1971-02-11

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects every member of the House. It concerns the obligation of every member to do his duty as a member to his constituency, the nation and the House.
I conceive it is a member's duty to engage in meaningful and relevant debate on the business of the nation which comes before this House. To speak meaningfully, a member must be informed. When he speaks in criticism or praise of the administration of this nation's affairs by the government, it is essential that he be properly and correctly informed.
Parliament, therefore, has placed a duty upon the government to provide those members who request the same with accurate statistical information on a variety of aspects of the nation's business. To that end, Parliament established and staffed the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and placed the bureau under the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Section 32 of the Statistics Act reads in part as follows:
Subject to the direction of the minister, the bureau shall collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish statistics in relation to all or any of the following matters:
(e) employment, unemployment.
Your Honour must be fully aware of how much time of the House has been devoted this session to debate on the question of unemployment. Your Honour must be fully aware of how important to that debate are the statistics used by members in comparing total unemployment figures, seasonally adjusted unemployment figures, unemployment insurance recipient figures, manpower job applicant figures, and in making monthly comparisons of these figures. If the Dominion Bureau of Statistics at any time changes its method of abstracting these statistics, it is the duty of the bureau not to act secretively but to announce this change and to give proper notice as far in advance of the change as possible, and it is the duty of the minister to announce it to members in the chamber and to explain and justify the reason for the change having been made.
The importance Parliament attaches to meaningful information, including consistency in the methodology of abstracting statistics, is made signally clear in section 35 of the Statistics Act. That section makes it an offence for any person to wilfully provide the bureau with false information or practise any other deception.
The Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Manpower and Immigration have made a joint public report on the labour force which was released today, and it would appear that they have changed their statistical methodology in calculating the seasonal adjustment of labour force figures. By that one change, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Manpower and Immigration have deprived Members of Parliament of meaningful comparison between the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures for most of 1970 and those of 1971. This change can only confuse the debate on unemployment that has continued throughout 1970 to the present time, is being debated today by the House, and will continue. I could go through this release and establish beyond any shadow of doubt that the information contained in it can only serve to confuse and make it difficult for members to participate in this debate.
Any doubts I may have had about bringing up this question of privilege have been overborne by the fact that this is the fourth time within a few weeks that the government, through issuing secret memoranda, has engaged in what I can only call a program of deceit which is repugnant to this House and repugnant to the country. It is in that larger sense that I ask Your Honour to hold that I have in fact established a prima facie case and can move the motion which I have prepared if Your Honour so holds.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River has given the Chair the notice required under the Standing Orders of his intention to raise this matter by way of question of privilege. As he and all other hon. members know, the duty of the Chair is to give an opinion by way of ruling on whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. If the ruling of the Chair were that there is a prima facie case, then a motion could be put by the hon. member and debated by the House.
I have given the matter very serious thought and I have to inform the hon. member that I really do not think there is a prima facie case of privilege. What he complains of is that the statistics, which I understand have been published today, do not follow the methodology, to use the hon. member's word, followed in previous months or previous years, which makes it difficult for the House to continue its debate on unemployment. I would think that this is essentially a grievance. The hon. member may have a very legitimate complaint with respect to a question of administration, but this does not amount to a breach of parliamentary privilege. Again, with great respect I suggest to the hon. member and to the House that while there may be a grievance on the

February 11, 1971
Unemployment Figures
part of the hon. member for Peace River I do not think there is a question of privilege which ought to be debated or referred to a special committee of the House for consideration.
I understand that there is to be a continuation this afternoon of the debate on unemployment until later this evening and that a vote is to be called at 9.45 p.m. Between now and 9.45 there will be an opportunity for the hon. member who has just spoken and for other hon. members, if they want to take part in the debate, to refer to the grievance raised by the hon. member for Peace River.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Regarding the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker I think that the House ought to be informed that there has been no change in the method of establishing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Hees:: Down.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am not talking to you.


George Harris Hees: Look to your left. Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Obviously the minister is rising in connection with the question which has been raised by the hon. member for Peace River. As the Chair has ruled that there is no question of privilege, there should be no debate. I suspect that during the question period inquiries will be made about the matter to which the minister has just alluded, and if he wants at that point to give an explanation in reply to a question asked, that will be the proper time to make that explanation.


Mr. Lewis:: Or on motions.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in both official languages- Mr. Clermont.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Righi Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minisier):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2)
it gives me pleasure to table copies of the itinerary of the visit of the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and Princess Ann to British Columbia in May.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



STATEMENT ON NEGOTIATIONS FOR NEW INTERNATIONAL GRAINS ARRANGEMENT

Hon. Otlo E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, before commencing my statement I wonder if I might express a word of apology. The lateness of the receipt of messages from Geneva has prevented us making available to hon. members copies in both languages. This will be corrected at the earliest possible opportunity.
The United Nations Wheat Conference was convened to conclude a successor agreement to the International Grains Arrangement which comprised a Wheat Convention and a Food Aid Convention. The Canadian delegation was led by Mr. Maurice Schwarzmann, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and included officials of other government departments, the Canadian Wheat Board and representatives of producer organizations.
Canadian objectives at this conference were to conclude a new wheat agreement designed to provide market stability and price discipline for wheat trade. We wished to include price levels which would reflect adequate returns to efficient wheat producers. We stressed the fundamental issue of production policy and urgent need for countries which subsidize wheat production to reduce such subsidies, but it was clear that this issue could not be encompassed in this negotiation. We were openminded as to the specific details of a new agreement provided that Canada would not be placed at a competitive disadvantage and provided there was equity in rights and obligations among exporters and between exporters and importers.
We made it clear from the outset that Canada could not accept selection of a Canadian wheat as the single reference wheat as had been the case under the old international wheat agreements. Because of significantly changed world trade and production in wheat this would have put Canada at a competitive disadvantage.
A number of proposals were considered as to the shape and nature of a new agreement and as to the types of wheats on which its structure could be based. Preliminary consideration was also given to the price levels for such an agreement both at the minimum and maximum.
It would not be in the best interest of the future of wheat co-operation to enter into detail as to the particulars of these issues which were under negotiation in Geneva and which will be the subject of future discussions aimed at arriving at an acceptable solution. However, it became clear in the discussions in Geneva that despite every effort and with best will on all sides it still was not possible at this particular time to reach agree-

February 11, 1971

ment among the major countries concerned on these questions.
Despite the difficult issues and the divergent approaches that have been identified, we consider that the intensive work accomplished will be helpful in facilitating the elaboration of a new agreement on wheat prices at a later date. Therefore while it is a matter of serious regret that an agreement including pricing provisions could not be concluded, we are not unduly discouraged or pessimistic by the lack of such agreement at this time. Indeed it is clearly understood by all participants that the matter of an agreement on wheat prices is to be kept under review and that new negotiations of this subject will be initiated at an appropriate time.
In absence of agreement on a price framework, negotiations are now proceeding in Geneva for the conclusion of a new wheat agreement designed-
(A)	To maintain the full institutional framework for continued wheat co-operation including all the traditional functions of reporting on wheat trade, prices and freight;
(B)	To provide specifically for close consultation among exporting and importing countries with respect to price in the light of actual market trends with a view to avoiding serious price fluctuations or undue difficulties in wheat marketing;
(C)	To ensure that the new Wheat Council shall keep under review the possibility of reopening negotiations for a pricing agreement and to ensure that such negotiations take place when circumstances are considered to be favourable.
In parallel to this negotiation, discussions are also taking place for the extension of the Food Aid Agreement for which the developing countries at the conference have expressed the strongest support. Canada is prepared to continue its participation in such a Food Aid Agreement.
The results of this conference are far removed from what Canada had sought to obtain. However it should be borne in mind that the price provisions of the 1967 agreement have not been operative for some time. While the new wheat agreement now being concluded is of only limited significance, it does provide the framework for continued co-operation in wheat matters and contains within it the potential for subsequent agreement on the important questions of price levels and the pricing framework.
The producer representatives who participated fully as advisers to the delegation and who are aware of the underlying issues which have led to these developments in Geneva, are of the view that the limited wheat agreement now being concluded is, in the light of all the circumstances, the most appropriate and constructive outcome possible at this time from the point of view of Canadian interests.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What an alibi for a defeat!


Mr. Cliff Downey (Baffle River):: Mr. Speaker, it is very disappointing that no conclusive agreement has been reached at the United Nations Wheat Conference. At this time of year the grain farmers of the west need
International Grains Arrangement to know what is to come in the years ahead so that the industry may once again rise to the heights it once knew. In the absence of any satisfactory international arrangements at present, I think all of us hope that the government, on its own, will give top priority to providing Canadian farmers with a suitable price guarantee.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, all the flowery words that the minister used and might use cannot cover up the fact that he and the government are whistling in the dark. The fact is that this conference was a failure. We are witnessing a collapse of orderly international marketing. I think this is underlined in the minister's statement where he said, "To ensure that the new Wheat Council shall keep under review the possibility of reopening negotiations for a pricing agreement and to ensure that such negotiations take place when circumstances are considered to be favourable".
This is one of the things they are working toward. This illustrates the fact that we have witnessed a collapse of orderly international marketing. The government must accept the responsibility for this situation.
For the past several years we have seen an unparalleled series of errors and poor judgments on the part of the government. They allowed the situation to get out of hand. It started in the 1966-67 period. The government cannot say they were not warned. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and others warned that what the government was doing would result in a catastrophic situation for Canadian wheat producers and the international wheat market. The government allowed Canada to be persuaded to replace the International Wheat Agreement with the International Grains Arrangement. They were persuaded to keep Russia, the largest wheat producer in the world, out of the new arrangement.
They allowed an 11-month gap between the expiry of the old International Wheat Agreement and the commencement of the new International Grains Arrangement. There was no firm price arrangement in the International Grains Arrangement. The private United States trade was allowed to break the new agreement before it even commenced. The government did not stand behind the Canadian Wheat Board in the 11-month gap in time for the Canadian Wheat Board to take effective action to deal with the situation which developed in 1967. They did not stand behind the Canadian farmers in 1969 and 1970. It is not the government but the farmer who is now reaping the whirlwind of government policy failures.
The key must be to ensure that there is adequate assistance to agriculture and the wheat producers of Canada. We must take steps to ensure that the wheat farmer does not have to bear the brunt of competing against other countries, as pointed out in the minister's statement.
Canada will suffer from the situation that is now developing. It is a further step in the destruction of rural society and the rural economy in Canada, western Canada in particular. We need firmer government action

February 11, 1971
International Grains Arrangement than we have witnessed to date in order to ensure an adequate price level for Canadian wheat producers.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just made a statement on the report of the Wheat Conference held in Geneva, and I am sorry to say that I have just received a copy of it.
The minister has stated that the United Nations Wheat Conference had been convened to conclude a successor agreement to the International Grains Agreement which included a Wheat Convention and a Food Aid Convention. He has also stated that there was no concurrence for the simple reason that the other countries would not decrease their subsidies.
This is what surprised me, Mr. Speaker. We think that Canada is the third wealthiest country in the world and when our country tries to come to an agreement with nations that are considered poorer, it cannot be done because those nations assist their producers to a greater extent by way of subsidies. And instead of announcing a decision to raise subsidies to the same level as the other countries and thus achieve perfect agreement, the government persists in giving farmers nothing, in not increasing assistance to production, and then tells the House: We were not able to come to an agreement. The government seems content to state: After all, we had good discussions, there has been constructive agreement on Canadian business. Such an attitude astounds me, Mr. Speaker. Having first told us that the conference was a failure, the Minister then says it has been very constructive for Canadian business. We know, however, that it was destructive for Canadian producers. I wonder how he was able to come up with such a conclusion. Anyway, the government always reaches such conclusions, whatever level of production is involved. It is always satisfied when giving as little money and help as possible to producers. We have here one more example of that attitude.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to put a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The necessity arises as a result of the surreptitious introduction by the government of a new method of calculating the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment. Throughout 1970, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for each month was calculated according
to a statistical program called X-9. Some time before the end of 1970, the government ordered that a new statistical method of calculation be put into effect on January 1, 1971. This statistical program is called X-ll. As a result, the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment for January, released today to the public, the press and Members of Parliament, is calculated according to formula X-ll. The government, by this deliberate and furtive switch of statistical horses in midstream, has lowered the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for January from the rate that exists under the method heretofore used by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics; the government has attempted to deceive the public, the press and Members of Parliament by hiding its adoption of this formula-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member. He will recognize that he is reiterating essentially the point made earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Peace River who made a statement suggesting that a grievance should be put to the House by way of a question of privilege. The hon. member is aware of the limitations placed on him at this time by the terms of Standing Order 43. He cannot make a general statement. I have expressed the thought on earlier occasions that if hon. members were entitled, when moving a motion under Standing Order 43, to make a general statement it would only be equitable that someone on behalf of the other side should be allowed also to make a statement, and that certainly would be contrary to the spirit of Standing Order 43.
The Standing Order is clear enough. The hon. member has to explain briefly the reasons for urgency. He cannot make a statement of a general nature of the kind he is making at the present time. I invite him to indicate as soon as possible the terms of the motion he proposes for the consideration of the House.


John Howard Lundrigan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I assure you that my words are well chosen to set out the very basic reason for my motion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: Just one last sentence.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John Howard Lundrigan: The government has prevented the public and the press from making meaningful comparisons between the 1970 rates and the 1971 rates. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That this House condemn the government's manipulation without notice of the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment in an attempt, deliberately calculated and intended to deceive the public, the press and Members of Parliament as to the disastrous effect of the government's unemployment policy-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


An hon. Member:: Pitiful.


John Howard Lundrigan: -and further, that the government immediately distribute-


Some hon. Members:: Order!

February 11, 1971


John Howard Lundrigan: I am touching a very sensitive nerve centre across the way, apparently.
-and further, that the government immediately distribute a revised series of unemployment rates between 1954 and 1971 to enable this House and the public meaningfully to compare this new statistic with previous years' data.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I have to express serious reservations about the kind of statement that has been made by the hon. member. I appreciate that the matter he has raised is one of interest to all hon. members, but I suspect that perhaps the statement did go beyond the limitations imposed by the Standing Order. In any event, I now have to inquire whether there is unanimous consent under the terms of Standing Order 43.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity so the motion
cannot be put.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS AND WELFARE ASSISTANCE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 which entitles me to make a brief statement in explanation. The figures released today by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics indicate that there were 668,000 persons out of work in mid-January. Optimistic predictions that we have turned the corner and that the economy will improve later in the year are cold comfort to those who are walking the streets in the depths of winter looking for jobs. The immediate responsibility of this Parliament is to ease the privation and hardship these unemployed are now suffering. The least we can do is to provide them with the necessities of life during a crisis which is not of their making and for which the federal government must accept the major responsibility.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis):
That this House urges the government to take emergency steps to extend the eligibility period for unemployment insurance, to increase benefit payments and to relieve the pressure on municipal welfare budgets by increasing the federal government's contribution to 65 per cent under the Canada Assistance Plan.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands under the terms of Standing Order 43. The motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimous consent the hon. member's motion cannot be put.
Unemployment Figures GRAIN



ATTENDANCE OF MINISTER AT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the urgent and pressing necessity for at least a limited wheat agreement, and taking into consideration reports that there appears to be little chance of good will being arrived at between the wheat trading nations during the Geneva meetings which are due to end on February 19, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House request that either the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Manpower and Immigration responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board attend the meeting in Geneva this weekend in order to bring cabinet support to those that are now negotiating for Canada and that this House authorize leave of absence for such minister as required under Standing Order 5.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion also requires unanimous consent before it can be put.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimity the motion cannot be put.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
February 11, 1971
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable D. C. Abbott, P.C., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, February 11, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
Louis-Fremont Trudeau Brigadier General
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Does the minister now intend to take immediate additional steps to stimulate the Canadian economy in view of the fact that, according to the last
23786-66}

February 11, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
publication of Dominion Bureau of Statistics, unemployment in January reached 8 per cent, involving a total of
668.000	Canadians?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have dealt with this matter very often. I have indicated that we believe that the steps we have taken will have an effect upon the economy. I have said that there would be higher unemployment this month, as is always the case in January, but that, seasonably adjusted, the rate would go down. This is quite contrary to what my hon. friend has said, as reported in the Globe and Mail on February 1-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Edgar John Benson: -that unless the government took further steps it would not go below 6.6 per cent. I wonder whether he would now like to withdraw that statement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether or not he is prepared to revise his program, particularly in view of the fact that the increase in unemployment between December and January amounted, according to Dominion Bureau of Statistics, to some 130,000 Canadians, as opposed to the minister's own forecast of what he called a normal increase of some 100,000 persons between the months of December and January?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend would look at the seasonally adjusted change the figure is 109,000.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, again I would ask my hon. friend whether, in view of the fact that his own forecast of the increase in unemployment between December and January has been exceeded by some 30 per cent and amounts to a figure of 130,000 Canadians, whereas a year ago the increase between December and January was
102.000	and the year before that 94,000, he could explain to the House or to anybody else how he finds any seasonally adjusted improvement in these figures?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-AMENDMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT TO BROADEN ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance, if I can persuade him to stop playing the numbers game and deal with the unemployed. As the number of unemployed who have been out of work for six months or more has increased by 100 per cent this January compared with last January, from 54,000 to 108,000, is the government prepared to bring in immediate legislation to extend the eligibility period for those who have already exceeded it and thus enable them to receive payment and so that the younger people who have not acquired sufficient stamps to be eligible may be brought under the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this is, of course, a matter for the consideration of the Minister of Labour who looks after unemployment insurance. With the assistance of the House we would hope to have new unemployment insurance legislation very quickly. In addition, we have already increased benefits, as my hon. friend knows, in the December budget for those on unemployment insurance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the increase in benefits was only 10 per cent and the white paper proposes raising the benefits much higher, is the minister prepared to give any consideration to the 277,000 unemployed under 25 years of age, many of whom cannot qualify for unemployment insurance, who are debarred from the manpower training allowances because they have not had three years in the labour force, and cannot get welfare because-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps it might be assumed that the hon. member has asked a question. If he has further questions to ask he might put them in the form of supplementaries.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might complete the question I was asking. Many of these young people cannot receive welfare as they have not established residence. Does the government propose to take any measures either by way of an amendment extending the benefits under the Canada Assistance Act or by alterations in the Unemployment Insurance Act in order that many of these young people who are not provided for now will be taken care of?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the problem regarding residence, but it has been indicated to me by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that residence should not really be a problem under the Canada Assistance Plan. I should also like to suggest, in respect of the use of the figures game, that last week the hon. member and other members of his party were raising the fact that there are more people receiving unemployment insurance than there are unemployed.



UNEMPLOYMENT-SUGGESTED EXPANSION OF MONEY SUPPLY

['Mr. Speaker, I know that work is being done on specific projects, but until now nothing has been left on my desk.']
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.
As a result of the ever-increasing number of unemployed and since new credit facilities for some $13,425 million have been requested, according to the Canada Sun Life Company, is the Minister of Finance or the government considering the possibility of asking the Bank of Canada to grant the credit in order to meet those constant financial needs?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, there has been a great expansion in the money supply in Canada. Credit is a great deal easier

February 11, 1971

to get now and at much lower interest rates, thanks to government policy.



George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Minister of Finance. In view of the seriousness of the situation, as made clear by the figures released today, does the government intend to try to fight unemployment primarily by means of federal works projects, or does it intend to try to stimulate the economy by lowering taxes, thereby stimulating production and jobs?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the government has to make a choice as to whether it is going to attack unemployment in areas where it is the worst, which is the choice the government made, or adopt general measures in respect of the whole economy by way of reducing taxes.


George Harris Hees: Can we take it from the minister's remarks that the government is not really concerned with unemployment conditions right across the country which-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member's question is argumentative.


UNEMPLOYMENT-PROPOSAL BY QUEBEC OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance.
As unemployment has reached very serious proportions in Quebec, would the minister inform the House whether, at the last federal-provincial conference, the Quebec delegation proposed some special programs to the federal government in order to help solve this problem? If so, what was the federal government's response?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that special programs were submitted by the province of Quebec at that time. However, in respect of the loan fund which we raised to $160 million, the province of Quebec was the first to take advantage of it to the tune of some $70 million, which I am told will create approximately 12,000 jobs.


UNEMPLOYMENT-MONEY LENDING PURPOSES- AVAILABILITY TO UNEMPLOYED
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In light of the fact that he says much more money is available for lending purposes at lower interest rates, will he indicate how the hundreds of thousands who are unemployed can obtain some of that money?


Edgar John Benson: That was not the original question raised. I have sincere sympathy for people who are unemployed, but they can take advantage, of course, of unemployment insurance-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gerald William Baldwin: You told them they could live on $30 a week.


Edgar John Benson: -and the many benefits this government and its predecessor brought in by way of improvements in the Canada Assistance Plan and other programs.


An hon. Member:: How are they going to live on $30 a week?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of the fact that one of his closest friends, the Bank of Montreal, has predicted that even though there may be an upsurge in the economy the unemployment level will still be approximately 6 per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REPLACEMENT OF LOANS TO PROVINCES TO FIGHT UNEMPLOYMENT BY GRANTS
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Have any of the governments of the Atlantic provinces requested the federal government to change some of its loans intended to fight unemployment to grants in areas where unemployment is high? In light of the fact that Premier Campbell of Prince Edward Island has stated that the capital loans program only shifts the responsibility for action from the federal to the provincial governments, is any change in plans contemplated and will grants be given?


Edgar John Benson: The purpose of the loans program is related to our feeling that if we provide substantial amounts of money to the provinces they in turn would have public works projects which they could proceed with in the municipalities very quickly. Of course all the provinces would rather have grants than loans, but the loans are being made at very low interest rates over a long period of time.


Mr. Robert C. Coales (Cumberland-Colchesler North):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. In light of the present massive burden of unemployment and the government's refusal to further assist the provinces and municipalities in carrying this burden, will the government immediately introduce access and benefit amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act in order that the provinces will no longer have to finance welfare assistance for unemployed employables who are the federal government's responsibility?


Edgar John Benson: That question was just answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize that this question has been asked on a number of occasions.


UNEMPLOYMENT-RECEIPT OF INCREASE IN INSURANCE BENEFITS BY ALL UNEMPLOYED
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. He mentioned a recent increase of

February 11, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
10 per cent in the rate of unemployment insurance payments. Is he aware of the fact that in spite of the definite promise by his government the 10 per cent increase is not going in all cases to those who are unemployed?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, we increased unemployment insurance benefits by 10 per cent. Although this is an administrative function of the Department of Labour, I assume that this increase is going to the people who are unemployed and drawing unemployment insurance.


Donald MacInnis: I have a further supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond on a supplementary question, but I notice that there are ten or 15 members rising to ask supplementary questions on the same subject. The Chair will soon have to make a decision on whether we should spend the whole question period discussing this important matter.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that this is a decision the Chair will have to make. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Donald MacInnis: Does the minister not consider that his position as Minister of Finance makes it incumbent upon him to carry out the definite promise made by the government in respect of the payment of unemployment insurance to the unemployed-and that should be enough to wipe the grin off the Prime Minister's face.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


UNEMPLOYMENT-EASING OF WORK PERIOD REQUIREMENT FOR MANPOWER RETRAINING
Mr. Lome Nysirom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker. I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the high unemployment rate among young people in Canada, will the minister say whether he is considering amending the manpower regulations in order that young people with less than three years in the labour force can qualify for retraining assistance?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anything has changed since we had the last discussion on this matter.


Gerald William Baldwin: The rate of unemployment has changed.


UNEMPLOYMENT-SUGGESTED REDUCTION OF INTEREST RATES ON LOANS TO PROVINCES
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question.
In view of the answer he gave earlier to the effect that his government was trying to provide supplementary funds to help the provinces and municipalities undertake some public works, and considering the outrageous interest that provinces and municipalities will have to pay, does the minister intend to offer the loans at a much lower interest rate so as to enable municipalities and provinces to achieve their projects and, at the same time, reduce the unemployment rate?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the loan fund is intended to do. It will be included in the estimates to be presented to the House very soon. We will be turning the funds over to the provinces as soon as they require them to move forward with their projects.


UNEMPLOYMENT-FISCAL AND MONETARY POLICIES TO COMBAT PROBLEM REGIONALLY
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Atlantic provinces have an unemployment rate of 10.2 per cent, with an unemployment rate in one province of 13.9 per cent, and in view of the fact that Quebec has an unemployment rate of 10 per cent and British Columbia has an unemployment rate of 9.4 per cent, with a 2 per cent increase on the Prairies is the government contemplating the adoption of fiscal and monetary policies to combat this serious and chronic problem at the regional level?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have been doing through our regional development program, through the ARDA program, through the manpower retraining program, and recently in my budget through the program for special loans with the larger amounts going to the areas that have higher unemployment.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I ask the Prime Minister, who has sat there for the last 20 minutes with a grin on his face, as my hon. friend said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor to ask a question. If he does not want to do this, we should move on as quickly as we can.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is inconceivable that the Prime Minister of our country should sit there grinning all through the question period.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Are the minister's manpower retraining facilities available to the Minister of Finance so that he can retrain for a new job when he resigns?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

February 11, 1971


FAILURE OF INTERNATIONAL WHEAT CONFERENCE TO REACH AGREEMENT-PLANS TO ASSIST PRAIRIE FARMERS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. He has announced what I predicted weeks ago, namely, the failure of the conference in Geneva, which will be a death knell to the western wheat farmers. Will he say what plans, if any, the government has to meet the serious situation on the Prairies?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, a good bit has been said in recent days about what we are doing, including our very aggressive selling policy both in barley and wheat, which has borne such fruit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: We are selling wheat, not fruit.


Otto Emil Lang: In addition, there has been a whole package of proposals for grain producers which is before them at the present time. There is in addition the statement which I made earlier in the House in which I indicated the continuation of discussions and the real prospect of continued co-operation in order to maintain some order in world wheat markets without specific pricing provisions in an international agreement. I believe there is real substance for an agreement which will maintain that kind of order as we work for what the Canadian government supports firmly, which is international order in the form of a fully binding international agreement in the future.


Gerald William Baldwin: And they lived happily ever after.


John George Diefenbaker: As one minister recently stated, it takes courage for a government to create unemployment. Will the government give consideration now to having the same courage to face the situation on the western prairies and bring about acreage payments, a two-price system, and a floor price for wheat which will cease now owing to the inability of the nations to agree in Geneva? What is the minister going to do about it?


Otto Emil Lang: As I indicated, there is a whole package of proposals before the Prairie producers by which we hope to help the industry, and we are examining every facet of the industry. So far as a guarantee is concerned, that was the subject of an international agreement which did not add substantially to international order at one time even though the agreement existed. As hon. members know, the government took some steps in connection with the domestic market, notwithstanding the lack of firmness in the international area.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister, instead of giving us a Niagara of words say what the government has in this package except airiness?
Inquiries of the Ministry


PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH FARM ORGANIZATIONS FOLLOWING FAILURE TO ACHIEVE INTERNATIONAL WHEAT PRICE AGREEMENT
John Stratford Burton: I should like to ask the
minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board if he can indicate, in view of the statement he made to the House today, when he will again be discussing his grain policy proposals with farm organizations, and in particular whether the meetings with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and National Farmers Union this weekend are designed to discuss further these proposals? Also, is the government now considering a policy which will take account of the developments in Geneva and the effect which these developments will have on wheat producers?


Otto Emil Lang: Of course the question of the effect of international events on our domestic policies is always in our minds. The farm organizations will be meeting with the members of the cabinet during the course of this coming weekend. It will be the usual kind of meeting at their request to discuss subjects of their choice. We have received from them briefs which presumably will be discussed, and certainly the issues raised by the grain proposals and other matters are contained in their briefs and I am sure will be the subject of discussion.


John Stratford Burton: I would like to ask the minister if he can indicate when there will be another round of negotiations at Geneva regarding price matters, and could he also indicate what price proposals were made by Canada to the conference which has just been concluded?


Otto Emil Lang: As I indicated in the statement, discussions are going on in connection with what might be called an interim agreement without price provisions, and the council and the parties will hold a watching brief for the right time for these discussions. I am not sure it would be useful to try to recount on a blow by blow basis the position taken by different parties in the course of the discussions in Geneva.


LIFT PROGRAM-EXTENSION OF DEADLINE DATE FOR PAYMENTS FOR HAIL DAMAGE
Cliff Downey: My question is for the
minister in charge of the Wheat Board. It concerns the administration of the Lift program. In view of the fact that payments under the Lift program fall far short of the $140 million allotted to the program, would the minister say whether he is now prepared to adjust the deadline date of July 15, 1970 in respect of payments for hail damage so that farmers who suffered hail damage after that date may now qualify for payment under the program?


Otto Emil Lang: There is no intention to alter the date on which the land must be in a particular condition to comply with the Lift provisions. Of course, the amount of money available for Lift always depended on the extent to which farmers participated in the program, and partici-
COMMONS DEBATES	__________February 11, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
pation has been rewarded at the rate of $6 per acre and it will be rewarded at the rate of $10 per acre for forage, using the amount of money for which farmers have applied. The other figure to which the hon. member referred was always hypothetical. It was based on the total possible participation by farmers.


PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-EARLY INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: My question is directed to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the failure to achieve a pricing arrangement at the wheat conference in Geneva and the fact that this makes an effective grain income stabilization plan even more desirable and urgent, can the minister state, as a result of his consultations with the Prairie Ministers of Agriculture earlier this week, that improvements have been made in the proposal tabled last October 29 and that legislation will soon be presented to Parliament which will permit the implementation of such an improved plan?


Gerald William Baldwin: Answer yes or no.


Otto Emil Lang: There were fruitful discussions between myself and the Ministers of Agriculture from the Prairie provinces concerning the proposals as part of the process of coming to final conclusions. I look forward to the possibility of coming before the House with the necessary legislation and with policy decisions for implementation at a very early date.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'appelle-Moose Mountain):: have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the economic plight of a great many western farmers because of low grain sales over the past few years, would the minister give serious consideration to declaring a one-year moratorium on the repayment of farm improvement loans, Farm Credit Corporation loans and farm machinery syndicate loans in order to assist the western economy to make a reasonable comeback?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: I have indicated on a number of occasions that Farm Credit Corporation loan payments can be deferred by any farmer who can show that it is a very serious hardship for him to make these payments. It is not prudent to establish a general moratorium because there are some farm producers who are producing other products and whose receipts have not declined.


PROGRAMS TO ASSIST FARMERS BECAUSE OF RATIONALIZATION OF INDUSTRY
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of
Agriculture. Since a modified form of early retirement is being proposed for those workers in the textile industry who have lost their jobs as a result of the rationalization of that industry can the minister advise the House whether similar programs are being considered for those members of the agricultural industry who are also being victimized as a result of the rationalization process which is taking place within that industry?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the preamble to the question, I can say that eight or ten months ago we announced we were working on a program to deal with the small farmers' problems.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Again, I point out that there are a number of hon. members who wish to ask supplementa-ries and I suggest that perhaps we should move to another subject. However, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Vegreville at the moment and then go to another subject.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In light of the evasive and flippant answer to the minister, can he tell the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask a supplementary.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I wonder if the minister could indicate to the House when he will have the fortitude to stand up and defend the agricultural-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


INTERNATIONAL WHEAT CONFERENCE-CANADIAN POSITION ON FOOD AID PROGRAM
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of reports that the United States was prepared to arrive at a pegged price for wheat, provided there was agreement amongst all participating countries to continue the food aid program, in which all exporting countries would participate, would the minister advise if Canada was the fly in the ointment on this issue, or did Canada support such a program?


Otto Emil Lang: Without accepting the preamble, Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize to the House that Canada at all times has supported the inclusion of a food aid program in any new agreement. We still look forward to that being included in the agreement to be arrived at soon.

February 11, 1971


INDUSTRY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is he now able to give the information I requested the other day as to the total amount of contracts held by Canadian firms under the Rolls-Royce jet engine arrangements, the total amount of employment that will be lost if these contracts should fall through, and whether the government of Canada has any measures in mind to meet this situation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have some figures here. Only one company, Orenda Engines Ltd., holds contracts directly related to the Rolls-Royce RB-211 engine project. Orenda has three contracts for the production of gas turbine components for a value of $5.65 million, and I understand this occupies about 60 people.
The real significance to Canadian industry in the Rolls-Royce situation has to be measured in terms of the Lockheed project, that is, the L-1011 trijet aircraft. Six main Canadian companies have been engaged in subcontract work for this project and the whole thing, at its present value, is worth about $60 million. The Canadian companies participating in the program produce auxiliary power units, structural components, simulators and other equipment. At this time these subcontracts could provide jobs for about 675 people.
The government is following carefully the developments in this matter and is maintaining close liaison with the companies involved. Although the L-1011 program is threatened, there is no evidence at this point that it has been cancelled. The future of the program must await the decisions of Lockheed, Rolls-Royce and their governments.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brefon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the severe unemployment problem which is reaching crisis proportions in Cape Breton, is the minister in a position to reply to a question I posed the other day to the Prime Minister in the absence of the minister? It is further to the continuous representations I have been making for some months on this same subject. Will the minister make a statement now indicating the short and long-term plans and programs that the Cape Breton Development Corporation has for the future of the island, with particular reference to employment and industrial activity? In other words, can the minister indicate what is the blueprint for the future of Cape Breton so far as Devco is concerned?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I have learned that Devco is in the process of preparing short as well as long-term programs for the industrial development of Cape Breton Island. As soon as I have received them, I shall make a statement to the House.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, is it correct that at the moment a multimillion dollar program has been placed before the government of Canada by officials of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, and could he indicate when he would be in a position to elaborate further to the House and give encouragement to the people of Cape Breton, although I realize this will not put bread on their tables immediately?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I know that work is being done on specific projects, but until now nothing has been left on my desk.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Does the federal government plan to intervene in support of the action brought by five teachers against the British Columbia government's order in council issued on October 22, 1970?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, that matter is before the courts on a provincial order in council. We do not plan to intervene.


Donald MacInnis: Will the federal government challenge the constitutionality of the order in council?



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It is based on the special statutory responsibilities he has with regard to creating jobs. What steps is the minister prepared to take to accelerate the programs under his department in the regionally disadvantaged areas, especially the Atlantic provinces, where unemployment is so high and where the programs seem to be lagging because of bureaucratic red tape?

February 11, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that a study of the figures which were made public today will indicate to the hon. member that the rate of unemployment in the Maritimes has decreased more than anywhere else in Canada, by 1.4 per cent, which has been unheard of since the beginning of Confederation. So there has certainly been an effect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: As a supplementary question, would the minister answer my original question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He did.


James Aloysius McGrath: Precisely what steps is he taking to accelerate the programs under his department in the Atlantic provinces to create jobs in this period of record high unemployment?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the department as a whole which has been established and the development rate tend precisely to create jobs in the Maritimes and in slowly developing areas. The departmental goal is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



ACTION BY MINISTER TO BROADEN MANPOWER RETRAINING PROGRAM REGULATIONS

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that more than 10 per cent of the labour force in the Atlantic region is now unemployed and that many of these people have exhausted the training period for which they are eligible under the present regulations of the manpower retraining program, has the minister been in consultation with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration as well as with provincial ministers with a view to adjusting this program to take care of the very large number of hard-core unemployed who badly require this kind of retraining during this difficult period of unemployment?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the officials of my department are in constant communication with those of the provincial governments and the Department of Manpower, to ensure that there is the largest possible number of jobs available and that the largest possible number of people are trained for new occupations.


James Aloysius McGrath: You are supposed to create jobs.


Jean Marchand: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I rise on a question of privilege. I think the question I put to the minister, as well as the previous question put by the hon. member for St. John's East, were very clear, but we are receiving absolutely no answers, just puffery, from the minister. Why won't he answer?


An hon. Member:: Our people want more jobs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Resign!



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the impasse in negotiations between the CBC and a substantial percentage of its employees, which could have a serious effect on radio and television, would the minister discuss with CBC management the possibility and advisability of top management representatives of the CBC, able to make decisions, being asked to sit in on the negotiations with the union so that a settlement can be effected?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am in contact with the authorities of the CBC and we exchange information on all aspects of this issue.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It is of concern to all of us. In light of the fact that unemployment among young people in Hull is at nearly 50 per cent, and in light of the fact that we do not have a strong man in the cabinet now from the capital region-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Sainte-Marie.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to direct to the Minister of Finance.
February 11, 1971

Whereas the sums of money handed out to the provincial authorities in the form of economic incentives and loans represent double taxation for the provinces, would the minister tell the House whether it is prepared to reconsider this matter and to hand out grants rather than loans to the provinces as economic incentives?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's allegation is sheer nonsense.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance.
Considering the minister's reply, does he really feel that the objection raised by the premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, is also pure nonsense?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, there was no reply to the question I asked yesterday, which is reported at page 3245 of Hansard. I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce could look at that question and reply to it before the end of the present question period.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the hon. member, with regard to the question that he raised yesterday in connection with tenders called for the purchase of three million pounds of broilers for export to the Far East, that this was an open tender. The relevant section of the tender reads as follows:
Tenders will be accepted from persons normally engaged in the processing, wholesaling, brokerage or exporting of poultry products.
In fact, invitations to tender were requested by and sent to 35 firms across Canada. I have the figures for each region if the hon. member wishes them. I can assure the hon. member that firms in all regions of Canada were invited to tender.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I bring to the attention of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, who wishes to ask a supplementary, that we are running short of time. Perhaps, to clear the matter up, the hon. member might be allowed another question, after which I shall recognize the hon. member for Annapolis Valley.


Mark Willson Rose: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary question is for the Minister of Agriculture. I understand that arrangements have been completed for another shipment of four million pounds of broilers. Can the minister tell the House whether or not this four million pound order has involved any government assistance?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, no orders or tenders have been finalized with any assistance from the government because the tenders will not close until tomorrow.



INFORMATION CANADA


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Information Canada. In view of the special commission arranged by the Director General of Information Canada to conduct research on the past and future relations of the federal government with the various departments of the province of Quebec, can the minister tell the House if such a research program is also to be conducted with the other provinces of Canada or is the minister satisfied that those relations have been in good order all the time?


Hon. Robert Slanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Yes, and no, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Stanbury:: The answer is yes to the first question and no to the second. We are conducting very favourable discussions with various provinces on interrelationships between information programs. I think each province is evincing a great deal of interest. We have noticed a particularly strong interest among candidates for the leadership of the Conservative party in Ontario in establishing an agency similar to Information Canada.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the directive of the Director General of February 2. May I ask the minister whether a specific research program has been instituted and whether a commissioner has been appointed by the Director General to investigate relations between the federal government and the other nine provinces of Canada, since the minister is a member of the cabinet of a government that does not believe in special status for anybody?


Richard J. Stanbury: No, Mr. Speaker, but I think the hon. member would agree that there is a particular need to ensure that our fellow Canadians in Quebec understand their relationship with the federal government. I hope the hon. member will appreciate this and agree that it is extremely important to the future of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AGRICULTURE


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.

February 11, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of the numerous objections raised and the very serious reservations made in respect of Bill C-176, could the minister tell us if he is prepared to make a statement to the effect that a group of producers will not be affected by this legislation unless the majority of its members agree to it?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the indications coming to me and to the provincial governments show that there is far more support for than objection to Bill C-176.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

['Order, please.\n\nFebruary 11, 1971']
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister who reports for the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and arises from the increase in the numbers of the unemployed but the drop in the percentage rate. How many more hundreds of thousands of Canadians will have to be thrown out of work before the percentage rate drops to 3 per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Surrey.



Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring a question to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the very welcome news today of the signing by the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union of an agreement to ban nuclear weapons from ocean floors and seabeds, would Canada give consideration to urging the United States to refrain from tests or at least postpone the scheduled massive nuclear tests to take place in the Aleutians area?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all hon. members would like to join the comments which have been made about the signing of the agreement banning nuclear weapons from the ocean floor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: As hon. members know, we were one of the first countries to sign this agreement yesterday. I do not think, however, it is directly relevant to the forthcoming tests on Amchitka. But I want to say that I hope the United States is reconsidering these tests, not only in light of that particular treaty but also in light of the earthquake in Los Angeles. Because this is a problem that has been of great concern to people all along the Pacific Coast.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, has the Secretary of State for External Affairs made direct representations to Washington urging that the proposed tests at Amchitka be not proceeded with?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have been studying the scientific data that was supplied to us as a result of the previous tests. This data will be examined again in light of recent experience which adds support to the view that tests could result in earthquakes in that part of the world.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister what scientific facts led him to put out that scare statement that atomic explosions have something to do with earthquakes?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps if the hon. gentleman knew something about the Pacific Coast he would know that there is a fault which leads sometimes to earthquakes, and that an atomic blast could result in triggering an earthquake. I hope he will extend his education and inquire about another part of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do
not think it is proper that a minister of the government should rise and make a statement-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member should go back to his "fault".


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has risen on a point of order. He should be given an opportunity to explain what the point of order is.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs can cause a great deal of concern throughout the United States and other countries where earthquakes are possibilities. I do not think he has the scientific knowledge to back up that statement, and furthermore-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the hon. member might indicate what the point of order is so that we can proceed as quickly as possible.


Donald MacInnis: I suggest we had better get out of the House because, if faults cause earthquakes, there is a big fault over there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

February 11, 1971



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Government House Leader about the business for the rest of this week and next week?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will call the government organization bill and following that the Canada Development Corporation, Yukon minerals, young offenders and the clean air bills. In any event, regardless of the progress made on these bills, we will regard Monday next as an opposition day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this announcement varies a bit from what we had understood the program to be for tomorrow. In light of what has been said, may I ask a question? If we get to second reading of the Canada Development Corporation Bill, will the Minister of Finance, in whose name the bill appears, be here to introduce the bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if I thought we would get to the Canada Development Corporation Bill, I would produce the minister tomorrow afternoon. In my view, it is unlikely that we will complete the government organization bill tomorrow. For that reason, I am not asking the minister to stay for tomorrow afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, February 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson, that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose last night, I was explaining some of the reasons it is important that the agricultural industry should be given a higher priority, not only by governments, but especially by consumers and all Canadians. As recorded at page 3267 of Hansard, I had drawn to the attention of the House the high need for capital for involvement in agricultural production and, in particular, that, on the average, a $41,000 investment is necessary to create a job in the agricultural industry in Canada.
Agricultural output in Canada has been increased, using an even smaller labour force. As I pointed out last evening, the proportion of the labour force in agriculture has decreased in 20 years from 22 per cent to approximately 7 per cent. When this percentage is added to the 5 per cent of the labour force that is involved in agribusiness or food processing, we have a total of 12 per cent of the total labour force of Canada directly involved
The Budget-Mr. McBride
in this industry. In spite of the fact that the proportion of the population processing a producing food in Canada has continually decreased, production of food or agricultural products has increased. Productivity for all commercial industries in Canada has increased at an average rate of 3.5 per cent per year since 1946. On the basis of a classification into seven broad industry groupings, the growth rate for agricultural productivity has been the highest at 5.5 per cent per year.
Consumers expenditures on food as a proportion of their total outlay is continually declining. In 1967, it was estimated to be 20 per cent compared to over 25 per cent immediately after World War II. The declining proportion which consumers spend on food means that a greater proportion of their total income is available for other consumer goods or for saving. In this sense, I do not think it is a distortion of the facts to conclude that the agricultural industry in general, and the primary producers in particular, are continuing to make a larger and larger contribution to the welfare of the nation by supporting a cheap food policy through the sweat of their brows. Our problems would be fairly simple if we were alone. Unfortunately, a number of other countries have improved their agricultural productivity in the same way at the same time that we have improved ours. As hon. members recognize, if our agricultural products are to compete in the international market as well as in Canada, we must realize that agriculture is a basic industry in the sense that we have to sell outside our borders. If we are going to compete in the international market we must be concerned about how other countries are faring, rather than simply the portion of the Canadian consumers budget allotted to food.
When we look at Canadian agriculture in the context of the world economy, we cannot help but be impressed with the fact that Canada has a vast production capability and a small domestic market. Therefore, if we are to compete successfully with farmers in the United States, and farm producers in other parts of the world, agriculture in Canada must be as efficient and competitive as possible. One thing that firmly assists agriculture in many other nations to be competitive is the significant assistance that the industry receives from governments. The amount of support the Canadian government gives agriculture is about the lowest in the western world. OECD studies indicate that federal expenditures in agriculture in Canada average approximately $286 per active person in farming compared with the somewhat staggering sum of $1,287 for each United States farmer. If we think of that one factor, we will recognize there is a great disparity. There are different points of view with regard to agriculture. I want to summarize three differing points of view from three different segments of our culture.
There are two main problems in Canadian agriculture from the point of view of the farmers. The first is low farm income. The second is uncertainty as to the future. There are, of course, other problems such as instability of prices and incomes, the rising cost of credit, inability to market certain products and so on. The main problems of Canadian agriculture, as seen by agribusiness men, turn

February 11, 1971
The Budget-Mr. McBride
around the subject of markets. Good farm incomes mean better markets for machinery, fertilizer and other inputs. When there are good markets for farm producers, there is more business for milk processors, meat packers, elevator operators, and retailers. The welfare of agribusiness is inextricably tied with that of the farmers.
The difficulties in which agriculture finds itself, as seen from the point of view of governments, tend to arise largely as a result of low basic incomes. It would seem to me that from the viewpoint of the government the cost to the treasury of price supports and similar programs becomes part of the "farm problem". We come to the root of the matter when we recognize that among ministers of the cabinet conflicting responsibilities arise in their different areas of authority. Cabinets in countries such as ours tend to divide on the question of food prices. Ministers with special responsibility for agriculture and related fields want higher prices so as to raise farm incomes, while consumer-oriented ministers want prices to be as low as possible so as to counteract the tendency to inflation. Governments also find that unsatisfactory social conditions arising out of low farm incomes necessitate manpower, urban housing and adjustment programs since they contribute to urban pressure and increase the influx to already crowded cities of young people who, if the situation were more favourable, would remain in the agriculture industry. Governments have also tended to regard agriculture as a special subject. Its earnings abroad could be an important source of vital foreign exchange, though exports from year to year were subject to violent fluctuation.
The main difficulties of agriculture, as seen by the agricultural task force, also revolve around the fact of low farm incomes, though one should bear in mind that this is the symptom of a basic inequality in the allocation of resources as between agriculture and the other sectors, in labour mobility, in education, in alternate employment, in the international competitiveness of Canadian products and, finally, in the adequacy of government agricultural programs.


Donald MacInnis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not expect my point of order will get anywhere but I would draw attention to the fact that the hon. member is reading every word of a prepared speech.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has called the attention of the Chair to the fact that the hon. member who had the floor is referring to notes. He knows that a number of hon. members making formal presentations to the House do refer to notes. There was, at one time, an established rule, I believe, that members ought not to read their speeches but it seems that increasingly in recent years we have reached a position where hon. members, or a number of them, feel they have a better chance of making a complete presentation to the House if they refer to copious notes. This practice is followed by a number of hon. members on both sides of the House.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has raised a valid point of order. The hon. member who has the floor has noted it, and the Chair has noted it also.


Donald MacInnis: I acknowledge Your Honour's statement about the reading of speeches. I do not always call attention to the fact that hon. members are reading their speeches. In this case, it is my way of criticizing the critic.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think there is any point in pursuing the matter, but it seems to me that in fairness, if one hon. member is referring to notes and another hon. member calls attention to that, it should be done in the case of all hon. members, and to the personal knowledge of the Chair speeches have been made from notes on numerous occasions during this particular debate. However, I will not take upon myself the initiative of calling the hon. member to order. While it is in order to use notes, I suggest it is better, though, that presentations be made to the House by way of unwritten speeches.


Murray Arndell McBride: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would only say that the phrase is "refer to notes" in a general way. On the other hand, I might add that most of us who sit in the House believe many speeches are improved if they demonstrate a little research and people have brought some notes with them. Another thing that bothers me is the limited time available to us. If a speaker does not bring in any notes, and does not deal with his subject in an orderly way, he can easily find himself cut off before he has really put over what he wanted to say.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the lecture the hon. member is now trying to give the House. If he paid a little more attention to his own constituency and a little less to the heavy water industry he would perhaps know what is going on.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a point of order. I now have to call the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond to order. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton has the floor.


Murray Arndell McBride: The point I was coming to before I was interrupted is that farm people all over the world tend to be among the lowest paid segments of society.


Donald MacInnis: You are still reading.


Murray Arndell McBride: The result is, of course, that the power for action, the political power, the power as consumers, available to the farm segments is lower than that of other segments. This is particularly true in Canada where the farm community has been so largely made up of people imbued with what I might call the pioneer spirit, the type of person who prefers to go it alone. The result is that the farm population in Canada has never formed itself into a cohesive unit which could make its wishes well felt in government and administrative circles. This is probably linked with the fact that the farm community is made up of thousands of individuals whose products are sold to a relatively few purchasers. In consequence,

February 11, 1971

the traditional family farm, which has for so long been the backbone of farming in Canada, finds itself in a period of adversity; the need for increased capital, larger structures and bigger enterprises has made it impossible for many individuals who would otherwise be growing food to continue to do so.
I recognize, in spite of the intervention of the hon. member opposite, that there are many others who wish to speak this afternoon so I shall conclude as rapidly as possible. It would seem to me that effort is needed at governmental level to eliminate surpluses or at least to keep them within manageable proportions in order that farmers may not be caught up in the vicious cycle of over-production. As a result of over-production prices fall, and many producers decide not to enter that field. Then, prices rise and production begins again with a rush, as a result of which farmers are caught in what I would call the swinging back and forth of the economic pendulum within the agriculture industry. I am pleased to see some form of stabilization program being established, especially in the grain-oriented economy of the west. It will soon be brought to fruition and implemented by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board and by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). Indeed, I should like to see programs of this type extended throughout the industry.
Finally, it seems to me that the whole agriculture industry must think in terms of food, not simply in terms of products. The day may have come when we should be thinking in terms of integrating forward, that is to say, producers integrating into the processing field and then into the consumer marketing field so that the producers are in control of an integrated production line, instead of integrating backward as we have seen happen with processors taking over production, as a result of which pressures have been created adverse to the success of the family farm.
I would commend to hon. members a study known as the Special Study of Agricultural Science in Canada, 1970. One of the sections in this study bears repeating, and it is as follows:
Agriculture has been, and continues to be, the most important primary industry in Canada, contributing major economic and social benefits to Canadian society as a whole. Research and development constitutes the key to its continued progress. However, the organization for research, the philosophy of research, and research itself, must reflect the needs of the agricultural community, and utilize all the relevant disciplines in new forms of integration, if agriculture is to meet fully the problems and opportunities of the immediate future.
Several of the recommendations I should just like to tick off. They include, the establishment of an agricultural centre for bio-economics research and development, a population ecology research centre; a research centre for rural adjustment, an Atlantic resource management centre and a centre for research on cold and drought resistance in plants. This study is well worth the attention of any member who is interested in the agricultural industry, as are the recommendations included in the agricultural task force report.
The Budget-Mr. Orlikow
My main purpose in rising to speak in this debate is to remind the government and all Canadians that, as an industry, agriculture makes a very large contribution to our nation; and that it is to the benefit of all Canadians to have a strong agricultural industry.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a sad day for Canada. Today we have been informed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics that 668,000 people were unemployed in the month of January. If one adds to this total the 100,000 people attending manpower training courses, and groups such as Indians and Metis in western Canada who have never been included in labour force statistics, we realize that more than three-quarters of a million people are unemployed today.
The 668,000 people unemployed in January 1971 represent an increase of 130,000 over the month of December 1970, or an increase of 183,000 over January of 1970. If we look at the regional figures, we do indeed see a grim situation, one that should bring a feeling of foreboding to all hon. members, particularly cabinet ministers from the province of Quebec. The figures for Quebec show there has been an increase from January 1970, when 178,000 people in that province were unemployed, to 234,000 in January 1971.
The last four or five months have been amazing months for the province of Quebec. The kidnappings of Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte, and the latter's subsequent murder, created a quite understandable feeling of fear, indeed-I say this not in a critical way-a feeling of hysteria in that province. Deliberate attempts were made by some members on the government side, particularly the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand), to try to convince the people of Quebec that all separatists are terrorists.
I have no use for, and reject completely, the proposals made by the Parti Quebecois for the separation of the province of Quebec from the rest of Canada. But surely the by-election held last week in the provincial constituency of Chambly ought to alarm the government of Canada, and particularly its cabinet ministers from Quebec. Despite the pressure put on the people of Quebec and the attempts to convince them that separatism is not only wrong but in fact subversive, the Parti Quebecois held the votes that it received in the general election in Quebec and increased its share by a percentage point or two. Almost one-third of the voters in that constituency voted for the Parti Quebecois, and to a large extent I think this can be attributed to the despair and feeling of hopelessness of the ordinary people in the province of Quebec.
In Ontario, our wealthiest province, unemployment increased from 124,000 persons in January 1970 to 201,000 in January 1971. Unemployment among young people between the ages of 14 and 24 increased from 199,000 in January 1970 to 277,000 in January 1971, an increase of over 35 per cent. The actual rate of unemployment as calculated by DBS rose from 6.1 per cent in January 1970 to 8 per cent in January 1971.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has expressed happiness at the fact that the seasonally adjusted rate

February 11, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Orlikow
has dropped to 6.2 per cent. I do not want to embark upon a discussion as to whether changes in the method of calculation have had any effect in the drop, but let us assume that 6.2 per cent is the actual seasonally adjusted rate. Only a government headed by a group of millionaires, with a Prime Minister who has a computer where his heart should be could be happy about an unemployment rate of 6.2 per cent seasonally adjusted and ignore the real plight of three-quarters of a million or more unemployed.
The government has set up a straw man for the people of Canada. Having got this country into a situation which no other industrialized country in the world is facing with an unemployment rate of 8 per cent, it then tells the people of Canada that things are going to be better, and that since things are going to be better in the coming year it ought to ignore the mess that Canada is in at the present time.
If one looks at the seasonally adjusted figure, one soon observes that in the past four months the actual reduction in the percentage of unemployed has been only 0.4 per cent. If one keeps in mind that the number attending manpower training courses is higher than it had been, and that in the past 12 months the strike at General Motors had a very serious, though temporary, effect upon the whole economy of Canada, then one realizes that in fact there has been very little improvement in the rate of unemployment.
For the past two years the Minister of Finance has been insisting that the major problem facing this country was inflation, not unemployment. As a consequence, the government has adopted a deliberate policy of slowing down, of deflating, the economy. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said a year ago that he was not going to be deflected from his anti-inflationary policies even if we had to face a figure of 6 per cent unemployment. Newspapers sympathetic to this government, such as the Toronto Star, felt it incumbent upon them to criticize the Prime Minister for that callous statement, as they should and as the Prime Minister deserved. In fact the actual unemployment rate is not the 6 per cent the Prime Minister spoke about, but is 8 per cent.
If we take into account the trends as they develop in the course of every winter, next month when the figures for February come out we will have not 668,000 people unemployed but rather somewhere around 725,000. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) are proud of the fact that last year's price increases in Canada were among the lowest in the world. They speak about this constantly. However, they do not tell us, and they do not tell the Canadian people, that the inevitable result of the policies they followed in creating this situation has been that Canada has the highest rate of unemployment of any industrialized country in the world. According to the newspapers, Great Britain is facing the heaviest unemployment it has faced since before world war II. What is that rate of unemployment in Great Britain? It is 3 per cent compared to our 8 per cent.
It is interesting to compare the rates of unemployment in countries in western Europe for the year 1969 with the rate in Canada. In Germany, the rate of unemployment was half of one per cent. In Sweden, it was 1.9 per cent. In the United Kingdom, it was 2.2 per cent. In Italy, the rate was 3.1 per cent; in Belgium, it was 3.3 per cent; in the United States, it was 4.1 per cent, and in Canada, it was 4.4 per cent. Since that recent fairly pleasant period of 1969, compared with other countries Canada's rate of unemployment has increased substantially. Had the government pursued its policies of combatting inflation more vigorously, then instead of having the three-quarters of a million unemployed people we now have we probably would have one and a quarter million unemployed. In addition, instead of having the cost of living increase by 1J per cent in the past year we would have had an actual reduction. That, of course, is a stupid suggestion but it is no more stupid than the policies followed by the government for the past two years.
We are told by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister that the prospects for 1971 are much better and that unemployment, like the snow outside this building, will disappear in the next couple of months as the warm weather comes. Well, these statements by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are just as incorrect as the statements they have made over the past two years based on the advice they have received from their economic advisers such as the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Deputy Minister of Finance and the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission. These advisers have consistently underestimated the unemployment figures and today are overestimating the prospects for reducing the unemployment. According to academic economists in Montreal and in Toronto, who have been much closer to the actual results in their estimates during the past couple of years concerning unemployment, the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment for 1971 will continue at 6 per cent for the whole of this year.
This means that for January and February of 1972, the unemployment figure which is now running between
650,000	and 725,000 will shrink somewhat, but probably only to something in the neighbourhood of between 525,000 and 550,000 people. That figure is completely unacceptable as an unemployment figure in a country as rich in resources and manpower as is Canada. Only people who live in ivory towers, such as the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and their economic advisers, can take comfort from the statistics we have received from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the estimates with regard to unemployment for the next 12 or 15 months. Mr. Speaker, they have forgotten, if they ever knew, what it means to be unemployed. They have forgotten, if they ever knew, what it means for a worker, whether a machinist, an electrician, a carpenter or a labourer, who is accustomed to living relatively comfortably on a weekly wage of $100 or more, to have to manage for months or years on unemployment insurance or on welfare.
Perhaps I might refer again to the figures given to us today by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. We see that

February 11, 1971

February 11, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Orlikow
ployed from the present 50 per cent, under the provisions of the Canada assistance plan, to 65 per cent. Not only would this be fair because the cities simply cannot afford the cost of welfare, but also because the unemployment we are faced with today has been brought about to a very large extent by the deliberate policy of the federal government.
Third, I propose that housing programs should be increased immediately. The minister in charge of housing made a speech which sounded very well yesterday. Hej called on the provinces to get going, to move into the field of housing and, particularly, into the field of public housing. My own province of Manitoba came to the federal government, to the minister and to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with a program for public housing which is to cost $55 million. What happened? The words of the minister yesterday were coated in honey, but what are the cold, hard facts? When the province of Manitoba asked for $55 million, they were sent home with $31 million. Theirs was the kind of request for which the minister was calling yesterday, and yet it was reduced by 40 per cent. I suggest that that is not good enough. I suggest to the minister that he should look very carefully at extending the provisions of the National Housing Act so that loans can be made available for the rehabilitation of present housing stocks. Surely, we have learned enough by now, on the basis of past experience that we do not want to simply bulldoze the existing housing stock, much of it in good shape and simply needing some rehabilitation.
Fourth, I propose that the Minister of Finance give immediate favourable consideration to removing the 3 per cent surtax on income tax. Such a move would immediately put spending power into the hands of ordinary Canadians and would permit them to buy manufactured goods, thus, increasing employment opportunities for those who are unemployed.
Fifth, I suggest that the government give serious consideration to a sharp increase in the funding of products to encourage cities to move rapidly into sewage control and pollution abatement programs. I say to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), as I have said on other occasions, it is a disgrace that in the year 1971 his city of Quebec dumps almost 100 per cent of its raw sewage untreated into the St. Lawrence River; that Montreal, a city of 2J million people, dumps over 90 per cent of its raw sewage untreated into the St. Lawrence River; and the city of Halifax dumps over 90 per cent of its raw sewage untreated into the bay on which it is built. I cannot think of anything more useful and more productive, both in terms of employment and improving the environment, than that the government should help those cities which I have mentioned, and many others-


Jean Marchand: Would the hon. member allow a question?


David Orlikow: Certainly.


Jean Marchand: Does he know how many sewage processing plants are being built in Quebec?


David Orlikow: I would be very happy if the minister, later today or when we return to debate on the government organization bill setting out the powers of the minister of the environment, would tell us what is happening in Quebec City. When I say that close to 100 per cent of the sewage of Quebec City is dumped into the St. Lawrence River, I am quoting from a submission made by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities to the federal government less than a year ago. If the situation has changed, then I extend my congratulations to the minister and to the city of Quebec. However, I am certain they have a long way to go before they put an appreciable dent in the disastrous situation which has been created in that city.
If the government would move to do these things I have mentioned, then we would begin to move towards full employment; we would begin to wipe out the large scale unemployment which the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion used to be concerned about when he was President of the CNTU, or at least which he seemed to be more concerned about than since he has become a minister. If the government would approve some of the proposals I have made, not very radical or revolutionary proposals, we would begin to move towards the just society about which the Prime Minister spoke so eloquently during the last election, and we would begin to make the just society a meaningful fact-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but I must do so to notify him that his time has expired.


David Orlikow: If I could have 30 seconds more, I could complete the sentence.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: As I was saying, we would move towards making the just society, about which the Prime Minister spoke so eloquently a year or two ago, a meaningful fact rather than the bitter joke which the phrase has become to so many of the unemployed.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, there are so many matters that could be discussed in the budget debate since, in Canada today, problems are legion. However, I shall follow the example that has been set in the past few days and deal with the most pertinent problem, namely, unemployment. I was going to deal with an ancillary mater, that of regional expansion and development. The Minister of Regional Economic Development (Mr. Marchand) is in the House, so perhaps I may deal with it towards the end of my remarks.
In the light of the statistics that were brought down today concerning the growing problem of unemployment, I would like to make some positive contributions to the debate. I believe the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion will be speaking in the debate this afternoon, so I shall curtail my remarks in order to give him an

February 11, 1971

opportunity to reply to some of the things that I shall say this afternoon.
There is no doubt that the question of unemployment has become critical. It is not just the transitory, seasonal unemployment that bothers Canada because of our severe winter weather. It is chronic longterm unemployment that has reached into the level of skilled and professional people. It has been a long, long time since we had young Canadians qualifying with Ph.D. degrees unable to find suitable employment. It is a long, long time since we have had people with technical skills unemployed, after a lifetime spent in the work for which they were specially trained, and it has been a long, long time since the young have been so severely affected by the chronic state of unemployment that besets the Canadian economy at present. Admittedly, there is always some unemployment and it is the chronic poor who suffer most in this regard. Now, because of the growing severity of the problem, they are feeling the pressure all the more because of the lack of policy and misdirection on the part of the federal government.
I am not going to engage in a battle of statistics because statistics are cold comfort. We do know that the situation is severe. Whether it be the number on unemployment insurance, the number who are registered for employment in the manpower centres, the number who are statistically calculated on the seasonally adjusted basis, it is a very black and serious day for a young country like Canada. I suggest that the situation has developed because of what has been designated the Benson iceberg theory by a gentleman in Manitoba, who applied this term to the minister's white paper on taxation. If one reads that book by the tax expert in Manitoba, who is also the leader of the Liberal party in Manitoba, Mr. Izzie Asper, I think one must come to the conclusion that he reached, that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) brought down his white paper on taxation he obviously had not read the document himself because since that time he has been backing away from his own thesis.
That white paper has been discussed in season and out of season across the country. I do not think any of the important proposals in it had the approval of the people of Canada. There has been much newspaper comment on the White paper. I read one from the Deloraine Times published in my constituency. The item is headed, "An Angry Canada", and reads:
Across the country, more and more people from all walks of life are asking: "What is Ottawa trying to do?"
That is a good question, but unfortunately the members who sit on the treasury benches in Ottawa are not able to answer it because they do not know the answer. In all the letters which are reaching my office there is evident a spirit of growing protest, economic protest and political protest. The other day one of my correspondents waxed eloquent with poetry, and I would like to read this for the benefit of hon. gentlemen opposite. It is a poetic summary of the attitude of people in western Canada to the current disarray in government programs and policies. I know there is to be a ministerial safari to Saskatchewan this week-end. The ministers will get the
The Budget-Mr. Dinsdale
message in person. I merely wish to give them a preliminary foretaste of what they may expect:
Of Trudeau and Sharp you have heard,
Edgar Benson is a big third.
Recession, depression,
In deadly procession
Is the aim of this ravenous bird.
That was sent to me in a letter, and I think it is a good summary of the situation which faces the country at present. So far, the only minister who has spoken in the continuation of the debate has been the minister responsible for housing. His solution is, build more houses. He also gave us some words of wisdom when he tried to rebut some of the comments which opposition spokesmen have been making. He quoted that old aphorism, "The optimist sees the doughnut and the pessimist sees the hole." There are 700,000 unemployed people in Canada at present, as I am sure hon. members opposite realize. I almost said, "Hon. members absent", which would be a more appropriate term, and I include hon. ministers opposite when I say "hon. members opposite". It is very difficult for those people who are unemployed to see anything except a very dismal hole. There is not much dough in the doughnut that faces them in this dismal prospect. The government seems to be replying that unemployment is a rumour or, to use a phrase that the Prime Minister frequently likes to use, that it is, "a foul canard perpetrated by a bunch of people who are out of work." That is as close as they come to realizing the problems that accrue to those who find themselves among the 700,000 unemployed, a situation that has come about as a result of government bungling.
The Parliament of Canada set up within recent years the Economic Council of Canada. That Economic Council of Canada every year presents a report. Each year it reports the desirable goals towards which the government of Canada ought to aim. These are not the half-baked proposals of any private Member of Parliament. These are the carefully researched, analytical goals set out by the members of the Economic Council of Canada. We must have, first, full unemployment. I am referring to the points outlined by the Economic Council.


Mr. Francis:: Full unemployment or employment?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: If the whip of the government party will read the report of the Economic Council of Canada he will see that full unemployment in Canada as a result of seasonal adjustments-I beg your pardon. I ought to say "full employment". Full employment, on that basis, is reached when our unemployment rate is 3.8 per cent.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question. He has twice referred to full unemployment.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have corrected myself and said "full employment". The figure there is 3.8 per cent. There must be, second, a high rate of growth, an annual increase in the gross national product of 4.75 per cent. Third, there must be reasonable price stability, which would be a 2 per cent rate of increase in prices annually.

February 11, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Dinsdale
Fourth, there must be a viable balance of payments, where the foreign exchange fund is not subject to undue fluctuations. The final and fifth point is, an equitable distribution of rising incomes.
These are the goals that the Economic Council of Canada has set out as fundamental to any rational economic policy in Canada. The government presently occupying the treasury benches has failed to achieve any of these goals. It has missed the target in all respects. And why has it missed the target? Because it has put the cart before the horse, that is why. It has been so preoccupied with fighting inflation which was self generated. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), who is present in his seat, knows something about that, because he was the minister of finance in the previous administration. Hon. Walter Gordon, who used to be minister of finance, would also know something about this. He was so mesmerized with his own propaganda when he wrote that book "Troubled Canada" in 1962, and with his own desire to get the economy going again when the economy was already going too fast, that the fires of inflation raged out of control.
For the past two years the present government has been deliberately bludgeoning the economy in order to deal with one aspect of the total economic situation. Only now is it moving to deal with what is the fundamental problem in the economy, providing employment for the citizens of Canada. This must be achieved, of course, through continuous economic growth. The hon. gentleman who spoke previously, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), outlined some simple proposals that would deal with this chronic situation of unemployment. I will not repeat what he said. I concur in all respects with those recommendations and wish to add an extra one. If the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing really wants to achieve his goals for housing, he should seek the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials.
The government, as a cure-all, is expanding government expenditures which will go into winter works and make work programs of various kinds. Well, if the government had not cancelled the winter works program a few years ago, they would not need to take this emergency action. The winter works program was an excellent method, on an annual basis, of levelling out the humps and bumps of the seasonal fluctuations in employment in Canada. The tragedy is that those massive injections into the economy at this late date will not produce any real impact, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) admits this, until the warmer weather comes. The minister says things will be better next spring. I say that he and the government should adopt the slogan that was adopted in the past for this excellent winter works program: "Why wait for spring; do it now."
If the ministers who are going to western Canada this weekend, or at least one or two of those ministers who have direct responsibilities in these matters, had gone out through the hustings, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) did two or three weeks ago, they would realize that unemployment is more than statistics. It involves hardships among families; it involves misery,

frustration, suffering and despair such as Canada has not seen for a long, long time.
One of the policies that the official opposition has been recommending to the government is the immediate removal of the surtax. This was alluded to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North earlier this afternoon. This would have the desirable effect of releasing or at least easing the pressure on the private sector of the economy; because, if we are ever to deal with the chronic unemployment situation, we must encourage a rapid degree of growth in the private sector of the economy.
Rather than growth, we are besieged and beset by bankruptcies, mass firings and layoffs, as a result of the fact that private business is floundering because of excessive taxation by the government. Tax relief would give immediate impetus to the total economy. Instead of economic growth, we have a 5 per cent slack which will require a 10 per cent performance next year in order to make up for the current slack in terms of total productivity. Goodness knows when the economy will achieve the rate which has been mapped out for it by the Economic Council of Canada.
In order to live up to my promise and give the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion an opportunity to speak before five o'clock, there is just one other matter-


Stanley Howard Knowles: We don't stop at five o'clock.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That's fine.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is a budget day.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There is one other matter which concerns the minister directly which I wish to discuss at this time. There are special problems which relate to the Canadian economy which must always be kept in mind if we are going to achieve the goals laid out by the Economic Council of Canada, and if we are going to achieve the level of development and prosperity that should be the inheritance of a country as young, vigorous-the people, not the government-and rich in resources as the true north, strong and free.
The prime consideration is the problem of regional disparity. The minister has direct responsibility for this. The second is our high dependence on international trade, and the third is the same degree of dependence on our principal trading partner. We are closely tied to the economy of the colossus to the south, the United States of America.
In order to deal with the chronic situation into which the Canadian economy has slipped under the present administration, we have to do something about regional disparity. Perhaps this is outside the responsibility of the Minister of Economic Expansion, but the policies of the government as they affect my own province and the Prairie region generally are aggravating rather than assisting the difficulties. Manitoba is still basically an agricultural province. Agriculture is still the main source
February 11, 1971

of economic activity. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), who was here a few moments ago, is from the west. He should realize that the policy initiatives that he is taking to deal with the growing crisis in agriculture are confounding the issue rather than providing solutions. I just mentioned that in passing because there will be much debate on the subject when it finally comes before Parliament. Bill C-176, the marketing legislation, was soundly shellacked when the Standing Committee on Agriculture was in Winnipeg last week. A spokesman clearly pointed out that if the terms of Bill C-176 are ever implemented, the diversified agricultural industry in Manitoba will be virtually destroyed. The same applies to the grain stabilization act, and the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, which the government is threatening to remove from the statute books.
I wish to deal with another matter that perhaps does not seem important, but which is vitally important to the agricultural community. In 1963, capital grants for agricultural fairs were suspended. There have been no capital grants for almost eight years. The government has promised action. Some of the facilities at these agricultural centres are becoming quite shabby. As a result, there is a growing and urgent need for some infusion of capital under either the suspended program or a substitute so that the agricultural industry might be given this boost.
In addition to the problems of agriculture, the government is promoting the depopulation of the smaller rural communities and encouraging the rush to the big metropolis. This aggravates the current unemployment and other social problems which the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion was decrying in his recent speech to the Liberal party in Quebec. He prophesied that unless the social confusion and disorganization of the urban communities were toned down, we would be heading for severe trouble. Fundamental to this trend are government policies that encourage depopulation of the rural areas and concentration of the population in a few large urban areas where the social problems are so severe that it is almost impossible for civic administrations to deal with them.
In the western provinces there is a constant attrition of fundamental services. Transportation services such as railroads and air services are being downgraded as are postal services. The National Film Board used to play an important role in creating a sense of national unity and purpose by means of audio-visual education. This is now being downgraded. Local units are being closed in favour of the concentrated bureaucracy, Information Canada, in the larger centres. The CRTC is enunciating policies that militate and discriminate against the outlying areas. I have already indicated that the winter works program was discontinued, as were roads to resources. The tariffs are going up and up. This is direct discrimination against the Prairie community.
I read a very interesting speech by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) to the Canadian Importers' Association of Montreal on January 20. As a result of that speech, the Winnipeg Free Press, a liberal journal, referred to the policy enunciated as "This
The Budget-Mr. Dinsdale
is protection in excelsis". That statement appeared in the February 1 edition in a leading editorial headed "Pepin's Promise".
To show that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was doing some delicate tight-rope walking on that particular occasion, I wish to quote some interesting extracts from his speech:
Yes indeed! But what, where from, where to, how freely and how much must we export and import?
Sorry, as you well know, no magic formula is available to answer these questions. When the cliches have been exhausted,-
As an interpolation, I may say he uttered most of the cliches.
-what is needed is knowledge, judgment, wise reconciliation of conflicting interests, proper balance of advantages, the play of competition, consideration for economic, social, political, even ethnic ... national, regional, professional factors.
The key word is "balance". I often point out that the balancing act is the most important act parliament has ever passed. I should like to illustrate how this balancing act has, nevertheless, been implemented in recent Canadian trade policy. As a matter of fact, this is my only objective today.
* (4:40p.m.)
The response, in this balancing act, has been protection in excelsis, which does extreme harm to the basic industry of the prairies and runs completely counter, in direction, to some of the more desirable programs which the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is attempting to promote.
Before concluding, I should like to ask the minister whether he intends to say some encouraging words shortly in connection with the situation which has arisen in western Manitoba as a result of the government's decision to close down the Rivers Air Base. I know the minister intends to visit that part of the country to survey the situation there. One of the main causes of unemployment in the area concerned arises from this phase-out, based on government policy.
The city of Brandon, other surrounding communities and rural municipalities, along with the Province of Manitoba, have directed a brief to the hon. gentleman requesting that he designate this area as a special area under DREE so that adequate alternative programs might be developed. This is the sort of constructive initiative which is required if we are to use the powers available under DREE to deal with this fundamental economic situation, that is to say, with regional disparity. I trust that as a result of the many representations which have been made, mostly by spokesmen from this side of the House, the government will break through its hard shell of insensitivity and appreciate that when we talk about
700,000	people unemployed we are not dealing with statistics but with people-people with families, young people, and all the social and economic ills which flow from the tragedy of unemployment. Perhaps when the ministers are in the west, down on the hustings during the cold winter atmosphere this weekend, this message will come home to them loud and clear.

February 11, 1971
The Budget-Hon. J. Marchand [Translation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, before I entered politics, I was always told that unemployment was the favourite food of politicians. Today, I see those who so informed me were quite right. It is not that I want to make a joke of the matter, because I know what it is to be unemployed. I have seen the unemployed and on many occasions I have fought for them, and I am aware that the problem is extremely serious.
However, I do not believe that opposition members have, at any rate so far, made really meaningful contributions to the debate on unemployment. Of course, they have complained about unemployment and denouncing unemployment and inveighing against the present government is a sure way of building up some kind of political prestige. It is easy. Anyone can do this denouncing and I appreciate that it should be done. There is not the slightest doubt about that.
However, I had thought that the opposition would do a little bit more than merely offer vague criticism. I expected them to submit concrete proposals, to tell the House and the Canadian people what policy should be adopted in order to put an end to unemployment and, in fact, to enable almost all Canadians to hold a permanent and remunerative job.
Some hon. members-my attention was drawn, for instance, to the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-appear to have written their speeches 20 or 25 years ago, taking into account the situation as it was then. Apparently, since then, they are repeating the same speeches, without being aware of the changes that have occurred in our society and without bearing in mind the decisions that have been made. The same stories are told because at the time they were pertinent. Today, however, such utterances have nothing whatever to do with the facts.
One member spoke of Quebec City. Nobody asked him to do so, but he spoke of it. He said that Quebec City has a serious problem because it dumps almost 100 per cent of its raw sewage into the St. Lawrence. However, for the past six or seven years, Mr. Speaker, we have been working with the province of Quebec and with the City of Quebec in order to eliminate the pollution of the St. Charles River. Two water treatment plants are being built; an amount of some 100 million dollars is provided for the treatment of all the small streams which pour into the St. Charles River. All this is being done. It seems that when the hon. member for Winnipeg-North-Centre, pardon me, Winnipeg-North, prepared his speech, this was not being done. That was the only way to bring a member of the New Democratic Party into the House. There is no doubt that unemployment interests the New Democrats, but-Mr. Speaker, I knew that the hon. member would resume his seat after hearing me make such a mistake!
So, Mr. Speaker, here is a man in public life who has just spoken of unemployment, of Canadian problems and who could at least inquire about and know these elementary facts. But it makes a good impression to assert

before the Canadian people that absolutely nothing is being done although we would really have a wonderful opportunity to find jobs for our unemployed.
In any event, whatever criticism we may level at the opposition, it nevertheless remains that unemployment is a very serious problem in our society. Is the problem serious because there are 600,000 unemployed rather than
500,000	or 400,000? I am under the impression that any man who is unemployed against his wish, even though he were the only one of his kind, would be thoroughly unhappy and society should come to his assistance. It is not the fact that there are 200,000 or 300,000 which is serious. Obviously, this makes for a greater number of unhappy people, but for the one who finds no work it will not help his situation to hear that his third neighbour is also unemployed.
It is a quite personal problem. Unemployment also becomes a social problem when there is a significant number of workers out of a job.
Mr. Speaker, I would like us one day to have more revealing statistics on unemployment, not because I do not believe that there are 600,000 unemployed-there are perhaps 700,000 or 800,000-but in order to know the truth as it is. I do not intend to minimize the importance of unemployment. We have total figures concealing quite varied realities.
For instance, does the worker who from one place to another has been vainly looking for work in the last six, seven or eight months fit in the same category as, say, the longshoreman who, by the very nature of his job, is unemployed in December and January and gets backs to work only in February or March?
Besides, the teacher who stops working in June and starts again in September is in the same situation. Nobody ever thought of considering this man as being out of work during the summer months.
It is also the case of the construction worker who is unemployed for a few months in the year because of the weather and usually, the fact that he is idle for part of the year is taken into consideration when his wages are established.
Then, all these people are put in the same category.
Is the unemployed from Montreal, who has been looking for work for the last six months, in the same category as the fisherman who has to stop fishing in November or December? He is unable to fish. His work year is not the same as that of an urban worker. And everything is mixed up.
Those who work only a few hours a week are numerous. There are not any global figures available for them. But, I think unemployment is such an important problem that more detailed statistics should be required in order to examine them in a more rational way.
Some workers are unemployed because of the nature of the industry they are in. Some industries are seasonal. Is the farmer in the same situation as the secondary industry worker in a city like Toronto?
February 11, 1971

Mr. Speaker, it would be in the interest of the public to have more telling statistics, which would prevent such an important assembly as ours to talk somewhat at random about an extremely serious problem, without having accurate information on the situation.
As we all know, Mr. Speaker, the goal of my department is to reduce economic and social disparities between the various regions of Canada, in order to make sure, as much as possible, that people from every area enjoy an acceptable standard of living.
This is a simple objective, that everybody can understand, but the fulfillment of which proves to be very complex in practice.
I am the first to admit that it was not easy at the beginning because the machinery of economy cannot be changed in so short a period of time. One must admit also that it is very difficult to restore the economy of underprivileged areas when the economy of the country as a whole is going slow and the unemployment rate is high.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the present situation is very unfair to unemployed people, but it is also unfair to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion because when the general employment situation is bad in Canada, there is no doubt that the programs that we implement have much less impact and that their effect on the unemployment level in Canada is much less apparent.
I am convinced however that for the past two years, we have implemented programs that will enable us to reduce regional inequalities and the effects of which will be all the more evident since the Canadian economy will be going again.
There are three such programs. The first one provides for employment in slow-growth areas; the second one is aimed at improving public utilities in under-developed areas in order to provide the population with a better standard of living; the third program enables us to provide assistance to the under-developed provinces in adjusting to various changes and in taking advantage of all new employment opportunities.
With regard to employment opportunities, the industrial incentives program in its new form has begun well. In 18 months, to January 31, we have 404 accepted offers of incentives for industrial plants in slow-growth regions. They involve an investment of $566 million. Towards that our incentives will contribute $123 million. The plants that we are encouraging will employ over 20,000 people when they are in production.
These are the new jobs directly created. They do not include the jobs preserved in plants which could not continue in production if we did not help them to modernize. They do not include the indirect jobs, the people who are employed because the new plants buy supplies and because their workers have wages to spend on additional products. The number of indirect jobs cannot be stated precisely, but a very modest estimate is 45,000.
The Budget-Hon. J. Marchand That is to say, in 18 months the new program has already set in motion investment that will involve, directly and indirectly, a total of at least 65,000 jobs in places where they are badly needed. This is the permanent result-the jobs created when the plants are in production. Admittedly, few of them are in production yet because they take time to build. That is a fact of life and the speeches of critics cannot change it. But these critics might note that the building of the new plants in itself creates immediate employment. Directly and indirectly about
75.000	man years of employment will be derived from the construction that the incentives program has already set in motion.
These are good results at so early a stage. The present state of the economy is not what any of us would like, but it is a great deal better than would have been possible without our regional development programs. For the future we have to go on expanding our efforts. That is why the incentives legislation was strengthened recently. It is why we are adopting new devices, like the Multiplex Corporation that we have just established as a joint agency with New Brunswick. Through that corporation we will be trying to bring a whole complex of large, modern plants into existence, centred on Saint John. That is just one of the new projects that we are trying to work out with provincial governments.
Since my department was established on April 1, 1969, we have not only launched the new incentives program, but, for a transitional period, we have continued the old ADA program. The cases approved under that program since April 1, 1969, are creating 19,000 new jobs as direct employment, and a total of over 40,000 jobs if indirect employment is included.

Then, Mr. Speaker, taking into account only the jobs which are directly or indirectly created by my department, I note that right there a total of approximately
150.000	jobs have been made possible thanks to this department. So, when the hon. members of the opposition state that this department is a failure and that it has done nothing, they are merely assuming the same attitude as the hon. member for Winnipeg North who makes statements without even trying to make sure of his facts.
Another important program being introduced by my department will help the provinces and municipalities set up the necessary public services for the development of low growth areas.
Since provincial and municipal authorities do not have adequate financial resources, the development of such public services cannot now materialize without federal help. This is why we have established our special zones program.
The first federal-provincial agreements, which have been in effect since April 1, 1970, provide for a federal contribution of the order of $243 million, spread over a two-and-a-half year period. The different projects issuing from such agreements involve directly or indirectly some 35,000 man-years.

February 11, 1971
The Budget-Hon. J. Marchand

For the benefit of those who are always referring to the winter works program, I will repeat in English what I have just said in French. Do they know how much money we are spending under the winter works program? We are spending about $25 million a year.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It was doing a good job.


Jean Marchand: In the last two years we have spent, for the same purpose but much more intelligently, about $245 million.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Marchand: So if hon. members want to hark back to the winter works program, then let them explain to the public what the government is doing.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Would the minister permit a question. Why, then, has the government resinstated the winter works program this year on an emergency basis?


Jean Marchand: We have not.


Mitchell William Sharp: We have done a more effective job than winter works.


Jean Marchand: It has been explained in this House time and time again.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Winter works.


Jean Marchand: No. There are the shipbuilding loans, loans to the provinces for various winter works projects, but nothing like the old winter works program any longer exists. When you refer to the winter works program, I should say that this was about the only program at that time. There was, perhaps, one other. That program was concerned with regional development, and the total amount expended for the year was $25 million. My department now spends over $300 million for the same purpose. I believe we are doing much more. Those who think we can correct the unemployment situation by reverting to the old winter works program do not know what they are talking about.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: You are not achieving the same result- wasteful expenditure.


Jean Marchand: Then, we come to the matter of helping disadvantaged people. Whatever the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) thinks, I am very sensitive to the same values he has and I am working on this. I am not reading the same speech he read of 25 years ago. Besides the stimulation of employment through the incentives program, besides the help to community services in the special areas, we have a variety of other programs to help people to adjust to changes and take advantage of new opportunities.
Under the ARDA legislation, we have a great variety of programs to help rural areas. Let me take as examples two new projects recently started in Saskatchewan. At Cutbank, we are putting $1.5 million into a special training centre to provide Indian and Metis people with edu-
[Mr. Marchand (Langelier) .1
cational upgrading and work experience. Again, at Last Oak Park, we are investing nearly $3 million in helping Indian bands to develop recreation and tourist facilities from which they should be able to earn greatly improved incomes.
These are specific examples. We have been negotiating with the provinces broader ARDA agreements, which I expect to sign shortly. These will enable us to share with provinces in a very wide range of projects that will help people in rural areas to develop better incomes. I anticipate a considerable expansion of activity within the next few years.
As another aspect of helping people, we have greatly improved the resettlement program under which we help people in Newfoundland who want to move to the areas with better schools, better housing and more varied employment opportunities.
Then, we have the various FRED programs. The most ambitious is the Prince Edward Island development plan. That is working well, we are not complacent about it. Indeed, we are working out with the provincial government ways of making it more effective, particularly by providing funds for the school building program which is essential to economic and social progress on the island.
One of the most important of our new programs is particularly designed for severely disadvantaged people, such as people of Indian ancestry who have had little employment experience. We are anxious to provide a wide range of assistance to such people to set up, train for and finance their own undertakings. The details of such a program are now in the final stages of negotiation with the Prairie provinces and the Indian and Metis people, and we expect afterwards to expand the program to other provinces. Many of these social adjustment projects will build on the important work in preparing people for employment that is being done under the Newstart program.
Finally, in this brief review, I will mention the oldest of Canada's regional development programs. I refer to PFRA. Over the years, as everyone on the Prairies knows, it has contributed greatly to the improvement of land utilization and the conservation of water. Under today's conditions, with larger farms and the movement of prairie people into relatively larger towns, the key improvements in water utilization are necessarily those at the centres which act as the trading points for rural areas. With Brandon as a first example, we intend that PFRA should increasingly contribute to this need. In passing, I think I should mention I am very hopeful that very shortly we will have a solution for Gimli and Rivers. I have every reason to believe we have a solution.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Come out with us soon.


Jean Marchand: I am awaiting replies to my letters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Stop over on your way back from Saskatchewan.


Jean Marchand: Another indication of the broadened range of projects for PFRA is its assistance to
February 11, 1971

an Indian band at The Pas to construct the water and sewer system and streets for a modern subdivision on the reserve. In a more traditional field, we are working out with the Alberta government the role of PFRA in rehabilitating the major irrigation works in southern Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, this was a brief summary of my department's various programs. I am not saying they are perfect. But for hon. members to state out of hand in the House that the government is doing nothing for the underprivileged or the unemployed, this is mere demagogy. We are even accused of being unresponsive to the unemployment problem!
And yet, all of us, my department officials and myself as well as the cabinet that is behind me, are doing our utmost to find solutions to the Indian and Metis problems and those of the unemployed fishermen who are unable to find work and whose income is inadequate. We are trying to solve the farmers' problems with our ARDA programs. We are trying to find solutions to the problems of underdeveloped regions and declining industries, such as the footwear industry and the shipyards, by devoting the whole of our time to them.
The opposition members may say we are not good at it and that they would find the solution. Some will agree, some will not! But to have the Canadian people think that we are so many civil servants absolutely unresponsive to unemployment is to lie to them and try to make them believe such lies.
Mr. Speaker, there is one sure thing: the number 700,000 or 668,000 may be stated in the face of the Canadian people, but the opposition would really be wrong in not stressing that important fact in our social life. Indeed, the number is necessarily relative: 600,000 in relation to what?
Ten or 15 years ago, the labour force in Canada was about 5,000,000 or 4,500,000. Of course, 600,000 out of
4,500,000	has a somewhat greater importance than 600,000 out of 8,000,000. In the United States, there may be 1,000,000 unemployed, which is relatively less serious than in Canada because the labour force there is so much greater. Therefore when people use exclusively absolute terms and disregard seasonally adjusted rates, thereby ignoring the fact that the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment fell from 6.6 to 6.2 per cent, I say they minimize the truth and want to hide it.
It is true that the unemployment rate has relatively decreased and it is important to mention it while complaining of the fact that in absolute terms, there are more unemployed than before. However, the fact that the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment declined from 6.6 to 6.2 is extremely important and nobody could deny it. And if someone wants to use merely 130,000 more-
l


David Orlikow: The figure is 668,000.
The Budget-Mr. Fairweather


Jean Marchand: We know that, but you never mentioned the other figure. I say it is a good thing that you mentioned there are 668,000 unemployed in Canada. It is part of your job to do so, but it is also part of your job to say that unemployment has declined when this figure is considered in relationship to the other figure.

The rate went down from 6.6 to 6.2 per cent. We are now faced with an extremely serious and complex problem related to the general policy of the government which is being accused of promoting unemployment. Some of our unemployment may have stemmed partly from the government's action. But nobody ever came up with a practical and the solution to prevent this phenomenon.
When I hear our so-called leftists claim that the only way to fight unemployment is to lower taxes, I must say that I do not know where they learned their leftist's political philosophies. Indeed, this seems to be a rightist's attitude. In fact, who would benefit from tax reduction if not the wealthiest regions and this at the expense of the disadvantaged areas of the country? Come on, this is crystal clear!


Some hon. Members:: Hear! hear!


Jean Marchand: This must be the most reactionary position in Canada today. The only way to assist the disadvantaged people of Canada is to enforce the kind of selective measures we have taken.
Mr. Speaker, I am as much concerned about the unemployment rate as any member in this House and there is no doubt that any politician would find such a situation disastrous. It is not as bad as the opposition pretends it is, but it may well be more serious than we thought. It is undoubtedly a serious problem and I only wanted to indicate that the government is engaged in correcting the situation and that my department has taken very significant action which will bring results, even though it might not yet be obvious because of the general situation. But I am convinced that we are going in the right direction and that, with some degree of co-operation, we shall be able to bring back a reasonable level of employment in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear! hear!


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Of all
the people who should be talking and making accusations about vague denunciations, it occurred to me that the minister, because of what he has been saying in the last couple of months, is a master at it.


Jean Marchand: I have nothing to withdraw.


Mr. Fairweather:: We will leave the record to speak for itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It speaks very loudly.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had to do a little chopping down for vague denun-
3300

February 11, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Fairweather
ciations. I will not trade statistics with the minister. I know that the unemployment rate in the Atlantic region of Canada, that is the number of unemployed as a percentage of the labour force, is, according to the revised statistical method of reporting today, 10.2 per cent. It is, therefore, up .2 per cent from the same period last year. That is why I am taking part in this debate.
I do not want to load the record with accusations that the government is doing nothing-that would be ridiculous. I know the government is doing something and I welcome the announcement, for instance, about the consortium Multiplex in Saint John. I just suggest that up to now the government has not done enough.
The conclusion of the debate on the budget delivered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) last December, comes at a time when we are all very deeply concerned about the issue of unemployment which, by the admission of the Minister of Finance himself, was deliberately created-a hardship by cabinet decree. On Tuesday, the Minister of Finance read the provinces a little lecture on how great he and the government were. I read the lecture, too. We were given it and also given the statistical tables. It occurred to me that it is normal practice for references to greatness to be left to the judgment of history. But this government is not content to await that judgment. They want to attempt to ensure their place in history now. In this they can be assured of some distinction, the distinction, I suggest, of placing a very cruel and unwarranted strain on the whole fabric of Canadian life.
I have tried to place myself in the position of one of the provincial ministers when the Minister of Finance told them to borrow to meet the increased costs of welfare-a superb response to a very urgent need. That is what the minister suggested, but he should have remembered that the increased cost was brought on by the federal government's decision to be tough on the issue of employment. The provincial ministers must have felt something of the shock one experiences in going from a warm room to an ice cold shower; bracing, if you can stand the shock.
What troubles me about unemployment, what troubles me after the genuine agony of those 668,000 Canadians who are totally out of work, is the government's complacency in the face of the figures. We continue to be treated to little homilies about it not being as bad as the statistics indicate. We have just had another example of that. We are urged to remain steady; we are asked to cool it, to keep calm. Well, the country needs a lot more passion from this government. We need evidence of more fire in the government's collective belly.
We had high hopes from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey). We thought for a time that he was the conscience of the cabinet. But when the minister was faced with an ugly situation in Kingston when frustrated and angry men broke a window in the national employment office, all we got from the conscience of the cabinet was the statement that the glass was being replaced. As my leader reminded the country, men and women who want to work but cannot are losing a little bit of themselves every day. That is tragic. Tragic indeed it is, and this
government is compounding the tragedy by their lack of a forthright policy to face the most serious issue that has faced this country since the second world war.
The Atlantic report published the other day by APEC is a cool and, if I can put it this way, neutral analysis of the situation in Atlantic Canada. The report reads:
The economy of the Atlantic provinces during 1970 was placed once again in the unenviable position of being forced to withstand the impact of the conventional methods of slowing the progress of inflation without having contributed to the phenomenon.
That is the economic history of the Maritimes in a sentence.
Although there was more evidence than ever before that regional difficulties were being recognized through discretionary fiscal policies, it was clearly apparent that more fine tuning of these measures was still necessary. Under the circumstances the regional economy appeared to fare reasonably well during the year relative to past performance and to the faltering national economy. However, many of the deep rooted problems appeared to worsen under the influence of anti-inflationary policies, a slowing national economy and a sluggish U.S. economy.
I make no apology for quoting these and one or two more paragraphs from APEC's analysis of current economic conditions and trends. The council has won for itself an enviable reputation for being apolitical and research oriented. It plays no favourites and has won the respect of provincial governments, industry and trade unions for its carefully studied forecasts of economic prospects.
The analysis suggests that:
. .. the Atlantic region will not move into the upturn of the current cycle until at least the latter part of the third quarter.
The latter part of the third quarter is some six months ahead.
As the 1970's began the principle question being raised in the Atlantic provinces was whether federal authorities would be willing to temper anti-inflationary policies to ease the impact on the economically immature areas of the country. Uniform application of these policies in the past has shown that their impact was most severe in areas such as the Atlantic region.
Some attempt was made to lighten the burden of the antiinflationary strategy on the regional economy in the March federal budget. These measures included: increased funds for loans to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to offset expected declines in the flow of private housing, money to assist low cost housing, aid to municipalities in setting up pollution abatement plants; increased mortgage funds for farm credit... and increased funds for regional economic expansion.
But, Mr. Speaker, although these programs did set a precedent in recognizing the unique character of the regional economy, APEC's response was that policies expressly designed to alleviate the impact of federal contra-cyclical policies were needed. It was stressed that the economic structure of the region makes it particularly susceptible to economic slowdowns. Downturns occur more easily and faster than in the nation and recovery lags behind. Moreover, the region is adversely affected by cyclical variations and this is reinforced by the application of the broad levers of fiscal and monetary policy used to offset inflationary tendencies.

February 11, 1971

. .. The gravity of the regional situation led observers to anticipate that the year's second budget-
The one we are debating now.
-would recognize the need to bolster the regional economy and give it the impetus to move out of the trough in step with the nation.
And, as the analysis puts it so well:
This expectation did not, however, prove to be true ...
You do not need any embellishment on that statement that, "This expectation did not, however, prove to be true." These are not my words. These are not rhetorical adjectives that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion seems so sensitive about. They are the result of a carefully prepared analysis by an apolitical group having to do with the whole economic future of the Maritimes. It is because the budget we are now debating falls so far short of the national needs, and because the expectation that it would recognize the need to bolster and give impetus to the regional economy proved untrue that I, as a representative of the region, consider it my duty to suggest that the minister, to say the least, has been callous in the manner in which he has ignored the special needs of our part of the country.
It seems to me that there are four issues having to do with the general theme of unemployment and regional inequalities, and as I have a minute or two more I want to try to state them as briefly as possible. The first concerns the working poor and the socially assisted. I hope the House will forgive me if I discuss this with particular emphasis on New Brunswick. This is not meant to be a whining cry for money. Rather, I want to share with you a cri du coeur on behalf of those who are having a hard time of it this winter, and also regretfully for many, too many winters before this winter. Some of the statistics are known, as an editorial in Tuesday's Moncton Times reminds us. There are figures that in their stark brutality are almost unbelievable. I quote:
-55 per cent of Tracadie's population is receiving help and in the general region about 40 per cent is on welfare.
Parliament and the country must understand that thousands of our fellow citizens have a food allowance of 17 cents per mecil, "whose chances of finding jobs in the heart of winter are nil, whose homes are windy shells." To continue the editorial:
One fact appears to emerge-that the traditional welfare system of providing a subsistence style of living, tied in with a minimum wage structure whose earnings are often less than welfare allowances, must be changed. It provides no incentive to work and the whole structure drives out the few who can acquire an education, leaving behind the few who would be supported anyway (the widows, the blind, the 111 and the old) and those who because of lack of education cannot qualify for jobs much better than cutting wood and catching fish. Both of these are seasonal occupations and are subject to the vagaries of weather.
When several years ago a talented CBC producer, Richard Nielsen, incidentally a New Brunswicker by birth, tried in a sensitive and probing documentary to share some of the horror behind these mean facts, people castigated him for not showing pastoral New Brunswick basking in an August sun. I was profoundly saddened by the film and depressed by the public outcry against what
The Budget-Mr. Fairweather
it depicted. Instead of engendering a will to something, I am sorry to say that many people ran for cover. They put on blindfolds and said that that was not the New Brunswick they wanted to see. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if this issue, and the statistics in support of this issue are unsolved, they threaten by their brutality not only the unity in my province but the very fabric of this country.
Many people in this age of insensitive technocracy resist blood and guts words. They shun compassion and concern as being unworthy of the lexicon of a modern industrial state. As the old hymn asks, "When comes the promised time-?" Many Canadians are asking this question today. Many are asking this question this winter. I suggest that we, in this Parliament, have no higher priority than to work to end this patent injustice which is the lot of far too many of our brothers.
This leads me to the constitutional conference which completed another chapter in its continuing serial. We are now to be treated to constitutional underpinning to the determination of governments to fight regional inequality. But, Mr. Speaker, the niceties of constitutional language will have a hollow ring if these phrases are not translated into action. It will be idle and insulting to agree upon phraseology which has no content.
The budget we are debating certainly shows no evidence that one of the senior ministers in this administration understands his obligation to provide more funds for education and help to back up provincial tax revenues. The party I support will join the government in a common attack upon problems which are too vital for rhetoric, and I suggest, too human for a trading of statistical analyses.
In the statement of conclusions issued on February 9 at the end of the third working session of the constitutional conference, paragraph No. 7 is of interest. It is entitled "Regional Disparities." The first ministers, which seems to be the latest cliche for premiers and Prime Minister, recalling their conclusion on the subject of regional disparities at the working session in September, said that the constitution should include a recognization of the importance of equality of opportunity for all Canadians. It was, therefore, concluded that the reduction of regional disparities should be referred to both in a new preamble and in the body of the constitution.
(a) The preamble should state that one objective of confederation is the social, economic, and cultural development, and the general welfare and equality of opportunity for all citizens in whatever region they may live; (b) In the body of the constitution there should be a statement of obligation on all governments, federal and provincial
(i)	to promote equality of opportunity and well-being for all individuals:
(ii)	to ensure, as nearly as possible, that essential public services of reasonable quality will be available to individual citizens.
(iii)	to promote economic development which will reduce disparities in the social and economic opportunities of individual Canadians in whatever region they may live.
This obligation would not be enforceable by the courts and would not have the effect of altering the distribution of legislative powers. If this statement, is to have
23786-67i

February 11, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Fairweather
flesh and blood transplanted and transfused on to what is merely a textual recognition of a fundamental problem in this country, we shall have to await policy decisions. We have a very limited understanding of this matter. You will forgive people in Atlantic Canada if on this issue, on this entrenchment which is really a declaration, we are "from Missouri". My fellow citizens have been examined, studied, measured, tabulated and analysed.
The fact of the matter is that despite the massive and debilitative exodus of our sons and daughters, still over one in ten of my fellow citizens is without a job as I make my speech today. These people do not now enjoy equality of opportunity and well-being. These Canadians do not have-even with the qualification of "as nearly as possible"-essential public services of reasonable quality available to them. The budget which will reduce disparities in their social and economic opportunities. It is no wonder that the statement is qualified by the proviso that this obligation is not enforceable by the courts. The case has already been proved many times over, and I suggest that the courts would have to find for the plaintiffs, the people of Atlantic Canada.
There are two other issues that I wish to discuss. I will just headnote them because of other constitutional considerations. Desks are being moved; tappings on the door will soon be heard. It seems to me that any consideration of Maritimes' problems would be incomplete if something were not said about Maritime union. All I will say is that the provincial Premiers have made a significant start in what has been a monumental task outlined by one of our great Canadians, Dr. John Deutsch, of Queen's. The government of Canada must make its decision clear at this time because a constitutional proviso is involved.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will need to enunciate policy in this area. The Prime Minister a few months ago made an important statement in Saint John about the opportunity for trade between the Maritime provinces and the New England states. This was an important speech. It must be translated from a speech and become action. I think there must be a quid pro quo here. The Prime Minister and the government must take the lead in discussions with the United States and determine whether the needs of the United States for resources or goods may be traded off-I use this term in its best sense-in order to provide an opening for the products of the Maritimes in the New England states. Actually, the word I have written in my text is "orchestrate": such ongoing negotiations with the United States cannot take place in isolation.
Somebody said to me the other day in Brandon, "I am a conservative free trader." I reminded him that there are conservative free traders covering all of Atlantic Canada. Part of the paradox we face in this country is that there are all these quids and pros and quos, so to speak. However, if the Prime Minister's speech is to be more than an excuse for an interesting visit to enable him to see some of the country and its people, I suggest that the government has the responsibility of trying to translate the Prime Minister's statements of optimism about the economic future of the part of Canada that I represent into government policy.

I hope that if these two days of debate have done nothing else, they have reminded the government that the statistics made available today by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics have to do with a great many unemployed. I hope that they will remind the government of Canada that the first priority of hon. members has to do with 668,000 people each of whom is an individual who is being diminished and demeaned because of a calculated decision that will prevent many of them working this winter.


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain how much time I have until the arrival of Black Rod. I have read most of the speeches made in the budget debate and have been present for some of them. One of the reasons for my taking part in this debate is that I have become aware, after listening to or reading the speeches, that we are really playing games with the people of Canada. Without exception we are all deeply concerned about the plight of 668,000 people. I do not think any member of this House would presume to feel a greater measure of concern than any other member. But it seems to me that when we talk about the people we are toying with their expectations; we are playing with their hopes; we are simplifying the problem; we are reducing the whole complex matter to a question involving single individuals and individual policies.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has been the recipient of most of the abuse, and when it has not been the Minister of Finance, it has been the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). This has been more an exercise of opprobrium and simplification than one of analysing the basic problem-and, Mr. Speaker, the problem goes very deep. I think one of the truly disappointing areas of the daily question period is that the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) continually asks the Prime Minister what program he is going to produce to solve the problem of 668,000 people. That is unrealistic. I suggest that it is irresponsible to stand up day after day to demand a simple solution, a simple formula, when no single program will deal with the problem the roots of which were buried 1.5 years ago and the solution of which lies several months ahead. Every member of the House knows that. It is time we stopped playing games with the unemployed and began looking at the situation in terms of its real context.


Mr. Peters:: And what is that?


James Hugh Faulkner: I cannot help being distressed by the position taken by the New Democratic Party in this debate. No stronger speech was made than that of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). No adjectives were stronger than the ones he used-"cruel", "heartless" and "callous." Where was that party months ago when the Prices and Incomes Commission was set up, when there was an attempt to develop voluntary restraints because it was recognized that there was a problem? Instead of exercising the leadership which is incumbent upon that party as a national party, it simply served as an apologist for the trade union movement.
February 11, 1971

I do not blame the trade union movement for some of the objections they took regarding the way they were handled by the Prices and Incomes Commission. When faced with that situation, what was the responsible course for a national political party? Was it to serve as the handmaiden, as the apologist of the trade union movement, or was it to act as a bridge between the legitimate misgivings which the trade union movement felt toward the Prices and Incomes Commission-a bridge which would have reconciled the differences that were developing-and at that point try to achieve some sort of compromise which would have made the work of the Prices and Incomes Commission more effective than it had been? This was the responsibility of that party which lacked the guts, the leadership and the intestinal fortitude to assume the role incumbent upon it as a national party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now let us hear your speech.


James Hugh Faulkner: I am just coming to my speech. Unfortunately. I will not have enough time to complete it. I wish to read one of the more interesting paragraphs from the sixth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada. This paragraph puts the position and the responsibility of the government in a context which heretofore has been missing. I quote from page 156 as follows:
It is frequently assumed that high standards of performance in our economy, as well as the major decisions on resource allocation, are almost entirely the responsibility of governments- sometimes even more narrowly conceived to be the responsibility of the federal government. Nothing could be further from the truth. Governments today occupy a larger and more influential role in the economy than in the past. But the fact is that we have a highly decentralized system of decision-making in Canada, in which the great bulk of decisions affecting the economy are actually made outside of government-in private markets of growing sophistication and complexity and, in many fundamental respects, outside the ultimate capacity of governments to control in any detailed way. In consequence, the attainment of our various goals and objectives will require improved decisionmaking in both the government and the private sectors.
It would be worth while for hon. members to review that paragraph and study its meaning. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) has probably read it. It puts in proper context the precise role and limits of responsibility of the federal government. It is that dimension which has been so patently missing from all contributions made by opposition members. What are the goals? The three goals we have all subscribed to, which are shared and outlined by the Economic Council of Canada, are full employment, economic growth and price stability. In its sixth annual review the Economic Council of Canada outlined the two basic areas in which the federal government has certain responsibilities, one on the demand side and one on the supply side. On the demand side they acknowledge that the principal tools available to the federal government are the traditional tools of fiscal and monetary policies. They analyse and outline the areas where the federal government can be effective on the demand side.
The Budget-Mr. Faulkner
I recommend that hon. members read the various areas on the supply side where governmental policies are required. If hon. members read the list on the supply side and examine government policies in the past two years, they will have to confess, even if it is in the solitude of their own offices, that the record of the government in this area is particularly good. It is not only the record of the government but of Parliament. It has been recognized that in this limited area where we have a responsibility our record has been particularly good. That is cold, small comfort to 686,000 people.


Mr. Gilbert:: You are right.


James Hugh Faulkner: Despite the efforts of the federal government and decisions made by Parliament, the traditional methods which we have adopted have failed. During this debate, therefore, we should have explored some of the problems that any government traditionally has encountered in using the tools traditionally available to them. An interesting solution that is constantly recommended and is often alluded to by people in my constituency is that failing a solution to the problem of inflation we should develop a compulsory incomes policy and freeze wages. The traditionally bogey has always been the working men of this country. That is a misleading myth. However, the idea of an incomes policy of some form is a goal that should be pursued by this Parliament.
It would have been interesting to hear what opposition members have to say about this delicate area. It is in this area that the basic problem is found. My own view is that a compulsory incomes policy would not be workable in this country, for a variety of reasons. We should try to avoid developing the expectation among people in this country that the solution to our economic problems can be found in some form of compulsory incomes policy. The bureaucratic mess, the injustices it would create by a sudden freezing of a situation and the inevitable black market activities which would develop rule out a compulsory incomes policy as workable and viable.
Another approach that is sometimes suggested on the basis of European experience is some form of national collective bargaining. It is interesting to study the experience of the Netherlands and Sweden as well as Italy, France and other countries which have some form of national collective bargaining. It is particularly interesting to study the Netherlands example. They had what was considered to be a model formula until 1963 when the frustrations from the trade union movement at the plant level developed distrust between the workers and other union leaders. A wage explosion resulted.
This type of national collective bargaining with compulsory limits within which industrial bargaining takes place is not workable. It is not a viable solution. It would be interesting to hear from members of the New Democratic Party who, with all their shortcomings and weaknesses, have an understanding of the trade union movement and an appreciation of the mentality and thinking of trade union leaders as well as the rank and file. It

February 11, 1971
Royal Assent
would be interesting to hear them explore what possibilities may exist in our country for some form of national collective bargaining. Is it a solution we should be studying in terms of the broad economic problems that confront us today?
A position can be developed which falls short of national collective bargaining but which may have some merit in terms of involving those sectors of the economy which heretofore have not been actively and continually involved in the whole process of economic decision-making at the national level. In lieu of a formula for a compulsory incomes policy and effective form of national collective bargaining, we might explore ways of strengthening and broadening national consultation between recognized leaders of the key trade unions, leaders of key industrial sectors and the government. If this sort of consultation was established, instead of working through institutions such as the CMA and the CLC-although they do have some strength they do not have the muscle that is required-we could consult various industries, packing-house workers, steel workers, mine, mill and smelter workers, electrical and others. By working in a continuing framework with government at the national level we could identify what now appears to be missing: we could mutually identify our national interest. Economic decisions could be arrived at, not the compulsory or obligatory kind but an approach within which local and industrial decisions could be made.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act respecting statistics of Canada
An act to implement an agreement amending the trade agreement between Canada and New Zealand
An act to repeal the Leprosy Act
An act to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
At six o'clock the House took recess.
(Mr. Faulkner.]

AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson, that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, the remarks I was making at a quarter to six were terminated by the arrival of Black Rod. If I may have the indulgence of the House, I should like to simply wind up the remarks I was making at that time. The initial point I made was that in the budget debate we were playing games with the people of Canada and that most of the speeches referred boldly and courageously to measures that amount to palliatives for the immediate problems. It would seem that we have been developing false expectations in the minds of the people that the problems we face can be solved simply and that all that is required is another government program.
Earlier I warned that it seemed to me we were confusing short-term palliatives, albeit in some cases necessary and possibly advisable, with the major problem to which we should be addressing ourselves. I refer to the problem of trying to achieve the three goals set out by the Economic Council of Canada which were concurred in by the members of this House, namely, full employment, economic growth and price stability. No one has yet addressed himself to that particular problem. I warned, furthermore, that it was a mistake, at least to my mind, to build a gulf between the public expectation and the possibility of performance of this Parliament or this government. The opposition has often called into question the policies and attitudes of this government in terms of the general credibility of Parliament in the public's mind, but nothing will discredit this institution more quickly or thoroughly than a public attitude of expectation which, developed by the opposition in this House, cannot possibly be fulfilled by any government whether Liberal, Conservative or New Democratic.
The fact is that there has been an absence of fact and of candour in the speeches so far. It would seem to me to be true that the government's policy on both the demand and the supply side has followed a fairly orthodox line consistent with the best advice available. The other fact is that there are over 600,000 people unemployed. This is not simply a problem for the government of Canada but is as much a problem for the Parliament of Canada, because it demonstrates that conventional wisdom-I must say that as I have listened to the speeches of the opposition, most of the solutions offered fall within the context
February 11, 1971

of conventional wisdom-is no longer satisfactory to meet the problems this country faces.
I suggest it is therefore important to turn our attention, as we move through a period of stability and growth in the next year and in accepting the invitation of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather)-and I have a great deal of confidence that the predictions of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will be borne out-to the fact that some of these problems should be approached in a broad, non-partisan fashion through the aegis of the standing committees which could examine, for instance, the report of the Prices and Incomes Commission when its findings after its year of study have been completed, to determine what sort of powers, if any, the government of Canada will be forced to adopt in order to accomplish the three goals in which all of us believe. That dimension, in my opinion, has been missing in this debate.
The second point I wish to make by way of conclusion, having explored before six o'clock what I consider to be the inadequacies of either a compulsory incomes program or a system of national collective bargaining, is that one thing we can do is broaden and strengthen consultation between the government and the private sector. As I quoted from the sixth report of the Economic Council, the role of the federal government in dealing with the particular problem we confront is limited. The most honest assessment of the federal government's role will accept the fact that our responsibilities are limited. There is a role for the private sector, for provincial governments and even for municipal governments. There is a role in the allegedly free enterprise economy for the private sector. They have their own responsibilities in this area. But it seems to me that at the national level we have not yet explored these matters fully and openly with the private sector, involving the total talents available there, the leadership of the trade union movement, the leadership among the industrial sector and national policies directed toward a national strategy. I argue that we might develop a national strategy if we can develop within the private sector, labour and management alike, the sort of confidence which will allow for the full cooperation and the full utilization of the talent and ideas that are available.
The challenge to the Canadian economy is a global one. I represent a riding which knows something about Japanese competition. When one examines how the Japanese have organized themselves, the collusion that exists between the industrial and the governmental sector, one notes a concerted, united attack on markets abroad. It seems to me, therefore, elementary that some form of common strategy will have to be developed in this country. We cannot expect the sort of discipline that exists in Japan to prevail here. The culture and the ethic of this country are different. People are not disposed to adopt the disciplined way of the Japanese. I do not intend to question the culture by which they work and live, but I state it as a fact. Here we have to develop a national strategy which is consistent with a generally free economy and a society which is made up of individualists.
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
Unless we develop such a strategy at the national level, with the government using the full resources of the private sector and calling upon them for their ideas and their participation, the sort of inroads made into our economy and the challenges we have faced will be even more serious than in the past. My intervention has been brief, Mr. Speaker, and I would now like to yield the floor to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, this is my third intervention in this debate, but I make no apology for speaking three times and at some length on the subject of the economic difficulties that the government has created for the country, because each time I have spoken the situation has become more pressing and more serious. As reflected in the remarks of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and hon. members on the other side of the House, in this debate and elsewhere, the government has its own rather peculiar interpretation of the state of the economy.
It is our responsibility as the opposition to try to bring this government back to some sense of reality. That is a difficult job with the government we have at present, but we have tried and we shall continue to try. We shall do so because this Parliament does not happen to be just a debating society where you score points and you win or lose on that basis. This Parliament, through its theoretical control of the cabinet, is supposed to be a place of decision and a place of power. This is a place where while awaiting their final appeal to the Canadian electorate hon. gentlemen opposite have to defend their actions or lack of same. That is what they should be doing during this debate on the budget. They have a heavy responsibility, which I must say they bear rather lightly-too lightly, some might say-for the serious economic and human condition that exists in Canada today.
The economic management of this country is not just a matter of manipulating figures. I believe there is a moral factor involved in the responsibility for economic management, and surely that moral factor demands that those who are responsible should feel a long-range obligation to do right by the people of Canada. Instead, we are governed today by short-range principles of expediency that seem to be aimed much more at making the government look right at the right time. The immediate past cycle of inflation and recession vividly illustrates a government that is following, not leading, and their method of operation is clear. Their approach to the problem of inflation is clearly defined in this way: play it safe until the cycle has passed its peak, take some initial action that looks good on paper but is woefully weak in fact, and once the crisis has peaked, slide with speed down the slope into recession and define that as the next problem to be courageously met by the government.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says that his government practises anti-cyclical economic management. I am convinced from the past series of budgets that this claim is specious. All we see are examples of the government either flooding the carburettor or pounding on the brakes as they ride the cycles, and as they make the ride they stop and start at most of the wrong places. There is a political benefit in the approach if you can make the

February 11, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
cycles meet your election-timing plans, but that approach surely overlooks the economic and social perils involved in such a policy.
We are now being asked to give final approval of the budget presented to the House by the Minister of Finance last December 3, I say that to do so would be a betrayal of our economic principles and a betrayal of the people of Canada. The three opposition parties in the House differ on many things-but there is one thing on which we agree today, namely, that this government has failed miserably in its responsibilities to Canada, to the Canadian economy, to almost two million Canadians directly affected by the scourge of mass unemployment and to the Canadian people as a whole because we are all involved in this tragic situation.
Those who are unemployed are seeing their human dignity melting away with their savings. Those who are not fortunate enough to have the right to unemployment insurance benefits-and they are legion-have to go on welfare. Welfare may well be a human right in a civilized society, but for thousands and thousands of Canadians today it is, and it must be, a symbol of failure. I say to them, as I say to you, sir, in the vast majority of cases it is not their failure; it is the failure of this government that sits so smugly before us. These are the men that must bear the responsibility for the present situation. The Prime Minister and some members of his cabinet boasted of their willingness to put up with, as they have expressed it, a high level of unemployment in order to win the battle against inflation. Have they ever won that battle? The Prime Minister replied in the affirmative. Inflation is licked, he told the Canadian people a few weeks ago. But sitting on this side of the House I am probably a better authority on the outcome of the government's torture test. I say that inflation may have taken a licking, but it is still ticking.
Therefore I must inform the right hon. gentleman, if he does not know it already, that in this world wishing does not make it so. You do not solve problems merely by saying you have solved them. I know that to a government to which style and image are much more important than accomplishment, that might be a hard truth to accept; but it is the truth, and the self-admitted failure of the Prices and Incomes Commission to achieve any viable agreement is surely an indication of this. But if there is no indication that inflation is licked, at least the government has succeeded in another part of its endeavours: it has increased unemployment to an extent unparallelled for years.
I have already mentioned the effects of mass unemployment on the unemployed and their families-the loss of economic security, the loss of human dignity and the loss of faith in society. But the results of unemployment go far beyond the unemployed because mass unemployment affects everyone in the country and it affects, for the worse, the whole Canadian economy. It means lost opportunities for business. It means higher taxes for those who are employed and who must pay for the

welfare for those who cannot get jobs. It means a general loss of production, expressed in the gap that exists between the potential of the economy and its actual performance. This has been estimated at $80 million a week under the lower unemployment figures of a month ago. We can only guess what this loss is today.
That is the reality of mass unemployment. That is the reality behind the statistics that the government presumably finds so comforting today. I remind the Minister of Finance that behind statistics usually stand human beings: there is the human factor involved. That is why it is possible for a six-foot man to drown in six inches of water. These are the statistics that the minister tells us result from the government's economic policies, and presumably from the budget which we are now debating.
Let us look for a minute at some of the statistics. They show that one out of every 12 men and women in this country is now looking for a job. They show that one out of seven of our young people under the age of 24 is now involuntarily out of work. They show that there are now
183.000	more Canadians unemployed and looking for work than there were a year ago. They show that almost one-third of those unemployed today have been without jobs for four months or longer. They show that there are
123.000	fewer people working in Canada today than a month ago. They show that there are 130,000 more people out of work and looking for work than there were a month ago.
We all know that the Minister of Finance enjoys making predictions, although generally I think he prefers to keep them to himself. But in this case, unfortunately for him, he inadvertently made his prediction in public a week or so ago. At that time the minister gracefully conceded, without apparently too much concern, that there would be an increase of up to 100,000 in the number of jobless Canadians from December to January. In fact, he indicated that this was about the normal increase between December and January.


Edgar John Benson: Seasonally adjusted.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Seasonally adjusted, the minister says. Seasonally adjusted! I say "nonsense" to the minister, Mr. Speaker.


Edgar John Benson: Read the statistics.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps the television misled me. Perhaps I did not hear the minister at all. Perhaps it wasn't him at all saying that he expected that the actual number of unemployed would go up between December and January. I hope he is not going to deny that, because I heard him. And as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that has been the normal increase. That was the increase a year ago. It was little less than that the previous year. That is why the minister was prepared to predict a similar increase this year. Sometimes the minister likes to appear to be a betting man. I wonder if he bet on the number of unemployed Canadians this month. If he had bet on the increase between December and January, he would have been out just about 30 per cent, or to put it in other terms he would have been out by some 30,000 human beings.
February 11, 1971


Edgar John Benson: Would you bet on the figures that you use, and that the 6.6 per cent figure will not go down?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, for his own sake I hope the minister would not bet money. If the minister wants to make an issue on what I have said, I will be very happy to repeat what I have said and stand by it. I said I have not seen any realistic predictions relating to the economy this year which indicate that the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment will drop-and I will stand by that.


Edgar John Benson: May I ask the hon. member a question? I wonder if he would send me a copy of his speeches in the future, because I have been cut off his mailing list and so I really do not know what he says. I do not know why I have been cut off his mailing list.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to get a glimmer of understanding why the minister is following such foolish policies. He has not been getting the benefit of my suggestions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: Perhaps I could ask another-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: Could I ask a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister may ask questions only when the hon. member who has the floor, in this case the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), allows him to ask questions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would be delighted to have questions.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition why he has cut me off his mailing list. Perhaps he does not want me to know what he says.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the minister did not let me know sooner that he was not getting my speeches. I would have been happy to send them to him and in that way I might have saved the country an awful lot of trouble.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As I was saying, for his own sake I hope the minister did not bet any money. But whether or not he gambled with money, he has been gambling with human beings and with the economy for far too long. We do not want or need a gambler to run the economy of this country. The Canadian people need someone who knows what he is doing; and without giving any personal offence, we do not have anybody like that today. The Canadian people need someone at the helm who not only knows but is concerned about the results of his policies, their effect on their lives and on the economy. We certainly do not have anybody who fits that description today. Instead we have men who talk coolly about seasonally adjusted figures, and about the economy having turned the corner. Last March the government told us we were beginning to turn the corner.
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield


Edgar John Benson: On inflation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In December the Minister of Finance told us we were turning the corner. Today we have the highest unemployment figures of the decade. They are the highest both in actual figures and in the seasonally adjusted rate that the government is so fond of talking about. If this is the government's idea of turning a corner, I would hate to see how long it would take to get around a long curve. In fact, there is no indication that in any meaningful sense we have turned any corner at all in terms of reducing unemployment. This is the fourth year in a row that the seasonally adjusted figures have gone down between December and January. In other words, that is a normal development for this period of the year. The difference this year is that they are declining from the highest seasonally adjusted rate of the decade. And that is not the only difference: take a look at the real figures this year and compare them with those of a year ago.
A year ago the real increase in unemployment between December and January was about 102,000 Canadians. I presume that the Minister of Finance was looking at that figure when he made his prediction that there would be an increase of 100,000 between last December and January of this year. Instead, at the very moment when he is being so smoothly reassuring about the future he, as well as the Canadian people, have been whacked hard where it hurts with the knowledge that actually we now have not only 100,000 but 130,000 additional Canadians out of work.
What kind of improvement is this that the government is trying to peddle to the Canadian people? Perhaps in the bureaucratic mind that prevails in this government, the soft sound of seasonal statistics can replace the harsh facts. Perhaps it thinks that by seasonally adjusting the temperature it could even make winter disappear. Well, I for one would not bet on that-and I would not bet, either, that any so-called seasonal decline will convince the Canadian people that there his been any improvement at all. Anybody who looks at the figures of unemployment must realize that there has been a substantial deterioration between December and January. This government in its blindness to reality may be satisfied with the results, but a united opposition on this question is not satisfied with this pitiful culmination of one year of promises. I can assure the government that the Canadian people are not satisfied either.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Would he not admit that the percentage of increase in unemployment in the month of January over December is the lowest since 1959? I am talking about the percentage of the labour force that is unemployed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Well, if that should happen to be true-


Edgar John Benson: It is.
3308

February 11, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If that happens to be true, it is only because the figure relating to unemployment in December was so high.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: I was talking about the percentage of the labour force.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government cannot deny that the increase of 130,000 in the number of unemployed between December and January is unusually high.


Edgar John Benson: The increase, as a percentage of the labour force, is the lowest since 1959.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The figure is at least 30,000 higher than the minister predicted, and he predicted the normal increase between December and January. Speaking of figures, I was interested to note that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) earlier this afternoon was wondering about the accuracy of our statistics on unemployment. He did not doubt that more than 600,000 were unemployed. Actually, I think he suggested that perhaps between 700,000 and 800,000 were unemployed in Canada today. I am glad to note that he insisted on the importance of obtaining more accurate figures than we now have.
When a minister suggests that there could well be
150,000	more people unemployed than the statistics tell us, and when that minister himself has been and remains very close to the problems of labour in this country, I suggest that it is more than time for the government of which he is a member to face up to the gravity of the situation and stop playing the very questionable numbers game that the Minister of Finance seems to enjoy so much. I differ with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion when he tells us that the suggestion for a reduction of taxes is a right-wing suggestion.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Nonsense!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is exactly what I was going to say, nonsense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Unless the government decides to make all the decisions for Canadians it obviously has to leave some individual choice in the hands of our citizens. That is one of the things our economy is all about, freedom of choice on the part of individual consumers. It is by extending this freedom and by helping to create a little more confidence in our economy that we shall help our economy to get going again vigorously. That is our answer and we stick to it.
Let us keep a broad view of the total picture, and not the narrow view of selected compartments that the government keeps throwing at us. The provincial and municipal share of rising welfare costs is not financed out of a separate bank. In the cases of major cities that I have visited, welfare costs have doubled in the past year. There is no question that this fantastic increase is directly attributable to the unemployment that the Minister of
Finance has been so adept at increasing. Provincial and municipal treasuries are stuck with half of those costs and they are in the process of financing their share through the use of their own taxation fields. The result is an additional tax burden which will further erode the purchasing power of the dollar for those on fixed incomes. These are the same people that the Prime Minister said he was out to protect when he began the war on inflation.
By zealously creating unemployment in the course of a fight against one kind of inflation, the government in effect has substituted another kind of inflationary pressure on the same victims. Let there be no mistake-indirect taxation for provincial financing of increased welfare costs will go up. I think that British Columbia has already had to take that step. Municipal taxation on realty will go up as cities struggle to cover their portion of rising welfare costs. Already the housing servicing cost component of the consumer price index is on the rise. No amount of crowing about admirable price performance can wipe away that fact. Those on fixed incomes in Canada will face these increases and will very seriously wonder just how the government's anti-inflation program has helped them. I suggest that as the squeeze hits other wage earners, they will demand an increase in their incomes to offset their increased taxation load and at least try to stay even in this treacherous game.
What is the response of the federal government to this potential for renewed inflationary pressures and this appalling victimization by taxation of those on fixed income? The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance say that they are going to stick at it, as is! There will be no temporary extension of unemployment insurance benefits to move large numbers of employable unemployed off the welfare rolls. Even though the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund is on the increase, there will be no extension. Even though the Prime Minister casually tells us that unemployment insurance is there to enable the jobless to ride it out during a period such as this, there will be no extension and no change. Why? I can only pressume that there will be no change because any extension at this time would disturb the finely-honed timing that this government has set for itself, the timing that will see the goodies passed out when it will do the government the most good. In the meantime, the cities and provinces can take a little flack and, what the heck, there's never much sympathy anyway for people on welfare!
I remind hon. members of this recent statement by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development: Long-term unemployment signifies lost productivity and life wasted-both national and individual misfortune. At present, according to the Department of Manpower figures released this morning 31 per cent of unemployed Canadians-in other words, approximately
200,000	men and women-have been unemployed for four months or longer. That, I suggest, is a scandalous situation. The longer the duration of unemployment, the more likely is the unemployed person to exhaust his unemployment benefits, if indeed he had any to begin with. Yet

February 11, 1971

this government has obstinately refused to widen immediate benefits, and this in spite of the fact that in December, 1970, the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund was almost $475 million. That, I think, shows something of the concern of this government.
Of course, one must admit that there is something in the rhetoric of the government when it speaks of the just society and participatory democracy. Certainly no other concept has come so close to distributing unemployment impartially among all classes of our society. Blue-collar workers, white-collar workers, professional men and women, the skilled and the unskilled alike are experiencing the results of this government's mismanagement. There is no way of ascertaining the number of persons forced into the poverty category as a result of long-term unemployment. The OECD has found that turnover among long-term unemployed is extremely low and that few families in the low-income bracket have accumulated the resources necessary to withstand prolonged jobless periods. It is surely obvious, even to this government, that many thousands of Canadians have been impoverished as a direct result of policies that right now mean that 200,000 men and women have been out of work for four months or longer.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And what about the young people? One out of seven is unemployed right now. That is the result of present and past policies. Where is the hope for the young people who will be pouring onto the labour market this spring? Certainly it is not in the policies of this government, Mr. Speaker. Even while it refuses to behave as if it believes the situation is serious, this government is trying its utmost to apportion blame to people other than itself. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) stated, as reported at page 2544 of Hansard:
During 1970 as a whole, unemployment in Canada averaged 5.9 per cent compared to 4.7 per cent in 1969. An important factor which contributed to this increase was the continued rise in the number of Canadians put out of work because of industrial disputes.
This excerpt from the minister's speech during the budget debate is another example of the government's hypocrisy in laying the blame for the results of its own policies on the backs of others.


Edgar John Benson: It is not true.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is not warranted by the facts.


Edgar John Benson: It is not true.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The preliminary figures for 1970 indicate that the number of man-days lost through industrial disputes was less than in 1969. In 1969, more than eight million man-days were lost. In 1970, the figure was slightly less; there was a drop of more than 3 per cent.


Edgar John Benson: It is not true.
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister keeps saying: "It is not true".


Edgar John Benson: What is the source?


Gerald William Baldwin: Give the seasonally adjusted figures.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When we compare this figure with the number of man-days lost through unemployment, which amounts to 124 million, we can see even more clearly the real extent to which strikes and other disputes were involved in the rise in mass unemployment. No one minimizes the serious nature of labour disputes to those involved and to the economy generally. However, for the minister to play his "blame game" with this factor, and to magnify it beyond what the facts will support, is surely another reason to wonder about the honesty of this government in its statements of economic policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In other words, the minister's whole argument concerning the effect of strikes on mass unemployment belongs in the limbo of lame excuses made by a government that is bankrupt of policies and ideas, a government that has nothing to offer but blame for others and self-satisfaction as it continues to gamble that the economic cycle will not betray it. The Canadian people are fed up with a government that gambles with the health of the economy and the dignity of the individual.
The response of this government has been cool; I will certainly admit that. According to the Globe and Mail of February 10, the Minister of Finance suggested to the provinces that they could borrow if they wanted to do anything more about unemployment. That is cool: in fact, it is cold comfort indeed. The government has had warnings. It has had suggestions from many sources. Four our part, we have pleaded for the aboliton of the three per cent surtax, corporate and personal, which is supposed to be dispensed with in any event. We have asked for a further reduction in personal income tax. We have demanded a reduction in the 11 per cent sales tax on construction materials. We have done this because we believe such tax cuts would stimulate the economy. That is what is needed today.
We have asked the government to present a realistic tax reform package and thus reduce uncertainty in the economy. We have demanded that someone, anyone in the government be appointed to take charge of the fight against recession and mass unemployment. As an immediate measure for this winter we have suggested that unemployment insurance benefits be widened to cover many Canadians who are not presently covered or whose benefits may have run out. These are some of our suggestions. Other parties and groups have made other suggestions. I must admit that the government has been consistent: let us give them credit for that. They have turned a deaf ear to all our pleas and to the pleas of all sections of the Canadian people. In the face of a situation that has deteriorated from month to month, week to week and day to day, that has been their response. It is a response that the Canadian people can no longer accept

February 11, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Gray
because it is not a response at all. It is part of the political waiting game that this government is coldly and inexcusably pursuing for what it sees as its own political advantage.
I accuse this government of playing statistical games with the Canadian people. I accuse this government of playing political games with the state of the Canadian economy. I accuse this government of inhumanity in its approach to the grim reality of mass unemployment in this country. To come right down to the topic at issue, I accuse this government of presenting to this House a budget that is dangerously irrelevant to the problems that face us today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I accuse this government of economic incompetence, human neglect and social irrelevance. I ask this House, on behalf of the people of Canada, to disassociate itself from this government and to defeat this budget. Maybe then, at long last, we will be able to do something about getting the economy moving again vigorously and putting the employment situation on the road to recovery. If it will do any good, I will send the minister copies of my speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Give him a couple of buckets of [DOT]heavy water.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of this debate we should recall that in introducing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Donald MacInnis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Because I am vitally interested in all citizens of Nova Scotia, I wonder if the member from Vancouver would repeat the crack he made about heavy water, which is now the responsibility of the federal and provincial governments.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of this budget debate we should recall that in introducing his budget to the House on December 3 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) outlined the latest of a series of far-reaching fiscal and monetary measures adopted by federal authorities since early last year to promote faster growth of production, employment and real incomes in Canada. I do not think it is necessary to again outline the substantial number of additional steps set out in that budget to provide still further assistance to individuals, regions and industries adversely affected by slow growth and, in the process, to provide a further major stimulus to expansion of the economy as a whole. However, I would like to recall and underline the conviction expressed in the budget that the economy was being set on a course aimed at bringing it back in the months ahead to the path of full employment of the nation's human and material resources.
In his December budget speech the Minister of Finance indicated to the House that there was already evidence the economy was moving toward a desirable stage of non-inflationary, long-term growth. The minister's contention has, of course, been greeted with what appears to be derision by members of the opposition parties who apparently never seem to allow themselves to be confounded by facts when they see political advantage, even though they may deny they are seeking it, in ignoring those facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: But since the budget was introduced more than two months ago further evidence has accumulated to show that the economy is now beginning to move forward at an accelerating pace. In making a judgment on this it is useful to compare our situation with that of the United States. While Canada is affected by developments south of the border, it has also become increasingly noticeable that the performance of the Canadian economy over the past several months has been considerably more satisfactory than that of the United States. During 1969, real output in Canada rose by 5 per cent compared with only 2.8 per cent in the United States. In 1970, real output in the United States actually declined by .4 per cent. Although final figures are not available yet, all indications are that the increase in real Canadian gross national product will be around 3 per cent.
Perhaps even more important is the fact that Canada has been able to maintain this relatively stronger pace of growth while at the same time making considerably more progress than the United States or any other industrialized nation in bringing inflationary pressures under control. This is something the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) appears to be concerned about. In December, the last month for which figures are available, the Canadian consumer price index declined by .4 per cent and was only 1.5 per cent above the level of a year ago. The United States' index was up 5.6 per cent in December as compared with the 1969 level. In November, 1970, the industrial productuon index in Canada rose by 1.3 per cent as compared with the level in October. This is the largest increase in any month since February. I think it is of great importance also that Canadian exports rose to a record level during 1970 with a result that we built up a surplus in our merchandise trade of some $2.9 billion, more than double the previous peacetime peak in 1968.
By the turn of the year there were important signs that capital investment in Canada was beginning to pick up speed. New housing starts were running at a record annual rate of 271,000 in the last three months of 1970, double the number of starts in the second quarter of last year. In the year as a whole, construction was begun of more than 190,000 housing units. A significant increase in housing construction is also contemplated during the current year. As members will be aware, in the statement which was made in this House yesterday by my col-

February 11, 1971

league, the minister responsible for housing, a record number of 220,000 starts was forecast for 1971. There was also a significant increase in contract awards for nonresidential and engineering construction toward the end of 1970. All this indicates there may well be a marked increase in investment in this field also during the current year.
Let me point out that in his speech to the federal-provincial conference in Ottawa earlier this week the Minister of Finance drew attention to the important point that in addition to these signs of increased activity there has also been a marked improvement in the underlying conditions required to sustain steady economic growth. He said:
Our progress in overcoming inflation, the steady reduction in interest rates and indications that economic expansion has been renewed have all interacted to produce a new sense of confidence in the future by investors, business and consumers.
The minister said in the House that with continued good price performance these figures implied an increase in real output which will be more than sufficient to offset the increase in the labour force and so reduce unemployment progressively during the year. This expression of confidence in the accelerating expansion of our economy and the decline in the percentage of unemployed has continued to be received with scepticism by the opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the hon. minister accept a question?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I would be happy to accept questions at the conclusion of my remarks. I think I shall have ample time left.


An hon. Member:: Oh, go on. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) allowed many questions.


Edgar John Benson: My hon. friend does not have unlimited time.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The accelerating trend of the economy has been received with scepticism by the opposition. Perhaps they have difficulty in seeing what is going on around them, although they may deny it, in their blind thrust toward partisan advantage. By way of example I might draw attention to a report which appeared in the Globe and Mail some ten days ago of a speech by the Leader of the Opposition. The lead paragraph of this report, date-lined Ottawa, read:
Unemployment will not fall below 6.6 per cent this year unless the Trudeau government takes additional steps beyond those outlined in the budget last December.
The hon. gentleman went on to say, in speaking to a men's club here in Ottawa:
The most optimistic forecast of Canada's economic growth for 1971 on the basis of present budget arrangements indicates the highest expected growth rate will make no appreciable reduction in our present rate of unemployment.
It appears the Conservative leader did happen to say something along the lines suggested by the Minister of Finance even though he seems to have forgotten about it. And it appears the Conservative leader does not stand
The Budget-Mr. Gray
alone in the view he expressed in Ottawa a few days ago. Only yesterday we saw the strange spectacle of Conservative, NDP and Creditiste parties joining together to condemn the government's economic policies and to forecast economic disaster. I use the word "spectacle" advisedly because it involved these three parties joining to condemn the government's economic policies in spite of the fact that each of them has advocated nostrums and panaceas for dealing with unemployment and inflation which are widely different and often sharply contradictory.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I suggest their gloomy and gloating message does not correspond with the trend of the improvement which is already noticeable in the state of our economy. The Leader of the Opposition may quarrel with the statistics, but these statistics issued by the Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Manpower are those he quotes when it serves his purpose; and this, surely, ought to demonstrate they are valid when they are quoted by the government to illustrate the accelerating trend of the economy and the improvement in the economic picture. Only this morning the Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Immigration-


John Howard Lundrigan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is rising on a point of order?


John Howard Lundrigan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The minister has quoted statistics. I wonder if I could ask him a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The minister has said that if he has time left he will answer questions at the end of his speech.


An hon. Member:: He will make sure he has not.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I was about to say that the Bureau of Statistics-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) rising on a point of order?


John Howard Lundrigan: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? In spite of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the hon. member resume his seat? The minister has the floor. He said earlier, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, that if he had time he would answer questions at the end of his remarks. In these circumstances the Chair invites the minister to continue.


John Howard Lundrigan: I stand to be corrected, but I assumed it was the right of the minister to make the decision as to whether I could ask a question, since he now has the floor.

February 11, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Gray


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is the understanding of the Chair that the minister said he would answer questions at the conclusion of his speech.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: These interruptions by the hon. member and his friends indicate that I may be saying things they do not want to hear.


John Howard Lundrigan: My point of order is twofold. First, the minister has not told me that he would not accept my question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: Perhaps hon. members would wait until I have finished raising my point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member has a point of order I would like him to state it immediately.


John Howard Lundrigan: During the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Finance was very touched by my hon. friend's statements. He interrupted eight or ten times and his questions were accepted. I should like to know whether we can ask certain questions-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is the understanding of the Chair that it is the prerogative of each member who has the floor to indicate whether or not he will accept questions during the course of his speech, or deal with them at the end of his speech as the case may be. I gather the minister said that at the conclusion of His speech he would accept questions if he had time.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I should like to say, if only to make sure that the hon. member does not feel he was ignored on his spurious point of order, that if he remains until the end of my remarks I shall be happy to answer questions from him. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out this afternoon, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Manpower and Immigration have disclosed that in January unemployment on a seasonally adjusted basis fell to 6.2 per cent from 6.6 per cent in December. This is the sharpest drop in unemployment that has taken place in the last year, and is substantially below the 6.9 per cent recorded last September.
I invite hon. members to contrast this very encouraging improvement in the Canadian employment situation during the very first month of 1971 with the gloomy prediction made a few days ago by the leader of the Conservative party that there would be no appreciable improvement in the situation throughout the course of the whole year. Perhaps this is the kind of judgment that he must have applied when attempting to guide the affairs of the province of Nova Scotia, but I will not comment upon that. Contrast this-


John Howard Lundrigan: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, the minister, this acting, imitating or impressionable finance observer, is not entitled to present to the House-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. With respect to the hon. member, I do not think he has a question of privilege. He may have a matter for debate, but the Chair has recognized the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray).


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Throw him out.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question of privilege I will hear it.


John Howard Lundrigan: I have a serious question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that in 1970, 1969 and back to 1954 there was a computational method used by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics which allowed us to compare the seasonally adjusted figure for one month with months of previous years. In January, 1971-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must inform the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate that that is not a question of privilege. It may be a point for argument, but the Chair has recognized the minister and he has the floor. If there is an opportunity in the debate-and I doubt that there will be-the hon. member might make his argument, but he cannot make it during the time allotted to the minister.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of National Revenue has the floor.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Laprise:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Gérard Laprise: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege.
Today is the last day of debate on the budget, and the Ralliement creditiste has not yet had the opportunity to express its point of view. Now, I should like to-


An hon. Member:: You have not been here all day.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, we have been present in the House all day.
I notice that the Conservative member is trying unduly to hold up the business of the House precisely to prevent the Ralliement Creditiste from expressing their views on the budget.

February 11, 1971


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, I think neither the hon. member who has just spoken nor the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate really have questions of privilege or points of order. The minister has the floor and I think he is entitled to make his remarks. I would ask hon. members to permit him to make his remarks.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of cooperating with the Creditistes I will deal with my argument


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat? The Minister of National Revenue has the floor.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the figures of unemployment and their accuracy I think the best proof of the correctness of the figures is that the hon. member's leader, the Leader of the Opposition, used and interpreted them for his own purposes. Any other hon. member is entitled to take the same figures and draw such conclusions as he thinks appropriate from them. In any event, I am informed with respect to the particular method of computation, and whether or not there has been an adjustment in the method used, that the fact of the matter is that the present method presents essentially the same results as the one to which the hon. member referred earlier.


John Howard Lundrigan: "Essentially the same" is not the same.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Basically the same result; exactly the same result. Let us contrast this encouraging progress that I have mentioned with the predictions of all three parties yesterday that government policies would do nothing to help reduce unemployment this winter and that the same policies have irreparable effects on economic growth. The joint DBS and Manpower Department statement has this to say:
The underlying employment and unemployment situation improved in January, 1971.
That was the statement the Leader of the Opposition used for the basis of his remarks a few moments ago. The statement goes on:
This seasonal reduction-
That is referring to the reduction in the number of unemployed.
-was the smallest, in percentage terms, ever recorded for this period by the labour force survey. The increase in the number of persons unemployed represented the smallest percentage increase between these two months for many years.
I would also point out that the decline in unemployment on a seasonally adjusted basis did not take place simply as a result of withdrawals of Canadians from the labour force. I am informed that the number of Canadians forming part of the labour force on a seasonally adjusted basis was at an all-time high in January. Again I should like to quote the release which the Leader of the Opposition seemed to find so useful to him.
The Budget-Mr. Gray
Consistent with the smaller-than-average-


Cliff Downey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Cliff Downey: For the benefit of the House I think we should hear what the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has to say. Obviously-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With respect to the hon. member, that is not a point of order. The Minister of National Revenue.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: May I again quote from the release in question.
Consistent with the smaller-than-average seasonal reduction in actual employment, employment on a seasonally adjusted basis advanced strongly from the previous month to 8,006,000, the first time it had exceeded the eight million mark.
It is correct that the statistics show an increase in the actual number of persons who were not working between December and January, but as the Leader of the Opposition in his own way agreed, I think, this is always the case at this time of year. In relative terms, the DBS report pointed out that the increase of 130,000 was the smallest since that of December, 1958, and January, 1959.
I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that nothing I have said should be taken as implying in any way that the government considers even the lower rate of unemployment in January as being satisfactory. I do not suggest that it is satisfactory and the government does not regard it as such. The government is concerned about the level of unemployment and what it means in human and economic terms to those affected. It has been taking action to meet what the Minister of Finance in his budget statement confirmed as the government's objective-the goal of a substantial and sustained economic expansion and therefore, I might add, the increase in employment which would come with such expansion.
The figures that I have cited, however, do provide further important evidence that the accelerating pace of economic growth resulting from the expansionary fiscal and monetary measures progressively adopted since early last spring, and added to by the December budget, have brought about a reduction in the level of unemployment on a seasonally adjusted basis from last September onward. There may, of course, be variations from month to month, but the expectations are that this trend of declining unemployment will continue in the months ahead.
A few moments ago I referred to the strange spectacle of the three opposition parties joining in their condemnation of government economic policies, given the sharp conflicts in the policies that each party advocates. For example, does the Conservative party support the increase in government spending running into the billions of dollars advocated by the NDP? And if the Conservative party does support such a massive increase in

February 11, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Gray
spending, does it still press for tax reductions that would cost the federal treasury more than $1 billion?


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Greenwood is rising on a point of order.


John Gilbert: Broadview, Mr. Speaker. I notice that the minister is reading his speech. This is against the rules of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Gilbert: I wonder whether he would refrain from doing so; otherwise he is violating the rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate that the practice of the House over a long period has been that hon. members would not read speeches. I do not think the minister is reading his speech; he is referring to his notes. In any event, I would not want to draw any distinction between hon. members on either side of the House. I think if there is any fault here it may lie equally.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would confirm I was simply referring to my notes basically to the same extent as the Leader of the Opposition. I would like to ask if the NDP favours the 6 per cent reduction in personal income tax advocated by the Conservative leader and a similar reduction in the corporation taxes proposed by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees). By the way, if the hon. member would like to look at my notes and see my scratches it would be obvious that this is my own speech. My notes would speak for themselves on this point.
Members of this House may wonder whether we should come to the conclusion that both the Conservative and NDP parties have now come around to supporting the Social Credit doctrine of the Creditistes as the solution of our economic problems, and I make no comment on the logic of that.
In the weeks and months ahead the three opposition parties may provide to the public of Canada some enlightenment in respect of the policies they jointly propose to resolve our economic problems. They readily condemn the policies of the government but have shown little ability to put forward their own solutions for the people to consider in place of the hodge podge of policies they advocate individually. Therefore, I am confident a majority in this House will be more than willing to support the policies of this government which have been more successful than those of any other nation in halting the dangerous spiral of prices and which have set the stage for the resumption of a stable expansion of production and employment in Canada.
To conclude, may I say that the concern about the present level of unemployment and the slack in the economy is something which I share and which I know the government shares with Canadians generally. I want to assure the House that the government is certainly
aware of and is carrying out its responsibility to the people of this country in creating conditions in which there are increasing opportunities for employment and the development of the great potential which is ours as Canadians. I ask this House to vote to approve the motion before it and thereby to approve the budgetary policies of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. During the course of his remarks the minister indicated that if he had time he would answer questions. He has four minutes left. I recognize the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).


Robert Lorne Stanfield: 
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member's question is one which leads to the type of answer he is seeking. He is seeking forecasts which he wants to be able to turn to his own use later on. However, I can say I am optimistic about this country. He does not appear to be, and he should be ashamed of that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, if I were Minister of National Revenue I would be ashamed to give an answer like that. Can the minister indicate anywhere in the last decade when the number of unemployed in this country between January and February increased by as much as 130,000?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I could be mistaken and I stand to be corrected, but I think in my remarks I referred to December 1958, to January 1959.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I shall not waste the time of the House by reminding members that unemployment has increased by 183,000 in one year-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member seeks the privilege of asking a question, and I recognize him.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, if you would give me half a second to get my question out I think I could do justice to it. The minister just delivered the most supercilious speech I have ever heard. Having rejected in toto the proposition of the Leader of the Opposition and of our party so far as taxation reductions are concerned, and the reduction in the tax on building materials and the like, I wonder whether he is prepared to offer any consolation to the 668,000 unemployed Canadians who have absolutely no expectation of any improvement in livelihood as a result of the speech of the Minister of Finance today and-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.

February 11, 1971


Edgar John Benson: I did not speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hope the hon. member will ask his question. The minister's time will expire in one minute.


John Howard Lundrigan: He needs about 16 hours, but let him have one minute now.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I think the government, in the budget speech of my colleague the Minister of Finance outlined the measures which are having and which will have the effect of decreasing unemployment in this country. We are listening to the people in this House and across the country and are keeping the situation under constant review, but I think the point of the budget of the Minister of Finance is that what the government is doing is appropriate for this point in time and that this budget therefore deserves the support of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired. He may continue only with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not hear unanimous consent.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I was really afraid I might not have time to express the Rallie-ment Creditiste point of view on the budget statement although we have been in the House all day.
Consideration of the budget always allows members to debate the general policy of the country or deal with some specific subject. Today, I should like to take advantage of the opportunity to discuss unemployment, about which much has been said and written and very little done.
In view of the fact that when the debate in the House is on unemployment-and we have had such a debate all day-there is verbal quibbling on the number of unemployed with statistics being wielded back and forth, I should like to speak particularly of the manner in which unemployment statistics are established as I question- and I have very good reasons to do so-the value of figures quoted in the various Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports.
I am familiar with the methods used to compile those statistics. Some 800 persons spend one week every month visiting from 30 to 40 households to gather unemployment statistics. They must visit about eight homes in one work day.
Each investigator is paid $1.92 per hour, plus 13 cents per mile he travels, or 16 cents per mile if he has business and pleasure insurance coverage. Each investigator must call on the same family every month over a six-month period; six new homes are visited every
The Budget-Mr. Rondeau
month, and six dropped that were formerly visited over six consecutive months.
It is getting to be a big joke that the same investigator should come for six consecutive months and ask the same household if they are still unemployed and how many hours they worked in the previous week.
Some people may be surprised that heads of households, tired of being bothered by the same investigator for the very same thing, will send their dogs after the statistician at the second or third visit. Then, the man will make up statistics in his car, with figures he estimates by himself, for fear of being bitten by the dog. I know that the third month, when he returns to the same household after finding out at previous interviews that the head of the household was getting annoyed at always being asked the same questions, the investigator feeling embarrassed always having to ask the same questions and since he would run the risk of getting a more or less rude answer as on previous visits, he merely fills his IBM forms with the previous answers or puts in imaginary answers in order not to bother again the investigated household.
Other investigators sometimes keep a copy of the answer given in the questionnaire at the first or second interview and knowing that the household will again be investigated the following month, they complete their forms in advance and make a courtesy call to them during the week, in order to prove their presence. Everything is then concluded and statistics are established.
With such methods, it is stated that the number of unemployed has been computed in Canada. With figures arrived at in such a poor scientific way from a sampling of 3,000 Canadian households per month they talk then in this House, with great compassion, on the most serious problem now-unemployment-leaving aside what is less important for the government, the unemployed in this country.
The 30,000 households "investigated" for six consecutive months constitute about l per cent of all Canadian households.
If, during these so-called inquiries, an average unemployment rate of 7 per cent was found for households visited for six months, the number of unemployed recorded is multiplied by the ratio represented by the
30,000	households investigated out of a total of 5,180,473-odd Canadian households in 1966.
I have before me the last issue of the Canada Year Book, that is 1969, which is available to every member of this House. One can see there the number of Canadian households visited. This is the latest figure. On which figure and which year does the Dominion Bureau of Statistics base the "guesstimated" number of unemployed in order to supply monthly statistics on the unemployment rate? How is it possible to believe that the figures published by DBS are correct while, on top of all that I already mentionned about the production of statistics, they instruct the 800 investigators who are on the road for a week a month to visit rural districts where there are fewer unemployed, because a farmer who works on his farm in the winter is not unemployed? And in the

February 11, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Rondeau
summer, they take a sample of the unemployed in the cities.
Mr. Speaker, let us establish statistics now with statistics. For instance, the 800 persons taking the monthly census each represent about 6,500 households, because there were 5,180,473 households in Canada in 1966.
How is it that the province of Newfoundland has 71 census takers while it has only about 96,632 households? Therefore, there are about five times too many investigators in Newfoundland since they should be 14 and not 71. Are those statistics serious? With such random statistics it is no wonder that the government is all the time probing and searching. The governments are very well represented by such bad statistics. Our statistics are a joke when we know the way they are made up. Only jokers can make such statistics.
Since Prince Edward Island comprises 25,360 households, it should have four investigators instead of nine, so there are five too many.
Nova Scotia, with 185,245 households, should be entitled to about 29 investigators. It has 54, 25 too many.
New Brunswick has 141,761 households and is entitled to 21 investigators. There are 43-22 too many or twice as many as it should have.
The province of Quebec with 1,389,115 households would qualify for 214 investigators, but since it has only 153 it is short 60.
Ontario has 1,876,545 households, should have 289 investigators, has only 201, therefore it is short 87 if ratios should be taken into account to get accurate figures.
Manitoba has 259,280 households and would be entitled to 40 investigators but has 47, that is 7 too many.
In Saskatchewan there are 260,822 households and it should be entitled to 40 investigators; there are 51 of them, so 11 too many.
Alberta includes 393,707 households, so it would be entitled to 60 investigators; however, it has 81 investigators-21 too many.
British Columbia had 543,075 households in 1966 and while it was entitled to 84 investigators, it had only 81. Therefore, it was short three. However, it is still in British Columbia that the best balance is achieved as concerns investigators.
And if I should pursue a little further my examination of statistics for the province of Quebec, especially those concerning unemployment in the city of Montreal, there, again, I will discover most interesting facts. For instance, in nine constituencies of the city of Montreal where unemployment is high, there are ten investigators. The constituencies of Hochelaga, Lachine, Bourassa, Laval, Saint-Denis and Saint-Jacques each have one; Maison-neuve-Rosemont and Saint-Henri have two each; and Papineau has none whatsoever. The unemployment rate shows a tendency to increase in nine constituencies and ten investigators are being assigned there to collect data.
Now, here is a contradictory picture. In the constituency of Ahuntsic, we find five investigators, in Durvernay, four; in Notre-Dame-de-Grace, four also. Consequently, in those three constituencies, there are 13 investigators.
Now, in three constituencies where unemployment is declining 13 investigators can be found, and in nine constituencies where it shows an upward trend we find ten investigators. So, 13 investigators in three constituencies where unemployment is apparently going down will give a picture and compile comparatively misleading statistics, whereas ten investigators in nine constituencies where the opposite trend prevails will come up with statistics bound to give an erroneous picture of the unemployment situation.
The more we study statistics, especially when one is aware of the funny methods used to establish them, the more we see that speeches made on the unemployment rate prove irresponsible.
Why should the government refuse to take into account the figures provided by the manpower centres, even though they might be incomplete? Why is it that some public servants have been under orders to keep those figures confidential? The government is frightened because they do not want the public to know the real extent of the economic disaster that will result from their actions.
Let us give as few figures as possible and let us publish only those figures that are meaningless. Statistics are being "botched up" and we have seen, unfortunately, that the government is proposing "botched-up" solutions to the unemployment problem.
Since I first came to parliament I have known many a budget and I have always seen almost the same things: taxation budgets, bankruptcy budgets, unemployment budgets, budgets without foresight, "amateur" budgets, all soaking in speeches by so-called experts which always lead us to the same place-deeper and deeper down the economic drain.
An old French marshall once said that in all his life he had learned to distinguish three common factors, one of which was enough to lead a man or a businessman to bankruptcy. The first cause of bankruptcy, he said, often lies in an overconsumption of what is bottled in bond. The second cause is often an exaggerated love for women other than one's better half.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: -and the third one is government, which often lead us to bankruptcy. We should blame those so-called experts.
In 1971 even more than ever, he who talks does not pick the tab. Funnily enough, it seems that all members in this House, and especially those sitting on the government's side, are complete ignoramuses for the number of so-called experts around the ministers or in the cabinet increases everyday.
Mr. Speaker, financial experts are working for finance and the governments elected by it are at its service. Unfortunately governments make use of budgets such as the one before us tonight and such as the ones that will

February 11, 1971

be presented in years to come, so as to better fleece the people in favour of finance.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) announced a deficit of $570 million in his supplementary budget for 1970-71 and another of $600 million in the 1971-72 budget. Those deficits represent new taxes for the Canadian people and at an early date, in spite of the promises on the part of experts who predicted a $250 million surplus, announced by the hon. Minister of Finance in March 1970. All statistics on unemployment are the result, as I explained earlier, of a heap of figures established in a non-scientifical way, that the government may change when they see fit by ordering inquiries in sectors or areas suitable for hiring, so as to better disguise unemployment.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, there being only a few moments left before the vote on the budget takes place I think I should state at the outset that usually I look upon it as a kind of pleasurable venture to speak in this House, but I cannot say that this evening. I do not see how anybody could have any joy in participating in a debate that primarily revolves around unemployment, in these days where there is a large amount of despair and disillusionment among thousands and thousands of Canadians; where misery, as a result of people being out of work, is almost unparalleled in our history; where, Mr. Speaker, in a land of plenty we have got thousands and thousands of families in need and in destitute or near destitute conditions; when in this land the good life abounds around us in all areas and all directions but does not quite reach into the bread line; where the affluence and wealth of this nation are beyond a person's dreams, agricultural, natural and human, and the only spin-off that comes from that type of wealth is the spin-off of welfare and unemployment insurance.
These results, from the type of structure and system we have, are lauded by the government as being prime attributes of its own policies and its own decisions. This afternoon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson)-one of the only times I have heard him say this-told the House that he was concerned about the unemployed. After he had made many answers to many questions today and on other days, being flippant and arrogant about it, he finally exhibited some degree of concern. But I think that is the sort of concern of the comfortable. That is the type of concern that is irrelevant to the real situation in life. That is the sort of concern that is an insult to the people who are unemployed in this nation. It is the concern of a man who participated in a program deliberately designed to create unemployment. And that is the sort of concern that should be rejected because it is not, in fact, concern.
It is the concern of a man who enjoys playing the numbers racket, the concern of a gentleman who in the old English term would probably be called a nutcracker or schemer, someone intent on covering up his own incompetence and the bungling and failure of his government. Is it any wonder that the three opposition parties, who have divergent views on what should take place to get the economy into shape, should band together in the
The Budget-Mr. F. Howard face of such bungling? Why should the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) ask such a question? That is the reason the opposition parties are combined together, because they think in terms of human needs and requirements, not in terms of statistics and the numbers game played by the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Department of Labour, and tonight by the Minister of National Revenue who poured out statistic after statistic after statistic, which proved to me the truth of the old saying that figures don't lie but liars sometimes figure.
That is precisely what the Minister of National Revenue has been doing and the government has been doing it every day that new statistics develop. They have argued about the validity of it, about how many people it contains, what its implications are and what its implications are not. Surely that is irrelevant. There should be more concern about people themselves, about misery, about the degradation that takes place when people are forced to walk the streets looking for employment but cannot find it. Then we had the Minister of Finance say almost gleefully today, in the television room down the corridor, that if unemployment insurance is not available to people the government had done such wonders through the Canada Assistance Plan that people could go on welfare. That is, Mr. Speaker, a shameful insult to the people of this nation and to their social requirements. It is no answer if the government says: We want to see people end up on welfare. We can do little except put them on unemployment insurance and juggle with the figures and facts.
The people of our nation ought to realize what this government is really concerned about. It is concerned, not about the social good of the unemployed people of this nation, not about the present state of the economy and not about the degradation and destruction of social life and family life but about the situation as it will be in 1972. The government is gearing every one of its activities with its eyes firmly fixed at the middle point of that year. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? According to the cold, heartless calculation of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), 1972, unless something unusual happens, will be the year of the next federal election. That is what the government has its eyes on. That is when the propaganda mechanism will be in full use. He thinks that perhaps the people will forget by 1972 what happened to them this time.
I think the government is in for a rude awakening. This sort of thing has gone on in previous years. Previous governments, most of them Liberal, tried to engineer matters so that they could successfully fight general elections. This government said that it deliberately set out to cure what it called inflation by creating unemployment and it is now saying that it will cure unemployment by creating inflation. People will not buy that sort of thing. The Liberal party has long been noted for its deceit, chicanery and doubletalk. Basically there is no difference between it now and what it was a number of years ago, except that there are some different faces at the top. It is led by the same sort of people. At present we have a

February 11, 1971
Division
combination of a heartless, detached technician called a Prime Minister and a former bookkeeper for a used car dealer. This great bookkeeper happens to be the Minister of Finance. With this combination, what can the working people of the nation expect?


An hon. Member:: A great deal.


Frank Howard: They can look forward to being fed into a computer, to emerge as statistics, or to being fleeced. Probably to both.


Mr. Perrault:: Keep it non-political now.


Frank Howard: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Perrault). the whole government and the whole Liberal party are really proud of themselves tonight, Mr. Speaker. They set out to bring this nation to its knees, and to their everlasting shame they have succeeded.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: My leader applauds that
remark.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 9.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 60(8) to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the question now before the House. The question is on the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


John Howard Lundrigan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

February 11, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate is rising on a point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether the vote just seconded was seasonally adjusted or actual.
Division


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 10.12 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, February 12, 1971