1971-02-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table under Standing Order 41(2) two copies, in French and English, of an announcement respecting the Canada Grain Act, particularly concerning grades that will be applicable in the new year.



BARLEY-ANNOUNCEMENT OF INCREASE IN INITIAL PAYMENT FOR CURRENT CROP YEAR

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House of a 10 cent increase in the initial payment for barley in the current crop year to $1.01, basis No. 3 Canada Western 6 Row in store at Thunder Bay. The increase is effective March 1 and an adjustment payment of 10 cents will be paid on deliveries in the period August 1, 1970 to February 28, 1971.
The market demand for barley has been strong and selling prices have risen sharply in recent months. The Canadian Wheat Board believes that additional export sales for May, June and July delivery could be made if the board could be certain that producers would deliver the extra barley in time to meet any new sales commitments that are undertaken. To permit the Wheat Board to take advantage of current barley prices and sales opportunities it is essential that farmers deliver barley as soon as possible during this crop year.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be to thank the minister for heeding the comments I made yesterday with regard to tabling announcements in the House. I thank him for it. However, in dealing with the increase of 10 cents in the initial price for barley I must say it would appear that the amount of barley available to the Wheat Board is such that the board may not in fact be taking advantage of the potential sales. This points up one very glaring fact. Last year the government felt that certain acreages should be taken out of production and as a result asked that the land be left in summerfallow. It is obvious that the government made a mistake in not encouraging barley production at that time.


Otto Emil Lang: It did.


Stanley James Korchinski: The minister suggests the government did so, but the farmers obviously are withholding barley because of their own requirements and because of the price they are receiving. The very fact that in the middle of the season the Wheat Board has taken the step of increasing the initial price indicates that it is not in a position to guarantee delivery of this grain. This is a sad state to find ourselves in. In one year we tell the farmers not to deliver and then, six months after the new crop year has begun, we find we have to use inducements so the farmers will deliver the particular type of grain for which there is a market.
While it is encouraging that a payment is to be made which will be helpful in so far as the income position is concerned, I understand the Wheat Board has not been in a position to make sales on the future market. I understand that the Wheat Board has also announced new quota regulations. That, of course, is another subject.
There are many weaknesses in the proposal which has been presented. One has to do with the amount of grain that will be delivered or the size of the quotas that will be available for the delivery of this grain. I do not wish to go into that subject in depth. I shall only say that the government is in an awkward position in trying to explain why it asked for a reduction in production and now tells the farmers to deliver everything they have.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister's action is very timely. One could have forecast that action of this type would have to be taken if the Wheat Board hoped to get into position the barley it needed since otherwise the producers simply would not deliver it in sufficient quantities. I believe it also reflects a good, aggressive selling program on the part of the Wheat Board in the last year. It is fortunate for the farmers that the Board did undertake such a program. It is fortunate also, as the previous speaker stated, that we had some good rains last year and farmers planted more barley than might have been expected.
I suggest that the minister might consider there are many farmers who just do not have a quota base in their books for the delivery of barley. The Wheat Board should be considering how it can get delivery of barley in the hands of farmers who did not have barley last year.
I suggest that the minister might also take a pretty close look at the block system. I have had two reports in the last week indicating that grain was called forward, permits were issued and the grain was put in position but the cars did not appear. Whether this is chronic or not I have no way of knowing. But if the minister wants

February 25, 1971
Fisheries
barley in position, as I am sure he does, I suggest that he also take a good hard look at what is happening at individual points. I may say that I passed along the information I received to the Wheat Board and asked them to check it out. I suggest to the minister that he keep a pretty close eye on this situation.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that western barley producers will receive a higher initial payment as of March 1, 1971, with retroactive effect to August 1, 1970, as the minister said in his statement.
This shows that if a particular problem is examined thoroughly it is realized at times that retroactivity is justified. This is one of the reasons why I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) very recently to consider the possibility of making price increases for powdered skimmed milk and Cheddar cheese retroactive.
I am happy to see that the export market is becoming stronger so that barley producers may continue to gain by it. I hope that the difference in price will benefit farmers mostly and not only middle men.
The minister also stated that it is essential that farmers make the required arrangements to deliver their barley as soon as possible. I remember that, last year and during the preceding winter, there were some fairly heated debates in the House on the arrangement from which grain producers were to benefit thanks to the CN or the CP. In short, this indicates, I believe, that delivery means are to be dependent on the possibilities for making cars available to producers.
Further, there is a shortage of grain in Eastern Canada. We receive many complaints that mills and producers cannot rely on a normal supply and that prices are rising steeply thus contributing to an increase in the production costs of eggs, broilers, pork-meat, etc.
I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture to consider seriously this problem and, while granting to the western farmer the advantage to which they are rightly entitled, to take some steps, in order to avoid penalizing too harshly the eastern producers as far as prices are concerned, so that they may be in a position to compete. It would be advisable, in my opinion, not only for eastern or western farmers but also for all Canadians to avoid any cause of disagreement in the country.



FISHERIES


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. That matter is the criminal behaviour of certain fishing trawlers of various foreign states within the territorial waters of Canada in areas off the south and west coasts of Newfoundland. These trawlers are carelessly or deliberately, certainly contemptuously, running through and destroying the fishing gear of Canadian inshore fishermen. When these Canadian fishermen protest, the foreign captains display the same linguistic ability as the Prime Minister and tell them to fuddle-duddle.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may have a very good case to submit to the House for the consideration of hon. members under Standing Order 43, but I suggest that he does not help his case when he goes beyond the very limited terms of Standing Order 43. If the hon. member has a motion, he should indicate what it is.


Walter C. Carter: I was merely pointing out the seriousness of the problem and the indifference shown by the people concerned. Under the Criminal Code these actions are classed as vandalism, wilful destruction of property, and incitement to riot. Under the War Measures Act they would constitute real or apprehended invasion. If these actions occurred ashore, the government would muster the troops, parade the RCMP-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a motion he should put it, otherwise I will not allow him to do so. We will go on with the next order of business.


Walter C. Carter: I therefore move seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That this House urges the government and, in particular, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Solicitor General, to seize those foreign vessels that are committing criminal acts in Canadian waters and to punish the masters and crews, and
That the Fisheries Committee of this House be directed to make a full study of the adequacy of Canada's maritime patrol, the feasibility of a beefed-up integrated fisheries, coast guard and naval force, and the whole question of traditional fishing rights.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's West. This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington) moved: that the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts,

February 25, 1971

presented to the House on Monday, February 22, 1971, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice who I hope will be in the House later on. While on my feet, I might express my pleasure at seeing back in the House today a member who has been absent for some time because of illness, the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the government intend to revoke the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, as it has the power to do, prior to its expiry on April 30?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: That intention has not been expressed, Mr. Speaker. I could link this question to one which was asked the other day as to whether we would bring an Act into the House before that expiry date. My answer was that the government had committed itself to proceed in the House in some way before April 30. Beyond that, there is nothing I can add today.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
ask the Prime Minister if the government intends to bring in legislation prior to April 30, and can he assure the House that any such legislation will not be as repressive and reprehensible as the present statute?



AMENDMENT OF CRIMINAL CODE TO MAKE PURCHASE OF FIRE ARMS MORE DIFFICULT

Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorklon-Melville):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of recent activities of the FLQ and the increased sales of M-l rifles in Montreal, will the Prime Minister inform
Inquiries of the Ministry
the House whether the government is planning any amendments to the Criminal Code to make it more difficult to purchase fire arms?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe the Minister of Justice has dealt with questions like this in the past. I would refer the question to him.



ALLEGED REQUEST BY QUEBEC GOVERNMENT FOR REPLACEMENT OF PUBLIC ORDER (TEMPORARY MEASURES) ACT

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Has the Quebec government asked the Prime Minister of Canada to introduce before April 30 new legislation to replace the present one?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I could not say whether this is a request, Mr. Speaker, but in the course of discussions which took place between the Quebec government and ours, a few months ago, we informed each other of what the next steps should be. I would not refer to an entente, but the subject was discussed by both sides, and there was no objection, from either party, regarding steps to be taken.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would clearly state if the premier of Quebec would like to see the existing legislation revoked, and perhaps a new one introduced?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, once again I do not wish to speak on behalf of Quebec's premier. He has not expressed the wish to have the legislation revoked.
As far as future measures are concerned, it will behoove the federal government and the Canadian Parliament to discharge their responsibilities, when the federal government introduces his proposals, and then it will not be a question affecting only Quebec or any other province, but the country as a whole.



WAR MEASURES ACT-PAYMENT BY QUEBEC FOR SERVICES OF ARMED FORCES

Mr. Andre Fortin (Lobiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In his discussions with the Prime Minister of Quebec, did the province ask officially not to pay for the maintenance of armed forces during the October crisis?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with this matter twice in the last few days

February 25, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
and I have nothing further to say at the moment. Discussions were initiated between the two governments and the parties concerned have reached no final decision.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Having regard to the fact that both the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Quebec have indicated that troops went into Quebec at the request of the Quebec government, and bearing in mind the provisions of part I of the National Defence Act, has any attempt been made under the War Measures Act or other authority by the government to vary the incidence of the total cost falling upon the province of Quebec, or will the government introduce legislation to vary the provisions of the National Defence Act to that effect?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: The hon. member is correct in saying this involves the National Defence Act rather than the War Measures Act. It will be my intention to seek on behalf of the Department of National Defence reimbursement of out of pocket expenses incurred by participating in the Quebec events from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Then it will be for the government to discuss with the province of Quebec the question of its share of the cost.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was about to address a question to the Minister of Justice but he is not here. The Prime Minister would probably only befuddle the issue-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Fuddle-duddle!


Mr. Hees:: There he goes again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Justice whether he has been requested to obtain an opinion from the law officers of the Crown as to whether or not there can be any change in the law which now provides that the full cost will fall upon the province of Quebec?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: This is a very important question and one which I shall draw to the attention of the minister.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question to the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Since Chemcell Limited has announced the closing of its chemical plants in Edmonton and Two Hills, Alberta, would the minister say whether the government is considering the establishment of one or more special programs to alleviate the situation in this province? Would he also say whether the government of Canada has received a request from the Province of Alberta or whether there have been any discussions with this government in order to deal with the loss of jobs by all the specialists working for this company?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, there have been no contacts between my department and the government of Alberta with respect to those closings.
As to the employees affected by them, they will benefit from the regular programs of the department and, more important, from those of the Department of Manpower and Immigration. I know of no other.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. minister could indicate how retraining people who have doctorates in chemistry will solve the problem.



ASSISTANCE TO MEDICAL PROFESSION IN CONTROLLING MEMBERS ALLEGEDLY EXPLOITING MEDICARE PROGRAMS

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the concern expressed by the Canadian Medical Association as to the inability of the profession to discipline or to control individual members who are exploiting medicare programs, can the minister say whether the government will assist the profession in this important matter?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, that is a very valid observation and I think the government would be prepared to consider it. The hon. member may know that about a year and a half ago we did meet with the Canadian Medical Association in an endeavour to approach the profession throughout Canada to limit fee increases, and that was successful for a short time. Perhaps this new effort will have a similar effect; I hope so. I would also remind the hon. member that the provinces have a good deal to do with this matter in terms of setting fee structures.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement on behalf of the Canadian Medical Association that it would be helpful to have full information concerning fees collected by doctors on a national basis, will the government consider doing what it can to see that this information is provided?


John Carr Munro: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not hear the concluding words of the hon. member's question.
[Mr. Trudeau.)
February 25, 1971


Stanley Howard Knowles: I asked whether the government will do what it can to see to it that information regarding fees charged by doctors on a national basis is made available to the profession so that it can do the job of disciplining its own members.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to look into the matter.



MANPOWER


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I want to direct to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Considering that complaints have been filed to the effect that a certain number of schools offering retraining in Quebec are short of textbooks and equipment, and since the federal government is helping pay the expenses involved in offering these courses, would the minister tell us whether it was stipulated at the time the agreements were signed with the province of Quebec that schools providing the courses would supply students with the required textbooks and equipment so they could reap full benefit from these courses?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear in all our relationships with the provinces that when we place students into training it is expected that the training will be of adequate quality. I include all aspects of training, whether it be equipment, books or what have you. If the hon. member has a specific instance that he knows of where there seems to be some failure in this regard, I would be very pleased if he would bring it to my attention so that I can check into the matter.



SUGGESTED EXTENSION OF FARM ADMINISTRATION COURSES TO WIVES

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
I should like to ask the minister whether he has received, from the Department of Education of Quebec, a request to the effect that, in the next adult training courses program, farmers' wives be allowed to take farm management courses?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware whether such a request has come from the province of Quebec particularly, but I should like to inform hon. members that the training courses that are available in different provinces in regard to business management in farming operations
Inquiries of the Ministry
are indeed available to wives as well as to husbands. However, it is the policy of the department not to offer training in the first instance to the wife and husband of the same family, on the theory that it is better to have one member of as many households as possible take this training.



RETRAINING-CONTROL OF TEXTBOOKS

Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister and ask him whether, in view of the large subsidies granted by the federal government for those training courses, he assumes a degree of control over the textbooks used?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, the quality of these basic courses is determined by the provincial institutions, or by the institutions which are chosen by the provinces for the purpose. Of course, the manpower offices do have a function in ascertaining that training generally is of the kind that is desired, but it does not go beyond that.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Sianley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration a question. In view of the huge backlog of immigration appeals and applications for landed immigrant status, when will the minister remedy this intolerable situation and inform the House what he has decided to do with some of the unpalatable recommendations in the Sedgwick report?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I really have nothing to add to previous answers to this question. We are working on particular solutions to this obviously very serious problem, and I hope that before long this will result in legislation being placed before the House.



PERMISSION FOR PEOPLE TO WORK WHILE AWAITING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATIONS OR APPEALS

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the very long delays in processing applications and appeals, is the government giving consideration to permitting people who are waiting long periods of time to work until their applications are approved or rejected?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is fairly standard practice on the part of the department to give a work permit to persons who are past the special inquiry stage and,

February 25, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
having failed at that stage, are awaiting an appeal. It may be an unsatisfactory result in some ways, but we have felt it essential to give this general permission rather than to leave these people without the opportunity to work.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there are people who have not reached that stage and have been waiting for as long as 12 months before their applications are considered and are unable to work during this period, would the government give consideration to permitting them to work until their applications are dealt with?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think cases where the waiting period at that stage is anything like the length the hon. member suggests are very rare. I think it may remain the best policy to look at these cases individually rather than have a blanket rule.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether any instructions have been given for the drafting or preparation of a permanent public order bill, and whether such a bill is being discussed by the minister or his officials with the government or officials of the province of Quebec, as the Prime Minister of that province has said?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to the Leader of the Opposition for not being here at the opening of the House. The Department of Justice is considering what parliamentary action should be taken, as has already been stated to the House by the Prime Minister. I have had no discussions with the province of Quebec relating to such legislation or relating to whether or not there should be legislation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I heard the minister. Did he say that he had or had not had such discussions?


John Napier Turner: I have not.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Then has the Minister of Justice any explanation to give as to why the Prime Minister of Quebec would say that such discussions have taken place?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands on a supplementary.



QUEBEC-COMPENSATION FOR THOSE ARRESTED AND RELEASED WITHOUT CHARGE-RETURN OF FINGERPRINTS

['Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can he advise the House when he anticipates that negotiations might be completed and an agreement signed between the Canadian government and the government of West Germany regarding the exchange of pension benefits?\nHon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and\nWelfare): Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is expected that the German delegation will come to Canada in March and that the whole matter will be settled and signed by the end of that month.', 'February 25, 1971']
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice whether
he has received any reply to his letter to the Minister of Justice of Quebec regarding compensation for those persons who were arrested and then released, whether any compensation is going to be paid for their loss of employment, and whether the federal government is going to contribute to such compensation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think what I said to the House was that I was going to write the Attorney General of Quebec about the problem of returning fingerprints. I did not say I was going to be in written communication with him about the problem of compensation. What I did say and report to the House was that Mr. Choquette had said that questions of compensation were being referred to the protecteur du peuple or ombudsman in Quebec, and that the Attorney General of Quebec would consider what to do after he had received the recommendation of the ombudsman in individual cases.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Were any of the persons who were arrested but not charged fingerprinted and, if so, under what authority were they fingerprinted since no charge was laid against them?


John Napier Turner: I have already stated to the House, Mr. Speaker, that under the Identification of Criminals Act, as we interpret it, fingerprints can only be taken if a person has been charged. When I was Acting Solicitor General I advised the RCMP to return fingerprints to those police forces from which they had been received, and that has been done. That is all we can do in so far as the federal jurisdiction is concerned. In reply to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, I said I would communicate with the Attorney General of Quebec to advise him officially of the action we had taken and of the opinion of Parliament. To date I have not received a reply to that letter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On
what authority were they taken in the first place?



Mr. Keith Hymmen (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can he advise the House when he anticipates that negotiations might be completed and an agreement signed between the Canadian government and the government of West Germany regarding the exchange of pension benefits?
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is expected that the German delegation will come to Canada in March and that the whole matter will be settled and signed by the end of that month.

February 25, 1971



FINANCE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is it the intention of the government in the near future to discontinue further sales of the present issue of Canada savings bonds?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I withdrew these sales yesterday, or announced the withdrawal of sales effective a week hence.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, will there be any replacement of this series of savings bonds with another series at a more realistic interest rate, or will there be no savings bonds available to the public for a period of time?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, it is not the present intention of the government to introduce another issue until the normal issue which will come out in November.



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has he received requests for Canadian forces aircraft or ships to do surveillance work on Canada's east coast, specifically the coast of Newfoundland, to enforce our fishing regulations and to protect the rights of Canadian nationals whose gear is being destroyed as a result of infringements by foreign vessels?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have already had informal requests in this regard from, among other people, my colleague the Minister of Transport.


James Aloysius McGrath: Has the minister acted upon these requests and, if so, are Canadian forces aircraft and ships presently conducting surveillance in the area to see that no further infringements occur?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, aircraft are conducting surveillance of our maritime approaches at all times. With regard to the possible deployment of surface units, I would like to make an announcement in due course.



DESTRUCTION OF FISHING GEAR BY FOREIGN DRAGGERS- REPRESENTATIONS TO GOVERNMENTS

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary to the Secretary of State
Inquiries of the Ministry
for External Affairs. In view of the infringement of Canadian rights off the Atlantic coast of Canada, what representations has he made to the governments of the nationals concerned pointing out to them that they are infringing upon Canadian rights in the Atlantic coast area?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure about the assumptions underlying this question. It may be that the hon. member is quite right. I have been discussing the general situation with the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and we think we will take measures that will be effective.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of statements by the Premier of Saskatchewan that a regional incentive grant will be made for a pulpmill at Meadow Lake, and in view of other reports that no commitment has been made, can he indicate whether he has made a commitment on this matter and, if so, what is the nature of that commitment?


Jean Marchand: I made no commitment, Mr. Speaker.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, will the minister assure the House that grants for pulpmills, whether this one or others, will not be made until assurances about pollution control standards have been given by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, which it is anticipated will soon become the department of environment?


Jean Marchand: I can give this assurance, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question.
As grants will be given to allow Prairie farmers to convert their cornfields into grassland, could the Minister of Agriculture tell us whether he has similar grants considered for Eastern Canada farmers who could convert their grasslands into cornfields?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker.

February 25, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



ALLEGED TRAFFICKING IN INDUSTRIAL MILK QUOTAS- REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture which is based on a written question concerning trafficking in industrial milk quotas in this country. It was placed on the order paper some time ago but the minister has refused to provide this information. Will he undertake to provide the information I asked for at that time concerning the trafficking in industrial milk quotas? Will he produce the information I requested?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in the question asked by the hon. member he wanted a list of all the people within the electronic files where transfers of quotas had taken place. This would require something like 700 hours of work, and I am not willing to undertake that job at that cost.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That is not the reason the minister gave at the time. He keeps giving different reasons. I would suggest that at ten o'clock-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the hon. member would ask his supplementary question.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I would request that Your Honour put this on the late show at ten o'clock.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Could he advise the House of the success he has made in persuading someone to accept the presidency of the Canada Development Corporation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of persuading people. We cannot appoint a head of a corporation that has not yet been approved by Parliament.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, some time ago the minister said he expected to be able to make an announcement soon. I ask him whether his confidence in this regard is due to the fact that he has given serious consideration to following the example set by his former colleague, the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question relates to a bill that is now before the House and is not in order.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Speaker:: I gather the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings wishes to rephrase his supplementary question.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will make the question very simple. Is the minister holding off the making of this announcement because he is giving serious consideration to following the example of his former colleague and appointing himself?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, is the minister going to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask for the hon. member's co-operation. He has asked a question which I think the minister should not be allowed to answer. Perhaps the hon. member might ask this question when we resume consideration of the bill to which this matter has reference.


George Harris Hees: I would ask him whether he is considering appointing himself as president of the corporation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister rising on a question of privilege? If so, I hope it will be different from the one raised by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. As all hon. members know, only a limited period of time is available to hon. members during the question period, and if we spend it on questions of privilege, legitimate or otherwise, hon. members who have legitimate questions to ask will be penalized. I really think we should go on to the next question.


Edgar John Benson: I agree, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Paul Langlois (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the announcement by the Prime Minister of Guyana of the nationalization of bauxite industries, can the minister assure the Canadian people, and particularly those employed in the aluminum industry of the Sague-nay-Lake-St. John region, that the supply of bauxite from Guyana will be maintained at its present level for Arvida plants?
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, Alcan have assured us that their operations in Canada would not be affected by recent developments in Guyana, particularly concerning supplies of raw materials.

February 25, 1971



ALLEGED HARASSMENT OF TRANSIENTS BY POLICE AND OTHER AUTHORITIES

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I would like to address my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The minister, in his program on drugs, approaches the problem by treatment and research. However, a national health and welfare study on transients indicates that 38 per cent of last summer's travellers were subject to harassment by police and other authorities. When will the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Justice meet to solve this inconsistency?


John Carr Munro: I do not agree with the observations of the hon. member. If he is asking a question concerning legal sanctions in this area, I think he should direct it to my colleague, the Minister of Justice.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I will readdress my question to the Minister of Justice.


John Napier Turner: Would the hon. member be good enough to specify which part of the question he would like me to answer?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker. A national health and welfare study has indicated that 38 per cent of last summer's travellers were subject to harassment by police and other authorities. When will the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Justice meet to solve this inconsistency?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Chair might have suggested to the hon. member from the start that this appears to be an argumentative question. I would think the hon. member is really making a submission to the ministers concerned.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I should like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Will he give consideration to granting a day of debate to discuss this troublesome situation?



INVESTIGATION OF TASK FORCE FINDING CONCERNING POLICE METHODS

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns the report of the task force on youth services. Since the report says that in many cases police agencies used highly questionable methods to gain information leading to arrests and convictions, can the minister advise whether or not he is having this matter investigated further and whether he has asked the Solicitor General to investigate it and take it up with the Attorneys General of the provinces?


John Carr Munro: No decision has been taken yet with respect to
Inquiries of the Ministry
the contents of the particular report to which the hon. member is referring.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: May I ask the Minister of Justice whether, in view of what this report has to say about the present vagrancy laws and a uniform juvenile age, he is giving consideration to bringing in amendments to these laws?


John Napier Turner: I was, long before the report was published, Mr. Speaker.



MANPOWER


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Could he say whether his office has received representations from groups such as the Federation of Parents and Teachers of British Columbia urging the abandonment of job advertising published in the European press reportedly stating that there are job opportunities in Canada at this time of unemployment?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether that group is among the groups which did write about the subject some time ago. The fact is that specific job advertising was stopped by the department some months ago, although of course the department continues to bring Canada generally to the attention of people abroad as part of the ongoing campaign for the future.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-Si. Barbe):: have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Could he indicate to the House whether he has received a report from the Atlantic Advisory Council with regard to the failure of regional development incentive grants to produce job opportunities in the province of Newfoundland?


Jean Marchand: I will take the question as notice.



PROVISION OF DOCKING FACILITIES AT COME-BY-CHANCE, NFLD.

Walter C. Carter: My question is to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Could he advise the House as to the status of the proposal to supply docking facilities at Come-by-Chance, and could he say whether public tenders will be called for this work?

February 25, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean Marchand: I should like to take this question also as notice.



INCENTIVE GRANTS-ACQUISITION OF PROPORTIONATE EQUITY IN RECIPIENT COMPANIES

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In awarding these various incentive grants amounting sometimes to millions of dollars and ranging in value from $3,000 to $5,000 per job, has the government considered acquiring equity in the recipient company proportionately equivalent to the grant made?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member's question is in the form of a submission. I think he has to assume that the representation or suggestion he is making to the government will be taken into account.


Mark Willson Rose: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought that the minister was about to reply to my question. It seems to me that there is a basic inequity in the fact that when a recipient company makes a profit its shareholders get the benefit, but it if loses the public picks up the tab.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INFORMATION CANADA

[Stage Direction]
DISTRIBUTION OF BROCHURE, "TOYS: A GUIDE TO CONSUMER BUYING"
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: My question is directed to the minister in charge of Information Canada. Since we have just learned that the first publication of his department entitled "Toys: A Guide to Consumer Buying" was not mailed to the public until late January, can the minister say whether this guide for Christmas shopping is eleven months early for next Christmas or one month late for last Christmas?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: The hon. member is about five days late in asking the question. It was in the paper last week. But I plead innocent. It is not our publication, and Information Canada cannot take credit for the distribution of these materials. It is in the hands of the government printing bureau and not Information Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: In view of the takeovers and would-be takeovers in the publishing industry in Canada, will the Prime Minister assure the House that, God forbid, the only one we have left in Canada will not be Information Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Could he say whether Canada has bought broilers from the Poultry Processors Association of Quebec and, if so, could he indicate what price the government paid for them?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this question was put recently.



CITIZENSHIP


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of citizenship. Could he advise the House if he has anything to report with respect to the inquiries he has undertaken into the somewhat questionable statements made by Alexia Bandy in British Columbia?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Certain statements made by Mr. Bandy some two weeks ago do appear not to have been consistent with his responsibilities as a public servant, even a short term or casual one. This has been brought to his attention and he is no longer in the field but is devoting his efforts to completion of the documentation for which he was temporarily hired.


Gerald William Baldwin: With those qualifications he ought to be in the cabinet.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can the minister advise if a formal transfer of employees from the Department of Transport to the Cape Breton Development Corporation has taken place yet and, if not, at what stage are the negotiations and how soon will they be completed? Further, when the transfer takes place will these workers continue to enjoy the same benefits as they did in the Public Service?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the employees who were transferred from the Point Edward Industrial Park to Devco will enjoy the same working conditions as they
February 25, 1971	COMMONS
had before. They will retain all the benefits they had under the Public Service. As you know, recently the Public Service Alliance has been certified as bargaining agent for Devco employees. I do not know what kind of conditions they are going to establish, but I assume the interests of all parties will be safeguarded.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
-REPRESENTATIONS TO GOVERNMENTS RESPECTING OBSERVANCE OF LAW
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement made by the Minister of National Defence that he has already received representations from the Minister of Transport concerning the infringement of our sovereignty by foreign fishing trawlers, will the minister appeal to his counterparts in the countries concerned requesting them to abide by our fishing laws and the rules laid down by the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries for the preservation of our fisheries resources?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if there has been any breach of the law we certainly will take the necessary steps.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the
Minister of Fisheries if in fact an infringement did take place? If so, can he tell us the extent of the infringement and what steps he has taken to cope with it?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, no infringement of our sovereignty, no breach of our laws, has taken place. There was one minor incident just outside our limits two days ago. All of the foreign trawlers at the moment are 25 or more miles away from our shores. A ruling has been made that all Canadian trawlers must stay outside 12 miles from shore, and this applies particularly off the west coast of Newfoundland. These rules applying to our own trawlers will automatically apply to all foreign vessels as well.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are three or four members rising on supplementaries and there is just about one minute left before the end of the question period. If hon. members think that the time should be spent on supplementaries, perhaps we might allow one supplementary to the hon. member for South Shore, then try to get in two or three additional questions, and continue with this subject tomorrow.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: My supplementary is very brief, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry what surveillance he is carrying out to make certain that there is no infringement of our sovereignty rights in Atlantic Canada?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there are three fisheries protection vessels in the area. Overflights are taking place, and additional resources are available from the Department of Transport and the Department of National Defence.
DEBATES______ 3741
Inquiries of the Ministry



INCLUSION OF DELIVERIES TO FEED MILLS AS PART OF QUOTA

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the new quota regulations and procedures for the coming crop year as announced today, can the minister tell the House if deliveries by a producer to feed mills or possibly to large feed lots will become part of his quota allotment?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change with regard to those deliveries.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was beginning to wonder if it would be quicker to place my question on the order paper.


Thomas Miller Bell: No, it wouldn't.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: My question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of Premier Smallwood's statement two days ago that the second phase, the long-term development agreement, between the minister's department and the province of Newfoundland is ready to be signed, but not signed, and that the government of Newfoundland is all ready to sign, would the minister say if he regards the agreement as being ready to sign and indicate when this signing might take place?


Jean Marchand: As soon as the agreement is placed on my desk, Mr. Speaker, I shall deem it ready to be signed.



BARLEY-INCREASE IN INITIAL PRICE-GRADES ACCEPTED BY ELEVATORS

Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the minister's announcement today of a ten cent increase in the initial price of barley, and as many elevator points will only accept barley as No. 1 or 2 feed, even if it has previously been graded 3 cw., which has caused many farmers to hold back on barley deliveries-

February 25, 1971
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his question?


Donald Craig Stewart: Would the minister tell the House if this situation has been investigated and corrected?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any difficulty farmers have in delivering the barley which is required for market. Of course, those farmers who have malting barley, and who have been holding it for that purpose, are in some cases in a certain degree of uncertainty. Across the Prairies, and certainly in Manitoba, there is a good deal of barley that could go into elevator space if it were delivered by farmers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of members who wish to ask supplementary questions-I notice the hon. member for Mackenzie and the hon. member for Assiniboia-and there are also supplemen-taries to previous questions, but the question period has expired. We will try to resume these important matters during the question period tomorrow. Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, I was going to ask the Government House Leader about the business for the rest of this week and next week, but before that is done I notice that the Minister of Justice very graciously rushed in to answer the question that his parliamentary secretary took as notice, and if the House gives unanimous consent he might answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No.


Gerald William Baldwin: Otherwise, I will hold it until tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I did ask for the business of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member put the question in such a confusing way that the Chair took it for granted the hon. member was willing to put off satisfying his curiosity about several matters until tomorrow, but I gather he would like the President of the Privy Council to reply to his original question.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is my choice.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, we shall continue with the Canada Development Corporation bill, followed by the Budget bill, the young offenders and the Yukon minerals bills. However, as the first orders on Friday I would like to call the report stages of Bills C-217 and C-185, and probably the same stage of Bill C-2 on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise only to prompt the hon. member for Peace River to the effect that we had an agreement about the length of speeches today.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was just on the point of rising to suggest that since there has been so much interest in this subject and it has been returned by popular demand, we might agree to have four 20 minute speeches from the first speakers for each party, and thereafter 15 minutes for succeeding speakers, which might permit a greater number of members to participate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina) moved:: That this House condemns the government's failure to foresee and take steps to provide for the escalating effects of its employment policy upon the social assistance funds of the provinces and municipalities and its failure to consult and co-operate with the provinces and municipalities in providing emergency financial support and employment programs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the escalating effects of the government's deliberate unemployment policy to combat inflation continue to plunge our nation's economy deeper into a major recession and to increase unemployment in all parts of Canada, and the end is not yet in sight. The government has always bragged about its greatly expanded role in the economy of the nation and the new and modern way in which it would manage its monetary, fiscal and economic policies. Even the Bank of Canada would not escape its dominion, according to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) yesterday.
The government has, at great expense, hired hundreds of advisers, this being the secret of how to hone the economy to a fine edge. They were to be the experts, the input boys, the epitome of energy and wisdom. They were to have the ideas for the government, to make plans, to predict, to manage and direct. Their salaries were to be fixed in anticipation of superlative results. But what went wrong? As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) leaves I ask him, why do we not hear about these legions of whiz kids any more? They were recruited to get results, and not just be buffers between the Prime Minister and reality. Could it be that this computerized human army came up with the wrong advice? Has he been receiving incorrect advice from some deputy minis-
February 25, 1971

ters which has resulted in this country's economy being struck by a sledge hammer? In either case, the only proper conclusion is that this government is being steered by those bureaucrats who are as incompetent in economic management as a befuddled Prime Minister and his cabinet are incompetent in judging their incompetency.
This government's failure to foresee, and take steps to provide for, the escalating effects of its employment policy has precipitated a welfare crisis for the provinces and municipalities across the land, particularly for the city of Toronto which, as I shall explain later, is suffering from a double effect. The government brought about this crisis without consulting with or advising the provinces and municipalities in advance. It has belatedly, and after much pressure, endeavoured in a limited untimely, ineffective and unfair way to repair some of the damage. While this action will prove to be of some utility in the long term, what is required is emergency financial support and emergency employment programs now.
Let me illustrate the positions in which the municipality of metropolitan Toronto and its central borough, the city of Toronto, find themselves. Metro Toronto administers all welfare and social assistance in the metropolitan area and turns down no applicant for welfare. It charges the boroughs for the number of persons assisted, not on the basis of permanent or temporary residence but on the basis of assessment in each borough. The cost falls not on the general populace, as does income tax, but on the owners and tenants of real estate in each borough. Metro pays 20 per cent of welfare assistance, the province of Ontario pays 30 per cent and the federal government pays 50 per cent. As unemployed people from all over Canada migrate to the Toronto area seeking work, they find it necessary in many instances to apply for welfare.
Since most of these people gravitate to the centre of the metropolitan area, the city of Toronto harbours more than its share of them. In 1969, metro had an estimated population of 2,316,000 and about 30 per cent of the people live in the city of Toronto. But since the city has 43 per cent of the total assessment for metro, its taxpayers are required to pay 43 per cent of all metro's operating costs, including welfare. Thus, the city of Toronto not only has an escalated bill for local applicants, but suffers from the double effect of being in metro at the centre of the national focus for itinerant applicants from all parts of Canada and paying for 43 per cent of them. Thus, Mayor Dennison of Toronto, finding his budget affected in an abnormal, unexpected and unfair fashion, is of course only doing his duty to every owner and tenant of land in his city when he seeks an emergency meeting with the Prime Minister to claim emergency financial support.
A complicating and exacerbating factor in the picture is that if seasonal unemployment benefits slated to expire on May 15 next are not extended, thousands more will be applying for welfare. Social Services Commissioner, John Anderson, of metro Toronto predicts that as many as 10,000 more people across metro might be forced to seek assistance if the unemployment insurance dries up on the
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs scheduled day. So now, not only Mayor William Dennison and his executive council from the city of Toronto, but also metro Chairman Albert Campbell and his entire metro council are heading to Ottawa to see the Prime Minister.
In 1970, the metro department of social services spent $50,596,543, being $5,503,231 more than it had estimated for the year. Its 1971 estimate is $75,424,228 which is an increase of about 50 per cent. The direct payment of general welfare assistance is mainly responsible for these increases. The direct welfare share paid for 1969 was roughly $20 million; for 1970 $30 million and is estimated to be $47,700,000 in 1971. If seasonal unemployment benefits are not extended beyond May 15 next, then the projection for metro's 1971 direct welfare costs is $70 million. So, no wonder every borough in metro, probably every municipality in Ontario, and above all the city of Toronto, are alarmed by the emergency they are currently and imminently facing.
This chaos arises at a time when there is one financial crisis after another facing Canadian cities. The growing militancy among government employees, along with increased unionization has proven costly. In the past, the pay of municipal workers and school board employees tended to lag in periods when there were rapid advances in wages and salaries paid by industry. That is changing. More government workers are now saying, "We want to get ours along with everybody else".
Cities are extremely vulnerable to this sort of challenge. They cannot shut down operations all at once the way Massey-Ferguson can close a plant if it is struck or losing money, as is the present case in my riding where 900 employees are to be laid off March 1. When you have a period of employee militancy and threats to suspend vital services, you tend to get a rapid increase in salaries.
A second factor in the financial squeeze is the higher costs for equipment and supplies, construction costs and all costs associated with health services. A third factor is the slowdown in the increase of provincial aid available to the cities. This is caused by the fact that the provinces are now themselves up against the wall for the same reasons that the cities find themselves pinched. The provinces have in turn not even been able to pry additional funds out of the federal government, except on a loan basis at high interest rates.
Toronto has had to raise taxes at a fairly rapid clip, but there are limits as to how fast and how far they can go. Called upon to face 43 per cent of the operating costs of all metro, plus the welfare crisis bind, its taxpayers are screaming. Another great problem is that if your taxes go too high, you create more severe economic conditions and consequences, forcing business to move away and forcing the more well-to-do residents out into the suburbs, causing the abandonment of housing by owners as well as tenants. Property taxes are harder on people with low incomes than on those with high incomes, and property owners are discouraged from making improvements for fear of increased assessments. Another bad effect of higher property tax rates is that housing becomes more expensive. Housing is one of the most

February 25, 1971
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs
highly taxed items in our entire revenue system, and you only get credit tor such taxes in computing income tax when you rent your property.
While the municipalities are pleading with the higher levels of government to take direct responsibility for financing some vital municipal activities, such as the whole range of welfare services, health care and, to a greater degree than at present, education, they are suddenly stunned by the impact of the federal government's employment policy which has reverberations throughout their structures. And while this government slumbers on these problems and seeks to rush through this House an omnibus bill that will water but not fortify the cabinet, save with respect to salary increases, what is the American government doing to meet a similar but not such severe crisis in the United States.
President Nixon's latest approach to aiding cities and states is based on two concepts: first, special revenue sharing funds or block grants and, second, general revenue sharing. Under President Nixon's program, total aid to state and local governments will increase substantially. It will eliminate 130 existing federal programs by granting money to states and localities for specific, detailed purposes in six areas, education, urban development, transportation, manpower training, rural development and law enforcement. It will turn over $11 billion a year to local governments in the form of annual "block grants" to be spent in these six broad areas with few strings attached. This will do away with a host of grant-in-aid programs that Congress has authorized over the years for dealing with a variety of domestic problems. These existing aid programs will be telescoped into the new block grants. For instance, $2.6 billion will be earmarked for transportation to assist urban mass transit, airport improvement, highway building and beautification and traffic safety and $2 billion will be allocated to such fields as model cities, urban renewal and rehabilitation, sewer and water facilities. The administration will take away $10.4 million in grants-in-aid programs, so that the net federal cost will be $700 million. The whole program should be more efficient than the existing hodgepodge. The administration calls this "special revenue sharing", as distinguished from its "general revenue sharing" plan.
Under general revenue sharing, an entirely new government undertaking, President Nixon has proposed that a fixed percentage of the federal personal income tax should be turned over each year to states and localities for their use, with no strings attached. The president has recommended 1.3 per cent of taxable personal income. This is estimated to provide an additional $5 billion in the first full year of operation, rising to $10 billion by 1980. In a recent message to Congress, the President pointed out that federal aid to the states and localities had grown from less than $1 billion in 1946 to over $30 billion in 1970. So, that is the order of escalation of aid in the United States. Here the local governments are being handed not more money, but loans and escalating problems. Here, the total budget for urban infrastructure for 1971 is a mere $153 million for the whole country.

In past proposals for tax reform, our federal government has systematically refused to present a program that would take into consideration provincial and municipal taxing problems. Such a reform would have permitted provinces and municipalities to have the necessary revenues to meet their current needs. In 1968, 69 local governments in Ontario went into debt by $275 million. That is a sum equal to 20 per cent of total revenue raised from all local sources. It is a stark fact that local governments lack the financial resources to meet present obligations, let alone to assure any additional functions such as welfare services due to high unemployment.
There is a short term solution to this problem, and it is for the federal government to increase its share to tfce Canada assistance plan in order to alleviate the burden of the municipalities. Ey refusing to help the provinces, and especially the municipalities, to meet their increased costs, the federal government is shirking its responsibilities. As the government has created unemployment because of its policies, it should at least pay to maintain unemployed employables and their dependants.
Some kon. Members: Hear, hear.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Like 45 per cent of the leaders of Canadian municipalities, Mayor Eennison of Toronto advocates the immediate introduction in Canada of a shared cost emergency employment p an to enable t"e immediate hiring of employables for work on worthwhile projects. He says that in Toronto's situation, which has 41.5 per cent of Metro's welfare applicants, even the hiring of a few hundred men for the next few months for useful work would have a snowballing effect on employment, help his city's economy generally and keep his taxes down. In addition, necessary projects could be completed. He suggests a cost-sharing formula of 50 per cent federal, 25 per cent provincial and 25 per cent municipal. This would, in effect, have the higher levels of government pay the labour content and the municipalities the material content.
The emergency implementation of such a program would be heartily welcomed by the city fathers, by myself and, even more, by the thousands of hard-pressed homeowners and small businessmen in the core of downtown Toronto who will otherwise bear the whole brunt of this crisis in their next year's tax bills. A federal loan for the project of $1,600 million at the rate, as of March 1, of 6.79 per cent is not the answer. The city will have to repay the whole of the loan, plus the interest, which adds insult to injury. It must be apparent to the Prime Minister that if grants have to be paid from income taxes so, too, do loans, and that the repayment of the latter will not only unquestionably have to come from the taxpayers of Toronto, but will be much more onerous by reason of the interest charges which will be additionally payable. Furthermore, the income tax spread or collection base is from all of Metro and from every taxpayer, and not just the property owners of Toronto. In the last budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), provision was made for a $17 million loan to Metro Toronto. Nothing was
February 25, 1971

made available directly to the city of Toronto. The entire sum was to go to Metropolitan Toronto.
I sincerely hope that all hon. members from Metro ridings who continue to support the government, although with less and less enthusiasm with every passing day, will urge the government to try to remedy the huge blunder it has made in mismanaging the economy of the country by being helpful to Mayor Dennison and Chairman Campbell when they come to Ottawa. Even charity begins at home, but their requests are not charity; rather they are justice.
The care and attention lavished on the states and localities of the United States is in stark contrast to the degree of consulation and assistance to the local governments in Canada. Not only is an urban council and an environment council needed here, but so is a financial and economics council meeting quarterly, so that all levels of government will know the current situation and be in a position to assist with economic planning. I dare say that if such a council had been operative over the last few years, this current unemployment and welfare crisis would not be upon us. Britain is a unitary state and is just as aware of its municipal problems as of its foreign affairs; but over here no way is open to us, unless the federal government seeks agreement with the other levels of government. This it has a duty to do in a federated state.
I know that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras), responsible for housing and urban affairs, has had his hands full with housing problems and has been doing a job in respect of them; but he has been seriously neglecting his responsibility for urban affairs. It is time that he turned his attention to some innovative short and long term solutions to the problems that we are dealing with in this debate today. I urge him to go to the United States, over to Britain and mainland Europe and learn from their experience.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member. I must interrupt him at this point to bring to his attention that, pursuant to the agreement put forward and adopted earlier today, his time has expired. He may continue if he has the unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have that unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I urge him to make these visits to foreign lands and not let constitutional hangups trouble him too much. Practically everything he will want to do can be done by agreement among the three levels of government and be perfectly constitutional, despite the weird and wonderful world of the Prime Minister. Where there is a will, there is a way, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) seeks the right to ask a question of the hon. member. As the hon. member's time has expired, this can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House.
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent.

Consequently the Chair now recognizes the hon. member for Villeneuve.


Mr. Real Caoueite (Temiscamingue):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I represent Temiscamingue riding and not Villeneuve.
In any case, I wish to express my sincere thanks to my colleague from Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) who has given me the opportunity to speak ahead of him this afternoon. This courtesy does him credit and shows that in the House of Commons, whatever our political ideas, it is always possible to help one another from time to time. So I am grateful to him for having provided me with this opportunity.
The non-confidence motion moved by the official opposition holds nothing new. This leads me to say that identical causes generally produce identical results.
We could have read exactly the same non-confidence motion in 1961 when the country was administered by a Progressive Conservative government. In fact, there was in Canada one million unemployed at that time, and we could have read, and I quote:
That this House condemns the-
-Progressive Conservative-
-government's failure to foresee and take steps to provide for the escalating effects of its unemployment policy upon the social assistance funds of the provinces and municipalities and its failure to consult and co-operate with the provinces and municipalities in providing emergency financial support and employment programs.
Mr. Speaker, if, at that time, the Progressive Conservative government had taken the measures required to correct the situation, we would probably not have to face the present problem. At any rate, it is obvious that the No. 1 problem in Canada is unemployment, the consequence of which is poverty.
While the government attempts to fight unemployment and restore some measure of prosperity in Canada, there is not a single day when we cannot read in a newspaper, hear over television or radio that such or such an industry is in the process of closing down or curtailing production.
Here is a recent example:	Massey-Ferguson has
announced that 2,750 employees will be laid off, supposedly because it has too much equipment. In the textile, footwear, clothing, automobile industries, in short in every field, there is talk of lay offs, because sales are lagging.
In the lumber industry, the closing down of plywood and other plants is being considered because there is overproduction and the surpluses cannot be sold.
Let us see what is going on in the mining industry. In my own area, within a few weeks the Wasamac gold

February 25, 1971
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs mine will lay off 350 employees. And this morning, I got a telephone call from the unemployment insurance office in Rouyn advising me that the Molybdenite mine of Lacorne will be laying off 180 people next week-end.
The Cadillac Moly mine has already closed down. Industries are folding up while the government sets up new departments to fight unemployment. What a joke! The more talk there is of fighting unemployment, the more unemployment is allowed to grow. New departments, such as the Department of the Environment, are set up to co-ordinate the activities of all other departments. There is a proposal to create the Canada Development Corporation in order to promote new industries while we cannot use what our industry, our farmers for instance, can produce. Why? Because no valid solution is brought forward.
And when we get a day such as today to set out our suggestions, we realize the lack of interest for a matter as fundamental as this one not only among members of Parliament but also among newsmen always looking for scandals and sensational news. A look at the press gallery is enough to note that there is only one man there and he is probably from the Canadian Press. There is no representative of the press nor of the CBC. When we deal with serious matters and can suggest solutions, nobody is there to hear us.
If we had announced this morning that we would discuss the trial of Paul Rose in Montreal, the gallery would be full to hear us speak about it. When we refer to economic solutions to problems now confronting us, the gallery is empty. Mr. Speaker, it is shocking to see the behaviour of those people who claim that they inform the Canadian people. They took off as soon as we began discussing this non-confidence motion.
Mr. Speaker, the Creditistes tell the government once again that its solutions are ineffective. The government is not using the right means to solve the unemployment crisis. There is talk of increasing the purchasing power of the people. I read recently in Le Petit Journal of Montreal the following editorial signed by Mr. Maurice Roy, which I quote:
A shower of dollars.
The sixth part of the report of the inquiry commission on health and welfare recommends the payment of a guaranteed minimum income to all citizens, if Quebec succeeds in retrieving from Ottawa the income security systems.
In short, this is social credit in disguise.
It is not I who wrote that, but Mr. Maurice Roy. I keep on quoting:
The same proposal, advocated for a long time by Mr. Real Caouette, was considered utopic. One must try to understand now why granting $2,000 to single persons and $3,400 to married couples is not utopic anymore. By the way, let me remind you that Real Caouette has never cost as much to taxpayers as the works of the health and welfare commission. Learned economists suggest that the payment of a guaranteed income would contribute to the stimulation of economy.
For the past thirty years now, we have been suggesting an increase in the purchasing power of Canadians, so as
to stimulate the Canadian economy. The economists as well as the government said that we were preaching something utopian. And now, they do recognize the fact that a yearly guaranteed income would contribute to stimulate the economy.
I go on with my quotation:
Maybe but on the condition that money should be properly spent. Would this shower of dollars on people help them to work? Maybe but at the present time, many recipients would rather stay home because it is paying off.
Given all these problems, a second enquiry commission will probably have to be appointed in order to implement the recommendations of the first one.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Maurice Roy indicates that this is social credit in disguise because the proposals of the commission tend to apply measures aimed at taking money from the wealthy in order to give it to the destitute, which is exactly contrary to social credit.
What does the social credit advocate? The party advocates a minimum vital requirement, which is the annual guaranteed income, not to be taken from the pockets of those who do own something, but to be provided by Canada's immense resources, by resorting to the funds of the Bank of Canada, by setting up the funds required just as the people of Canada are able to create goods and services in Canada. To the same extent that Canadians are able to develop their country, it is the government's duty to use the services of our financial institution called the Bank of Canada.
We would then respect the assets of those who have something, and would deprive none. Canada can afford to give something to everyone. It is a fact that the population as a whole, besides spending its whole income, the national annual income, is indebted to finance companies by $12 billion. Why? Because Canadians do not have the purchasing power required to acquire existing products. Why are factories closing down? The management of Massey-Ferguson gave us the answer: We have too many machines, they said. Do we have too many machines? Do we have too much farm equipment or unsufficient consumption? Let us find out from the farmers in Western Canada, in the central provinces, in the province of Quebec and in the Maritimes! If these people have all the farm equipment they need for their work, we will get an extraordinary market. Massey-Ferguson would have twice as many employees if they could sell the farm equipment they produce. What should the government do to solve the problem of lay-offs, of unemployment, of misery and so on? Several times we made proposals in the House.
We request, for instance, that all married persons with an annual income under $5,000 be exempt from income tax. We request the same for single people earning less than $3,000 a year.
When we ask that old age security pensions, widow pensions and disability pensions be increased to a minimum of $150 a month, we shall be put down again for Utopians, although this is only the way to increase the consumer's purchasing power.

February 25, 1971

When we request the establishment of students' salary, not a program to get them into debt or to abet laziness, but a program to assist effectively those who want to study and do somehing in life, we suggest that this is a right similar to any worker's, provided of course they are seriously interested in getting their degrees.
So we suggest that a salary be paid to students. We are a nation where freedom exists. I have seen Communist countries where students are paid salaries, the University of Moscow, for one. In fact, I was in Moscow with my good friend, the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr), and we talked to students. They were not being paid much, no, but just the same they were getting $30 a month. This kind of money in Russia amounts to quite a substantial sum when one considers that workers are getting only $45 or $55 a week.
Similar legislation would help our young people get a training and take active part in building up a well-balanced society. They would no longer dream of overthrowing this society of ours because they would feel capable of being integrated into it. Our young people would have more faith in the future.
Another point I want to insist upon is the national dividend. The reaction is always the same: it would promote laziness and create inflation. Still, we never had any national dividend nor any social credit administration and look at the kind of inflation we can get into!
One year ago, for the purpose of fighting inflation, the government authorized the Bank of Canada to raise its interest rate. So chartered banks followed suit and interest rates skyrocketed.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) then replied "This will help fight inflation, what does it matter if unemployment results". Naturally, unemployment resulted. There was a smothered uprising in Quebec. There is protest throughout Canada. Even in British Columbia youth are revolting against the system. Then the Prime Minister wakes up and says that to fight unemployment they will cut interest rates. So they lower interest rates to reduce unemployment, so they say, and they create more inflation because the system is basically inflationary.
They fool the population year after year. Thanks to a few billion dollars, we will probably create jobs in the spring and then call an election to make the people believe that the government has finally managed to lick unemployment, even if it should mean more unemployed next fall.
We speak of a national dividend, not to create inflation but to balance the purchasing power of the Canadian people with the goods available in Canada. We are told that the gross national product will be of $90 billion this year, and that the Canadians will earn about $65 billion. There will be a gap of $25 billion between what the people produce and what they earn. We want to balance the purchasing power with present production, in goods and services.
Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly suggested that this solution be tried out. Let us not adopt the monthly dividend right now, in order not to make a mistake.
Alleged. Non-Support of Employment Programs
However, I ask the government to try and apply our solutions.
The government should direct the Bank of Canada to distribute forthwith to each Canadian citizen, man, woman or child, the sum of $100. That would be a distribution of purchasing power not affecting prices and directly originating from the Bank of Canada. The money supply would be increased by 2.1 billion dollars. A family of 10 persons would get $1,000; a family of 5 would receive $500; a family of 2 would have $200, and a bachelor would get $100. It would not take more than two months to bring about a change in this country.
If the people have a greater purchasing power at their disposal, they will empty the shelves in stores. Merchants will go and get products from industries. If industries sell their products, they will hire unemployed people to increase their production. We will then, thanks to the consumers, have efficiently fought unemployment in Canada.
We would not hear then that Massey-Ferguson has laid off 2,750 employees. We would not hear about the closing down of sawmills, textile plants and others.
There will always be some other problems to solve. We agree. The problem lies in the lack of purchasing power.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has spoken about the over-production of milk, for example, in the province of Quebec; he maintains that our dairy industry produces too much and that dairy producers must be penalized if they exceed their quota.
Mr. Speaker, that is a big lie spoken to the people of Canada. I know families in Montreal and in my own riding, and also in Hull-and there may be some in Ottawa who would need seven, eight or maybe even ten quarts of milk a day for their children. But they can only afford one or two each day. And we are being told that there is an over-production of milk.
Mr. Speaker, the problem in our country is under-production of milk, clothing, farm machinery and automobiles.


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member to remind him and the House that he has run out of time, under the order adopted by the House earlier today.
The hon. member may, of course, carry on with his remarks, provided there is unanimous agreement by the House.


An hon. Member:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank my hon. colleagues, and I shall not take up any longer the time of the House.
I would like to suggest again to the government that Social Credit has been derided, ridiculed, but that, today, we are confronted by the serious problem of poverty and increased unemployment in Canada, problem likely to lead to chaos, to discontent and rebellion, not only in Quebec, but throughout the country.

February 25, 1971
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs
That is why I seriously urge the government to consider the situation, keeping in mind the proposals of Social Credit. Let us try them, and if these solutions prove inefficient, let us put them aside. But if they should prove effective, we shall all turn Creditistes!


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, we are debating the very serious financial position of most of the cities of Canada and the provinces because of the tremendous increase in the cost of welfare today. This, in turn, has been brought about by the unprecedented increase this last year in the number of people unemployed in Canada. The figures we received earlier this month indicated that 668,000 people were unemployed in January, 1971. If one adds the 100,000 people attending manpower training courses, one sees that over three-quarters of a million people are in fact unemployed.
The seasonally adjusted percentage of unemployed in January was 6.2 per cent. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) took pride in, and were happy with, the fact that the seasonally adjusted rate had come down. Only a government headed by a millionaire, by a man who has never had to worry about where his next meal would come from, a government headed by a man who did not have to worry about how to finance his next trip to a distant part of this world, could take pride in and be happy with a statistic such as that. Only a government that played the numbers game could ignore the tremendously difficult, indeed traumatic conditions faced by so many people in this country.
I talked this morning to some of the people in the public welfare department in the city of Winnipeg, and let me make it clear that, compared to some areas in Canada, Winnipeg is doing quite well. I heard over the radio a couple of days ago an interview with the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane). He talked, and talked much more eloquently than I could, about the situation in his constituency, where in most of the towns 30 per cent of the people were on welfare and in the rural areas 50 per cent were on welfare. This is not the case in the city of Winnipeg, but I should like to put on the record a few illustrations of the kinds of problems the city has had to meet and the kind of people to whom the city has had to render assistance in the past year as a result of the tremendous increase in unemployment.
Before I do that, I do want to make it clear once more, as I have in the past, that these three-quarters of a million unemployed did not result from an accident but rather from a deliberate plan by the government, as enunciated by no less a person than the Prime Minister. Last year, in answer to a question about how determined he was in his attempts to beat the rising cost of living, the Prime Minister said he would not be deterred even if we had to have 6 per cent unemployment, he would not curtail his program of restraint because inflation had to be overcome. We now have 8 per cent unemployment, and it is this which has given rise to the problem that I am going to refer to in a moment.
The city of Winnipeg has had for several years a supplementary welfare plan. In cases where a man is working full time but has a large family, or where illness strikes a family, or in cases where because of lack of qualifications the wage earned is insufficient to meet the needs of the family, the city of Winnipeg supplements welfare assistance. I should like to cite the case of a married man with seven children who had worked in a plant for a number of years. His education was not very good and he was unable to get a better job, so the city supplemented his earnings to the extent of somewhere between $50 and $100 a month. The plant, like so many other plants, was experiencing difficult times and had to lay off this man. As a result, today the city is paying the full cost of welfare for the family, which amounts to something in the neighbourhood of $400 a month.
Then, there is the case of a family of five. The husband had no formal skills but through his work had gained experience as a cook. As long as he was working he was able to manage, but when he was laid off he was unable to find another job as a cook. He has been doing casual work, such as driving a taxi, but he has not been able to earn enough money to keep his family, so the city paid him supplementary welfare.
My third case is that of a young man who is putting himself through university, something that the country has been urging our young people to do in order to improve their educational qualifications. He is now in the third year of his bachelor of science course and he has helped maintain himself by part time work during the school year and by working full time in the summer as a clerk. Recently he was laid off. He has been unable to get any part time work, so is now receiving welfare assistance from the city of Winnipeg. To his consternation, he finds that when he tries to get the only kind of job available, that is an usnkilled job, he is told that he is over-trained. This man is married and has six children. He was in the air force and was trained as an air controller. He was honourably discharged because of a mild case of epilepsy. He took a job with the Department of Transport for some time and was then laid off. He accepted the advice of the government of Canada and arranged to take a course in business administration at the Red River Community College. This is a man who has been fairly well trained in two skills, but he cannot get a job at the present time. He is unemployed and the city of Winnipeg is paying the necessary amount of welfare to keep the family.
I could duplicate this sort of example in respect of individuals in every city in Canada. On Saturday, January 30, there was a full page article in the Toronto Star dealing with a woman who lives in Don Mills. I am sorry that the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) is not here, although I think he tried to ask a question about this. He does not have much personal experience in respect of unemployment problems, but he should read this newspaper article. It refers to a woman who is a trained nurse. Unfortunately, because she was trained in Scotland, she is unable to work as a nurse in Canada.

February 25, 1971

She is a highly skilled secretary. She quit work two and a half years ago in order to have an operation. After she could go back to work she got another job, but did not get along with her employer so she made another change. She was doing fine but, as a result of a severe slow down was laid off. Much to that woman's consternation, she has had to apply to metropolitan Toronto for welfare.
This is the kind of situation which exists in every town and city of this country, as a result of the deliberate policy of this government to slow down the economy. The government has completely ignored this kind of situation. Let us look at what has happened in other cities in Canada. It is interesting to note the absence from this Chamber of hon. members from the metropolitan Toronto area. I must amend that statement because I see two out of some 22 are here. They were not absent when the mayor of Toronto wanted to meet with them to discuss their problems, but they are certainly absent today.
Last year the cost of welfare in metropolitan Toronto was $50 million. It is estimated that in 1971 this cost will increase to $75 million. It is true that the city of Toronto only pays 20 per cent of the cost, but even that means that the taxpayers of metropolitan Toronto paid $10 million in welfare costs last year and will pay $15 million this year. This will have a bearing on their tax rate. In metropolitan Toronto there were 14,800 welfare cases up to December of 1969. This figure for December, 1970 was up to 24,200. Is it any wonder that the people in Toronto, including the mayor and the members of the council, are concerned about what is happening in that city?
In the city of Winnipeg, the cost of welfare in 1969 was $3,900,000. In 1970, the cost was $5 million, and the estimated cost for 1971 is $6 million. In Halifax, the cost of welfare has increased from $833,000 in 1969 to an estimated $1,265,000 in 1971. In Hamilton, this cost has increased from $1,265,000 in 1969 to an estimate of almost $2,500,000 in 1971. In Windsor, the cost has gone up from $1,600,000 in 1969 to $2,270,000 in 1970. In Vancouver, it has increased from $3,500,000 in 1968 to $6,115,000 in 1970. So it goes, Mr. Speaker, from city to city and from province to province. The cost to the federal government under the provisions of the various social allowance acts is increasing at an astronomical rate.
In 1970 the federal government paid the province of Quebec $146 million; the province of Ontario, $158 million and according to estimates made by the federal government, in 1971 payments to the province of Ontario will increase from $158 million to $198 million and the payments to Quebec will increase from $146 million to $238 million. I wish the minister were here in order that he might correct these figures if I am wrong. This is what is happening in the provinces and in the cities as a result of the economic policies adopted coldbloodedly and deliberately by this government. It is no wonder the provinces and cities are calling on the federal government to take action. After all, it was not the provinces or the cities that created this unemployment, but the federal government. Therefore, it is the federal government which ought to accept the responsibility of providing the necessary money to meet the increased cost of welfare created by the rapidly rising unemployment rate.
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs
Very shortly we will be dealing with major amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The white paper prepared by the government proposes certain amendments on the basis that when unemployment rises above 4 per cent the unemployment insurance fund will not be required to meet the claims of those who are unemployed and are entitled to unemployment insurance. The federal government makes it clear that this country should not have more than 4 per cent unemployment. The white paper suggests that the federal government will pay out of its general revenues the unemployment insurance benefits required in relation to those people unemployed when unemployment is over the 4 per cent figure. I reject this 4 per cent figure. I recognize the fact that in this country we have cold weather which brings tremendous problems in some areas. We have problems in Ottawa because of the inordinate amount of snow. We cannot expect full employment such as is enjoyed in some European countries. In my opinion, full employment in Canada means not more than 3 per cent unemployed. Let us accept the 4 per cent figure suggested by the government as being a fair proposal in respect of unemployment insurance benefits.
Let us assume for the moment that when unemployment is at 4 per cent, it can be considered to be a period of full employment. I suggest to the government that if, for the purpose of discussing a sensible financing and funding of unemployment insurance, the government of Canada said that 4 per cent unemployment is full employment and that over and above that it will carry the burden, then the government could well, and in fact should, adopt the the same principle in connection with the costs of welfare. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) puts the figure at 3 per cent, and I agree with him. I know it is unlikely that the government will listen to my plea that they use the 4 per cent figure, so I am certain they would not listen to my plea that they use the 3 per cent figure. But certainly, there is no reason why the government should not adopt the principle that when unemployment is more than 4 per cent the government will carry the major burden or even the entire burden of the welfare costs which result from this inordinately large amount of unemployment.
I believe that to be a fair proposal. I believe that the cities of Canada cannot continue to carry the burden of the tremendous increase in welfare costs which we have seen in every city in Canada in the past two or three years. I believe that unemployment has been created to a large extent by the government of Canada, and I think the government should act now. Therefore, I want to move an amendment to the motion moved by the hon. member for Spadina.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
That the motion be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the words "emergency financial support," the words "including an increase in the federal government's share of costs under the Canada Assistance Plan from 50 to 65 per cent".
3750

February 25, 1971
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: I often wonder what has turned the fortunes of this government that they depend upon me to defend their policies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You may have to take over yet.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is an act of desperation.


Steven Otto: I do not think it is as much desperation as an acknowledgement of my seniority. I have lasted here for eight, almost nine years. I do not have so much difficulty with the amendment to the motion as with the motion itself. I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) could put us straight. Is it that the Progressive Conservative party believes that under the old constitution there could be direct dealings between the federal government and the municipalities? I have no objection to this, but I think the Tories should stand up and say so if that is what they believe. They should say so to Quebec, to the Maritimes, to British Columbia and to all the other provinces. Then, they should tell us which municipalities will be included in this entente between the federal government and the municipalities, and which ones will be excluded.
It seems to me that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) dealt with this suggestion quite some time ago and the provincial premiers discussed it at some length. I was under the impression that this entente, this position of the municipalities, would not be appreciated by the provinces. I understand the provinces insist, even under the amended constitution, that the federal government deal with the provinces which will, in turn, deal with the municipalities. It was not too long ago that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) announced that $150 million would go to the provinces for new projects which will employ people.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As
loans.


Steven Otto: The hon. member seems to indicate that if it is a loan it comes from a different pocket, from a strange Martian pocket. Taxes come from the same pocket. It does not matter whether it is a loan to be repaid or a grant to be repaid.


David Orlikow: Tell that to the people of Toronto.


Steven Otto: I am saying it to the people of Toronto and to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) as well. Of the $150 million allocated, $17 million or so went to Ontario of which not one penny, as of noon today, has been requested. Do not blame the federal government for not forcing this money upon them; that just does not make sense. I have here one news comment to the effect that the city of Toronto is very anxious to employ its people and that it has accepted bids for manhole covers. It is not much of a contract, only $51,000. A Hamilton firm's bid was $54 lower than that of a Toronto firm, one tenth of one per cent less. The city of Toronto accepted the Hamilton bid, and as a result 36 people were laid off from the Toronto company.
If municipalities are going to make pleas to the federal government for support, these pleas should make some sense and should be explained to the people. I have no objection to them asking for $1,700,000, but when that money will only create 111 jobs for 30 weeks then I should point out that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) is doing a better job. He is offering $2,000 to $5,000 per job. This government would be expected to offer $17,000 per job. Again, I am not exonerating the federal government. In fact, I blame this government for its acceptance of conventional thinking. The government said, we are against inflation and therefore we are for restriction. If anyone said that he did not want restriction and why did the government not try expansion, the government would immediately say he was for inflation. I do not agree with that type of thinking, and many of us do not. However, Mr. Young does, and unfortunately there is some talk of Mr. Young continuing. I hope he does not because his mind is fixed on restriction. That is conventional thinking and that is what has led us to this position. The least we can do for this country is examine what happened a year ago.
I regret very much that the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) did not introduce a motion asking this House for new ideas. Never mind what happened yesterday or the year before, that will not put people back to work. Here is the city of Toronto and other municipalities going back to conventional thinking and producing winter works projects. Anyone who assesses the contracts-and I have been in this business long enough to know-would find that at least half of that money, probably 60 per cent of the money which is spent on public works, goes into the purchase and manufacture of machinery. On an $800,000 job, for instance, the total number of men employed might be eight, four on the front job and four on the back. The project might require two $120,000 machines which are made in the United States. All heavy construction equipment is made in the United States. This type of project, therefore, indicates the conventional type of thinking that municipalities still have. When conventional thinking got us into trouble, believe me conventional thinking is not going to get us out of trouble.
e (4:20p.m.)
The municipalities could be doing a great deal by planning ahead. It is all too easy for the municipalities to carry on year after year with their projects, making no differentiation between programs with a high labour content and programs using machinery. By doing this, they land themselves into trouble. But many municipalities in British Columbia have overcome this problem by a little forward planning. They had planned certain projects which had a high labour content and did not depend on the federal government to make plans in the event of a cyclical downturn in the economy. They knew this was coming so they planned their projects, and the minute a loan scheme such as this came out they were ready. So was Quebec; but not Ontario, and not Toronto. They had no special projects planned.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Metro has a $5 million one.

February 25, 1971


Steven Otto: Yes, but the only other one I have a record of is this $1,700,000 project, most of which will be spent on equipment. It will put only 111 people to work.
There are other ways in which cities could do a great deal. They could overlook the restrictions they have imposed on employment. I am speaking of the requirements they have imposed whereby for the past four or five years a job must be done by a licensed repairman or a licensed fence mender. All these groups have managed to get themselves into a nice little corner. Only one person can build a fence around a house; only one group of people can put up an addition to a house; only one person can paint. That person has to be a member of the Metropolitan Home Repair Association and he must have a licence. There are many people who could undertake jobs now if the cities would only relax some of these restrictions.
Most important of all, Mr. Speaker, a municipality can be very influential in exuding confidence throughout industry. Let us say we are talking about winter works projects. The city of Toronto knows it is going to put in the Gardiner extension, as well as other highways. It could immediately ask for tenders for the material only. Inside two or three days it could get the tender prices and then say to the manufacturers of the pipes, the conduits, the manhole covers and the light standards, "You have yourself a job; start building up inventory." The only person who is going to solve this immediate problem of unemployment is the manufacturer. He is the one who must be given confidence to build up inventory. As soon as he is confident that he will sell his inventory he will rehire 15 or 20 people, or he will not lay-off the workers he planned to lay-off. The manufacturers are the ones who can solve the immediate problem, and it is the municipalities which can contact the manufacturers. This is the type of thing I would have liked to have seen recommended in this motion.
If we spend the rest of the day hashing over what has happened, crucifying the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), making him beat his chest and say "I am sorry", we will achieve nothing. We want ideas on how to get people back to work, and on how the municipalities can assist.


Jack Marshall: February 25, 1971
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs will be more generous, but even then if two old age pensioners happen to be living together to enjoy their remaining years with a little comfort, $15 will be taken away from them because the masterminds looked into a computer and discovered that two can live more cheaply than one. All people in this country, including the poor, are now aware of the proper nourishment a body needs in order to exist. Yet, this government continues to have studies and establish commissions.
-30 p.m.)
The Senate Committee on Poverty travelled across this country finding out about the poor. Where is its report? Now, a nutritional study is being carried out across the nation. The government even paid some $70,000 to allow the poor to hold a conference. I ask, what purpose is this serving? We know what the poverty line figure is. We know the cost of proper food and nourishment. We should know that those who are sick and disabled require a little more help. We know we must help the blind and the retarded. We are aware that our poorer children require dental care and proper vitamins. We know the deaf need hearing aids. We know that the poor people of our country live in deteriorated housing. Yet, we continue to study more. It is not too difficult to see the reasoning. These are nothing but delaying tactics. The government hopes that one day it will wake up and find that the problem has disappeared. This problem will not go away; it will remain with us. It is becoming worse every hour of the day just as surely as the cost of living is increasing every day. Strangely enough this government has all the answers to the problems of other countries.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tours the foreign countries and tells them what is wrong and how to solve their problems. We must help feed the hungry of the world. We do, thank God, and we should. We must help develop the poorer nations of the world. We do. We pour millions of dollars into the developing countries. We teach and help other nations to grow wheat and then we pay our farmers in the west not to grow wheat. When it comes to helping the poverty stricken of our own country, the stock answer is that if we are to provide more help for the disadvantaged taxes must be increased. This is a lot of hogwash.
What are the latest developments? The government held a conference with the provincial ministers who presented briefs outlining their problems. What will happen now? The government will consider the proposals of the provinces and then have new consultations. Another meeting is planned for June. What then? There will be more consultations and they will have to await a further study to study the previous studies. Around the circle they will go.
Just a few days ago the minister advised that there are inequities in the cutoff point for family allowances. This will mean further delays. The government has found a new phrase, "the tapering mechanism" which will reduce injustices in respect of those having large families and an income of over $10,000. How is it that this injustice was discovered only after the white paper had been produced? Where were the experts when these consultations were taking place?
Again, those to whom our masterful programs are directed will continue to suffer and their children will remain undeveloped as a fourth generation on welfare. What about our programs to produce employment opportunities in Canada? We sit here and legislate loan programs to help regional disparity in the provinces. These are some of the programs: There is the fisheries improvement loans legislation, the farm improvement loans legislation and the farm credit corporations of the provinces. Then, we have the small business loans and the industrial development banks. What affect have these programs had on the employment situation in Canada? Now, we have the regional development incentive grants and every day we hear reports concerning how many jobs are to be created. This great program has been in effect for almost two years. What is the result? In the Atlantic provinces, especially in Newfoundland, there is a study to see why this program is not working. It is not working because it is directed to the wrong people.
If the government wishes to conduct a proper survey to find out why these programs are failing, why does it not interview the people who have tried to obtain some of these loans, such as small businessmen who have initiative and knowledge concerning the natural resources in their areas? The government does not do this because it has no faith in the initiative and capability of its people. What is required is a little faith in Canadians. Why should we not invest some risk capital in Canadians who could start small industries related to natural resources. This would create employment opportunities across this country which would benefit the country. All that results is frustration, disillusionment and unemployment, which keeps rising day by day. A tragedy exists today in Canada in that one-fifth of our population requires help. I do not refer to help in the sense of words and fancy phrases, but rather help in the form of human consideration and immediate action to find the moneys required to overcome this tragedy.
I can only repeat, and remind everyone in this House, that thousands of human beings across this nation, both young and old, are suffering from undernourishment, lack of medical services and in a large number of cases, hunger. It is our duty to prevent this tragedy continuing. This will not be done while present conditions exist. I know the minister is concerned, and I know he has had difficulty in persuading the members of his cabinet to accept some of his recommendations. I urge him to continue his efforts in order to help the poverty stricken people in our country.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the House has chosen a motion such as this on which to spend an afternoon and evening because it is the type of motion that really cannot get us anywhere. If the government has done all the nasty things the motion claims, then surely to God we should hear what it should do so that we can get on with our business. If the government has not done all the nasty things, we will not get any further ahead in any event. So, I suggest it is

February 25, 1971

kind of a nothing motion. I do not want anyone to pick me up and suggest I am heartless about unemployment and do not give a damn. That is not the type of approach I am taking. The point is there is a real problem and people must search for real answers. If we are to receive help from members of the House, surely when there is an opportunity to present a motion which would bring about a really substantial debate on a really substantial and tough issue, opposition members could come up with something a little more promising than this.
I completely sympathize with the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). When I get a little further along in my remarks I believe he will see that he and I have a little in common. I wish, however, there was some evidence that the recognition of a common problem would start to bring forward some common solutions. It is a funny thing that the government is condemned for lack of foresight here when it seems to me a year ago when inflation was the so-called enemy, we were telling the provinces and the municipalities that if they did not co-operate with us inflation would be prolonged and the fight would become more difficult. Yet, the provinces and the municipalities went along their merry way and kept the fires stoked, so here we are.


An hon. Member:: People were starving.


Edmund Boyd Osler: No one was starving then any more than now. There is a difference between starving and being out of work. Very few people are starving, thanks to things such as the welfare schemes and so on.


An hon. Member:: Who is to pay the welfare costs?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Listen awhile and you might learn something. Anyway, a year ago the government tried, without very sound results, to get the provinces and the municipalities to co-operate. I seem to recall that one member on this side spoke of a province that has failed, for its own reasons, to co-operate with the federal government, which is trying to help in the unemployment situation. Nevertheless, I say that when the premier of my province, whom I admire personally, stepped off an aircraft after returning from the Federal-Provincial Conference a little while ago and said that the federal government is doing absolutely nothing to help Manitoba to fight unemployment, there is only one word that can describe his attitude. With all respect to the Premier of Manitoba, his statement is absolute "balls".


An hon. Member:: What is that?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Balls; absolute balls.


Mr. Gilbert:: That is another four letter word.


Edmund Boyd Osler: As long ago as June, the federal government stepped up the transfer of tax revenues to the provinces. Manitoba got $12.5 million. Later, an extra $23.4 million was made available for vocational and training schools. The province does not have to spend that money on schools until 1975; in the meantime, it can spend it on
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs any damn thing it likes in the fight against unemployment. In addition, the province obtained $8 million out of a $160 million loan set aside for the creation of projects to fight unemployment. How our Premier of Manitoba can argue in Winnipeg that we are doing nothing to help my province in the fight against unemployment, I do not know. When he says that the federal government has done nothing to help the people of Manitoba, that is, just as I said before, "balls".


John Gilbert: There it is again.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Yes. I hope the hon. member can spell the word.


John Gilbert: There seems to be a great shortage of vocabulary around here.


An hon. Member:: That vocabulary is being expanded.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Perhaps the hon. member's vocabulary is being expanded these days. In any event, it is nice to see the hon. member's education being furthered. It has been suggested that the government is doing nothing in the field of social assistance. It is my understanding that the federal government pays approximately half of almost all social assistance costs, and it certainly pays all of the unemployment insurance costs. The benefits of these have been raised by 10 per cent and will be raised considerably more as soon as the House will let us get on with the job. In any case, the federal government has made available loans and grants for provincial and municipal use, as everybody knows, including the Premier of Manitoba. It does not help when the premier of my province goes around saying that nobody is doing anything to help his province, when in fact the reverse is true. All indications show that our present situation is improving. On the other hand, it will not improve much more quickly, no matter what anyone does in a panicky way in trying to accelerate the improvement.
The thing that disturbs me is this. This is an allotted day for the opposition. The opposition has sufficient money with which, presumably, to employ competent research assistants. Surely, it could really examine the situat'on and come up with something worth while. We do not need to know the details of any opposition proposals; that would be against the game. It is the opposition's privilege to wait until it goes to the people to say how it would go about solving this problem. All we want are the broad brush strokes of suggestions; we want to know how they think some of these problems ought to be solved. In this country there is a long term problem; yet nobody on the opposition side of the House seems even to have recognized the fact.


An hon. Member:: I see only eight opposition members ' present.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Only eight of them are here, and these are more intelligent looking than some of the others.


An hon. Member:: That doesn't say much for the opposition.

February 25, 1971
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs


Edmund Boyd Osler: On an afternoon like this, when the opposition is given time to discuss these problems in this House, could it not spend some of its time proposing some long term solutions? Could it not tell the House what it thinks the long term solutions are to our problems? What do opposition members think ought to be done to alleviate this unemployment situation? After all, this is the opposition's day. They talk about policy by castigating the government for failing to foresee the escalating effects of its unemployment policies. I say to the opposition, this is your day; why not do a little foreseeing yourselves. Why do you not make some suggestions so that we can prevent this situation in the future?


David Orlikow: We did last year and you ignored them.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It is a damn good thing that we did.


Mr. Ricard:: We told you what to do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I respectfully suggest to hon. members that they continue their very interesting discussion through the Chair.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your point. It seems to me that it is the long term questions that are outstanding. I should like to hear several questions asked by the opposition. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) came close to asking one of them. For instance, I would ask, is a ten-year average of an unemployment rate that is close to 5 per cent in Canada good enough? No, I say; it is not good enough. The hon. member for Winnipeg North suggested that 3 or 4 per cent would be acceptable, perhaps. I agree with him; but we might not be able to bring it down to 3 or 4 per cent. Let us consider what would happen in our federal structure. If there were 3 or 4 per cent as an average in the whole country, there would probably be less than 1 per cent in Ontario, and the place would boil over.


David Orlikow: What is wrong with that?


Edmund Boyd Osler: You would get a great inflationary boom starting in Ontario, and the people in the Maritimes as well as people everywhere else would consequently suffer.


John Gilbert: Tell us about the FLQ; was that not brought about because of unemployment?


Edmund Boyd Osler: It would be useless telling the hon. member about the FLQ; he did not recognize them as a problem last October.


John Gilbert: Please tell us.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The point I am trying to make is this. We have a federal system in this country. If you want to see an "ideal" national unemployment rate of 3 per cent, 4 per cent or any other rate and not see a 10 per cent unemployment rate in Newfoundland, or a 15 per cent rate in parts of Quebec, what will you do? How will you get employment spread across the country properly? Will you do as Walter Gordon suggested, dump the whole
[Mr. Osler.l
thing on Ontario and to hell with the rest of the oountry? Will you be a federalist or a centralist? Do you want everyone to live around Toronto, where the money is? Frankly, I should like to know, Mr. Speaker, what the members of the opposition feel? How do they think we can get our unemployment rate down to 3 or 4 per cent and keep it there? That is what I should like them to tell us.
Another question I should like answered is this: how can we improve on this situation, without heating up the centre or cooling off the extremeties to the point of freezing? Can we keep the centre reasonably cool without freezing the rest of Canada? Do we need wage and price controls?


Mr. Skoberg:: What about profits?


Edmund Boyd Osler: The hon. member would not understand profits and there is no use whatsoever in our discussing them with him. Members of the NDP do not understand profits. We should not waste our time explaining this subject to them.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member wants to keep wages down.


Edmund Boyd Osler: In New Zealand, a wage stabilization policy, intended to limit wage increases sought by New Zealand trade unions to 7 per cent for the coming year, will be endorsed by the New Zealand parliament. That statement is carried in the Globe and Mail of February 25. I am not saying whether that is a good or a bad policy; I am merely saying that that is the kind of question that ought to be asked. It touches on our problem much more directly than does this wish-washy motion. It would be awfully good if the opposition would discuss our problems and give us ideas, so that we might know how the opposition would deal with the problems and solve them in the long term.
Should trade be "free"? Are those hon. members for free trade or against it? Can we afford to have imports worth $700 per Canadian, when the United States imports only $180 per capita and Japan only $150? It is important to remember that we import a great deal; on the other hand, perhaps we must import when we export so much per capita. Those are the sorts of problems I want to hear about from the opposition. They touch on our long term welfare as a nation.
How can we get a higher labour co-efficient into the dollar value of our manufactures? We have many people saying that we should not give our raw materials away. Let us hear concrete proposals to show how we are to inject more Canadian labour content into the products of our industries. How will you attract capital? How will you force industry to do more processing here? Let us hear from hon. members of the opposition. These are the problems which must be solved. Should we rationalize more of our production effort, to increase our volume? In other words, should our anti-trust laws be changed or not? Are these laws good enough? Are tariff policies relevant in light of the activities of multi national corporations throughout the world? Do some hon. members
February 25, 1971

feel that tariff policies in the present day are out of date? What is their approach to this? We want to hear from these up-and-coming fellows. We want to know what they think about these matters, and what effect they think they will have on the long term picture of unemployment.
How are we to improve conditions in this country unless we find some way of fitting into the developments in Europe? I am talking about the European economic community and Great Britain, which wishes to join. Should we have a continental energy policy?


An hon. Member:: What do you think?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Should we try to get into the "Pacific rim"?


An hon. Member:: What do you think?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I did not propose this motion. I am just saying that I wish the motion had been amplified in this way. I am doing some thinking on this subject. I am trying as hard as I can. However, I am not going to throw it away on an opposition day. I am going to talk about it in caucus and other places where intelligent people might listen. But these are the sorts of things that should be brought up during debate if hon. members are intelligently concerned about the over-all problem.
Instead of saying "gloom, doom and things have to get worse, and we hope to hell they do get worse, for if not we will be wrong," we must tackle this problem at three levels. There is an immediate level, a mid-term level and a long-term level. I have heard very few suggestions about any of these levels. Perhaps we could attract some of the provinces that are reluctant to deal with unemployment by suggesting a "forgiveness" clause of all the labour contained in the federal loan if they will get on with the job. It would be a little more imaginative than the loan which the government has made available and of which some have not taken advantage. But there can be very little additional figuring than what is being done at present to get out of the present situation.
The mid-term is going to be upon us very shortly. Municipal and provincial bodies should be encouraged to assemble an inventory of public works so that next time they will be ready when public works are again required. Instead of having a three, four or six month lead-in time-


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


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, this government has often been compared, and rightly so, with that character made famous by Stephen Leacock, who jumped on his horse and galloped off in all directions at once. How many times have we heard contradictory statements issuing from different ministers? I need only refer to the most recent one, the bumbling and fumbling over the Francophone decision, to illustrate what I mean by the mixed up attitudes this government adopts toward a national policy.
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs
Unfortunately for the country, there is one area in which the government has been consistent. It has been consistent in its stubborn insistence in carrying out economic policies which have been recognized as outmoded and ineffective by everyone but their own befuddled experts. It has been consistent in demonstrating to the country the true meaning of the phrase "participatory democracy". The greatest number of Canadians in history are now actively participating in the hopelessness and despair of-unemployment-deliberately created by the policies of this government.
The government has been consistent in its blind refusal to consult with provincial and municipal authorities before embarking on projects which can only add to the tax load and welfare burden of these municipalities. These policies have placed staggering financial burdens on the municipalities. Because of the desperate plight of these local governments and the necessity for federal action to alleviate the results of federal policy, I am pleased to support the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan).
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made the statement a year ago that if his policies created 6 per cent unemployment, it was too bad and the unemployed were a regrettable side-effect, I wonder if he actually realized how many of these "regrettable side-effects" there would be in February, 1971. Is the Prime Minister so cruel and heartless that he can look on some 700,000 to 800,000 Canadians as side-effects or is he just all fuddled up? While he and his colleagues play the numbers game, close to a million Canadians are broke, disillusioned, and in many cases hungry. The municipalities are desparately looking for new funds to take care of the ever increasing relief rolls.
Let us look at what the government's programs have done to the provinces and municipalities. Just this week Premier Bourassa of Quebec placed a great share of the blame for the problems his province is having with unemployment on federal policies. He flatly stated that there should be more co-operation between provincial and federal authorities, as suggested in this motion. The hon. member for Spadina spoke about the burgeoning welfare costs in metro Toronto which may reach close to $100 million in 1971. This estimate was recently made by North York controller Paul Godfrey. This problem of how to handle ever increasing welfare costs is not confined to the cities.
One thing emerged from the recent welfare ministers conference in Ottawa, overshadowing all else. That was the fact that the heavy unemployment resulting from a national anti-inflation policy had placed a tremendous burden on the tax revenues on the municipalities. The provinces and municipalities are carrying an undue share of the cost. Also emerging was the clear duty of the federal government to take two immediate steps. They should increase unemployment insurance benefits immediately, as well as their share of welfare payments under the Canada Assistance Plan.
The Hon. Brenda Robertson, minister of youth and welfare for New Brunswick, spoke out for her colleagues

February 25, 1971
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs in the economically depressed Atlantic provinces. She called for a direct infusion of funds to combat the effects of flight unemployment of their welfare systems. Mrs. Robertson suggested a novel approach to provide extra funds to any province where unemployment rises above the national average. While Mrs. Robertson said that the minister had not turned her down, she expressed concern about the delay in acting because the province's needs were immediate, and when national unemployment is high, regional unemployment is much higher.
When addressing the constitutional conference a few days later, the premier of New Brunswick amplified the remarks that Mrs. Robertson had made. In pointing out the difficulties that a province with high tax resources has in combating exceptional costs, he stated that in a reasonably depressed area, the unemployment problem has two dimensions. There is the chronic long-term problem at home the current problem of high unemployment which exists because of national policies. He said:
In New Brunswick, unemployment rates have been too high for too long. Not since 1953 has our annual average rate fallen below 6.5 per cent.
e (5:00p.m.)
He then went on to talk about the current situation. As he said, we find ourselves in an unusual position. A program intended to combat inflation is at the same time causing serious unemployment. As the premier said, we did not cause inflation. This is true of regionally depressed areas. These areas do not contribute to national inflation. Yet now, in the premier's words, we are paying a disproportionate price in combatting it in Canada; the cost of the trade-off between inflation and unemployment has been too high. The premier went on to emphasize once again, as we are seeking to do in this debate, that unemployment has been deliberately created by this government in the pursuit of a policy which has in some cases doubled welfare costs. It is, therefore, up to the federal government to reimburse the provinces in respect of these expenditures.
If anyone had been in my province in the month of January, he would have read almost daily reports from a provincial task force on social development. The hearings held by this task force demonstrated more clearly than I can the plight of the poor in New Brunswick. For example, it received testimony that 53 per cent of the residents of Laviolette and Allainville in Gloucester County were on the social assistance rolls in one way or another. How on earth can a municipality with a very limited tax base handle welfare costs when 53 per cent of its residents are on welfare?
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) told the House that we on this side do nothing but complain all the time without offering any constructive advice. I was surprised to hear him make such a statement. As I observed in an aside, who would listen? To me, the greatest tragedy is the fact that the government considers itself omnipotent and will not accept suggestions made to it. The government has consistently refused to accept advice. I can understand its reluctance to accept advice from the opposition, but what about the opinions

expressed by large numbers of leading bankers, businessmen and economists who have consistently told the government that it was committing economic overkill and that it should try to put more people to work by adopting realistic tax policies which would encourage the private sector to expand.
Here we are in the midst of a whole new set of economic indicators-high interest rates along with high savings and high exports. Yet we are also faced with the highest unemployment figures in history. In the face of this changing economic picture the government has clung to outdated theories and consistently refused to accept advice. Is it any wonder that we on this side are inclined to criticize rather than offer advice, since we know that our advice would be ignored just as the advice of all thinking Canadians is ignored?
How different is the approach of President Nixon in the United States to this dilemma. I am no apologist for President Nixon and I do not say his theories are necessarily right, but I do want to draw attention to the difference in approach. At least, President Nixon sees that the old economic theories are not working and is prepared to try something new. I should like to quote a few excerpts from the State of the Union address. The president said he wanted Congress to take action on more than 35 pieces of proposed legislation which were still waiting to be passed and that there were six areas which he felt were critical to the nation. The most important of these, he said, was welfare reform.
The present welfare system has become a monstrous, consuming outrage-an outrage against the community, against the taxpayer, and particularly against the children it is supposed to help. Now we can honestly disagree, as we do, on what to do about it. But we can all agree that we must meet the challenge not by pouring more money into a bad program but by abolishing the present welfare system and adopting a new one.
A little later on in the speech comes what, to me, is the "meat" of the president's approach:
Let us also establish an effective work incentive, an effective work requirement. Let us provide the means by which more can help themselves. This should be our goal-
The second great goal is to achieve what Americans have not enjoyed since 1957-full prosperity in peacetime.
Here, President Nixon is opening new fields of economic activity.
The tide of inflation has turned. The rise in the cost of living which had been gathering dangerous momentum in the late sixties was reduced last year. Inflation will be further reduced this year. But as we have moved from runaway inflation toward reasonable price stability, and at the same time, as we have been moving from a wartime economy to a peacetime economy, we have paid a price in increased unemployment.
And here are words of advice for the government, which excuses itself on the ground that at one time or another the situation was even worse:
We should take no comfort from the fact that the level of unemployment in this transition from a wartime to a peacetime economy is lower than in any peacetime year of the sixties. This is not good enough for the man who is unemployed in the seventies. We must do better for workers in peacetime and we will do better.
February 25, 1971

To achieve this I will submit an expansionary budget this year -one which will help stimulate the economy and thereby open up new job opportunities for millions of Americans.
This is an approach which the government cannot understand.
It will be a full employment budget, a budget designed to be in balance if the economy were operating at its peak potential. By spending as if we were at full employment we would help to bring about full employment.
I reject the accusation that we on this side have done nothing but criticize, that we have failed to offer workable alternatives. Through our leader, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), we were suggesting as long as a year ago that the government should immediately extend unemployment insurance benefits to bring temporary relief to Canadians out of jobs. We said there was immediate need to put more money into the hands of Canadian consumers, a course which would considerably stimulate the economy generally. As part of this suggestion, we advocated the removal of the 3 per cent surtax and proposed a selective reduction of personal and corporate income tax to get the economy moving anain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, the great Galilean carpenter once said that some have ears and cannot hear and some have eyes and cannot perceive. After listening to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier), I think those remarks are directly applicable to him. For him to say that the opposition has not put forward ideas for solving the unemployment problem shows that he has neither ears to hear with nor eyes to perceive with. Had he been listening, he would have heard all quarters of the opposition recommending tax changes, increased exemptions for single and married persons which would mean a tax saving for the people and rejuvenate the economy. If he had heard some of our members, more particularly our financial critic, he would have heard some of our ideas with regard to depreciation allowances and tax holidays. I am really surprised that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre would make such a speech. It seems to me he should straighten out his thinking and also clean up his language in the speeches he does make.
The question of unemployment, and the tremendous impact it has had on municipalities across the country, is one of the most important matters that could be debated during the session. It is easy to say that there are 668,000 unemployed as of the month of January, that there are 100,000 on a retraining program, bringing the total up to roughly three-quarters of a million unemployed, but one has to be unemployed really to appreciate what it means.
It is those in the cities who are the hardest hit. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, a company like Massey-Harris almost jokingly saying: "We are laying-off men because it does not fit within our profit picture to keep them on"; or: "It does not fit within the financial scheme the government has regarding valuing our dollar"? A few months ago 600 men in my own riding employed by
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs Dunlop were "turfed out" practically overnight as a result of a change in policy by its foreign parent company. This is what unemployment means.
Why is it that Canada has the highest unemployment rate-6.6 per cent seasonally adjusted-and the lowest productive growth rate in the western world? Great Britain is worrying about an unemployment rate of 3.2 per cent, yet we have 6.6 per cent. There are probably many other reasons for this, but two reasons are, first, the constitutional attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and, second, the fiscal and monetary policies of the government.
If I may deal with the second reason first, the fiscal and monetary policies of the government, the Prime Minister and his cabinet deemed it wise, if we were to check inflation, to create unemployment. Did they not realize that they were making human sacrifices in order to solve financial problems? What a price to pay! People are put out of work while the government attempts to solve the problem of inflation. Not only does a worker lose his income, his dignity and his respect; his wife and children are placed in jeopardy and the whole family suffers psychological damage. These are some of the facts of unemployment.
I have been asked by young students why they should continue at school if there is no work available for them when they leave. I read in the newspaper that the University of Toronto has indicated that there has been a 30 per cent drop in the number of jobs for graduates and has recommended that they seek work in other countries, such as Germany, France, Sweden. So, we have arrived at this situation: no employment opportunities for our graduates, and the recommendation that they seek work in other countries. Is it any wonder that the youth of today are banding together and questioning the value of the system under which we live?
The first reason I gave was the constitutional hang-ups of the Prime Minister. His constitutional views are crucifying Canadians. Since he regards the municipalities as creatures of the province, he tells them: "Don't look to me, look to the province". Such an attitude is legalistic, cold, callous, indifferent and disgusting. Is the Prime Minister trying to balkanize the cities of this country? What has happened to his great election phrase "the just society"? What about national unity? Is the Prime Minister going to permit the constitution to deprive us of a united country? Is he going to deprive us of a just society by treating the main centres of Canada as though they do not exist, by treating them merely as creatures of the provinces instead of as a part, and an important part, of the general whole?
The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan), in introducing the motion, outlined the picture prevailing in Toronto, which is both dark and gloomy. The same could be said with regard to Montreal, or Victoria, B.C., or Winnipeg, or Peterborough-any of the large cities of this country. I would say that Mayor Dennison and his council should be given credit for bringing forward and into the open the question of unemployment in the cities. I also add that probably Mayor Dennison and his council should consider themselves very naive if they think that Mem-

February 25, 1971
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs
bers of Parliament have a pipeline into the cabinet, especially to the Prime Minister.
Liberal members from Toronto are afraid of the Prime Minister, and I ask why this is so. They recall the treatment received by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hel-lyer) when he attempted to put forward a suggestion arising out of the task force report on housing with regard to giving aid to municipalities to form land banks so that the cost of land would be cheaper and as a result so would housing. The hon. member for Trinity was given the Siberian treatment, and he now sits in the corner like a sulking boy while the Prime Minister sits there like a gloating... What shall I say?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Orang-outang.


John Gilbert: Yes, orang-outang. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), who represents the constituency of Eglinton, is also afraid of the Prime Minister. He says: "Why should I speak on behalf of the city of Toronto? I have been a civil servant for many years and had a rough time as Minister of Finance. I had a terrible time lifting the 6 per cent ceiling on the bank interest rate, and what an impact that made". Certainly, the minister has had a very difficult time as minister of External affairs. So, he says: "Why should I become involved in the problems of the people of Toronto? Why should I speak out on behalf of the people on the unemployment problem? Here am I, at my last turn, so why should I annoy the Prime Minister?"


Mitchell William Sharp: What a speech! Deal with the facts.


John Gilbert: Let me talk about another Liberal member from Toronto, the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens). The Prime Minister treats him as a professor would treat a grade one schoolchild. He is a former mayor of Toronto, yet he is ignored and snubbed. Is it any wonder that he is not here today to participate in this very important debate? We of the opposition are trying our best to point out to the government the shortcomings of their policies, and the Prime Minister treats us as he treated the Lapalme workers.
I want to deal with an organization set up by the Liberal party to deal with problems in Toronto. This body was given a very fancy name, METPAC, which stands for Metro Planning Action Committee. At the first meeting of this group, they had a great number of books containing a large amount of information. They met with the mayor and the councillors and said there must be liaison between the federal and municipal governments. There was a meeting a week ago in Toronto at which the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) revealed what METPAC is all about. He said it is only a consultative body set up for the purposes of discussion. There is no power, there is no input and there is no pipeline to the government. This is what we have.
Let me deal very quickly with the situation in Toronto. It has been said there are between 50,000 and 60,000 unemployed in Toronto. There is a tremendous number of people on the welfare rolls in that city. As has been
pointed out, if we do not extent the date for the unemployment seasonally adjusted benefits from May 15 to an undetermined date, 10,000 more will be on the welfare rolls. This was one of the two main points referred to at that meeting in the city of Toronto. The meeting requested an extension of the seasonal unemployment benefits from May 15 because of the so-called time lag factor relating to the policy the government has introduced to solve this unemployment problem. Surely, that is not an unreasonable request. I hope the Toronto members, especially the Secretary of State for External Affairs, will persuade the Prime Minister that this is a reasonable request. If anyone has any influence on the great one, it may be the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Gilbert: That was the first point set forth. The second point set forth was that some work programs should be initiated. It was said that between $3 million and $3,500,000 was required to solve the unemployment problem. The suggestion was that this would not resolve all unemployment in Toronto but would at least be a start, would give the unemployed some confidence and perhaps would have a multiplier effect.
It was then suggested at the meeting that if the government cannot give a direct grant, for goodness sakes, it should get into a cost-shared program in respect of these works. I should hope that the minister will forget some of the problems he faces in respect of other parts of the world and pay more attention to those problems that prevail in the city of Toronto. He has done a very poor job in respect to some world problems. Surely, he can regain some of this reputation if he considers some of those problems that prevail in the city of Toronto.
Let me have one moment more, Mr. Speaker, and I will be finished. I hope all cities across the country can be cities of which we are proud. They should have beautiful buildings, factories with people who work and have homes. This is what I would really like. What have we got? We have many cities, including Toronto and Montreal, which are known as human zoos with improperly planned buildings, unemployed people, pollution and dirt. It behooves me and all members of the House, more especially the Toronto members and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to exert some influence in order to get ministers, such as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), to do something in order that we might have better cities and a better country in which to live.


Mr. Hu Harries (Edmonlon-Stralhcona):: that country today. It has been shown on numerous occasions that the direction of the Canadian economy is strongly influenced by what happens south of the border. It is virtually impossible to have a relatively high unemployment rate in the United States without having a similarly high unemployment rate in Canada.
With the greatest respect, I suggest that the opposition attempt to attribute the present unemployment situation to the anti-inflationary measures adopted by this government around a year ago ignores the parallel situation in the United States. We must make Canada more independent of the United States' economic influence. What can we do to make the Canadian economy more independent? What can we do to make employment, and unemployment, in Canada more directly controllable by the Canadian government, whether it be at the federal, provincial or municipal level?
First of all, I suggest that the white paper on taxation contains suggestions which provide for the development of a measure of independence for Canada. I am hopeful that when the minister brings down his legislation for a revised tax program it will very clearly place Canada and Canadians in a preferred tax position. That is not the situation today. There is a growing opportunity for Canada to stand on its own feet, but we cannot stand on our own feet if we insist on being hired men, or overseers, for investors across the border. One way to insure independence is to have major fiscal and financial independence. This can be done by developing an appropriate tax system. Sometimes I am amused by the suggestions of members of the NDP. They seem to think we can have an independent Canada by legislation, in spite of the consequences of the restrictive economic policies they advocate. This is just not possible.
I am particularly pleased to see the Canada Development Corporation legislation before this House. This is one way in which Canada can gain more control of her own destiny. Also, I think it is appropriate to mention that the greater control of Canadian financial institutions by Canadians is vitally important to a more complete control of the Canadian economy. Here again, this government has taken some impressive steps.
It has been suggested that in a period of relatively high unemployment it is not appropriate to encourage students to continue their education. It is very easy to discourage them and we must not do that. A number of studies have been carried out-I refer particularly to one done recently by the Economic Council of Canada-which show that one of the things lacking in Canada is a well-trained management group.
It seems to me that this government has gone further than any other government in this country to ensure that the benefits of education are made available to our young people to the greatest possible extent, particularly in management training, so that we can provide the talent necessary to operate the economy at a full-employment level. Also, the retraining programs that have been instituted-and there have been many references to them-are not substitutes for productive employment but
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs
rather, I suggest, equivalent to productive employment. I think it is quite wrong to add to the unemployment figure the number of people who are on retraining programs, and thus to imply that this is a substitute for productive employment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hu Harries: Surely that cannot be the case. What we are attempting in Canada-and I think the government deserves full credit for its efforts in this direction-is to upgrade the talents and techniques that we employ, so that people will have an opportunity not simply to be employed but to be employed at a level that is the highest they can attain.
It seems to me that instead of thinking in terms of reducing retraining at any time, we should step up this program. Tax arrangements should be made which will encourage the individual and make it economically attractive to him to seek retraining, not just when his present work opportunity diminishes or disappears but as a matter of standard practice in exactly the same way as with capital equipment. There is much to be gained for Canada generally by this sort of program.
If the observations made today are not to be restricted to the urban area of the city of Toronto, I suggest to hon. members that the problems of the urban areas have been recognized and the government has made some excellent efforts to deal with them. I refer particularly to the fact that at a time when even in western Canada there is a strong trend toward the urban cluster, we succeeded in meeting some of the social and economic problems which arise from concentrating many people without employment into relatively few urban areas. I am referring, for example, to grants made for studies. One of these studies was completed in the city of Edmonton a month ago. I am referring to studies directed at trying to establish the type of socio-economic programs that can be effected to reduce the hard core of unemployment which results from the aggregation of unemployed in urban areas.
In other words, we may well be playing a game with statistics-this is shown in part in this study-where we find there is a higher level of unemployment than previously only because unemployment in an urban area is clearly visible. Unemployment is not so clearly visible in areas such as north central Alberta. So what you do is bring these people into urban areas where unemployment becomes visible. Fortunately, however, at the same time as it becomes visible it is also possible to take steps to give these people an opportunity for employment. I believe that here again this government has followed intelligent programs, some of them experimental in nature.
Another aspect that commends itself with regard to the urban problem is the development of a more satisfactory environment. I believe we will have to recognize that simply talking about environmental improvement is not sufficient. We will have to recognize that people previously employed in production will more properly now be employed in solving problems associated with improvement of the environment. As such they can be considered

February 25, 1971
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs
as part of the labour force, and indeed a most active and useful part of that force.
I conclude that one has to reject the harping with respect to unemployment and recognize that it is in part a spillover from the United States which we will be subject to it until we achieve more complete control of our economy. I am happy to say this government is actively pursuing that goal.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to congratulate the previous speaker. I think my party's whip will agree to give the hon. member ample notice before the next opposition day so that he can be here to make another fine speech.
I am proud to support the motion so ably presented by my colleague, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan), in which he condemns the government for its failure to foresee and take steps to provide for the escalating effects of its unemployment policy upon the social assistance funds of the provinces and municipalities, and its failure to consult and co-operate with the provinces and municipalities in providing emergency financial support and employment programs.
It is an old story: the unfortunate aspect of this government's blundering is that the poor people of Canada suffer the most. Poor people always seem to end up on the other end of the stick. When there is a mild economic recession it is the poor people who are most severely hurt and find it most difficult to recover, both socially and economically. Paradoxically, it is the poor who as consumers naturally have less money to spend but are paying more. Their inability to earn a decent living is only one side of their economic plight. Also important is how they spend what little income they have. If they are paying more for the goods they buy, they are being denied the benefits of their earning power.
There are two ways in which the poor are paying more for goods and services than more prosperous Canadians. First, they are using a larger percentage of their disposable dollars; second, they are often paying higher prices for goods and services. With cash resources inadequate for even immediate necessities, the poor person cannot time his purchases to take advantage of special sales. He cannot buy in bulk, although this would keep regular, basic costs down. He cannot buy quality with resultant long-term savings because he cannot afford the immediate larger cost. He cannot do effective comparison shopping because of the additional transportation, baby-sitting and other costs involved.
The poor person's lack of ready cash may limit him to buying at stores which will supply credit, usually neighbourhood stores which cater to the low-income consumer market. The low-income consumer is rarely eligible for the standard credit arrangements of larger department stores and has to buy his credit at high-risk interest rates. He then faces increasing and overwhelming credit costs in debt consolidation arrangements.
The last two points raise the most important aspect, and that is the institution of credit so far as low-income
Canadians are concerned. The poor people of this country, as indeed poor people of all countries, entered the mass consumption society through the use of instalment credit and they have been victimized by fraud and deception which have accompanied this method of selling. One of the major problems of persons buying on credit involves merchants and credit companies which fail to live up to their ethical and legal obligations. Many such practices by merchants are illegal but nonetheless they continue.
When a merchant fails to respect a guarantee, the consumer is more likely to lose his initial investment than to obtain justice. In part this is due to his ignorance of the laws which protect him and of the agencies which can help him. But the inequality also stems from the merchant's superior resources. He can turn the job of collecting overdue accounts over to lawyers, collection agencies and the courts. On the other hand, the consumer, especially if he is poor, lacks the resources and the professional advice necessary to defend himself properly.
Poor people are unable to contest claims in court and in most cases they lose financially by not contesting them. I have been told by court officials that the overwhelming majority of consumer credit claims are uncontested. In such cases the creditor is entitled to judgment for the amount of his claim, together with his taxable costs. As a rule he is not required to prove the claim, the theory being that the debtor by failing to contest it has in fact admitted its validity. Consequently, even if laws exist to help the overcommitted consumer, the costs to him may be equally high whether or not he uses those laws.
The best shopping skills, the most exhaustive consumer education program and a fair, open and protected market place can alleviate only some of the discomforts of poverty. The essential problem is lack of income. Until poverty itself is eradicated, only limited solutions can be found for the consumer problems of low-income Canadians. This, of course, takes us to the problem of unemployment and the subject of the motion we are debating this afternoon. I think that most Canadians have pretty well received the message that the government's anti-inflation policies have created a high level of unemployment, probably the highest within the past ten years or more. This high level of unemployment, encouraged and indeed brought about by the government, has had a disastrous effect on a large segment of our population. It has also imposed an unbearable burden on provincial and municipal budgets.
It is a well known fact that a country can never hope to achieve its potential prosperity or a high level of economic maturity so long as a major segment of its population remains non-productive. I can speak with some authority concerning the province I represent. When you have 20 per cent of the population in any part of Canada forced by economic circumstances and legislative restrictions to live off the fat of an already flabby economy, then that society is indeed in trouble. Add to that another 7 per cent, 8 per cent or 9 per cent of the population who through no fault of their own are forced

February 25, 1971

to accept unemployment insurance and I think, Mr. Speaker, you have to agree that we really have a problem.
I suppose we are experiencing something entirely new in the history of our nation. Our people have been forced to endure a major economic recession and its resultant misery and poverty, deliberately caused by their government. As the Toronto Telegram so appropriately captioned a story in its February 24 edition, "It's Your Recession, Mr. Trudeau." Of course, we must not forget the Prime Minister's ally, the modern-day Robin Hood in reverse, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). I think that most people who sit in this House and most people who fill the galleries know the contemptible arrogance displayed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet, particularly the Minister of Finance, toward the problems facing Canadians, especially those who are unemployed and are forced to accept welfare.
I brought with me into the chamber some flies containing letters I have received from constituents during the past three or four weeks. They are from people who have very serious problems. I will read one of them. It is from a woman who says:
My house is falling down. The room where my boy has to sleep isn't fit to live in. The walls are full of holes. The mattress on the bed is falling apart from dampness. We don't have enough bed clothes. I am getting $120 a month to support my family.
I am sure other hon. members are getting letters like that. Here is another letter from a widow who is living with a mentally retarded daughter. She writes that she does not have a bed fit to sleep in, that the springs are popping up and that she has to put boards on the mattress. They do not have adequate clothing and their house is leaking.
These are gut issues, Mr. Speaker. My riding is not different from most ridings in Newfoundland. We have poverty in it and too much unemployment. Close to 100,000 people in my province are on some kind of welfare, whether short or long-term. These are the people at whom the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister shrug their shoulders in total indifference and say, "Fud-dle-duddle." They act as if everything were going well. In fact, in his budget speech the Minister of Finance said we are on the move again and the economy is on the upswing.
I should like the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to take time out and try to convince the people referred to in these files that things in Canada are on the upswing and are rosy, because I do not think that is the case. The Prime Minister and his ministers are not fooling the Canadian people; they are only fooling themselves. They are not being honest with the Canadian people when they try to put across the idea that things in Canada are rosy and that the economy is on the upswing.
I do not know how far people can be pushed or how much patience they can exercise. This government, I believe, has tried the patience of the Canadian people to
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs the breaking point. I believe this is obvious, because it is not too difficult to sense that the government is running scared. Suddenly the Minister of Finance realizes his policy to curb inflation was illogical, stupid and senseless. Now the government is attempting to make amends by coming in with programs to offset some of the damage caused to the economy of this country by its senseless and illogical policies to fight the so-called war on inflation.
I do not know how much longer the Canadian people can endure this blundering in so far as the misery and poverty associated with unemployment is concerned, but I am convinced the day is not very far off when they will have their say. I think they will let it be known in no uncertain terms that they are not prepared to accept this hanky-panky of illogical policies on the part of their government. They will be heard, and there will be a change.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I came to the House this afternoon to speak on a subject which is of interest to me. I came here to listen to urban members speak on this subject and am surprised to see that members from the city of Montreal and the city of Quebec are not here to participate in this debate.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member took the trouble to check up, he would realize that there are here a member from Montreal and one from Quebec. So he should weigh his words.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The point of order is not justified. In any case, each member can establish his own figures. I recognize the hon. member for South Western Nova.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like a government member to take part in the debate in order to tell us exactly what is going on in Montreal as this is of interest to us. And the Quebec member who, as minister, is sitting in the front row, could also outline the situation and propose some solution, as there are certainly problems in Montreal since the minister moved shortly before Christmas a bill to settle certain problems of the City of Montreal. There are therefore problems in that city.

We should hear from these people. Where is the former mayor of Toronto? He is not here.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, a member from Toronto proposed the motion this afternoon, and it is a very valid one. Some government members have wondered why he proposed such a motion and questioned its necessity. It is

February 25, 1971
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs
necessary because the government has not been taking any action. Therefore, we must spend our time today discussing matters which are of concern not only to the people in the cities but to the people in Canada as a whole.
I should like to simply stand here and holler, for the four minutes I have at my disposal until six o'clock, "incentive, incentive, and more of it." We must provide some incentive for the Canadian people and some hope that they will be able to get back to work. They need hope that work will be found for them in this supposedly great and fantastic nation called Canada.
This is a great nation. There are opportunities, and so on-but they are not being developed by this government. This is the terrible thing about it.
The answer is not welfare costs on a long-term basis. Welfare costs are important on an immediate, short-term basis so long as our citizens do not have the means with which to eat and pay their rent. This is the situation all over the country. There are no other means but welfare, and welfare costs of the municipal and provincial governments are increasing constantly.
One of the Liberal members from Winnipeg said there is no problem, that everybody is eating and everybody is happy. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter), however, referred to specific cases. In Winnipeg, particularly in the constituency of the hon. member who spoke, apparently they do not have this situation because they have a glorified and sophisticated society. But in other areas there are serious problems and solutions must be found. The hon. member opposite and his colleagues asked why we do not offer suggestions. Suggestions have been brought forward every day, not only by the opposition but even by government members, as well as by the Economic Council of Canada and our financial people who wish something done about this situation. But the government does not listen-no, sir! They do not care at all because they are eating, they are happy and everything is fine.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: They created unemployment.


Louis-Roland Comeau: They created unemployment, as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) said. All kinds of suggestions have been made. I hope this motion is approved tonight, because the government deserves to be condemned for some of the things it is doing to this country. The leader of my party has suggested all kinds of things to get the country moving both on a long-term and on a short-term basis. We should look at the tax proposals and at what is happening to our tax system. It is all wrong. I am not an economist but I know something is definitely wrong. For example, yesterday we had a debate on the CDC and a lot of enthusiasm was expressed about economic nationalism, and so on. Yet we offer a better tax proposition to foreign companies than to Canadian companies. These are the things that are wrong with the present system. But the Minister of Finance wants to increase our taxes still further.
I believe you are becoming impatient, Mr. Speaker, so I shall call it six o'clock.
At six o 'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) is not in the House at the moment because I have risen partly as a result of the challenge that he hurled across the floor this afternoon. He challenged hon. members representing Toronto ridings to explain how they could look after the interests of their city and still support the government.


Mr. Alexander:: That is right.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am not answering for other members from Toronto; I am only answering for myself. It is to that particular challenge that I should like to address myself. We have passed the point in this House of talking about the evil of unemployment and the importance of doing something about it quickly. For the same reason I do not propose to take much time in talking about the causes of unemployment, its relationship to inflation and what the underlying policies of the government are. A few days ago I spoke in the House on that subject.
What I should like to do this evening is respond to the motion which has been put forward by the opposition, in which it is alleged that the government could be doing more in certain areas and that it has wilfully and arrogantly refused to do certain things. I should like to look at the list of those things and see what it amounts to. Let us turn to the suggestions of the hon. member for Spadina. If I could suggest ways in which unemployment could be reduced more quickly, I would suggest them; and if I could propose schemes that the government has not proposed, I would do so. But I cannot do that, Mr. Speaker.
If I believed that our economy could be fired more quickly without danger, or that our expansionary policies could be accelerated more than they are, I would say so. But I do not think that, Mr. Speaker. I think that the government is responding to the problem. As I say, I will not go into the origin of the problem, its causes or its depth. I think nevertheless that, given the problem, the government has responded to it in the only way in which it could respond.
What are we going to do, we are asked, about unemployment in Toronto and in other Canadian cities?
I come first to the principal suggestion of the hon. member for Spadina. He turned southward to the United States and said, "Look at what President Nixon is doing." He stated it is proposed that millions of dollars of massive aid be pumped into the cities of the United States by the federal government. He said there are to be massive

February 25, 1971

tax-sharing agreements with the states and cities, pursuant to which President Nixon has proposed that a fixed proportion of all federal revenues be turned over to the states and cities.
With regard to the situation in Canada, the hon. member stated that all our cities and provinces are being offered is loans, and that loans are not as good as grants and tax sharing. I will not say much about the probability of President Nixon delivering that package; I think there may be some difficulties. I have read that Wilbur Mills, the chairman of the House committee which has to approve these proposals, is opposed to them. He informed the press that he intends to kill these proposals.
Let us look through the difficulties and see what would happen if President Nixon were successful and these tax-sharing proposals were implemented in the United States. How much worse off are we in Canada? The hon. member for Spadina has forgotten, if he ever knew it, that in this country we already have precisely the same program that President Nixon is proposing. A sharing program is already in existence. It has been in existence in this form since World War II. The plan is called the Income Tax Act. I am surprised that the member has not heard of it.
The Income Tax Act of Canada provides that a fixed share of all the revenue collected by the federal government is automatically turned over to the provincial governments. This is what President Nixon is proposing in the United States. We have had it in this country for over 20 years. In fact, what we have in this country is very much better because it is an amount fixed by the provinces. The provincial governments can decide what share of that revenue they shall receive. They have the right to pass provincial laws, which the federal government undertook many years ago to recognize, by which they can raise as much money through the Income Tax Act as they like. If they want to raise the same amount of money as the federal government, all they have to do is pass legislation. The federal government has already agreed to collect that money. This is very different from the position of the United States. In the United States there is no tax-sharing agreement. The states are limited in their powers and tax resources. They are pale and puny counterparts, at best, to the mighty provincial governments of this country.
The provincial governments of this country have virtually every taxing resource that is available to the federal government. There is only one way the federal government can raise money that the provincial governments cannot; that is through customs and excise, which is not a major source of revenue for the federal government. The federal government and provincial governments can raise money through death duties, income tax, sales tax, licence fees and royalty charges. This fantastic American idea, which is put forward as the main, concrete proposal of the Conservative Party in this debate is a measure which has been in force in this country since the last war. So much for idea No. 1.
Idea No. 2, Mr. Speaker, puts a Toronto member in a bit of dilemma: I confess that. I want to confront the
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs dilemma and indicate the alternatives as I see them and the reasons why, after all is said and done, I am also with the government on this one. Proposal No. 2 is that the Canada Assistance Plan be altered so that the federal government contributes more than 50 per cent to the cost of welfare. That is very tempting. By having the federal government contribute more than 50 per cent, it sounds as though the burden on the people of Toronto will be reduced. That appears to be the case. However, when you look behind that apparently simple proposal, you find it is not the case at all.
I wish to deal with the argument put forward by the hon. member for Spadina, who stated that the city government cannot raise additional resources to provide extra jobs or to increase welfare payments. He stated that taxes at the municipal level sire already too high. I agree with that. Without wanting to digress very far, I note that the provincial government determines the manner in which municipalities raise their revenue. Queen's Park could allow the city of Toronto to have an income tax or sales tax if they so wish. However, what have they done? They have required the city of Toronto to depend on a most unfair and regressive land tax plan.
The hon. member had no hesitation in condemning that tax. But that is not a condemnation of the federal government; it is a condemnation of Queen's Park. They should smarten up at Queen's Park and revise the method by which revenues are raised by the city of Toronto.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The hon. member then stated that we cannot ask the provincial government to raise more money. His reason is that the provincial government is in exactly the same position as the municipal government. He stated they are strapped for the same reason as the cities. I do not think that is valid; however, I accept the point that the provincial government is strapped. If the provincial government is strapped by the present downturn of the economy and other pressing problems, the federal government is just as strapped. As I stated a moment ago, the federal government gets its money from exactly the same place as the provincial government- our pockets. It has the same alternatives for raising revenue as the provincial government. There is no mountain of gold in Ottawa. Its resources come substantially from Toronto pockets.
I could accept the argument of the hon. member for Spadina if he were from Newfoundland, Quebec or one of the hard pressed Prairie provinces. However, coming from Toronto, his proposal is entirely illusory and against the interests of our city. The effect is that the revenue which the federal government would require if welfare payments were increased would affect our city in a disproportionate manner. A federal government program of this kind would benefit Newfoundland, Quebec and the Prairie provinces, but from the point of view from my constituents, the people of Toronto, it would cost them more than they would get out of it. I challenge the hon. member to demonstrate that the people of Toronto would be better off if the federal contribution under the Canada

February 25, 1971
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs Assistance Plan were increased. I take the opposite view;
I feel they would be substantially worse off.
The depressed areas of this country would benefit from such a proposal. That may not be an objection to the hon. member's proposal, but I think it should be weighed. I am prepared on occasion to recommend proposals that operate against the people of Toronto but are in the national interest. However, let us call a spade a spade. The suggestion that increasing the welfare ratio would somehow benefit the people of my city is entirely misdirected.
I now turn to argument No. 3, that the federal government should give more than the $160 million that it offered to the municipalities of this country. I can deal with this argument very quickly. The hon. member states that there should be grants rather than loans. Whether there are grants or loans, the fact is that the very day these proposals were introduced offering $160 million, British Columbia applied for its full share. A few days later Quebec applied for its share. Two or three days ago, months after the offer was made to the province and municipalities of this country, New Brunswick applied for its share.
What about the government of Ontario and the $17 million that was promised to us? In our city we are faced with maximum unemployment and other terrible problems. Instead of accepting the offer which was made by the federal government, an offer which was good for British Columbia, good enough for Quebec and good enough in the maritime provinces, the government of Ontario has sat back without responding.
I was told by an alderman of the city of Toronto that the share which was to go to Toronto was not determined until February 4. The period between November, when this offer was made, and February was the period of maximum unemployment in our city, on a seasonally-adjusted basis. It was during that period, when other provinces were taking up the offer of the federal goven-ment, that Queen's Park was sitting back doing nothing. The hon. member for Spadina claimed that the city of Toronto itself was not offered anything, that it just went to metro.
I should like to point out that the $17 million was offered to Ontario; the distribution was left to the provincial government. I do not know whether $5 million eventually will go to Toronto, or $3 million. As far as Toronto is concerned, the $5 million offer has waited for three months. I know they have yet to come up with a scheme to use the $3 million or $5 million or, indeed, the $17 million. In other provinces, where there is also unemployment, these funds are already at work. This is proposal No. 3 which the official opposition put forward -the only substantial proposal.
The hon. member for Spadina concluded by warning the Toronto members that a delegation was coming here from Toronto with a good idea and that we had better listen. We had some advance news of this idea because we went to Toronto, at the invitation of the mayor, a few weeks ago and were told of this proposal. I do not intend
to "knock" the proposal but I want to put it into perspective. Toronto has come up with a proposal, in a city where 20,000 are unemployed, for putting 120 municipal workers back to work at a cost to the federal government of a grant of $5 million. I am not saying we should not do something for these 120 workers but-


Mr. Deputy  Spaker@: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may continue with unanimous consent. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: No.


Thomas Miller Bell: He could go on for a sentence or two, like the rest.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I did not give consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no agreement.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronlenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise in my place tonight to speak on this motion of non-confidence for the period ending March 26.
I congratulate my hon. friend from Spadina (Mr. Ryan) on advancing this non-confidence motion because of the serious, high incidence of unemployment which is now at a record high of almost 700,000, and because of the adverse situation into which the government has allowed the country to fall. The blame for this arises directly from the government policy, directly from the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) declared and often-quoted intention of last year when he stated that the amount of unemployment he invited or would tolerate in order, as he said, to combat inflation was 6 per cent, perhaps more.
The motion condemns the government for failing to foresee and provide for the escalating effects of this unemployment policy. That is true enough. The government has sown the wind and now it is reaping the whirlwind. The escalating effects of the Prime Minister's unemployment policy have had a degrading effect upon the responsible manhood and womanhood of the country. In the confusion and melee, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) declares: Oh, yes, we have a slightly embarrassing degree of unemployment, but we point out that we have raised unemployment benefits by a considerable degree. Mr. Speaker, it is not unemployment benefits that responsible, unemployed fathers and mothers and the unemployed youth of this country want when they are laid off their jobs. They want work, steady work.
Liberalism, in its constant deception of the Canadian people, is playing its nefarious game of region against region, province against province, race against race and, yes, sometimes capital against labour, and definitely government against labour. It is now reaching out unjustly to try to put some categories and professions into its unemployment insurance fund when they should not be there, and I refer directly to the teachers of this country.
[Mr. Kaplan.)
February 25, 1971

Hon. members on all sides of this House are receiving hundreds of letters protesting attempts by the Trudeau government to grab millions of dollars a year from teachers who never have been unemployed and who never will be unemployed. Yet the Prime Minister and his labour minister have convinced the cabinet that this should be done and are now trying to convince the Commons and the country that we should perpetrate this new injustice, taxation without representation, which is uncomfortably close to fraud.
We shall have more to say in the near future in the House against this measure. I tell the Prime Minister that he had better take a leaf out of British and American history and study the career of George IV who witnessed a revolution because of unjust taxation-taxation without representation or benefit to those taxed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Wasn't that George III?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I hear a remark on the point I have just made. It still stands. This is the same thing, a close parallel to events leading to 1776.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member not realize that we are just trying to get the right king for him. It was George III, not George IV.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Yes, I have "George III" in my notes. I must have misread my own notes. I have George III here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: This non-confidence motion deplores and condemns the Trudeau government's lack of rapport with the provinces and the municipalities; its failure to consult and co-operate with these bodies in providing emergency financial support and employment programs. I know that employment programs generated in an emergency are not always a permanent answer, palliative or cure for the problem, but they help. They helped Franklin D. Roosevelt and his government in the New Deal during the great depression. They gave unemployed men and women a little pride and a renewal of confidence, particularly self-confidence. Employment programs helped Canadians in the depression of the 1930s.
A number of people in Canada and an increasing number of members of this House have no confidence in this government's methods of handling this serious problem. At the same time, Canadian personal self-confidence, although faced with adversity is still buoyant, thank God. The government's lack of imagination and appalling lack of interest in the great social problem of unemployment is tragic. Despite the declarations of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the deceptive answers they are giving the press and the people, I contend we are experiencing a serious recession. Many members of this House are old enough to remember the depression of the thirties.


Mr. MacGuigan:: It is obvious you did not study economics.
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I will be talking later about economics. The problem with this government is that their economics are all awry. I wish to draw an analogy here, hopping that it will halt the Prime Minister's headlong and headstrong thirst for personal power-particularly as demonstrated in the omnibus bill, C-207-and bring him back to reality as voiced by the protest of today's nonconfidence motion. We hope that this will point up to him the prime importance of the present unemployment situation, which means the collapse of the personal economies and hopes of at least one million Canadians, comprising those who are unemployed and their dependants.
I recall a Prime Minister in my younger days, the much-maligned R. B. Bennett, a man who headed the Canadian government in the worst days ever to befall Canada or any other country. He served the Canadian people in the days of the great depression, a catastrophe that struck with equal force at all countries on earth. Some of the members of the government who are laughing tonight at my words do not even remember the depression because they were not even born at that time. They do not remember the seriousness of the situation of that day.
At a time when the economy of the world was sick, when there were no markets for products, when there were not the means to preserve jobs or to generate new ones, Mr. Bennett none the less set out to create jobs for his people. He set men to work on the roads and in the forests. He co-operated with the provinces and municipalities. He dreamed up projects that resulted in national parks across the country that are enjoyed by our people and by tourists to this day. At a time when any Prime Minister might have been forgiven for throwing up his hands in the face of an impossible task, Mr. Bennett searched his mind and the minds of his colleagues, trying to dream up jobs.
He tried because he cared, because he considered his mandate to govern as a sacred trust, not as something to be thrown away or treated as lightly as it is today. Because he cared, the Canadian people suffered less than they might have. Needless to say, Mr. Bennett's record was judged on the basis of events that were played on the world stage rather than on the record of what he did for Canada.
On the other hand, we now have a Prime Minister who has at his disposal the wealth of a great nation, a nation with a much larger population and many times the wealth it had in the thirties. Today the economy of the world has never been more dynamic or stable. If the present Prime Minister cared even a fraction as much as some of his predecessors for the plight of his fellow Canadians, he would not be tempted to joke about the fact that almost 700,000 Canadians are looking for jobs.
Would a Prime Minister who cared about his people even consider creating massive and crippling unemployment in order to cure inflation, or for any reason? The Prime Minister says that inflation has been licked and that things are looking up. Even as he says that, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports 130,000 more unemployed than in the preceding month. The Prime Minister says that inflation has been licked, and then

February 25, 1971
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs
steadfastly refuses to adopt measures to stimulate the economy so that new jobs can be created. Jobs do not occur by chance or by whim; they have to be created by industries and by business. But industries and businesses can only survive and grow in a healthy economy. There is a strange contradiction between the statements of the government and the facts.
I doubt that there is a record in the long history of Canada of a Prime Minister telling his people that if they do not like the way he is running the country, they can lump it. But our present Prime Minister has said just that. Is there any wonder, then, that he can find millions of dollars per year for aid programs for Ceylon, Indonesia, Pakistan, India, and countless millions for other countries, but cannot or will not attempt to find solutions to fundamental social and economic problems in his own country?
A couple of weeks ago it was brought to the attention of the House of Commons that a secret memo had been circulated in public service offices in Ottawa calling upon department heads to create jobs for 250 French Canadian college graduates who could not find work. The jobs were to be at senior levels, but there would not be the screening and testing procedures for these positions that are part of the laws governing the appointment and promotion of federal employees. At the bottom of the memo there was a notation that this order would not be made public.
When faced with this, the government's ministers at first denied that such a memo existed. When a copy was produced, the Prime Minister then admitted there was a document but said the program was actually only a feasibility study. When pressed further, he admitted that the government was planning to bring in these French Canadians in such a manner and said he was entitled to do so in the interest of creating better balance between English and French Canadians in the federal service.
Such a practice violates the principles of fair employment in that it discriminates in favour of a language or ethnic group. It is in violation of the government's own Public Service Employment Act, and it is in contravention of the merit system in the public service that is designed to ensure that appointments and promotions are made throughout the service on the basis of merit. It is a sad commentary on the conduct of the present government that 250 people from a specific language group are brought into choice federal jobs through the back door, when there are hundreds of thousands of unemployed Canadians of other ethnic and language groups looking to their government for leadership and employment.
It is being said that the government is doing so much damage to our traditional institutions and to our system of government that there can never be any recovery from its effects, especially since this government has about two more years to rule. I do not believe that. The Canadian people can and will return our government to the people, and they will impartially restore our traditional institutions to their former greatness. Whatever the present government does to concentrate power in the
few at the top can and will be undone. It has been done before-in the voting booths.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I see an hon. member rising, but I must point out that the time of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has expired and he would not be able to answer a question unless there was unanimous consent. Is it agreed that the hon. member's time be extended to answer a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no agreement.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the party sitting in this section of the House I welcome a debate on social welfare as proposed by the official opposition. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) told us during the budget debate, 23 per cent of the nation's unemployed live in British Columbia, and this number is therefore bound to be reflected in the social welfare figures in my province. We of the NDP are often labelled the welfare party. This I categorically deny. Our whole purpose and philosophy is oriented to do everything we possibly can to remove people from social welfare rolls and, if possible, place them back into productive society.
Our programs and policies have always been oriented in this way, but because we are concerned with the casualties of the system, this current system, perhaps we have not paid enough attention to the rehabilitative role of social welfare and have concentrated too much on the maintenance role. In any event, as President Johnson once said rather crudely, we want to turn people into taxpayers, not tax eaters.
Much has been said about the government's anti-inflation policy and its relationship to the mounting unemployment roles. Because of mounting unemployment the municipalities I represent are faced with a tremendous increase in terms of their own budgets a direct result of increasing unemployment. I should like to quote a few figures which I think will indicate the magnitude of the problem faced by some of them. Let me refer to the welfare costs of the municipality of Surrey for the years 1968, 1969 and 1970. The total municipal expenditure in 1968 was $866,000. In 1969 it was $1,040,000, and in 1970 it was approximately $1,500,000.
Let me give the House the figures in respect of one or two other municipalities which I represent. In the rural municipality of Langley the cost in 1969 was $59,000. In 1970 the cost was $67,000, and in 1971 the estimated cost is $92,000. The population involved in social welfare in these municipalities during the same years increased from 8.06 per cent to 8.09 per cent, and this year to an incredible 10.12 per cent. In the suburban municipality of Port Moody, which is highly industrialized, the cost to the municipality in 1969 was $17,500, in 1970 it was $19,000, and in 1971 it is estimated to be $45,000.

February 25, 1971____________________COMMONS DEBATES	3767
These social welfare statistics represent abstract points and very often hide the human suffering and bitterness which results from cold and hard figures. For a moment let us look, instead, at the human interests of the people in my riding. Let me read from a letter I received from one of my constituents. It reads in part:
After the tugboat strike I am blacklisted and am unable to get a job. What with the strike and unemployment I have no unemployment benefits left. I had to get a job at $1.65 per hour or go on welfare. That I don't want. But, however, I can quite see why people go on the welfare and stay there. It would not pay them to take a job at $1.65 an hour and pay into the pension fund and unemployment stamps. They make more in a month than I do working, plus they get free hospital, dentist, doctor, etc., etc. I can quite see their point of view, why work? They could not afford to live on $1.65 per hour and keep a family, so going on welfare they receive more. It seems that there are many thousands of people only making $1.65 per hour, mostly workers who don't belong to a trade union.
He goes on to say how difficult it is for him to manage after being a highly paid and, presumably, highly skilled industrial worker. He concludes by saying:
I am only writing this so that you can see, from a working man's point of view, the way things are under this Liberal government. This tough year of unemployment might teach the working man which way to vote the next time.
I am sure this man has a great deal of faith. I hope it will not be necessary for the workingman to take the punitive political action suggested by this constituent. I hope the government will read the signs and see the way things are. Let us consider suggestions which have been made in respect of this difficult problem of continuing and increasing unemployment. As a result of a study by the Vancouver United Community Services, a booklet was issued under the title "Guaranteed income or guaranteed employment?* On the first page of the summary and conclusions it is stated:
A more basic reason for the support of the guaranteed Income concept by all political parties is our changing technology and changing labour needs. Private industry no longer needs the pool of low-skilled labour which once provided an important cushion for the ups and downs of the labour market.
The booklet goes on to say other things. For instance, at page iii it states:
If benefits for the unemployed are set at adequate levels, what of the 'work incentive'? Will the result be to create a nation of loafers? And with increasing automation, should we stress the need for work-or train for leisure?
But they answer their own question in paragraph 1 by observing:
Several factors suggest that "man cannot live by bread alone", that opportunity for constructive work should be our primary goal.
People want and need to work. They develop their identity, their meaning in life, through working in an occupation. Contrary to popular belief, mounting evidence shows that when job opportunities with adequate incomes are available, even the "hard-core unemployed" choose to work rather than loaf.
These UCS people have some other very interesting things to say, but I see that I am not getting through to
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs
many members by quoting from these scholarly sources so I will return to my notes. Time is limited.
What is needed instead of a piecemeal approach is a comprehensive social security policy. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) is well aware of the different, competing and overlapping plans which now exist, including old age security, family allowances, unemployment insurance and others. We can no longer accept such a patchwork type of system to meet the needs of the people in our society. We need, instead, some kind of comprehensive social security package in the form of a guaranteed income plan. If we cannot supply guaranteed employment we will have to move toward an income maintenance program.
In spite of all the mutterings to the contrary, in the municipalities I represent there are few malingerers on welfare. Some politicians get a great deal of mileage out of the myth or the misconception that much of our welfare tax dollar is going to this type of person. They get a lot of mileage out of the suggestion that welfare payments go to people who basically are lazy bums. This is not the situation in my area, although there may be some there. I think it might be worth while to examine the situation and find out what type of person is on welfare.
First of all there are the aged. A person who is by one day under 65 can receive $95 per month from social welfare. If that person were 65 he might receive $130 or $135 per month. In this example alone we can see that there is a cruel anomaly. Let us consider the abandoned wife with children. She is tied up in the home. Very often she worked before she was married but, having been deserted or abandoned, she is stuck with the children and cannot get out to work. Therefore, few have any alternative but to abandon the children or go on social welfare, and in most cases they choose the latter.
Further, there are the physically disabled people who are unable to work because of physical disability or illness. There are the people with psychological problems. They may be alcoholics, people who fight with their bosses or cannot get along with their wives and as a result cannot go to work the next day. Unless they receive much counselling they will probably never be able to hold steady jobs.
There are the dropouts who do not have the education or skill to compete for employment in this highly technological age. Our society demands a higher and higher level of skill all the time. In spite of this we have another group of unemployed who require an increasing proportion of our welfare funds: these people are overeducated for the development of our country.
What kind of solution can we propose to assist in solving these problems in our society? Certainly day-care centres would be very useful for wives with some saleable skill who would like to go out to work. I think that for a number of the psychologically and physically handicapped we will have to look for these kinds of things that we have for people who have mental deficiencies,

February 25, 1971
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs such as sheltered shops. For many people who cannot "hack it" on the treadmill from eight to five o'clock every day, communities must set up sheltered workshops with auxiliary counseling services, probably padre services, and nursing and medical services so that these people contribute what they can, because they will never be able to compete under the normal demands of a workaday world.
We should be looking seriously to earlier retirement of people. I was impressed by the concept of the United Auto Workers whose slogan was "Out at Thirty". After 30 years of service it should be possible for anyone who has worked all his life and contributed to be able to retire without sacrificing too much of his income. Many people would retire much earlier if it were not for the shellacking they would have to take on their income. For those people who are concerned about retiring too early and who find that to be an upsetting emotional concept, my view is that it is far worse to be retired permanently at the age of 25 than at the age of 55, and that is what faces many of today's young people.
I think, also, we should be looking at some of our agricultural surpluses and beginning to investigate what other countries have done in this area. We have many agricultural surpluses, such as in apples, butter and broilers. Just this week we will be shipping three million pounds of broilers worth almost $400,000, subsidized by the Canadian people, to help the people of Japan. If we had a free food stamp program in this country, perhaps we could subsidize those people who need that food right here in Canada-and there are many people who do.
We talk about the demand for meat products but we seldom talk about the need, because these are two different concepts. I think we should be investigating a school lunch program as well. The point is not the give-away. The point is that the government has refused to provide enough funds except for marginal existence for many people. A food stamp program or a school lunch program would at least liberate some of the funds that we give to people for other purposes.


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


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to take part in this debate on unemployment. For the past few days I have been listening to the speeches of opposition members and I wonder if people are justified in thinking that unemployment is something new in Canada. It seems as if that plague, unemployment, has just been discovered, but to my knowledge no solution was brought forward in order to eliminate unemployment.
As everybody knows, unemployment is due to several causes. Within a thirty-year period, we lived through the first industrial revolution, which brought the difficulties of the twenties, and I believe the experience we, Canadians as well as Americans, are living through now, could
be called the second industrial revolution, a revolution brought about by intensive automation and a concern for efficiency that makes employment more and more scarce.
Moreover, the Canadian climate is one of the great causes of unemployment during winter months. The same can be said of the difficulties encountered by the American economy and, whether we like it or not, as soon as the Americans face difficulties in employment, we feel the after-effects.
One must not forget either that it is in the Canadian government's interest to fight inflation. People with fixed salaries, people who are not represented by powerful unions, people receiving pensions they paid with 1925, 1930 and 1940 dollars are in the throes of inflation. Now the Canadian government has taken that problem in hand. Ours is one of the industrialized countries that were most successful in their fight against inflation.
Let us see now if the unemployment we deplore so much is something new in Canada. I have here statistics that I should like to recall to the opposition members. In 1959, the unemployment rate was 6 per cent; in 1961, 7.1 per cent; in 1963, 5.5 per cent; in 1965, 3.9 per cent, in 1966, 3.6 per cent, in 1969 and in 1970, 4.7 and 5.9 per cent respectively.
Obviously, the unemployment problem is not new to us since we were already faced with it in 1957, 1958 and 1959. What steps did the government take to fight unemployment? It did manage in spite of everything to create 212,000 jobs in 1970. Some will say that it was not enough-and I agree with this-to give jobs to all the unemployed and to all the young people entering the labour market. However, for a year such as 1970, during which we successfully fought inflation, it is our opinion that 212,000 jobs is nevertheless a significant figure.
There are all kinds of programs to alleviate unemployment. Among others the government has initiated an urban renewal program which was launched in 1965 and which is helping municipalities, both Toronto and Saint-Jerome where I live. In fact, this program which will be in force for several more years, is giving work to many seasonal workers.
Over the twelve months which preceded December 1, 1970, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) and the officials of his department had been able to create 20,033 new jobs representing an aggregate investment of $546 million. This expansion program will be stepped up in 1971 and it is hoped that the number of jobs created will be much higher in 1971.
The government recently introduced a bill setting up the Canada Development Corporation in order to allow Canadians to invest their savings in Canadian industries, in industries which belong to them.
The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation's budget has recently been increased, a measure which will bring about a vigourous upswing in the building of low rent housing in Canada.
All sorts of actions have been taken to check unemployment. As every other country, we are faced with difficulties and the Europeans, keep saying that Canada is

February 25, 1971

faced with the kind of problems everybody would like to have. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has been told recently that the performance of the Canadian economy has been breaking all records for years.
If members of the opposition wish to contribute to the fight against unemployment, they could make fewer speeches and stop blocking legislation. I refer particularly to Bill C-207, the omnibus bill which among other things would setup a Department of the Environment responsible for pollution control. This department will see to the construction of several sewage treatment plants and the implementation of a good number of projects and programs likely to create many jobs.
On the other hand, knocking our national policy surely does not help to create confidence among investors who might be considering investments in Canada.
We hear hon. members of the opposition day after day criticizing the government policy and the methods used to fight unemployment. I have not yet heard a single suggestion likely to alleviate the problem.
If I were to point out a shortcoming among the Canadian people, I should say that they do not care enough to buy products manufactured in Canada. According to recent figures, each Canadian citizen imported goods worth $700 in 1970, whereas in the United States imports per capita amounted to $180, and in Japan, to $150. It might be advisable to do some promotion for the products manufactured in this country and to encourage Canadians to buy more of them.
Mr. Speaker, I know that some opposition members are anxious to be heard, and I think I should now close my remarks.
[English}


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about having to take part in this debate, primarily because it was not too long ago that we had an opportunity of expressing our feelings in no uncertain terms with respect to the attitude of the government. But once again we find that as a result of the government's callousness and its direct lack of concern, as shown in the policy it is attempting to implement, it is necessary that we continue to drive home the fact that the country is facing a national crisis. This crisis is brought about by the government's fiscal and monetary policies. These are not my words; they are the words of the mayors of several Canadian municipalities.
My own city of Hamilton, which is similar to many other cities in terms of the hardships it is encountering because of the government's policies, is facing an increase in welfare expenditures totalling more than $3 million over last year's expenditures. This is a frightening situation, considering the tax base upon which cities operate. I am at a loss to know where cities will get the extra money they need for welfare unless tax reforms are brought about as a result of federal and provincial concern. It is time for such concern when a city like Hamilton, with a population of 300,000 people, is budget-
Alleged, Non-Support of Employment Programs
ing for welfare costs of some $10.5 million, about $3 million more than last year.
I would like to quote from a document prepared by R. J. Protti, research officer for the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, entitled "Welfare Expenditures and Local Government", issued January 22, 1971. In it he reports on the results of a questionnaire submitted to members of the federation concerning the welfare implications of current high rates of unemployment. One of the questions asked of municipalities was: "What is the rate of unemployment in your municipality?" He reports as follows:
Answers to question (a) ranged from minimal to over 13 per cent. Some respondents indicated that they expected the unemployment situation to worsen in the first three or four months of 1971.
What was most notable about responses to question (a) was the number of approximations and "guess-estimates" of unemployment rates that had to be made for particular municipal units. Neither the Dominion Bureau of Statistics nor Canada Manpower offices could provide accurate unemployment statistics for a specific municipality. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics only supplies unemployment rates monthly on a provincial basis. Canada Manpower offices generally cover areas which can and most often do include more than two municipal units.
I take it from this that even the municipalities do not know exactly how many people are unemployed in their own communities. If the city of Hamilton thinks it has something like 20,000 unemployed, Lord knows what the actual figure is. Also, in replying to the questionnaire the municipalities indicated that they were concerned about the cost-sharing arrangements among all levels of government in respect of welfare expenditures. Notwithstanding what the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) has said, Mr. Speaker, this is an important matter to the cities.
In British Columbia the federal share is 50 per cent, the provincial share 30 per cent and the municipalities pay 20 per cent. It is the same ratio in Alberta. In Saskatchewan provincial government pays 45 per cent and the municipalities 5 per cent. In Ontario the ratio again is 50 per cent federal, 30 per cent provincial and 20 per cent municipal. The municipalities are very concerned about the reluctance of the federal government to help further. I respectfully submit that we are facing a national crisis, notwithstanding the speech of the hon. member for Don Valley. It is time for federal action before it is too late.
We cannot continually hide behind the Constitution, Mr. Speaker, because in the long run this means we are not credible. In order to be credible we must recognize that we are experiencing a national crisis when 668,000 members of our labour force are unemployed, acknowledging that this is primarily due to the fiscal and monetary policies of the government. When the mayors were asked what measures they believed could and should be taken by the federal government to alleviate the situation, they replied:

February 25, 1971
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs
The vast majority of the 47 respondents to this question offered more than one suggestion for alleviating the current situation. The suggestions are divided into short-term (immediate) and longer-term measures.
By far the most popular measure advocated (mentioned by approximately 45 per cent of the respondents) was the immediate introduction by either the federal or provincial governments of a winter works program similar to the program which existed in the 1950s. Also of a short-term nature is the suggestion that there be an immediate increase in the level of unemployment insurance benefits.
Let me pose a few questions with respect to that last statement, Mr. Speaker. I am at a loss to understand why the government has not attempted to provide some relief under the Unemployment Insurance Act at this time. Surely there should be easier access to benefits and they should be increased. Is it necessary to wait until April, 1971? We continually hear members on the government benches stating that they are working on it and will be bringing it in shortly, but they want to bring in the whole act. This attitude is irresponsible because at present there are many people whose benefits have run out, and unless there is an extension of seasonal benefits it appears to me that the government is asking people to go on the welfare rolls. That is greasing the skids of economic chaos, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It shows an irresponsible approach to a very serious problem.


An hon. Member:: There are only eight government members present.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am very concerned about what unemployment means, Mr. Speaker. The following has been stated by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development:
Long-term unemployment signifies lost productivity and life wasted, both national and individual misfortune.
In 1970, the annual average number of persons experiencing unemployment for four months and longer was 164,000. This is higher than every other year in the preceding decade except 1961. The Liberal government, with its rhetoric about participatory democracy, has distributed unemployment impartially among all classes in our society. But there is little doubt that the poor suffer most. Close to 100,000 of the approximately 500,000 unemployed Canadians in the third quarter of 1970 are listed as people who have never had a full-time civilian job lasting two weeks or more. Unskilled labourers, semiskilled craftsmen and production workers, farm and mine workers, account for almost half of all Canadians without jobs.
When Ottawa puts price stability at a higher priority level than high unemployment, the poor are trapped between fewer job opportunities on the one hand and rising taxes and restricted credit on the other. While some of the poor may be seriously hurt by inflation, more of them are hurt by high unemployment. I do not need to elaborate further, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. W. Cheeseman, president of Westinghouse, made a speech in Kitchener recently and voiced his concern about the path being taken by this government. In the course of his remarks he said:
Are we going to demand that government planning, government policies and government actions should be aimed at making Canada viable industrially through hard-headed business decisions? Through realistic, not naive, trading arrangements and through a determination to upgrade more of Canada's raw materials here in Canada and gain the advantages of solidly based secondary industries.
In what other country of the industrial world will you find corporation income tax at the 52 per cent level? Not to mention the so-called temporary 3 per cent surtax! In the United Kingdom the tax rate was 45 per cent but is due soon to be reduced to 42.5 per cent. In the U.S. it is 48 per cent. In Japan the rates are from 26 to 35 per cent. In France it is 50 per cent, and in Italy 49.5 per cent (if they catch you!) The difference doesn't sound like much but an additional 2 to 4 per cent corporate income tax is another cost burden of real significance to Canadian producers in fiercely competitive world markets.
If a greater proportion of the growing work force is to be employed, the new jobs cannot be provided by an increased rate of public spending.
He went on to say:
There are a number of efficient, labour intensive, industries in Canada where growth has slackened or levelled off in the last few years. As a result, capital will not be put into industries until there is some assurance of a growth environment. And there can be none, unless government adopts policies which strengthen existing efficient industries in both their own domestic markets and in export markets.
To make matters worse, Mr. Speaker, Canada has dropped to No. 4 in the most prosperous nations category as indicated by the World Bank. The sequence is as follows: the United States, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada. I have often heard the member for Don Valley refer to the goals of full employment, a high and sustained rate of economic growth, reasonable price stability, a viable balance of payments position and an equitable sharing of rising incomes. The government needs an economic policy which is devoted to growth and full employment for all Canadians. It would seem to me, therefore, that our role should be to articulate the need for full economic growth so that the Canadian economic potential can be completely realized.
I know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) will be interested in the remarks of Senator David Croll as reported in the Toronto Daily Star of Wednesday, November 11, 1970. The Senator said:
Anti-poverty programs will be ineffective unless the government takes steps to end economic uncertainty and curb rising unemployment.
I know that the minister is very concerned about the poor, as I am, but when I look at the attitude of this government I wonder how credible it really is. The Senate committee is working on a four-year plan to lift four million people out of poverty. Therefore, a high and sustained economic growth must be assured in order to provide programs to overcome shortcomings in existing welfare measures, education and retraining programs, legal and medical aid, and housing. Notwithstanding

February 25, 1971

that, issues have been raised as a result of the five goals set up.
The first point at issue is that on the one hand the government feels that not all the economic goals are of equal importance, while on the other hand the Economic Council feels that all goals are of equal importance. Moreover, the government is prepared to tackle one goal at a time, whereas the council claims that an effort must be made to achieve all goals simultaneously.
The second point at issue is that implicitly the government believes that high unemployment and low growth are temporary costs which have to be paid in order to achieve price stability. The council warns that if these temporary costs are forced upon the economy for too long, they will do permanent harm. Some exploration of this second point is needed. When the economy runs at reduced capacity, the actual rate of growth is less than the potential rate of growth. In the short run-less than two years-the initial costs in such a situation are unemployment, economic hardships on the individual business and consumer, and reduced tax revenue for governments at the same time as their expenditures are increasing.
The government is apparently willing to pay these short-run costs in the name of price stability. But what about the long-term, hidden costs? Is the government prepared to ask Canadians to pay these costs? These long-term costs are the irreplaceable losses in potential caused by running the economy at below capacity. The council feels that-
-such losses (i.e., no growth and high unemployment) are cumulative lor every year in which such a gap exists between actual and potential output. Nor is the loss ever made up, even when the gap is closed-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret very much to interrupt the hon. member, but I do so to tell him that his time has expired.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, it has been nice to listen to some of the speeches made by hon. members who support the motion moved by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan). I must say that I never heard so many contradictory statements in terms of what should be done in Canada in this situation.
My hon. friend from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) seemed to be talking about increasing unemployment insurance benefits and increasing our expenditure in the social assistance area, which would add greatly to our expenditures. Then he started to quote some paragraphs from a speech made by the president of the Westinghouse Corporation who indicated that our problems would not be solved by increased public expenditures. These statements are somewhat contradictory. Then he talked in general terms about easing the government's fiscal and monetary policies. Having listened to some of the opposition speeches, I assume that what he means by that is easing the money supply and an expansionary policy in terms of expenditures that would stimulate economic growth.
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs
All this, as the hon. member must be aware, this government has been doing for the last six months. So if one talks in terms of expansionary policies, these indeed add to public expenditures. I do not know how you can ride two horses in two different directions at the same time; it is a nice feat if you can do it. I think the hon. member for Hamilton West is to be congratulated for endeavouring to ride two horses. I think that the whole debate has been along that line. There have been very few constructive suggestions as to how we can cope with this situation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: The motion moved by the hon. member for Spadina reads:
That this House condemns the government's failure to foresee and take steps to provide for the escalating effects of its unemployment policy upon the social assistance funds of the provinces and municipalities and its failure to consult and co-operate with the provinces and municipalities in providing emergency financial support and employment programs.
This shows really a desperate dearth of anything constructive in terms of policies that we might implement now.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Come now!


John Carr Munro: There is no suggestion of any guarantee. If we should adopt a policy such as set out here, and if we gave relief to the municipalities to help along the line of social assistance there is, according to this motion, no guarantee that the money would go to those who are unemployed and on social assistance. I take from the wording of the motion that the opposition does not think this important. The money could go to a municipality and they could use it for any purpose at all; it could be totally unrelated to the problem that the hon. member and other hon. members opposite are so concerned about. If that is the best that the opposition can offer-


An hon. Member:: The minister has not been listening.


John Carr Munro: -with respect to positive policies for coping with this situation, if the opposition suggests that we should just hand out money without any guarantee that it will do anything realistic in terms of serving the situation that the country is facing, then I cannot help feeling a certain sense of satisfaction.


An hon. Member:: How stupid do you think the mayors are?


John Carr Munro: The opposition's thinking is so sterile that it surely cannot pretend to be a reasonable alternative to the present government.
The Depuiy Speaker: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) rising on a point of order?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: No, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to allow me to ask a question. The minister berated me in a charitable way because I

February 25, 1971
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs
had indicated that Mr. Cheeseman did not think that pumping money into the economy was the solution. Does the minister not agree with the alternative proposed by Mr. Cheeseman, namely, a reduction in taxes? In other words, does he not agree that the policy of tax incentives is a proper policy for the government to pursue?


John Carr Munro: My answer to that question is that it shows a further contradiction in the hon. member's argument. In view of the deficits that we are now running into, is he saying that we should increase social assistance and unemployment insurance, which is a further burden on the taxpayers in terms of contributions? Is he espousing further expansionary policies to stimulate economic development, which would mean more taxes and more expenditures and, at the same time, is he saying that we should reduce taxes?


Stanley James Korchinski: It sounds as if the minister has trouble from all sides.


John Carr Munro: It seems to me that the hon. member's position is loaded with contradictions. Surely what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, is an easing of the money supply. Surely what we are talking about is expansionary policies, about increased expenditures to get the economy going. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has documented precisely how we are going to do this.
In the meantime, let us look at a more positive way than that of increasing the amount of money to municipalities. Let us look at a way that might help them with their social assistance problems and yet carry with it the guarantee that the assistance will help the people who are receiving social assistance as well as the unemployed. One might ask, how am I to do this on more positive lines? I suggest that you look at the white paper on income security for a few pointers. What we talk about there is redistribution within our present social security system, within our income security system, to put money into the hands of lower-income groups. That way you could ensure that the people living in poverty that so many hon. members seem to be concerned about will receive the benefit.


An hon. Member:: When?


John Carr Munro: If we adopted the policy set out in the motion, there would be no guarantee that those people would receive anything. There is no guarantee whatsoever. But if we redefine our policies-


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question.


John Carr Munro: When I have finished, if the hon. member does not mind. If hon. members want to adopt constructive policies of direct payments to persons, payments that will have a redistributing effect in favour of the lower-income groups, they should look at several of the schemes we have now and at suggestions as to how they should be changed. There has been some discussion of the guaranteed annual income.


Mr. Woolliams:: I do not think so.


John Carr Munro: Is the opposition suggesting that we must put all the emphasis on social assistance and that this is the only answer? If so, what is their position on the guaranteed annual income which some of them have espoused? The two concepts do not work very well together. Social assistance, it seems to me, has been acknowledged by everyone as being the least attractive way of helping the lower-income groups. It is the least attractive of all. It is the measure of last resort. To attack the government, while at the same time proposing what I think everyone is prepared to acknowledge as the least attractive of all the income security measures with which to prime the pump, seems to show a complete abdication in terms of trying to find constructive solutions for what is facing the people today.


An hon. Member:: The minister did not listen.


John Carr Munro: The only member of the opposition whom I thought had constructive policies to suggest was the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose). He suggested that since social assistance is one of the least attractive of our income security measures, and since a stigma is attached to it, that we who are in public life should combat this increasing stigma which attaches to people who must rely upon such assistance. He pointed out something that should be reiterated, that tremendous numbers of people on social assistance are people who are permanently out of the work force. The majority of them are cripples, widows or deserted wives and children. He also pointed out a solution that I think is worth repeating. He said that one solution for this problem, and we point this out in the white paper, is early retirement.
Ahead of us in the 1970s we shall probably reach the situation in which the nation will be affluent, in which there will be a favourable balance of trade, in which the business community will experience a favourable profit picture and in which, because of cybernation and automation, people will still be unemployed. Perhaps we ought to redefine our thinking in terms of what is employment. Perhaps there are constructive areas that should be considered as employment that have not heretofore been considered as employment. Perhaps we should start thinking in terms of having many of these people put their endeavours into social activities, recreational activities and constructive leisure activities.
Not one of these novel suggestions that could be positive in terms of rehabilitation for those on social assistance, or in terms of putting those suffering from low incomes into constructive and creative work, has emanated all day long from the official opposition.
9 (9:30 p.m.)
In terms of the vertical distribution of income suggested in the White Paper, I should point out the effect this will have in terms of a generator of economic stimulation. As of April 1 we will commence to put into the economy an additional $200 million a year through the guaranteed income supplement. This will bring the total of the funds in the guaranteed income supplement and old age security to $2 billion a year. By directing this money toward the guaranteed income supplement it will
February 25, 1971

go to those people who need it most, those in the lower-income groups. It will find its way into consumer purchases immediately and afford a stimulation to the economy. This is far more positive than talking about sending cheques to the municipalities to relieve their costs of social assistance, with no guarantee that the money will go to those who need help.
It might also be pointed out that relative to what we are suggesting in the FISP program, the alternative to the family allowance, we are now talking about redirecting at least $250 million in that system toward the lower-income group. The income supplementation that the families in the lower levels receive will be tripled. I am talking in terms of people who earn under $4,500 a year receiving $16 a month. When the additional expenditure of $200 million going to the guaranteed income supplement is combined with the approximately $200 million to $300 million that will be distributed through an alteration in FISP, there is the potentiality of half a billion dollars going to the lower-income group, the people who desperately need it. They will immediately spend it on consumer goods, which will result in a positive stimulation to the economy.


Mr. McCutcheon:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member from Essex, who is most anxious that a clipping he has be delivered to the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order. Perhaps I should indicate to the House that I understand there is an informal agreement that the minister will not take all his time, in order to allow a representative of the Creditiste party to speak.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that the agreement exists. Having said what I have already said, which has obviously passed the attention of the opposition, I hope that during the course of the next few days we might hear more constructive suggestions on how to cope with the problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) would like to ask a question. He can ask a question and the minister can reply, but I bring to the attention of the hon. member and the minister that there is agreement that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) should be given an opportunity to speak in the last ten minutes.


Donald MacInnis: The minister indicated he will accept the question. I guarantee it will be short; however, the length of the answer is something else. Will the minister give the House the government's definition of the word 'guaranteed"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to rise and protect the interests of the minority who has been trying to get the floor for a while.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you very much and very sincerely for the protec-
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs tion you give minority groups in the House. At the end of a debate on a question that affects us so deeply, when only one member of our party has had the opportunity to express our viewpoint, obviously we feel rather neglected and rightly so. Happily, your intervention allows us to close on a Creditiste note a debate that has dragged on interminably because of negativism.
Considering I have not much time left and since the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) have said that the opposition did not propose any positive solution to check unemployment, I want to set the record straight.
Not only is that not true, but those who heard the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste (Mr. Caouette) know full well that he made several suggestions that could remedy the situation. But it seems his words fell on dry, rocky terrain, in short, on deaf ears, for the government members have done their utmost to say that we have proposed no solution.
In fact, I should like to bring up one of them again. In so doing, I shall use the same language and the same material the liberal members have used.
Recently, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) published a liberal brochure, with the taxpayers' money, entitled, "How your Tax Dollar is Spent", and this to encourage people to pay more taxes, under the pretext that this money is supposedly well managed! In this brochure, it is stated that for each tax dollar that is drawn from the pockets of the taxpayer, 14 cents are affected to the payment of public debts. Why? So as to pay interests to our creditors. On page 23, one can read the following:
Canada's public debt amounted to $38 billion in October, 1970, and the Minister of Finance has forecast new government borrowings of $1.9 billion in 1971-72-
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will get down on his knees before foreign financiers to borrow two billion, without the agreement of this House, without consulting us. He will go, on his own, and contribute to selling another part of Canada for another $2 billion, in short, for a pittance. On what terms? For an excessive rate of interest. Why? To develop our country? As the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste said this afternoon, we do have manpower, resources, unemployed workers-by the way, this government does not know what to do with them anymore-in short we have all that we need in Canada, but no money. So, we will go "on all fours" before Big Business and fetch $2 billion for 1971-72.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is even more shameful, not only is it bad management but it is obviously a raw deal.
So that the people will swallow the pill, they are told at page 24 of the same booklet that, this year, $2 billion will be borrowed at an interest rate of 8 or 9 per cent from foreign bankers. This is what is said:
This interest payment is almost wholly a return on investments in Canada by Canadians.
3774

February 25, 1971
Alleged Non-Support of Employment Programs
Mr. Speaker, can a bigger lie than that one be told? Canadians will not be receiving $600 in dividends because they have invested in Canada. That is false! The Canadian government will take $600 in the Canadian taxpayers' pockets to pay interest to foreigners.
This means, Mr. Speaker, that we could not do anything in Canada without foreign capital. Canadian people are deluded and to publish these lies, public money is used.
But here is the most shameful of all. This is where I arrive at a positive solution. At page 28 of the booklet, under the heading "Foreign Affairs", the following may be read:
In addition to grants for international development, CIDA has also been given $172 million to lend to developing countries on generous terms.
What does that mean, interest-free loans?
Mr. Speaker, what we of the opposition are asking for-and this is a constructive proposal-is that the government obtain from the Bank of Canada an amount of credit based on the actual credit of the nation, that they then grant soft loans to the provincial governments, and to the municipalities which are now facing stagnation, to increase our economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, we fail to develop our resources and to satisfy the needs of the Canadian people but we tell them: "Tighten your belts, do not ask for wage increases in excess of 6 per cent". Meanwhile, however, the government gives the chartered banks authority to raise their profits by 22 per cent in the course of just one year, lets them exploit our people and all the while gives any foreigner the green light to make fat profits.
Our proposal is as follows: Let the government once and for all use the Bank of Canada to put our economy in order.
Unemployment, Mr. Speaker, is an abscess that is bursting today in the economic system. It id not grow like a mushroom. It could have been expected. It was in fact expected. We had announced it on many occasions, but the government, by tightening the money supply, by controlling it and reducing it by $560 million, increased poverty, discouraged Canadians from investing and helped increase unemployment.
This is why we say that unless the government takes the necessary fiscal and monetary measures at once to encourage Canadian investments in Canada, to develop our natural resources and provide jobs for Canadians, we shall have to go on putting up with a policy of poultices on wooden legs. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion, for instance, has become another Welfare department.
Indeed, not only individuals are on welfare, but also companies. They go bankrupt, and the government does nothing. Again, I have here statistics which could prove it eloquently.
For instance, I will mention that in 1968, there were 1.248 business bankruptcies in the province of Quebec. In
1969, that figure went up to 1,424, for a loss to creditors of nearly $120 million.
Now according to recent studies, each new job requires an average investment of $1,550. That is to say that the equivalent of 80,000 jobs would not have been created due to the sole fact of business bankruptcies.
Judging from the present state of the economy, losses due to bankruptcies will certainly exceed $150 million in 1971. This is therefore 100,000 times the amount required for creating one job.
Mr. Speaker, instead of continuing to put private companies on welfare and thus increase the indebtedness of Canadians and the rate of unemployment, let us put the economy in order, encourage private enterprise, respect the human person, put our money at the service of the people, rather than have the population and the government "on all fours" before foreigners trying to borrow millions for developing our resources. Since we do not have enough money, let us master what has not yet been subdued in Canada, namely, money, so that we may really be at home here and develop our country.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 9.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 58 (9), to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the said proceeding.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
At 10.15 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, February 26, 1971