1971-02-10

QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

[Stage Direction]
3. (a) For the calendar year 1968, 67,180 patent applications were filed in the United States by nationals, and 26,291 by foreigners, which works out to approximately 35 applications filed by nationals/100,000 population, (b) For the U.K. the comparable figures are 26,711, 35,284, and 50. (c) For Japan the comparable figures are 71,114, 25,596, and 70. (d) For Switzerland the comparable figures are 5,928, 13,609, and 118. (e) For Sweden the comparable figures are 4,742, 13,338, and 53. (f) For Australia the comparable figures are 4,201, 12,511, and 28. (g) For Argentina the comparable figures are not known.
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1 What Canadian cereals can claim to be a good source of protein under the Food and Drug Directorate rating scale?
2. What Canadian cereals do not qualify under the Food and Drug Directorate rating scale?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. On the basis of evidence in the possession of the Food and Drug Directorate in relation to the following cereals only, a statement made on the label or in an advertisement that one ounce of the cereal with four ounces of milk is a good source of protein, would not constitute an offence under the Food and Drugs Act-Kellogg's Special K; Cheerios; Shredded Wheat; Muffets; Hot cereals such as Rolled Oats and Red River Cereal.
On the basis of evidence in the possession of the Food and Drug Directorate, a statement made on the label or in an advertisement for High Protein Pablum and Gerber's High Protein cereal only, that the food is a good source of protein, would not constitute an offence under the Food and Drugs Act.
2. See answer to Part 1.


NUMBER OF PATENT APPLICATIONS FILED 1969-70
Mr. Sallsman: 1.	For the latest available year, how many patent applications have been filed in Canada by (a) residents (b) non-residents?
2.	For the same year, how many patents have been filed for residents per 100,000 population?
3.	Does the Government of Canada have similar information
fikhgs by residents per 100,000 population for (a)
S/?ite a b. (fTea,t Britain (c) Japan (d) Switzerland (e) Sweden (f) Australia (g) Argentina?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. For the fiscal year 1969-70 (a) 1 814 and (b) 29,546.	'
2. Approximately nine.


COST OF MOLASSES TO CANADIAN FARMER
Mr. Watson: 1.	Was there a change in the cost of molasses to the Canadian farmer following the sale in 1960 of Imperial Molasses Company to Sucrest Corporation and, if so, was the Minister of Agriculture requested by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to supply pertinent information?
2.	Does the government have data or is information available on the comparison of prices of black-strap molasses as between Montreal-Toronto and Albany-Buffalo, N.Y. for the years 196070 and, if so, will the government undertake to have such information studied by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as follows: 1. The price of molasses increased between 1960 and 1961. Supplies of molasses in 1960 were at record levels, not equalled in any subsequent year. Lower supplies since 1960 have been a factor in higher prices since 1960. There is no record of any request to the Department of Agriculture from the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to supply information respecting the sale of the Imperial Molasses Company to Sucrest Corporation.
2. Price information of the kind described is available. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will have such information studied by the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act to determine whether on its face it raises any question under that Act.


REFERRALS UNDER CANADA MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Orlikow: How many referrals were made each month in 1969 and 1970 in each province by the Department of Manpower and Immigration to community colleges and/or technical-vocational schools, etc., for Manpower Training Courses?

February 10, 1971
Questions


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 


REFERRALS FOR FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME TRAINING
[Stage Direction]
1969(0 (s)
Province	April	May	June	July	August	September October November December	Nfld. 	
238	97	13	19	75	3,034	798	395	108PET 	
47	34	56	30	2	445	409	1,378	305N S 	
577	496	278	235	100	3,684	482	557	425N TT	
265	98	41	713	7	3,292	1,285	452	105
1,633	1,097	835	512	552	26,039	18,204	18,212	5,580
5,713	3,024	3,504	2,613	2,831	6,967	5,637	4,250	3,406
449	342	189	93	140	1,600	336	1,087	279
416	197	40	32	73	1,168	677	174	32
1,014	1,038	607	89	130	2,550	1,441	678	365N.W.T	
N.C	
5 	
1,575	757	1 444	402	46 385	2 4,571	4 3,569	13 1,510	12 398Yukon	
20	41	24	38	33	90	153	H	16Canada	
11,952	7,221	6,032	4,776	4,374	53,442	32,995	28,717	11,031

[Stage Direction]
1970« W
Province	January Febuary
Nfld	
628	972P.E.I	
646	432N.S	
969	1,431N.B	
2,398	760Quebec	
16,905	28,915Ontario	
7,968	5,265Man	
920	457Sask	
1,514	619Alta	
2,751	1,202N.W.T	
33	19B.C	
3,593	2,045Yukon	
104	48Canada	
38,429	42,165
March April May June July
471	284	185	30	3985	44	10	19	301,182	551	348	275	127864	598	89	61	46110,856	6,956	3,174	3,128	3,2758,233	7,255	4,574	3,465	3,097567	535	140	109	59616	309	119	26	321,867	1,243	1,042	491	1033	36	30	23	11,293	1,614	1,129	827	41122	-	-	20	-26,059	19,425	10,840	8,474	7,635
August September* October* November*
129	2,982	398	6721	474	171	451168	2,934	584	1,1976	3,280	455	1,0002,504	24,489	20,330	27,5006,231	4,198	6,728	3,601266	1,382	570	1,394566	804	725	6131,570	1,451	1,332	1,01318	47	32	191,541	4,121	3,045	3,10065	42	163	8513,065	46,204	34,533	40,665
(0Statistics for the months prior to April, 1969 were not maintained in the manner required to answer the question. 8>Statistics subsequent to November, 1970 are not yet available.
8)Persons being assisted under the Training-in-Industry Program are not included.
'Preliminary data, subject to adjustment.	_________________________________________

Mr. Horner: Has the government, through the Regional Development Program or any other program, granted any money for the construction of a brewery in Transcona, Manitoba, near the old Catelli plant?


James Alexander Jerome: No.


'PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What are the public works projects which make up the $23
million referred to by the Minister of Public Works at page 2401 of Hansard and what are their approximate amounts?
2.	How many man-hours of work are estimated to be involved?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Minister of Public Works that capital projects, such as building construction and improvements to existing structures, will account for about $18,500,000 of the amount referred to on January 14. An additional $5,500,000 will be spent on small repair and maintenance projects which will be advanced in priority. A detailed and somewhat lengthy list of capital projects could perhaps be taken as read and published in Hansard.

February 10, 1971

Questions
The answer to the second part of the question is that Mr. Speaker: Is that agreed? it is estimated that 2,246 man years of work are involved.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. McCleave:: As the poser of the question, the course suggested by the parliamentary secretary is acceptable
to me, Mr. Speaker.	[Editor's Note: The list follows]
Province
Project
Amount Man-Years ($000's)
Newfoundland Quebec	
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia
Wharf extension-Burgeo (Loan)	
Wharf improvements-Mont Louis	
Survey and shore assessment-St. Lawrence and Saguenay Rivers	
Various new remedial projects for marine works	
Acceleration of planned expenditures for construction and improvement
of marine works	
Post Office construction
Asbestos	
Aylmer	
Gatineau	
La Salle	
Forest Research Centre, Hull	
Improvements to National Revenue Budding, Montreal	
Improvements to Champlain Terminal, Quebec City	
Improvements to building, 15 Henderson St., Quebec City..
Improvements to Public Building, Sherbrooke	
Various minor new construction and improvement projects for buddings
and property	
Acceleration of planned expenditures for construction and improvement
of buildings and property	
Acceleration of planned expenditures for construction and improvement of roads and bridges	
Wharf construction, Gimli	
Various new minor construction and improvement projects for buiidings and property	
Post Office construction Colonsay Sampman Wilcox Abernethy Sintaluta
Wharf construction, Joussard	
Various new minor construction and improvement projects for buiidings and property	
Float replacement and extension (general)	
Lighting replacement, Prince Rupert	
Wharf improvements, Masset	
Post Office construction
Chemainus	
Lazo	
Lytton	
Port Hardy	
Shawinigan Lake	
Customs and Immigration Building-Douglas	
Various new minor construction and improvement projects for buiidings and property	
Total Capital Projects	
240	16
350	35
2,000	200
1,400	140
2,800	280
325	20
250	15
560	34
.300	18
750	45
1,000	60
500	30
200	12
700	56
1,500	90
2,000	120
1,800	108
205	21
517	31
123	7
16	2
147	9
200	20
25	3
75	8
55	3
75	5
55	3
40	2
25	2
150	9
150	6
8,488	1,410


ASSISTANCE TO ABDUCTORS OF JAMES CROSS
Mr. Caouelte: Has the federal government or any governmental agency given money to the abductors of Mr. James Cross to cover expenses on their first days in Cuba and, if so, what was the amount and what was its source?


James Alexander Jerome: No.


CHEDABUCTO BAY AREA-VISITS BY DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND FORESTRY OFFICIALS
Mr. Barnett: 1.	What communities in the Chedabucto Bay area were visited in the month of March, 1970, by officers of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry?
2.	How many inshore fishermen in each community were interviewed for the purpose of determining whether they wished

February 10, 1971
Questions
to set gear for the taking of cod and/or herring prior to April 1, and, of these (a) how many responded in the affirmative (h) how many in the negative?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1.
South Side	North Side
Torbay	Port Malcom
Larry's River	Lower River Inhabitants
Little Dover	Whiteside
Blackduck Cove	Janvrins Harbour
Canso	West Arichat
Durell Island	Arichat
Half Island Cove	Petit-de-Gras
Philips Cove	Sampson Cove
Queensport	Petite Anse
Halfway Cove	Rocky Bay
Dorts Cove	D'Escousse
Guysborough	Poirierville
Ragged Pond	Poulamon
Oyster Point	St. Peters
St. Francis Harbour	Mark Point
King Point	Godie Point
Cape Argos	L'Ardoise
Red Head	Fourchu
Eddy Point	
Melford Point	
Mul grave	
2. None.


OPERATION LIFT
Mr. Soulham: 1	What will be the total payments made by the government to farmers under the Operation Lift Program up to January 31, 1971 for (a) the summer fallow reduction plan (b) the forage crop plan?
2	What has been the total cost of administration of this program to date including PFAA officials and workers, aerial surveys, photography, etc.?
3.	What are the government's plans in connection with carrying on the Operation Lift Program in 1971?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minisier of Agriculture):: 1. (a) Payments with respect to wheat acreage reduction associated with increases in summer fallow acreage were $46,957,986 as at January 31, 1971. (b) Payments with respect to wheat acreage reduction associated with increases in perennial forage acreage were $8,433,900 as at January 31, 1971.
2.	$1,771,351.93 as at January 31, 1971.
3.	The government has no plans for carrying on Operation Lift in 1971 other than to complete payments with respect to 1970 increases in perennial forage as provided for in the Wheat Inventory Reduction Regulations.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION PERSONNEL
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): By province, what is the total number of employees of the Farm Credit Corporation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Farm Credit Corporation advises that as of February 1, 1971,

the answer is as follows: British Columbia, 17; Alberta, 97; Saskatchewan, 93; Manitoba, 39; Ontario, 210 (Including 107 at Head Office, Ottawa, Ontario); Quebec, 93; New Brunswick, 17; Nova Scotia, 2; Prince Edward Island, 5; and Newfoundland, 0. Total: 573.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Mather: 1.	What, by department and agency, was the number of information personnel, including clerical staff, employed by the government prior to the establishment of Information Canada?
2.	What was the aggregate cost of such employment?
3.	What is the number of information personnel, including clerical staff, today?
4.	What is the aggregate cost of such employment?
5.	What is the number of Information Canada employees including clerical staff?
6.	What is the aggregate cost of such employment?
Return tabled.


PERSONNEL ENGAGED UNDER OPERATION LIFT IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Thomson: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all the field inspectors and personnel who were engaged in field inspections under Operation Lift in Saskatchewan?
2.	What are the names and addresses of all firms or individuals employed in aerial photography under Operation Lift in Saskatchewan?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion No. 187 is acceptable to the government.



AGREEMENT RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT OF LAST OAK PARK, SASKATCHEWAN

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 187-Mr. Burton:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan providing for the development of the Last Oak Park in the Crooked-Round Lakes region of southeastern Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion No. 95 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.

.

February 10, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion No. 95 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, POLLUTION CONTROL, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 95-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, or any agency or branch thereof, and the Pollution Control Board of the Province of British Columbia relating to any aspect of environmental control, pollution control, ecological matters, industrial effluents and similar matters since July 1, 1968.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to call Notices of Motions Nos. 4, 70, 106, 148 and 174?



REPORTS ON KAMLOOPS CONFERENCE OF INDIAN CHIEFS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 4-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all reports prepared by any employee of the Government of Canada or any agency, department or branch thereof and specifically, a Mr. Glynn and a Mr. Smith, who attended the Conference of Chiefs held in Kamloops, B.C. from November 17 to 22, 1969.
Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has requested a copy of reports prepared at the request of the Conference of Indian Chiefs during their meetings in Kamloops, British Columbia, from November 17 to 22, 1969.
This report was prepared for the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs and is in their hands. Since it contains remarks of a confidential nature we would prefer that any decision to release the report be made by the chiefs themselves. Under the circumstances I would hope that the hon. member for Skeena would withdraw his motion.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, that is quite contrary to the information that was given last session.


Mr. MacEachen:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



CONSULTANT REPORT REGARDING PLANNING FOR A LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT STUDY OF CITE DU HAVRE, 1968

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 70-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report undertaken for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation regarding the planning for a long-term development study of Cite du Havre in 1968, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the 1st session of this Parliament.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the consultant report on the planning of a long-term development study
Motions for Papers
of Cite du Havre has not yet been formally presented to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing, nor to the Minister of Transport. Officials have been asked to study the report and make recommendations to the government on it. The report is therefore at this point a confidential one. Consequently it would not be in the public interest to table it at this time, and I wonder if the hon. member would agree to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Skoberg:: Possibly we could allow it to stand until we see if it is still confidential after the cabinet sees it.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



MERCURY WATER POLLUTION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 106-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and the Chemical and Pulp and Paper Industry regarding mercury water pollution in Canada.
Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, mercury poisoning is a most serious matter. Nevertheless, we solicit the co-operation of the hon. member and ask him to withdraw his motion, since we have good reasons to apprehend less than spontaneous co-operation from the companies concerned, should we make such documents public.


Mr. Harding:: I would like to have it transferred for debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-WATER POLLUTION AND POLLUTION GUIDELINES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 148-Mr. Rose:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and pulp mills in British Columbia regarding the pollution of B.C. waters and the pollution guidelines of the Department.
Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, we would ask the hon. member to kindly withdraw his motion, considering that production of the papers mentioned therein could have very unfavourable effects on the present good relations between the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and the British Columbia pulp and paper mills.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Speaker, this is the answer I have received on numerous occasions, and my attitude is still the same. I request that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.

February 10, 1971
Motions for Papers



BULKLEY B ALLEY FOREST INDUSTRIES LTD.-CONTROL OVER WASTE FROM COMPANY'S PROPOSED MILL HOUSTON, B.C.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 174-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all plans and specifications received by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry from Bulkley Bailey Forest Industries Ltd., relating to the control over and treatment of the waste from that company's proposed pulp mill near Houston, B.C.
Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, the plans and specifications mentioned in that motion belong to the Bulkley Bailey Forest Industries Ltd. In my view, that is a valid reason for asking the hon. member to kindly withdraw his motion.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I think it is much more important that the people in the area know what is happening to their natural resources and their environment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate. Shall the remaining Notices of Motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning question No. 216 which was placed on the order paper on October 21 last. Two weeks ago I rose and asked that this question be answered but it has not been answered yet. It is a straightforward question affecting the Department of Supply and Services and the Department of National Defence.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have permission of the House to revert to motions to table the conclusions of the federal-provincial conference on the constitution?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
And the House having reverted to Motions:



CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table in the two official languages copies of the Statement
of Conclusions of the Federal-Provincial Conference on the Constitution which took place yesterday and the day before.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Speaker could the statement of conclusions that has just been tabled be made part of Hansard as they are of great interest to all hon. members?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: As an appendix.


Mr. Speaker:: It is suggested that this document be published as an appendix to Hansard. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of statement of conclusions see appendix A.]


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: No, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister clarify the matter of the documents he has just tabled in the House in view of the fact that the French reads as follows: La Conference se declare en accord avec cet objectif social et fondamental.
-whereas the English text, on page 8 of the document, reads as follows:
The Conference expressed its sympathy for this basic social objective.
I would ask the Prime Minister to specify whether the word "sympathy" is the equivalent of the word "accord" used in the French text.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, that question could be put by the hon. member during the oral question period.



WELFARE


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have the permission of the House to revert to motions. I gave an undertaking to an hon. member opposite that I would table the task force reports on a developmental approach to public assistance and one relative to the cost of public assistance.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carr Munro: I think I have described the nature of the documents and I now table these reports.


Mr. Baldwin:: Are you going to attach those to Hansard too?

February 10, 1971



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Did the minister advise the premiers at the conference yesterday that the government expects to make an announcement in the very near future about its intentions regarding the implementation of various proposals contained in the white paper on taxation, particularly the proposal to cancel the 21 per cent tax on the first $35,000 of profits and replace it with the full 50 per cent tax levy and the proposal to tax unrealized capital gains, so that the confusion which is causing businessmen across the country to withhold decisions to expand operations, thus contributing to unemployment, may be removed?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: That was a nice speech, Mr. Speaker, but the answer is no.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, did the minister then confine his offers of help to the provinces to the advice that they should raise their own taxes to fight unemployment which has been brought about largely by the mismanagement of the economy by the federal government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That, of course, is an argumentative supplementary and I would not think a question could be asked in those terms. The hon. member for Egmont.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Egmont has a supplementary question.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I put the question in an unantagonistic way?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Egmont and will return to the hon. member in a moment.



PRIORITY OF UNEMPLOYMENT OR INFLATION-MEASURES AGREED UPON BY FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS TO FIGHT UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's statement yesterday to the premiers that "The worst possible thing would be sudden inflation and a subsequent recession," has the government now dropped as its number one priority that which was indicated by the Prime Minister a few weeks ago, the fight against unemployment? If not, has the minister further measures to report from the conference yesterday, agreed upon by the federal and provincial governments in order to fight this number one priority, unemployment?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has correctly stated that our number one priority is to fight unemployment. In my submission I simply raised the problem that as the economy grows throughout this coming year, which everyone thinks it is going to do under the policies we have followed, we then have to worry about inflation and make sure we do not find ourselves going around in a circle so that we face inflation again next year.


Mr. Bell:: The Prime Minister says it does not exist.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask the Minister of Finance to answer the question I put a moment ago, whether or not unemployment or inflation is the number one priority. I should also like to know what consideration is being given to a number of specific suggestions made by the provincial representatives over the past few days, particularly with regard to special tax adjustments or incentives?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, that is a rather long question to answer. With respect to unemployment, this is our prime concern. In this country, however, we must also worry about getting into another inflationary spiral. I remember that about six months ago hon. members opposite were saying that inflation was terrible, and although I assured them it was coming to an end-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are getting into the field of debate at this point. Has the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings a supplementary?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As it is well known that the provincial premiers all pressed the government very hard for information about what it was doing with regard to unemployment and what assistance could be given by the federal government to the provincial governments, did the minister confine his efforts to help to the suggestion to them that they raise their own taxes?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I did not at any time suggest that they raise their own taxes.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, is the minister claiming that he was misquoted in the press, because that is exactly what the press reports said?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: I did not read those press reports.


George Harris Hees: That is what they said.


Edgar John Benson: I did not say that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: So the press is wrong again so far as the minister is concerned.


Edgar John Benson: They are.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might allow the hon. member who is seeking the floor a chance to ask his question.

February 10, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



REFERENCE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S SUBMISSION TO JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTION FOR REPORT ON PROPOSALS

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the communique he has just tabled. As some progress seems to have been made in reaching agreement about the procedures for patriating the constitution and devising an acceptable amending formula, is it the government's intention to send the federal government's submission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution in order that, hopefully, they may be able to bring down an interim report so that Parliament may be fully aware of the implications of these proposals?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the committee certainly has general terms of reference to study all the matters which were brought before the constitutional conference and which were the object of published white papers or position papers by the federal government. As the hon. member knows, the subjects covered yesterday were those subjects which had been listed in February, 1968, as being the object of the constitutional examination. Therefore, if the committee wants to look at these conclusions I am sure it will feel itself authorized to do so.



SPECIFIC PROPOSALS TO PREMIERS TO DEAL WITH UNEMPLOYMENT

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since in the communique just tabled it is said that the "First Ministers discussed the unemployment situation across Canada, and expressed their concern for the problems being encountered by many Canadians this winter," can the Prime Minister tell the House what specific proposals the federal government placed before the first ministers in order to assist the provinces in dealing with the problems of unemployment mentioned in the communique?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the federal and other governments expressed their concern about unemployment. Each government indicated the way in which it thought unemployment could be more appropriately countered. The federal Minister of Finance explained to that audience what the federal government had been doing and is doing to combat this very serious problem of unemployment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Apart from telling the provinces that if they need more money they should go out and borrow it, may I ask whether he indicated to the provinces that any additional funds would be available for housing or public works, or that additional assistance would be available to meet the very high welfare costs which they are now experiencing?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the House, and my hon. friend has no doubt heard me, that next year the federal government will be borrowing $2 billion to pour into the economy and that a large part of this will go into housing.



STATEMENT OF MR. BOURASSA ON GRANTS TO PROVINCES-DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN OTTAWA AND QUEBEC

Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion a question concerning a statement made by Mr. Bourassa last night at the end of the constitutional conference.
The premier of Quebec is reported to have said and I quote:
-that for the federal government to make loans instead of grants to the provinces as economic incentives, as was the case with the $150 million approved recently, was unacceptable since it meant double taxation for the citizens of the provinces concerned; and that we had initiated negotiations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may, before asking his question directly, refer briefly to a statement that was made, but I do not think that he may quote it in extensa as he apparently wants to do. Perhaps he could get to the question proper.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, my question is based on this statement to the effect that Premier Bourassa had opened negotiations to this effect with the federal government.
Can the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion say whether negotiations have been held in this respect and whether he intends to comply with this reasonable request from Mr. Bourassa?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that any negotiations had been held and before I venture to answer I shall read Mr. Bourassa's statement.


Georges-J. Valade: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
When the minister has read that statement, will he then inform the House and tell us whether he intends to agree to that request of Mr. Bourassa?


Jean Marchand: Yes. Perhaps.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister arising out of his answer a few moments ago. The Prime Minister stated that the Minister of Finance outlined to the provincial premiers what the federal government had been doing and intends to do about unemployment. Was this outline greeted with laughter or with tears?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
February 10, 1971



USE OF LOAN FUND BY PROVINCES

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Can the minister say whether the province of Saskatchewan or any other province has indicated it will not be using its share of the new loan fund announced in the budget during the current fiscal year?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the province of Manitoba has not. The hon. member mentioned the province of Saskatchewan. I think we have received a letter from that province indicating that they will not be using the funds, in which case they will be available to other provinces that may find themselves in need of them.



AGREEMENT ON PATRIATION AND AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION IF APPROVED BY PROVINCIAL CABINETS

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister arising out of the answer he gave with regard to the amending formula. Provided the provincial premiers get the approval of their cabinets, will there then be agreement on bringing home the constitution and on the formula for amending the constitution in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hope that something of that kind will obtain, Mr. Speaker. I do not know in which way the various premiers and prime ministers will want to prepare themselves for the Victoria meetings in June. I imagine it will be as the hon. member suggests, that they will get authority from their cabinets to look at these proposals. I imagine they will do that more readily after we have negotiated amongst ourselves a text spelling out what was agreed upon in broad general lines yesterday, and that with this text in mind the various premiers and prime ministers will go to Victoria in June to see whether or not they agree to it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As there now appears to be agreement, is the Prime Minister now considering the fact that the constitutional committee is travelling across the country, at a cost of thousands of dollars, looking into the same matter while the government and the premiers are making a deal apart from the committee? What is the purpose of the committee in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure the member cannot object to the federal government negotiating with the provincial governments. It is not the purpose of the parliamentary committee to embark upon bilateral or multi-lateral discussions with the various provincial authorities. It is the purpose of the committee, and I understand they are performing it very well-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -to explore in depth some of the proposals which have been discussed between the various levels of government and to hear from the Canadian public the various opinions and representations that they want to make on these positions which have been taken by various levels of government. I must say that I and
Inquiries of the Ministry
the other members at the conference felt that the work of the committee in past months has helped a great deal to impress upon all members of the conference the importance which the constitution has in the minds of the Canadian people and the urgency to achieve some results.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



SOCIAL SECURITY-DIFFERENCE OF VIEWS BETWEEN OTTAWA AND QUEBEC

Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister with regard to the sharing of rights between the federal government and the provinces, in particular Quebec.
Are the differences of opinion between Quebec and Ottawa fundamental, with regard to the social security program Quebec wants to set up, regardless of what might be done by the other provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, here is the position of the federal government: each province-this is stated specifically in the communique- is free, under the terms of the Constitution, to have the social security program that best suits the needs of its own citizens, within the limits of the jurisdiction it now has according to the Constitution.
Now, we went even further. We stated that one of the objectives of the federal government would be, as much as possible, to see to it that the federal policy, when applied in an area directly or indirectly related to social security, is co-ordinated as much as possible with the policy of the provinces.
In the next few months we shall discuss whether the social welfare and income security systems, at the level of the provinces and of the federal government, could be co-ordinated in such a way as to benefit the people-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Shefford would like to ask a supplementary question.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, by his reply, does the Prime Minister mean that the government intends to maintain its position with regard to social security programs, such as unemployment insurance which is the responsibility of the provinces, or will it agree to make funds available to the provinces so that the administration of family allowances, for instance, be part of established provincial programs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government considers that unemployment insurance comes under federal jurisdiction, not under provincial jurisdiction, as the hon. member has just said.
We also took the position that the right of the federal government to give money to the citizens directly, in the same manner as it has the right to take money from them through taxes, is a right that we could not give up.

February 10, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
However, we are quite anxious to develop in the whole country a social security system which, once again, will serve the citizens.
tEnglish]



SUBMISSION TO PARLIAMENT OF FINAL PROPOSAL TO AMEND CONSTITUTION

Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Prime Minister. Will he undertake that any final proposal for the amendment in Canada of the Canadian constitution will be submitted to Parliament for its approval?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the process which we would envisage. It is something to which I cannot commit all the other governments in Canada, but if there is accord on a text in detail in June the process would be, as stated in the communique, that we would ask for a resolution at the federal level in the normal fashion. I believe a resolution can only be obtained from the House, and on that occasion we would ask for a resolution supporting the government's approach which it would then, hypothetically, have agreed to in June.
I believe it would be the intention of the provinces to proceed in like fashion, although whether they would do it by way of resolution or statute I cannot say.



DISCUSSION OF INTERPROVINCIAL MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which also relates to the communique. As there has been some discussion about the constitution and unemployment, will the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether the problem in respect of barriers to interprovincial trade in agricultural products was on the agenda, was there a discussion in this regard with the various heads of the provinces, and what was the outcome of that discussion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this was on the agenda and I should be very surprised if it is not covered in the communique. It is covered under the title: "Canadian Interprovincial Marketing". We did discuss this at some length and we expressed the hope that Parliament would co-operate with the federal government to ensure swift passage of this legislation on marketing in order to permit us to introduce a bit of order into this whole process in Canada. We did express a veiled regret that the opposition had been so slow in co-operating in this regard.



HEALTH-NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN OTTAWA AND QUEBEC

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Joliette wish to ask a supplementary question?


Roch La Salle: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the outcome of the last federal-provincial conference and the social welfare proposals put forward by the Quebec Minister of Health, can the right hon. Prime Minister tell the House if the federal government is fully willing to negotiate before the next conference all the proposals made by the Quebec Minister of Health?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, some meetings have already been decided upon in the field of health and welfare, not only with Quebec authorities but with the authorities of the other provinces as well, and we have also indicated-as I have just stated -our desire is to co-ordinate the programs at the various levels as much as possible.
I think it is important to note, so that we do not allow the success of the constitutional conference to distract us from the fact that we have also proposed-and it seems that everyone wishes that it comes through-a way to amend the constitution, in order that social security and all other problems that will not be solved before June might be eventually settled within a constitution made in Canada, by Canadians and for Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I notice a number of hon. members rising. I am not sure how many wish to ask questions supplementary to those which have been asked on the matter of the constitutional discussions, but I would suggest that perhaps at an early moment we might move on to the consideration of other subjects. For the moment, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Charlevoix.



REPATRIATING OF CONSTITUTION-OFFICES OF GOVERNOR GENERAL AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS

Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the formula for repatriating the constitution, I believe it has been decided that if such a formula were accepted by the federal government and the provinces, a resolution would be passed requesting that all British legislation applying to Canada be repealed. Why should the posts of Governor General and Lieutenant Governors become exceptions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would consider the formula very closely, he will see that even these clauses could be amended eventually within the framework of Canadian constitution, provided the agreement of the federal government and of six out of ten provincial governments is first ascertained. There is nothing in the constitution, not even the post of Governor General, that could not be amended eventually with such an agreement as provided for in the repatriating formula.


Martial Asselin: Canada, we make an exception for the posts of Governor General and Lieutenant Governors?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I fear that we are somehow initiating a debate.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance in relation to his very interesting submission to the conference. Will he arrange to send a copy of these charts to each one of the unemployed so they will know that things are not really as bad as they seem?



PROVINCIAL UTILIZATION OF CREDIT TO OBTAIN CAPITAL

Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister.
Among the rights that we intend to put into the new constitution, regarding the powers of the provinces, will the federal government agree that the provinces may use their actual credit to create the funds required for generating public capital?



AGRICULTURE


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I should like to direct my question to any responsible minister or parliamentary secretary. Has a public tender call been made recently for the purchase of three million pounds of Canadian broilers for export to the Far East and, if so, will the minister investigate and provide information to the House as to whether or not this was truly an open tender call or whether it was designed to give a special advantage to producers in one province to the possible detriment of other producing areas?



PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS ON NEW AGREEMENT TO REPLACE INTERNATIONAL GRAINS ARRANGEMENT

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the report from the Geneva meeting of the major wheat trading nations that only the hollow shell of the International Grains Arrangement will survive, can he inform the House whether the Canadian delegation has had any success in respect of its proposals, such as the retention of the food aid program?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it would still be premature to comment. As the hon. member knows, this is an international meeting, and to my knowledge no official communique has been issued yet. There was a further meeting this morning concerning items on the agenda and it is now expected that a communique, a press conference or a release by the secretary will take place very soon. It may be possible at that point for me to go further in indicating to the House where the negotiations stand.


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in view of rumours to the effect that this conference may collapse without suitable agreements being arrived at, will the minister immediately fly to Geneva with the object in mind of lending all support possible to the bringing about of a successful conclusion to this very important conference?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to comment on the premise any further than I have already, but I may say that I have every confidence in our delegation at Geneva.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked a question in the absence of the Secretary of State in connection with a report concerning the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation having decided to get rid of non-Canadian accents. Is he in a position to report yet on the attitude of the CBC in this regard?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have read the question asked in my absence by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I forwarded the question to the CBC; I have not yet received any answer, but I know that it will be negative.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether or not the minister had decided to put out a white paper on the meaning of "Canadian accents" so that all will understand the meaning that the CBC has in mind.



AIR CANADA

[Stage Direction]
DISCUSSION OF EMPLOYEE LAY-OFFS WITH MINISTER_______

Thomas Miller Bell: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister report any further progress in his talks with Air Canada about a possible abatement of lay-offs of personnel?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: No,
Mr. Speaker, I have not had any further word other than
23786-64$

February 10, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
what I reported last Friday, but I will make additional inquiries and try to pass on the information as soon as I can.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is the minister aware that laid-off Air Canada personnel are being refused unemployment insurance because it is stated that they will be rehired?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I discussed this problem this morning. I have no tangible evidence of this being the case, and certainly I would be hard-pressed to believe that anybody laid off by Air Canada would be refused unemployment insurance, particularly on the strength of the rumour or possibility that these people may shortly be re-engaged by Air Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That may be a rumour from the Minister of Transport.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This would be a false premise and unfair to the workers, so I have asked the union whether they have any specific instances in mind and I will give them my personal attention.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister check with the Minister of Transport to ascertain whether there is going to be an abatement of these lay-offs? Surely some hope should be held out to these people.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Have the Quebec Provincial Police destroyed or given back to the 435 individuals the photographs and fingerprints illegally obtained during the term of the War Measures Act, or has the minister instituted any procedures for their return?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minisier of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I wrote to the Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec asking what he intends to do about this matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. Since only 62 people were charged and 435 were released who were apparently arrested illegally, and as most of the 62 have been charged under the Criminal Code, is it the intention of the minister to withdraw the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act as it is not applicable at this time?


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


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, you draw a little faster than we people from Calgary. The Minister of Justice was about to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: From this distance this was not obvious to the Chair.



COMPENSATION TO PEOPLE DETAINED AND RELEASED WITHOUT CHARGE

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I would not want to prevent the Minister of Justice from answering the hon. member for Calgary North; when he answers my question perhaps he will answer his also. Can the minister indicate whether, in conversations with the provincial Minister of Justice or with his own colleagues, consideration is being given to compensating those who, because of having been detained over a period of time, have suffered economic or other forms of hardship and are still in a situation in which they need to be compensated in some tangible way for being detained unnecessarily and without any charges being laid?


John Napier Turner: I have already indicated to the House that the Minister of Justice of Quebec has said publicly that if the ombudsman of the province of Quebec, to whom this type of complaint has been directed, is able to indicate to the Minister of Justice of Quebec that there has been economic loss, then those complaints will be seriously considered by the minister.



ONTARIO ADDICTION RESEARCH FOUNDATION MARIJUANA RESEARCH PROJECT-PARTICIPATION BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Frank Howard: I should like to ask the
Minister of National Health and Welfare a question relating to a program of the Ontario Addiction Research Foundation to pay a number of young gentlemen to smoke marijuana. Is the federal government or the minister's department participating in that program?


An hon. Member:: They are all on pot over there.


John Carr Munro: It may be a valid research project to determine the effects of marijuana by the Ontario Addiction Research Foundation which has possibly one of the finest reputations in this connection in Canada. As to whether it has been in any way funded by the department, I cannot say precisely and I will try to answer the question tomorrow.


Frank Howard: I did not ask whether it was being funded by the department. I asked the minister whether or not his department was participating with the Ontario Addiction Research Foundation in that program. I ask the minister to look into the question of whether or not the marijuana that is being used was grown under ideal conditions by the federal Food and Drugs Directorate specifically for this purpose and these tests, and whether or not this is another of those harebrained crackpot ideas that have no relevance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

February 10, 1971



BROADCASTING, FILMS AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS REQUEST FOR MEETING OF STANDING COMMITTEE

John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that this is the 73rd day of the third session of this Parliament, would he consult with his colleague, the President of the Privy Council, to arrange a meeting of the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts to look into certain problems of the CBC and CRTC, youth reports and so on, so the committee can get on with its work?


Gérard Pelletier: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that my department's estimates will soon be referred to the committee. The latter will at that time be able to consider the questions about which the hon. member is concerned.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Has he had discussions with the management of Air Canada with a view to improving air service between Montreal, Val-d'Or and Rouyn-Noranda in northwestern Quebec?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions about the particular routes to which the hon. member referred as well as on the whole issue of regional air policy as it relates to Air Canada. But of course it is up to Air Canada in the first instance, or the regional carrier, to apply for a change in routes. To my knowledge, no such formal application has been made to the Canadian Transport Commission as of now.



MANPOWER


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: My question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. As the manpower office in Edmonton is operating like a football team with no coach or quarterback, would the minister please state when he hopes to change the local manager, and if he cannot find a capable man would he consider a capable woman?
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



PROGRAM &quot;SESAME STREET&quot;-CLASSIFICATION OF CONTENT-EDUCATIONAL VALUE

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: My question is for the
Secretary of State. Has the minister had an opportunity to see the CBC television program "Sesame Street"? Would he classify it as United States content and does he think it is a worth-while educational program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is inviting the minister to express an opinion. I think that in those terms the question is not in order.


Paul Yewchuk: May I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker.


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



TRANSPORT


Mr. Jack Murfa (Lisgar):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister say whether any representations have been made to his department on behalf of western Canadian grain producers with regard to the adverse effects these producers will suffer if tolls are increased on the Canadian section of the international seaway?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: there is any such interest in western Canada from which I have not heard, I shall be much surprised. I certainly have.



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF MONEY PRIOR TO SPRING SEEDING

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: May I ask the
minister in charge of the Wheat Board whether, since the outline of the minister's proposed grain stabilization program has now been before the public since October of last year, and since many farmers in western Canada are now making plans for spring seeding operations, he can now tell the House how soon legislation will be brought in to implement all or part of these proposals?


Otto Emil Lang: Our discussions with the producers and other interested persons are continuing. We hope with regard particularly to those matters in the program which are relevant to spring planting that we shall be able to make some announcements before very long. As hon. members know, there is in the proposals some indication of hope

February 10, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
for an announcement before March 1, and it is still my hope we shall be able to keep to that date.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Since the white paper involves at least tentatively the distribution of $100 million to farmers during the current crop year, can the minister inform the House whether all or part of this money will be distributed to farmers prior to seeding?


Otto Emil Lang: I doubt that the money involved will be available prior to seeding. This, of course, is part of the whole question of the proposals and their implementation. We are conscious, of course, of the desirability of having this money in the hands of the grain producers as soon as possible, and I hope that as the legislation comes forward it may secure speedy passage so that this can be accomplished.



SUGGESTED AMENDMENT OF REPAYMENT FORMULA UNDER PRAIRIE GRAIN ADVANCE PAYMENTS ACT

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Having regard to the critical shortage of cash among western grain producers and because of the current low prices received for grain, would the minister give serious consideration to amending the repayment formula and having it fixed at a more manageable rate in connection with the repayment of advances under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, thus enabling producers to have a better opportunity to assemble sufficient cash for spring operations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It would seem to me the hon. member's question is in fact a submission.



POLLUTION


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry arising from his reply to an earlier question with respect to the pollution threat at the Churchill Forest Industries project. The minister said he intended to meet with the provincial minister concerned. Now that he has done so, is he satisfied that pollution control is adequate and, if not, what action is he taking?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: We are not satisfied that the measures which are being taken are adequate as presently planned. However, our officials are meeting and discussing this problem in greater detail with the province to ensure that the new quality standards will be met at the new mill in the north.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Is Ottawa represented on a continuing basis on the clean environment committee in Manitoba?


John (Jack) Davis: No, that is a provincial committee.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the possibility of an extremely difficult economic situation arising as a result of the labour dispute at Flin Flon, Manitoba, can the minister say whether he or his officials have any plans at the present time to approach the two parties concerned in an attempt to have them arrive at a satisfactory solution?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The strike at Flin Flon has serious repercussions on that community because of the importance of the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company. We are watching the situation very carefully but as yet we have received no official request from either of the parties concerned for the mediation services of the Department of Labour.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member and to all hon. members, since we are reaching the end of the question period, that for the next two or three minutes perhaps we should forgo supplementaries. The hon. member for Churchill has referred to an important matter and perhaps he might be given an opportunity to ask supplementaries later on or tomorrow.



WELFARE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, knowing his great interest in this subject. Would he tell us how soon we may expect to see daycare centres established?


John Carr Munro: This question was discussed at some length with the welfare ministers and they were urged to submit cost-sharing projects without delay under the Canada Assistance Plan. I hope many projects will be forthcoming.



FISHERIES


Robert Jardine McCleave: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Has the hon. gentleman now evolved proposals to ease the capital debt position of those engaged in the swordfish industry which is being closed down because of mercury pollution?
February 10, 1971


John (Jack) Davis: There have been intensive discussions in Nova Scotia with the swordfish industry concerning alternative sources of employment for fishermen and helpful recommendations are being awaited.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on a subject which I raised yesterday. In his absence I believe someone on the other side took notice of it. Having in mind the action of the British Columbia Telephone Company in seeking a substantial increase in telephone rates, which, if granted, would result in increased living costs for many in British Columbia, would the minister and his department concern themselves with this situation, perhaps to the extent of making representations on behalf of the consumers to the federal agency to which the B.C. Telephone Company is applying?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The rates are regulated by the Canadian Transport Commission which I trust would take into account in its deliberations the interest of the consumers.



CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
During the recent federal-provincial conference, has any of the provincial premiers raised the question of the right of provinces to self-determination?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is not the custom for a government to make known the positions adopted by other governments during an "in camera" conference. I believe the rule is for each government to express its own position, the communique mentioning only such discussions as have had agreement of all governments. The hon. member will have to direct his question to the premiers of the different provinces.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I should like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion
Inquiries of the Ministry
whether cabinet approval has been given to the establishment of a federal-provincial development corporation in Newfoundland and whether similar corporations are planned for Quebec and New Brunswick?


Jean Marchand: The answer to the first question is no. As far as New Brunswick is concerned, I think we are about to announce the formation of a corporation.



MANPOWER


Randolph Harding: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Since the regional director of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in British Columbia has indicated that as of January 23, 1971, 105,400 residents, or 12 per cent of the British Columbia labour force, were unemployed or had applied for coverage, has the minister checked this figure, which is an actual count of those seeking work and is approximately 50 per cent higher than the figure issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member has a valid point of order. I realize the hon. member asked a question, and perhaps as we proceeded a little too quickly he did not have an opportunity to get a reply. The minister may remember the question and perhaps he might answer it now.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to certain figures which I would be glad to have him verify with my colleague the Minister of Labour, if that is what he is interested in. Of course we have had discussions before on the fact that there are available different reports of figures measuring different factors in relation to the unemployment situation, so that is nothing new.



FISHERIES


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Will the minister advise the House whether the delegation from his department which was in Moscow last month has advised him that negotiations are possible with the Russians on the over-exploitation of fishery resources in the North Atlantic?


John (Jack) Davis: have received no specific recommendation from that com-

February 10, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Andras
mittee. We are continuing to explore every possibility for negotiations on this important subject with the U.S.S.R.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will recognize that we have gone beyond the question period. I invited the cooperation of hon. members to forgo supplementary questions, and perhaps we should call orders of the day now.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, January 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson, that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of thinking in the country now, and I believe it is taking hold quite broadly, that economic conditions are beginning to show signs of upward trends in North America. The signs seem to be becoming more positive all the time. One of these indicators is the expected pace of home building this year or, rather, the pace and the nature of home building in 1971. Nobody can deny that both are strong and healthy this year. Therefore, I think we might begin to recognize that quite a few things are going right in Canada too. Our expectations are that there will be 220,000 housing starts in Canada in 1971-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: -which is well over the previous record of 210,000 starts in 1969. Moreover, the emphasis of the government on homes for the low in income, where the chief needs really are, will be continued. So, Mr. Speaker, there will be an accelerated and buoyant housing program in Canada this year. This accelerated program will pump substantially more jobs and more spending into the Canadian economy and its effects will be felt quickly at a time when jobs are the Canadian priority. Jobs are the absolute Canadian priority right now, Mr. Speaker, and caring for and response to the most felt needs of today mark what we must do.
Equally important, when the people most in need of our concern are those who must worry most about decent shelter as well as jobs, a very large part of the building activity will be directed to modest and low-income housing. I am talking about home ownership for low to middle-income families, public housing and low rental housing. This is our thrust. Its benefits will reach importantly into Canadian society over the long haul and in trying to deal with today's most urgent needs. These prospects are reflected in the 1971 capital budget of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which I now wish to table in the House. This budget is the federal government's main
strategic instrument for affecting the housing conditions of Canada and for helping to shape urban form and process. Because we have followed a target of at least one million new homes over the five years 1970 to 1974, increasing federal assistance when the private market slackened as it did last year, we have kept house production and mortgage flow on a more even keel. We are beginning to find ways to avoid the old boom and bust cycles.
This year's total budget is $942 million, represented by $902 million plus a previously announced $40 million, against the original 1970 budget of $854 million. It will assist in the production of about 220,000 starts during the year. There will be an expected 165,000 starts by a private market that is resurging as mortgage rates drop and mortgage money becomes significantly easier, and frankly, to my encouragement, as the lending institutions appear to be accepting their obligation to the social needs of housing as well as to profit opportunities. The remaining 55,000 housing units will be financed by CMHC in co-operation with our partners in the provinces and other sponsors. In addition, of course, to the $942 million capital commitment, the CMHC expenditure budget in 1971 is $67 million, as will appear in the estimates to be tabled shortly.
I would like to explore for a minute the economic impact of the residential building in store for this year. New housing construction has one of the highest labour contents of any major economic activity. Each new dwelling unit provides at least two man year's of employment on site and in the production of building materials. This is direct employment, which is only part of the story. In 1970, in spite of the forecasts of doom and disaster there were 190,000 units started, the third best year in Canada's history, despite the economic conditions that slowed down private market activity. The federal government played a major part in keeping the pace active last year. In August, as hon. members may remember, we extended the original 1970 CMHC capital budget by $240 million, the great bulk of which went to low-income housing.
In 1971, as I have said, the prospect is for 220,000 starts. In addition, from last year there are 148,000 dwellings under construction and to be completed during this year. In direct employment alone these starts and completions will mean a minimum increase of 60,000 man year's of employment in housing construction in 1971. The beauty is that house building work is turned on quickly. We have made estimates which show that from the approval of a loan to start of construction, to the employment of people, can be as little as 40 days and certainly under 90 days. The job-providing impact will be even higher in the first half of the year than for the whole year because of the work on dwellings already started. Of course, there are many indirect employment benefits as well. To cite a relatively small but important one, the residential building increase this year implies additional employment of about 2,000 man-years simply because people, when they move into new homes, spend about $1,600 per home on new furniture, appliances, drapes and the like Then further up the scale, this year's housing

February 10, 1971

program is equivalent to building a city of close to a million people. That bespeaks new or expanded streets, sewers, schools, shopping centres and other facilities and adds another 6,000 or more new jobs.
The biggest economic impact, one generally dispersed throughout the economy, comes from the spending of income by workers who would otherwise be unemployed. That provides another 70,000 or 80,000 man-years of new jobs. In all, Mr. Speaker, the new jobs created directly and indirectly simply by the increase in residential building activity will total 140,000 to 150,000 man-years. That is a very substantial part of the unemployment picture. Therefore, housing construction in 1971, in spite of all the derisive and almost wishful comments from the opposition, will greatly aid Canada's employment picture.


An hon. Member:: We told you that two years ago.


Robert Knight Andras: The pace of construction has a vibrant look this year, for several reasons. The federal government will directly support lower priced housing substantially again this year, almost to the exclusion of support for higher cost housing so far as the CMHC budget is concerned. The low to medium priced homes are not only where the need is but, as builders are rapidly learning, where the market is. The higher priced market is in many places overbuilt and demand is soft. The government, to provide housing but also to spur employment is pressing its housing program now. More and cheaper money is becoming available for private mortgages. I am in continuing contact with major lenders and major pension trusts who are showing signs of responding. They have given me strong indications that they are prepared to put large amounts of money into modest income housing.


An hon. Member:: Could I ask a question?


Robert Knight Andras: Mortgage rates may well drop somewhat further this year. We are reaching this more optimistic position partly because the federal government set the stage for it.


An hon. Member:: Would you allow a question?


Robert Knight Andras: I have mentioned the additional $240 million last August, funds which went mainly to the building of most income housing. Also, at the beginning of last year I reserved $200 million of CMHC mortgage funds for a special program to seek innovative ways to build homes for owning and renting by families earning as little as $4,000 a year. The plan worked well. Commitments under this program were made for just under
15,000	units with some carryover still to come. That had to be something of a crash program for we were forced to gear it to starts made during 1970 since the private market was slipping. But it provided excellent experience and lessons in new forms of tenure and land use, new methods of financing, imaginative mixes of commercial with residential building so that the commercial would help pay for the residential.
The Budget-Mr. Andras
Favourable National Housing Act lending terms of 71 per cent and 8 per cent were provided for the building of low-rental housing projects public housing, student housing, sewage treatment and land assembly projects. I am happy to announce, Mr. Speaker, that these special interest rates from today are lowered further, both to 75 per cent.
Innovation-the essence of our approach last year in the $200 million program-the search for and the incentives for new ways to build good housing cheaper, will continue to be sponsored by the government this year. For 1971, $558 million has been reserved for the provision of housing for low-income Canadians through sections 35 and 16 of the National Housing Act. Of this, $253 million has been allocated for provincial housing programs. Another $295 million is allocated for section 16 lending under the National Housing Act. Under this section non-profit organizations, governments, entrepreneurs and sponsor groups can evolve special housing projects for elderly people, families of low income and other disadvantaged persons. The relatively low interest charges make relatively low rents possible.
These funds will produce 38,000 housing units designed specifically for the low-income market. Thus, in the three years 1969-71 commitments will have been made for
113,000	such dwelling units. The measure of that progress is that only 82,000 such units were committed in all of Canada's time up to 1969. This is not to say I am satisfied or complacent, but it is a positive indication of progress.
In addition to the specifically designed low-income units, Mr. Speaker, we have increasingly been devoting funds under section 40 of the National Housing Act to low-income application. The allocation of funds for section 40 this year is $172 million. It is directed at new building in resource towns and small urban centres and also at the rehabilitation and/or purchase of existing homes anywhere in Canada. In addition to those self-contained housing units, the new budget-$789 million all told-will finance 14 450-bed hostels for elderly persons and students.
While the 1971 budget continues to give primary emphasis to housing concerns, it also provides $153 million for urban infrastructure. That includes $87 million for sewage treatment projects, $43 million for land assembly and $20 million previously committed to urban renewal. I would be the last to claim that the housing activities of a nation-still less of one government-could be adequately summed up in a listing or programs. I do believe, however, that following the important activities of my predecessor and his 1968-69 task force on housing and urban affairs-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: -and during the almost two years that I have held responsibility at the federal level for housing, major steps have been taken. A new importance is attached, countrywide, to the housing needs of Canadians, and not just by numbers. The climate or relations among all levels of government in focusing on these needs has perceptibly improved. In dramatically shifting

February 10, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Andras
emphasis to the housing needs of low-income Canadians, priorities have been clearly defined. More Canadians will either have to swallow their rhetoric on poverty or get in with us and support our efforts to provide more housing for people on low income.
I also urge the provinces and the municipalities to do more of that which only they can do. Let them make use of the national building code, which no other level of government can force upon them, for instance. Let provincial governments review the recommendations of the 1968-69 task force on housing. Nearly all the recommendations that were purely federal in scope have been implemented. It is true that some requiring provincial, municipal or private sector response have not been acted upon. We must all act in concert as much as possible. We recognize more than ever before that housing and all the complex environment of urban living is interspliced. like the structure of an atom, with many other issues such as jobs, poverty, pollution, transportation, education-the whole range of contemporary matters.
We at the federal level are seeking every possible method of defining real need wherever it exists and trying to meet those needs, whether it is a study of the housing needs of Metis people in Alberta or Saskatchewan, the disadvantaged in the territories or the very special requirements, of the old people. The fact is that these needs should never be treated as simple, single and isolated one from the other. Therefore, no one level of government is capable of coping in isolation from the others. As our cities and city systems grow larger, and there is every indication that that is the way we are heading, that factor of interdependence will become ever more the case.
These complexities are what should be discussed and, who knows, resolved by a much closer working together of the various levels of government. We are starting such a process with the provinces. We hope that preliminary talks now going on will result in a trilevel-federal, provincial and municipal-meeting on urban problems and priorities later this year. These discussions, Mr. Speaker, can well influence National Housing Act programs as we move toward careful and deliberate efforts to order together our urban lives.
If I may sum up, we forecast 220,000 starts this year. We forecast an increase, as a result of this increase in starts, of between 140,000 and 150,000 man-years of work. That means more jobs, which are needed most of all in this country today. The budget will be $942 million. The capital budget of CMHC will continue to emphasize the need for us to work with the private sector in the provision of housing in the low-income sector where there is a great need. May I have the permission of the House to table the capital budget for 1971 of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in both official languages?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister, before tabling that document, would permit a question. Having listened
to the minister's impassioned appeal to the provinces and other bodies to get behind the housing program, may I ask him why the Manitoba government, which submitted proposals for a $55 million public housing project, has just been informed by CMHC that because of the unavailability of sufficient funds this project is being reduced to $31 million, which is a reduction of 40 per cent? In view of the minister's appeal to the provinces to get busy, it seems to me that this is not the best way to encourage them to support public housing and thereby increase employment.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the optimist sees the doughnut and the pessimist sees the hole. I would have been delighted to have been able to give Manitoba the exact sums asked for, because they are embarked on a sophisticated five-year planning program, which we encourage. We are giving them three times as much as we gave them last year. Notwithstanding the $942 million budget, we had to make some allocations. Most provinces have asked for more than we can give them out of that budget. It was ever thus. I share the hon. member's concern that there are certain constraints within the budget. It is, nevertheless, very, very satisfactory.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) is seeking permission to ask the minister a question. Is it agreed that the hon. member shall have permission to ask a question before the hon. minister resumes his seat?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have raised this question with the minister from time to time. It has to do with increased federal assistance for the rehabilitation of existing housing stocks. The minister mentioned this matter in his speech today. In view of the great importance of a vigorous rehabilitation of the housing program to help us meet the unemployment crisis, can the minister say whether vastly expanded action in this field is contemplated by the government?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention-and my reference to this matter was deliberate in the statement I made-to emphasize that the rehabilitation approach will be escalated over anything we have done in the past.


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing (Mr. Andras). I only wish that I could share his optimism about the state of the Canadian economy. I have very serious doubts whether that optimism is shared by the hundreds of thousands of unemployed people who are walking the streets of Canada today. He suggested that the interest rate on housing loans will be lowered to 7J per cent. I think that is a very worthwhile objective. As a matter of fact, it should have been done many years ago. But what is the point of lowering the interest rate to

February 10, 1971

7j per cent when hundreds of thousands of people cannot afford to borrow the money and cannot afford to pay any interest, let alone interest at 7\ per cent?
Today, Mr. Speaker, we face a real crisis in Canada so far as unemployment is concerned. It is a crisis which in many respects is as serious as the one we faced in the so-called hungry thirties; a crisis which is growing worse every month and which is causing an awful lot of misery for thousands of Canadian families; a crisis the blame for which can be laid entirely at the feet of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Melvin James McQuaid: The blame can be laid at the feet of a government led by a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who has said to the Canadian people, "If you don't like it, lump it."


Gerald William Baldwin: Shame.


Melvin James McQuaid: That, apparently, is the government's attitude to many people who find themselves unemployed. This is a government that is led by a man who just a few days ago is reported to have used disgusting and disgraceful language to a group of people who were only exercising their democratic right to parade on Parliament Hill and make known their grievances to the people and to the government. It is a government, Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of a Prime Minister who is obviously losing the confidence and respect of the Canadian people. If he were doing his duty, I suggest that he ought to resign and let the people of Canada determine whether they are satisfied that this government is doing all it can in the interests of our unemployed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Melvin James McQuaid: Our massive unemployment today, Mr. Speaker, was not created by the people of Canada, nor was it created by labour. It was created by this government, the government which created tight money, the government which pushed interest rates sky high, the government which over the years has increased taxes and is continuing to increase them, the government which has limited the supply of money and has placed a very severe restraint on federal spending. Yes, it has been caused by the government. One would expect that the Prime Minister and his government would accept responsibility for this. Apparently, however, they do not wish to do so.


Martial Asselin: I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is listening.


Melvin James McQuaid: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) said in this House not long ago that everything is on the up and up and that everything will soon iron itself out. I ask him to tell that to the almost 600,000 people who are today unemployed and walking the streets, not knowing what to do.


Alfred Dryden Hales: They are told to live on $30 a week.
The Budget-Mr. McQuaid


Melvin James McQuaid: I ask him to tell that to the men and women who are out of work and whose families are suffering. This is through no fault of their own but, rather, to the lack of attention by this government to the problems of unemployment. There may be no crisis for the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, but there is a crisis for hundreds of thousands of Canadians and their families. Figures bear out the fact that the year 1970 was one of general slowdown in the Canadian economy. This slowdown was brought about by the fiscal and monetary policies of this government. We were told that these policies were adopted to fight the so-called inflationary trend. The result is that we are now suffering a slow growth in our economy. We are also suffering a very high rate of unemployment.
According to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 155,000 more people were unemployed in December, 1970, than in December 1969. This represents an increase in unemployment of 40 per cent in one year. It is a disgraceful situation. Yet the government is not prepared to do anything substantial about it. In December, 1970, there were
62,000	more people unemployed than in the month of November. This represents an increase, in one month, of 14 per cent. But the government is apparently not prepared to do anything about it. The rate of unemployment in this country is more critical than in the worst years of the depression.
A very large proportion of the unemployed are the youngest people in the labour market. Almost 20 per cent of the registered unemployed are 19 years of age or younger. I suggest it is a very serious matter when 20 per cent of our young people are introduced into an atmosphere of forced idleness. Many of them do not want to be unemployed, but there isn't anything for them to do. At one time only the unskilled were unemployed. That is not the situation today. Many of our better educated people are unemployed. There are unemployed people walking the streets today with university degrees as high as doctorates. They are unable to find work. The unemployment situation in Canada is serious.
I wish to direct the attention of hon. members to the very serious situation in my area, Atlantic Canada. There has been a very serious increase in unemployment in that area. The number of unemployed increased from 42,000 in November to 54,000 in December, an increase of 12,000 in one month. That is the largest monthly increase of unemployment in the Atlantic provinces since 1956. The government has done very little about the increase in unemployment in the past 14 years. The rate increased from 6.3 per cent in November to 8.3 per cent in December. The rate in that area was the highest in Canada, with the possible exception of the province of Quebec. The latest figures available for my province of Prince Edward Island are for March 31, 1970. At that time there were 8,959 people receiving social assistance. Many of these almost 9,000 people were willing but unable to find work. In order to support themselves and their families they had to lower themselves to the point where they had to ask the government for social assistance. That is

February 10, 1971
The Budget-Mr. McQuaid
the highest figure of any province with the exception of Newfoundland. In March, 1970, 16.2 per cent of the people of Newfoundland were receiving social assistance. In Prince Edward Island it was 8.1 per cent; Nova Scotia, 6.2 per cent; New Brunswick, 8.1 per cent. The average in the Atlantic area at that time was 9.6 per cent. Almost 10 per cent of the people received social assistance: they had no other means of supporting themselves or their families.
The situation with regard to social welfare in Canada is very serious. Statistics show that in the field of social welfare Canada is one of the highest per capita spenders in the world. The answer to our problem is not social welfare. I am convinced that if our spending in the social welfare field continues as it has in the past we will very soon be faced with a rude awakening. It is the responsibility of the government, indeed Parliament, to ensure that everyone who is willing to work has the opportunity to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Melvin James McQuaid: The people of Canada only ask for the opportunity to earn a decent living for themselves and their families. To date this government has not done anything to provide that opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Melvin James McQuaid: We do not quarrel with the fact that welfare assistance is a necessity for the sick and the unemployable. However, it is time we devised a formula to provide employment for those who are capable of working and willing to work. There are hundreds of thousands of such people today in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Melvin James McQuaid: There is a serious problem in Prince Edward Island. As hon. members know, we depend largely on agriculture to earn a living. There is a serious problem in so far as agriculture is concerned. I wish to quote some figures to make clear how serious this problem is. In 1930 the farm population in Prince Edward Island was 55,000. That figure represented 63 per cent of our population. By 1960, 30 years later, the farm population was reduced to 31,000, 28.1 per cent of our total population. Since 1960 it has continued to decline at a very alarming rate. In 1931 there were 12,865 occupied farms in our province. Today there are less than 5,000, a decrease of almost 8,000.
Unfortunately, the situation is not improving. As Your Honour knows, we depend very largely on our potato industry and that industry at this moment is being dealt a serious blow up, I would say, a small group of general store operators in Toronto who are apparently doing their best to promote the sale of Ontario potatoes. Let me give hon. members an example of how this is being brought about. Yesterday Prince Edward Island farmers were receiving 31 cents for a 10-pound bag of potatoes delivered in Toronto. These potatoes were selling on the Toronto market for 50 cents; that is to say, at a profit of
19 cents to the retailer. Ontario farmers were receiving 30 cents for a 10-pound bag of Ontario potatoes, only one cent less than the P.E.I. farmers were receiving, and Ontario potatoes were selling on the Toronto market for 39 cents. In other words, retailers were making 19 cents on P.E.I. potatoes, when they could sell them, though they were prepared to sell Ontario potatoes at a profit of only nine cents for a ten-pound bag.
This, of course, puts P.E.I. potatoes at a disadvantage despite their exceptional quality, because people will not pay 50 cents for a 10-pound bag of potatoes if they can buy reasonably good potatoes for 39 cents. As a result, our potato farmers estimate they will suffer a loss of some $5 million this year. I cannot help wondering whether the price of P.E.I. potatoes is not being deliberately pushed up in Ontario in order to promote the sale of Ontario potatoes. I do not know whether there is anything the government can do about it-I am not laying this at the feet of the government-but I do hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) will take notice of what is happening, and if the federal government can do anything to overcome this injustice I hope that action will be taken as soon as possible; otherwise, P.E.I. farmers will not be able to stay in business and the number of unemployed will be increased.


Mr. Osier:: Would the hon. member mind answering a question? While I agree with many of the things he has said about the need to end regional disparity, does he consider he is being completely fair when he blames all unemployment problems on the present government? I have looked at the charts and find that the percentage of unemployed in the United States is even greater. And our federal government has nothing to do with what is happening in the United States; there is a Conservative administration there.


Melvin James McQuaid: I am blaming this government for not doing enough to overcome the unemployment problem as it exists in Canada. The necessary concrete measures are not being taken on behalf of people who are looking for work and who are able to work.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, for a new member, his maiden speech in the House is perhaps an unforgettable occasion and I think that all members who went through this before me would agree that they have been deeply moved by this experience.
It is certainly gratifying for me to represent my constituency of Labelle in Parliament, but it also vests me with the responsibility for measuring up to my predecessor, the hon. Leo Cadieux, who fulfilled his duties in this House with remarkable zest. I wish to pay due tribute to him and to renew the testimony of admiration from his constituents of Labelle who have so often taken pride in the way he discharged his duties as Minister of National Defence and we are sure that he will brilliantly represent our country in Paris.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank all the members for the very warm reception they gave me in the House after my

February 10, 1971

election on November 16 last. I have been reassured by their liberal welcome and I wish that all members of the opposition who applauded on this occasion will not soon regret it.
May I also congratulate the hon. members for Fron-tenac and Lisgar (Messrs. Corriveau and Murta) who were brought to the House by the same by-election and may I wish them both a cloudless and fruitful career.
I will take advantage of a well-established tradition, on the occasion of a new member's first speech in the debate on the motion of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), in directing my comments especially to my constituents in Labelle with the hope that all Canadians who believe in dialogue will also be listening. May I be allowed to express my gratitude for their so generous support, their loyalty to my leader and my party, loyalty they so eloquently expressed on November 16 and which can be found in my province and everywhere else in Canada.
Despite the successful result I obtained in this by-election on account of the great popularity of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I do not forget the obligations and responsibilities I accepted.

Mr. Speaker, the riding I have the privilege of representing in this House, and which was so ably represented by my predecessor, is composed of 50 municipalities ranging in terms of population from the highly industrialized city of St. Jerome to a large number of renowned summer and winter resorts in the heart of the Laurentian mountains and small villages and settlements six miles south of Mont Laurier. It is, as closely as one can find, an accurate demographic reflection of the province of Quebec on a smaller scale.
Our population is composed of proud Quebeckers who are loyal and deeply-rooted Canadians. I can advance this assertion without hesitation, having known a vast number of them, having been brought up in the area and having lived in that part of the province for most of my life. We are the descendants of settlers who came to that region at the very beginning, settlers who plowed the land with courage, perseverance and an expectation which was not always rewarded in accordance with the full measure of their efforts.
Our history is, in a way, similar to that of the first Canadians who explored and developed this great land in which various ethnic groups are represented. In fact, most of the elements to be found in the Canadian mosaic, the largest proportion being French-speaking, all have, with their particular talent and ability, contributed in large measure to the development of our region. Together we have adjusted to the accelerated evolution of our time, although for all of us the first and utmost priority is still economics.
If Canada is rich on account of the diversity of its population, my constituency is largely endowed in this regard and shares such wealth with the rest of this country.
The Budget-Mr. Dupras
An important part of the constituency of Labelle, Mr. Speaker, enjoys a long-standing tourist tradition known throughout this country, on account of its great beauty, its numerous lakes full of various species of fish and the majestic Laurentian mountains.
We believe our constituency is the most visited in this country, by our fellow citizens of other provinces as well as by our neighbours to the South. The best known tourist establishments in the province are in our constituency, a few miles north of Montreal.
The construction of the new Montreal airport and the economic upsurge that should follow for the whole area compel us to think of what the future has in store for us. We must ensure that our existing facilities will be able to meet the soaring demand from our citizens who are anxious to enjoy the countryside and come closer to nature and who increasingly insist that all those natural beauties which are so many features of our region be preserved and made accessible to them.
As economic requirements force us to alter our environment, those elements become more important to our mental health, to our return to wilderness and to an environment not spoiled by man.
Mr. Speaker, it seems that this ambition is being voiced by influential people in this region who want a major part of the territory to be turned into a genuine national park similar to those existing throughout the country. This undertaking will have a dual impact: the creation of permanent jobs for skilled people already dedicated to tourism and proud of its tradition and consequent high repute and, for the most densily populated area of North America, the provision of a holiday resort second to none. This ambitious project is winning more and more supporters in all quarters, and it is becoming more and more difficult to resist the trend.
In our area, close to holiday resorts, there is a huge territory well suited to that kind of development, involving no danger of ecological unbalance and remarkable for its climate, topography and wildlife.
The tourist industry, one of the main industries in the province, in which we have specialised and acquired a reputation, seems now to offer more security than many others which, on account of changing times, are no longer important sources of employment. We must pave the way in that field and protect this source of foreign currency. We should be prepared to meet the needs of the people in our area who want well-paid work and job security.
During the last few years, we have faced rather serious employment difficulties caused mainly by an important migration of farm hands and labourers from the North of the riding who believed that they could find greater employment opportunities in Saint-Jerome. That exodus has had the effect of greatly increasing the unemployment rate.
As all other Canadians, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned with the yearly increase in seasonal unemployment. That situation is ascribable to many factors which hon. members of the opposition have not identified. Reports indicate especially that agriculture in Canada has been losing
24,000	jobs a year since 1955. That is mainly due to a

February 10, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Dupras
greater availability of capital, to automation and to a greater efficiency.
Unemployment is caused both by fluctuations in demand, as severe here as in the countries where we export, as well as by the work reduction factor in production, technological changes, labour mobility, depletion of natural resources in a given area, changes in management and ownership of undertakings which leads to the disappearance of some manufacturers.
We must also ask ourselves whether the unions, with their requests for ever increasing wages for fewer and fewer employees, do not contribute to a large extent to reducing the labour force. I suspect that disproportionate union demands force the employers to excessive efficiency, which leads to smaller staffs, which are better paid, I agree, but which are more exposed to unemployment. Would it not be better if the unions would rather have more men paid decent wages than fewer workers drawing higher pay?
To that one can add the continuous increase in the number of multiple jobs. That is too often the case with people holding two or more jobs, the wife and husband sharing the financial burden of the family with the income each of them has. In Canada we once had the highest employment increase among industrialized countries, but in spite of this increase, in 1970, as everyone knows, the unemployment rate reached 5.9 per cent compared to 4.7 in 1969. According to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, in 1961 the national unemployment rate was 7.2 per cent, and 9.3 in my province. Of course, unemployment must be the concern of everyone, because of its implications on the social structure. Also, the people of my province who exert themselves in opposing any measure conducive to the right atmosphere for creating the famous 100,000 jobs, should be despised by the unemployed. We must ask if those people see, beyond statistical data, the human anguish, the solitude, the alienation and even often the desperation of the human beings those figures represent. We hope they understand that people on welfare are permanently branded with indignity.
I am thinking about those who, for obscure reasons, oppose the construction of the East-West expressway in Montreal, those who by their loud statements perpetuate this atmosphere of uncertainty to which is due the crisis of October last, brought about over the last few years by the verbal violence of petty politicians who remind us of the so-called "conquerors of the useless". There is also this too common attitude whereby employment is a right rather than an elementary duty which fulfils and glorifies human beings.
tEnglish]
Of course, those, fanatical people with dreamer's eyes who desire change for the amusement they find in pulling things to bits make pandemonium and call it progress. Society is satiated with quacks and their quick cure-alls, the like of them being responsible for many ills in Europe of yesteryear. These conflicts, insecurities and frustrations which are the difficult legacy of the Canadian youth have at least one positive aspect: they are in a
sense the growing pains of evolving cultures. These very difficulties provide the impetus for a constructive search for new cultural forms. Today, social institutions are extremely complex and no single approach provides a complete understanding of them. Countless young people find themselves confused. They see an apparent disintegration of hitherto solidly established codes and traditions. They sense that their elders are bewildered and perplexed.
No one has ever been young before in such a world. Both young and old wonder what brought about the present state of things, and the young have an itch for activity that will make the future brighter. The great majority of young people show an awareness of what is going on and a mature understanding.
The crisis in human affairs that confronts every generation anew is never as new as it seems to that generation. There were equally spectacular political, economic and social changes and equally showy transformations of dress and manners in other ages, some long past. People talk about new generations as though they were separate waves, but they are not: they flow into each other and each new generation has many good qualities and thoughts to exchange as it overlaps and merges with the previous one. Every period of life has its problems and its solutions, and the benefits which flow from these solutions are available only to those who are pliable. Someone once said that old or young, we have to keep flexible in living our lives, not flexible as to principles or as to things of eternal truth but flexible in our reactions to environment, to people and places, to the going and coming of friends and family and to changing situations and circumstances.

The Canadian dream, Mr. Speaker, is the establishment of a democratic society within which men know how to govern themselves and are free to achieve self-improvement to the full extent that their capabilities and energy will permit, with the objective to promote well-being in the population, according to similar principles of decency, freedom and equality.
When looking at our gigantic country and its numerous development possibilities, we sometimes get the impression that we are midgets playing on a stage designed for titans. This could perhaps explain the attitude of some of my fellow-citizens who have thrown in the towel because they do not believe they can meet the challenge.
Our Canadian mosaic is not an obstacle, but a positive factor in the task of building a great nation.
Civilized people accept, Mr. Speaker, that their neighbors have opinions which differ from theirs. They are free from this mental disease, the symptoms of which are total intolerance toward the views of other people.
Not only is it important to believe passionately in democracy, but also to practise it earnestly. In this society of ours, the individual may, by participating in government and by being educated, realize more than ever his role as a citizen.

February 10, 1971

People cannot live happily in isolation. That is why Jewish prayers insist on plural rather than singular forms, on community rather than on individuality.
Where questions of substance are concerned, Mr. Speaker, we may say that most Canadians pay respect to the same values. They believe in a social order in which individuals are more important than objects, in which ideas are more important than slogans, in which individuals are judged on their personal values and in which men may express their opinions under the protection of the law.
The Canadian way of life offers one method of having intelligence, good will and individual efforts work towards solutions to the problems. Success depends on whether we may expect that the ordinary citizen will act to the best of his knowledge, that he will do his duty and that he will perform it intelligently.
Then, as people say on our coasts, the rising tide will get all boats afloat.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Maurice Dupras: Certainly.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wish first to commend the hon. member for his first speech in the House.
In his remarks, he mentioned, among those who create verbal difficulties for a job-creating economic organization, those who objected to the proposed East-West expressway in Montreal. If I have interpreted his remarks faithfully, can the hon. member tell us whether his criticisms were aimed at the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), the Liberal member for Hochelaga, who was the first, as cabinet minister, to object to this proposal?


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, my remarks were not aimed at anybody in particular. I do not recall referring to anyone or naming anyone. I meant all those who object to this proposal being implemented as soon as possible. [EngZish]


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the new member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) on his maiden speech. It was an excellent speech and I am certain that much thought went into it. It was idealistic and intelligent. I am certain that members of the House who heard him share my sentiments. His comments were positive and optimistic.
Unfortunately, I have to turn now to a matter which I cannot greet with optimism and confidence. I find myself somewhat limited in expressing my sincere anger and unhappiness at the current state of our unemployment picture. I cannot express myself well because all the best adjectives have already been used by previous speakers. We have heard words like "criminal", "immoral", "tragic", "insensitive", "technocratic", "vicious" and "callous". All these have been hurled at the government, and I think rightly so. These word weapons are the only weapons at the disposal of the opposition to get the government to respond to the crisis of unemployment facing 700,000 Canadians.
The Budget-Mr. Rose
I know that these words fall on deaf ears. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) told us that he has heard them all before. The wives, children and families of 700,000 Canadians are facing a desperate crisis this winter, and 23 per cent of all those unemployed Canadians happen to live in my province of British Columbia. The other day when the Minister of Finance was speaking about his budget he accused the opposition of attempting to make political capital out of the tragedy of this issue. What does he expect Members of Parliament in the opposition to do-sit silently by and accept it all? If one thinks of it in more concrete terms than the abstract figure of 700,000 people, you realize that this is roughly the population of Vancouver, which is Canada's third largest city. Here we have a metropolis of people who are bitter, idle, deprived and degraded, not by chance, not by acts of God-unless you consider the cabinet a many-headed god-but by the deliberate, premeditated, inhuman economic policies of this government. You do not have to use the words of the opposition to document this. The classic remark made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) at the time we debated this matter previously testifies to this fact. The minister said, "It takes courage for a government to create unemployment." What a line that is!
We speak today rather belatedly on this issue, not because we did not know it all before, not that we did not know it was coming but because last fall suddenly we had problems in Canada and people were in no frame of mind to listen seriously to this issue. We were preoccupied with the problem in Quebec. People might have listened to unemployment predictions if they themselves had been unemployed, but the average Canadian was not yet touched by it. He was touched, however, by the FLQ crisis. I happen to believe that the FLQ crisis, the so-called apprehended insurrection, was blown up out of all proportion by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for reasons best known to himself, his buddies, his confidants. Our Prime Minister is experienced in show biz. Just as he did last fall in the Quebec crisis situation, I would now like him to use his talents to give a lead in arousing all Canadians to the far more pernicious and widespread personal crisis of no work and push this to its true perspective, because in my view in the long run joblessness is far more serious. There is no point in the Minister of Finance or any other minister trying to cover it up or to explain it away with some sort of sophisticated sophistry. As hon. members on all sides of the House know, unemployment is very real and widespread. It reaches into every hamlet, village and city throughout the land, with tremendous waste and leaving a legacy of despair that will last for years to come. You do not get over being out of work in a hurry.
I do not believe there is a family in Canada that has not a relative or friend untouched by the grim hand of unemployment. There is the husband who has received his notice from Air Canada and then fails to get unemployment insurance. There is the son who dedicated himself to get an education or a trade and who now finds there is no job for his particular skill. Some people's sons

February 10, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Rose
have even had to move in with their parents. They are the lucky ones. Some parents do not have room for them in their houses. What about the merchant who has to lay off a long term employee or who has to close his business because customers do not appear at his door in sufficient number? What about the farmer, unskilled, chased off the land, adrift in an urban environment because of the enclosure policies with respect to agriculture devised by the government? The same applies to the fishing industry.
Ask the guy lining up at the unemployment insurance wicket for welfare, or at the soup kitchen, who is to blame. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) found out when he visited Vancouver, the answer is that the worker's misfortune is due to politicians. An unemployed man no longer believes his problems are his own fault, nor does he distinguish between members of the government and members of the opposition-again something that the Leader of the Opposition found out. He lumps us all together. He no longer believes in the conventional mythology of the Protestant ethic that being unemployed is his own fault, not the government's, and is due to some failure in his own personality. He brands all politicians as a bunch of useless, parasitic individuals. And if opposition members follow the advice of the Minister of Finance and fail to speak out, knowing our words are going to fall on deaf ears because of the government's obstinacy, then we will be parasites. It is our job to talk about this matter and no amount of advice from the Minister of Finance will prevent us from doing it.
The government has taken all the credit for retarding inflation. It seems to me only just that if it wants to bask in the euphoria of having accomplished its deflation goal, it must also accept the major responsibility for causing much of the current unemployment. I do not see how the government can have it both ways. This "no work" crisis was brought about as a direct result of the government's exclusive preoccupation for the last 2J years with balanced budgets and inflation-fighting.
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance entertained us the other afternoon. He blamed the problem of unemployment on Canada's severe winters. He blamed it on labour disputes. He forgot about the labour disputes in previous years, and the winters too. It may be convenient for him to do that. He blamed it on almost anything except on what in fact has been its major cause, the deliberate economic slowdown and austerity measures which have been high priority items of the government. The government cannot escape this and we are not going to let it escape it. The government did it. It did it deliberately. It knew full well the risk, in its policies of unemployment, of human redundancy.
A while back the Prime Minister was so committed to the government's economic policy that he was prepared to see unemployment go to 6 per cent. Well, he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. In December, unemployment across Canada was 6.6 per cent on a seasonally adjusted basis and predictions were that things would become worse and not better. We expect the announcement tomorrow of another seasonally adjusted figure. Perhaps
that figure will be lower, but the total number of unemployed will go up. Just ask the guy who is out of work how it feels to be seasonally adjusted! We can hardly blame him for being seasonally maladjusted. He becomes unhappy every winter.
The Minister of Finance claims that Canada has been outstanding in the western world in providing more jobs per capita. I cannot quarrel with his figures-but tell that to the guy in the soup-kitchen. Tell that to the municipalities I represent, where welfare costs have tripled over the past three years. The other day I received in the mail the welfare officer's report to the Langley municipal council, an area which I represent. I quote:
The chairman presented this report which showed the percentage of population in receipt of welfare for the month of December, 1970, was 9.95 per cent. This compares with 9.34 per cent in November and 7.64 per cent in December, 1969.
The figure now has increased by roughly 2 per cent. This is not dealing with costs: it deals with the number of people applying for welfare. I am sure this sad story is repeated through all the nine municipalities I represent. Some yeras ago the winter works program was withdrawn. We were told it would not be missed because millions of dollars would be devoted to manpower training and retraining. Now a lot of municipalities would like winter works programs reinstated because they are starved for funds for capital projects. My province is fortunate; it is to get 23 per cent of the $150 million loan fund recently announced. In fact, as was said today, we may get even more if other provinces do not fully use their share. But, Mr. Speaker, we must be fair about this matter. I am always fair, impartial and non-political when dealing with matters such as this and I point out that the tripling welfare costs in B.C. cannot be laid entirely at the door of the federal government.
By a stroke of a pen, three years ago the B.C. government, by changing a formula, doubled the cost of welfare to municipalities. Until then they were required to pick up 10 per cent of the welfare costs; but that was increased to 20 per cent. Now in Mr. Bennett's most recent budget that has been cut by 5 per cent. Municipalities will have to pick up only 15 per cent of the cost. I imagine he will receive great applause all around for that-but it is like the old story of the man who kept hitting himself on the head because it felt so good when he stopped. I think the policies of the federal government can be blamed for at least half of this increase which the municipalities must meet. As I have said, capital projects have been delayed in the municipalities. People are beginning to make dark mutterings about work-for-welfare proposals because they are sick and tired of bearing excessive costs which they cannot meet, and they see little relief for the future. All the people of Canada in one way or other pay for the waste of manpower. But what about the things we need? We need pollution abatement, roads, housing, sewers-so it is not that there is no need for full employment. It is simply that there is no government will to produce full employment, and even if there were such a will there are no programs to put it into action.

February 10, 1971

Mr. Speaker, apart from the Prime Minister there are three men who should be responsible for doing something about the unemployment crisis. They are the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and, of course, the Minister of Labour. Why don't they have the courage to admit that they have bungled the job? Why do they gloss over it and say that things are going to look great in the future? If they had the courage to admit their mistakes and start afresh, everybody would respect them. They are only human. I truly believe that the Minister of Finance is human. Sometimes I wonder, but really I am convinced he is. Sometimes we on this side of the House make mistakes and I am sure we would allow the Minister of Finance the same human characteristics. I am certain that if Canadians were asked to make sacrifices for something positive, they would be prepared to do so. But they are not prepared to accept the continuous sophistry of the flim-flam men. If these three ministers will not admit that they have bungled or that they disagree with the policies put forward by the Prime Minister or the government, policies that have caused so much grief and hardship, and if they continue to stumble around under orders, doing things against their better judgment, they are little more than the reincarnation of the Three Stooges and should be regarded as such.
Mr. Speaker, other members have pointed out that in December there were 218,000 young people out of work. Most of them were looking for work. There is a relatively recent phenomenon, however, of the voluntarily unemployed youth. I do not know whether this stems from discouragement, but there are the check-outs, the dropouts, the goof-offs-those young people who are so cynical or discouraged about our system that they spend their time examining their navals, freeing their minds or using any other excuse for indolence. They are a serious problem. I think we should be talking about this phenomenon but I do not think this is the time to do it. However, we will have to face the reasons behind their alienation in the near future. The goof-offs are a relatively new phenomenon and I think they are in the minority.
What kind of things might we do for these young unemployed, Mr. Speaker? The first thing we should look at is the opportunity for them to make social and economic contributions in Canada's northland if programs were designed to employ them there. Anyone interested in what is happening in other countries might be interested in reading Farley Mowat's new book about Siberia. Changes must be made in the manpower retraining regulations to allow these young unemployed access to the retraining programs even if they have not been part of the work force for the required three years. That is a relatively simple amendment which would solve a lot of problems. I know there are some flaws in this proposal because we are accustomed to thinking that only those who lack skills are unemployed. This is not true. A previous speaker mentioned the plight of some professional and trades people. If it is suggested that the unemployed are skilled people, the reaction will be: What is the point of training more plumbers and electricians just
The Budget-Mr. Rose
to be unemployed at a time when we already have unemployed plumbers and electricians?
Some long-range planning is essential on the question of the overdevelopment of skills. Canada is somewhat like some of the emerging nations who while desperately needing the skills of their own people force those who have been trained to emigrate and seek a market for their skills elsewhere because their country is not sufficiently developed to employ them gainfully. Canada's difficulties in this area stem from the fact that we have had an historic dependence on imported skills and have thus neglected training people here. In effect, we stole our doctors, teachers and other skilled people from other countries. We should have been training these people ourselves. And now that we are, there is currently limited opportunity for them to be gainfully employed. Hopefully, this is a temporary situation but I would not bet on it.
Besides greater manpower access, Mr. Speaker, maybe we should face the fact that for a long time to come we will have a large number of young people unable to find employment. The Minister of Labour admitted that there would be some instability in our labour-intensive industries while they automated and retooled in order to compete with low-cost imports. He mentioned textiles in particular. If the industry cannot meet the competition now and has to automate, it will not use the number of workers it once did. Muscle power is no longer saleable, and maybe for a long time to come we will have to face the bleak prospect of underemployed youth. What are we going to do about it? First of all, we might face the prospect squarely and begin to shorten the labour lifetime of the average man. There are many more pleasant things to do, Mr. Speaker, than to spend 45 years locked to the treadmill of an unrewarding job. Why is it necessary for men to spend 45 years performing work in order to eat, raise their families and then die? Surely there is more to life than this. But for many people there is not.
I was intrigued by the recent United Auto Workers contract proposal of "30 and out". This suggestion would help young and middle-aged people alike and certainly it would be popular. The suggestion was this: Can't we arrange our affairs so that a man can complete his labour from age 20 to 50 or 25 to 55 and then be retired at three-quarters of his salary? More men would be willing to retire earlier if it did not mean facing severe financial hardship. There are a lot of pleasant things to do before a man dies after the age of 55 when he has raised his children and discharged his responsibility. I talked this idea over recently-it is not a radical one because the armed forces and the RCMP have done this sort of thing for years-with a friend of mine who is a railroader. His wife works because he cannot provide for their five children on his salary alone. He said that most of the guys who go to work with him are going through the motions waiting for retirement. They are fulfilling their obligations and they would jump at the chance of early retirement. I asked: Is the price of packing it in worth a criminal reduction in income? My friend went on to say that he would buy a camper and travel, thus helping tourism and, incidentally, allowing himself and his wife

February 10, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Rose
the opportunity of enjoying life a little before they are too old.
I do not see why we have not considered something like this much more seriously. If we can arrange things so that we can retire a Member of Parliament after six years with $3,690 a year, surely to God we can do the same thing for the average guy after 30 years on the job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: I think that would be logical. A security constable aged 55 in the House of Commons said to me that he would retire tomorrow if he could obtain three-quarters of his salary. I ask, why cannot we do this sort of thing? It would bring opportunities and benefits to our young people. We do not do anything for them now, Mr. Speaker. If we could give them increased opportunities they could be employed and build their future with confidence. It is no joke for them to be forced into retirement at the age of 55. What is the good of that?
I am no economist, Mr. Speaker, nor do I pretend to be one. No economist is required to tell the government of the despair and desperation encountered by many people today. The government may not like our talking about the staggering proportion of our idle work force, but the age of obedience disappeared with the coming of the age of aquarius and people will not remain silent and accept certain conditions any more. Confrontation is never far from their minds. Do not expect the unemployed to remain deferential if conditions do not improve markedly, and soon. If we do not act soon, Mr. Speaker, it would come as no surprise to me if violence were to erupt across the land. Some of that violence, I am afraid, may make the FLQ crisis look like a Sunday school picnic.
In addition to the suggestions I have brought forward, may I reiterate some of my leader's suggestions brought forward the other day. We do not want to make political capital out of the tragedy of unemployment. Hopefully, however, the government will listen to some of our suggestions. We think that the 3 per cent surcharge on income tax ought to be dropped. This surcharge is being perpetuated and very soon our people will think of it as a permanent tax: it will just be there. Also, what about inviting the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing (Mr. Andras) to use his influence for the dropping of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials? I know how costly that would be in terms of the projections that the Minister of Finance has made, but if this could be done at least for senior citizens' housing it would be greatly appreciated. If you dropped the tax you could build them 11 per cent larger accommodations for the same money. The minister in charge of housing today said that it is planned to build 38,000 public housing units. Our party supports that concept. Our people need public housing units. Yet that need shows something else: it shows that our economy is in such desperate straits that many people are being forced into low-cost public housing units because they have no hope of buying houses of their own.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mark Willson Rose: I thank hon. members, Mr. Speaker. I will do my best to conclude my remarks as quickly as possible. I had been making some suggestions and I had mentioned housing. That some of these public housing units have been most helpful is beyond question. Nevertheless, under existing loan arrangements the loan is repayable over 50 years, and as a result of interest rates the cost of these projects is tripled. These high costs also impose a severe strain on the budget of the societies concerned, the result being that those societies collect from their tenants far greater rents than would be absolutely necessary if the interest rates were lowered. The rents now are often greater than most tenants are able to pay comfortably. If we got rid of interest rates with respect to public housing units and senior citizens' housing units, we could lower rents. At present it is only the favoured few who are accommodated in senior citizens' housing. Many of the older people in our cities live in slums or under appalling conditions. As I say, only a favoured few are accommodated in senior citizens' housing. Also, why cannot we consider increasing amounts paid by way of unemployment insurance and do that now? There is talk that we are to do it in April, but why could we not do it now?
In these times when more than 3 per cent of our people are unemployed and when such unemployment seems to be part and parcel of government policy, why can we not assist municipalities by paying them 65 per cent of their welfare costs instead of the traditional 50 per cent? After all, the municipalities did not invoke this policy, the federal government did. The federal government has responsibility but it is the municipalities that must grapple with this problem. That is all that I have to say at this moment, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether my remarks will make any difference. Hopefully, somebody is listening. Perhaps this is a dialogue of the deaf, but we must speak on these matters. If we appear to be making political capital out of them, perhaps that is the name of the game.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, on December 3 last, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) stated in the House with vigour and optimism his economic forecasts for Canada.
That was over two months ago already and nobody has caught a glimpse yet of the improvement that the minister said was coming. The economy remains stagnant, it staggers more and more and the most eloquent proof of it is the insoluble unemployment problem. Everybody talks about it, but nothing changes. This government seems to have been most successful in increasing the unemployment rate as a result of its epic struggle against inflation.
[Mr. Rose.i
February 10, 1971

He has now more difficulties in suppressing what he has himself brought on.
Mr. Speaker, these are unavoidable consequences of a government which fight theoretical enemies first instead of considering in a very concrete manner the true well-fare of the human being. It is not in the mathematical feats of the Minister of Finance that solutions are to be found but in reverting entirely to the true monetary concepts, those that give money its actual role which is to serve citizens by promoting production and distribution of goods.
All along his budget speech, the minister did not fail to emphasize how the budgeted expenditures would act as incentives for the economy.
The amount of $54 million allocated to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, he said, and I quote:
.. .will, as well, give an immediate and direct stimulus to the economy, the benefits of which will spread quickly right across the country.
He added that "the $150 million granted to the provinces will have the same result."
He therefore agrees with the principle of fighting the stagnation of the economy and even stimulating it by resorting to an increase in the purchasing power. That is the very advice we have given the government all along. Naturally, the economy needs that valuable and essential motor which is the purchasing power. Each citizen, having more money, spends more. All want to improve their lot; a greater need for products makes itself felt. Therefore industries wake up, organize themselves to fill the demand, hence the increase in jobs. That is simple, and we do not understand why the government does not implement the solutions which we advocate.
Against all logics, and even against sheer common sense, the natural and instinctive theories of Social Credit are rejected without considering and implementing them. A continued floundering in the obscure labyrinth of the present financial system is deemed preferable.
1 wish to quote a passage from the minister's speech, which illustrates this mathematical struggle:
A responsible government which is operating on a realistic basis has to be concerned about the total size of its net borrowing requirements. We have to guard against creating too rapid an expansion of the money supply, that is to say we have to guard against another encounter with the second obstacle to a rise in living standards ... a renewed surge of prices. The borrowing needs of the government must be covered by a combination of sales of securities to the banking system and to the public.
In a few years, when at long last monetary reform has been achieved, such words will appear naive. One will wonder how supposedly sensible people could tolerate such absurdities. They will say that the old campaigner was above all an expert in bankruptcy.
Mr. Speaker, the efforts made by the government in order to eliminate that famous problem of unemployment, the subsidies granted through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in order to put new life
The Budget-Mr. Matte
into industry, all this of course deserves our support especially when housing projects are being encouraged. We quite agree and we wish that this policy will actually enable more Canadians to enjoy the advantages inherent in home ownership.
We are therefore quite glad about the achievements in this field but there are still a few small gaps which I would like to point out to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing (Mr. Andras). Earlier today, he entertained us about some splendid housing projects; however, these projects are somewhat minimized by the fact that they are not generalized enough.
No doubt a community as important as Montreal may have more pressing needs than others for housing but, to build them, the city must be able to borrow at lower interest rates.
Of course, we understand that. We also understand that a locality such as Quebec City must also have these possibilities. But I do not agree anymore when the same advantages are denied to regions whose needs are as high if not higher than those I just mentioned.
For instance, God only knows how the region of Trois-Rivieres-Shawinigan-Grand'Mere, in brief the whole Saint-Maurice Valley, needs, as do Montreal and Quebec City, a true economic incentive such as housing. It is, therefore, necessary that this gap be bridged immediately and not in the near future and that the home building industry in the Saint-Maurice Valley be offered lower interest rates comparable to those elsewhere in the country.
Mr. Speaker, I know that grants have been made at a lower rate of interest for building apartment houses. Of course it is for houses to let, with apartments to let.
But Mr. Speaker, if some individuals are willing to invest tremendous amounts of money to promote one-family housing, this is as important-if not more-as promoting construction of low rent apartments. For this is a material ideal well understandable on the part of young families and even of all families, I think. Such an ideal, namely to have a house of their own, to feel really at home, is normal but it will materialize only if the terms are such that people may buy those houses.
Now when people are ready to invest so as to provide houses of that kind for workers with an income ranging from $4,000 to $5,000, I believe that requires all the attention of the minister responsible for housing, and he should give unreserved support to builders and would-be investors, in order to help the worker with an average or less than average salary, so that he may also have a house of his own.
This is the gap I wanted to outline in this housing program, but again I wish to repeat that I support the government measure.
I also support the drive shown by the minister responsible for housing and I hope he will throw himself with even more vigour and dynamism in implementing his policy to increase construction in this country.

February 10, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Matte
The unemployment problem is being set forth in every detail by the whole community. The issue is so serious that, not long ago, the Quebec Minister of Labour even suggested that it could bring about revolution in some parts of the country before long.
Unfortunately, this may well be true and this is why we should absolutely pool our resources to come up with a real solution to this problem. It is a well-known fact that solutions are limited within our present fiscal and economic system. There are not many solutions. But if We seriously consider the possibility of bringing about jasic change in our fiscal and monetary principles, we shall reach a final, not a temporary solution.
For instance, when technological progress and automation are forcing a great number of workers out of their job, should we conclude that it is necessary and essential to steer clear of progress and give priority to manpower over automation? If we keep within our present economic concepts, we finally come to this nonsensical situation where the extent of technological progress and automation is linked to the necessity of maintaining a given number of workers in a given industry. What happens next? Inflation, unavoidably. Then production costs go up accordingly. This is why we should now consider progress in a completely different perspective.
With enough ingeniosity, and thanks to his God-given intellectual capacities, man will find out a way to produce more with less manpower; we should be grateful to Providence and the genius of man. But since machinery is replacing the arms of man, why should the profits earned by machinery not be distributed to men?
Mr. Speaker, this principle that, in their usual language, Creditistes call a distribution of the purchasing power, of dividends, would if it were followed give us the possibility of eliminating unemployment, because we are in a dead-end street.
Must we spurn modern technology in order to have full employment, or change the system? If we are smart enough to replace ten men by a machine operated by only one worker, let us distribute the financial benefits brought about by this conversion to those ten workers. There is a normal way to consider life. And until these fundamental principles are applied, Mr. Speaker, I fear that a genuine solution will never be found. All the more since the present unemployment rate, which is given by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, is far from representing the actual unemployment rate, if one considers that the samplings which are made in order to identify this unemployment rate may not be adequate, if one considers that a good many unemployed do not bother to register anywhere, either because they know that they cannot qualify for unemployment benefits, so they do not register, or because they know that it is useless to inquire for a job at the Manpower Centre.
But where are we going to find and count these unemployed? The rate that is given is in my opinion well under the actual rate, especially as it is recognized that there are now from 500,000 to 600,000 unemployed people in Canada. Taking into account the fact that a good many are not accounted for in the statistics, I would say then
that there must be at present, in Canada between 800 and
900,000	unemployed and since each unemployed person has the responsibility of at least another person, it may be said that more than 2,000,000 people are directly affected by this plague called unemployment.
And when one has been living for the last couple of years through this idiotic fight unleashed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and based on an increase in unemployment as a means to combat the inflationary balloon, one knows what it is all about. And today, a cure is being sought for this disease which has now become just about incurable.
Nevertheless, we are still optimistic and we are prepared to offer our full and complete co-operation to the government so that by its action it may effectively fight unemployment and in this way help workers and all those in need to live a better life, even more so when we consider that in a land of plenty such as ours, it is absolutely shameful and still even more disheartening to have to starve in the midst of unparalleled plenty.


Mr. Tom H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond-Della):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in the budget debate is prompted by the failure of this Parliament to provide sufficient financial resources to deal with one of the most dangerous threats to our environment. I refer to solid waste and the problem of its disposal. The growing piles of garbage in this country have a potential for harm even greater than the pollution of our air and water. It is true that during the life of this Parliament we have dealt at some length with the question of the pollution of our air and water, but we have not yet come to grips with the problem I am discussing today. Perhaps the present order of priorities was inevitable since the attention focussed on the belching smoke from municipal dumps and incinerators, and water quality research into the effects of land fill, first prompted some of the concern felt today with regard to the disposal of solid waste.
The matter to which I am directing attention has been brought before the House twice within the last year by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) by way of private member's motion and I would like to commend that member for his foresight and perseverance. The motion proposed by the hon. member called upon the government to initiate a national research and development program in respect of methods of proper and economic solid waste disposal, including studies directed to the conservation of natural resources by reducing the amount of waste and unsalvageable materials and recovering and utilizing potential resources in solid waste and-I think this is especially important

to provide technical and financial assistance to provincial and municipal governments and multigovernmental agencies in the planning, development and conduct of solid waste disposal programs. I believe that such a program should be funded by the federal government through the soon-to-be-created department of the environment.
(Mr. Matte.]
February 10, 1971

It has been argued that this is basically an urban problem. Strictly speaking, this is not true because a formal definition of the term "solid waste" would include mineral and agricultural waste. These two categories account for roughly 90 per cent of the solid waste produced in this country and this waste is usually found in the rural and less developed areas. The other 10 per cent which is made up of residential, commercial, institutional and industrial waste represents perhaps the most serious problem in that it is concentrated in our few heavily populated urban areas. Everywhere people live and work, solid waste builds up and most Canadians live and work in a few urban centres. Surveys show that 1,000 pounds of solid waste are produced annually for every man, woman and child in Canada. This figure is climbing each year, largely because of an improving standard of living.


Gerald William Baldwin: How about cabinet waste?


Thomas Henry Goode: Combine this fact with the prediction that by the year 2000 about 90 per cent of Canadians will live in urban areas and it is easy to see that we have quite a problem on our hands-a problem that will not go away just because we do not have the intergovernmental apparatus to deal with it. We have solved these problems before and we can do it again. In fact, we must do it again. The costs to city and regional governments for solid waste disposal continue to mount sharply. Part of the increase in cost is, naturally, a result of the growth to which I have referred. But other factors have contributed to this increase. One of these factors is the increased cost of collection resulting in large part from very necessary salary increases for traditionally low-paid sanitation workers. It is estimated that up to 80 per cent of funds spent on solid waste management goes into the collection and hauling of the waste to its final destination. Yet even with the expenditure of such a large percentage of the waste management budget on collection, we still have not advanced substantially from the days when a horse-drawn cart was the means of rubbish removal. We have simply replaced the horse with an internal combustion engine.
Another factor in the escalating cost of solid waste management has been an increase in capital cost expenditures as progressive local officials discover the need for new and improved modes of disposal of solid waste. They are finding that the old, open dump method of handling waste is not meeting the needs and higher standards of today. Yet it is disappointing to note that by far the greatest percentage of collected municipal solid waste is still disposed of in this manner.
There are a number of major disposal techniques that have been used in North America. These generally come under one of four headings: land disposal, incineration, composting and ocean disposal. Land disposal can mean anything from the worst open dumps to the most efficient sanitary landfill operation. I wish I could say that the day of the open dump was over, but as I have just indicated this is far from the case. A rat-infested, stinking heap of garbage in a gully all too often still passes for land disposal in parts of the country. On the other hand, a properly run, sanitary landfill can ultimately result in the
The Budget-Mr. Goode
creation of parkland, golf courses and other public facilities. Such landfill techniques have been extensively and successfully employed by municipalities in the greater Vancouver area.
However, problems can arise. For example, in humid climates there is a tendency for contaminated ground water immediately under the landfill to be flushed into adjacent water bodies, creating a potential pollution hazard.
An even more basic problem is encountered in trying to secure suitable landfill sites: land in and around our major urban centres is scarce and costly. Homeowners object to such facilities near built-up areas. Ecologists, quite rightly, stress the dangers involved in even the best of such schemes. Even municipalities and districts which have set aside large areas for sanitary landfill eventually realize that in doing so they have not provided a longterm solution: they have merely shifted the problem along by 10 or 20 years to the time when the landfill is completed.
The second disposal technique is incineration. This method, properly utilized, has very attractive side benefits. Among these benefits can be heat recovery to produce electric power or steam. For instance, I am informed that the newest Montreal incinerator produces steam which services most of the buildings in its immediate area. In the United States, the Combustion Power Company of Palo Alto, California, is developing a flui-dized-bed incinerator which utilizes solid waste, burned at high pressure, to produce hot gases which power a turbine driving an electric generator. It is anticipated that this incinerator will produce about 15,000 kilowatts of electric power every day while in the process of burning 400 tons of municipal waste. Experts claim that municipal solid waste constitutes a fuel with a heating value equal to approximately one-third that of good grade coal, about 5,000 British thermal units per pound. There are, however, certain drawbacks to the incineration technique. These include the polluting properties of the by-products and the fact that after most existing incineration processes, roughly 25 per cent of the waste by weight remains in the form of ashes, glass and metals.
Composting is the third disposal technique. In this process inorganic substances are separated from the organic in mixed refuse and the latter is converted to a peat-like organic fertilizer and soil conditioner. This process has proved popular in European cities such as Madrid which composts 200 tons daily, and Moscow which in recent years opened a 600-ton per day plant. The process has never been very popular in North America because the compost product tends not to be of uniform quality and because the garbage and refuse of our cities is relatively low in organic content. Finally there has been a tendency for some cities and industries to look to ocean disposal as a means of getting rid of solid waste. Fortunately, this has not been much of a problem in Canada and the provisions of the new Fisheries Act make this undesirable practice extremely unlikely in the future.
After considering these various methods it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that probably the best solution to the

February 10, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Goode
solid waste problem lies somewhere within the framework of what has been called the three R's-recovery, recycling and re-use. We have been made most vividly aware in recent years that on this planet our resources are not infinite. Just because Canada has been blessed with natural resources which are the envy of every nation on this earth does not give us the right to fritter them away. In fact, the opposite is true. We must conserve them by every means at our disposal. One of these means is the process of recycling.
When we talk of recovery, recycling and re-use it is well to bear in mind that while these processes promise much hope they are as yet far from being totally explored. At the present time most techniques for separating and recovering waste remain relatively primitive and costly. The potential results of a successful program, however, are well illustrated in an example given in a report on solid waste management prepared by Mr. J. J. Kaller for the Greater Vancouver Regional District. It reads in part as follows:
Hypothetically, a hundred thousand tons of paper per year taken out from municipal refuse collection and disposal budgets would mean close to a $1,000,000 per year saving in the cost of these services. It would also save space in the refuse dumps, create work for a salvaging company and save many acres of forests. To bring this more in perspective, it can be said that Vancouver daily papers alone can save about 10 acres of forest per day, or in the order of 3,000 acres per year. This year's Regional Districts 555,000 telephone directories, if repulped after salvaging, could save 35,000 trees.
Another dramatic example of what can be done is written up in the September, 1970, edition of "Environmental Science and Technology". According to that journal, construction should now be under way on a new $10 million solid waste reclamation plant in Newcastle county, Delaware. This plant is unique in that it will completely process 500 tons of domestic solid waste and selected industrial waste and 70 tons of sewage sludge per day and may eventually be expanded to process 1,000 tons per day. When I say completely processed, I mean that at the end of the process every bit of the solid waste will have been turned into a useful product. Ferrous metals will be removed and sold; organic wastes and sewage sludge will be turned into a high quality humus product; clean paper will be shredded, baled and sold; other paper and materials such as tires and plastics will undergo a technique which provides good quality carbon products; glass, grit, sand and non-ferrous metals will be sorted and sold. The objective is that the plant be brought as quickly as possible to the point where it is self-supporting, with the return from the reclaimed products offsetting operational costs.
Who will pay the construction costs? This, I think, is the significant point. Under a federal statute of the United States, the solid wastes resources act of 1970, pilot plants of this nature stand to receive up to 75 per cent of construction costs. What I have been trying to suggest today is that this is just the type of thing which I believe the government of Canada should be doing. I have outlined a number of problem areas in which the government could usefully employ funds for research, training, demonstration of new technology, technical assistance and grants for local, regional and provincial solid waste planning programs. Our neighbour to the south is doing this very thing, even though until the passage of the solid waste disposal act of 1965 local governments there, as here, have traditionally carried the primary responsibility for solid waste collection, processing and disposal with no assistance from the senior government. In other words, they are far ahead of us.
As I said at the outset of my remarks, a program such as I would like to see implemented would undoubtedly cost money but it would be money very well spent. I end with the following remark by the Conservation Council of Ontario which makes the point especially well:
We are living in a highly complex world and the answers we will find will entail difficult choices, and they will cost money. Conservation is a matter of intelligent choices which will benefit mankind's own long-term interests and be in harmony with his environment. But we must choose, and we cannot afford not to pay the cost. Economic yardsticks can no longer be the major criterion in our decisions.


Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, we often say when we rise on an occasion like this that we had no intention of speaking, but the previous speaker, to whom I listened very attentively, referred in particular to pollution. I have good news, I think probably the only good news that this House has had on this subject for many months. Today in Lethbridge the weather is particularly nice; it is in the high 50s. The snow is melting and nothing but good, clean snow water is draining gently into the river systems. I hope this will make my friend on the opposite side feel better.
I want to speak on several subjects, the main one being unemployment, a subject which most of us have tackled, as well as the OAS, the just society, Indians and agriculture. I say right at the outset that I have great respect for the office of the Prime Minister of Canada. Some time ago I felt very proud when one morning I heard a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I have always been proud of the office of the Prime Minister. There are some things that have taken place right here in this House, however, that lead me to be somewhat critical of the present occupant of that office.
I mentioned earlier that I wished to say something about unemployment. This reminds me of a cartoon that I saw in a newspaper two or three weeks ago which showed the Prime Minister as a goal tender with the net behind him almost completely filled with pucks labelled "Unemployed". The referee depicted in the cartoon was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), a greatly respected man, in a striped shirt. The caption read: "Are you interested in the score?" I think the cartoon well describes the debate today. Certainly the leader of the government must be interested in the score. But why are all these items piling up day after day, week after week and year after year?
I wanted to say something about agriculture and I think now is a good time to do so because early today, during the question period, the Prime Minister said, in answer to a question from a member of the opposition

February 10, 1971

relating to agriculture, that if the opposition were not so slow, the government would have moved more quickly. I regret that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is not in the chamber at the moment. I recall that on many occasions he has told us that all ten provinces agreed to the bill that he was sponsoring. He even asked a committee of the House to travel throughout the country in two different years. It was a very expensive procedure. But even with all that, the public did not go along with his marketing bill. The government did not bow to the slowness of the opposition; it bowed to public opinion.
I recall an experience with a former Minister of Agriculture, a westerner whom I respected. He fought for western Canada. I do not mean that a minister of agriculture necessarily should fight for one particular region or area. On that occasion the then Prime Minister said the opposition was being very slow, and the reply given to him was: "The Minister of Agriculture has less regard for the facts than a tom-cat has for a marriage licence." People in agriculture feel the same way.
The Prime Minister has placed the blame for many things on the opposition. He does not seem to have particular regard for the facts. At one time reference was made to members of the House of Commons to the effect that they were a bunch of bums. I have been a member of this House for a long time, Mr. Speaker: the people who represent the Canadian public are not bums. I know some hon. members of the House have been bumming around the world lately. They have been promoting Canada as a peacemaker throughout the world yet under the present administration we cannot look after our own affairs. They have been bumming around the world giving away money interest free. I shall have something to say about the interest that Canadians pay on money they borrow.
Returning to the question of unemployment, I would point out that we have the highest rate of unemployment in the western world. We have the highest rate of unemployment, percentagewise, related to population that Canada has ever known. It has been said that the thirties were our worst era in that respect, but I repeat that today we have the highest rate of unemployment percentagewise that our country has ever known. For years we have been told that the opposition has been at fault. I have heard many good suggestions made by members of the opposition, but they have not been accepted. I am scared at what is happening. Where are we going? Our country is becoming more divided. We are getting more unemployment. Interest rates are rising higher and higher, and all we hear is excuses.
I was happy to hear the announcement made by the minister responsible for housing. I am convinced this is one key to the solution of our unemployment situation. I would like to mention one case relating to unemployment, housing and OAS. I have here a communication that I received from a senior citizen in Ottawa. There are thousands like her across the country. She is a lady who is 82 years old, the widow of a former captain in the Ottawa fire department who retired after 42 years service, and
The Budget-Mr. Gundlock
whose pension lapsed when he died. Today she receives $133.61 a month, everything combined. Her rent is $117.50, leaving her $16.11 per month for food and clothing. This is the situation in the capital city, but there are thousands of people like this all across the country. She has been notified that on March 1 her rent will be raised by $10 a month, leaving her $6.11. I think $117.50 is a pretty high rent for a 100-year old building in centre town.
I was happy to hear what the minister said today but I have heard it many times. Had the scheme started even two or three years ago this senior citizen could be living quite nicely at half the rent. That kind of rent should allow for a nice new apartment, perhaps with a sauna bath and swimming pool. This situation is not confined to Ottawa but applies to my own city of Lethbridge. Why do we have so many announcements? Why do they tie up this tremendous building fund for years and years? The government says that we never offer anything, we are just a bunch of bums. Referring to the cartoon which appeared recently in the Hamilton Spectator, showing the Prime Minister with a net full of pucks, I ask why the devil he is piling up all this stuff. The thought which occurs to me rather scares me. If money were free for housing, a lot more people would be employed directly and indirectly: many thousands would be employed, including young people. But all we hear is talk.
I want to have a word about unemployment, particularly of young people. I mentioned the thirties. That was the last time we had unemployment that could be compared with today. No one can challenge my figures when I say that unemployment is higher today than it was in the thirties, percentagewise. We all know that the biggest force of unemployed is the medium-aged who have families to support. I have been through that myself. There has been a lot of talk about the young unemployed, and we all wonder what they are thinking. I believe they feel that the government of Canada has allowed foreign capital and foreign ownership to dominate the resources of this country to the point where we are controlled from outside. When we say foreign control we immediately think of the United States, but when we speak of winning battles against that country all we have to do is walk down the corridor opposite the library where a brass plaque commemorates the war between Canada and the United States. In that war we won over 20 battles; in fact, we won the war. We can do it again, but not the way this government is going.
We want to develop this country and keep it Canadian, but when you get on a train, bus or airplane you meet people from the United States who are interested in developing and investing in Canada. This is simply because this government-and I lay this at the feet of the Prime Minister-allows tax concessions to foreign countries investing in Canada that are not allowed to Canadians. These young people ask a legitimate question, Mr. Speaker, and I think they should have an answer. If Canadians were given even a part of the concessions allowed foreign investors, Canadians would control their own resources as never before.

February 10, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Gundlock
I wish to say something about the just society that we have heard so much about. With all this unemployment I am beginning to wonder if there is even a society. I see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) here and I want to say that I have a great deal of respect for him. However, unemployment will get worse before it gets better. I have pointed out, Mr. Speaker-and I hoped someone would challenge my remarks-that we are experiencing the worst unemployment in Canadian history. One wonders just how to define the just society. If unemployment becomes much worse, one may have to say, "We have just had a society." That is what scares me. We have drifted. Surely the government, which rests squarely on the shoulders of the Prime Minister, cannot blame other people for being too slow in this area. I do not want to go over the details-we have all heard them before-but if we go on like this much more I am afraid that what I nave suggested may happen.
In conclusion may I say a word about a matter that ties in with unemployment. The other day we were told about the treatment of locals employed in the Northwest Territories. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development ever since coming to Ottawa. I know that the allegation is true. I have sat in many committees and we were often promised that discrimination would no longer take place. I should not put it that strongly, perhaps. We were assured that it would no longer take place; there would be a conference among all departments in order to see that local, and particularly native people, would be fully employed.
The report the other day showed that people from southern Canada had been employed up there at between $12 and $15 a day in dragging chains. They were employed in surveying. To the native people, and particularly to Eskimos, such a sum would be a pretty nice stake: it would improve their lot. They are not educated in the sense used when we refer to educated people. They have no degrees; they have no secondary education. Nevertheless they are educated in the sense that they know how to survive and how to adapt to conditions, and that sort of thing. Why should they not be given that sort of job? I sat on the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates when it was considering on November 26, 1970, the supplementary estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I tried then to introduce a question that had to do with the welfare of Indians and Eskimos.
I spoke of the death of an infant on the Blood reserve, Alberta, last September. The death was looked into by the chief coroner of Alberta, which shows how serious this matter was. In the coroner's inquest it was said that when the parents brought the young child to the hospital, they found a locked door. I am referring to the Indian hospital on the Blood reserve in Alberta. This was drawn to the attention of the minister when the committee was considering supplementary estimates. In addition it was learned that the parents were at one point refused the use of a telephone. They simply wanted to call a doctor.

It was also drawn to the chief coroner's attention that
the attending physician had said much later that if he could have attended earlier, the death might not have happened. I referred all the details to the minister. The minister said that he could not accept any responsibility, that it was the responsibility of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Nevertheless, after insistence on the part of some members he agreed to call the matter to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This was an accident, he said. I do not think it was an accident, Mr. Speaker. A few days later, when the supplementary estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare were being considered, I asked whether the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had transferred this matter to the Department of National Health and Welfare and was told that the latter department had not heard of it.
We have been discussing this and that matter and talking about reorganization of the government. To me, this will only give more jobs to people opposite. At a time when there is unemployment and suffering we are talking about reorganization and the additional expenditure that will be involved. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the members of this government are really communicating one with the other. I have given one example of what I mean but there are many others. We are asked to reorganize the government, but there is no communication between departments. We talk about reorganizing the government, but what is the use of establishing new departments if there is lack of communication between them? I think this situation will get worse. I have tried to bring forward my points and alternatives that could be taken. There is nothing new in them. With those words, Mr. Speaker, I shall sit down.


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes remaining today I want to use the latitude that is extended to us in this debate to direct my remarks entirely to one subject, agriculture. A concern for agriculture, its problems and people is not, of course, as Your Honour knows, limited to Canada: it appears to be increasing throughout the world. The roots of the concern are indicated by the words hunger, malnutrition, surplus, poverty, disparity, credit, markets, power, integration and information. With respect to those words Canada is no exception; the root words are found here too.
Many studies have been made in the past two or three years to identify agriculture's problems, analyse alternatives and recommend changes which, hopefully, will permit the realization of existing and future opportunities for food, feed and fibre and will increase the farmer's share of Canada's wealth. I want to take the liberty that is extended to me by participating in the debate to put on record a few statistics. By virtue of this being the House of Commons, I hope that these comments will receive a hearing in segments of the Canadian social structure other than agriculture. I am convinced that there is a vast breakdown in communication and understanding between agriculture and industry, especially the prime producers and the so-called urban people and consumers in general.
February 10, 1971

The most recent statistics indicate that in Canada there are in excess of 430,000 farm holdings, of which approximately 100,000 are commercial farms. There are 95,000 farms with sales of more than $10,000 per year, and 119,500 farms which paid federal income tax. Wheat and livestock farms account for one half of the commercial farm census, and dairy farms account for one-fifth. The total farmland area is 174 million acres. Eighty per cent of the total agricultural land is in western Canada. The total investment in Canadian agriculture of farm operators was estimated to be $22.4 billion in 1968, the most recent year for which statistics are available, or approximately $41,000 per worker, excluding rented land and buildings. New capital formation in agriculture is estimated to be approximately $1 billion a year, or approximately eight per cent of the new capital formation. The sources of new capital available to agriculture are varied, but a few sources predominate.
The farm labour force numbered 1,096,000 persons in 1948, 22 per cent of the total employed Canadian labour force. In 1968, 20 years later, this number had dropped to 546,000, or seven per cent of a much larger labour force. Capital inputs, compared to labour and real estate inputs, have increased from about one third of the total input in the period 1948-52 to over 50 per cent in recent years. The primary agricultural industry has become one which is highly dependent upon the non-farm or off-farm sector for supplies and services. Agribusiness is a term used to describe the non-farm industries which produce goods and services for farm use and those industries engaged in the process of raw materials of farm origin. Employment in the agribusiness industry, which includes food processing, tobacco manufacturing, leather goods, manufacture of implements and fertilizers, etc., has been estimated at
338,000	persons, or about 60 per cent of the employment in the farm or primary producer sector.
The two groups, the on-farm or primary producer and the off-farm producers, comprise about 12 per cent of the Canadian labour force. It is important for Canadians who are not familiar with or have not been interested in agriculture to recognize that approximately 18 per cent of the total rail freight in our country is comprised of farm products. Agricultural commodities represent exact-
The Budget-Mr. McBride
ly one quarter of the tonnage moved through the St. Lawrence Seaway. Farm expenditures on fuel and lubricants are equal to approximately 17 per cent of the total sales of motor fuels for use in motor vehicles. In the wholesale trade field, almost one quarter of the persons employed owe their employment to the sale of farm products, food products or farm supplies.
The most recent statistics indicate that $2.5 billion value added by the food and beverage industries represents 57 per cent of the cash receipts from farming, or $4.3 billion. In other words, Canadian farmers receive $4.3 billion. The food is taken off the farm and certain processes or actions are carried out. By the time it reaches the consumer, it increases in value by $2.5 billion, or 57 per cent of the original price. The food and beverage industry, compared with the paper, chemical, electrical, transportation and metal fabricating industries, employs the most people, pays the largest amount of wages and salaries, spends more on materials and supplies, ships goods of its own manufacture exceeding $7 billion and has by far the largest total value added, $2.5 billion in 1966.
Changes in agriculture during economic growth are influenced directly by the developments in food marketing. The most significant of these for agriculture is the rapid growth of large market-oriented food processors and distributors. The market-oriented firm, in contrast to traditional production-oriented business such as farming tries to discover what consumers want and to design an integrated research-product-package-promotion-distribution operation to meet these demands. In its outlook on operations it gives priority to consumers and marketing over production and procurement. This is especially true and relevant when the basic product that needs to be procured is produced in surplus and is easily available. As a result, farmers are increasingly called upon to tailor farm production to meet the dynamic, more exciting requirements of modern markets.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon. At 9.45 p.m. tomorrow a vote will be recorded on this motion.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
3268

February 10, 1971



APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;

[Stage Direction]
Constitutional Conference Third Working Session Ottawa, February 8 and 9, 1971 Statement of Conclusions
[Stage Direction]
General
1.	In accordance with the conclusion of their working session last September, the First Ministers gave priority to the questions of an amending formula and an early patriation of the Canadian Constitution. The Conference agreed that the Government of Canada and the provinces should proceed as quickly as possible to patriate the Constitution, with an appropriate amending formula applicable entirely within Canada, and with such other changes as can be agreed upon quickly. This approach would permit a substantial degree of progress to be made quickly, while work on other aspects of constitutional revision continues. The First Ministers considered that such action might incorporate the elements set forth in the following paragraphs. However, the First Ministers reserved their right to further analyze all the juridical and other implications.
Patriation of the Constitution
2.	The Constitutional Conference agreed on a procedure to be undertaken in Canada at a very early date in order to bring home the Constitution and to transfer to the people of Canada, through their elected representatives the exclusive power to amend and to enact constitutional provisions affecting Canada. This procedure would involve:
(a)	Agreement among the governments as to changes and procedure.
(b)	Approval of a resolution in the usual way, by legislatures plus the two Houses of Parliament, authorizing the issuance of a proclamation by the Governor General to contain the amendment formula and whatever changes are agreed upon.
(c)	Recommendation that the British Parliament legislate to:
(i)	recognize the legal validity of the Canadian proclamation and its provisions;
(ii)	provide that no future British law should have application to Canada; and
(iii)	make any consequential repeal or amendment of British statutes affecting the Canadian Constitution.
(d)	Issuance of the proclamation by the Governor General on a date to coincide with the effective date of the British law.
The Amending Formula
3.	The Constitutional Conference has considered the nature of the formula which should be adopted to permit
the Canadian Constitution to be amended wholly within Canada. The First Ministers agreed that the following formula was a feasible approach.
I.	General Procedure
All constitutional amendments in future, except those covered in II and III, would require a resolution of consent at the federal level plus consent of the legislatures of a majority of the provinces of Canada including.
(a)	the legislature of any province now containing at least 25 per cent of the population of Canada, and of any other province that hereafter contains 25 per cent of the population of Canada; and
(b)	the legislatures of at least two provinces west of Ontario providing that the consenting provinces comprise 50 per cent of the population of the provinces west of Ontario and the legislatures of at least two provinces east of Quebec.
II.	Federal and Provincial Constitutions
Sections 91(1) and 92(1) would be repealed and replaced by a section giving the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of the provinces power to amend their respective Constitutions except with regard to the following matters when the general procedure set out in I would apply:
(a)	the functions of the Queen, Governor General and Lieutenant Governors;
(b)	need for annual sessions;
(c)	maximum period between elections; (The above three would apply to the legislatures as well as to Parliament; the following would apply to Parliament only.)
(d)	principle of proportionate and minimum representation of members of Parliament from the provinces in the House of Commons.
(e)	the number and residence qualification of Senators representing each province, and the powers of the Senate.
III.	Amendments of Concern to Canada plus One or More but not All Provinces
Such changes would require a resolution of consent at the federal level plus the consent of the legislatures of the provinces concerned.
Fundamental Rights
4.	It was agreed to entrench in the Constitution the following basic political rights:
February 10, 1971
[Stage Direction]
(a)	universal suffrage and free, democratic elections at least every five years;
(b)	freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
(c)	freedom of opinion and expression; and
(d)	freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
The exercise of these freedoms may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and as are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
Language Rights
5.	It was agreed that English and French should be declared the official languages of Canada, with the following provisions that would have equal application in all parts of Canada and to both languages:
(a)	Any person may use English or French:
(i)	in the Debates of Parliament and, with reservations expressed by some provinces, in the
legislatures;
(ii)	in any pleading or process in federal courts;
(iii)	in communication with the federal administration.
(b)	Federal statutes and instruments shall be in both languages.
(c)	The individual shall have the right to have English or French as his main language of instruction in publicly supported schools in areas where the language of instruction of his choice is chosen by a sufficient number of persons to justify the provision of the necessary facilities. It was recognized that some further consideration will have to be given by various governments in order to determine appropriate administrative arrangements to implement the provision, what constitutes a "sufficient number", and what should be the percentage of instruction in the main language. Quebec lodged a general reservation with respect to this sub-paragraph pending an examination of all its implications.
(d)	Parliament or a legislature may accord further recognition to the two languages.
Supreme Court
6.	It was agreed that the existence and the independence of the Supreme Court of Canada should be entrenched in the Constitution, which should also provide for its basic structure. Its jurisdiction would continue to be that of a court of final appeal for the country. It was also agreed that, while the Federal Government should retain the power of appointment to the court, the Constitution should recognize the importance of provincial participation in the process of selection of suitable candidates for appointment. It was also concluded that study should be given to the means of assuring the availability on the court of civil law judges to hear civil law appeals. It was agreed, in addition, that there should be discussion of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear appeals in matters of strictly provincial law.
Regional Disparities
7.	Recalling their conclusion on the subject of regional disparities at the working session in September, the First Ministers agreed that the Constitution should include a recognition of the importance of equality of opportunity for all Canadians. It was therefore concluded that the reduction of regional disparities should be referred to both in a new preamble and in the body of the Constitution.
(a)	The preamble should state that one objective of Confederation is the social, economic, and cultural development, and the general welfare and equality of opportunity for all citizens in whatever region they may live;
(b)	In the body of the Constitution there should be a statement of obligation on all governments, federal and provincial
(i)	to promote equality of opportunity and wellbeing for all individuals;
(ii)	to ensure, as nearly as possible, that essential public services of reasonable quality will be available to individual citizens.
(iii)	to promote economic development which will reduce disparities in the social and economic opportunities of individual Canadians in whatever region they may live.
This obligation would not be enforceable by the Courts and would not have the effect of altering the distribution of legislative powers.
Mechanisms of Federal-Provincial Relations
8.	It was agreed that the revised Constitution should contain a provision, probably in the preamble, recognizing the important role of intergovernmental consultation and cooperation in the effective working of Canadian federalism. Also, in order to provide for the basic mechanisms of federal-provincial consultation, there should be a specific provision that the Government of Canada shall at least once a year consult with provincial governments about the desirability of holding a Conference of First Ministers.
Modernization of the Constitution
9.	Finally, the First Ministers agreed that work will be undertaken between now and the next meeting of the Constitutional Conference in June to propose specific alterations in the Constitution such as a new preamble and the deletion of spent and irrelevant provisions. Specific proposals in this respect will be brought forward for consideration by the Conference in June.
Next Step
10.	It was recognized that the next steps would include further bilateral discussions leading up to the next meeting of First Ministers, and in addition as required, the on-going coordinating work of the Continuing Committee of Officials.
3270
[Stage Direction]
February 10, 1971

[Stage Direction]
Social Policy
1.	The Conference heard the views of the Government of Quebec on social policy in general and income security in particular. Quebec emphasized a broad conception of social policy and the importance of fitting income security measures into a global integrated policy with the objective of meeting effectively the problem of poverty. The Conference expressed its sympathy for this basic social objective. Quebec emphasized the fact that the existing distribution of legislative powers cannot be maintained if it impedes the realization of that objective. In addition, Quebec considers that the question of social policy is a fundamental element of the constitutional revision as a whole.
2.	The federal government for its part expressed its desire to coordinate its income security measures with the social policies of the provinces in order that each provincial government as well as the federal government may best realize its social objectives. There is and should continue to be room for different social policies in different provinces.
3.	In regard to the Quebec proposals in particular, the federal government noted that what was suggested in regard to family allowances was very similar to the proposed federal Family Income Security Plan. The Quebec statement also indicated that the Old Age Security Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement would fit into its plans. Similar improvements in the Quebec and Canada Pension Plans have also been proposed.
4.	Already decisions have been made to modify certain features of the proposals for amending the Unemployment Insurance Act on the basis of the information and arguments advanced by Quebec Ministers. Only in the case of the General Social Allowance Plan does there appear to be the necessity for further time and study to ascertain what is practicable during the near future.
5.	The Conference was informed that bilateral discussions had already been planned between provincial and federal ministers and officials on these matters and their possible constitutional implications, and a further meeting of the Ministers of Welfare on income security was scheduled several months from now. The First Ministers asked that this work be accelerated and that the Ministers of Welfare report to the meeting of the First Ministers in June.
Canadian Interprovincial Marketing
6.	Reference was made to current problems being encountered in connection with interprovincial marketing of certain agricultural products. The view was expressed that the problem had still not been solved, since the last discussion in September, and some provinces suggested that the Federal Government should exercise existing
constitutional powers to deal with the matter. A further suggestion by some provinces was that provincial marketing boards should retract certain regulations that affect the freedom of movement of goods, but another view was that this could not be done unless other action were taken to replace such regulations and avoid harm to local agricultural industries. In this connection, it was suggested that the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill, now before Parliament could facilitate a satisfactory resolution of the problem.
7.	It was also observed that the question of interprovincial trade was a fundamental constitutional question which should be examined at a later meeting of the Conference.
Environmental Management-Pollution
8.	The Constitutional Conference examined proposals for constitutional changes in jurisdiction related to the control of pollution.
9.	In particular, the First Ministers considered a federal proposal that there should be a new concurrent power for Parliament and the provincial legislatures to make laws in relation to the control of pollution of air and water. Under this proposal, if there were a conflict between a federal law made under this power and a provincial law made under it, the federal law would prevail when it applies to control pollution which has, or if permitted would have, significant international or interprovincial effects, but in other circumstances the provincial law would prevail over the federal law.
10.	Some First Ministers expressed interest in this proposal. Another view, however, was that new provisions could better be considered after there has been more experience in dealing with pollution; in the meantime, it would be preferable to rely on improved arrangements for coordination and cooperation between governments based upon existing constitutional provisions. A further view was that areas of exclusive federal and provincial jurisdiction would be preferable to the general concurrency which has been proposed.
11.	It was agreed that the implications of various constitutional approaches should be given further study.
Other Business
12.	The Conference received a report from the Continuing Committee of Officials on Paramountcy as Applied to Public Retirement Insurance, and accepted the recommendations regarding additional study.
Next Meeting
13.	The Constitutional Conference confirmed that it would meet next on June 14-16 in Victoria and that the meeting would be public, at least in part.
February 10, 1971

[Stage Direction]
NON-CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS Unemployment
1. The First Ministers discussed the unemployment situation across Canada, and expressed their concern for the problems being encountered by many Canadians this winter. Several First Ministers urged the Government of Canada to take additional action to alleviate the problem.
2.	The Minister of Finance of Canada outlined the policies of the Government of Canada to combat unemployment, and stated that present indicators point to increasing economic growth and declining unemployment as the year progresses. He stressed that over-reaction would aggravate the problem by causing a resurgence of the inflationary spiral.
3.	It was generally agreed that the federal and provincial governments should consult together concerning any possible additional steps which might be taken to alleviate the present situation.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 11, 1971