?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give an assurance that it will be before the House at an early date. Very likely it will not be before the Easter recess, and I cannot give a definite date after that.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary?


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will have noted that we are on an alleged point of order. Really, this is a continuation of the question period and these questions can be asked only with the consent of the House.

The hon. member for Joliette seems to want to raise a new point of order or ask a supplementary question. The question has been put, I believe, by the hon. member for Malpeque, with regard to the sequence of business which will be considered by the House in the next few days. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked a supplementary question on this subject. It is only with the consent of the House that such questions will be allowed again.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Joliette rising on a question of privilege?


Roch La Salle: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I simply wish to inform the government House leader that in view of the importance of cigarette tobacco in the constituency of Joliette, our people are not in any great hurry to see a bill to restrict the use of tobacco come back to the House.
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That this House condemns the government's economic policies which have failed to curb inflation, have brought severe unemployment to at least 675,000 Canadians, have accentuated regional disparity and have failed to promote regional development.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I could barely discuss adequately the motion before the House this afternoon in one hour and 20 minutes, let alone in 20 minutes. I will do my best to bring before the House what I feel is one of the major problems facing this country at present. We condemn the government because it has deliberately, through the instrumentality of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) thrown up a very thinly disguised smokescreen. It has attempted to say that it is going to fight unemployment and that it has succeeded in mastering inflation. Mr. Speaker, that, I say, is one of the slickest "con games" that could be thought of at the present time, because there is no such thing as this government having mastered inflation.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Or anything else, for that matter.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I put it to Your Honour that this is a grave issue. The gravest issue this country can face is that there is no sign the government has met with any degree of success in dealing with the close to 700,000 unemployed, in dealing with the projections made for the next three quarters of the year and in dealing with what may happen with regard to inflation.
We have had opportunities of discussing this question with the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission in committee, on the study of the estimates of the commission. I must say that, although that gentleman tried valiantly, he had to admit that there are indications, and these are easy to see, that by the third quarter of this year we shall have started on another run up the ladder of inflation. The problems of the country, therefore, will have merely escalated upward another degree. It is on that point that I want to condemn the government today.
First of all the Prime Minister last December, I believe in some interview or other, boasted that "we have now licked inflation" and that the government would turn to the No. 1 priority, dealing with unemployment. Well, they have not dealt at all with unemployment, because it has kept on going up. Let us look at the claims that were made by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech of December 3. Let us look at claims made by the Prime Minister, other ministers inside and outside the House, and by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who boasted that the increase in the consumer price index in Canada was the lowest experienced by any industrialized country in the western world. You know,

March 25, 1971
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy Mr. Speaker, if you have a big fence post sticking into your eye it is no consolation to have somebody point to the telephone pole that is sticking into the other fellow's eye and say that you are the better off. That is precisely the position Canadians are in today.
Let us look at the question of inflation and let us look at the cost of living index. If we look at the February issue of the Bank of Canada Statistical Summary, on page 163 we shall see that at the end of January the cost of living index had gone up to 130.3, from 128.2. In February the index, generally on average, went up another half point. True, there has been a downturn, or shall we say, a slow-down in the rate of increase in the consumer price index. Let us look at the components, food, clothing, housing and "all other". If one looks at the charts, one will see that they all, except for the food index, have pursued that same, steady relentless climb. In the immediate past, the food index has not risen because of the supermarket price war in Ontario and Quebec which now shows signs of ending, so prices are beginning to go up again.
Let us look at the clothing index. In January, 1970, it stood at 125.5; in January of this year, at 127. Housing stood at 138.1 in January, 1970; at 146.6 in January, 1971. The household operation index was 114.7 in January, 1970, and 117.4 in January, 1971. In all other items, 127.8 in January 1970, 131.4 in January 1971. I could go through the more recent lists of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for February. I could deal with cities such as St. John's, Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. Health, personal care, recreation, reading, transportation, tobacco and alcohol all show substantial and steady increases from February 1970 through to February 1971.
With regard to consumer price indices, the only change that has been apparent is a four-month change in the cost of food, and that is an aberration. It is on that aberration that the government rests its case. That is the only strength in its case of stating that it has mastered inflation, because the degree of increase has been slowed down. Food represents 27 points in the total index of 100. If you can obtain a down turn in over a quarter of the items in the computation of the consumer price index, of course there will be a change. What is that change going to be in March and April when the price of food again goes up? We will then see whether inflation has been mastered. I say that merely with regard to that one particular point.
The next point is whether inflation has been contained. I wish to deal with the level of wage settlements. We know that wage settlements are being made at the same percentages and in some cases higher than one year ago. There have been some notable exceptions where the question of whether or not to close an establishment was involved. There has been some outside force that I explained and lower than average increases. In addition to the new settlements being negotiated, there are the effects on the economy of wage settlements made a year or 18 months ago on two and three year contracts. They all have major escalator clauses, most of which will come

into effect this spring. At that time, we will see an escalation in wages.
I now wish to deal with increases in wages and other returns. Executive salaries increased by 10 per cent last year. With regard to average weekly wages and salaries, there is a table which was prepared by the Prices and Incomes Commission based on information from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. This was tabled this morning at the hearings of the Prices and Incomes Commission. I am quite prepared to put this whole schedule on the record, but if hon. members will permit, I will select certain items. If anyone would like to have the complete table printed, I can ask for the permission of the House to have this done.
In 1970, the average weekly wages and salaries increased 7.6 per cent in industrial composite, 8 per cent in manufacturing and 11 per cent in construction. The average earnings of wage earners versus salaried employees in manufacturing, based on October 1969, showed an increase of 8.3 per cent for average hourly earnings of wage earners over 1968, an increase of 7.3 per cent for average weekly earnings of wage earners and an increase of 9.9 per cent for average weekly earnings of salaried employees for the same period.
Surveys of teachers in 19 selected Canadian universities indicate that in 1969-70 salaries for all ranks increased 7.7 per cent; deans, 8.5 per cent; associate professors, 6.2 per cent; lecturers and instructors, 8.4 per cent. Average salaries for faculty of all Ontario universities increased in 1970-71 as follows: professors, 7.1 per cent; associate professors, 6.1 per cent; assistant professors, 6.2 per cent.
Executive salaries also come into the picture. The figures for the calendar year 1969 are: all executives, 10.1 per cent; general managers, 8.8 per cent; sales managers, 9 per cent; plant managers, 7.6 per cent; accounting managers, 10.2 per cent; chief engineers, 7.6 per cent; industrial relations managers, 11.3 per cent.
The figures which I have for the professions are for the year 1968. They are a little behind the time, but they give an indication. The figures are: physicians and surgeons, 6.7 per cent; engineers and architects, 3.7 per cent; lawyers and notaries, 7.2 per cent; dentists, 10.3 per cent; accountants, 17.1 per cent. These may seem to be terribly dry statistics but they are a real indication of the effects of inflationary pressures on salaries and earnings.


Mr. Faulkner:: Are you opposed to all of them?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am opposed to many of the increases.


James Hugh Faulkner: Which ones?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am opposed to increases to the degree that they exceed the increase in productivity. If that is the case, they are inflationary.


James Hugh Faulkner: How do you measure that?
March 25, 1971


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is a very difficult thing to do, Mr. Speaker. However, because it is difficult, are we going to deny the effect? It is difficult to measure the productivity in the service industries, but this is one of the tasks the Economic Council of Canada is undertaking. Because it is difficult, is that still a denial there has been an inflationary effect in Canada? I do not care whether one is a wage earner, salary earner, teacher, professor or bus conductor, if he receives an increase in salary beyond the increase in productivity, there has to be a corresponding increase in inflationary pressure. Inflation can be due to other causes as well, but this is one of the basic causes. This is a step which the government has not in any way mastered. In fact, they have not touched it at all.
The Prices and Incomes Commission was suppose to maintain some form of control, not mandatory, and to furnish information to the government with regard to prices and incomes. This commission is being wound up. Its terms of reference cease on December 31, 1971. In a statement filed by the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission on Tuesday last, he said in part:
In 1971, the commission is maintaining its surveillance of important changes in prices, costs and profits in the economy, will continue to conduct investigations and issue reports of particular price and income increases and inform the public and governments of the relevant facts. With the termination of the price restreint criteria and the associated wage and salary guideline on Dec. 31, 1970, these reviews will not, however, be conducted within the context of specific price and pay criteria as in 1970.
That is the point, the job is being wound up. The government has given up on the Prices and Incomes Commission. Although the Prices and Incomes Commission was to serve as a tool to control inflation, the government has given up on it. It has given no indication of what it intends to use in its stead, but it cannot deny that inflation is still with us.
Look at interest rates. I suppose the minister, or someone on behalf of the government, will say the decline in interest rates is an indication that inflation has been mastered. That is pure, unadulterated poppycock. Sure, there has been a downturn, but this has not been generated actively by the government; the government has not been the master of the turndown in interest rates. It has been obliged to follow the flow of interest rates in the United States and the trend of interest rates arising out of balance of payments problems. This is one of the difficulties of being involved in the international monetary fund on a narrow margin regardless of whether there is a floating dollar or not. The interest rate in Canada which had been imposed as a monetary restraint on the government was causing balance of payments problems. We have been obliged to unpeg the dollar as a result. But we have also had to allow our interest rates to follow changes made in the United States. So I say it is not after deliberate leadership action on the part of the government that there has been a decline in interest rates to which the government can point as an indication that they have mastered in any way the problem of inflation.
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy
We can see, too, from the latest Bank of Canada statistics, that the average interest rates on government obligations, be they 90-day bills, 180-day bills, short-term or long term, bottomed out at about the end of January and the beginning of February and were at that point starting back. My main point in this afternoon's motion is to warn that the government has been complacent; the government is deluding the people if it continues this practice of saying that inflation has been mastered as a defence of its policies with regard to unemployment. They cannot have it both ways.
The last point I wish to make is that as a result of the unpegging of the Canadian dollar there has been a continually increas ng flow of imports to this country. In January, 1971, as against January 1970, there was a net decline of 3 per cent in our export of commodities. To the degree that we are relying increasingly on imports from the United States, Britain, West Germany and Japan, all countries facing varying degrees of high inflat on. We are importing their inflation. Every time we bring in goods from another country at an inflated price we are bringing the inflation to our own country. The only reason this has been mitigated to a degree, a degree which will not be available to the government in the coming months, is the fact that the dollar being unpegged its increasing value on the international market vis-a-vis the United States dollar has hidden the effect of this important inflation. So I condemn the government with regard to its financial policies for having failed to master inflation and having contributed to other consequences indicated in my motion.


Edgar John Benson: We have just listened to a most interesting speech by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) acknowledging that we have been more successful than any other western country in controlling inflation, that the rise in our cost of living has been smaller than theirs. He cannot criticize the overall picture, so he had to pick out details which he could criticize. The hon. member also supported the thesis to which government spokesmen have been calling attention for some time, namely, that we still have to worry about inflation in the future. This seems directly contrary to the policy of his own party which has been urging me to reduce taxes by some billions of dollars immediately in order to stimulate the economy and place more inflationary pressure upon it as it is moving out of a period of slow growth.
Just over a month and a half ago, the three opposition parties in this House took the rather curious course of issuing a joint statement condemning the economic policies adopted by the government to bring inflation under control and then return the economy to the path of strong and stable growth. The question which was left begging an answer was what alternative action these parties contend should have been taken to resolve the serious economic problems which confronted us. It is, after all, very easy to condemn; it is quite another thing to develop practical and effective solutions.
Early last week, members of the Ralliement des Credi-tistes provided their own answer to the question left

March 25, 1971
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy hanging in the air by the joint statement of the opposition. Canada's economic problems would disappear, they argued, if only the government would adopt social credit monetary policies. From their silence, it can only be concluded that members of the other two opposition parties did not share the conviction of the Creditistes that social credit doctrine offers a cure to all our ills.
Later in the week, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) put forward the alternative course proposed by the New Democratic party to meet our economic problems. The way to ensure the continued maintenance of economic growth, full employment and price stability, he said, is through the institution of economic planning by the federal government. It was quite evident, however, that the kind of state economic planning proposed by the leader of the New Democratic party also commands no support from the other two opposition parties, the Conservatives and the Creditistes.
To complete the circle set in motion by the opposition parties last month, the House today has before it a motion by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) which provides an opportunity for the Conservative party to outline the remedy which it advocates to make all our economic problems magically disappear. I am sorry he did not present this remedy. It should be no surprise to find that the panaceas prescribed by the Conservatives may also be rejected by the other two opposition parties.
As I noted earlier, the leader of the New Democratic party contended last week that we can obtain strong economic growth, full employment and price stability simply by the adoption of government economic planning. By itself, economic planning is a concept so vague as to be virtually meaningless, since it has assumed so many radically different forms both in theory and in practice. Certainly the leader of the NDP shed little light in his speech last Friday on the kind of economic planning he proposes to adopt in Canada. He spoke in the vaguest of terms about imposing some form of capital investment controls to see that investment went into job-careating projects and undertakings with a high social priority.
In addressing himself to the problem of inflation in the context of economic planning, he only served to underline the total ambivalence of himself and his party on this important question. His party, he said, had advocated establishment of a prices review board to see, as he put it, "whether price increases were being artificially stimulated or were the result of genuine economic pressures". If this board, which apparently would lack any enforcement power, failed to do the job, then the NDP was prepared to support imposition of mandatory price and income controls, he said.
Last winter and spring, however, both the leader and the deputy leader of the NDP were demanding that the government immediately establish mandatory price and income controls. Speaking in the House on April 28 last

year, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands declared:
Unless the government is prepared to adopt a mandatory prices and incomes policy, we shall completely fail to deal with the question of rising prices.
If the member still believes that, what possible purpose does he consider could be served by establishment of a powerless prices review board?
Vague as they are, it still cannot be assumed the proposals for economic planning advanced by the leader of the NDP actually represent the current views of his party, since this is a question which is at present the subject of strong controversy within the ranks of the NDP itself. One wing of the party is arguing for establishment in Canada of a totally socialistic state, while others favour something in between-if only on the grounds of political realism. I strongly doubt whether there is any consensus, even among members of the New Democratic Party, about whether and how far we should move down the road charted by the NDP leader. Certainly, there seems to be little disposition on the part of the NDP's allies in organized labour to follow this route, particularly if it would involve government intervention in collective bargaining.
In Canada we have long had an economy made up of a mixture of private and public sectors whose course is essentially determined by the forces of the market. Governments in virtually all of the western nations have developed a far-reaching series of policies and programs aimed at harnessing these market forces so that they will work together to produce strong and steady growth. There is no question that over a period of a number of years we have made considerable progress in increasing our ability to harness the forces of the market to serve our ends. There is equally no question that we still have some distance to go before we resolve the basic dilemma confronting the economy of every nation in the world.
As the Economic Council declared in its most recent review, "the most notable shortfall in economic performance on a world-wide basis in the 1960's, and a major unresolved problem for policy, has been the inability to bring about an acceptable reconciliation between high employment and relative price stability." Our economy is constantly being affected by the diverse response of business management, investors, unions, farmers, fishermen and many other groups in the private sector by an ever changing variety of circumstances both at home and abroad. In a free and dynamic economy of this nature, it is no easy task to anticipate the future, nor to judge with great precision exactly when and to what degree any particular fiscal or monetary measure will prove effective in guiding the market forces on to the desired course. This has been particularly the case in recent years, when past experience has proved a poor guide to both the present and the future.
In speaking on the NDP motion last Friday, the Conservative leader said the policies advocated by his party
March 25, 1971

had, in his words, "not been proved correct or incorrect, because they have not yet been tried in Canada." I take it from the statement of the Conservative leader, Mr. Speaker, that his party is proposing the adoption of economic policies quite different from those followed by the former Conservative government, which brought about the longest period of slow growth in Canada's postwar history. Unfortunately, the Conservative leader has been just as vague as the leader of the NDP in outlining the policies his party actually does advocate. He has, for example, repeatedly suggested that a Conservative government under his leadership would have continued to allow the economy to run at full throttle even though it was very obviously becoming dangerously overheated by the strain of steadily accelerating inflation, quite a different argument from the one put forward this afternoon by the financial critic of the Conservative party.
Such a policy, of course, is directly contrary to the approach urged in recent months by both the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund, which have both stressed the prime necessity of moderating economic growth in order to bring the pressures of inflation under control. The Conservative leader himself has repeatedly acknowledges the serious threat to the economy posed by rapidly rising costs and prices, but has contended time and again that this problem could be made to disappear simply by appealing to all sectors of the economy to exercise voluntary restraint.
There is no question that the exercise of such restraint would make an important contribution to the maintenance of reasonable price and cost stability and over a period of many months, the government has urged all sectors of the economy to follow this course. Perhaps in some distant day we will have developed a sufficient sense of enlightened self-interest among the various sectors of our economy to achieve by voluntary action alone the balanced operation of the economy necessary to maintain stable growth in perpetuity.
But, Mr. Speaker, you would have to dwell in some kind of Alice in Wonderland world to come to the conclusion that it is possible today to cure inflation simply by appeals for voluntary restraint. As the Conservative leader is aware, the leaders of the business community did agree last year to comply with the voluntary restraint guidelines proposed by the Prices and Incomes Commission, but declined to extend the agreement into 1971 as the commission urged.
The Conservative leader is equally aware that representatives of organized labour adamantly refused to take any part in the national restraint program urged by the Prices and Incomes Commission. In the past he has suggested that the co-operation of organized labour could be readily secured, although how he has never explained. In his speech last week, the Conservative leader reminded the House of his own meeting with the leaders of organized labour earlier this month. He advised us that he had suggested to them that it is, as he said, "most important to labour that we achieve voluntary restraint based upon consultation and co-operation." Unfortunate-
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy ly, the Conservative leader did not report to us on the reaction to his suggestion of those representatives of organized labour with whom he spoke, but I think it may be fairly concluded from his silence on this point that he was not overwhelmed by an enthusiastic response on their part.
I have noted that the basic approach advocated by the Conservative leader on behalf of his party involved running the economy constantly at full throttle, while relying solely on voluntary restraint to eliminate the buildup of any inflationary pressures. As the leader of the official opposition has acknowledged, such a policy has never been tested in Canada. For that matter, I know of no other country in the world where such a policy has been tested, or even advocated by any responsible authority.
But does that approach really represent the policy of the Conservative party? Just over a year ago the mover of the present motion, who is also his party's financial critic, condemned the government for proposing a $900 million increase in federal spending in the current fiscal year to provide the fiscal stimulus required to begin moving the economy back to the path of strong but stable growth. Today, with all the authority and confidence of Monday morning quarterbacks, the Conservatives criticize us for failing to take action early enough or in sufficient strength to promote a resurgence of sound economic growth.
What were they saying a year ago? They were complaining that we were allowing expenditures to run out of control, and proposing a tax increase. "If there were to be control," declared the Conservative financial critic, "if there were to be a real fight against inflation by fiscal measures, we would be taxing to defeat inflation, not merely to catch up with the bills that are coming into the government." In his motion today, the Conservative financial critic charges that the government's economic policies have failed to curb inflation, have accentuated regional disparity and have failed to promote regional development. In a make believe world in which white is black and black is white, that criticism might be understandable, but in the real world in which we live it is quite nonsensical.
If it is not obvious to hon. members opposite, it is at least evident to the great majority of the Canadian people that we in Canada have made substantially more progress than virtually any other western nation in bringing inflation under control, and certainly a great deal more than our neighbour to the south. This government has launched the most far-reaching and concerted effort to promote regional development and reduce regional disparities ever undertaken in Canada. Moreover, the whole thrust of the expansionary fiscal policies we have adopted progressively since early last spring has been aimed directly at assisting those individuals and regions most adversely affected by slow growth, which in turn provide a stimulus to the accelerated growth of the economy as a whole.
Those policies have been opposed by the Leader of the Opposition, despite the fact that for some years he was

March 25, 1971
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy
the premier of a province in one of the slow growths areas of Canada. Quite contrary to the terms of the motion before the House, he has not only failed to support the selective measures we have proposed to promote regional development and reduce regional disparities, but he has gone further and proposed the very opposite approach. He has contended that we should make a massive cut in taxes, which would provide the most direct and immediate stimulus to those more wealthy areas of the country least affected by slow growth, and only indirect and retarded stimulus to other regions.
As a result of this series of debates on economic policy stretching over the past month and a half, it should now be crystal clear that the three opposition parties are united only in their opposition to the government elected by the people of Canada. In every other respect they are sharply divided, resembling nothing so much as the scene at the Tower of Babel. Each party advocates policies for resolving our economic problems that are strongly opposed by the other two, and which command little or no support from the Canadian public.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that we have undergone the adjustment process essential to bring inflation under control, relatively quickly and relatively effectively. Now, our major concern must be to find ways of maintaining the resurgence of economic growth presently underway without incurring renewed dangers of inflation.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) spent some time satisfying himself that the opposition parties do not agree with each other. That must be a discovery he made last night. Every other intelligent person in the country, and I want you to notice, Mr. Speaker, I said every other intelligent person, has known that to be the case for a long time. Let me say to the Minister of Finance one very simple thing.
Our criticism of the government and I speak only for my colleagues and myself, is that it has refused to undertake the only kind of policy objective that is humane, decent and just in any democratic society, and that is the objective of full employment. That is our first criticism.
Our criticism of the government's economic policy is that it is all tied up with inflationary theories and has deliberately created unemployment. Our criticism of the government is that even now its attempt to steam up the economy is held back by advice which it gets from the Governor of the Bank of Canada, from the Deputy Minister in the minister's own department, and from other people, all traditional, orthodox out-dated economic thinkers, who hold that the unemployment does not matter. They believe that any speed-up of the economy has to be undertaken slowly, and that you must always have a pool of unemployment in order to avoid the disasters of inflation.
Let me say another thing frankly, Mr. Speaker, that no one in my party is unaware of the fact that a full employment policy puts pressure on prices. Indeed, anyone who knows anything at all about economic history knows that the price curve has gone upwards steadily

for two or more centuries as a result of the expanding economies of the world. There is no way, and I grant it immediately, in which you can have a full employment policy and not have some pressure on prices. It has never happened.


Mitchell William Sharp: Why not?


David Lewis: The Secretary of State for External Affairs says "why not". It is not likely to happen because the way in which you expand the economy and have full employment creates certain pressures on prices within the economy. The fact that you are living in a world of exports and imports which affect your economy brings about some pressures on that economy, and the choice society has to make is either the evil, hurtful, harmful choice of massive unemployment and massive loss of production as a result of that unemployment, or the humane choice of a full employment policy and finding means of compensating those who are hurt by an extensive degree of pressure on prices.


Mitchell William Sharp: Just like a little pregnancy.


David Lewis: No, it is not like a little pregnancy. The minister's mind is in the bedroom. I ask him to bring it back to this Chamber. And I say to him, Mr. Speaker, and to the government that there are ways of compensating those who are hurt by inflation. It is much more sensible to get the extra production, from which the government gets extra revenue which it could use to compensate the old age pensioners, the welfare recipients and the people on low incomes, who are the only people hurt by the rising prices. The government would probably have something left over from the revenue it gets from the added production that full employment produces. This would be the preferable course, rather than destroy the lives of people, which is what unemployment does, and increase the poverty culture in this country, which is what unemployment does, and harrass whole families which is what unemployment does.
My condemnation of the government, therefore, is that it deliberately chose the cruel and inhumane policy instead of a policy that deals with people, that is concerned with the welfare of the 20 per cent or 25 per cent now living below the poverty line, in addition to compensating those who are hurt most by rising prices. I say to the Minister of Finance that there are ways of curbing price increases, and I make no apology of suggesting that direct price controls may in some cases be necessary. The government ought to have the courage to impose them, although I recognize some of the administrative difficulties. I know that will immediately lead the Minister of Finance to say that organized labour ought to agree to a freeze or a lowering of its demand for increased wages.
I reject that as a general proposition because it assumes that the level of wages of all workers is adequate at any given point, that it is just at any given point, and that workers obtaining $1.50 $1.75, or $2. an hour must be kept within the 6 per cent level which Dr. Young suggested. I reject that as further inhumane
March 25, 1971

exploitation of the lowest paid workers in this country. Let me remind the Minister of Finance that it is still a very small minority of working people who get the kind of wages which could be considered just, and that might be held in line. I agree that there are some in that category.
I am not saying that all organized labour is in all cases reasonable. There are sections of the organized labour movement that have squeezed wage increases out of the economy that one could legitimately criticize. But by and large, the organized and unorganized workers in this country are not receiving the kind of wages that any decent person would say ought to be kept at their present level, or increased only by a small amount.
For a long time we have said that you cannot do anything by voluntary restraint. The Minister of Finance continues to trot out the alleged agreement to hold the line by the business community of this province. Mr. Speaker, I said at the time and I say to the minister now, that I have never in my life seen a phonier document than that which John Young produced. It is a phony as all the other policies John Young and his commissioners have pursued.
I remember the great philanthropic chartered banks of this country agreeing not to increase their charges any more, nor interest rates any more, except within certain limits. Well, by gad by the time that agreement had been signed they had so squeezed bank charges and interest rates out of the Canadian people that there really was no more room for increases. The situation reminds me of the thief who has stolen everything in your house and then stands outside saying, "Don't worry; I am not going to steal anything more." That is about the level of the agreement that was made by the so-called business world on holding prices. That is also true of the retail trade and of the professional people, such as lawyers. They agreed that they would hold their fees at a certain level. They no more held them than did the organized workers of this country.
If there had been a case for holding the wage line, and if inflation had reached a point where that was absolutely essential, then my leader, other members of this party on numerous occasions and the Canadian Labour Congress itself on one or two occasions, have said that if there were an incomes policy which covered all income, wages, salaries, dividends, interest, rent and capital gains, then this should be considered by organized labour as well as by the rest of the community. The essential fact is there simply is no planning in respect of this government's economic policy. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I believe around Christmas last year, said we had licked inflation and would go on to lick unemployment. It would be a roundabout affair each year. That is, they would fight inflation one year and fight unemployment the next year. This year he says he is fighting unemployment. Just as sure as blazes, inflation will continue to increase.
Inflation has already gone up one half of one point or of 1 per cent-I do not recall which-in the first
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy months of this year. If it goes on at this rate, we will have an inflation rate of 4 per cent or 5 per cent in 1971. I suppose when we reach that point, the Prime Minister and the government will decide to slow down the economy because they have to fight inflation again. One of the unforgiveable effects of the kind of economic policy the government has followed has been the extent to which it has slowed down the economy thus increasing the number of unemployed to the official figure of 675,000. I venture to suggest that unofficially it is probably between three-quarters of a million and 800,000, because there are many tens of thousands who do not get into the statistics. The kind of misery that has been produced by this policy for two million or three million people has caused a problem so deep that it will not be solved in a year or in two years.
The economists of the Economic Council of Canada say that it will likely take until 1973 or 1974 before we are at a level of even four per cent of unemployment, let alone the three per cent temporary unemployment figure which is considered to be the maximum we should have in this country. The Minister of Finance says it is easy to condemn, and he asks us to tell him exactly what we would do. If one had more than 20 minutes one would, but I do not believe I have many minutes left. I am told I have almost 10 minutes.
Let me say we propose, first, that the government should have full employment as the objective for society in Canada. Under no conditions can Parliament tolerate a policy which deliberately creates unemployment, which deliberately throws men and women out of work and which deliberately throws their families into degradation, misery and loss of self-respect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: Secondly, we say that a regional development policy such as is being followed by this government should not be continued. This policy is being carried on without a plan and without an objective. It is a passive policy. What happens in respect of the incentives of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion? The bureaucracy sits in the office. It makes no plans. It does not attempt to relate industrial development in one province to another or in one plant to another. It sits in the office and waits for applications from someone for a capital grant or a grant related to the incentive program. It just sits there and waits for, in most cases, the large foreign controlled corporations, such poverty stricken corporations as Proctor-Gamble, or example, or destitute corporations like IBM, really poverty stricken multinational corporations. These corporations, of course, have no capital at all, and without the millions from the public treasury these poor people would fall flat on their faces. The bureaucrats in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion sit at their desks and wait for these poverty stricken philanthropic corporations to make a request for a grant.
There is no planning in respect of the kind of industry the Atlantic provinces should have. There is no relationship in the grants given to the actual local needs of the community or the indigenous possibilities. There is no

March 25, 1971
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy attempt to see, if a plant is set up in location "A", that harm is not being caused to a plant in location "B". There is no attempt to integrate a plan of economic development in disadvantaged areas. There is simply a pork barrel from which large sums of public money are paid out, 67 per cent of which is paid to large multinational corporations. The remaining 33 per cent is paid to other corporations which need it just as badly. If this money were used to fight inflation by compensating the poor who are hurt by it, a great deal more would be done for the economy of Canada than by these colossal, meaningless and harmful handouts to the corporations which pay funds into the Liberal party's election coffers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: Third, I say to the government that even though the housing program has been improved a great deal, the housing needs of this country are almost limitless. A large infusion of capital to build homes, particularly for the low-income groups, to construct public housing, to renew urban settlements and so on, would create jobs and wealth in this country which would really be worthwhile. We have not done nearly enough. We have not done 10 per cent of what needs to be done, even with the increased capital of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Fourth, I say we have in this country immense needs at this time in addition to housing. We have pollution problems which require a massive infusion of capital, particularly for the municipalities which do not have any funds and which have inadequate sewage treatment plants. Until such time as we do something in this area, much of our pollution difficulty will remain and the speeches by ministers of the crown and Members of Parliament generally will be merely expressions of a pious hope. That is another area where jobs could be created, and where the quality of life of the Canadian people could be immediately improved, if the federal government had any imagination or concern for the welfare of the ordinary people.
Finally, I say

and there are many other points I could cite-that our whole tie-up in the American economic straitjacket, our dependence on the multi-national corporations for research and development and the fact that our natural resources are owned mainly by these corporations, not only American but British and Japanese, has meant we have exported jobs. We have failed in respect of what we ought to do in society which is build viable communities in northern Ontario, northern Saskatchewan, northern Quebec, northern Manitoba and parts of the Atlantic provinces. We should be building viable communities around the natural resources by placing at these locations the refining, smelting and processing plants as well as manufacturing plants that would enable the development of those communities. These are some suggestions I make to the Minister of Finance and to the government, but I have no hope that they will be accepted.
I have no hope that the government will change its policy because, as I have said on many occasions and I
mean it profoundly, I do not think this country has ever had a more conservative government, tied to the principles of the corporate control of the economy, than the government headed by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I do not believe that this country has ever had a government more given to looking at curves, diagrams, tables, constructions and technocratic details to the detriment of the welfare of the Canadian people than this government. I am quite certain that the governor of the Bank of Canada, the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission and all the other out of date economic advisers, will have much more influence with the Minister of Finance than we in this corner of the House can have.
History will record the immense harm which has been done, not only to the economy generally but to the life of so many millions of people in this country. Tonight, we intend to show our displeasure, at least at the workings of John Young and his little band of economic gravediggers, by voting against the supplementary estimate for Dr. Young's little band. I hope that others who see the situation in Canada, and have the courage to declare themselves, will join us in denying this wasteful amount of money to a wasteful, unnecessary, useless and harmful so-called commission.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker,
more than ever it can truly be said that we live in a mad world and that we are being governed by the most remarkable of these madmen.
We have now been engaged for several weeks in debates on the economic situation in Canada, increasing unemployment, problems of product marketing and so on. Furthermore we see flagrant contradictions between the utterances of government members and those of official opposition members, we have heard proposals which have been tried, without result leading the opposition to put forward the motion now before the House.
Officially, there were 675,000 idle Canadians in February; 1,800,000 students will soon be looking for summer jobs. According to unofficial statistics on other unemployed; they number 200,000 or 250,000, which gives a total of nearly 2.5 million people who will be looking for work within a few weeks.
In view of this situation and for a year and a half we have often heard the government say: We have to fight inflation, therefore we will restrict credit. We shall ask the Canadian people to tighten their belts. The result has been a greater number of unemployed. A few months later, on December 24 last, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said and I quote:

We've Licked Inflation: PM
Prime Minister Trudeau said flatly Wednesday: "Inflation no longer exists in Canada".

He also said the economic recovery would take place in a few weeks.

March 25, 1971

Mr. Speaker, on March 24, that is three months later, the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) made the following statement before the Board of Trade:
Inflation is about to be brought down.
Three months ago, the Prime Minister said: "Inflation no longer exists in Canada." One of his colleagues said this last night in Montreal: We are about to control inflation.
The Governor of the Bank of Canada said, a few days ago: Inflation will be worse in a few months than last year. Besides, Mr. John Young declared: I am not responsible for the high unemployment rate in this country. But who is responsible? He condemns the government for the high unemployment rate in Canada. So, this government is responsible. I agree with him, but let the government take measures to fight unemployment efficiently.
A short while ago, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) said: It is easy to condemn, but quite another thing to suggest.
But we have just a suggestion from the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) concerning full employment. Where can we employ 675,000 unemployed and 1,800,000 students, this coming summer? Let them make shoes, clothing, food items.
A bill was introduced recently concerning the marketing of farm products under the pretext that farmers could be convinced that marketing provided by an agency of the government, or a governmental commission, would facilitate the disposal of their products.
We are in favour of marketing, but even if we overstocked stores with all sorts of products, if the Canadian consumers have not enough purchasing power to buy all that has been marketed, these products will not be sold and consumers will find no satisfaction. That is because we do not approach their problem from the right side. We try to solve what has already been solved. There is no production problem in Canada. That is obvious. The problem is simply one of consumption.
That is the whole problem. Instead of endeavouring to finance consumption, legislative proposals are made for the financing of production, and that is done at a time when consumption is inferior to production, because there is not enough purchasing power.
Mr. Speaker, we have for a long time been asking the government to pass legislation to compel the Bank of Canada, Mr. Rasminsky and his helpers, to be at the service of each of the provinces, so that they may form a strong family. That would ensure the disappearance of the conflicts between Ontario and Quebec with regard to chickens, between Manitoba and Quebec in connection with eggs, and between the West and the East with regard to the assistance given to agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, if the Bank of Canada were compelled to finance the provinces, municipalities and school boards through interest free loans, many problems would be solved. However, when the Ralliement creditiste advocates such interest free loans, it is ridiculed.
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has just returned from Africa. I heard him on television the other night, reply to a reporter that he had granted over there, on behalf of the Canadian government, interest free loans amounting to more than 20 million dollars for periods of 50 years plus 10 years of grace, 60 years all told, and that it would render service to India, the Congo and all European countries.
Mr. Speaker, the minister stated to the reporters: "You understand that the loans which we are granting enable them to buy Canadian products and create jobs for Canadians." What a sensible way for a minister to answer! I understand that the fact of buying in Canada will create jobs here, but we are not against helping those countries. However, with the same funds, would not our provinces use Canadian products and manpower? Would not our municipalities help create jobs, by implementing the projects they have in mind? But no! Their activity is paralyzed for the simple reason that there is no money. It goes as far as forcing a provincial premier, as the premier of Quebec did last week in New York, to beg the Americans to please come and invest their funds in Quebec!
But American money will not be brought into Canada. It is a matter of figures. We are not bright enough to make up our own figures, through the Bank of Canada, in order to finance Quebec, Alberta, Ontario and Manitoba. Why? Why are American figures so much more powerful than those of our Canadian leaders those based on the work of Canadians?
Then, there will be talk of trade. What are the Americans interested in? In knowing how Canadian money is made? Whose picture appears on one dollar, twenty-or one hundred-dollar bills? In some of the states in the Southern United States, Canadian money is not even accepted. They think it is Mexican money. They do not know what it is. Even cigarette vending machines would not accept the Canadian quarters of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). They throw them back at the face of people.
I submit, and we of the Ralliement creditiste have kept repeating it for a long time, that we should try the experiment. Instead of being dominated by Mr. Rasminsky, let us spell out to him the financial policy we want. There are a lot of things to be accomplished in Canada. We would experience a shortage of manpower if the provinces could administer themselves as they wish. We would not hear from one province to the other: we pay taxes in British Columbia in order to give equalization payments to the province of Quebec. The English population is roused against the French population, the western businessmen against their eastern counterparts. We would not hear western farmers say: if we do not get enough money for our wheat, it is because to much money goes to the east. In Eastern Canada, we hear exactly the same thing.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that with a policy of interest-free loans just like the ones which we are granting to African countries, to India, and to other countries, we are not being stingy. We have now loaned somewhere around
4608

March 25, 1971
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy $1 billion to India, and we are not charging any interest. I agree that we have to help these people. But why not start by helping our own cities and towns, provinces, school boards? They all have problems of their own which are just as serious as those that do exist in Europe, in Africa, in Latin America, or in any other country.
Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the government does not take our suggestions more seriously. They have tried everything to fight inflation. Did they succeed? No! In fact, prices have not come down in Canada. What about creating new jobs for manufacturing new shoes or clothes? There is already too much of all that. Trade agreements covering textile products are at this moment being negotiated with Communist China, for instance.
We go and get textile products there, while we cannot even use those which we produce. We meet with the same difficulties in every area. Why? Not because people have too many goods at home, but because they lack purchasing power. If these people had an opportunity to buy products, there would be no farm machinery surplus at Massey-Ferguson's, in Toronto, for instance, where they are laying off 2,700 workers who were employed by this company for 20 to 25 years, on the grounds that their inventories are too high and they have too many machines in stock.
It is true that Massey-Fergusson has too many farm machines in its yards or in its warehouses. But let us visit the farmers of Canada, to see whether they have too many machines. They cannot afford to buy any. So they just exist, they just live sparsely year in, year out, week after week, month after month, by resorting to small expedients.
Farmers do not have the machines they need and Massey-Fergusson has too many. Then the government suggests its solution: perhaps we could help you out in giving you so many dollars per job created to produce more machines, to increase inventories and to step up production. It has been announced that this year the Canadian national production will be $90 billion and that the national revenue will be $65 billion.
However, when will we be able to buy $90 billion with $65 billion? This is where the problem lies and the government does not want to solve it. They are trying to fool us with bills respecting marketing and industrial promotion. They overlook or forget to help the consumer who will make the industry viable through his purchases. When consumers buy products, it is clear that stores will look to industries for supplies, and this will create jobs. This will be a better deal for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion because products will sell.
Mr. Speaker, we suggest that the financing of the public sector of the national economy should be done through interest free loans from the Bank of Canada. Mr. Rasminsky should stop twiddling his thumbs and singing us the same songs: This is inflation, this is unemployment; this is inflation, this is unemployment, tighten your belt; things will be tough, tighten your belt!
While he is telling us: Tighten your belt the Minister of Finance tells us in a book entitled officially: "How
Your Tax Dollar is Spent"-yours and mine, Mr. Speaker-and I quote:
The federal government will give approximately nine cents of your dollar in cash payments to the provincial governments.
Canada's public debt amounted to $38 billion on October, 1970, and the Minister of Finance has forecast new government borrowings of $1.9 billion.
A total of $1.9 billion will be borrowed during the 1971-72 fiscal year.
I finish the quotation:
These borrowings will cover an anticipated $600 million deficit in the fiscal year, and a $1.3 billion net cash requirement for non-budgetary investments such as housing, transportation, and loans to developing countries.
Interest free loans, it says so in the book. I mean the $1.3 billion that do not appear in the budget but that will be spent in order to assist underdeveloped countries.
I read further:
Paying the interest and other charges on this debt is going to cost $1,995 million-
That means $2 billion paid in interest on the national debt.
The Minister of Finance adds:
This interest payment is almost wholly a return on investments in Canada by Canadians.
Where are the Canadians who will get a part of that interest payment? That is a question I ask at public meetings: Those who get interest from the government, please stand up. Out of 1,000 or 2,000 people, not even one stands up.
I could even ask that here in the House of Commons: Where are the members who get interest from government bonds? The minister will agree with me that not 10 per cent of them do. Where do those loans come from?


Mr. Marchand (Langelier);: From all those who have purchased Canada Savings Bonds.


David Réal Caouette: The minister mentioned the Canada bonds which have been deposited as collateral with a chartered bank which is cashing in the interests solely to the benefit of Canadian capitalists. The two million unemployed in Canada-10 per cent of the population-what do they get from these interests? It is everywhere the same thing. But once again the chartered banks are not involved. When we borrow from the United States, the interests are paid to American businessmen, a fact the minister knows as well as I do. Most of the interests are paid by the Canadian government and this has been lasting for a long time.
In any case my time has expired, Mr. Speaker, and I am more convinced that the Creditiste proposals should not be laughed at for they deserve serious consideration on the part of the ministers and if someone has some-
[Mr. Caouette.l
March 25, 1971

thing to say against them let him speak out, instead of speaking of "dollar machines". Let us speak of security and freedom for all Canadians who have guts and are responsible, who have muscles on their arms to develop their country and make Canada the best country in the world.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, here we are, on March 25, 1971, still talking about inflation, unemployment, taxation uncertainty and regional development. At least we are hearing ourselves talk and one year from now some of us will stick out our chests and say, "We told you so" when we refer to what we said. I wonder to what extent we can make recommendations? I wonder if it is all meaningful when we make our positions and recommendations known to the government, which seems to be on a supreme political ego trip and which is so "stoned" with political selfrighteousness that it will perhaps take another election to bring them back to some kind of reality. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is still convinced that flower power or flitting around the countryside and indulging in various other escapades can cure the economic ills of the country. We heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) this afternoon say that we have turned the corner, that all the economic indicators show we are in for a very good year in 1971; we are over the hump so "hold on boys, because help is on the way". He again accused all opposition members of exaggerating the extent of the recession in Canada and the seriousness of our economic problem.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


John Howard Lundrigan: Right now, I understand he is meeting with representatives of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, who are to recommend to the minister selective corporate and personal tax cuts, which we have recommended for several months. I just wonder if he is going to shrug his shoulders, chew his pipe and give the same kind of inconsiderate response to those people, to the economists and to the business community, as the Prime Minister and his merry men have given to the representations the opposition has made day after day in the House of Commons. If he is to react that way, I guess we are all out on a limb. An hon. member preceding me said that in Canada we are at present experiencing the lowest rate of capital expansion and the lowest rate of investment by individuals that we have seen in the past 20 years. We have another first, Mr. Speaker. We have the highest rate of business failures in the history of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


John Howard Lundrigan: Twenty two hundred businesses went under in Canada in 1970, compared with the 340 fewer businesses which failed in the previous year. That is the situation in the Canadian business community, and that shows how desperate it is. Businesses are failing that otherwise would have hung on; businesses are cutting back that otherwise would have held their own; busi-
24081-11|
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy nesses are holding their own that otherwise would have expanded, and many businesses that might have been, begun have not opened their doors because of the tremendous uncertainty existing in this country at this time.
One big company did not spend $160 million for expansion in Wabush, near Labrador City, Newfoundland, an area of Labrador that is one of the great mineral and resource areas of this country and one of the great hinterlands of potential development. We saw this $160 million chopped out of an expansionary program by the company concerned. It did not spend the money that would have created hundreds and hundreds of jobs. Unemployment in this country, I submit, is running even higher than Dominion Bureau of Statistics' figures indicate. To be quite honest, Mr. Speaker, I question those figures. I question the kinds of procedures being used to reflect the actual unemployment figure. Even with that diluted picture of the extent of unemployment, we see that the figure has climbed to 675,000. There are 92,000 people in ugrading courses. People who are experts in manpower development say that much of the money to these 92,000 people could just as well have gone into welfare programs, because the upgrading is just a makeshift affair.
As I say, 92,000 people are taking upgrading courses at the moment. God knows how many people are actually unemployed in this country. Some people mention the figure of three quarters of a million. Others say that the actual total number of people looking for work is close to the 1 million mark.


Mr. Paproski:: Shame.


John Howard Lundrigan: There has been some talk in the House about the consumer price index. In the months of January and February, the rate of inflation was .9 of 1 per cent. During the same period last year, the rate of inflation was 1.5 per cent. I will not argue that we should use some sort of average and say that we shall experience a 6 per cent rate of inflation during the coming year. I think the spokesman for the New Democratic Party indicated that he expects mass national unemployment to reach levels higher even than those experienced in the 1930's.
In this country there is a program of regional development. Despite the glorified promises of the Prime Minister during the past three years that major action will be taken to eliminate regional disparities, unemployment in one province in Atlantic Canada increased in February by 3 per cent over and above what it had been in January. The percentage of unemployment in Prince Edward Island climbed from 8 per cent to 11.2 per cent; in Nova Scotia as well, it increased substantially. In Newfoundland-well, I hardly dare even talk about it. There unemployment reached a level of 15.2 per cent; that is approximately the level it reached during the depression in the 1930's in Canada.
At the same time, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), who is presently in the House today, has been working on the problem of regional

March 25, 1971
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy disparities. He has bragged about the creation of 60,000 jobs. While he has been doing this, the unemployment rate in Atlantic Canada has climbed, and in Newfoundland it has reached 15.2 per cent. How can you brag about the creation of job opportunities to the people in my part of Canada, where there is so much disparity, so much unemployment and where the outlook for 1971 remains so bleak? I do not know whether the minister is making such statements to them; frankly, I do not think it makes much difference to the people in that part of Canada what the people in this House say. I do not suppose they care what the official opposition says, because they know that the Prime Minister of the country is going on his merry way, full speed ahead, or astern or sideways and to hell with the consequences. That is the attitude of the Prime Minister and his merry men who serve him.
Today the estimates committee passed, on division and with great resentment, the $2 million expenditure for the continuation of the Prices and Incomes Commission. I introduced the motion to reduce the figure to $1. We asked the commission to tell us what its terms of reference are for 1971. What is it to do? What are its goals for 1971, and what is it setting out to do? We cannot get a word on that. We do not know from the commission what it will be doing in 1971. There is absolutely no reason for the commission's existence. It is nothing more than a public relations effort by the Government of Canada. The commission claims it will undertake basic research. Now, Mr. Speaker, a man of the calibre and intelligence of Dr. John Young knows that no intelligent Canadian can accept that story. Surely, we are not to spend $2 million on undertaking basic research when the period for which the commission was set up runs out, I believe, in December. How can any intelligent individual accept the story that research in economics will be undertaken by the commission to assess the relationship between prices, costs and incomes and the Phillips curve, if that is what economists call it, or the interrelationships of all these factors over the past 50 years, when the period for which the commission has been set up is to expire in December, 1971.
Why does the government not listen to the Economic Council of Canada, which has undertaken 30 or 40 such studies I believe, studies which have been largely ignored. The commission seems to concentrate on one of the five major goals outlined by the Economic Council. I am not going to say that this government has introduced bad policies. I do not think we have had bad policies. I do not think we have had policies of any kind, good or bad. We have had government by experimentation in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: Last year the Prime Minister decided to impose some kind of restraint or stagnation to slow down growth factors, demand factors or whatever they call them. I am always confused when they get involved in economic theory because I am an ordinary citizen. I am always confused when I listen to John Young and the
Prime Minister, both of whom are competent at disguising arguments and presenting situations so that they sound logical.
Last year the government decided to experiment by killing inflation. This policy was not related to our export markets. Our basic aim should have been to keep inflation at least in line with that of the United States, our major export market. The inflation rate in the United States was 4.7 per cent last year, while in Canada it was 1.5 per cent. This was mainly because of the price cuts on food. No one knew what the goals of the government were. The government did not try to solve the problem of a trade balance, nor did they try to achieve the best possible balance between the level of unemployment and inflation. Since they did not know, they experimented. The government went ahead with an ad hoc program, and the result is that we have a tremendous economic mess.
The government is trying to pull a Dunkirk. They do not know whether they should back away or how much they should stimulate the economy. The result is that in 1971 the government is again gambling that things will work out all right. If things do work out all right, the government will be returned to power. If not, we hope the government will be out on its so and so in a hurry. I will not continue with this line of argument because I only have 20 minutes.


Mr. Perraull:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: The hon. member for B.S. is at it again. Air pollution in Canada will become greater when he speaks in a few minutes. I expect the minister responsible for the control of air pollution will have to rule him out of order.


Raymond J. Perrault: This is a profound contribution to the dialogue.


John Howard Lundrigan: At least it is dialogue, and not monologue.


Raymond J. Perrault: The big man-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Howard Lundrigan: I accept the statement that it is dialogue. I am honoured.


Raymond J. Perrault: Back room dialogue.


An hon. Member:: You are the expert.


John Howard Lundrigan: If Your Honour can bring the hon. member to order for just five minutes, I will get on with my suggestions. The minister has asked for suggestions. Although these are my own suggestions, they have the support of my party and other people in Canada.
The first priority is that the minister should clear up immediately the uncertainty with regard to taxation in this country. The business community is not aware of what the government intends to do about taxation. Instead of expanding, people are cutting back. I have talked to a lot of small businessmen, especially in the lumber business. They are not ordering lumber. They do

March 25, 1971

not want to expand because they do not know how much tax they will have to pay. It is simple economics, but the fact is that they are not sure. The whole matter of taxation must be cleared up by this government.
The Minister of Finance should seriously consider our suggestions and recommendations for selective tax cuts. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce will be making the same recommendations this afternoon. Other parties have made these recommendations. We are not suggesting that the government should do away with $1 billion or $2 billion in tax revenue tomorrow. However, they should seriously consider reducing taxes, at least on certain levels of income and in certain areas of the corporate community. Perhaps the tax could also be removed from building materials.
The government should set out its goals for 1971. What are the government's ambitions, aspirations and goals? What rate of unemployment will the government tolerate? What does the government consider as full employment? What is the government's ambition with regard to inflation and how much inflation is it prepared to tolerate? How much trade-off is it prepared to give? What are the government's major economic policies for 1971? When we ask the Prime Minister these questions, he throws them right back at us by asking for our suggestions. He refuses to state the circumstances we face and the goals of the government for 1971. Even though the president of the United States has much more power than the Prime Minister, he is not prepared to take that kind of gamble. He tells the nation what he expects and sets out the goals for the American people. What about our Prime Minister?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John Howard Lundrigan: I will be finished after one more sentence, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


John Howard Lundrigan: I suggest there should be a federal-provincial conference, and a review of the economic expansion policies which are causing serious difficulties in the country. They are not doing the job they have been designed to do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, for some months I have been observing with increasing concern the unfortunate consequences of the government's economic policies. I have now come to the conclusion that, notwithstanding the obvious difficulties of a government supporter speaking critically of its policies, I feel that I must.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Many of the people I represent have been adversely affected, some of them tragically so. In consequence, Mr. Speaker, I have no alternative but to speak on their behalf.
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy
Technically and financially, the government's policy has been a near total disaster. Morally, it has been a total disaster.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: More Canadians are unemployed now than at any time since the great depression of the 1930's.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As a percentage of the total labour force, our unemployment is the highest of any industrialized nation.


An hon. Member:: That is our forward government.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is clearly unacceptable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There is terrible degradation attached to involuntary unemployment.


An hon. Member:: Those are regrettable side effects.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Of all the problems that I have had to face as a Member of Parliament for over 20 years, this has been the worst. It has family consequences that are difficult to describe. In the last few months I have received letters from constituents who have lost their homes because, when their employment ended, they were not able to maintain their payments. I have received letters from others who have lost their total life savings. I hve received communications from others who have lost their appliances and some who have lost their dignity as human beings. They describe it as a hopeless situation.
In a sense, the present situation is worse than the great depression. At that time, almost everyone was in trouble. There was a kinship and a bond between people who were similarly affected, fellow sufferers. There was no sense of personal failure because the situation was almost universal. It was clearly beyond the ability of any individual's influence. However, today the strongest members of the strong labour unions are better off than they have ever been before. The strongest working members of the middle class are better off than ever before. It is no credit to many of the middle class that the present situation is accepted with such complacency. In my opinion, as a nation we should be ashamed.
But why should we subject ourselves to the situation? Is it all in the name of fighting inflation? If so, and if that is what we believe, we ought to examine the success achieved in that field. On the basis of 1961 equalling 100, the changes in consumer price indices have been recently as follows: 1967-68, 4.1 per cent; 1968-69, 4.6 per cent; 1969-70, 1.5 per cent. On the surface this appears to be a substantial reduction from the standpoint of fighting inflation alone a considerable success. Further analysis, however, indicates that much of the decline can be attributed to unusual reductions in food prices which are almost certainly temporary in nature. Food accounts for almost 27 per cent of the weighted price index. If food
March 25, 1971

Alleged Failure to Improve Economy
costs had risen in 1969-70 at the same rate as in 1968-69, the total increase in the consumer price index last year would have been 3.5 per cent. Or, if food prices in 1969-70 had risen at exactly the same rate as the average of the other components of the price index, the year to year increase would have been 3.1 per cent. If it is far to assume that the government's economic policy was irrelevant to the decision of the supermarkets to commence a price war which was involved, in the shortrun, selling food at less than cost, then the real reduction in the inflation rate resulting from the government's policy lies somewhere between 1 and 1J per cent.
Who has benefitted from the more modest rate of price increases? The people with money have benefitted, the people with money in the bank. The people who have purchasing power have benefitted from this reduction in the rate of inflation. The strongest trade unions have benefitted. The working middle class has benefitted and to a certain extent people living on fixed incomes have benefitted.
Who has suffered? The unemployed have suffered. They are out of luck altogether. Little advantage for them to benefit by a reduction in the rate of inflation to 1.5 per cent if their income is down by 30 per cent-in the case of some of my constituents who are unemployed their incomes are down by a good deal more than that. The young people of Canada have also been disadvantaged. There are not enough jobs to go round. The capital flow for new investment has not been sufficient to provide meaningful opportunities for the large numbers of young people now entering the labour market.
In considering the question of inadequate capital, we must take into account lost production due to the economy operating at less than capacity. Based on the Economic Council of Canada Report "Performance and Potential, mid-1950's to mid-1970's" the following figures are significant. Expressed as a percentage, the gap between actual and potential performance in 1969 in terms of 1967 dollars, was 1.8. In 1970, the gap actually doubled and in terms of 1967 dollars was 3.5 per cent. Still more significant, and of even greater concern, is the fourth quarter performance in 1970. In that quarter, in terms of 1970 dollars, the actual performance was 3.9 per cent below the potential of $90 billion. This means that if the fourth quarter gap were projected for a whole year the loss in terms of 1970 dollars would amount to $3i billion. Expressed one way, this means the loss of 50,000 new houses at a cost of $20,000 each. If the balance of that lost production had been used for capital goods 100,000 jobs could have been provided, based on an average capital requirement for new plant and facilities of $25,000 each.
Of course, the extra production could be used in other ways. It could be used for slum clearance or pollution control or rehabilitation of run-down areas, or urban transportation. It could be used to meet any one of the priorities which have been established governmentally and collectively in our country. It could have been used for anything. The tragedy is that the potential was all lost. It is like water flowing over a falls. It is gone, and it is gone forever.

In addition, as a result of our own failure to produce more and save more, we have become more rather than less dependent on foreign capital to regain our momentum. There is something humiliating about seeing premiers going hat in hand begging for foreign investment to get the economy moving again.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Get it going again we must, because the present situation is quite unsatisfactory both in the short and the long run. There is no reason why there should not be enough jobs to go around. The only reason in my opinion, and this applies equally in Canada and the United States, is poor economic management. The right to work is a fundamental right. We can and we must operate our society in such a way as to enable any able-bodied person who wants to do so to find meaningful employment. It is not just a question of the economic input. It is a question of human dignity, it is a question of the right of an individual human being to make a contribution, it is a question of the right of an individual human being to be needed. The right to work is a fundamental freedom.
Government policies designed to change the direction which began about a year ago have been slow and somewhat ineffective. Many government expenditures have the result of encouraging people not to work. You do not solve economic problems that way, neither do policies designed to subsidize industry which is otherwise uneconomic to locate in out-of-the-way places. It is a palliative, expensive and highly questionable to boot. But these things can be discussed at greater length on another occasion.
Today, in the time remaining, I should like to make some positive suggestions; I believe it is not fair just to criticize without offering alternative solutions, and I intend to be constructive. First, I tend to agree with those who suggest there should be immediate substantial tax cuts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I believe that these benefits should apply to people who need tax relief most. This would create an immediate demand in the marketplace; it would help get the wheels turning because it would put money into the hands of people who spend it and, in the process, soon produce jobs.
Second, I would suggest a further reduction in interest rates. This would encourage expansion and help make funds available to Canadian industry to build new facilities. It would provide capital for investment in industry. Third, and this is related to the previous suggestion, I believe we should ensure that virtually unlimited funds are available for the rehabilitation of housing which is in disrepair and for the construction of new housing. I believe there should be no limit in this direction until the industry is operating at capacity. This would have a powerful multiplier effect. If properly done and not exaggerated, this would help bring down prices since the increased supply would tend to put a downward pressure on prices of existing housing as well as rents.
March 25, 1971

p.ra.)
These suggestions, taken as a package, would accelerate the economic growth of this country and would help provide jobs soon for those desperately in need. I fully realize the Conservative economic school will say: "All right, so you put people back to work; you will have rampant inflation again". That is quite right, Mr. Speaker; in the absence of other policies that is exactly what will happen. Of course, it would not be all that different from what is going to happen anyway, even with the slow rate of economic recovery. The seeds of new inflation have already been sown by the wage and salary settlements of 1970 which, in the more powerful industries with 500 employees or more, averaged 8.8 per cent. This means that with the return to a full employment policy in Canada the inflation rate would go back to a level not too different from what it was in the first place. Indeed, if all the people in Canada received wage and salary settlements comparable to those who have already managed to demand and obtain for themselves 8.8 per cent, we would have a higher rate of inflation than we have had at any time in the past 20 years since the Korean war. There is only one way that this can be avoided and that is immediate mandatory price and wage guidelines. There is no other way I know of to pursue the dual policies of full employment and stable prices.
I must explain here what I mean by mandatory wage and price guidelines. I do not mean the government setting individual wage and price levels, because I know from my own experience that they are not competent to do that. I mean that they would limit capital return on industry investment to that which has taken place over the long term, and this must be sufficient to ensure the attraction of the new capital which is required for further investment. Wage increases would be limited to the average increase in physical output per person in the labour force, and this too could be averaged over a period.
Like Galbraith, I believe that this policy is necessary only in that part of our economy that is semi-rigid; that is to say, the huge oligarchies and their powerful unions. The small businessman and the marketplace would then follow suit. It was too much to expect a voluntary wage and price agreement, one that would work. Labour had no confidence in the ability of business to hold down prices in the long run; business was skeptical about labour's co-operation and neither had confidence in government being prudent in holding its expenditures in line. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I believe that mandatory guidelines are a must. They must be reasonable, they must be comprehensible, and they must be consistently applied.
However, confidence in government must be restored, both in the free system that has been the basis of our strength and in Canada at large. Therefore, I urge the government to abandon its archconservative approach to economics, and I urge it to adopt 20th century solutions to 20th century problems. I urge it to give ordinary citizens a break, those little people for whom the Liberal
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy party should be fighting. Because that is the traditional liberalism. I can assure the government that if it does that, and takes the action required to meet the needs both of my constituents and millions of others like them across the country, it will receive the direct gratitude of the hundreds of thousands affected as well as the respect of all of us.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a strong and courageous speech from the one man in the Liberal cabinet who had enough courage to quit when his views were contrary to those of the majority and to the direction the cabinet was taking. Having listened to the speech of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), I reflect upon the reason given at the time he left the cabinet over a dispute as to the manner in which the government was pursuing its housing policy in this country. If one pays careful attention to what he said, the differences ran far deeper, and I will have something to say about those differences in a moment.
I have said that it was a courageous speech. He is the one member in that mess over there, and in the rump on this side, who has had the courage and the guts to say the things his constituents want him to say. In my view, having regard to the direction that the Liberal party and this Liberal government are taking today in leading this country into a socialistic morass, this is the one man who can lead the Liberal party back to Liberalism.
The hon. member calls for a restoration of confidence in the free system. So do we. He calls for this government to redirect itself to the protection of the little people who once used to be the main concern not only of the Liberal party but of all political parties in Canada. It is these people for whom the Liberal party, the Liberal government, should indeed be fighting.
Instead of that we find ourselves being led down the socialistic path to state control and absolute power over the rights of the individual and freedom of enterprise in this country. He is the first Liberal on that side of the House that I have heard stand in his place and say it like it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Gilbert:: About time, too.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, it is about time. This government has been in office now under its present leader for almost three years and great changes have taken place, changes that are almost subliminal and have not been emphasized by the media of this country or brought to the attention of the people of Canada in the manner in which, in my view, they should have been brought to their attention. I shall be taking an inventory of those changes in terms of what they have cost the Canadian people, not only in dollars but in the loss of their freedoms, freedoms that are being siphoned off slowly but surely.
Let me deal for a moment with the growth of the Prime Minister's office itself. All of these things that contribute to the cost of government contribute just as

March 25, 1971
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy directly to the inflationary situation in which we are in today. The Prime Minister has 29 cabinet ministers. He has a huge Privy Council office, plus a personal office, with program planners, regional desks, legislative assistants, public relations and tour co-ordinators, and a plethora of other specialists. Extensive planning of cabinet agendas and preparation papers are now mandatory. There is a great sea of cabinet committees, parliamentary committees, Senate committees, caucus committees, interdepartmental committees, intradepartmental committees, federal-provincial task forces, commissions, boards and a blizzard of study groups, as a former executive assistant to the hon. member who has just finished his speech put it in a recent speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto. Yet despite all of this octopus-like growth in the Prime Minister's office, despite the great gobs of public funds being used to support this growth, the quality and the quantity of the legislation and policy proposals have declined.
Let us look at some of the opinion that has been expressed with respect to this growth. On April 9, 1970 it was disclosed in a newspaper article that when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was Prime Minister he had an office staff of about 15, and by Mr. Pearson's time that staff had increased, but not alarmingly so. But in 1970, under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), his office staff had grown to 75. The salaries involved are even more impressive. Marc Lalonde, the Prime Minister's principal secretary, accepts a mere $35,000 a year. Ivan Head, legislative assistant, is in the $25,000 to $30,000 bracket. Mr. Romeo LeBlanc, head of the Prime Minister's press corps, is in the $20,000 to $25,000 bracket. Three members of the press corps are paid between $15,000 and $17,000; a fourth is in the $12,000 to $15,000 range.
Then there is special assistant James Davey-$20,000 to $25,000- and four other assistants who are paid between $15,000-$17,000. Naturally, there is an administrative secretary-Mary E. MacDonald, $17,500 to $20,000. There is even a "desk officer", whatever that is, at a salary said to be between $17,500 and $20,000.
The article went on to say that the numerical strength of the Prime Minister's office has been the subject of not inconsiderable comment by a number of hon. members, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).
As for the ordinary citizen, he will be perhaps forgiven if he sometimes wonders why it is necessary to have such plain people as Members of Parliament or Cabinet Ministers to assist the prime minister in running the country when he has in his own office, such a formidable legion of highly paid mercenaries.
A few short months later, in September of that year, another newspaper article pointed out that the cost of 117 special advisers employed by the Cabinet amounts to $1,451,849. What is happening to Parliament while we see this kind of growth proliferate, not just in the Prime Minister's office but in the offices of all the ministers? the usefulness of this institution is reduced.
This institution has always been responsible for the safeguarding of our freedoms and liberties. It is in Parliament that the free exchange of ideas and the clash of opposing views in unfettered debate have assured the
right of the citizen to be heard. But in a short span of two and a half, almost three years the government has transformed Parliament into an ineffective flaccid forum where government decisions are announced with supreme arrogance and finality, all because of the shift of power at the expense of the taxpayer, by the offices of the Prime Minister and of his cabinet colleagues.
As the hon. member for Trinity pointed out, if one listened between the lines to his speech, when Parliament ceases to be the effective guardian of our freedoms and liberties then those freedoms and liberties die. Mr. Speaker, the process of erosion is well under way. If you have some doubt about it let us have a look at what I call an inventory of the socialistic policies brought in by the government within the last two and a half years. I will not say anything at the moment about the attempts by the government to emasculate the Auditor General, because while I am sure it did not see the errors of its ways, the public outcry was such as to place it with no other alternative but to desist. But one must ask oneself the question why?
Let me deal for a moment with the Department of the Secretary of State. The minister is one of what has often been called the Holy Three. His departmental estimates this year have been increased by $88 million. Here is a gentleman who does not work under the aegis of any department when he is performing the functions of being the guardian of our languages and our culture, and some $80 million of the increase in the estimates of his department are expendable by him in the role of being the guardian of our languages and of our culture.
Let us have a look at this agency the government calls Information Canada. Here is a minister who is not accountable to anyone else but the Prime Minister, and who takes his instructions and formulates his policies at the direction of the Prime Minister. He is responsible for an increasing amount of expenditure and an increasing number of civil servants. Information Canada was set up as an agency of the government, supposedly to inform Canadians about the activities of their government. How can we expect this so-called information agency to say anything critical about the activities of the government that set it up? How can we expect it to say anything critical about the economic situation in which we find ourselves today? If Information Canada had been performing the function it was supposed to, it would have been saying exactly what the hon. member for Trinity has just said.
Who was appointed head of Information Canada? Reading back through the debates to April 19 of last year, we find that the Prime Minister, at the time of tabling the report of the Royal Commission on Security, gave an undertaking to the House to have that report debated and to have a day set aside for that purpose. Despite repeated requests by opposition members, he has not yet set aside a day for debate on that report, which is now almost a year old. That report contains some very interesting recommendations. When one reads the reports of the questioning in this House with respect to the head of Information Canada, Mr. Gagnon, and when one reads the reports of the committee which examined the minis-

March 25, 1971

ter and Mr. Gagnon, surely there must be some questions asked. I have been asking those questions. I have been asking why the gentleman who heads one of the most sensitive agencies in the government, at a salary of $40,000 a year, should be a gentleman with a very interesting background closely associated with communist activities.
I hear dissent from the other side, expressed somewhat unusually, but if the hon. member who is listening has examined the information that I have examined, and will make available to him in my office if he cares to come up, he will find that this gentleman has appeared on the same platform as Fred Rose, who was very famous during the days of the Gouzenko inquiry, and was a famous contributor to La Victoire, the communist organ in Quebec.
And he will find that his wife was a representative to Hungary at a meeting of the International Journalists, which is a recognized international communist organization. I ask him to compare those and other facts, which I can disclose to him and to all hon. members, with the recommendations contained in the report of the Royal Commission on Security. He would find that under no circumstances would this man be given a clearance to hold any office in the Government of Canada. That is the position that should be adopted by the government today. Here is a man with this background who has been injected into the government service in one of the most sensitive areas into which he could possibly be injected.
When we on this side of the House ask the Prime Minister whether he has given this gentleman a security clearance, the Prime Minister dodges and weaves and never gives a direct answer. He would like members to believe it is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which gives such a security clearance. This is not the case. The RCMP only prepares reports on which the decisions of the government are made, and in this case only one man had the responsibility for giving a security clearance to the head of Information Canada and that was the Prime Minister. He has yet to say he has given it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. I wish to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address myself to what I consider to be a shamefully misleading part of the motion presented to the House this afternoon. I refer to the misleading portion which states that regional disparities have been accentuated and that there has been a failure in regional development. I should like to make some comments in this area. I think that sits very badly in the resolution before us. When the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was created about two years ago, it was recognized in the department, in this Parliament and, I believe, by the people of Canada that it was undertaking a very difficult task indeed and that nowhere in Canada would the task be more difficult than in the Atlantic region.
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy
Disparities have existed in the Atlantic region for decades and in spite of previous programs such as fiscal transfers, tax incentives and various industrial grants under previous programs those disparities between the Atlantic region and the remainder of Canada have persisted. I think most of us are aware of the dimensions of these disparities. In the area of unemployment, the figure for the Maritimes is approximately three-quarters higher than the national average, 75 per cent higher or thereabouts, and per capita incomes persist at something like 30 per cent below the national average. These disparities have existed for perhaps a century. Just six months ago the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council published a 10 year review of the Atlantic economy. This appeared in a booklet called the Atlantic Economy. This review states that among the basic reasons for these persisting disparities is the seasonality of that economy-too much seasonal activity-and that this in turn is related to a far too great dependence on primary and resource activity and construction.
The review pointed to the need to facilitate basic structural changes in the Atlantic economy. Many members who have spoken today have totally ignored that point. They have spoken of more and more of the same in an orthodox approach while what is required is not more of the same but structural change which would bring a broadened base with more viable manufacturing industry and modern technology to that region so that it would have a more dynamic economic mix.
I should like to refer members of the House, who would care to read it, to this report of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. What has the department been doing with respect to that need to alter the basic structure of the Atlantic economy? I will come to that in a few moments, but first I wish to say a few words and quote a few statistics to prove that those who made these accusations concerning regional disparities did not do their homework. The fact is that the Atlantic region, if we choose it as an example, has been sheltered somewhat, through the operation of this department and its regional development programs from the impact of national unemployment and from the impact of national policies which are necessary for the good of the economy at this time.
Let us take the two months of January and February, since many members have quoted actual unemployment figures in their provinces in these months, and let us forget about seasonal adjustments. In those two months of 1971 the average unemployment in Canada has been 8.1 per cent. In the Atlantic region it has been 10.6 per cent. Everyone admits this is a serious disparity, but the mandate of this department is to try to reduce these disparities and, therefore, we should ask ourselves, instead of making irresponsible charges, whether these persisting disparities have been reduced through the program. Although this program is still only in its early stages, I think I can point to figures which suggest that these disparities have in fact been diminished. If we wish to make a comparison with a previous period of similar high national unemployment we might go back to January and February 1963, some seven years ago, when the
4616

March 25, 1971
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy national figure in respect of average unemployment was 8.4 per cent while, in the Atlantic region in those two months, it ws 15.1 per cent compared to 10.6 per cent today. Thus, in the early months of 1963 unemployment in the Atlantic region exceeded the figure for Canada as a whole by some 80 per cent.
This compares with a disparity today of about 31 per cent. I have not used the worst years for the comparison from the point of view of Atlantic unemployment. To do this I would have to go back to 1957 when the national figure was 9.4 per cent and the Atlantic provinces figure was 16.7 per cent. So, in spite of the seriously high unemployment in Canada today, I think I can say the figures for the Atlantic region are about as good as they have ever been in respect of the question of disparities. They are high. No one accepts them as adequate. However, we have high hopes of reducing that disparity further. If one looks at the DBS figures one will see that the unemployment on the average in those two months- and we are using them as an example-this year has been held to the figure it has been for the previous two years. It has not flared out with the mounting unemployment in Canada. As I say, I do not want to exaggerate the achievement, but I believe some of the improved experience should be attributed to this department. Thus, in a resolution of the kind before us I think the opposition does no good to tell the people of Canada that this program is accentuating disparities and is failing in the task of bringing regional development to Canada's slow-growth regions.
Let me refer now to some of the ways in which this department is going about the task of trying to reduce disparities. One of the two principal methods-and I want to say that there are far more than two principal methods being employed-is the Regional Development Incentives Act. Under this act and program the department responds to applicants who have feasible projects in designated regions across Canada. What have been some of the results in the less than two years that the Regional Development Incentives Act has been in use? Something in the order of 450 offers have been made and accepted by companies in slow growth regions. The total capital investment associated with these offers is in the order of $580 million, and this significant investment is in regions which otherwise would not have had this investment without this program. The expected job creation is in the order of 21,000 persons directly employed in these assisted industries when in fact they come into full production. This is only the beginning of the program period. The incentive offers that have been made are in the order of $126 million.
Where has that effort been lodged? Roughly one quarter of the total activity has taken place in the Atlantic region. I think that is a significant fact. Approximately one quarter of the total new capital investment is in the Atlantic region, about 21 per cent of the new employment is expected to be there, and about 29 per cent of the incentives have been offered in that region and accepted. In the Atlantic region, where those persisting

disparities have existed for so long, the weight of aid on a per capita basis is at least two times heavier-the extent of per capita aid is at least twice as great as it is in any other region in Canada. In several regions it is many times greater than that. So there is a specific, massive and directed effort to help reduce those disparities, and when we look at the unemployment statistics, I think they demonstrate that some success is already coming in response to this program.
When the program began, all of us recognized that it would take at least a decade to reverse trends that have been entrenched for a century. I come back to my point that to state in a resolution challenging the government's economic policies that disparities have been accentuated is at great variance with the facts. In the province of Quebec where unemployment is high and where disparities have persisted, approximately 40 per cent of the activity of the industrial incentives program has taken place. On a per capita basis this is well below the activity generated in the Atlantic region. In the three Prairie provinces, about 25 per cent of the activity under these incentive grants has taken place; 25 per cent of the offers, 24.8 per cent of the total capital investment, about 20 per cent of the new employment, and 21 per cent of the incentive grants. The remaining 10 per cent has gone to Ontario and British Columbia. I suggest that the program, although only in its beginning stages, is making solid progress.
The spokesman for the New Democratic Party said that this is unplanned, that grants go to big companies and to those who do not need them. That also is misleading. The grants go to companies that apply. Hundreds of those companies have been small companies, and the grant is given to them all not because they are big or small but rather to induce them to settle in the slow growth regions. This conforms to the mandate of the department, to induce and help them to overcome regional disadvantages. The grant is calculated as finely as we can, using the best judgment we can. This grant is no greater nor any less than would be necessary to overcome the disadvantage of settling in Halifax as compared with, say, Toronto or any other location.
I think the results here show that there has been a very excellent response. There is much more to come. In connection with size, let me point out the following: Is it a failure of regional development to have assisted at Vauxhall, Alberta a granulated potato plant, thus increasing jobs by 75, in the very province of the hon. member who moved the resolution? Is it a failure of regional development to have encouraged the Boeing Company of Canada to create 130 jobs in Winnipeg, or for a photo chemical products plant to establish in Stein-bach, Manitoba, thus creating 100 jobs? Those are technically based industries that might not have gone there otherwise. Is it a failure of the program that in Granby, B.C., there is a small company manufacturing wigs with 12 jobs; or an electrolytic zinc plant in Ontario with 360 jobs, or a clay brick plant in Villeneuve, Quebec, with 65 jobs, a sheet glass plant in Becancour with 260 jobs, a clothing factory in Saskatchewan with 40 jobs, a fish
March 25, 1971

processing plant in Valleyfield with 26 jobs, lumbering in New Brunswick with 50 jobs? Many of these are small companies spread across the slow growth regions. In P.E.I. we have a herring reduction plant where 19 new jobs were created.
I do not want to go on in that vein because I want to go on to another aspect of the program where the whole concept centres on planning. This program, known as the Special Area program, is where the two governments, the provincial and the federal, look at the slow growth region, try to identify what would be called growth points within the region where, in addition to industrial incentives, there are also aids for growth point communities to expand their community facilities and to do all this within, say, a five year plan of development. That is what we are doing as another major thrust in this department. This refutes the suggestion of the spokesman for the NDP that this is an unplanned process. It is based on longer term planning in the special areas. In these special areas the federal government is able to do more than make industrial incentive grants; it is able also to fund basic community infrastructures. The total plan now is just under $300 million in those special growth areas with high promise of development of regional impact. This is a second massive program and it, too, is only in its initial stages. Of that amount of $300 million 61 per cent goes to the Atlantic provinces. This also will reduce disparities. The new jobs which I mentioned as being treated under the industrial grants program do not take account of the new jobs created in building community utilities, roads, schools and new housing in these special growth-point areas that are expected to have a regional impact in fostering self-generating future development.


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


Mr. O'Connell:: I have not touched upon ARDA or many other programs of economic expansion and social adjustment that I could have mentioned had there been time.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I feel that nothing could illustrate the timeliness of the motion before us today better than the intervention of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) this afternoon. I feel that the hon. member should be congratulated for the courage of his stand and for the attempt he made to persuade his colleagues to mend their ways and to adopt a different set of economic policies for Canada. I think he demonstrated the same sort of courage which he had when he initially took the step of leaving the cabinet.
While I might have some reservations or further questions on some of the points that were suggested by the hon. member for Trinity, I think that his basic thesis was very clear. He suggested that the basic course of economic policy in Canada is wreaking untold hardship and suffering on many thousands of people in Canada, and that the government desperately needs to adopt a new set of policies. Certainly, when he talks about reducing inter-
Alleged, Failure to Improve Economy est rates, about price and wage guidelines, his suggestions fall within the scope of what we have suggested for some time, namely, a comprehensive income policy which relates to all forms of income.
From time to time we have also proposed measures to bring about tax cuts and to increase housing programs. I suggest that the hon. member made a very useful contribution this afternoon. It will be interesting to hear what his colleagues on the government benches have to say as a result of his intervention. The hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) spoke in this debate and related his remarks to the department with which he is most concerned, but he carefully avoided any reference to the contribution made by the hon. member for Trinity. It will be interesting to hear what other government members have to say before this debate is concluded.


An hon. Member:: Don't hold your breath.


John Stratford Burton: The motion takes aim at a broad range of government economic policies. It refers to the failure of government policies with with respect to inflation. The fact is that inflationary trends are still with us, as was correctly noted by the hon. member for Trinity. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been trumpeting loudly that the inflation problem is solved. If that is so, I see very little purpose in retaining the services of Dr. John Young, chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission. What is the purpose of having the Prices and Incomes Commission and Dr. Young's circus effort, if the problem of inflation has been solved? This is why some of my colleagues in this party have taken objection to the supplementary estimates which will be voted on later tonight, including the vote concerning the Prices and Incomes Commission. We feel that the sooner Dr. Young's services are dispensed with, the better for Canada.
We also should note that we can no longer depend on a market approach to the economy in order to solve economic problems. Some interesting remarks were made by Professor Rotstein of the University of Toronto regarding developments in the Canadian economy. He noted the influence of United States multinational corporations, the particular problems with respect to the application of United States law concerning trading with the enemy, in United States terms, and the question of that country's anti-trust laws. These have a definite impact on Canadian economic activity.
Professor Rotstein also noted that we no longer have a market situation in our economy. The growth of the multinational corporation means that many economic transactions are not of the arm's length type in which a true market price is set; rather, they are simply transfers of products or wealth within an existing corporate structure. No real transfer takes place in terms of an arm's length economic transaction. We are dealing with a completely new type of economic situation and will have to find new solutions and policies to come to terms with its problems and developments.
The motion refers to the unemployment problem, which is a very real one for the 675,000 and more people
24081-12*

March 25, 1971
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy out of work. Government policies which are responsible for and have contributed to the situation are morally wrong and have demonstrated callousness and insensitivity on the part of the government which have never before been witnessed. The government must take responsibility for this situation.
Reference was also made to the question of regional disparity. I do not quarrel with the assertion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. O'Connell), that the motion submitted by the official opposition can be questioned on the grounds of their use of the phrase "have accentuated regional disparity", but to use that argument to say that the government's policy has been a success is totally wrong in my view. The parliamentary secretary correctly noted that solutions to the problems of regional disparity involve long-run policies and will not be found overnight. I agree with this assertion. The basic approach must be long-term. This reinforces the argument which was presented by members of my party when legislation of that department was before the House prior to the Christmas recess. At that time we suggested that the program of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion should not be used as a vehicle or tool for dealing with short-run economic problems. I maintain that we were correct in our assertion at that time, and I think this has been borne out by the statements of the parliamentary secretary this afternoon.
We must look at our regional development programs, because it is difficult to determine whether we are getting value for our money. The government has spent a great deal on these programs and has made many announcements regarding grants and jobs created-but in reality surely jobs will only be created if projects are proceeded with and concluded. How many jobs have been created as a result of programs for regional development? Before Christmas only a small number had been created as a result of the incentive programs of the department.
In referring to the comments of the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), the parliamentary secretary suggested the hon. member said that essentially regional economic expansion programs were unplanned because big companies are receiving grants. I suggest he was confused, because essentially the hon. member for York South made two points: first, that the regional incentives program was unplanned because the government has not established a basic framework within which to provide grants; second, that the government sits back waiting for industry to come up with ideas, proposals and plans and then passes judgment on them. This is what we were referring to regarding the unplanned aspect of the program.
The minister cannot deny that a number of grants have been made to large companies such as Falconbridge Nickel and Procter and Gamble. These companies certainly do not need this money in order to carry on their projects. The government presented its regional development program as the keystone of its programs during the present term of office. Most of them involve a massive
giveaway and have also involved their faulty use of short-run economic objectives. This is in sharp contrast with the loans fund announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) last December which we felt was a step in the right direction and should have been preceed-ed with because it has some merit. The Minister of Finance made a contribution to dealing with short-run economic problems when he presented that proposal.
I suggest that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) has abdicated leadership in his department. Basically, he has adopted the attitude "I'm all right, Jack" whenever problems are put to him. The deputy minister, who is an able enough person in his own right and a well known Liberal, is really the boss of the department. I suggest that the minister is not really in charge of the department. I fail to see how there can be any other explanation for the minister's inability adequately to describe certain matters and answer in a rational way questions which have been raised from time to time with respect to the department's programs. Increasingly, cogent criticisms of the department's program have been made by many people. I refer to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Harries) who is quoted in the Edmonton Journal of February 19, 1971, as saying:
The federal government should stop Immediately its industrial incentive grant program except in very special areas-
Further, the article reports him as saying:
The current incentive program is turning out to be the same as the last federal incentive program which, when completed, was 'roundly criticized.'
He pointed out that incentive grants represented a windfall profit to the shareholders of Imperial Oil, to cite one case, and that was the only substantial result of some of the grants which has been made. Other criticisms were levelled recently by the chairman of the Science Council of Canada. As recently as Saturday, March 20, the Ottawa Citizen carried this report on the matter. Dr. Solandt said:
-the record of regional industrial development in Canada was one of disaster after disaster.
He went on to say:
We shouldn't kid ourselves that these regional industrial developments are being done for any other reason than to create jobs; they're not economically sound ... they're welfare projects for industry-
Certainly we want jobs to be created. The chairman of the Science Council has pointed out some of the problems connected with the government's programs. When I asked the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion yesterday afternoon whether he had taken into account these submissions and whether studies or consultations were going on, all I could obtain from the minister was a smart aleck answer which completely avoided the subject.
I also refer to the comments of the governor of the Bank of Canada who in his annual report again emphasized that regional development programs cannot and should not be used to deal with short-run economic prob-

March 25, 1971

lems. But what has been the minister's response? When I first raised the question yesterday he said that I might be opposing a pulp mill in Regina. I suggest that the minister must know very well that Regina is on the wide, open plains and is certainly not in the woods, as the minister is.


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be rather parochial and local in my remarks this afternoon. I make no excuse for this because I feel that the province which I have the honour to represent in this House is in a very serious situation financially. I only regret that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) is not in his seat to hear the particulars of the serious situation in which we find ourselves. The wording of the motion partly influenced me to speak in this debate. The motion in part reads:
That this House condemns the government's economic policies which have .. . accentuated regional disparity and have failed to promote regional development.
If there is one province in Canada to which those words apply particularly, that province is Prince Edward Island. A couple of weeks ago our provincial treasurer brought down his budget for the 1971-72 fiscal year. He budgeted for an over-all deficit of $2,868,825. I know that in many provinces of Canada that would not sound like a lot of money, but in a province the size of mine, which suffers from grave economic disabilities, it is a large amount of money. Our direct debt at present is $108,306,000, which represents a debt of $1,000 for every man, woman and child living in my province. Just to give Your Honour an idea of how seriously the financial situation has deteriorated, may I point out that in 1961-just nine years ago-our debt was $32,200,000, or approximately $300 per capita. During the intervening nine-year period our direct debt has increased by $76 million.
In addition to having to shoulder that direct debt, the government of my province finds itself in the unfortunate position of having to shoulder indirect liabilities in the amount of $15,439,000. So our direct debt plus our indirect debt amounts to $124 million. The interest alone on this debt is $10 million per year. Our population is approximately 110,000 and our income per capita is one of the lowest of any province of Canada. The average per capita income in my province last year was $1,818.


An hon. Member:: This government doesn't care.


Melvin James McQuaid: Our per capita income, as I say, was $1,818, compared with the Canadian average of $2,913.


Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Shame.


Melvin James McQuaid: We had, as of February, 1971, 8,959 people receiving social assistance. In my province there are 8,959 people who must try to live on the small amount the government is able to provide for them. I presume that the government is doing the best it can with the money it has. Those people are trying to exist on the small amount that the government sees fit to provide. Yet this province in which almost 9,000 people are drawing social assistance must pay an interest charge
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy
of $10 million on its debt before it can undertake any other programs.


William David Knowles: Shame.


Melvin James McQuaid: I say that this situation just cannot continue. I say this, too: the people of Prince Edward Island do not want to be on welfare. We want to support ourselves, but we cannot support ourselves unless the federal government does something to help us improve our economy. We would have had a chance-I say this without fear of contradiction-because if the Conservative government had remained in power, Prince Edward Island today would be connected to the mainland by a causeway.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Melvin James McQuaid: The Liberal government scuttled that plan. That was our only hope of salvation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Melvin James McQuaid: If the Conservative government had remained in power, we would have the causeway today, we would be self-supporting and no member representing a constituency in my province would have to stand up in the House and ask for the assistance of the federal government. We would not want that assistance if we could get along without it. We want the government to help us improve our economy.
Two or three years ago-I am, again, sorry that the minister is not present to hear me-the government introduced its famous economic development plan. I call it an infamous economic development plan because so far it has done absolutely nothing to improve the economy of my province. All that has been done under the plan so far is to bring highly paid officials from other parts of Canada to try and tell us how to run our province. It is estimated that over the next 15 years it will cost $728 million. There must be no mistake about this-the $728 million will not be provided by the federal government. The contribution by the federal government will be only $225 million; the province will be expected to put up the remaining $503 million. The plan was supposed to do wonderful things. I quote from the preliminary agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Prince Edward Island:
Whereas the territory of the province, hereinafter referred to as "the area" has experienced widespread low income-
Nothing could be more true than that.
And whereas Canada and the provinces have jointly agreed that it is desirable that the area have a comprehensive and co-ordinated development plan designed to promote its economic development, to increase income and employment opportunities and to raise standards of living-
These are worth-while objectives. What has the government done so far to carry out these objectives? It has done nothing expect to bring in highly paid officials from other parts of Canada and put them on the payroll. They

March 25, 1971
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy are accomplishing very, very little. I quote from the joint statement issued by the Premier and the minister when the plan was announced:
The development plan for Prince Edward Island will concentrate on the realization of the full potential of the province's basic industries in linking the provincial economy closer to the national economy.
How close have they come to accomplishing that objective? Prince Edward Island is primarily a farming area; farming is the basis of our economy. At the present time-there are 400,000 acres of crops in Prince Edward Island, 152,000 acres in improved pastures. There are 9,585 occupied farms and 53,000 acres of cultivated land with potato crops. The farmers of Prince Edward Island are receiving 65 cents a bag for their potatoes, if they can sell them. However, they just are not able to sell them. The government has brought experts from as far west as Alberta to show us how to grow potatoes. We do not need these experts. We need experts who will show us where we can sell our potatoes. If the government did this, it would be doing something worth while.
There are 53,000 acres of idle land which could be devoted to potato crops. This represents 17 per cent of the Canadian total. Both governments, federal and provincial, are doing absolutely nothing to provide markets for our farmers. The record shows the serious financial position that the farmers of Prince Edward Island are in today. The latest figures released by the Farm Credit Corporation show that 251 farmers in Prince Edward Island are in arrears with regard to principal and interest, totalling $174,500. All the farmers do not have loans with the Farm Credit Corporation. Our farmers do not want to owe money to the Farm Credit Corporation. They would like to be out of debt, but they will not be able to do so if potatoes remain at 65 cents a bag. Even at that, they cannot sell them. The packaging and processing plants are being closed. Just the other day, Sea-brook, a very famous company, went into backruptcy. Why? Because they just could not finance their operation. They could not sell their product. As a result, the farmers are not receiving the price they should.
The farm population of Prince Edward Island has dropped by almost 50 per cent in the last 30 years. I wish to illustrate how serious this situation is for the benefit of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). In February, 1971, 3,107 carloads of potatoes for domestic consumption were shipped from Prince Edward Island. This is more than 1,000 carloads less than were shipped at the same time last year. What is the reason for this? No attempt is being made by the minister or the government to find markets for Prince Edward Island potatoes, although they realize this is our basic industry. The minister realizes that the greatest majority of our farmers depend on this product for a living.
I say without fear of successful contradiction that the minister and the government are doing very little to improve the economy of the farmers of Prince Edward Island. The farmers do not want welfare or financial assistance. All they want is an opportunity to earn a living. They do not want to be dependent on the Farm Credit Corporation, the federal government and the
banks. They want to be absolutely independent. They should be given an opportunity to earn an income. If markets can be found for the products of these farmers, they will show that our province does not depend on any government. We are self-sufficient and happy to depend on ourselves.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening. At noon I strolled outside. The sky was blue, the sun was warm and the air was crisp and clear. For all these things let us be thankful, O Lord.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party today made a very interesting speech, one which I think has something new in it. I am afraid that is more than I can say for the offering his leader made in a similar debate on Friday afternoon when it seemed to me that he, like the rest of us, was somewhat tired of shuffling the paragraphs of his old speeches. However, just about a year ago in the House, on February 12, 1970, as appears in Hansard at page 3520 the deputy leader of the NDP had this to say:
The only way to deal with the situation in an economy such as ours is to impose a comprehensive prices and incomes policy, with teeth, if necessary, selective price controls and selective controls on all the other sources of income in this country- profits, interest, dividends, wages, salaries and the rest.
In his speech today, while showing no less vigour and enthusiasm in favour of price controls the same hon. member displayed a somewhat circumspect attitude toward wage controls. One might almost be constrained to believe that the nearness of the leadership race in his party, the dependency of the successful candidate on the support of organized labour and the attitude of organized labour generally toward wage control, might have had some influence on his thinking. But being a more noble and generous individual-


An hon. Member:: And modest!


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: -I might be persuaded to believe that the change in his attitude has come about as the result of an honest appraisal of the improvement in the country's economy because of the government's policies.
We have heard various suggestions from both sides of the House. We have heard it suggested that there is, or should be, a right to work in Canada. We have heard talk of full employment. It is hard to say this without sounding callous, but such phrases are really nothing but rhetoric. What is this full employment? What is the figure which hon. members who propose full employment have in mind? Obviously, it is not 100 per cent. There are facts: there is a climate in Canada which affects oppor-

March 25, 1971

tunities to work. Fortunately, with improvement in technology these opportunities have now been increased; nevertheless, the climate is a very real factor in Canada.
What is this figure of full employment that we are to strive for at the cost of all other considerations? We gather from the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party that his view is that the regional economic expansion programs are ineffective and that the government should aim for full employment at any price of inflation; that the moneys presently being spent in the less advantaged regions of Canada should be used to supplement welfare payments for the people in those regions where the benefits of an all-out inflationary policy of full employment would not directly flow; that we put these people on welfare and forget them. I find that very hard to accept.
It has also been suggested that immediate tax cuts be made. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has indicated that this year the government will be in the market to borrow $2.2 billion. How much more would hon. members opposite have the government borrow? How much more inflationary pressure would they have the government put on the economy? Let us have some real, solid suggestions. If hon. members subscribe to a 6 per cent reduction in income taxes, as some hon. members opposite have suggested, this will add another 50 per cent to government borrowings and will run the government close to $3.5 billion for the year, which should have a fairly significant impact on the money market in Canada and on the ability of corporations to obtain financing. It certainly should have a fairly significant impact on interest rates.
The government stands by the economic measures it has taken in its December budget which have been aimed at alleviating in a selective manner the economic problems of Canada in areas where those problems are most serious. I am not going to catalogue all the things this government has done since its initial decision last March to implement expansionary measures in our economy, but they have been significant. Among these measures are the Lift program for the Prairie farmers, additional loans through CMHC for low-cost housing, extra-mortgage funds for the Farm Credit Corporation, extra loans for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the accelerated transfer of tax revenue to the provincial governments, the summer employment program for students both last year and this year, extra money to finance housing units in August last year to the tune of another quarter of a billion dollars-money directed into the housing market about which some people have expressed concern today-new capital and operations program, plus increased manpower training allocations last October. Then in the December budget the government introduced many selective measures aimed at alleviating economic problems in areas where those problems were greatest.
Hon. members have suggested today that the government should immediately seek a further significant reduction in interest rates. Interest rates today are the
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy lowest they have been for a long time. For example, today's rate for 91-day treasury bills is 3.02 per cent, and for 182-day treasury bills, 3.08 per cent. Long-term borrowing today is at an average of 6.7 per cent, which is down from 8 per cent last fall. These are very significant reductions and are indeed the lowest rates Canada has experienced for a long time.
It has also been suggested there should be a massive injection of funds into housing, both new housing and for rehabilitation. Speaking in this Chamber on February 10, the Minister Without Portfolio responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (Mr. Andras) indicated a number of facts concerning the government's housing program for this year. It is evident that some members need to be reminded of those facts. The government has, of course, been pursuing a policy that has set a target of at least one million new homes for the five-year period 1970-74 inclusive. This year's total budget to be spent through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is $942 million, compared with the 1970 budget of $854 million. We are anticipating approximately 220,000 housing starts this year. By comparison, in 1970 there were 190,000 unit starts, which was the third best year in Canada's history-and this despite the economic conditions that prevailed.
In direct terms of employment, it is anticipated that this year's housing program will mean a minimum increase of 60,000 man-years of employment geared directly to housing construction. Of course, there are also many indirect benefits as well as many jobs created indirectly. With respect specifically to the question of rehabilitation, the Minister without Portfolio indicated in his speech that section 40 loans through CMHC would amount to $172 million. That money, of course, is available not only for rehabilitation but for the purchase of old housing stock.
It has been suggested that immediate mandatory price and wage guidelines be implemented. Two suggestions were made in this regard. The first was that a limit on profits be instituted related to long-term experience. It is a well known fact that business profits at the present time are well down over the long-range average. This is a regrettable situation for the Canadian business community, but it is true. The suggestion that a limitation on profits related to long-term experience be implemented by way of curbing profits is, of course, manifestly an absurdity. Any such limitation imposed today would mean a guideline for profits considerably above those that are currently being earned. This is no control in the sense that was proposed.
It has also been suggested that wage increases should be limited to increases in productivity. This, of course, is an axiomatic suggestion when put in over-all economic terms, because any aggregate of wage increases that exceeds the total increase in productivity in a given economy is obviously inflationary. That is what inflation is all about. However, to suggest that such policy could be made to work on a selective basis is totally to ignore the fact that in the service industries increases in productivity are terribly hard to ascertain, and in any case

March 25, 1971
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy are not at all commensurate with the increase in activity or in the increase in value to the economy.
Such a policy would result in a continuation of what has happened today in regard to wage increases in the manufacturing industries. Labour has been able to demonstrate that productivity in the manufacturing industries has increased substantially, due largely to technology, and they should be rewarded to a greater degree than people engaged in other sectors of the economy. Such a policy would perpetuate the distortion that exists between workers engaged in the manufacturing industries and those engaged in other activities.
In speaking in a very similar debate last Friday I enumerated the positive factors in the Canadian economy as well as the negative factors we are confronting today. I still feel that while the legitimate function of hon. members opposite is to talk about the economy and to denigrate the efforts of the government in managing the economy, the fact is that the "doers" in the economy- the government and the business community-in the decisions they take every day are expressing their confidence both in the long and short-range prospects of the economy. It will not be long before hon. members opposite will have to find some other topic to discuss on opposition days.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard some great, flowing words from the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney). He said that the government has to go out and borrow in the neighbourhood of $2.2 billion this year. He then listed the reasons why it had to do this. I suggest that if the Liberal government had been more concerned over the past few years about the viability of our economy, rather than going all-out to introduce social measures which the country could not afford, we would be in better financial condition today. The hon. member said that the government had to find $100 million for the Lift program, millions of dollars for the summer employment program for students and for the manpower retraining program. None of that money would have been needed had the government tended to its business and created a sound economic situation. Now it finds itself in the position where it has to borrow money.
This afternoon we heard the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) recommend to his government the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and the 3 per cent personal and corporate surtax. He said that money should be put into circulation so that Canadian citizens could control and spend it. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be better to have that money in the hands of Canadian citizens than in the hands of this government. If I had sufficient time I could list many ways in which this government has not spent money wisely. I need only mention a few to make my point. I need go no further than mention the purchase and refit of the Bonaventure, costing some $31 million, and then the ship was sold for scrap for less than $1 million. It was sold for less money than the government spent to

paint it. That is one reason why the government has to borrow money.
In 1965 the Post Office Department issued a Christmas postage stamp with the year "1965" printed on it. It overestimated the quantity needed and as a result $16,000 worth of Christmas stamps were left over and had to be scrapped. People just don't want to buy 1965 Christmas stamps for 1966 Christmas cards. That was $16,000 down the drain. In 1970, even after being reprimanded by the Public Accounts Committee, the Post Office last year issued a Christmas stamp with "1970" printed on it. I understand a lot of those stamps are left over. I do not know how many, but today I received a letter bearing a Christmas stamp and the sender wrote "Happy Easter" on it and drew an arrow pointing to the Christmas stamp. Possibly there will be another $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 down the drain there. It is no wonder the government has to borrow money when things like this happen.
If the Canadian taxpayer does not spend money wisely, he ends up having to borrow money. But that can go on only for a little while until the source is shut off. The government thinks it can go on like this forever. To scrutinize government expenditures we have the Auditor General, whose staff has been frozen at a limit of 246 persons. His staff should be increased. Here is an interesting comparison: in Canada, which has a population of 22 million, the Auditor General has a staff of 246 persons; in Australia, which has a population of 11 million, the auditor general has a staff of 520 persons.
The hon. member for Trinity made a great plea for the poor voter, the person most affected by inflation. He had great sympathy for the less fortunate. It used to be Liberal Party philosophy to think about these people. However, that hon. member seems to be the only one in the Liberal Party who thinks that way today. It makes one wonder just what is taking place. That hon. member resigned from the cabinet and remained silent for a long time. Today he made a very stirring speech. I do not know whether he is preaching for a call, or what is in the background, but it is quite evident there is something developing.
The hon. member for Calgary South said it was all right for us to condemn the government, but asked what we would do. I remind him that when the Conservatives came into office in 1957-58 we were confronted with millions of bushels of unsold wheat and with unemployment that was running at almost ten per cent of the labour force. The first thing we did was to go out and sell the wheat. Then we pumped millions of dollars into house construction, creating many jobs in that industry and in allied industries. We also introduced the winter works program to provide employment. The present government has cut out the winter works program. That program was very successful in keeping people employed during the winter when normally unemployment is at its peak.
We instituted an enlarged technical vocational school program, up to the point where at one stage we were opening one school a day for a year or more. That was a very successful program in helping educate our young people in various trades. We certainly did not impose an
March 25, 1971

11 per cent sales tax on building materials. That is an iniquitous tax. It is adding to the cost of much needed housing; it is depressing the construction industry. Canadians have to pay 11 per cent more for such goods than their neighbours to the south.
There is not a businessman, small or large, who is not sitting pat, afraid to move into any venture aimed at increasing or stimulating his business, because today he does not know what the proposals in the white paper on taxation will do to him if they are implemented. That white paper has been hanging over Canadian business like a very heavy, low-lying cumulus cloud. On top of that, the government increased taxes. It introduced the 3 per cent surtax. That tax was supposed to remain in force only for a year. It has been put into force for three years. Four-wheeled brakes have been applied to the economy of the country. If the government had realized the impact that the white paper on taxation would have on the economy it would not have bothered to apply the other brakes because the white paper alone was sufficient to slow down the economy and to curtail inflation.
The Prices and Incomes Commission was set up by this government to do what it could about curtailing inflation. The commission has been guilty of overkill on the job. In respect of consumer prices we find that the percentage increase in Canada was 1.7, in Japan it was 8.6 and in Germany it was 4.1. Both Japan and Germany have full employment. Both these countries import labour. They call the people they bring in "guest workers". They find this necessary because there are not sufficient workers in these countries. So I would say that we have been guilty of overkill in our attempt to hold down inflation. In so doing we have created a great deal of unemployment. Dr. Young, who appeared before the committee just this week when the estimates were before it, said:
-they are unable to keep productive activity and employment going strong without encountering price inflation that gets out of hand.
It would appear we would have been better off had we let inflation go up a little more, like they did in Japan and Germany-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Alfred Dryden Hales: -but have greater employment. That is what we need. When people are employed they receive wages which are taxable and those taxes go into government coffers. In any event, the Prices and Incomes Commission has been told to disband at the end of December this year. When the members of this commission appeared before the committee with their estimates in the amount of $1,976,000-practically $2 million-with which to carry on from now till the end of January, I didn't think these were a realistic set of estimates and a motion was moved in committee by a Newfoundland member, the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan), to the effect that the vote be reduced to $1. The vote was a tie and it was necessary for the chairman, a Liberal member, to cast the deciding vote. He
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy voted that the estimates pass, to cover the period until the end of the year, at which time the commission will pack it up and call it quits.
Now I should like to say a few words about agriculture and the situation in Ontario. We hear a great deal about agriculture in the other parts of this great dominion. In the province of Ontario-and much of this is applicable to all of Canada-hogs today, for instance, are $2 per cwt. lower than they were 10 years ago; yet the farmer has had to buy machinery, fertilizer and all the other equipment he requires in order to farm, at much higher prices than ever before. What has this government done about the price of farm machinery? It spent $1,053,000 on the Barber commission on farm machinery, but never followed up the report of that committee. It has been pigeonholed. Incidentally, the cost of that commission is practically the same as the cost of the pilotage commission and the commission on the status of women. These are three examples of commissions the cost of which has been in the million dollar plus bracket, and at least in respect of the commission on farm machinery no action has been taken.
I could go down the list in respect of farm products. We find that eggs are selling at three dozen for $1. Lamb is 10 cents a pound lower this year than last year. Tobacco, a very important industry in Ontario, is at is its lowest price in 10 years. Turkeys are about as cheap as they have ever been. Broiler chickens are away down. The farming situation today is a very sorry one and requires more attention than it is being given by this government. When we talk about farm machinery, we find that in the Brantford riding the Massey-Ferguson plant is laying off thousands of people. With the free trade in respect of agricultural implements between Canada and the United States, it would appear that this industry may move to the United States. There is a great danger that this may happen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member to advise him that his time has expired.


An hon. Member:: Continue.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take advantage of the rules by exceeding the 15 minutes allotted to each member and therefore I shall try to wind up my remarks very quickly. With these tremendous lay-offs in Brantford, or in any other city in Ontario, the welfare costs become so high that the municipalities are unable to absorb them. They do not receive any additional or direct help from Ottawa. Representatives from Toronto were in Ottawa recently asking for help in respect of these very heavy welfare costs. They were sent home empty-handed. This is a very serious problem.

March 25, 1971
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy
I do not wish to dwell at length on the regional development situation, but would simply say that in Ontario we send approximately $1 billion to the provinces east of us and yet because we are not a designated area we are caught in two ways. We put up the money but do not receive any assistance under the regional development plan for new industries, with the exception of areas such as north and west of North Bay, a little area around Cornwall and the Renfrew area where there is a very alarming situation.
The federal government has invested $1.1 billion for projects in depressed areas over the past two years, but has succeeded in creating less than 37,000 new jobs. Quebec alone requires 100,000 new jobs. On this basis, the cost to provide each job is about $30,000. We talk about Canadian capital versus United States capital, but the need for capital is both great and growing. I do not know how it can be argued that a Canadian worker in a job provided by an outside investor would somehow be better off if he remained unemployed until such time as domestic capital filled the investment gap. So far as I am concerned, the creation of jobs for Canadians should have the greatest priority. Let us try to do it with Canadian money, but if we find we do not have sufficient Canad!an money we must do it with money from other countries which see fit to invest in Canada. If we had that investment we would not need to spend as much money under the regional development plan which up to now has not shown signs of being successful.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, a motion put forward by the Conservative Progressive party is now before the House, reading as follows:
That this House condemns the government's economic policies which have failed to curb inflation, have brought severe unemployment to at least 675.000 Canadians, have accentuated regional disparity and have failed to promote regional development.
Mr. Speaker, I for one fully endorse this motion of censure, for specific reasons which I would like to review quickly in order not to take up too much of the House's time.
Mr. Speaker, for 1971-72, the Canadian government's budget totals more than $14 billion 352 million; that is the amount of its tax revenues. That is the budget the government now has to manage. How will this budget be used? Of course, priorities must be established.
On the threshold of the seventies, the federal authorities are facing new challenges. First of all, according to a consensus, it is hoped, with reason, that a better quality of life can be given to every Canadian.
Also, it is hoped that security of family income will be assured, especially for those on a fixed income, in other words those who are directly dependent on the country's economic situation.
Finally, and here again there appears to be a consensus, it is hoped that every Canadian may have the opportunity to participate in the Canadian economy, including
those whose resources are limited, because they are mentally, physically or financially handicapped. Some Canadians, too many unfortunately, cannot participate in the economic activity of the country because of the following handicap. There will be 300,000 more young Canadians in their twenties in 1972.
That is thus to say that in 1972, 300,000 more young Canadians will be seeking employment in Canada. One can therefore see the problem which will confront us. If a monetary and fiscal policy consistent with modern times is not adopted, not only will it be impossible to find employment for those presently unemployed, either young or old, but it will be impossible to create jobs at a rate which will coincide with that of the increase in unemployment, thus resulting in the handicap which will face many Canadians, who will find themselves unable to contribute to the economic life of the country.
In view of that situation, the Liberal government resorted in its preceding budgets to two kinds of policy: First, the fight against inflation, because in its opinion, that was the crucial problem in Canada. It was necessary, he said, to prevent inflation from running away. So the government based its various measures on that priority forgetting all those others which I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks. Those measures, such as the restriction of credit and the increase in interest rates, have reduced the economic development in Canada so that Canadians are less in a position to play a role in our economy. We are suddenly experiencing an unemployment crisis which the government finds hard to bear because it is responsible for it. Unemployment has not appeared all at once, quite the contrary, it was anticipated.
The fiscal and monetary policies of the government have led to the state of affairs for which it is blamed today. This could have been foreseen since the government had given the priority to credit restrictions, higher interest rates, maintenance of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. The inevitable result is economic stagnation which leads to less individual participation or progress; we now wake up-and this is truer than ever- in an inordinately rich country, where destitution prevails.
Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada can influence the economic activity of the country through fiscal and monetary policies. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that his main weapon against inflation was credit restrictions.
We, of the Ralliement creditiste, claim that such a policy of credit restrictions does not check inflation but increases the economic unbalance.
Mr. Speaker, in view of those facts, the government must find more money. That is its problem today. If an hon. member or one of the people in the galleries went to the minister and asked him to approve any economic development project, he would be told: "Too bad, my friend, the government has no money." The answer is always the same. We have no money.
According to the government, taxes are in practice the only sources of financing. This year, more than $14

March 25, 1971

billion will be collected from taxpayers. That is a lot of money! The purchasing power of each taxpayer will be reduced by that much; so each Canadian will be deprived of that much that could be used to dispose of our production in Canada.
Another way for the government to apply its monetary or tax policy so as to finance itself is by borrowing, not on the Canadian market or from the Bank of Canada, but from other countries.
Mr. Speaker, in the booklet entitled How your tax dollar is spent put out recently by the Treasury Board it is stated, and I quote:
Canada's public debt amounted to $38 billion in October, 1970,-
Here is what is said about the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) on page 23, and I quote:
-and the Minister of Finance has forecast new government borrowings of $1.9 billion in 1971-72-
Let us not forget either what is written further on, same page:
Paying the interest and other charges on this debt is going to cost $1,995 million in 1971-72, or 14 cents of your dollar.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the government claims that its only sources of financing are taxes, which reduce the buying power of Canadians, the system of everlasting debt by resorting to foreign capital. It means that, in both cases, the indebtedness of Canadians is increased and that, consequently, taxpayers lose the buying power which would allow them to purchase consumer goods.
We of the Ralliement creditiste, say to the government that the first thing it must do to finance itself is to resort to the Bank of Canada and order it to put the necessary money in circulation, by issuing new lines of credit according to the balance between aggregate production and aggregate consumption in Canada. Let this balance be transformed into credit to the consumer under the form of national dividends and compensated discounts which would allow the taxpayer to buy the accumulated production.
Mr. Speaker, the other serious mistake of this government-and this is why I support the censure motion under study-is that in its economic policies it is seeking to increase production but fails to introduce bills likely to improve the lot of consumers.
Mr. Speaker, any and every Canadian is at the same time a producer-mass-manufactured machine producer, service producer, entertainment producer-and a consumer. But he is a producer owing to equipment or to his own labour, whether he holds a degree or not. He is a producer and must be paid accordingly. We agree on that.
But this same citizen is also a consumer. In order to ensure continued economic growth and a progressive economic policy, the government must therefore take into account these two features of the Canadian citizen.
To put it another way, Mr. Speaker, the government must-and this is extremely urgent-propose fiscal and
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy monetary measures to increase the purchasing power of the Canadian taxpayers.
A tax policy to increase purchasing power, such as a reduction of certain taxes, the withdrawal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, would result in an immediate increase in the rate of development of the construction sector in Canada. This would be a practical policy to speed up economic development. But the government keeps saying, tighten your belts.
Mr. Speaker, some day this government, which has sold out to the high finance community, will have to say to chartered banks and financiers what it tells Canadians, and particularly unskilled labourers.
The right hon. Prime Minister (M. Trudeau) said recently, as reported by the newspaper Montreal-Matin in February:
Trudeau blames the labour sector for refusing to tighten its belt.
Not only must workers tighten their belts but they also lack the essentials of life. Meanwhile, the government allows the chartered banks to increase their profits by over 28 per cent in a single year.
Mr. Speaker, this is truly illogical and shows that the government cares only to serve high finance, since its members are slaves to it, instead of trying to serve the people of Canada. If, the government was really willing to serve the interests of the people of Canada, it would right now adopt a fiscal policy aimed at reducing taxes, a monetary policy likely to increase the purchasing power of each Canadian citizen, and thus create a balance between the production forces and the consumption forces.
Mr. Speaker, the government said that inflation had to be fought. Its irresponsibility shows through the fact that on December 24, the Prime Minister said, all of a sudden, after two years of running to catch up with inflation: We are through with inflation; at last, we have licked it.
Mr. Speaker, I am now quoting an article from the Ottawa Citizen:
We have licked inflation-Prime Minister Trudeau.
Mr. Speaker, according to the Prime Minister, this was the result of his policy. Now, yesterday, the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) said before the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, as reported in the newspaper La Presse of March 24:
Inflation will soon be overcome.
Mr. Speaker, one would like to know which of the two is telling the truth. Has inflation stopped galloping, or is it still running? We must know in order to be able to check it. The government should make up its mind.
Mr. Speaker, this is not all. The Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission, Mr. John Young, had this to say: It is not my fault if unemployment has increased, I am not the one responsible for it. Nobody ever said he was, but it was said that absolutely nothing had changed in the economic system.
As we say, white papers and studies will not help solve that problem. Indeed, we saw the result of the B and B

March 25, 1971
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy Commission. Fifteen million dollars were spent and 556 persons were employed full time. Yet, that inquiry was given recently a first class funeral. Absolutely nothing has changed, in spite of the study that was made. It did not give one more cent to the taxpayers, but it has changed the policy.
Mr. Speaker, such a state of things is ridiculous and revolting. As a young man, I want to tell the government about my concern as to that multitude of young people who are told to get on education and then find themselves with all kinds of diplomas but unable to participate in the economic activity of this country.
Mr. Speaker, while they were studying they were told that they could, at the end of their studies, live in a happy and safe society. These young people are prepared to fight and to work for their country. They are quite ready to do their share. The only thing they are offered is a social security card, an unemployment insurance card. They are told: "Wait for your turn at the Canada Manpower centres."
The parents of those young people are told: "Wait for your turn at the Canada Manpower centre, you will be given retraining courses." Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that everybody sees, as I do, how we are mired in this illogical system, and how silly it all is.
It is high time that we put some order into this system. We do not say that those people are poor administrators but we say it is time for the government to adopt the same policy of credit or power restriction with regard to high finance and chartered banks.
We say that the government should order the Bank of Canada to be at the service of all Canadians. The Bank of Canada belongs to all Canadians. Why should it not become the prime tool of the Canadian government to finance the public sector, namely the provinces and the municipalities, instead of borrowing from a foreign country to finance our own country?


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilion-Weniworth):: Mr. Speaker, this evening we have heard some interesting speeches from the other side of the House. We heard the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) reiterate the "stand pat" argument that by being too tough in our efforts to conquer inflation we deliberately created unemployment.


Mr. McGrath:: You sure did.


Colin David Gibson: It occurs to me on the basis of what I have seen, heard and read in this House that if we had not taken such steps to tackle inflation we would have run our whole price and wage structure up like a balloon and created massive unemployment from coast to coast. This is not rebutted by anyone on the other side, yet they tritely condemn us for tackling the problem. Not one of the speakers opposite explained how we were going to keep people employed by allowing prices to skyrocket to the moon and thus price ourselves out of the market.


Alfred Dryden Hales: How about Japan and Germany?


Colin David Gibson: Those countries have not the same environment of employment as we have. They have not the same structure. They have a different set-up, and Japan at least is smaller geographically. They have more modern techniques in different senses than we have. I submit that Japan would be happy to own our untouched resources. But we are going to grapple with these problems and create an economic climate which will be greater than any we have had in the past.
I do not say this with empty sophistry or undue optimism. If we had not planned our economy on a sound basis and kept prices under reasonable control, we would not have the enormous trade balance that we have today. The figures indicate that our economy is on a sound basis. The price of the dollar has gone up and our bank accounts are high.
The fact that bank interest rates are dropping is an optimistic sign that we are well on our way to pulling out of the winter of this bleak period in our economic history.
Admittedly, unemployment figures are high, but we are grappling with them. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mack-asey) will be bringing forward the most modern and up to date amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act that have ever been presented to any Parliament anywhere. The opposition has not criticized that. I hope it will support the bill when it comes forward. With the help of all parties, I trust that we will speed that legislation through. It will help our economy to progress. Men, instead of waiting in bread lines will be looking for new training opportunities as a result of the bill. Men who have been affected by automation, one of the difficulties of the modern day, will be given, as a result of the legislation, job retraining opportunities. Under our training schemes men will be able to take pride in learning another occupation instead of sitting at home idle and out of work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Colin David Gibson: In a sense, these men will be working because they will be retraining themselves. With our mobility programs there is no reason why, especially when we consider that young people like to move around the country, we cannot make this new manpower retraining scheme the most modern and up to date of its kind in the world. I believe we are on the right track. I admit that some of our problems in the welfare field must be tackled. We cannot just hand cash to people and put them in a better position if they stay home than they would be in if they took even a job paying low wages.
The measures taken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) in the welfare field, though glibly condemned by the press as useless efforts are beginning to show signs that encourage one to become optimistic. Officials involved in the field of welfare are pointing out certain inequities in the position of people on welfare. For instance, they have shown us that those who control welfare expenditures generally have not
March 25, 1971

taken into account the problems of those receiving it. They have pointed to methods of improving the entire system. In future I hope that when a man who has been on welfare is offered a job paying less than his welfare benefits, he will obtain a supplement to make up the difference if he can prove that he was getting more on welfare. By adopting such measures I think we will avoid the waste created in the field of welfare.
Unemployment and its evils will be cured by the economic policies of this government. Tonight I do not want to make a trite speech. I wish to make a constructive contribution and suggest how we can conquer inflation and unemployment. I submit that in certain areas the Prices and Incomes Commission did not go far enough last year. I submit that the steps taken were fine, considering that we were dealing with new techniques. I am proud of the results. In some respects the economy of this country has performed better than the economy of any country in the world.
I wonder whether we could not now devise a procedure whereby if Dr. Young and the commission made inquiries into an industry in which costs or prices were mounting, the commission could declare that in its opinion an economic emergency existed with respect to that industry. Step No. 2 would be that either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance might act. I am not sure just how the plan would work; I realize there are imperfections in it. However, I believe that a general plan of this type would be good and the commission ought to be empowered to make such a decision. I submit that it should be able to say that an economic emergency existed with respect to a certain industry. Once an economic emergency had been declared, I submit that the federal government should invoke its constitutional powers in order to deal with the emergency. First a declaration of emergency ought to be made. Once it had been made, that the Department of Finance should have the power to impose what might be known as an anti-inflation tax on the offending party. It could be applied with respect to wages or prices.
I do not think that the workings of such a plan have been spelled out in Canada. A similar plan worked well during the war when we imposed an excess profits tax. That was one of the best administered tax measures of the Second World War and it was effective. If such a measure was effective during the Second World War, why could we not impose a similar measure now? Part of our difficulty stems from the fact that we have been reluctant to act owing to uncertainties in respect of the Constitution. We ought to be unanimous on this point. I submit that the question whether the government of Canada has the power to do this should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, if there is any doubt about it at all.
I think we should do that now. Let us not wait another six months. Let us refer the question to the Supreme Court of Canada and learn whether the federal government under the peace, order and good government decisions which have been handed down by the Privy Council, has the constitutional authority to take these steps. If there is that authority, I submit that the federal government could control any economic sector that is in jeopar-
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy dy at any given time. This would not mean that we would be introducing powers to control prices and incomes. Surely the federal government could impose controls, say for one year or for a temporary period.
If such a measure were enacted, I submit that many such cases would never arise: It would not be worth while for unions or management to seek increases. Therefore, the use of the legislation would probably be minimal. There would be much criticism from the press and certain pressure groups if the government attempted to take this kind of step. Nevertheless, I think the majority of the Canadian people want this type of control. We need something on the shelf which can be used constructively and fairly to control inflation.
I do not think these are impractical suggestions. What I fear is that we will delay referring the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada. I hope soon we do so, and I urge the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to consider the matter. I urge the Minister of Labour, who is in the House tonight, to advocate this step being taken. Let us do it now. Every time we refer a matter to the Supreme Court of Canada the air is cleared in many constitutional areas. We have made good progress by taking this step in the past. Conversely, by being reluctant to refer certain matters to the Supreme Court of Canada, especially those involving constitutional problems, we have created defences against reform measures. I think we could avoid that by referring the question to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The steps which the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) announced will be taken this summer with regard to opportunities for youth are a small but important part of the reorganization of our economy. We have faced the fact that young people in Canada possess initiative. Their ideas are sound. If we give them the opportunity to demonstrate that they can do work that is useful and creative, I am sure we shall not be disappointed. I am sure that the youth retraining measures will be popular throughout the country. They will enable young people to help themselves. Many young people like the idea of travelling. I know that many people in the work force say, "I couldn't do that when I was young; I wish I could do it today." Young people will move around no matter what we say. Canadians apparently want to see their country, and I am very proud that they do. They are explorers, they have initiative and they Eire inquisitive. Surely if about 10 per cent of the money made available under the youth programs helped our young people to get around their own country and see it, they would learn more about the country and prospects for the future of this nation would be improved.


Max Saltsman: As always, Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the intervention of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney). I could not help noting his concluding remark and the inference that could be drawn from it. The hon. member seems to believe that the only reason we have unemployment in Canada is in order that the opposition will have

March 25, 1971
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy an issue to debate. He also seems to believe that the opposition in some way has created unemployment because we need something to debate. It displays a cynicism that is characteristic of members opposite who say that is why we are debating unemployment.


An hon. Member:: Come on!


Max Saltsman: The three quarters of a million people who are out of work were not put out of work because of the actions of the opposition. They were put out of work by the deliberate policy of this government. The hon. member feels there will not be any issues to handle once the Liberal Party solves the problem of unemployment. After all, the Lord giveth and the Lord can take away: the government created unemployment and they think they can solve the problem. The government is not going to do that. I do not see any evidence that they will. I suggest that if they do solve the problem, with their ability to do stupid things they will create enough issues so that the opposition will not have to worry about subjects to debate in this House.
I do not know what members opposite expect of members of the opposition. Do they want us to go around patting their little heads, telling them what good boys they are and that the unemployment they have created is a very satisfactory way of running this country? Do they want us to congratulate them on the human misery they have intentionally created in our society?


Mr. Hogarth:: If you say we are good, we must be bad.


Max Saltsman: Socialists do not believe in generic evil. We like to think that because of the environment and association which members opposite have and the way they are huddled together, by reinforcing each other they come to the same sad conclusions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Max Saltsman: If members opposite will contain themselves, perhaps we can help them. We believe they should improve their environment. If they are open-minded, they may be able to learn something. We even have hope for them.


An hon. Member:: They cannot learn anything.


Max Saltsman: Don't be too hard on them. They are not all bad-just most of them. Perhaps they want us to congratulate them on having created the slowest rate of growth of any industrial society in the world.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Max Saltsman: The hon. member says, "Oh, oh". It happens to be a fact. It is true. This country has the lowest per capita growth of any industrialized society in the world. When we look at the endowments of nature and the potential riches of our society, we wonder how even a Liberal government could have destroyed this country as effectively as they have. This country has some of the world's richest resources, finest farms and an educated population. The government has tried hard to
wreck the economy. The government should be given "A" for effort, because they have tried hard. Their efforts have met with considerable success: we have the highest level of unemployment in the western world.


Jean Marchand: You sound happy about it.


Max Saltsman: I am not happy about it, and I am not happy to see you sitting there. In the course of the debate, the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Per-rault) interjected "What about Sweden, when talking about inflation? After all, Sweden has the highest rate of inflation." The hon. member is correct but, like everything else he does, he only looks at the big print and not at the explanation below. The fact is that the rate of unemployment in that country has never exceeded 1 per cent. Sweden has a harsher climate than our own, and less resources. The rate of unemployment may be somewhat higher this year, but this has not been the case throughout history. They have not paid the price that we have had to pay for unemployment.


Colin David Gibson: You pay $5 for breakfast over there.


Max Saltsman: Members opposite seem to be very anxious to take part in the debate as long as they do not have to stand and be recognized. They slumped in their seats after the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) finished dragging them over the coals for their policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


M. Saltsman:: I will be very interested to hear their brilliant points and magnificent repartee when their turn comes to speak. I would like to hear them speak on their feet rather than from their seat. Perhaps they do not think as well on their feet; they need communication through their seat. I will try to understand the situation. Members opposite are always terribly pained when criticized. The lovely angels over there get a hurt expression on their faces and ask, "How can opposition members say such things about nice people like us?"
I suspect that members opposite think they should be congratulated for the loss of dignity the working men of this country are encountering and the frustration they feel when standing in line at Manpower offices which have no jobs available. As a result, they have to go on welfare. The municipalities are in a desperate situation, yet government members think they have done a good thing. They pride themselves on introducing a training program for students.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: Why are you congratulating yourselves? You put them out of work in the first place. You threw them out of work and you have no jobs for them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might give some thought to addressing the Chair.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The temptation is very great but I will try to resist it. I appreciate the direction from the Chair in this matter, although Your Honour must admit there was extreme provocation

March 25, 1971

from the other side. We are a very charitable group. We find it very difficult to understand why the government has created unemployment as a matter of policy. We think about this once in a while. We like to think they must have had some reason for making Canada the laughing stock of the world.
When you speak to a worker from Germany or any other country about the level of unemployment that exists in Canada, he finds it impossible to comprehend; he just does not understand it. When you tell him that the government which the people of this country elected did it deliberately because they thought it was a good thing, it becomes more impossible to comprehend. And not only workers in countries which do not have our level of unemployment find it difficult to understand. When I tell someone in my riding who is unemployed and suffering the effects of unemployment that the government of Canada did this, he does not believe me. Canadians are very prone to praise their governments. They have a great deal of faith in their governments and want to believe in them. They do not want to believe that the federal government would do such a terrible thing to them. In fact, their government has broken faith with them. The government which they thought they could trust, cannot be trusted. The evidence is before their eyes.
We must go further and ask why the government believes that unemployment has to be created and that inflation is such a terrible problem, particularly when every country in the world is undergoing inflation. All the evidence has been placed before this government by committees of the House of Commons and independent economists. Virtually all the people who have examined this problem have told the government that there is a limit to what can be done about inflation.
It is almost impossible for a country to have a better record of inflation that its trading partners. It is obviously not impossible to have a better record if you are prepared to pay the price, and the price is horrendous in its effect upon individuals and their lives. This government has been ready to pay that price. It has ignored all the advice which has been given to it. It has ignored the conclusions of committees of the House of Commons which have examined the subject of inflation, and it has pursued its own ideology.


An hon. Member:: Idiocy.


Max Saltsman: Perhaps that is a good term for it. There is a myth in this country which the government has accepted because it is one favoured by friends, by those who keep it in office and support it at the top level: it is that because we are an exporting nation there has to be a certain amount of unemployment. After all, unemployment is the whip, the discipline of the labour force and without unemployment the labour force would become totally unruly and we would be unable to export goods, and in the absence of such control we would price ourselves out of world markets!
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Is that your policy or somebody else's?


Max Saltsman: It is the kind of policy you have been pursuing.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I don't recognize it.


Max Saltsman: The exporters of raw material want unemployment in Canada. It is good for them. After all, they do not depend on the prosperity of this country for their survival; they want prosperity in somebody else's country. They want employment in somebody else's country but they want unemployment at home. This is not true of all businesses. There are many businesses which depend on the purchasing power of the workingman. If the workingman is out of employment, these businesses would be unable to sell their products or services to him.
There is a group of exporters which I believe has tended to dominate the opinions of government and press its views on government. This group has tended to equate the prosperity of this country with the export of raw materials, and I believe its view has prevailed. This is one of the attitudes which must be countered. Even the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) expressed concern in a speech he made the other night, as reported in this morning's paper, that by exporting our raw materials we might be inhibiting our manufacturing industries. He is concerned that our manufacturing industry is not developing as it should. The reason is obvious. It is because of the favouritism which has been shown to the resource industries. Let the government deny this if it can.
When the Carter commission suggested that the mining, oil and gas industries should be treated less leniently, the government backed off in its white paper. Before the committee which was examining the white paper had an opportunity to report, the government backed away still further and as a result the resource industries retained the benefits they had always enjoyed. It is not possible to stimulate one section of the economy without in some way disadvantaging another. Nevertheless, the government has continued its policy of favouring the resource-based industries and giving them everything. Had these policies resulted in the extraction industries remaining in Canadian hands or making a substantial contribution to the economy, they might have been excused or understood; but this has not been the case.
These industries have not paid their full share of taxes, as has been well documented by a former Minister of Finance, Hon. Walter Gordon, in his book "Choice for Canada." The Carter commission report showed they had not paid their way in terms of social costs, as evidence by abandoned townsites and badly treated employees, and that they had not paid their way in terms of providing adequate job opportunities for the growing labour force.
A great deal has been said today about unemployment. Several of my hon. friends have made suggestions as to what we should be doing, so this has not been an entirely negative debate. I sincerely hope that somehow or other something will get through the skulls on the other side of the House, that some since of humanity will permit them to realize that the great evil our society should not bear

March 25, 1971
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy is unemployment, and that we cannot solve our problems in a climate where people are thrown out of work in the name of fighting inflation.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Bailie River):: Mr. Speaker, I have been interested to note that the comments in the debate today have not all been negative. As the hon. member who preceded me said, some valuable suggestions have been made. Nevertheless, it will be difficult for speakers to avoid making comments of a negative kind since the actions of the goverment have been such as to provoke them.
A few minutes ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) referred to the LIFT program and certain other programs the goverment has designed for the agricultural community. I say to the parliamentary secretary that if he were to calculate the reduction in cost which the government would experience by eliminating the temporary wheat reserves legislation and the costs over the years which have been incurred through PFAA payments, that is, the contribution of the government, he would find that the plans which it is implementing will result in a net saving in the long run.
It has been suggested today that there ought to be tax cuts. On the other hand, government supporters have argued that tax cuts would mean resorting to further borrowing. They sometimes laugh wen we put it to them that economies could be effected. It is difficult to understand why economies cannot be made when one considers that governements in Canada are now taking 35 per cent of the tax dollar, whereas in the United States burdened by the enormous cost of the Viet Nam war, they are taking only 28 cents of the tax dollar. Australia, which has had a social reform program for some time, is taking 21 per cent of the tax dollar; and Japan, with its go-ahead economy, is taking only 16 cents. So Canada is levying the highest portion of the tax dollar, and I believe there must be something wrong when this is the case.
We have recently seen a burgeoning of government departments that is without precedent, and the government re-organization bill, if implemented, will further expand this process. I was interested to note that on March 23, in reply to a question about bringing in West Indians to work on farms, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made this comment, as reported at page 4508 of Hansard:
-this is a perennial problem and it must be recognized that this is a type of work that very often students or unemployed will not do. This is why the Department of Manpower and Immigration is admitting foreign workers-
In answer to a supplementary question the Prime Minister stated:
The purpose of the Manpower centres is to send the unemployed or the students to take part in this work. But, once again, facts reveal that there are in Canada some types of work which the unemployed and the students refuse to do; this proves, by the way, that the rate of unemployment is at times somewhat artificial.
With the vastly improved unemployment insurance schemes that are forthcoming, I believe we should turn our attention to looking after workers who are genuinely unable to find work. A system that allows foreign workers to be brought in while the unemployed of this country are paid to do nothing is in need of overhaul. This is something that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), and only the Minister of Labour, can remedy. This situation is creating in this country the attitude on the part of people that they should be paid whether or not they work. The government is suggesting putting $50 million into a fund so students can take trips across the country this summer. At the same time it is allowing workers to enter Canada to take up jobs that these students do not wish to do. I say this is one economy that the government could well make.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has been berated on many occasions and, I think most of us will agree, justifiably. I was going to say that he has been acting something like a bull in a china shop in his position sis Minister of Finance, but I think it would be more accurate to say that he has been acting more like a bulldog because he has hung on to his white paper in face of opposition from one end of the country to the other. He has hung on to the concept that he can screw up taxes to the point where he destroys initiative.
I suggest that one of the major causes of unemployment stems from the fact that the people have lost confidence in the government's ability to create a climate for business investment. It is this psychological depression in regard to the future of business in general that contributes to 90 per cent of the unemployment from which we are now suffering and to 90 per cent of our business failures. The Minister of Finance is asked questions every day in this chamber about these matters, but reacts as though he continually has a chip on his shoulder which of late has grown into a woodpile. I should like to see his parliamentary secretary or another member of the government-if we must continue to have this kind of government-take on the minister's job, because I think the minister has done all the damage to this country that he should be allowed to do. We can at least give some of the members on the other side the benefit of the doubt.
Another matter requiring attention and which should be mentioned a little more in the House concerns the money being spent on looking after the province of Quebec. Although they are fine people, we must start to regard the province of Quebec as equal with the other provinces in Canada.


Mr. Ricard:: That is what we want, nothing else.


Cliff Downey: During the last provincial election the government now in power calculated that about $1 billion accrued to the province from the federal treasury. I do not think we can continue to bear this burden. If they are going to stay in confederation, they must be treated as equals and receive an equal portion of the moneys flowing from the federal treasury. I suggest that this government is bribing that province because it has continued to be its power base throughout the years. Because of this bribery, an administration as ineffectual
[Mr. Saltsman.l
March 25, 1971

and as inept at governing as this one has continued to stay in power.
In addition, a disproportionate amount of equalization grants and regional development payments are being made to this province to the tune of almost half of the total amount for the rest of Canada. I noticed that out of $18 million worth of capital projects, $16 million went to this one province. I also noticed in the miscellaneous estimates committee the other day, under an item concerning manpower mobility, that something like 19 fewer workers were moved in the province of Quebec than in the province of Ontario under the program, yet the cost of moving this fewer number of workers was well over $1 million more. I suggest this sort of thing goes on all the way down the line.
Only a few of these cases are brought to the attention of the public. Many members of the House are reluctant to speak of these matters because these people are friends and personalities. We want them to be with us as much as we want anybody in this country to be with us, but I say that things will have to be far more equally managed in the future if we are to maintain the relationship we have had in the past.
A great deal is said in this kind of debate about employment. I am wondering whether full employment is possible in this day and age of technological advance. Certainly it is no comfort to read the sort of articles that are written today in this regard. I have two publications here, one from last week's Globe and Mail which says:
By the end of this century Canada will be a nation of apartment dwellers, most adult women will have jobs outside the home ...
The average work week will fall from the present 40 hours to 28 or 29 hours . . .
This vision of Canada in the year 2000 is projected by Systems Research Group, a Toronto-based analytical group which describes itself as a Canadian think tank.
In a study commissioned by the federal government, Systems Research calculates that gross national product at the end of the century will amount to $288 billion in constant 1967 dollars, compared with $75 billion in 1970 . ..
The population probably will reach 33.8 million, up 70 per cent from the 20 million record in the 1966 census.
They also suggest that employment will vastly increase. In another newspaper published two or three days after that I read an article headed, "Can women really be replaced by machines?" It says that people are already working on machines-


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Bur-naby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) seeks the floor for the purpose of asking a question, but I gather the hon. member who has the floor is not prepared to allow the question. In that case he should be allowed to continue his speech.


Raymond J. Perrault: I was just going to ask for the name of the publication, the date and the page.
Alleged Failure to Improve Economy


Cliff Downey: The hon. member from B.S. could just as well ask me after the sitting tonight. This quotation is from the Ottawa Citizen within the last two weeks, if that helps.
However, in future, says my technological informant, the correspondent will pick up his telephone (called a communicator by then) and dictate his message. It will be passed electronically into the recipient's machine. When the recipient chooses to inspect his mail, he will merely push a button and listen.
Having listened to his mail, he will answer it. The messages will be transmitted to his correspondents in the same electronic way.
Then the whole exchange-incoming and outgoing-will be filed away in a memory bank.
It goes on to say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member. It being 9.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 10 of Standing Order 58, to interrupt proceedings on the motion now before the House in order to put every question necessary on Supplementary Estimates (C), interim supply, and any bill or bills based thereon.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That vote 25c, program expenditures for the Prices and Incomes Commission, Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971, be concurred in.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when the Chair puts this motion to the House should there not also be included in it the amount of the vote which, as listed in 25c of the supplementary estimates, is $1,250,000?


Mr. Speaker:: There is no objection. If there is agreement, the motion will be amended as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because that is what we are voting against.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is the following one:
That vote 25c, program expenditures for the Prices and Incomes Commission, Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in the sum of $1,250,000 for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971, be concurred in.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.

March 25, 1971
Division
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Speaker: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That the supplementary estimates (C) of sums required for the service of Canada for the year ending March 31, 1971, except for votes 10c and 35c relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and any vote concurred in this day, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-235, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1971, be read the first time and printed.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-235, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1971, be read a second time and referred to the committee of the whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.

March 25, 1971
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: the third reading of the bill.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



INTERIM SUPPLY. APRIL TO JUNE 30. 1971

Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That this House do concur in interim supply, as follows:
That a sum not exceeding $2,183,638,929.41 being the aggregate of:
(a)	Three-twelfths of the total of all the Items, except for Urban Affairs and Housing Item 1, set forth in the estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st of March 1972, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament $2,061,893,012.75.
(b)	An adidtional six-twelfths of the total amount of Department of Insurance Item 25 (Schedule A) of the said estimates $314,250.00.
(c)	An additional three-twelfths of the total amount of Atomic Energy Control Board Item 30, Transport Items 40 and 50, and Northern Transportation Company Limited Item L90 (Schedule B) of the said estimates $13,799,000.00.
(d)	An additional two-twelfths of the total amount of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Item L45, Manpower and Immigration Item 10 and Treasury Board Item 5 (Schedule C) of the said estimates $71,483,333.33.
(e)	An additional one-twelfth of the total amount of Canadian International Development Agency Item 20, Dominion Bureau of Statistics Item 35, National Health and Welfare Item 30, Medical Research Council Item 50, Secretary of State Item 15, National Arts Centre Corporation Item 75, Supply and Services Item 10, National Research Council of Canada Item 25 (Schedule D) of the said estimates $36,149,333.33.
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st of March 1972, providing that, in accordance with the recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General, any bill introduced as a result of the adoption of this motion shall provide that any reference to the expression "environment" in the said Estimates shall be read and construed as a reference to the expression "fisheries and forestry".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-236, for granting Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1972, be read the first time and printed.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-236, for granting Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public
Interim Supply
service for the financial year ending March 31, 1972, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. The bill is being handed out for the first time for the consideration of this House. I think that this shows just a little too much crust on the part of the government. In large characters on the front page we see "As passed by the House". I think that this is a bit much.


Mr. Monteith:: The government is being arrogant, as usual.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on- [English']


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I might mention to the hon. member that the Standing Orders do not provide for debate at this point. If the hon. member is rising on a point of order, I can hear him. I cannot hear him if he is rising for the purpose of debate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a further point of order to object to the manner of the printing of these bills, which comes under the authority of the Chair. I object on the part of those I am associated with and, I am sure, on the part of all opposition members-and I point out that there is no saving here-particularly because some date has been put on the bill. Frankly, I do not know of any date reading "zero, zero, March, 1971". Why on earth are the words "As passed" printed on the bill? This may be a tiny matter, but I draw it to the attention of the Chair. I think the Chair ought to take very careful note of this representation because the responsibility for the services of the House comes under the Chair.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Further arrogance.


Thomas Miller Bell: The same old bunch.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The bill now before us takes the House's intentions for granted, since it includes "As passed by the House of Commons on March 00, 1971", to which I object.
Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, there is no such date and in this regard I support the views expressed by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
Another remark I want to make is that we do not know who is sponsoring the bill since no sponsors' name is indicated. I would therefore ask you to take that into consideration before reading the motion.

March 25, 1971
Interim Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the point of order. I understand that this is a pro forma bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Honey in the chair.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 6-
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I apologize because I do not possess a thorough knowledge of the Standing Orders of the House. If we are not entitled to debate the matter, why is it submitted to us?


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I would mention to the hon. member that there is no provision for debate.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for renewing my attempt but, considering your vast experience and your extensive knowledge of the procedure, I would like you to explain to me, at this point, what are my rights as an elected member of the House. As a matter of fact, how can I know what these votes mean if I am not allowed to discuss them? I would like to know my rights in order to use them constructively.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I might mention, in reply to the question of the hon. member, that the Standing Order is very long. I do not think hon. members would want me to read it at this point. I would refer the hon. member and the House to Standing Order 58(10) which provides for no debate at this stage of the proceedings.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I wish to protest strongly against this type of democracy which prevents us from discussing votes that the government is asking us to pass.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. As the Chair has indicated to the hon. member, it is not a question of discretion of the Chair or discretion of hon. members: it is a Standing Order adopted by this House. At this stage of the proceedings there is no provision for debate. I again refer the hon. member to Standing Order 58(10). I do not want to burden hon. members by reading it at this time There is no provision for debate, under this Standing Order. With respect, the Chair has no discretion to hear the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: What is the Standing Order?


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The Chair has previously indicated that there is no discretion in the Chair to hear the hon. member. The Standing Order to which I have

referred provides that the question be put without debate. Standing Order 58(10) reads:
-he shall put forthwith successively, without debate or amendment-
If the hon. member has a question of privilege or point of order to raise, it cannot be done at this point. There may be another opportunity when the hon. member may be able to do this, but not at this point of the proceedings.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Schedules A to D inclusive agreed to.
On clause 1-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I recognize that Your Honour has correctly interpreted the Standing Order with respect to our proceedings at this point, but there is one point that should be observed. For many years when we were asked to vote interim supply, we were always given an assurance by the minister proposing the bill that the bill was in proper form and, furthermore, that the passing of interim supply would not prejudice our rights to discuss in the proper place any of the items, portions of which are granted in advance. I think that assurance should continue to be given to us.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to give the assurance that the bill is in the usual form and indeed is in proper order. Further, the passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize any items in the estimates when they come up for consideration in committee. The usual undertaking is given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.


William Arnold Peters: On a point of order, before we pass clause 1 I ask whether hon. members who have not been handed a copy of the bill, and who thus have had no opportunity of seeing its contents, should be asked to pass it. I am aware that this has been the practice for the past two or three years.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Centuries.


William Arnold Peters: No, not for centuries. We have discussed the business of supply ad nauseam since I have been here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: If I said anything in a foreign language which is not correct, I apologize. It seems to me we should refer this question to the Standing Committee on Procedure, because this is a really idiotic manner of handling the operation.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The hon. member may have a very good argument, but I respectfully suggest
March 25, 1971

that this is not the point at which it can be advanced. The Chair does not have the discretion to hear argument or debate on the matter at this time. I will hear the hon. member further on the point of order if he has anything to say with regard to it, but I must tell him this is not the time at which the Chair can make a determination of the point he has raised.


William Arnold Peters: I am not in a position to raise this matter with Mr. Speaker at this time, but I am raising it with you, Mr. Chairman, and I expect you to report to Mr. Speaker the representation I have made. This situation is a left-over from the changes made in the rules. It is a stupid, silly kind of process to go through when members do not have the opportunity of discussing the matter.


Russell Clayton Honey: The Chair has noted the hon. member's point of order and it will be conveyed to Mr. Speaker as requested. It is within the competence of hon. members to change the procedure under our Standing Orders if they, in their wisdom, think this ought to be done. But they cannot be changed at this point. I must follow the Standing Orders and continue the proceedings in committee of the whole.


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
We have just received copies of the bill and a while ago I respectfully asked you a question. I would like to know whether it is true that I can rise on a question of privilege or raise a point of order. I would like you to tell me now what are my rights.


Some hon. Members:: No.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I would like you to help me continue my remarks by calling members opposite to order.


Russell Clayton Honey: I have indicated to the hon. member that there is no opportunity for debate at this point in the proceedings. Like the hon. member who preceded him, the hon. member has raised a point of order and registered what is, in effect, a grievance against the Standing Orders. It has been noted. I repeat, it is not within my competence or, indeed, within the competence of hon. members to deal at the stage of committee of the whole with this point of order. But it has been noted and, with respect, that is really all the Chair can do at this point.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to raise a further point of order? I do not want to hinder the Chairman in carrying out his responsibilities, but I should like to point out that all members of the House are being asked to vote on each item submitted to them. Since only a few members have a copy of the bill, how can we be expected to vote when we do not know the items? Furthermore, before we pass these items I should like to ask whether the government will ensure that each member does have a copy.
Interim Supply


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The hon. member has in essence raised the same point of order raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere and by the hon. member for Timiskaming. I can only repeat that I have heard their representations. There may well be a great deal of sympathy for them. But this is not the proper time to make them, though the representations have been noted. With respect, as Chairman of the committee I have no jurisdiction to change the procedure established by the Standing Orders.


Erik Nielsen: Where is the bill we are voting on?


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Let us not have talk about Standing Orders-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. If hon. members want me to read the Standing Order-


Some hon. Members:: Read the bill.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I will be heard.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, I suggest there is not one word in the Standing Orders about the distribution or non-distribution of bills before their acceptance. My colleague for Sainte-Marie merely raised the point that it is impossible to have intelligent consideration of a request to pass a bill without copies of the bill being distributed. I put it to you again that since the procedure of the House is under the control of the Chair, the time to make representations regarding the distribution of a bill is now, so that the Chair becomes aware of them. There is no other time for an individual member to raise such a point of order. The point is germane at this time and I suggest my colleague for Sainte-Marie was perfectly right in making the suggestion he did.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I understand the point made by the hon. member for Eddmonton West and I have a great deal of sympathy for this point of order. The hon. Member supports the hon. member for Sainte-Marie, and the same point of order was made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere and the hon. member for Timiskaming. As I perceive it, the points of order are essentially the same, and personally I have a great deal of sympathy with them. My position as Chairman is that hon. members may raise, if they wish, points of order ad infinitum. But I have no jurisdiction at this point to correct or rectify the matters about which they complain. They may be very valid matters. I think it is very

March 25, 1971
Interim Supply
important that they be put on the record, but I have no jurisdiction to change the Standing Orders at this point of the proceedings.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I have heard your remarks with a great deal of interest, and I recognize that you do not have the required authority to change our Standing Orders at this very moment. Since hon. members have only received a copy of the bill seconds before this stage of the proceedings, and since we do not have the right to discuss it, to put questions, so as to know what it is all about, why not then adjourn until tomorrow, to enable the House leaders of all parties to get together, and also to enable each member to get a copy of the bill under consideration?
Mr. Speaker, I still claim that there is discrimination toward the hon. members, and that each one of them is entitled to have on hand a copy of the Appropriation Act, so that the House will give it more than rubber stamp approval.


Thomas Miller Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, and in an effort to be helpful, I point out that we have gone through this procedure for two or three years. I do not think anybody in the House likes it. But what is making us extra nervous and suspicious this time is that the members on the treasury benches are all here for the first time in years, with the exception of the Secretary of State, glued to their seats and glaring at us. If they would all go home to bed, the rest of us could deal satisfactorily with this matter.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order for one purpose and one purpose only. It is apparent that members on this side of the House who have raised points of order have been immediately supplied with copies of the bill. I would like to have my copy now. I would also like you, Mr. Chairman, to read the rule of which you spoke.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I think it might be helpful if the Chair were to read the standing order. Standing Order 58 (10) reads:
On the last allotted day in each period, but, in any case, not later than the last sitting day in each period, at fifteen minutes before the ordinary time of daily adjournment, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings then in progress and, if those proceedings are not in relation to a no-confidence motion, he shall put forthwith successively, without debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of any item of business relating to interim supply, main estimates, and supplementary or final estimates, the restoration or reinstatement of any item in the estimates or any opposed item in the estimates, and for the passage at all stages of any bill or bills based thereon-
Hon. members have now heard the Standing Order. I can only repeat that the Standing Order must bind me. I have listened and am sympathetic to the points of orders of hon. members. If they wish to continue raising points of order, I will listen to them; but I would appeal to them
not to raise the same point of order because it has been carefully noted.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, for the information of hon. members, I would ask you to read the Standing Order which allows the government to deprive hon. members of their copy of a supply bill.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, in relation to the points of order that have been raised it might be helpful if I were to explain that our custom is to deal with this matter in the form of a resolution, which is on the Order Paper today and of which each member has a copy. That resolution is the one we voted on tonight. This is followed by the consideration of a bill which is based explicitly and precisely on the terms of the resolution, which indicates in detail the provisions being voted on and granted. There is the further assurance, the customary assurance given by the government, that the bill is in accordance -precisely in accordance-with the terms of the resolution. I suggest, therefore, that if hon. members wish to know exactly what is contained in the bill they need merely refer to the resolution.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. Will hon. members resume their seats. I shall recognize them in a moment. Again I admonish hon. members not to reiterate the same point of order, because it has been well noted.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, as the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) has just said, hon. members can read the main motion. Why not then take a ten-minute recess so I could let my colleagues read the only copy we have had so far in order to let everyone know what is going on?
Mr. Chairman, that is one of our most fundamental rights and if the government does not know enough to provide each member with a copy of the bill, thus forcing us to give it blind approval, the situation is utterly ridiculous and we will have to recognize that this is the type of democracy the Liberal administration imposes upon us.

Clause 1 agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall the preamble carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall the title carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall I rise and report the bill?
[The Chairman.]
March 25, 1971


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, as you are now reporting to
the House on the proceedings of the committee, I feel I have the right to ask you, with all due respect, to report also on the objections we have raised, in order to respect the rights of hon. members.
If you make a report, make a complete one including the objections that were raised.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Again I repeat I am very conscious of the objections contained in the point of order raised by the hon. member and other hon. members. I have indicated before, and will say again, that I have taken note of it. I know hon. members are concerned, and I also am concerned about the procedure. However, I again say I am bound by the Standing Orders of this House and must forthwith proceed to put all motions and all questions.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What about copies of the bill? That is not in the rules.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, none of the Standing Orders forbid you to make a complete report to the House about proceedings in committee of the whole. This is why I ask you to include in your report to the House the objections of hon. members, with regard to the amendment of this Standing Order.


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


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Concern has been registered by members on this side of the House, and I believe by hon. members on the government side, about the inappropriateness of passing in a few moments a bill which most members have not seen. There is nothing in the rules regarding the availability of bills. It is understood they should be available.
It is not my intention to hold up proceedings. We are familiar with the rules which require the passage of supply at this point in the debate. However, I respectfully and strongly recommend, sir, that in future on every occasion such as this provision be made that bills which are to be passed be made available to all hon. members
Interim Supply
even if this is rather difficult and awkward to do under our present rules.


William Arnold Peters: I rise on another point of order, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that the Chair does not do itself any good, or the members of the House, when Your Honour asks the consent of the House for third reading. The Standing Orders are very clear; they provide for the passage of all stages of any bill or bills based on these estimates. The Standing Order also refers to the ten o'clock adjournment. I suggest that we change our format, as I suggested during discussion of the interim supply bill. If there is no likelihood of objection to third reading, the Chair should not ask for consent to third reading because it makes everybody look foolish.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I heard the representations of the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) and the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). The only way in which the Chair could not ask for third reading and not put the question, as I understand it, would be by unanimous consent of the House. I point out that nothing could impress me more than the arguments advanced by hon. members and the points of order raised by them. I would think that changes could be made through the proper processes. However, I am a captive of the Standing Orders.
If the hon. member wants me to ask for the unanimous consent of the House not to put the question on third reading, I will do so, but I must caution him that there would have to be unanimous consent. I reiterate that I am impressed with the points of order raised tonight and I hope that before we deal again with these questions in such circumstances, changes will be made which will make the procedure satisfactory to all hon. members.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: the third reading of the bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order.
At 10.45 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, March 26, 1971