1972-04-24

TABLING OF THIRD REPORT OF CLERK OF PETITIONS

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the third report of the Clerk of Petitions.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to announce the closure of the commercial fishery dependent on salmon runs returning to a number of the famous producing rivers in the maritime provinces. This course of action has been forced upon us by a serious decline in the number of salmon returning to the Saint John, Miramichi and Restigouche Rivers.


Mr. Bell:: Shame!


John (Jack) Davis: Because much of the salmon fishery in the Port aux Basques area of Newfoundland is also dependent on these runs destined for mainland streams, it, too, will be closed beginning in May of this year.
While the situation will be reviewed annually, it is expected that at least one full cycle, namely six years, will elapse before the stocks in these rivers will be rebuilt to the point where large-scale commercial operations can commence once more.
The advice of existing river management committees on which the fishermen themselves serve will be sought not only in respect of the duration of these closures but also as to the manner in which the runs can best be rehabilitated.
Compensation will be paid to commercial fishermen whose earnings are affected by these river closures. Payments will be negotiated on an individual basis and the formula which will be employed will be worked out in close consultation with the fishermen themselves.
These closures will not apply to salmon returning to the streams in Newfoundland and Labrador. They do not apply, also, to salmon returning to the rivers in Nova Scotia.
Historically, the total mainland take accounted for approximately one-half of the over-all catch of Atlantic salmon by Canadians. This volume has been sharply
reduced. It has fallen by more than 80 per cent since 1967. On the Miramichi, where escapements formerly were measured in the tens of thousands of large fish, they are now measured in the hundreds.
There are several reasons why our stock of large mainland salmon has become seriously depleted. They are: first, heavy fishing by foreign nations on the high seas; second, heavy fishing by our own commercial fishermen; and third, pollution in some of our own main salmon rivers themselves.
We are moving quickly to deal with pollution. There has been a significant improvement in water quality on the Miramichi, for example. But commercial fishing, especially on the high seas, is another story. In spite of agreements to the contrary, the catch by Denmark alone was four times that of all of our own mainland fishermen last year.
The estimated cost of this program for the current fiscal year, 1972-1973, is in the order of $2 million. Over 900 commercial fishermen are involved. This announcement is being made now in order to avoid unnecessary expenditures by our fishermen in preparing for the Atlantic salmon fishery in 1972.


Thomas Miller Bell: It comes too late. They have already spent their money.


John (Jack) Davis: I have already made arrangements, Mr. Speaker, to meet with fishermen from the affected areas in Chatham, New Brunswick, on Thursday of this week.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I feel certain that all members of the House who have an interest in preserving the stocks of Atlantic salmon listened with interest to the statement just made by the Minister of Fisheries, which outlines in detail the present government's method of dealing with this problem. We also deplore the fact that this statement has only now been made in the House. The announcement has already appeared in the press and was made known on Friday night's television news. This shows complete disregard for this House, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Quite frankly, all of us who represent ridings in Atlantic Canada are keenly aware of the need for carrying out salmon conservation policies. However, we in the opposition are deeply concerned about the hamhanded, halfhearted, slipshod restrictions imposed from year to year by this government not only on our salmon fishermen but also on Canadian fishermen in general. We have seen the removal of the sick mariners' benefits, the salt subsidy and the fishing bounty, and restrictions have been

April 24, 1972
Atlantic Salmon Fishery Closure
placed on our haddock fishery, our seal fishery, our swordfishing industry and, now, on our salmon fishery.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The minister has said that this drastic action is forced upon us by the serious decline in the salmon fishery and especially by the heavy fishing by foreign nations on the high seas. This raises the question, Mr. Speaker: When did information concerning Danish fishing for salmon on the high seas first become available? According to an article which appeared in the Saint John Times-Globe of June 10, 1965, Mr. Larry Guptill, then the vice-president of the Nova Scotia Salmon Anglers Association, told a meeting in Halifax that the discovery of the Atlantic salmon feeding grounds by Danish seiner fishermen off the coast of Greenland in 1964 would before long do irreparable harm to the Atlantic salmon fishery. This warning was repeated over and over again by representatives of our party from Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec, but no action was taken. Even in 1969, Mr. Speaker, when the delegate from Denmark with brutal frankness told the conference of nations that fish for the North Atlantic salmon, "When the salmon are gone, we'll fish for something else", our two Rip Van Winkles, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries, did nothing.
Denmark has no salmon rivers and the Danes are overkilling salmon which originate in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries. This problem, therefore, is an international problem. But owing to blind greed on the part of the Danes, inadequate international law, and a disinterested, lackadaisical Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Atlantic salmon, the king of fish, is threatened with extinction.


Mr. Baldwin:: There are too many sardines in the government.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Fisheries taken the time to point out to the Danes that without Canadian, American, British, Irish or Scottish rivers and without the enormous cost that is being paid to protect and improve these rivers, there would be no salmon? Salmon that originate from other countries simply would not be sufficient to maintain world stocks.
The minister has told us that the principal country now, and for some time past taking Atlantic salmon on the high seas is Denmark. However, there are also considerable catches by Norway and by Sweden. Both Denmark and Norway are members of the 15-nation commission known as ICNAF, or the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. Under ICNAF and NEAFC, the North East Atlantic Fisheries Convention, the North Atlantic fishing nations are pledged to co-operate in protecting and conserving the fish stocks of the North Atlantic. With the facts fully documenting the actual decline of the Atlantic salmon population and with Canada urging a total ban on fishing for salmon on the high seas, are we to take it that ICNAF and NEAFC are no longer operating, or that these countries sign these agreements only as windowdressing while continuing to pillage, plunder and

rape our fisheries resources until nothing is left? In fact, the Danes are calling the tune but we are paying the piper.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Once again this government is engaged in one of its familiar tactics-confrontation with the Canadian fishermen. Being law-abiding citizens they will do as the law dictates, but there is little satisfaction in purchasing salmon fishing gear and in getting a ship ready for the salmon fishing season only to learn that the government has unilaterally decided to close down the salmon fishery and buy up the fisherman's equipment. This action only replaces his capital outlay. It leaves him asking the question, "Where can I go, what can I do now, how will I provide for my own and my family's needs?"
Before this drastic action was taken by the government I believe that a commission should have been established in Atlantic Canada to look into the fisheries problems of that area, with special attention being given to the problems of our salmon fishermen. I also believe that the salmon fishermen concerned should have had an opportunity to be heard and make their wants known, not as the minister stated on Thursday after this fait accompli, but before this action was taken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member has in mind the provision of Standing Order 15(3) which specifies that a member may comment briefly. The hon. member's interpretation of the word "briefly" may be different from mine, but certainly he should keep that in mind as he brings his remarks to a close.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I thank you for your comment, Mr. Speaker. I have almost concluded my remarks. This government was elected on the promise that it would practice participatory democracy. I think it is high time it started practicing what it preached.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, it was rather surprising to find the minister rising in his place today to make a statement on motions on a decision which we all understood was a fait accompli. However, I presume he decided the matter was of sufficient importance to formally announce it in the House, even though belatedly. As one who has some interest in and concern for the welfare of the fisheries of Canada, it crosses my mind immediately that this announcement may be a foretaste of similar action on the Pacific coast of Canada. I hope that is not so.
The minister has announced action that can only be described as drastic. It may be necessary. One cannot argue that. It seems to me there are two basic positions that can be taken in light of the continued exploitation of this fishery by the Danes. I expressed one of them in a conversation with an ardent conservationist in the United States when I visited there last fall. He suggested that we have no fishery for Atlantic salmon. I noted that as an American he was part of the people who destroyed their own salmon fishery and perhaps they should not take it too much amiss if Canadians decided what we should do
April 24, 1972

with ours. In light of the situation that exists I told him that one of the courses Canada could follow would be to take our share while the salmon lasted. This, of course, would be a very difficult decision for us to make. However, I am inclined to say to the minister and the government that unless our action shames the Danes into taking reciprocal action, the only course left to us may be to alter this decision and take what there is left of the salmon while we can get them.
I am somewhat puzzled, in view of the decline in the spawning runs to streams such as the Miramichi disclosed in the minister's statement, that the minister should have made no reference to what is to happen to the sports fishery in those streams. It seems to me his statement is similar to others I have heard the minister make in connection with salmon fishing on the Pacific coast. The only restrictions he seems interested in imposing there are on commercial salmon fishermen. He seems to be of the view that sports fishermen should be allowed to run wild. I should have thought it appropriate for the minister to have referred to what will happen to those salmon which will hopefully still escape to spawn after they are in the streams themselves. To me this is as important as what will happen to them on the high seas.
I know I cannot attribute blame for this situation to this minister.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead!


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I would remind the House, though, that some of us have been trying to warn those concerned for a long time that this sort of thing would happen unless effective action were taken. When the original North Atlantic Fisheries Commission was established some of us pointed out that its terms of reference were basically inadequate. From my point of view, ever since action was taken to ratify that treaty Canadian governments have been most remiss in pursuing the development of that commission to the point where it would be able to exercise effective control over the catch on the high seas. Listening to the vigorous statement made today by the spokesman for the official opposition, I wished he could have taken the same vigorous approach in 1964 when some of us were trying to prod the government into taking effective action which might have helped to forestall the situation described in the minister's statement.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: We did.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: There is not much more I need to add. I hope that consequent upon the measures taken by the Minister of Fisheries vigorous action will be taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and by the government as a whole to place before the forums of the world the actual facts of what is happening to the marine resources of the oceans and to indicate that Canadians simply cannot tolerate this kind of improvidence and that we are prepared to use any and every means at our disposal to ensure not only in our own interest but in the long-term interests of the human race that the despoliation of the resources of the sea does not continue.
Social Security Agreement with Germany [Translation]


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say a few words on this subject. The minister's statement greatly surprised me and I suppose he had serious reasons for making such a major announcement today. I believe the fishermen affected by the decision are far from happy, even with a promise of compensation. Nevertheless, according to the minister's statement, more than 900 commercial fishermen will be involved, which means that roughly 1,500 to 200 wage earners will need retraining because six years is quite a long period and I believe the families affected by the decision will be in a rather critical situation.
I hope the reasons leading the minister to take such a serious, rigorous decisions are important. I am not sure the minister has given us the exact reasons for his decision, or at least I did not understand them. In fact, there were reports in last week's papers which greatly surprised me. Apparently there are reasons external to the situation and foreign elements have tampered with the spawning sites of salmon.
I therefore urge the minister once more to take whatever steps are necessary and to use his present experience in this region in order to prevent the same thing from happening elsewhere.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister oi National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table, in the two official languages, copies of an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the Federal Republic of Germany on social security.
Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the terms of the convention, on March 30 in Bonn our ambassador exchanged our instrument of ratification-


Gerald William Baldwin: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member rises on a point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am just wondering whether the minister is making a statement in addition to tabling the document under Standing Order 41(2).


Mr. Maclnnis;: We will find out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The suggestion made by one of our colleagues is that we will have to find out. I suppose it would be for hon. members and the Chair to determine whether the minister is making a statement under the appropriate Standing Order, but it might enlighten the House if the minister would now indicate whether he is making a statement.


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a statement. I must say it is a very short one indeed, just explaining the

April 24, 1972
Social Security Agreement With Germany
agreement in very general terms; it is a couple of paragraphs long. In view of the shortness of the statement and the fact that there is nothing controversial about it I did not distribute copies of the statement.
In accordance with the terms of the Convention, on March 30 in Bonn our ambassador exchanged our instrument of ratification with the German authorities. As a result, the agreement enters into force on May 1, 1972. Under this agreement many Canadian citizens of German origin will for the first time be able to enjoy benefits they earned under German social security schemes before they came to Canada.
The German pension programs to which the convention applies are the wage earners', salaried employees', miners', and the steelworkers' supplementary insurance. The Canadian programs to which the convention has application include the Canada Pension Plan, the old age security plan and the Quebec pension plan. Generally speaking, these plans now provide for the payment of benefits abroad.
The primary responsibility for the administration of the convention has been given to the Canada pension plan branch of my department. In Quebec, the corresponding responsibility for administration has been given to the Quebec pension plan. Advertisements and other public announcements will appear shortly.


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the statement though I regret I did not see a copy of it before it was made. My only comment is that while we welcome the agreement with the federal Republic of Germany it would certainly be helpful for many people resident in Canada if we could have a similar deal with the United Kingdom.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as one who has been pressing for this agreement for a considerable period of time I should like to say that we welcome the fact it has been entered into and that the minister has now been able to table copies of the agreement in the House.
As the minister pointed out, the purpose of this reciprocal agreement is to make it possible for pensions that were earned in Germany to be received by Canadians of German origin who have now become Canadian citizens, and for the opposite to happen if Canadians who earn pensions here move to that country. A great many former Germans who have become Canadian citizens will benefit from the provisions of this treaty, and on their behalf we welcome its coming into force.
I note that the effective date, as indicated by the minister, is May 1, 1972. Many of those who are affected by this arrangement will be sorry the date was not much farther back. Some of them have lost many years of pension rights. Of course, in negotiations there are two sides and I can only assume that the Canadians who did the negotiating got the best deal they could.
Like the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, I express the hope that this reciprocal agreement in the field of pensions, which has now been made between Canada and the

Federal Republic of Germany, will be the forerunner of reciprocal agreements with the United Kingdom, France, the United States, Italy and perhaps a number of other countries. I congratulate the minister for having established in his department a division which deals with international social security. This is a field that could become even more important as the years go on. We welcome this announcement today and on behalf of those who will benefit from it we express appreciation that this agreement has been concluded.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Laprise: During the years 1969-70 and 1970-71, what was the amount paid by the Department of Manpower and Immigration for retraining and training courses given to adults in the constituency of Abitibi?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Departmental statistics are collected according to the area served by each Canada Manpower Centre. The constituency of Abitibi covers a part of the territory of four Canada Manpower Centres: Rouyn, Val-d'Or, Rober-val and Dolbeau; consequently, it is not possible to supply precise figures on the implementation of the Canada Manpower Training Program in this constituency.
The following table sets out the training expenses incurred and the allowances paid out under the Canada Manpower Training Program. These expenses were met by the federal government for the financial years 1969-70 and 1970-71 in the territories served by the four aforesaid Canada Manpower Centres. The training expenses are estimated and do not include final adjustments and provincial administration costs.
CMC Rouyn
(a)	training expenses
(b)	allowances
(c)	total Val d'Or
(a)	training expenses
(b)	allowances
(c)	total Roberval
(a)	training expenses
(b)	allowances



621,935
430,152
707,746
665,656
1,052,087	1,373,402
486,240
793,713
592,439
673,515
1,279,953	1,265,954
267,620
667,951
361,825
457,787
April 24, 1972

(c) total
935,571	819,612
Dolbeau
(a)	training expenses
(b)	allowances
327,929	218,686
643,132	584,643
(c) total
971,061	803,329


OTTAWA-INSTALLATION OF VIDEOTAPE FACILITIES IN BROOKE CLAXTON BUILDING
Mr. Barnett: 1.	Are there facilities in a basement level floor of the Brooke Claxton Building in Ottawa which may be described as a television studio and, if so, when were these facilities installed?
2.	For each of the years since the facilities were installed, what has been the annual capital cost?
3.	For what purposes have these facilities been used?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Public Works as follows: 1. Yes. These facilities for 1-inch videotape recording were installed in the Summer of 1971.
2.	No capital costs since installation.
3.	The facilities have been used for the following purposes: departmental staff training; recording of scientific research and experiments; recording of briefing seminars and messages to departmental staff in distant locations; production of videotape programs on department's activities for cablevision broadcast use; production of videotaped programs on behalf of other departments and for Information Canada.


PUBLIC WORKS-LEASE OF SPACE IN TOWER &quot;C&quot;
Mr. Coates: 1.	Does the government lease space in Tower "C" in Ottawa and, if so (a) what is the total amount of space leased (b) from whom was it leased (c) for what period of time and at what cost per square foot was such space leased (d) what is the annual rental fee?
2.	What departments are presently located in Tower "C", and how much space does each require?
3.	(a) Of the space leased, how much is carpeted and how much is tiled (b) of the carpeted space, was it carpeted over the tile or was the carpet in place at the time of rental and in either instance, who was responsible for the cost of the carpet and the laying of same (c) what was the cost of (i) the carpet (ii) laying the carpet?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: 1.
Yes. (a) 486,911 square feet, i.e. 478,911 square feet office space 8,000 square feet storage space, (b) Campeau Corporation Limited, (c) 10 years. $5.77 per square foot for office space, $2.00 per square foot for storage space, (d) $2,763,316.47.
2.	Ministry of Transport, 486,911 square feet.
3.	(a) 443,259 square feet carpeted; 35,652 square feet tiled; 8,000 square feet concrete flooring, (b) It was carpeted over tile which was already installed before leasing. The cost of carpeting was $428,866.75. Campeau Corpora-
Questions
tion paid $348,036.20 and the Crown paid the remaining $80,830.55. (c) There is no cost available which separates the purchase price from the laying charges of the carpet.


NOVA SCOTIA-LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM
Mr. Muir: 1.	How many projects have been approved for the Province of Nova Scotia under the Local Initiatives Programme, to date?
2.	What is the total value of the projects approved and the total number of jobs provided, to date?
3.	Of the total number approved, what is the breakdown by federal constituency in Nova Scotia and what is the total value of the projects in each constituency?
4.	Of the total number of applications received from the Province of Nova Scotia, how many have been rejected and what is the number of rejections by federal constituency in Nova Scotia?
5.	How many additional applications are on hand at the present time from the Province of Nova Scotia, what is the total estimated value of these projects and what is the total number of jobs that would be provided if all were approved?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1. The number of projects approved for the province of Nova Scotia under the Local Initiatives Program was 429.
2 and 3.		Federal
Constituency	Jobs	ContributionAnnapolis Valley	462	*P 599,422Cape Breton-The Sydneys	681	1,057,701Halifax-East Hants	127	178,790Dartmouth-Halifax East	355	547,945Central Nova	449	599,817Cumberland-Colchester North	535	699,858South Western Nova	639	836,121South Shore	501	726,066Cape Breton-East Richmond	657	938,557Halifax	926	1,694,907Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso	1,557	2,483,775Total	6,889	10,362,9594.	The number of applications rejected, withdrawn and cancelled was 574.5.	Nil.
Note: The above values are the amounts approved for the projects. It is probable that during the contractual negotiations slight variations will have occurred.


PRAIRIE GRAINS STABILIZATION LEGISLATION
Mr. Southam: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce in the House, at the earliest date possible, a more acceptable form of the Prairie Grains Stabilization legislation?
2.	Before introducing any such legislation, will the government seek the advice of Western farm organizations and Western elected representatives of the people?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Further government action with regard to the Prairie Grains Stabilization Bill which will be made known to the House at the

April 24, 1972
Questions
appropriate time, will be considered in the light of the government's over-all legislative program and will take cognizance of the views presented to government by western farm organizations and elected representatives.


CANADIAN CONTRIBUTION TO WORLD FOOD PROGRAM
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What products are purchased from Canadian producers by the Canadian Government for contribution to the World Food Program?
2.	Does the government use the World Food Program to provide a subsidy to any producers of commodities or products used in the program?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Wheat (bulk and bagged), oats, barley, flour, beans, peas, skim milk powder, cheese, canned fish, evaporated milk, canned turkey, dry egg powder, dry potato flakes.
2. No.


AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS-INCREASE IN WAGES AS RESULT OF STRIKE
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How much of an increase in wages (a) did the air traffic controllers want (b) were they offered?
2.	What was the settlement wage to the air traffic controllers?
3.	What was the difference in dollars between the amount offered and the amount accepted in the settlement?
4.	How much did the average air controller (a) lose as a result of the strike (b) gain as a result of the increase received over and above the amount offered before the strike began?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.
(a) The original wage demand of the air traffic controllers was for an increase of 46 per cent on July 1, 1971 and 14.5 per cent on July 1, 1972, for a new contract extending from September 30, 1971 to September 30, 1972. (b) Treasury Board offered the recommendation of the majority report of the Conciliation Board which was as follows: 5 per cent October 1, 1971, 5 per cent July 1, 1972, 5 per cent, April 1, 1973. The union rejected it.
2.	On January 22, 1972, both sides agreed to the following settlement: 6 per cent October 1, 1971, 5.5 per cent July 1, 1972, 5 per cent April 1, 1973, which the union said they would recommend to their membership. The membership rejected it. The issue was referred to binding arbitration and the arbitrator's award was the same as the January 22 settlement namely, 6 per cent October 1, 1971, 5.5 per cent July 1, 1972, 5 per cent April 1, 1973. There was, therefore, no difference in the percentage increase but the arbitrator added two additional steps to the salary scales.
3.	There was no difference in dollars between the amount offered and the amount accepted in the settlement other than the two additional steps which provide for individual, not general, increases on or after October 1, 1973, for employees at the maximum of their salary scale. In 1973 an estimated 1.2 per cent will be added to payroll costs by the implementation of the new increments.
4.	(a) The average Controller at the AI-5 working level lost an average of eight working days during the 11-day strike. Based on the old maximum rate of AI-5 of $14,613 this amounts to $499.20 ($62.40x8). (b) Based on the maximum rate of AI-5 on October 1, 1971, July 1, 1972 and April 1, 1973, and calculated on the difference in rate on these dates between 6 per cent, 5.5 per cent, 5 per cent and 5 per cent, 5 per cent, 5 per cent respectively, the average Controller at this level gains $462.25 over the 27-month period of the agreement. Since he lost $499.20 and gained $462.25 he net loss was $36.95.


GOVERNMENT CONSIDERATION OF SINGLE TELEPHONE SYSTEM FOR CANADA
Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the advisability of providing a single telephone system for Canada?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of Communications):: No, the government is not now thinking of considering the possibility of providing a single telephone system for Canada.


NUMBER OF TELEPHONE SYSTEMS IN CANADA
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many telephone systems are there in Canada?
2.	Where is each telephone system located?
3.	How many subscribers are there for each telephone system?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: 1.
As of December 31, 1970, there were 1,716 telephone systems in Canada.
2 and 3. Here is a list providing, by provinces and territories, the main available data on these systems, as it is explained in the notes that follow:
	Number of	Number of
Location	Systems	TelephonesNewfoundland	2	135,251Prince Edward Island	2	34,143Nova Scotia	66	284,259New Brunswick	4	225,852Quebec	43	2,616,323Ontario	61	3,847,480Manitoba	2	436,063Saskatchewan	865	366,510Alberta	327	742,231British Columbia	4	1,046,394Yukon	-	6,833Northwest Territories	-	8,672
Notes: (a) The above excludes 340 very small co-operatives and independents operating mainly in the province of Alberta, (b) The number of subscribers per system is not available, but the number of telephones per system provides a very close approximation, (c) Where a system operates in more than one province, the location of the head office determines the province in which the system

April 24, 1972

is counted, but the number of telephones are included under the province in which the telephones are located,
(d)	The Yukon and Northwest Territories are serviced by Canadian National Telecommunications and by Bell Canada. These systems are reported by their Head Office locations, (Ontario in the case of CNT and Quebec in the case of Bell Canada).


CANADIAN BOOK CENTRES ABROAD
Mr. Robinson: Will the book centres being established in trade fairs contain only books of Canadian origin in French and English or will Canadian works be translated into other languages as well and, if so, what languages?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Under terms of the recently announced government policy on export promotion of books, it is the intention that book centres will offer for sale any book produced by a legally-constituted publisher who publishes Canadian works which are written or composed by Canadian citizens or persons with landed-immigrant status and the printing and fabrication of which are carried out in Canada.
The Canadian translation of such works shall be carried out by Canadian citizens or persons with landed-immigrant status.
Provided these criteria are met, a book in any language will be admissible. At the present time, it is not known what books are available in various languages or what books will be offered from time to time.
Questions


INSTALLATION OF ALARM SIRENS
Mr. Godin: During the last war, did the Canadian Government install alarm sirens in various major cities and, if so (a) how many sirens were installed (b) how many are still in operation (c) what is the annual maintenance cost of these devices and who is in charge of them (d) does the government have to pay a rental fee for the places where these devices are installed?
Mr. ]. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): There is no record of purchase or installation responsibility for alarm sirens during the last war. However, the Department of National Defence was responsible for the following activities: (a) Ordering the evacuation of an area in the event of actual or apprehended attack; (b) Prohibition of public assemblies if the situation indicated such action was necessary; (c) Ordering the restriction of lighting, flames, etc., or noise which may be of aid or give information to the enemy.


IMPLEMENTATION OF SMALL FARMS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What is the estimated cost to implement a small farms development program on a national basis?
2.	Will such a program be carried out by the government and, if so (a) in which provinces (b) what is the proposed allotment of funds to each province?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: 1. The estimated cost of the small farm development program to be implemented by the government is $150 million over seven years.
2. Yes. (a) All provinces; (b) Dependent upon farmer participation.


NUMBER OF BUSHELS OF WHEAT IN COMMERCIAL STORAGE, 1962 TO 1972
Mr. Horner: What was the total amount in bushels of wheat in commercial storage in Canada for each of the years from 1962 to 1972?


Otto Emil Lang: Number of Bushels in Commercial Storage in Canada at August 1
Crop year	(Thousands of Bi
1961-62	437,391
1962-63	331,888
1963-64	422,547
1964-65	338,800
1965-66	403,924
1966-67	320,122
1967-68	371,751
1968-69	429,510
1969-70	479,628
1970-71	465,990
1971-72	337,766


IDB CONSULTATIVE SERVICE
Mr. Robinson: Does the Industrial Development Bank provide a consultation service when no loan is given?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: In the course of considering an approach for financing and in processing a loan application, the experience and skills of the IDB staff are available to the potential borrower who often avails himself thereof. Thus, even when an application is declined the Industrial Development Bank may have been of some assistance. Not infrequently the IDB is able to suggest how a weakness in a loan proposal may be overcome.
Recently, the IDB established an advisory services directorate at its general manager's office in Montreal. It is producing a series of pamphlets entitled "Minding Your Own Business", the first of which was a bibliographic reference list for small business and the second discussed the extension of customer credit. Based on the IDB's extensive experience, succeeding pamphlets will deal with other problems encountered by the small businessman in starting up or expanding a business. Response to and demand for the new information booklets has been very encouraging. In addition, seminars on business management, conducted by the IDB, are commencing in smaller
1552

April 24, 1972
Order for Return
centres across Canada where such a service is not now available.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How much has Canada provided to the World Food Program in each year since its inception?
2.	What other countries have contributed to the World Food Program and in what amount since the program was instituted?
3.	What are the names of the countries now receiving food aid and how much in dollar value is each receiving?
4.	What control, if any, does Canada have over the spending of funds in the World Food Program?
5.	Are contributions to the World Food Program made in accordance with (a) Gross National Product (b) population and, if not, what criteria are used to determine the amount of the contribution?
6.	What is the ratio of Canada's participation to that of the United States in the World Food Program?
Return tabled.


ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, since we are not very certain how much longer this session will last, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question regarding trade with the United States. Has the government been in touch with the government of the United States or its officials to ascertain to what extent, if any, the United States government is prepared to modify its position with reference to Canada on trade matters?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage we are still following up on the decision which was taken when the President visited Canada a week ago. United States officials are doing this at their end and we are doing it at our end. I have discussed the problem with the two or three ministers involved.


STEPS TO ESTABLISH WITH EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET RELATIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE WITH UNITED STATES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question arises from the position taken by him that the government wishes to set up the same sort of relations with the European Common Market that we now have with the United States. What steps does the government propose to take to establish these relations, whatever they are?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, more than a year ago we made proposals to the European Economic Commission to establish consultative arrangements such as we have with the United States and Japan. They have taken this matter under consideration and have had a number of meetings about it. I am hoping to have Mr. Dahrendorf, who is the member of the commission concerned with these matters, here in Canada very soon.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question which I hope will not lead to the same confusion. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can tell us when he proposes to announce the long overdue position of the government in respect of foreign investment? Can he now give us a firm date for this announcement and indicate what form it will take?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it will come sooner and clearer than anything the opposition has said on this subject.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask this supplementary question arising from the Prime Minister's answer. May I ask whether the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was stating government plans when he is reported to have said on Saturday to an audience at Elliott Lake that the government policy on foreign ownership would be announced in seven weeks? Was he stating government plans on this matter when he said that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that the minister made no mention of seven weeks.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the minister felt free to make some suggestion as to time, and without arguing about the seven weeks, despite the answer just given by the Prime Minister will he now inform this House when we may expect that announcement in parliament or outside, whichever the case may be?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member is reiterating or repeating the question which was asked in the first instance by the Leader of the Opposition.


MEASURES TO CORRECT REPORTED DECLINE IN MERCHANDISE TRADE SURPLUS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
April 24, 1972


An hon. Member:: Come on, George. Watch your language.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as one member of the club to another, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the statement last week by Information Canada in its report to the government that "strong import demand in Canada and a relatively sluggish export growth rate have cut the merchandise trade surplus for the first quarter to $175 million from last year's $637 million", is the government planning to initiate any new trade measures in the very near future to correct this very serious situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, every time the hon. member has prefaced his questions with that type of figure and I have looked it up I have found that he was generally misinformed. This afternoon during the debate the hon. member for Calgary South will put some figures on the record which will certainly show that the misinformation of the hon. member is blatant on economic matters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask the Prime Minister to refer to the issue of Statistics Canada of last Monday, April 17. He will see that what I have said is exactly what is reproduced there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: May I now ask a supplementary?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has the floor for that purpose.


George Harris Hees: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of what I have said, will the Prime Minister ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to get the lead out and give us a little less personality and a little more performance in order that we can have more export trade?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are obviously reaching the area of debate. I will recognize the hon. member for Hillsborough for the moment and then recognize the hon. member for York South on the next subject.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if and when the government plans to appoint or designate a full-time ambassador exclusively to the European Economic Community as other countries have done?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the appointment of such an ambassador is now under consideration.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this question also relates to something with which the Prime Minister dealt earlier. He stated that Canadian officials are discussing how to go about the agreement reached between himself and the President of the United States in regard to trade and that United States officials are doing the same thing. In view of the report on Saturday from Washington that treasury officials have not yet been informed of or asked to consider the agreement reached between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, will the Prime Minister inform the House whether his statement earlier was merely an assumption that this is being done in Washington or whether there is any actual evidence that discussions are going on?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, it was more than an assumption. Of course, when I said "officials" I did not mention the level of officialdom to which I was referring. I do know there has been communication between the President and his highest advisers on this matter.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in that case can the Prime Minister inform the House whether the discussions have proceeded to the point where meetings are being arranged between Canada and the United States at any level?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe I answered that when replying to the question of the Leader of the Opposition. I remind the hon. member and the House that there was no agreement between the President and myself that there would necessarily be meetings. The agreement was that each side would look at its package, its propositions, with a view to seeing if each side thought meetings could be held and negotiations resumed.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in that case can the Prime Minister inform the House whether the discussions in Ottawa by the departments, ministers or officials have reached the point that he can tell us whether a decision has been made as to further concessions Canada might make and also whether he has any information concerning whether the discussions in Washington among United States officials have reached any point of decision on that line?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I of course have no means of knowing what point has been reached at the Washington end, and if I have no cause to believe an agreement is possible with them I have certainly no advantage in saying that the government is prepared to make any modification in its package.
1554

April 24, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on the question of trade which has been discussed I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the deterioration of our trade with European countries, including NATO and ECC countries, will the minister discuss with his colleague the Minister of National Defence, who is also a recycled minister of finance, the situation posed by the Canadian decision to re-equip Canadian forces with lightweight Scorpion armoured vehicles, which is causing some apprehension in Europe as an indication of our physical withdrawal from that area? Will he reassure our friends and partners in NATO that this is not the case?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sure my friend the Minister of National Defence will read this little speech with the greatest interest.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in charge of unemployment insurance?
As many claimants have much difficulty establishing their right to benefits which are often long overdue, could the hon. minister agree to appoint a board to facilitate contacts between claimants and unemployment insurance officers in regional offices to accelerate the settlement of unemployment insurance claims?
(English]


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, this is a very complicated question. Tomorrow morning the appropriate officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission will appear before the standing committee of the House and this will provide the hon. gentleman with an opportunity to cross-examine the officials directly.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In light of the continued inflow of United States dollars at an increasing rate because of higher interest rates in Canada, would the minister advise whether the 1968 agreement by which the United States portion of foreign exchange funds was desensitized or immobilized in the form of non-negotiable United States securities is still applicable

and, if so, what proportion of our exchange funds does this represent?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, without accepting fully the preamble to the hon. gentleman's question, may I say that the agreement reached with the United States in March of 1968 as to our holdings of U.S. dollar reserves is still in force and applicable. I am advised that as of December 31, 1971, we held $2.8 billion of these special issues in United States dollars and they comprised about 51 per cent of our total reserves at that time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Without going into the figures, has there been an upward revision of that figure and has the minister been able to use this point in discussing the situation with our United States friends?


John Napier Turner: There has not been any appreciable change but I would want to assure the hon. gentleman that these holdings are redeemable and that there have been adequate safeguards attached to Canada's freedom to reduce these holdings in the event Canada's level of reserves should alter appreciably.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. It involves the continuing problems of the CBC. Would the minister undertake to make a statement in the House tomorrow on the results of the mediation of the Department of Labour between the two parties which apparently is going on today?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I know that direct negotiations between the two parties took place today in Montreal in the presence of mediators.
I doubt very much, however, that I shall be in a position to make a statement on this tomorrow or even Wednesday, and I cannot make any commitment to that effect.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that anything the minister gives might be doubtful, but could he please make some type of statement in the House and thus to the country so that we will know whether this continuing problem is costing the taxpayers of Canada more money than it was estimated they would pay for the CBC, or is the CBC saving money and thus the union's back will be broken? At least let us have some demarcation of the interest of the government in this problem affecting the largest Crown corporation in Canada and involving taxpayers' dollars?


An hon. Member:: And the hockey games.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: And the hockey games.
April 24, 1972


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I think that what the government has endeavoured has been to promote a settlement of this labour conflict through the action of the Department of Labour and I suggest that this is what the government should be doing.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us whether, in the mediation that is taking place, the government is making any new offer over and above what has been previously made in an effort to settle this strike?


Gérard Pelletier: First of all, the government does not make offers, Mr. Speaker; the CBC does, just as the union accepts or turns down offers on behalf of its members. All I can tell the House is that there seems to be some progress and that this time the two parties seem to be willing to compromise, which is what we have hoped for all along.



REQUEST FOR PROVISION OF LATE EVENING TELEVISION SERVICE IN NORTHERWESTERN ONTARIO

Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Boy):: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Secretary of State. Can the minister report whether or not there is any progress at this time concerning the longstanding request for late evening television service by the CBC network in northwestern Ontario?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As a result of the many representations made by the hon. members who represent that area, the CBC has decided to extend viewing time in northwestern Ontario, as from May 1.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has he received representations from the Indians living in the James Bay area recording their opposition to the proposed power development at James Bay and has he been asked by them to help them develop their opposition to the proposal?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have met on several occasions the officials of the Quebec Indian Association who advised me that they were now having discussions with the Quebec government. I offered them my assistance, when requested, and up to now they have not asked
Inquiries of the Ministry
me to intervene in the negotiations or consultations. However, whenever they ask me to intervene, I will gladly help them to draw up their position.


David Orlikow: Would the minister look into the claims being made that the discussions being held between the Indians of the James Bay area and the government of Quebec are dealing with a whole host of other questions and not with the problems that will arise out of the James Bay development?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to establish Indian priorities in Quebec. I know that they discuss other problems than the James Bay development and as I have already stated, I am well acquainted with their discussions. I have met them on several occasions during the past months and if they ask me, I will readily intervene to help them.



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. Can the hon. gentleman inform the House whether the Post Office Department has decided to go into the business of printing and marketing prestamped scenic postcards and, if so, will all merchants engaged in this business have an opportunity to become a part of the process?


Hon. lean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: That requires a long answer, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if it is the Post Office itself that will be doing the printing but we will issue some postcards that will be sold in post offices with the stamps on them. I do not know if these will be printed by the Post Office. I would like to check on that.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, now that the Post Office has decided to go into this aspect of small business, will the hon. gentleman give an assurance that it will not extend these activities to sundries such as sunglasses and also to ice cream?



FISHERIES


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now that we have imposed restrictions on Canadian salmon fishermen, what immediate steps is the government taking to secure an agreement with Denmark to abstain from catching deep-sea Atlantic salmon?

April 24, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have made representations continuously along the lines put forward by the hon. member in his statement earlier when he accused us of not having done so. We have made most vigorous representations and we intend to continue to do so. We are not satisfied with the United States-Denmark agreement. What we want is the exclusive right to harvest the salmon that spawn in our streams. This is the position we have taken and will continue to take. Sometimes I do not understand how the Danish government, which on so many occasions has shown an understanding of environmental problems and so on, cannot accept our position, but I hope our example will inspire it to do so.



ATLANTIC SALMON FISHERY CLOSURES-REASON FOR OMISSION OF NOVA SCOTIA, NEWFOUNDLAND AND QUEBEC RIVERS

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries on the statement he delivered earlier today. Admitting that the salmon rivers of New Brunswick are the largest spawning rivers or, as the minister says, the largest salmon return rivers, will the minister say why there is an outright closure of these rivers and not the slightest restriction, except in one case, on the salmon rivers of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Quebec?


John (Jack) Davis: First, Mr. Speaker, in respect of Quebec the administration of the Fisheries Act, as the hon. member knows, is delegated to that province.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is not a bad idea.


John (Jack) Davis: Quebec is taking parallel action in respect to that which we have announced today. With respect to Newfoundland and Labrador, most of the rivers discharging into the North Atlantic are in better shape than the rivers in New Brunswick which are now being closed.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the minister realize that by this act he has accomplished what the right hon. member for Prince Albert could not do in 1958? He has wiped out every Liberal seat in New Brunswick!


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously a number of supplementaries are sought on this subject. I will recognize for the moment the hon. member for Fundy-Royal.



SUGGESTED UNANIMOUS RESOLUTION OF HOUSE ON CONSERVATION OF ATLANTIC SALMON PRIOR TO MEETING OF INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR NORTH ATLANTIC FISHERIES

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries. Would the minister welcome an unanimous resolution of this House, rather like the one passed at the time of Amchitka, about conservation measures for the Atlantic salmon fishery before he goes to the meetings in Washington in May of the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would welcome such a resolution and I believe the government would, too. I hope its effect would be more convincing, however.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Again there are a number of hon. members with supplementaries on this subject. Before returning to the hon. member for St. John's East, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is he aware of a study conducted by the Ontario Department of Labour concerning the causes of lay-offs and plant shutdowns in Ontario which reveals that one of the main causes has been the provision of grants to industries by the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion and by the Ontario government, made for the purpose of establishing new plants in designated regions? If he is not so aware, would he consider asking the Ontario Minister of Labour for a copy of that study so the House could be informed of its contents?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I will ask for a copy, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would the minister consider reviewing all the reports prepared by his manpower and consultative service and report to the House on the discovered reasons for lay-offs and plant shutdowns in Ontario and elsewhere?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows how much reading that would entail. No doubt it would discover and bring forth many other reasons for plant shutdowns, including low productivity in certain plants where it should be much higher.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what the minister has just said, would he at least consider providing the standing committee on this subject in the very near future with information relevant to the causes of the shutdowns?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, any information that would help the hon. member become more intelligent on this subject I would be very happy to provide.

April 24, 1972



FISHERIES


Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs following upon a previous question put to him. Is he prepared, in the course of his negotiations with and representations to the Danish government, to threaten to impose economic sanctions against that country if it fails to comply with a ban on salmon fishing on the high seas?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, these kinds of methods may be approved by the opposition but my experience is that thay do not work. All they do is create resentment and reduce our bargaining power in the world.



ATLANTIC SALMON FISHERY CLOSURES-ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO PREVENT POACHING AND POLLUTION OF OTHER RIVERS

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct another supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries. In light of the regulations prohibiting commercial salmon fishing, is he now prepared to ask Treasury Board to increase the funds whereby we can have proper surveillance of the remaining salmon river in the Atlantic provinces to prevent poaching and pollution which are still a great threat to the existence of Atlantic salmon?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. These requests have been made and we do have additional funds available now for that purpose.



ATLANTIC SALMON-COMPENSATION TO FISHERMEN AFFECTED BY NEW LICENSING PROCEDURES

['What about St. Pierre?']
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and hopefully it will give him an opportunity to correct the record. In view of the recent licensing procedures announced by his department, can he indicate whether there will be a substantial percentage of Newfoundland fishermen put out of work this year, and whether negotiations have taken place with the province to compensate these people for the loss of their fishing gear, their boats and their livelihood?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the only Newfoundland salmon fishermen affected by today's announcement, will be those in the Port aux Basques area. Meetings have already been held with fishermen's representatives and with the Premier of Newfoundland on this subject.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the questions put by my colleague from Saint John-Lancaster and the response from the minister I think I have a legitimate point of order. Hundreds of our Newfoundland fishermen have just received notices that they will not be allowed to participate in the Atlantic
Inquiries of the Ministry
salmon fishery this year as a result of the minister's new licensing program. Hundreds of these people have been put out of work. Their boats and gear are lying idle. I contend that on page 2 of his statement the minister without intent, has misled the House, as he did in his answer to the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster. I ask him whether in fact a considerable number of fishermen have been put out of work by his new licensing program, aside from the effect of his statement today, and have there been any discussions to compensate these people for the loss of their gear and livelihood?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there is room for some misunderstanding here. The additional fishermen the hon. member has in mind are those who have full-time employment in other occupations. I assume by that definition they are not put out of work or do not lack an opportunity for other employment. My answer a few minutes ago was tied into my announcement today, that is, in respect of 60 drift net fishermen in the Port aux Basques area.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary then go to the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville and return to this subject for further supplementaries later.



John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, this is perhaps a little broader question and relates to a serious problem. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate whether the American government has taken a position which, if accepted in international law, would seriously jeopardize the claim of Canada over its continental shelf, especially as it pertains to the depth of water which is accepted as our continental shelf, and has the Canadian position been made clear so that we will not lose our claim over that very valuable resource?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have stated our claim very clearly and have not altered our position. Therefore I think that is the complete answer to the question.


James Aloysius McGrath: What about St. Pierre?



MANPOWER


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the high level of unemployment in the country, can the minister inform the House whether it is his intention to revise manpower training regulations

April 24, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
to permit young people and housewives to take advantage of training and training allowances through that department?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think this would be a desirable step forward and I have asked for a study along these lines by the department. This would require a minor change in the present act, and if later in the session I were to get some indication of speedy passage I would be inclined to advance such a proposal.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Can the minister assure the House that his department will be in charge of revising these regulations rather than the office of the Prime Minister, in view of reports that Mr. Lalonde is now consulting with some of the provinces-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for St. John's West has a supplementary to the previous question.



FISHERIES


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one asked earlier of the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the serious effect that the ban on salmon fishery will have on a large number of Canadian fishermen, would the minister consider referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry?


John (Jack) Davis: Definitely, Mr. Speaker.



ATLANTIC SALMON FISHERY CLOSURES-APPLICATION TO QUEBEC-INDEMNITY PAYMENTS TO FISHERMEN

Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Fisheries.
Since fishermen from Port aux Basques have overfished the Gaspe salmon for the past 10 years, would the minister say whether, in his talks with the Quebec government, it has been agreed that the same bans would apply to certain rivers in Quebec?
Concerning the Atlantic salmon, will fishermen also get some compensation?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been discussed thoroughly with the minister and officials of the government of Quebec. Identical regulations are being invoked but, in so far as compensation is concerned, the initiative would have to come from that province.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I shall return to this subject in a short while, but perhaps we should recognize other members who have questions first.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the high rate of unemployment in Cape Breton and the rest of Canada, will the Prime Minister take steps to make vacant the job recently filled by a Scotsman in Cape Breton and make it available by way of application or otherwise to a Cape Bretoner or another Canadian rather than bringing in this import from Scotland when somebody in Canada could do the job?
I rise on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: Lay it on, Don.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from the attitude of the Prime Minister in not giving any attention to this question, which is detrimentally affecting Canadian citizens. As a result of a personal contact at a party in Scotland a government agency has recently brought a man into this country to fill a job, thereby displacing some qualified Canadian citizen. I think it is time we put a stop to this kind of nonsense. This man should be allowed to go back to his own country and not take a job that a Canadian could fill.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be interested to know if that applies to all new Canadians or just to Scotsmen.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants a serious answer I suggest that he speak to his colleague on the left. I suggest also that a contact made by a minister of the Crown at a party while overseas should not result in a Scotsman getting a job in Cape Breton.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether that is the policy of his party-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Kent-Essex.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the reported government grant of $665,000 toward the construction of a sugar refinery in Ontario to process imported cane sugar, can the minister indicate whether the government is prepared to support to the same degree the request made by sugar beet growers in southwestern Ontario for the production of Canadian sugar?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult for the Department of Agriculture or
April 24, 1972

the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to approve a grant before an application has been made, and no application has been made. The brief that was presented to the government asked for consideration of a longterm international policy or national sugar policy that would maintain the viability of that kind of processing. I have suggested that it has improved substantially since the shutdown in Chatham.



SMALL FARM ASSISTANCE PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR FURTHER CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES-POSSIBLE PARTICIPATION OF MINISTER IN DISCUSSIONS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the letter the minister received from the Minister of Agriculture for Manitoba, will he reconsider the rather rigid and unilateral approach being followed by the federal government in the small farm development plan and will he hold further consultation with the ministers of the provinces?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the approach taken by the federal government is neither unilateral nor rigid. I am concerned that the provinces have not been willing to negotiate seriously on the division of administrative responsibility, and I think the farmers of Canada are getting tired of it.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: If and when the provinces are ready to co-operate and discuss this matter with the federal government, will the minister take part in these discussions and work out a co-operative approach?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wrote to each of the provincial ministers more than eight weeks ago inviting them again to send representatives to enter into discussions, Only two have positively replied. I can say that the door will always be open, but in the meantime it appears that the federal government will have to go ahead and administer this program because the farmers have waited long enough.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



SMALL FARM ASSISTANCE PROGRAM-EXTENT OF PROVISIONS

Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister advise the House what provisions there will be in the small farm development program other than an extension of ARDA services through the provinces and an extension of the Farm Credit Corporation services?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there is so much in there that I am sure you would not permit me to answer the question now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will have to try to limit supplementaries. Only four minutes are left before the end of the question period and some colleagues around the hon. member for Huron are getting impatient.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I wonder when the minister is going to tell us about that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, a pamphlet has already been sent to the hon. member, about 12 months ago, I think.


Robert Elgin McKinley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in that pamphlet. I have read it many times and there is nothing in it other than what I have asked the minister.


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



ESTABLISHMENT OF CRITERIA FOR IMPORTATION OF MURRAY GREY CATTLE

Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a non-controversial question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister tell the House what criteria the government will use in processing applications for the importation of Murray Grey cattle from Australia and Tasmania?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, only in the last few days have we confirmed the date when the quarantine station can be occupied, so we have been working during the last two or three days to set down the criteria. Certainly, some consideration has to be given to those people who express interest and who have done a great deal of work in Canada and in Australia to bring the program to the place where we are now ready to approve applications.


Harry Andrew Moore: What proportion of imported animals will be retained either by the federal or provincial governments for experimental purposes?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, at the moment we do not have any plans for this because, of course, there are some Murray Grey cattle in Canada already with which experiments have been performed.



HOUSING


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs responsible for housing. Since segments of the Charney report indicate weaknesses in the direction of housing programs affecting low income people in Canada, would the minister table the Charney report in the near future?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is part of a much bigger report which was asked about in the House the other day and on which the editing has not been completed.
1560

April 24, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jack Marshall: Since it has been indicated that there are 50 copies of the report, containing 90 pages, sitting in CMHC offices, would the minister reconsider his position? Could the minister also indicate when he will introduce legislation in the field of housing arising out of the priorities listed in the Speech from the Throne, since this is a very serious problem for Canadians?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of aspects having to do with housing on which we are consulting the provinces at the moment. As soon as those consultations have been completed, we will begin drafting legislation.



PORTABLE X-RAY MACHINES-INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE DANGER FROM RADIATION

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I am sure the minister is aware of reports today from the United States to the effect that the government has been advised to discourage or prohibit the use of portable X-ray machines for tuberculosis detection in view of information that these machines are apparently emitting unsafe amounts of radiation. What steps have been taken by the minister or the department to examine the Canadian situation and ascertain whether a similar danger or hazard may exist in this country?
Hon. ]ohn C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, under the Radiation Emitting Devices Act we have already passed regulations to control these devices. I realize that in the United States they are imposing all-out bans in some cases. We have an expert advisory committee examining this area and looking at what is happening in the United States and elsewhere. It will be making further recommendations very shortly and, depending on what those recommendations are, we may act. We have the legislative power to act under regulations.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare regarding the announcement he made outside the House last Friday indicating that the work activity projects under the Canada Assistance Plan will be extended so that the federal government will contribute to or will share in the cost of equipment, material and supplies as well as of labour. Can the minister give us some information regarding this extension of the program? Is any set sum being set aside? How much will be allowed to each province? Will this cover provincial and municipal projects, and will it cover capital works projects?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, this is under the Canada Assistance Plan and in that sense it is a statutory matter, as the hon. member is aware. It is an open-ended program, so that it is hard to make precise estimates. The amount of expenditure to be incurred at the federal level on a 50-50 sharing basis will depend on the number of projects submitted by provinces over the course of the months. As far as municipalities are concerned, if they want to share in work activity projects and have them covered on a 50-50 basis, they must process their applications through the provinces to us for sharing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the minister in mind any limitation as to amounts per province, or am I to understand that provincial governments may send in a number of projects either on their own behalf or from municipalities and share 50-50 in the cost of projects provided they are putting unemployed persons on welfare to work?


John Carr Munro: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. Provided the applications are processed in accordance with the criteria laid down under the Canada Assistance Plan, we would respond to each of them just as has been the case for several years now, only under somewhat less favourable sharing arrangements.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the great concern by the women of Canada, can the Prime Minister say what he has done for the status of women, with the one notable exception, since he came to office?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am being neither facetious nor political. I am sure the Prime Minister could answer my question with just one simple word-nothing.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member was neither, but he was certainly out of order. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: April 24, 1972

That because the Government has failed to produce measures to create employment, has failed to encourage investment in Canadian industry, and has caused widespread uncertainty as to its economic programs, this House lacks confidence in the ability of the Government to meet the needs and challenges of the seventies.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion gives us an opportunity to look at the performance of the government and, hopefully, to provoke some constructive response and constructive action from the government. It gives us a chance to examine how the performance of the government stands up in the light of its mandate which, of course, was a wide ranging mandate given to it by the people of Canada.
The government has spoken of the concept of the just society. Speaking in terms of the economy may I say that, surely, the mandate and responsibility given by the people of Canada to this government involved at least the provision of a reasonable degree of economic opportunity for the people of this country, associated, of course, with a reasonable degree of stability. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the government was given the responsibility to manage the economy, to develop it and to continue the development of the Canadian economy for the good of all Canadian^. That mandate, that responsibility, was a broad one. It certainly included the effective and informed management of our economy, together with concern for social justice in Canada which, of course, includes such matters as regional disparity which, by the agreement of all, continues unabated; and this failure is one of the most marked failures of this government.
Of course, the promise went much further. It offered visions of the just society and of a united Canada. The government hinted that it had some secret for getting the economy of the country moving in a way that no other government had ever succeeded in doing. There was to be a new dimension of greatness that the government knew how to tap, if only we could be patient and trusting. Several times since then, of course, the government has told us that we were on the verge of greatness in this country. Somehow, this greatness seems to have escaped us. In view of this falling down on responsibilities, and in view of continuing high unemployment, I think it is kinder to draw a veil over some of these visions. This government has tapped no new veins; it has certainly taken us in no new directions-at least, it has not taken us in any direction in which anyone in his senses would wish to go.
This afternoon I want to look at what the government has accomplished in terms of plain effectiveness, which is a smaller but still very important area, in terms of economic management and in terms of the minimum degree of foresight that one would expect from the government. I have touched upon some of the mandates and responsibilities that the government was given. However, there were other responsibilities, other mandates, other directions, that the government was not given. Certainly, it was not given the mandate to create and maintain, month after month, the most serious unemployment, that this country has seen over a decade.
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Four years after this government took office following the election, we have seasonally adjusted unemployment at 6 per cent. We have 43 per cent of the massive number of unemployed under the age of 25, although they constitute about 23 per cent of the work force. That in itself would shock any government, except a government as complacent as this one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Forty per cent of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are out of work have been so for more than three months. The government did not have a mandate to create and maintain these conditions. It did not have a mandate to use one part of its responsibility, that is to control inflation, as an excuse to slow down the whole process of economic growth in Canada for a substantial period of time with savage consequences for the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This government did not have a mandate to confront, confuse and harass Canadians in sector after sector of our economy and section after section of our country, discouraging investment and slowing down the rate of investment until, from indications for the first quarter of this year, it now seems that the impulse behind the recovery that was taking place is slowing down while unemployment remains high. Already, the more optimistic forecasts that were made about the real growth of our economy in 1972 are being modified, principally as the result of the failure of investors in this country to respond. This government certainly did not have a mandate to do this. It has done it to the detriment of the Canadian economy and the misfortune of all the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Of course, the crux of the matter is the existence of massive unemployment in this country where it ought not to exist.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: That's not true.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am glad my great benefactor and colleague, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), is here. I was about to do a little reviewing as far back as the summer of 1970.
I found it necessary to call the attention of this government to the serious extent to which unemployment had climbed at that time as a result of the slowdown adopted in 1969. After the budget in the fall of 1970, we expressed keen disappointment over the fact that the government was so complacent and was doing so little to stimulate the economy.
At the beginning of 1971, I felt it necessary to warn the government that unless it took urgent steps to get the economy moving, and we gave some details as to what steps should be taken, including substantial tax reductions, seasonally adjusted unemployment in this country
25104-40J

April 24, 1972
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment
would not fall below 6 per cent in the year 1971. That prediction was based simply upon the application of common sense to independent forecasts of growth in relation to forecasts of growth in the labour force made by the Economic Council of Canada. Those forecasts were greeted with ridicule by the then Minister of Finance and the government. The complacency exhibited by this government during 1971 was probably without parallel, at least in living memory.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They said they were willing to put their jobs on the line that the situation would improve steadily, and that the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment would fall steadily throughout 1971. They saw no need to change their policies. If we were told once, we were told five times that the corner was being turned or that the corner had been turned. As it turned out, it was not a corner at all. It was simply a vicious circle on which the government had been taking the country round and round.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The prediction which I felt necessary to make is, unfortunately, still true today. Unemployment, seasonally adjusted, is still 6 per cent. The government's refusal to do anything adequate last year to fight unemployment was inexcusable. However, in light of its record, I do not suppose it could be called unexpected. For years the Economic Council of Canada had been warning the people and the government of Canada about the growth that would take place in the work force in 1965 and through the years. These predictions turned out to be true. The growth that took place in the work force in 1970-71 was in line with what had been usually taking place each year in this country since 1965.
The decision of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government to slow down the economy, and thereby create massive unemployment, was especially tragic in Canada in view of the forecast increase in the work force. The increase in the work force makes it much more difficult to catch upon the unemployment once it has been created. This makes it doubly hard for me to understand the complacency with which this government created unemployment in the first place, and then set out to stubbornly resist doing anything about it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government must have known in advance what was going to happen, but it took no effective measures. Therefore, could we really expect this same government to take effective measures once unemployment had risen to the massive proportions that it did? I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that would be like expecting a turtle to fly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It was much more in character for this government to whine, complain and use the labour force figures for its own political ends and that is what it tried to do. What is it doing now? What has this government

been doing recently with regard to the unemployment that has persisted at such high levels? The Prime Minister keeps talking about the thousands and thousands of jobs that are available, if people would only take them. He talks vaguely in terms of a leisure society which is supposedly in the process of being created, almost as if he were admitting that massive unemployment in this country is something planned, something that is associated in some way with progressive development in this country. That is the way the Prime Minister feels. I leave that opinion to be shared only by himself. As for me, his government, it is obviously lost.
It is not only the Prime Minister who is making these aimless statements. It is the government as a whole. There is fairly good evidence of aimlessness in the increasing insistence by various ministers, including the Prime Minister, I think, that we now need year round programs of the sort suggested by LIP, seasonal programs which, at least in principle, have great merit on a seasonal basis. It is now being increasingly suggested that we are going to have these kinds of programs on a year round basis. This is certainly an admission of defeat by the government in its quest for policies to provide jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On the basis of the information that has been made public, I think it is clear in Canada today that the sector of the economy that is weakest is the sector of investment. According to the government's own surveys, investment is expected to amount to about the same in 1972 as it was in 1971. It is clear that if there were to be a substantial increase in investment there would be a substantial increase in jobs. To me, it is also clear that the failure of the government to increase investment commitments is a reflection of the lack of confidence by the people of this country in the government of this country; it is a consequence of uncertainties, some of which the government has created and others of which it has deliberately allowed to continue. For the government to say there is a need for year round programs of an improvised type such as LIP is, I contend, an admission of defeat. Not only is it an admission of defeat by the government, it is a herald of ever-larger government expenditures-not expenditures to encourage economic growth and restore a larger measure of confidence, but expenditures brought about merely to prevent the governmental system, or, at least, the system of this government, from collapsing around its head. And, of course, this kind of expenditure to support year round programs of the kind I have mentioned inevitably means higher taxes for the already hard-pressed Canadian taxpayer to bear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Even when its ministers are talking about a year round LIP program, community programs and so on, the government cannot change its bureaucratic spots. Even in this area the big brother attitude remains predominant. If the government feels there are local programs which are desirable and which cannot be adequately financed on a local basis, the sensible thing would be to meet with the provinces and with the municipal govern-

ments with a view to enabling those governments to finance such programs rather than sitting around in Ottawa like a group of big brothers deciding what is good for various local communities. Even in putting forward what the government likes to think is an imaginative, humane program, its members cannot escape from their own tradition of centralization.
The main point remains. The government seems to have virtually given up its attempt, if it ever really made one, to achieve anything like full employment. This is bad enough, but I am afraid there is worse to come. Incredible as it may seem, the government does not even learn from its own mistakes. At least this is true in the case of the Prime Minister who, a few weeks ago, refused to rule out the possibility of following again the same economic policies as he applied back in 1969, if he thought they were warranted. There could be no better example of the crying need for a new governmental approach. There is a crying need for new government leadership. Not only has the Prime Minister and his administration failed to provide positive leadership in encouraging an upward movement of the economy and the creation of jobs, but they are dragging the country deeper and deeper into a morass of uncertainty and confusion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So far, the government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) have refused to tell members of this House or the Canadian public whether or not a budget will be presented this spring. It should be a full employment budget, if one is brought down at all. I want to be frank about it. I have seen enough budgets presented by this government to know better than to expect that anything of any great value will ever come from a budget presented by them. But the government unquestionably has a responsibility to parliament, and to the people, to present in this House an accounting of its financial expectations for the year in which we are now living, the year 1972-1973, as well as an explanation of its plans for this year, if indeed it has any plans.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It should be a full employment budget, if one is brought down at all. Then again, despite repeated promises, monotonous promises, we have yet to see the government policy on foreign investment, yet the Prime Minister keeps telling us it was decided last December. Third, we still do not know where we stand with regard to trade relations with the United States, though the President has made it very clear that substantial differences exist between the two countries.


George Harris Hees: And Mr. Connally.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My hon. friend mentioned Mr. Connally. But Mr. Connally stayed home, undoubtedly knowing what friendship really means in Canada in view of the Prime Minister's comment on Mr. Connally a couple of weeks ago.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Connally has this government scared to death.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Don't heckle your leader.
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment


George Harris Hees: The Prime Minister does not even know who is being heckled.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister is talking again. I thought he might have been reading. We are apparently re-opening negotiations with the United States, or at least we are thinking about it. We are told studies are being made. But from then on, a wall of secrecy comes between us and the facts. At least, it looks like a wall of secrecy from the outside. But I suppose if one were really inside the government it would look more like a swamp than a wall. There have certainly been no indications otherwise, and in the meantime the Canadian economy faces continued uncertainty in this area. This is coupled with uncertainty about the budget and uncertainty about foreign investment.
Next, there is the famous, or rather the notorious, tax reform bill which was passed by the use of closure last year. It was one of the first times a major bill has been passed before it was even ready and we are still waiting for the regulations; we are still waiting for the amendments which the then minister of finance promised would be placed before parliament. Where are those amendments? Rumour has it that there are 100 amendments being considered by the government. The lawyers and the chartered accountants made a presentation which I think involved 300 amendments to that bill. Have these, too, been put away in some pre-electoral limbo where the government would like to keep them safely out of sight while it does its magic tricks during the campaign?
Then, there is the competition bill which is vanishing and re-appearing from time to time. Where does that bill stand now? What are the changes that are going to be made? I think the Canadian people as well as Canadian business have a right to know. Is the bill somehow or other being sawn in two by the government? Are we going to hear a scream one of these days from behind the curtains, so to speak, or is the plan to bring it back some day at the convenience of the government, uncut, to dazzle some and perhaps bedevil others? We can joke about these things, Mr. Speaker, but these are sources of great uncertainty in this country.
I do not want the Prime Minister to think that I am bringing these things up to dissuade him from calling an election, because I think-


George Harris Hees: That would be the best thing that could ever happen to this country.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I accept what the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) says. I am bringing these things forward to show how little can be expected from this government in the future. It has drifted, it is drifting now, and it will continue to drift as long as it is able to cling to power. Instead of performing its duty of removing the uncertainties that exist, the government has been adding to them.
Of course, the Prime Minister has done something. He has moved some of his ministers around. He has given us a very personable Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). But I must say that while I used to be pretty critical of the

April 24, 1972
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment
former Minister of Finance, I sometimes regret that he is not still in that portfolio. Because, after all-


George Harris Hees: He would give us some answers.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, he would not necessarily give us answers, but he sometimes did admit that he didn't have the slightest idea what was happening. That kind of refreshing candour has completely disappeared. I do not want to accuse the present Minister of Finance of being intentionally devious in his replies, but I have to say to him very bluntly that it is not good enough to go around giving general assurances about full employment and whatnot, while at the same time doing absolutely nothing about it. Any time he finds two or three businessmen gathered together, he joins them to tell them that they are really very fine fellows and to assure them that the government has their best interests at heart.
It is not the personality of this minister or of that one which is really basically at issue. What is basically at issue is the existence of a government whose only consistency is lack of effectiveness and whose only direction is the way in which a ship goes without a rudder. The rudder that is missing is not only personal; we need a commitment to action in the immediate future. We need a commitment to the restoration of confidence and the elimination of uncertainty. In the longer haul we need a real commitment to the development of a long-term strategy; one, for example, which will do something effective to fight regional disparity in this country. After some four years in office, some members of the present government are finally beginning to talk about industrial strategy. They find the phrase apparently popular in some quarters. But what we need is a real commitment, a commitment involving consultation with the various sectors of the economy and with the provinces. We have not had it; indeed, we have seen no sign of it from this government.
Such a strategy must involve several things. I have mentioned regional disparity. It must also include the whole pattern of our trade relations in the future. This involves looking outwards to see that there are prospects in terms of trading and trading blocs. We want something more than the "guff"-if you will excuse me for saying so, Mr. Speaker-that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has been getting off when he speaks about institutionalizing our relations with the Common Market. When he is questioned about what this means, he says it means establishing the same kind of relations that we have with the United States. We do not need any more of that kind of confusion.
Such a strategy also involves looking inwards at ourselves, at our own potential for specialization and excellence with regard to goods and services. It involves our whole educational system as well, of course, as foreign investment policies. It includes other things too, things relating to our quality of life and the environment. We need a strategy for harmonizing the diversity of the people of this country. It has to include our plans for our north and middle north and the Canadians who want to inhabit those regions, not something that the Prime Minister throws out casually from time to time about some vision of the north. Such a strategy includes all these things, which is why I blame the government for its past

and present aimlessness and say that this country can no longer wait for the government to rise out of its lethargy.
Some people say that you cannot do anything about the unemployment which exists in this country, and I am afraid that is the attitude of this government. I sometimes feel the government regards the unemployment that exists as simply something relating to statistics. The government must be completely incapable of imagining the feelings of heads of families who are out of work and of young Canadians suffering frustration. All this has to come to an end. We have to create a climate of confidence in this country. We have to establish a relationship with meaningful consultation between the federal and provincial governments and between the government and various sectors of the economy and society. That condition alone cuts out any possibility of the present government ever achieving anything worth while in this area. It has alienated too many people. This government has sown too much distrust in this country at too many levels.
There are a good many kinds of non-confidence motions, Mr. Speaker, but the one I am presenting today- and I will be just a minute, Sir-is something special. It is not merely a parliamentary motion of non-confidence. The motion that I am presenting represents non-confidence in this government for its past policies and for its future prospects. It also represents non-confidence, lack of confidence, not only on the part of members of this House but also on the part of labour, agriculture, business, all the people of this country who gain their living or are trying to gain it. It represents a lack of confidence on the part of the provinces and regions of this country. It represents a lack of confidence in this government on the part of all the people in this country.
I started today by speaking of the mandate under which this government took power. This government has not only failed to fulfil that mandate; it has broken it by its mismanagement of the economy and by its total lack of sensitivity, its total lack of purpose throughout its life since 1968. The government has broken its mandate and has broken its faith with the Canadian people and, Sir, it is high time it went.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say something about the needs and challenges of the seventies to which the motion refers, and to try to measure the performance of the government, and indeed of the official opposition, in the light of those considerations. The issues raised in this motion underline the differences in social philosophy and approach between my party and both the government and the official opposition. Like the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), we have no confidence in the government's ability to meet the needs and challenges of the 1970's. But I want to make it clear that neither have we the slightest confidence that the Conservatives could possibly do any better.
Indeed, Sir, I remind you and the Leader of the Official Opposition that when you look for a comparable period of unemployment in the post-war period you find it in the years of the Conservative government between 1958 and
April 24, 1972

1962, so there is nothing in the record to show that the people who produced that mismanagement of the economy and that unemployment then are capable now of acting differently. I look around the leader of the opposition for the wizards of that party who would change the kind of thing it did during 1958 to 1962 and I cannot find them. Despite the charming smile of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), there are no such beings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There isn't even a Wizard of Oz.


David Lewis: Precisely because the Leader of the Opposition emphasized that his motion, since it is moved at this time in this parliament, is not merely an expression of the lack of confidence in this government by members of this House but of the people of Canada, I want to say as clearly as I can that I am no more impressed by the promises of a phony incentive society than I was by the promises of a phony just society which I heard in 1968. We are all for justice and all for incentives, but I ask the same question: Justice for whom and incentives for whom?
It is clear that the Leader of the Opposition is preparing to appeal to the Canadian people for a chance to do exactly the same thing as the government has done, to start on a program of incentives for private corporations, and of that we have had enough. Every year the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, (Mr. Marchand) the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Benson), other ministers and heads of other departments hand out to the corporations of Canada, most of them foreign owned, literally hundreds of millions of dollars; I am certain if it were added up, more than 1,000 millions of dollars each year, with very little result in jobs or welfare.
Indeed, what we have in Canada today in my view is a corporate welfare program which has produced few jobs and even greater inequality in our society. What we have both from the government and the Conservative side is a promise of more of the same; more concessions to those corporations in the tax field and in other fields. My colleagues and I have no use for that kind of program, whether it comes from one side or the other. If I may, Mr. Speaker, let me put it to you this way. In my view, Canadians have watched the same play for over a century. We have learned that merely changing the cast of characters does not improve the play. Whether the lines are read with Liberal arrogance or Tory incompetence, it still remains a bad play for the life and the people of Canada.
I said during the debate on the Speech from the Throne that the Trudeau years have been wasted years, characterized by complacency, unconcern and cynical statements about the availability of jobs when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), should have known, if he did not, that for every available job, even if it was available for people out of work, there were 10 or 12 unemployed people looking for work. The reason I have on occasion been bitter and certainly sharp in my criticisms of the government and the Prime Minister, and I admit it, is that it seemed to me there was a complete lack of appreciation of what unemployment means in the lives of people. Tragedy of unemployment, especially for the young, is not
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment
only the loss of income, which can be compensated partly by unemployment insurance benefits, welfare payments and the like, it is the loss of status as human beings which enforced idleness produces. I have in mind enforced idleness as distinct from the leisure time about which the Prime Minister talks and cynically equates with unemployment.
Enforced idleness means loss of self-reliance and loss of self-respect. It means loss of meaning and direction in the life of the person out of work. This is the tragedy that this government has deliberately created for hundreds of thousands of Canadians or, if our calculations are correct, for about 2 million Canadians in 1970 and 1971, because about 2 million Canadians were in fact out of employment for one period or another during each of these years. Today, we find that the secondary economic indicators, which originally promised to go up and hold out some hope for a real improvement in the economy, are down, showing that we have not even begun seriously to climb out of the difficulty into which this government deliberately placed us in its futile fight against something it called inflation without, in my view, realizing what the modern society is all about.
What are the needs and challenges of the 1970's? Because time will not permit me to deal with so large a subject fully, I want to suggest to you several obvious and very basic things our Canadian people have to turn to in the years ahead. These are not in any order of priority. First, we must face the fact that the children of the postwar baby boom have reached adulthood and put additional pressures on the labour market and on social needs such as housing, urban transportation and health care.
Second, we have technological developments in our society, increasing automation and cybernation in industry and all services, which affect not only the question of jobs for our people but also the life style of Canadians. They affect the equitable and appropriate division of work and perhaps the reduction of the work day, week or year and, therefore, the need for the creative development of programs for leisure caused by automation and cybernation in present and future years.
Third, we have increasing problems in our urban society; overcrowding, pollution, traffic jams, the lack of urban transportation, the lack of adequate parks and playgrounds for our children, the lack of day care centres for mothers who wish to go on the labour market and the lack of centres for our senior citizens in which they could not only live in decency but also in which they could fulfil themselves through some useful activity in our society. We have the entire complex of oppressive, modern factors endangering life in our increasingly difficult urban centres.
Fourth, we have also the threat to Canadian rural life and rural communities by the growth of corporate farming and by policies, both private by these corporations, and public by this government. These policies are deliberately aimed at reducing our already low farm population, making farming a kind of conveyor belt operation, instead of being concerned with the lives of farming people and the life style of farming communities, which are an integral part of Canada.

April 24, 1972
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment
Fifth, we have the growing difficulties and dangers of pollution of our air and water caused, I emphasize, not only by industry and not only by vehicles that we may use, but caused also by our failure as a country, a failure mainly due to the inactivity of federal governments, to build the necessary recycling and treatment plants in the communities across this country. In the result, our rivers and lakes, like the Ottawa River next door, are polluted not only by industry but by the very life of the community because we dump our garbage and refuse into the waters which surround our cities and smaller towns.
Sixth, we have the immense problem of the increasing alienation of people in our society as a result of the bigness of our society: big government, big corporations, big unions, big universities, huge cities and the overwhelming and oppressive bigness which modern technological development has produced in our society. To this I add, the failure of governments oriented toward corporations instead of toward the people seriously to look for ways and means in which the people might break through the huge bureaucracy in every walk of life in our present society.
Seventh, we have a continuing problem in holding our country together, not only through new constitutional arrangements because constitutions are not things which hold people together. They are merely a framework which may or may not help. What we need in order to hold our country and people together is an effective attack on regional disparity, an effective attack on inequality across this country and a determined and committed attack on poverty throughout Canada. It is only when we have begun to solve these economic problems that any constitutional rearrangement can serve a useful purpose in holding our country and our people together.
Finally, in the 70's we face the urgent need to end the domination of Canada's economy by foreign corporations, mainly from the United States. This domination endangers not only our economic future, takes from us not only the capacity to shape our own priorities and our own investment direction, but also endangers our political independence if the present continentalist policies of the Liberal party and the Conservative party continue to sell our Canada to the foreign corporations.
It is my belief that these needs and challenges, and many more that I do not have time to enumerate, cannot be met by old methods and old approaches. They cannot be met by the 95 large corporations in this country which finance political parties, as is the situation in respect of this government at least, and probably also of those who face them in the Conservative party. They cannot be met by failure to plan. They cannot be met by a Minister of Finance who says he is not prepared to make any forecasts about what will happen to the economy and unemployment. No one in a modern economy has a right to sit in the seat of the Minister of Finance unless he is prepared precisely to plan the economy of the country and attempt to forecast what will happen as a result of the policies he or his predecessor have introduced. This kind of need and challenge cannot be met by the ad hoc policies of LIP or by the Opportunities for Youth program It cannot be met by an attitude of government that every

time there is a problem the solution is to spend more hundreds of millions of dollars and give those hundreds of millions of dollars to the corporations which failed before and whose hope of succeeding now has no basis except the friendliness which the Liberal party has for the 95 corporations.
These needs and challenges cannot be met unless governments are prepared to plan the economy, have the courage to curb the power of the corporations in the land and have the determination to equalize the opportunities for Canadians across Canada. These needs and challenges cannot be met unless governments have the moral initiative to reform the tax system so that the tax burden on the low and middle income groups is removed or at least reduced; unless governments are ready to see that in a modern economy the fate of the country and the fate of the people, the priorities of the country and the priorities of the people and the problems of the country and the problems of the people are not left to private corporations which are answerable only to their shareholders and themselves and not to the people of Canada and the people of the world.
Therefore, I suggest that if we are to have a policy of full employment in this country, a policy to which my party has been committed from the first day, the governments, both federal and provincial, must become more heavily involved in economic planning by using their powers to direct investment and resources to meet social needs instead of the way investment is now being made. That planning must also seek to make Canada competitive in international markets so that job-creating industries may prosper and create jobs for Canadian workers.
Second, if we are to have a full employment policy, manpower and regional expansion policies must be aimed at long-term development rather than being used as a statistical band-aid to cover up the failures of economic policy by getting people temporarily off the unemployment rolls without giving them real jobs and training them for jobs which are not there. Third, we need to have policies to bring about a substantial reduction in interest rates, particularly for housing and other developments. To expect a wage or salary earner to take a mortgage at over 9 per cent interest I say, as I have said outside the House is criminal in a country as rich as this country is.
We have in this country, finally, immense unfilled needs in the urban centres of Canada which must be met if we are to start reducing the unemployment problem to manageable proportions. Therefore, one of the major components of a full employment policy is a program of low-income housing, urban renewal, municipal infrastructure, urban transportation, anti-pollution and purification plants across the country, centres for the aged in Canada, day-care centres for parents who need a place in which to leave their children while they work, more hospital beds and, even more urgently, chronic care units so that the hospital beds may be released for those who need them, and facilities to assist the disturbed and retarded children, facilities which are now shamefully inadequate for the hundreds of thousands of children who do not have an opportunity.
There should be immediate large-scale tax cuts for middle and low-income families to bring about a signifi-
April 24, 1972

cant increase in demand for goods and services. In order to make up for the loss in revenue by necessary tax cuts to lower-income families, the anti-social tax concessions and depletion allowances given to petroleum and mining corporations should be abolished. They have received enough of this kind of treatment for too many years. They have reaped huge profits at the expense of the Canadian people. The time has come to think of the people of Canada instead.
Because the question of taxes is not mentioned in the motion of the Leader of the Opposition I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the motion be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the words "Canadian industry," the following words:
"has failed to introduce real reform of the tax system so as to redistribute income and reduce the tax burden on low and middle income groups,"
so, the motion as amended would read:
That because the government has failed to produce measures to create employment, has failed to encourage investment in Canadian industry, has failed to introduce real reform of the tax system so as to redistribute income and reduce the tax burden on low and middle income groups and has caused widespread uncertainty as to its economic programs, this House lacks confidence in the ability of the government to meet the needs and challenges of the seventies.
We have had four years of the complacency and failures of the government following, as I said at another time in this House, the year of the centennial of the creation of Canada as a country, following the hopes and the buoyancy of 1967. I say with broken heart rather than with any glee that the government has failed to live up to the opportunities which were created by 1967, the opportunities which the Prime Minister fooled the Canadian people into thinking the government would be capable of realizing. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the government has failed the people of Canada. I merely add that so has the Conservative party throughout its history in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless there are any procedural objections taken to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) it will be put to the House at this time. It is moved by Mr. Lewis, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That the motion be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the words "Canadian industry," the following words:
"has failed to introduce real reform of the tax system so as to redistribute income and reduce the tax burden on low and middle income groups,"


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, since I represent a constituency with the lowest per capita income throughout Canada, I believe it is my duty to take part in the debate on the motion before us in order not only to criticize the government but also to give it helpful suggestions to improve the situation, especially in my area.
The motion blames the government for having failed to produce measures to create employment, failed to encour-
Alleqed Failure to Alleviate Unemployment
age investment in Canadian industry and caused widespread uncertainty.
Mr. Speaker, let us examine very objectively our production possibilities in Canada and let us see whether in the industrial field, it is possible under our present system, to create employment without affecting another field concerning those same industries, namely the flow of production, so as to generate new demand to renew such production and provide steady employment to the labour force.
Mr. Speaker, I should not like to quote figures because it is never interesting for listeners, but I shall refer to the words spoken by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) praising the efficiency of our economic system in the production field, when he stated, during a television program in December, that our gross national product was increasing every year in an extraordinary way. He was then quoting the figures published by Statistics Canada and he was perfectly right.
Therefore, all Canadians-industrialists, farmers, businessmen, shopkeepers-manage every year in spite of unemployment, to increase that production which is obviously intended for human consumption. But such consumption is subject to the condition that consumers have the money, the purchasing power needed to buy the things produced for them.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, there was a time in the history of production when one could rightfully say that production was financing consumption. In those days, the production process was not as modern as it is today, it was not mechanized, and man's muscular strength was used to a greater extent to make the things which were needed. Since then, however, man has put his brain to use and invented machines. There have been improvements in all kinds of areas.
In all sectors of economic activity, manufacturers do not hesitate to dismiss workers when they finally realize that they can obtain absolutely the same results changing something in their production process, whether it be by introducing nothing but a six-inch steel piece in the machine, provided it has been invented. Why? To increase their production, reduce their costs, and market their production on a more competitive basis. You cannot blame them for that!
Progress is here to stay and we should take the necessary steps so that our people and mankind may take advantage of it rather than being victimized by progress.
On a number of occasions, we have suggested in this House various programs to improve our faulty system of production distribution. Such arguments may be laughed at but you should read advertisements in the newspapers. For example, in the first issue of La Presse after the strike, there were 70 pages of advertisements. All kinds of products were advertised and offered to Canadians. They were told: they are all for you at reduced prices, at cut prices, etc. And many Canadian women could admire in shop Windows products offered at reduced prices. But since their pocket-books did not say they could buy, they could only gaze upon those products and go back home sighing and thinking they could use all those things.

April 24, 1972
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment
Mr. Speaker, if the Canadian people could buy from a store or a company that needs to improve such or such an area of its production, this would also help the manufacturer who could, as I said earlier, get new orders and have his industry work at full capacity.
Even if all Canadian companies were dependent on social welfare or received all kinds of grants to produce more and more cheaply, the problem would not be solved. We should take the bull by the horns and organize consumption.
So, if the consumer level is inadequate, measures to finance it must necessarily be taken. I don't know when efficient and realistic action will be taken in this field.
The government is now acting, but only in a piecemeal fashion. For instance, the Local Initiatives Program, involving expenditures of $150 to $200 million is a mere drop of water in the ocean. Many municipalities have proved that they had prepared worthwile projects.
A short while ago, the hon. member who spoke before me mentioned all kinds of public works which the public has been requesting for years. He is right and I believe that carrying out public works brings about automatic distribution of buying power, making purchase of consumer goods possible, whereas public works are not consumer goods. They can be used, but not consumed. Therefore, through an increase in the volume of our public works we would be distributing more money by way of salaries, buying power, thus ensuring a greater input of orders to industries, and our economy would expand anew.
In fact, many applications submitted by municipalities or local agencies under the Local Initiatives Program have been rejected.
I have here a letter dated March 14, 1972, from Mr. Chevrier, the assistant in the minister's cabinet, in which he simply replied as follows:
This replies to your letter of February 25 concerning project 212-788-Corporation of the Village of Saint-Anselme. We are sorry to inform you that the project has not been accepted by our department.
As you certainly know, this program aroused great interest throughout the country, and we received over 13,000 applications.
They received 13,000 applications because there were 13,000 areas of need. All 13,000 applications were not answered. I go on quoting:
Among the great number of valid applications, we had to choose carefully, taking into account the criteria you know of-
-I surely know them-
-and the budget allocated to us.
I do not approve of this too much. If we have to submit to the will of those who control the nation's credit in order to grant permission and to execute certain projects, I do not agree. The letter goes on:
For those same reasons, a number of valid projects like yours will not receive financial assistance from our department.
Like several other members of this House, I talked on several occasions to the various ministers concerned to ask them to give the Minister of Manpower and Immigra-

tion (Mr. Mackasey), who is responsible for this program, additional funds which would allow him to accept a greater number of valid projects from municipalities, such as the building of sewage systems, culverts, municipal parking lots, or community halls. All those projects are stalled through lack of funds.
Mr. Speaker, if we get a little closer to the immediate, we see that they are now considering applications under another Opportunities for Youth program, and in a communique that the minister has sent us, it is said that 19,000 have been received. This means that young people are prepared to stop, think and prepare projects enabling them not only to earn a few dollars during the summer holidays, in order to get back to college next fall, but to get involved with community life; they are prepared to assume responsibilities, to prove to us that we did not bring them into the world for nothing, in short, they are ready to undertake something.
But concerning these 19,000 applications, to my great surprise, I received recently a communique saying that about 3,000 will be accepted; so, 16,000 will remain. This number, in my view, is far too high. If 16,000 were accepted and 3,000 discarded, I would then say that at least considerable efforts have been made. But in view of the figures that we have been given and because they say that they lack money, I do not agree. I cannot believe in such reasoning because, in a way, such credits are nothing more than figures. When you look for these credits elsewhere, you only bring back figures. Then they will make us the following reproach: those well-known Social Credit party members do talk a lot about credit, they do talk often about money. Mr. Speaker, who does not talk about them?
Everyday in the private sector we can see banks welcoming customers who want short or long term credit. They borrow from a caisse populaire thus they get credit. Then, everyone talks about credit, but it is rather a debt credit. This is acceptable in the private sector because if you lend to a Canadian some of the money you earned you only lend him the product of your work.
But when it comes to Canada being compelled to kowtow to those who forge figures, who demonstrate the credit in Canada, who happen to mint the credit, the products and the work of Canadians, there I do not agree.
It is this credit indebtedness that we are opposing and we would like, at last, to see in Canada a credit system that would be of effective service to the people. This is why Major Douglas in his reform philosophy spoke of social credit since that sort of credit would benefit society.
Mr. Speaker, I have perused several reports in the last few weeks. I am going to comment on what I am conversant with and not on something I do not know. I have noted that in Quebec, the forest industry is in a sad state. Trees are chopped down as if we were the last generation, as if none would follow us, as if the world would end there and then, when it is a fact that the end is not yet in sight and that we should develop our national resources in such a way as to ensure not only their permanence but their increase.
I had then suggested that during the summer holidays young and willing people should be sent to work and
April 24, 1972

make the forests grow. This would create jobs they could fill and come to like; they would live in harmony with nature and discover what our natural resources are. And instead of only sowing the seeds of discontent in their hearts, we would teach them to love their country.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to see how we fail sometimes to shoulder our responsibilities and that some of our leaders behave irresponsibly, availing themselves of a difficult situation to exploit violence and train the young to bring down our institutions.
I once met a group of young people and told them that instead of bringing down everything, they should find out where the deficiency lies and the reason why they are unable to develop in a normal way.
I also gave them the following comparison: Suppose we are in a house in which the temperature is only 55 degrees, while it is 30 degrees outside; 55 degrees inside is not particularly comfortable-it makes us shiver. So we first notice that we are not comfortable because the heating is defective. Well, somebody decides to stir up all the people there, to convince them to demonstrate and break the windows. Do you think it is going to be warmer in that room afterwards? They answered: No. It is not by demonstrating or breaking windows that we can solve the problem; we have to get to the bottom of things.
So I told them this: Let us go down to the basement and have a look at the heating installation so we can find out where the defect lies, and once we have discovered whether there is power to activate the fan, to activate the pump, we may discover that the furnace is in good condition, but the oil only comes drop by drop-and the furnace can only burn whatever oil it gets. So let us check the oil pipe to find out where the defect is.
Through checking this, we end up in our neighbor's basement, and there, we inquire from him and learn that he is in the same situation. We follow up along the oil pipe which feeds the furnaces in the third and fourth houses, and find that the situation is the same everywhere.
At one point, we discover that an invisible control regulates the oil supply to all the furnaces, and that there lies the cause of the trouble.
So I told them that instead of breaking windows they should air their grievance against the invisible hand preventing oil from reaching burners which would enable furnaces to function and to satisfy everybody.
Mr. Speaker, these -young people understood me very well. I wanted them to get to the core of things so as to speak against what prevents us from living a normal life, not to destroy the social structure, the society which our forefathers have succeeded in erecting but in improving the structure by adding another story which would give them room to have their place within security and freedom.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, to listen to some of the doom and gloom from the other side of the House, one would assume that all is lost.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is, for the government.
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment


Raymond J. Perrault: One would assume that Canada is a depressed area in a world of abundance, prosperity and full employment. If one were to believe all these emotionally charged and highly inaccurate statements, one could only conclude that Canada, since 1968, has been one of the great disaster areas of the world of all times.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The hon. member's dates are wrong. He should have said, since 1963.


Raymond J. Perrault: Today we have heard the same old theme. The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) seems to take special pleasure in picking through the entrails of every statistical report produced by the government or any other source, to see if he can discover any portents of a cataclysm to come.


Gerald William Baldwin: He does not need to do that. He can smell it.


Raymond J. Perrault: Every effort is made to place the worst possible construction on every statistical analysis. A few minutes after beginning his speech, after having talked about gloom and disaster of the kind that would send most Canadians, if they were not true optimists, to the top of the next hill to await the end of the world, the hon. gentleman called for the restoration of the spirit of confidence in Canada. He must know, surely, from experience that, in order to create a climate of confidence in Canada, we must create the psychology of confidence, and this psychology involves all levels of government, the private sector and even opposition leaders. These irresponsible opposition attacks reflect either malicious mischief, or they reflect an abysmal ignorance of what has been happening in Canada and a lack of comprehension of the problems facing Canada.
The fact is that Canada is held in enormous respect abroad.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond J. Perrault: The Leader of the Official Opposition knows this, and Canadians know it. Happily, the people of this country have confidence in Canada, to a considerably greater degree than has the opposition. We are regarded as a nation which, despite very serious world economic conditions in the past five years or so, has weathered the storm better than almost any other country. Those who engage in a non-stop attack on the Canadian government for its failure to solve all of our economic problems should explain to the people of Canada why, just a few weeks ago, the Financial Times of London awarded Canada its economic Oscar for the world's best economic performance in 1971.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond J. Perrault: Yet, you know, Mr. Speaker, the opposition hawks calamity in every speech and every statement in this House.
Those critics who seem to believe that the government and the Prime Minister are fair game for any kind of irresponsible comment should be reminded that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development rated Canada's economic growth in 1971 as one of

April 24, 1972
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment
the greatest in the world, at a time when the principal markets for Canadian products experienced a slowing in growth, if one includes Britain, West Germany, Italy, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands as well as Japan.


An hon. Member:: There is lots of work in Japan.


Raymond J. Perrault: Canada, as the world's fifth largest exporting nation, depends for much of its prosperity and employment on the state of world markets. Everyone knows this; yet opposition critics talk as if the state of the world is the government's fault. This is utter nonsense. The fact is that this world of ours has been through an extremely difficult period in the past five or six years. Perhaps not since the great depression have there been so many economic challenges for the nations of the world to meet. Yet, as the Financial Times of London says:
Canada's industrial output has risen faster and prices have risen slower than in any other democratic country on the face of the earth.
Yet, the opposition tells us that it is ashamed of this kind of economic performance. It is to the credit of the Canadian people that, despite the attacks we have heard from the other side, this goal has been reached. The barrage of criticism continues. They said, "Why haven't you solved unemployment," and, "Why does inflation continue?"
I should like to say something about unemployment. The Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition spoke about a plan for more employment. However, that is a plan which he carefully concealed from the people of Nova Scotia during the years when he was prime minister of that province. The present record of job creation in this country makes his Nova Scotia statistics look abysmal in comparison. There are questions asked about unemployment and inflation which cannot be answered by the Government of Canada alone. The Government of Canada, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows, possesses no bank of levers which can be pulled in some sort of miraculous sequence and achieve, simultaneously, full employment, stable prices and unbounded industrial expansion. That can come about only through co-operation between governments at all levels and with the private sector.
We know that provincial governments, in conjunction with their municipalities, collect more money and spend more money than does the federal government. Only through co-operative efforts by governments at all levels, the private sector, trade unions, agriculture and so on, can we meet our economic goals. While we still have some distance to travel toward those goals, and other speakers will deal with the economic aspects of this resolution later, this country of ours, despite the blue ruin gang, has been doing much better than anyone thought we could. In fact, our economy has been growing at a fantastic clip. It has been growing at a rate twice as fast as that of the United States. In fact, it has been outstripping the United States ever since the present Prime Minister assumed office in 1968. In March, 8,016,000 Canadians were working. Between 97 and 98 per cent of heads of families were working. Unfortunately, some are not working. For them,

this represents a real tragedy. We have to work together co-operatively in our society to provide opportunities for them. There are 336,000 more Canadians working than one year ago. This is the highest growth rate of any industrial country in the western world.
We face some unique challenges. In its fourth annual report, the Economic Council of Canada told us that in the 15 year period beginning in 1965 and ending in 1980, the Canadian labour force would grow by 50 per cent. This is an incredible growth rate, a growth rate entirely unique in the western world. The need to provide this number of jobs is the challenge and the opportunity which all of us have, whether we work in government at the local, provincial or federal level, or whether we are associated with private industry, trade unions or the agricultural community.
Let us compare the growth in our work force with that of other countries. The United States labour force is to grow by 30 per cent against our 50 per cent for Canada; the United Kingdom 4.5 per cent in the same 15 years; Sweden a zero growth rate and France, a 13.5 per cent increase by 1980. In Germany, the predicted growth rate of the labour force in this period is 5.5 per cent. In Italy, the rate is 2.5 per cent. In Canada, I repeat, it is 50 per cent. It has been said before that this is an historic, nonrecurring opportunity and challenge for the people of this country, because if we can get an economy that will put these people to work, and they are mostly young people, relatively well educated, we are going to have in this country an economic base for a more just society and those greater opportunities that we all want in areas other than the economic area.
What is this rate in real terms? In real terms, the challenge is quite staggering. We will be adding three million people to the labour force in that 15 year period. In the first five year period from 1965 to 1970, one million new jobs were created in Canada. That is a remarkably good record. The three million people who will come into the Canadian labour force by 1980 will equal the absolute additions of people to the labour forces of Great Britain, West Germany and Italy combined in that period. With our population based on 22 million people, we have to find as many jobs as those three countries combined. That is a very significant challenge.
Despite these facts, the opposition thrashes about trying to convert every sign of progress into evidence of impending catastrophe. These Jeremiahs among us carefully conceal these facts from the Canadian public; in the first five years of the period about which the Economic Council advised us, over 1.2 million new jobs were created in Canada. This total of more than one million equals the new jobs created in seven European countries; Great Britain, France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Sweden and the Netherlands. There are 22 million people in Canada and 200 million in Europe, yet the critics blast ahead-we heard them again today-and suggest that somehow Canada's economic performance has been inadequate or suffers in comparison with some of the other countries of the world.
While the growth rate of Canada's labour force is six times that of western European countries and twice as fast as that of the United States, we continue to hear
April 24, 1972

criticism in this House. I would like the members of the opposition to call the following statements to mind. Perhaps they would like to explain them to the Canadian people. We have heard accusations in this House that the government is responsible for the rate of inflation, despite the fact it is the lowest of 22 nations in the western world. The socialist leader who today calls for full employment in a more candid moment, when speaking to an NDP council meeting in Ottawa on September 21, 1970, said and I quote:
It is politically impossible for the NDP in its present position to say full employment and we don't care where prices go!
That is an admission by the leader of the New Democratic Party that a price has to be paid for inflation, whatever that price may be. The official opposition has expressed similar concerns. Today, they lecture us about our alleged sins of omission and commission. Yet, the official finance spokesman for that party stated before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on November 4, 1969, and I quote:
I am just as concerned as you are-I think all members of the House are-about the problem of inflation, and I think our chief concern is not so much to suggest that what you are doing is wrong, but that we fear that some of the things you may be doing are wrong, so that we miss the boat.
That is what the Conservative party told parliament and Canada in 1969. The official spokesman continued:
If the national effort results in an underkill on this score it will be far worse than the overkill; because if we have a national underkill in this fight against inflation we will have to start all over, and I think the square of zero is going to be much further back again. This is what bothers me.
Those were the words of the official spokesman for the official opposition concurring in the fight against inflation. But now, when these opposition parties discover there is some political fallout, that a price is being paid because of a failure of segments of the Canadian society to heed the request of the Prime Minister of this country for voluntary restraints, they say, "there is nobody in this economic chicken house but us chickens". They refuse to acknowledge any previous attitude at all which would have supported that fight against inflation. It is difficult to believe today that these two masters of hindsight would ever have uttered words which admitted that a price had been paid for inflation. Let the House and the Canadian people know that the government shares a real concern for inflation and the danger of pricing Canadian goods out of international markets. Despite these difficult months, Canadians have every right to feel proud of what has been done, and more remains.
What does the challenge to create more jobs mean for government? It means that in addition to normal fiscal and monetary measures designed to stimulate employment, we must adopt measures of an extraordinary kind to provide employment opportunities, especially for the thousands of people coming into the work force. The Department of Manpower and Immigration is deeply concerned about this challenge to provide more jobs. The resolution suggests current programs and services do not go far enough in meeting the needs of Canadians, particularly the working poor, displaced people and young
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment
people in search of employment. The facts do not support the allegations in the resolution.
The services of the Department of Manpower and Immigration have included extensive and well financed programs to provide labour market information and analysis, employment counselling and career guidance, job matching and placement services, adult training programs which include "in-industry" and "on-the-job" training programs, manpower adjustment services in cases of technological and industrial change and special programs for certain groups in the labour force, especially the disadvantaged.
Certain opposition spokesmen made reference to the challenge involved in finding employment for students and young people, yet opposition representatives must be aware of the fact that a summer employment program for students has been operated for some years by our Canada Manpower Centres. During the last four summers, the department initiated special efforts and programs to help students find summer jobs. Based on the experience of the past few years, it is estimated that 1,306,000 students will be seeking employment this summer; 434,000 postsecondary and 872,000 secondary. This represents an increase of 114,000 over 1970; 41,000 post secondary and 73,000 secondary.
In 1972, the Department of Manpower and Immigration will generally conduct the same activities as in 1971, with the following changes: one, the number of CM Centres for students will be increased from 119 to 137; two, an interregional, student summer employment program will be introduced whereby up to 2,000 post-secondary students will be provided with an opportunity to obtain employment during the summer months in regions or provinces other than the ones in which they reside and would normally work.
In October, 1971, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration was given responsibility for the execution of the special employment plan. This is a direct expenditure and loan program in the amount of $465 million, concentrated, to the extent possible, in the period October, 1971, to May 31, 1972. It consists of an employment loan program providing $160 million to the provinces, a $10 million loan program for exhibitions and fairs, a local initiatives program of $150 million, and an additional manpower retraining program of $65 million.
The local initiatives program was designed to provide the greatest possible good to Canadian communities while putting the largest number of people to work. It enabled municipalities, community organizations and private groups to submit labour-intensive projects for approval and funding. Of the $150 million allotted to the program, $50 million was made available to municipalities across Canada in consultation with provincial governments. The balance was available for projects submitted by community organizations and private groups. Over 5,600 projects were approved under this program, creating 90,000 jobs. So much for the prediction of the opposition that no more than 50,000 jobs would be created.
The Canadian manpower training-on-the-job program was introduced as one of the 1971-72 winter special

April 24, 1972
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment
employment programs. It was designed to stimulate employers to prepare for future economic expansion and permit persons who would otherwise be unemployed to learn on-the-job skills which will be of continuous value to them by increasing their employability or earning capacity and by preparing them to take advantage of future employment opportunities. The department has entered into approximately 12,000 contracts with employers to the value of $50 million to train some 41,000 trainees at an average cost of $1200 for an average training period of 17 weeks. Yet the leader of the socialist party stands in his place and attacks this program as one which does not train people for jobs which are available. It was a ridiculous and unworthy statement by a man who aspires to be prime minister of this country.


An hon. Member:: Never.


Raymond J. Perrault: Since the inception of the program in 1964, 274 manpower assessment incentive agreements and 92 manpower mobility incentive agreements have been entered into. The total number of workers affected by the assessment studies total 232,298.
I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, describing what has been done to provide jobs for Canadians at decent salaries and wages but I am afraid my words would be wasted on an opposition which seems determined to destroy every government program or to place the worst construction on them because of their quest for political advantage. Other speakers will deal with further aspects of the motion in the course of debate today. I suggest to hon. members on the other side that the Canadian people, led by the government of the right hon. Prime Minister, have more faith in their country than do they and their advisers. Most Canadians want to be on the construction crew rather than on the wrecking gang. The resolution before us, and the statement by the Leader of the Official Opposition, are unworthy of the support of the House, as is the amendment in the name of the leader of the minor opposition group, and in my view they are unworthy of any party which aspires to be the government of the country.


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, this government, together with the administration which held office during the Pearson years, has had nine years in which to plan and produce in the interests of all the citizens in our country. It is now clear that these Liberal years have been poor ones for the many and lucrative ones for the few, particularly for Liberals who are Liberal in name only and who are hogging the benefits of power for themselves and their 'in' clique.
Today, after four years of gross mismanagement of the economy and chaos in practically every government department, we charge and can prove that the government has failed to provide measures to create sufficient employment. We can, with even greater force, charge and prove that it knew there would be a great influx of young people on the labour market in the 'sixties-the post-war crop-and that it has utterly failed to plan and provide jobs in their interest. They have been neglected while over-emphasis was placed, and time and money were wasted on constitutional vagaries, rule changes, international intrigue, government shuffles, Information Canada and trips abroad.

Our young people have been ignored while the ceiling on interest rates was lifted and an 11 per cent tax placed on building materials to make their entry into their life work-pattern even more difficult. Mr. Speaker, if we are to solve our problems of unemployment and inflation, the present mismanagement of our economy by this government must be brought to a halt. The statement that our economy has been mismanaged is an indisputable fact which can easily be verified by glancing at a few statistics.
The rate of capital investment is down from 11 per cent last year to a projected 5 per cent this year. During the years 1968-71 the annual average seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate was 5.5 per cent per year. This stands in sharp contrast to the years 1964-67 when the rate was 4.1 per cent. And now, ominously, in March of this year it reached 6 per cent. Furthermore, since 1967 the gap between the actual and potential levels of the gross national product in constant dollars has widened considerably, reaching around 4 per cent in 1970. This represents a gap of approximately $3 billion in 1970. The rate of real economic growth last year dropped to 3.3 per cent from 5.1 per cent in 1969, in comparison to the potential growth rate of 5.5 per cent. In other words, Mr. Speaker, our levels of output and income would have been considerably greater with reasonably full use of Canada's labour force and other productive resources. Therefore, changes must be made. Perhaps the most beneficial of the possible changes would be the introduction of full employment budgeting techniques.
The Ontario budget plan for 1971-72 used the full-employment budgeting approach for the first time by any government in Canada in the design of fiscal policy. Full-employment budgeting is now being used by the United States federal government. Full-employment budgeting is particularly relevant to the current economic situation and the problem of fiscal policy co-ordination in the Canadian federal system. Budgetary deficits are commonly understood to be expansionary. However, the full-employment budget adds a new dimension to this conventional approach to fiscal policy formulation. It emphasizes the way in which revenues increase as economic activity revives and exert a "tax drag", thereby slowing down economic expansion possibly before full employment has been achieved. The intention in such budgeting procedures is to offset any slack in the economy, and counteract the government's loss of tax revenue by cutting taxes in such a way that the growth potential of the economy is restored. On balance, these changes should reduce the expansionary impact of the tax cuts and discretionary expenditure increases.
Thus, in comparison with federal fiscal policy in 197172, three features of Ontario policy stand out. First, it was based on an objective "full employment budgeting" assessment of the impact of current policy. Second, it included more emphasis on tax cuts rather than expenditure increases. We must bear in mind that the expenditure of the federal government this year is being increased by 23 per cent. In addition, those increases in expenditures that occurred were mainly direct, rather than arm's length. Third, the major policy incentives-tax credits and
April 24, 1972

cuts, and winter employment expenditure programs- preceded similar federal action.
I should like now to say something about the problems of designing and implementing short-term economic stabilization policy. The task of short-term economic stabilization is demonstrably very difficult. It is, however, even more complicated in a federal state such as Canada. Nevertheless, in light of the obvious failure of federal policies to maintain high levels of employment, and in view of the absence of new federal initiatives with respect to federal-provincial fiscal policy co-ordination, it seems important to consider briefly those problems revealed. These are the problems of lags in the implementation of policy changes, the balance of policy mix between expenditure changes and tax changes, and the problem of estimating the direction and degree of fiscal impact.
Even so, the full employment budget estimates show that-on a national accounts basis-the federal fiscal impact was expansionary in 1970, though nowhere nearly sufficient completely to reverse 1969's restrictive impact. In 1971-72, the planned federal expansionary swing is more pronounced, partly because of a carry-over into the current fiscal year of unrealized 1970-71 spending intentions. Some carry-over of this year's program into next year appears inevitable, and it is thus unlikely that the full planned impact will materialize in 1971-72. However, the tax reductions in this year's program give it more flexibility than last year's and there seems to be no reason to doubt that this combined expansionary fiscal impact of 1970-71 and 1971-72 is greater than the restrictive impact of 1969.
Ontario fiscal policy for 1970-71 was, in contrast to federal policy, designed from the outset to be expansionary, albeit moderately so. It showed the same adaptability as federal policy, undergoing substantial in-year changes intended to reinforce its expansionary thrust. Ontario fiscal policy was more flexible than federal policy because in-year changes in expenditures were concentrated in direct rather than arm's length categories. Direct expenditures offer a greater degree of short-term flexibility.
In the past two years the fiscal impact of the Ontario government on the provincial economy has been almost as pronounced, in relative terms, as that of the federal government on the Canadian economy. Accordingly, the Ontario budget has become a key economic document in so far as the short-term economic stabilization of the Ontario economy is concerned. This recent evolution of an independent provincial fiscal policy in Ontario underscores the importance of federal-provincial fiscal policy co-ordination. Over the past two years the direction of thrust in federal and Ontario fiscal policies has, fortunately, been the same. However, independent pursuit of contrary policies is a possibility in the future, given existing evidence of lack of co-ordination.
This year, for example, in the absence of federal plans for dealing with winter employment problems the Ontario government went ahead with its own program. Subsequently, the federal government instituted its program which overlaps the Ontario program in certain areas. Such duplication limits the efficiency and flexibility of fiscal policy in Ontario. There is little doubt that the
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment
utilization of federal-provincial fiscal resources could be made more efficient through co-ordinated policies.
The finance committee in the other place has also supported the concept of full employment budgeting in one of its recent reports in these words:
The Minister of Finance told us that he discerned some important practical difficulties in applying a high employment budgeting rule to the Canadian federal government and he questioned whether the concept would be particularly illuminating to the public or otherwise useful.
We took careful account of the minister's views on this point. But we could not help observing also that the Ontario government, as well as the United States federal government, has seen virtue in the concept, and that both have found ways of adapting it to their needs. It seems to us that some reasonably flexible adaptation of the concept to the budgeting of the federal government in Canada would also be helpful.
We therefore recommend that the federal government adopt the concept of high employment budgeting, at least to the extent of always estimating, in budget presentations, what the budgetary position would be at high employment and of analyzing reasons for changes in the estimated figures since the previous presentations.
The needs and challenges of the seventies require new methods of approaching and solving problems. We must not allow our economy to be hamstrung by a government that believes in exercising with dumbbells. We must seek a government that will pay full attention to the main concerns of the Canadian people, particularly in the economic and technological fields.
As I have already shown, the use of full employment budgeting techniques would greatly benefit Canada. Its use would disperse much of the confusion and uncertainty felt in the business community towards the government's economic programs. However, it will still be necessary for this government to stop harassing Canadian commerce and industry with unworkable tax changes. When will we know what amendments are proposed to the 1971 Domesday book? Surely, this uncertainty cannot be permitted to go on and on, to the detriment of investment in Canadian industry and confidence in Canada.
The sudden ad hoc introductions of the Opportunities for Youth program and the local initiatives program are evidence of the government's failure to create sufficient employment through the stimulation of the private sector of the Canadian economy and particularly Canadian industry. Canadian job-creating enterprises in the private sector must be developed, encouraged and assisted by government so that Canadian taxpayers' dollars will no longer be used on hastily conceived programs that yield little or no long-term benefits. I am thinking particularly, of course, of our experience with much of the hot and cold LIP program which is now apparently going to be entrenched and run year round by this incompetent, welfare-state government.
Because the government has failed to produce measures to create employment, has failed to encourage investment in Canadian industry and has caused widespread uncertainty as to its economic program and, indeed, has failed to introduce real reform in the tax system so as to redistribute income and reduce the tax burden on the low and middle income groups, this House lacks confidence or

April 24, 1972
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment
certainly should in the ability of the government to meet the needs and challenges of the 1970's. What we have experienced in the sixties we certainly must not put up with in the seventies.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed this debate today, if only because it has become familiar. Things familiar sometimes become enjoyable. I have heard what was said today so many times before I know the lines before they are spoken. I read recently that a California newspaper had tried to stay in business by reporting only the happy events that occurred in the world, but the newspaper went broke. Many other newspapers in the world have illustrated the fact that you cannot make a living by reporting only good news. The fellows who are competing with you are busy reporting all the bad news in the country, because they think they can make a living this way. That is the way the opposition are trying to make a living.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) goes around the country ringing his hands over and over again. He is gaining the reputation as being the man who makes people in Canada sad. We have people in Canada, such as Wayne and Shuster, who make a good living as comedians. For the first time in history, we have a man going around the country making people sad, and making a living very well by doing that.
I was interested in some of the statistics given so far during this debate, particularly those given a minute ago by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan). I realize his speech was prepared by the Conservative party research staff, but I think that even they should use correct figures. The hon. member mentioned, for instance, real growth last year. As he wrung his hands he said real growth last year dropped to 3.1 per cent in Canada. Let me give you the correct figures. Real growth in Canada rose from 3.3 per cent in 1970 to 5.4 per cent last year. I suppose if one wrings his hands long enough he can turn the figures around, get them backwards, and make the picture look bad. I think it is encumbent upon spokesmen for the Conservative party in this House to use the correct figures, and it is encumbent upon the leader of the opposition party to hire a staff capable of securing the correct figures.
What about figures in respect of unemployment? These were very adequately stated by the hon. member for Bur-naby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault), who talked about the real growth in employment in Canada. We have an outstanding record in Canada in job creation in that some 330,000 new jobs were developed in Canada last year. This is a much better record than that of Italy, France and West Germany combined. Our employment growth rate was twice that of the United States, and six times the rate of those European countries I mentioned. Is that a record of which to be ashamed? I am not ashamed of that record. It is the greatest record of job production in any country of the world. There is a saying in the stock markets that bad money drives out good money. I know the Leader of the Opposition will drive out good news. We have to correct these statements over and over again in Canada in order to contradict the doom and pessimism given out day after 
day by the Conservative party in Canada. That party is trying to destroy the confidence of Canadians in their country.
We have an outstanding record in many fields, including the field of inflation fighting in Canada. Let me refer to figures to which the doom and gloom boys fail to pay attention. The figures issued by the international monetary fund, not by us, show that last year in Canada the amount of inflation was 3.5 per cent, as compared to 9.9 per cent in Britain, 5.5 per cent in France, 5.7 per cent in Germany, 5.3 per cent in Norway, 4.2 per cent in the United States and 9.7 per cent in Japan. Canada's record is 3.5 per cent, the best in the world. Tell me any country which can do better than that.
We have the highest rate of employment in the world. The reason Canadians have trouble finding jobs is that we have more people coming into the labour force than any other country in the world. That is not a record of which we should be ashamed. We have a great and growing nation. We will have problems for a good many years to come because there are so many Canadians coming into the labour market, but we should be very grateful for this growth rate. We will not help the problem by expressing lack of confidence day after day as has been done by the Leader of the Opposition.
The hon. member for Spadina referred to the rate of capital investment as being 5 per cent this year. He read us a long treatise on economics. He mentioned the lag factor, but he needs to know more about the lag factor and the rate of capital investment. This is exactly what took place in respect of the 5 per cent figure last year. The long-term average is about 6 per cent in Canada, and the indications are that our long-term average has in fact been far above the 5 per cent figure in recent years. Canada has a very commendable record in respect of the rate of capital investment.
Let me refer to something said by the leader of the NDP. He referred to secondary indicators in Canada as being down, but he did not quote his sources. I could quote them for him because this story has appeared recently in newspaper articles all across the country. This newspaper article was wrong, so the source of the leader of the NDP was wrong, as usual.
The suggestion has been made that manufacturing shipments declined in February after advancing in January. Manufacturing shipments were down in February but this followed an unusually rapid advance in January. The trend of any statistical series fluctuates from month to month. Manufacturing shipments have been rising strongly for more than a year. Manufacturing shipments in February 1972 were nearly 12 per cent higher than in the same month in 1971. The doom and gloom boys on the other side will not pay attention to the good figures. They look under as many rocks as they can to see what they can find to show that things are not good in Canada.
A comment was made about manufacturers' inventories, suggesting that they grew in relation to shipments of newly finished goods. I suggest that is just boloney. The comment in respect of the increase of manufacturers' inventories in relation to shipments is simply not justified. The stock to shipments ratio in 1972 was 1.9, the same as in the last three months, and this ratio is lower than in any three month period during the last three years. In fact, the
April 24, 1972

stock to shipments ratio is usually low by historic standards, but the doom and gloom boys will not pay any attention to these figures.
Then, we have another one. Figures released a few days ago by Statistics Canada showed that the index of industrial production, which increased slightly in January, has been falling since the first of the year. This statement is in error, because the truth is that the index of industrial production, which represents about one third of the total output of the Canadian economy, rose at a seasonally adjusted rate of about 4 per cent as at January, 1972, following an exceptionally rapid increase of more than 10 per cent in December, 1971. Those are the figures the people on the other side should be quoting. There is a practice in Canada that a speaker is sometimes led into a meeting by the bagpipes. Sometimes he is led in to the tune of a spritely march. I am told now that when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is led in by the bagpipes, the piper plays a lament.
I wish to say something about the claim made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party that this government deliberately created unemployment. That has been said over and over again by the gloom boys on the other side.


David Orlikow: The Prime Minister said it.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The suggestion has been made that unemployment is something to trade off for cost of living increases.


David Orlikow: That is what you said. That is what the government said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I believe the member should be allowed to complete his remarks without being disturbed. The hon. member knows the rules and is known as a real gentleman, so I believe he should give the hon. member an opportunity to continue his speech.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: It is a well known fact that increases in inflation are a greater cause of unemployment than anything else the government could allow. One is not traded for the other. You have one with the other. The fact that this government has made a record fight against inflation is the reason we have been able to control unemployment the way it has been controlled. If we had not been able to control inflation, in view of the employment problem in Canada and in view of the increasing number of people available for work, the problem would have been much more serious. The text of the motion we have before us indicates that the government has caused widespread uncertainty as a result of its economic programs. It is not the government that is causing widespread uncertainty in Canada but rather the opposition, and the Leader of the Opposition, who goes about Canada spreading gloom and doom.


Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault), and the other member also, spoke of the Conservative gloom and doom, I thought I should let them know I have seen
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment
gloom and doom in my riding. I wish the Liberal workers in my riding in the last election had been here to hear these gentlemen opposite who have spoken, because quite a number of them today are on welfare as a result of the policies of this Liberal government. The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour spoke about what will happen 15 years from now. This statement is similar to one made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in Toronto a few weeks ago when he referred to what would happen a decade from now in the north. It is a well known fact that his speech was a re-hash of the speech he heard from a former Conservative Prime Minister concerning visions of the north. Instead of mentioning what will happen in the next decade, members opposite should be telling us what will happen now. I think they should take a lesson from the slogan of Manpower-do it now, and not 10 or 15 years from now.
In 1965, unemployment was as low as 3.6 per cent. In 1968 when this government came to power, unemployment ran between 4 and 5 per cent and hence to 8.1 per cent in February of 1971. There were 675,000 Canadians out of work and about 100,000 undergoing manpower training, which actually meant 775,000 were out of work. This government diddled with they called a seasonally adjusted formula to make the figures look lower than they actually were. This high unemployment was deliberately caused by a government policy to curb inflation. The Liberals called it an all-out war on inflation. This war caused many to go on welfare. The people of Canada demanded wage and price controls. This is substantiated by various questionnaires sent out by members of parliament, including myself. The government chose to cause unemployment as a cure for inflation, and at the same time caused more inflation by allowing bank interest rates to go up to 11 and 12 per cent. While the Liberal government ran on a ticket of Canadian unity, the just society, and a prosperous economy, it has done more to divide and to segregate than any other government, through a planned deliberate policy to create unemployment, the root of all evil.
This government has given fuel to such activists as Mel Watkins and Jim Laxer and their communist manifesto, and to those who agree on Quebec separating as long as Quebec would become a socialistic state. It has also provided fuel for Pierre Bourgeault, Chartrand, Laberge and Rene Levesque, who have now reinforced their manifesto for separation. In the 1960's Jean Lesage's "Maitre chez Nous" slogan created a situation in which the Bour-geaults, the Chartrands, Laberges and the Levesques, who are determined to make a separate state of Quebec, perpetuated slogans such as: anti-federalism, anti-the Queen, anti-Americanism, anti-establishment, anti-free enterprise, anti-Viet Nam, anti-management, anti-Anglais and so on. And now we have the Levesque manifesto, a formula to separate the province of Quebec and make it a socialistic, sovereign state. Men like Levesque, Bourgeault, Laberge, Chartrand, Laxer and Watkins scare the hell out of the industrialists who want to expand their industries in Canada and scare the hell out of those who want to create new ones, whether they are foreign owned, American or even Canadian, and add to the causes of unemployment.

April 24, 1972
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment
In the past four years, instead of going in the direction of unity the Liberals and NDP have created a situation in which Canadian nationalism has become anti-American and anti-foreign investment. This is now part and parcel of a Canadian form of patriotism, a form of Canadian maitre chez nous. They felt that a strong sense of federal nationalism would lessen the centrifugal tendencies in the country and would tear down provincialism. Such negation is a somewhat weak basis for national sentiment to focus upon and Canadians have become concerned about the varying shades of nationalism which have been advanced over the past few years. John Deutsch, former chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, feels that there is no country where the blind furies of nationalism could be more dangerous than Canada in the 1970s. He contends that exploitation of this sentiment could destroy Canada. The Liberal party is just doing that, and this is one of the main reasons why I could not follow them.
The government has no information as to how many Canadians own property in the U.S.A., no information as to how many own businesses in the U.S.A., and no information as to how many own stock in the U.S.A. and its worth. The government has no decisive evidence about the costs and benefits of foreign investment in the Canadian economy. The story is told of a Canadian computer company that was unable to find risk capital in Canada. It is now 70 per cent owned in the U.S.A. Would it have been better for Canada if that firm had been allowed to fail- better dead than American? Whatever the origin of capital, such a firm provides employment and income for Canadians the same as all other businesses.
President Nixon, in his statement to the House on April 14, gave an assurance that he will not stand in the way when Canada charts its on own economic course. The point is, what economic course are we taking? In what direction are we going? No policy has been announced by the government. If it is to be a policy of anti-American ownership and investment, the President will be happy because he will have an opportunity to retain that capital in the U.S.A. and expand industry and employment in his own country while we look for capital-where?
Canadians are not oriented to investing directly in corporate stock, nor has the CDC any intention of so orienting them. I point out that I asked the former minister of finance that this be done by the CDC in order to orient Canadians to invest in Canadian industry from childhood through adult life. Is the government going to continue to create an atmosphere of anti-American, anti-foreign investment and at the same time bribe industry to establish in designated areas and bribe youth to do their own thing because the government has failed to restore confidence in the country, has failed to expand our economy and create jobs and has deliberately created this mess?
I will definitely vote for the motion of no-confidence proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) which reads as follows:
That because the government has failed to produce measures to create employment, has failed to encourage investment in Canadian industry, and has caused widespread uncertainty as to its economic programs, this House lacks confidence in the ability of the government to meet the needs and challenges of the seventies.

In 1968, Mr. Speaker, as a Liberal I campaigned for a working majority in parliament. In the next election, as a Conservative I will campaign for a majority working.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the latest public opinion poll taken by the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion shows that 41 per cent of the people polled believe that unemployment is Canada's most serious problem. Just a few years ago, in 1966, when the same question was asked only 7 per cent of the Canadian people thought unemployment was the most serious problem.
I listened to the two parliamentary secretaries who have spoken on behalf of the government and heard them say that there is really no problem about unemployment, that the Canadian people really are not upset about unemployment, that things are really going well in this country and that the only trouble is that members of the opposition parties are using spurious arguments to excite the Canadian people about the dangers of unemployment. I say to the parliamentary secretaries that they give a great deal more credit than can be given to any group when they suggest that members of the opposition parties have been whipping up the present feeling about unemployment. That feeling is not based on the speeches of members of the opposition; it is based on the cold hard realities of what is taking place.
It will do little good for parliamentary secretaries, or for the minister who is going to speak tonight on behalf of the government, to tell us about how good they think things are, that many more people are working in Canada than ever before and all the rest of the goodies. For the more than 600,000 who are unemployed it is cold comfort to be told that somebody else never had it better than it is at present.
What are the facts? It is the facts we should be examining, not the fables we get from the government side. Last month there were 642,000 people out of work, an increase of 15,000 over February. The seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment stood at exactly 6 per cent. Mr. Speaker, in the last 22 or 23 months, in only one month has the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment been less than 6 per cent. I want to put on record again that the average number of people unemployed in every month during the four years in which the Trudeau government has been in office is exactly twice as many as in all the months in the four years in which the Pearson government was in office. That is the record of the Trudeau government.
If you look at it region by region, the situation is even more grim. In the Atlantic region, the actual rate of unemployment in March stood at 12.1 per cent, up from 11.1 per cent in February and 10.9 per cent in March of last year. In British Columbia, one of our wealthiest provinces, the actual unemployment rate jumped from 7.6 per cent in February to 8.6 per cent in March. I do not know why the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Perrault) is so happy about things when the situation in British Columbia shows such a large number of unemployed.


Raymond J. Perrault: Find out where they come from.
April 24, 1972


David Orlikow: Find out where the people came from? Mr. Speaker, that comment by the parliamentary secretary is typical of his lack of concern for people. He says, find out where the people who are unemployed in British Columbia came from. Let us assume that they all came from other provinces. What difference does that make to their plight? The fact is that they are living in wealthy British Columbia, that they are unemployed, that they are existing on unemployment insurance or on welfare. Does that make it easier for them? Does it make it better for them?


Raymond J. Perrault: I never said anything like that. Stick to the facts and don't distort the record.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the figures which I have quoted were produced by Statistics Canada. The parliamentary secretary interjects that I should stick to the facts. In so doing he is casting a slur on Statistics Canada, not on me. I think he should be careful how he talks about the public service of this country.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. I have at no time adopted a callous attitude with respect to unemployed people in this country. This is the type of tactic typical of that party on the other side which is always posing as being so self-righteous about the plight of the unemployed.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I hope you noted that that was not a point of personal privilege at all, and I hope you will not deduct from my time the time taken up by the intemperate remarks of the parliamentary secretary.
As I pointed out, the fact is, according to Statistics Canada, that in March 8.6 per cent of the labour force in British Columbia was out of work. Let us look at this in terms of groups of people. Young people are in an even more serious situation than the general population. In the under 24 age group, 12.6 per cent were out of work in March compared with 12.4 per cent in February of this year. That is why people are concerned.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howard) said that members of the opposition have consistently pointed out that to a large extent the level of unemployment is a result of deliberate policy promoted and fostered by this government. Let us look at the record again, not the fable spun by the parliamentary secretary. I should like him to look at the report of the press conference held by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1969 when he announced that the government's number one objective was to halt inflation.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said that this country has had the lowest increase in the cost of living of any industrialized country. That is true, and we have never questioned that this would be the result of the government's policy. But we predicted then, and events have proven us correct, that the inevitable result of the government's policy would be a sharp increase in the number of unemployed. While we have the lowest increase in the cost of living, we also have the highest rate of unemployment of any industrial-
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment
ized country. In December, 1969, when asked by the press how serious he was about dealing with inflation, the Prime Minister said, "Just watch us. We will follow these policies to curb inflation even if they result in an unemployment rate of 6 per cent."
Well, Mr. Speaker, he was right on target. For almost two years we have had an unemployment rate of more than 6 per cent. Is it any wonder that members of the opposition, the public, the academic economists and those who work with people on welfare say that this government is callous, that it is indifferent and that it does not care about people who are unemployed? That is the situation, Mr. Speaker, and it is no use members of the government trying to hide the fact that their policies have accelerated our rate of unemployment, which is now the highest of any western industrialized country.
Members of the government tell us that we are wrong when we speak of economic indicators pointing to the fact that things are not going to get better. Today we get the same answer that we have been getting for the last two years. We heard it from the former minister of finance for almost two years, and we heard it from the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) just last month. It is, "Things are going to get better in the next two months, when the rate of unemployment will go down". When we raise these problems, the two parliamentary secretaries who have spoken accuse us of doing it for political advantage.
Today's Toronto Star, which is not a Conservative nor an NDP newspaper-


Mr. Walker:: It is not a Liberal newspaper.


David Orlikow: Well, today is not the time to talk about the $5 million gift that the Toronto Star got from the government of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon.
member meant that to be spelled with a small "1".


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says that the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker) meant it is not a liberal paper with a small "1", which means that it is a Liberal paper with a large "L". It is a small "1" liberal paper between elections, and at election time it becomes a Liberal paper with a large "L", supporting the government. Today's Toronto Star contains a column by one of the best economic writers in Canada, Dian Cohen, who analyses the state of the economy in Canada. Let me put on the record some of the economic indicators she mentions:
Item: Shipments of goods from manufacturers to retailers declined in February after advancing in January. Newly finished goods stacked on manufacturers' shelves grew in relation to what they shipped. Both these facts indicate that retailers aren't buying merchandise to the extent it was hoped they would in order to give the economy the boost it needs.
Item: The index of industrial production, which measures a wider area of economic activity than manufacturers' shipments, showed no growth in February, and only insignificant growth in January.
Item: The lastest job vacancy survey reports that at the end of 1971 there were about 35,000 jobs waiting to be filled, an insignificant change from the previous three months. People looking for work during that time averaged 575,000, that means that for every 16 people available to work, there was one job open.

April 24, 1972
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment
Mr. Speaker, let me digress from Mrs. Cohen's article for a moment in order to remind members of the House that the figures collected by Statistics Canada and the Department of Manpower and Immigration make a mockery of the statement which the Prime Minister has made a number of times, that people who want work can get work. These figures show that there are 16 people unemployed for every job that is open. The article continues:
item: A special study produced by Statistics Canada says that discouraging moonlighters, shortening the work week, or penalizing overtime work in an effort to open up new jobs for the unemployed, would have only a minimal effect on reducing unemployment.
All of these items taken together add up to a lot of bad news for our economy. The economic "expansion" of 1971 which the Ottawa establishment touted so highly as foreshadowing a boom in 1972 shows signs of pooping out in the first quarter of this year. A few of us have higher incomes, all of us have higher prices, but none of us has any growth of real output to show for it.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the hon. member?


David Orlikow: Certainly.


David James Walker: Would the hon. member be good enough to inform the House what other newspapers in Canada carry Mrs. Cohen's syndicated article?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the hon. member that, and I do not know that it has any bearing on her argument. If she is wrong, it does not matter whether the article appears in one newspaper or 20; and if she is right, she is just as right in one newspaper as she would be in 20. As I think she has indicated, the facts are very, very serious. I do not mind answering the hon. member's question except that, as he knows, we are on limited time.
Let me say to him, however, that the forecast prepared for the government of Manitoba which has been made public by its chief economic adviser, the former head of the department of economics at McGill University who, as I was told by the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kier-ans), is the finest economist in Canada, indicates that while there will be some reduction in the percentage of unemployment in the first half of 1972, the situation will worsen in the last half of the year. I say to the hon. member for York Centre, who I know is concerned about unemployment, that that economist has been much more on target than the government's economists up until now.
Let me spend a few moments talking about the second matter dealt with in the amendment moved by the leader of our party (Mr. Lewis). The amendment says that the government "has failed to introduce real reform of the tax system so as to redistribute income and reduce the tax burden on low and middle income groups." I do not want today to go over the mass of material prepared by the hon. member for Duvernay, which shows that certain industries, oil and gas for example, and the mining industry are paying taxes on only 10 per cent of earned income, that other industries pay more and that individuals pay tax usually on their whole income.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly made speeches in which he has put forward the argument that the objective

of the government is to narrow the gap between Canadians in the lower income bracket and those in the upper income bracket. Again and again the Prime Minister has said that the government is succeeding in its objective. The facts prove differently. Hon. members may have seen, in the Financial Times, a report of speeches made at a conference organized by the Canadian Council for Social Development by two United States economists. The speeches deal with Canada and use figures prepared by Statistics Canada and the Department of National Revenue. These are the same as the figures which I obtained in answer to questions I recently put on the order paper.
The figures show that between 1957 and 1967, the lowest 40 per cent of families and individuals in Canada who paid taxes earned under 16 per cent of the total income. In other words, the lowest 40 per cent got less than 16 per cent of total income. Actually, Mr. Speaker, the percentage of total income earned by the lowest 40 per cent, instead of going up as the Prime Minister seems to have indicated in a number of speeches, has gone down. At the same time, the percentage earned by the top 40 per cent has gone up slightly. The top 40 per cent of income earners in this country in 1967, the last year for which there are figures, earned 66.6 per cent of the total income. In other words, the top 40 per cent got two-thirds of the income earned by Canadians. The answer to another question which I asked shows what has happened in this area. Hon. members can see the answer to this question in Hansard of March 29.
I want to make it clear that I cannot put all the figures on record. The number of taxpayers increased between 1961 and 1969 by about 60 per cent. However, if you look at the number of people earning income of over $200,000 a year, you will see that the number doubled from 95 to 190. The minister from Calgary smiles; he does not think that is very many. Those who are unemployed or who earn an income of less than $5,000 a year, which includes almost half the people of this country, think if anybody is earning over $200,000 a year it is a lot of people.
In the period 1961-69, the number of people earning between $100,000 and $200,000 tripled from 507 to 1,553. The number of people earning between $25,000 and $100,000 increased by 3i times, from 18,730 to 68,570. So, Mr. Speaker, one can see that under this Liberal government which has introduced a certain tax system but has refused to implement a truly equitable tax system, those who have most are getting more than ever before. Not only is the income growing of those in the top earnings bracket, but the number receiving a large income is also growing. At the same time, almost half the population still earns less than $5,000 per year.


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


Hon. P. M. Mahoney (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) that I would not be speaking until after ten o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: After ten
o'clock?
April 24, 1972


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I beg your pardon: until after eight o'clock. Therefore, in the couple of minutes that are available before I call it six o'clock, I should like to deal briefly with the NDP amendment which has added yet another brick of unsubstantiated speculation and false assumption to the structure on which this rather sad confidence motion rests.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) has added, as a stipulation, that the government has failed to introduce real reform of the tax system and has failed to redistribute, among other things, the tax burden. The fact is that the tax reform measure adopted in the previous session of this parliament has resulted in all married status taxpayers paying less income tax this year than they paid last year, and all single status taxpayers with incomes of up to $8,000 paying less tax this year than last year. It has taken off the tax rolls one million Canadians who were on the tax rolls last year. It has reduced taxes for five million more people, and even when one includes the capital gains tax in the tax base two out of every three Canadian taxpayers will pay less income tax under the new system. Those reductions, Mr. Speaker, are at the low end of the scale.
The members of the NDP have been shouting the canard around the country that the tax credit system can do things that the exemption system cannot do, which of course is utterly false; the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) has admitted this. However, members of the NDP have misled the country into thinking that while they are talking about tax credits, they are in fact talking about negative income tax.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, before six o'clock, I had just a few moments to deal with the premise on which the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York South is based, that is, the suggestion that we as a government have not introduced tax reform and that the effect of whatever we have done has not been of assistance to the lower and middle income groups. This is a subject on which I could spend the whole of my allotted time. However, I do not propose to get trapped into doing that.
I have dealt with the fact that a great number of taxpayers in Canada have been relieved, either wholly or in part, of taxation as a result of Bill C-259 that was dealt with in the last session of this parliament. I could mention such things as the employment expense allowance and the child-care allowance that are of primary interest and benefit to lower and middle income wage earners in Canada. I could dwell at length on the additional exemption that our senior citizens receive, the change that resulted in the increase from $500 to $650 and the age for qualification being reduced from 70 to 65. These are all
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment
things that are well recognized in Canada. Lower and middle income Canadians know that today they are paying less tax under the reformed Income Tax Act than before, because since the first of the year the deductions from their pay envelopes have been smaller.
The hon. member said we have not reformed the tax system. He may not like the reform: that is beside the point. How he can deny it is reform escapes me completely. It altered fundamentally the basis on which small Canadian corporations are assisted through the tax system. It changed significantly the way corporations and their shareholders are taxed. It permitted and encouraged Canadians to set aside substantially more tax free and tax deferred dollars for their retirement. It increased both the number and effectiveness of incentives for Canadians to invest in and own Canadian enterprise. It attached very definite and positive conditions to the tax incentives available to the extractive industries. It instituted for the first time the inclusion of capital gains in the tax base and abolished federal gift and estate taxes.
That may not be reform by the standards of the socialists who feel that not only is a buck a buck but it is the government's buck. It is, and was, reform by any rational standard of definition. It was founded on an unprecedented process of participation, a process of good democracy, good politics and good government. The tax reform which this government introduced and saw carried through the House of Commons in the last session was responsible reform.
Those who were present in the House just before six o'clock when I started my address will appreciate that I was feeling something in the position of making my maiden speech. I blew my opening lines beautifully. This is the first occasion I have had as a member of the ministry to take part in a debate on behalf of the government. After listening to the speech of the leader of the opposition when introducing his motion today, I felt like a Conservative, at least as I understand many Conservatives feel: I was let down and disappointed.
Most Canadians are well aware of the fact that in our parliamentary system opposition parties have a vitally important role to play. The opposition has a responsibility to oppose, but it also has an obligation to the Canadian people to oppose constructively and in a way that bears at least some relation to the realities of the complex world in which we live. Perhaps nothing better indicates the political and intellectual bankruptcy of the official opposition than the empty and mindless criticism of government economic policies contained in the motion put before the House today by the Leader of the Official Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Not only are his criticisms unsupported by the facts; they are flatly denied by the facts. Once again the Leader of the Opposition has failed to put forward comprehensive alternatives of his own by which the Canadian people could judge the policies that would be adopted by a Conservative government. It is quite remarkable, Mr. Speaker, what a close resemblance the Leader of the Opposition bears to a mythical Canadian political figure, conjured up recently by one of the country's eminent financial writers, whom he called Bob Er

April 24, 1972
Alleged. Failure to Alleviate Unemployment
Umm. It seems he decided on that name because every time he was asked what he would do differently than the government in power which he so strongly criticized, he replied, "Er umm."
In his motion the Conservative leader alleges that the House lacks confidence in the ability of the government to meet the needs and challenges of the seventies because of its failure to produce measures to create employment, to encourage investment in Canadian industry and because of widespread uncertainty caused by its economic programs. It is, I think, useful and instructive to take a hard look at those allegations which the Conservative leader advanced in his motion and elaborated in his speech even though he advanced no alternatives or suggestions.
Over the past two years the government has introduced a broad series of measures aimed at creating both directly and indirectly new jobs for Canadians. In a report issued late last year the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in fact estimated that the Canadian government had injected substantially greater fiscal stimulus to promote the expansion of the economy than any major industrial nation. I do not think there is much room for doubt that these fiscal measures, together with the expansion of monetary policy, played a more important part in spurring a greater increase in Canada's real national output last year than those of any industrial country except Japan. Our increase was twice that of the United States and Germany.
I will not burden the House with a recital of all the measures which were brought forward in the form of tax cuts, increased federal spending and lending programs during this two-year period to promote increased production and employment in Canada. As an illustration of the magnitude of these measures, however, I would point out that the direct employment-related programs introduced in the House last October, such as the Local Initiatives Program, on-the-job training programs and the special loan and grant program to help finance capital projects by the provinces and municipalities this winter have involved federal expenditures alone of more than half a billion dollars.
The hon. member for York South arrogates to himself and to his party a monopoly of concern for the human aspects of unemployment. This hard-nosed, hard-bitten, high-priced union lawyer will find as much difficulty in maintaining that stance as he and his party are finding in convincing prairie farmers that the NDP has the interests of prairie farmers at heart.
To avoid being misunderstood or misconstrued by members of the opposition, let me hasten to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that I am well aware, and the government is well aware, that there are still too many Canadians without jobs who want to work. Certainly we on our side are not trying to hide the fact. Developing the means to create jobs for all Canadians who want to work continues to be the first priority of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: At the outset of my remarks I referred to the need in this country to face up to the realities of the

world in which we live. One of the hard realities confronting us, one which is no less real because the opposition chooses to ignore it, is that we in Canada are confronted by a unique and far reaching problem because our labour force is growing very much faster than that of any other industrial nation.
Over the past several years we have on the whole made tremendous strides in dealing with this problem. During the 1960's, the rate at which now jobs were created in Canada grew nine times faster than that in West Germany, nearly six times faster than that in Britain and four times faster than that in France. During the same period, the relative increase in employment in Canada was also 50 per cent greater than that in either the United States or Japan. During the first two years of the 1970's, employment increased three times more rapidly in Canada than it did south of the border.
The steady expansion of our economy, together with the direct job-creating measures adopted by the government, have helped to accelerate the growth of employment over the past several months. In March, the last month for which figures are available, there were 88,000 more Canadians with jobs than in February, an increase for that month which was exceeded only in the boom year of 1967. Total employment in March was up by 330,000, or 4.3 per cent, over the level a year ago which, as the Financial Times pointed out recently, represents a greater increase over the 12-month period than that which took place in any year in the booming 1960s. Nor is this just a one-month fluke. As the Financial Times also noted, the growth in employment over the period since last September has been at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of almost 6 per cent, which is extraordinarily high.
To claim, as the Leader of the Official Opposition has in his motion, that the government has failed to produce measures to create employment is completely contrary to the facts. The most charitable view it is possible to take is that at the very least the Conservative leader's allegation represents an exercise in self-deception. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it is a case of the wish being father to the thought. And what of the claim by the Leader of the Opposition that the government has failed to encourage investment in Canadian industry? Much the same may be said of this second allegation as of the first.
The fact is that the greatest source of encouragement to Canadian industry to step up its capital investment is a rapidly growing economy, which leads in turn to a rapid expansion of demand for its goods and services. As I have already pointed out, just such an expansion of the economy has been in progress now for a period of many months as a result of the fiscal and monetary stimulus injected by the federal government.
It is, of course, true that in the early stages of accelerated economic growth companies tend to make use of the existing, unused capacity of their plants and equipment to fill expanding demand for their goods and services, rather than to invest in new facilities. As the output of these facilities begins to get stretched to the limit, however, industry begins to step up its capital investment in order to increase its productive capacity.
Quite apart from the impetus to capital investment resulting from the healthy growth of the economy, there
April 24, 1972

have been a number of particular measures introduced over an extended period that were aimed directly at bolstering Canadian industry by strengthening its competitive position and facilitating expansion of capital investment. Just by way of example I might remind the House that in December, 1970, the government took steps to permit Canadian manufacturers and processors to write off depreciation on new capital investment at the rate of 115 per cent of actual cost. In the budget last June, the 3 per cent corporate surtax was abolished, along with that on personal incomes. In October, the total income tax payable by corporations was reduced by a further 7 per cent during the period from July 1, 1971, to the end of this year. Together with the abolition of the surtax, this represented a very substantial reduction in corporate taxes of 10 per cent.
During 1971, total capital investment in Canada increased by 11 per cent, which is well above the longterm average, although for the reasons I have already mentioned, by increase in business capital investment was more moderate. It is quite true that the initial survey of capital spending investment intentions for 1972 indicates a significant slowing down in the rate at which total capital investment will increase this year. But because this survey was taken around the turn of the year when there was still a high degree of uncertainty as a result of the international monetary crisis, there is every reason to believe that actual investment spending in 1972 will be considerably higher than forecast. Certainly conditions are ripe for an upward surge in capital investment by business to get under way in Canada to match that already anticipated in the United States.
Let me deal now with the third allegation by the leader of the opposition, namely, that the government has caused widespread uncertainty regarding its economic programs, which supposedly has also contributed to a lack of confidence in the ability of the government to meet the needs and challenges of the 1970s. With this allegation, the Conservative leader has outdone himself.
There is an old saying, Mr. Speaker, which I think has some application in this situation. It is that you cannot scramble an egg without breaking it. By the same token, you cannot change policies without creating some uncertainty. We live in a world of very rapid and far reaching changes. If we are to be able to meet the needs and challenges of the seventies we must respond to those changes which are occurring all about us, and nowhere more so than in the economic field. There are many conservatively minded people in this and other countries who refuse to recognize the need for change, who cling to the status quo and the conventional wisdom of the past.
There is plenty of room for argument among reasonable men about how we should respond to change, but in my view there is none whatever about the need to respond. During the period when new policies and programs are in the process of being formulated and debated, it is inevitable that there will be considerable controversy and uncertainty. I say that controversy and uncertainty are often inevitable, but perhaps on second thought I am mistaken. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will let us know if he has found a way of reshaping government policies and programs to meet the needs of today and
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment
tomorrow without creating a measure of uncertainty in the process. Perhaps while he is at it he will also tell us how to scramble an egg without breaking it. And after that perhaps he will tell this House and the Canadian people just what policies and programs his party proposes to meet the challenges of the seventies.
I suppose that when the Conservative leader refers to widespread uncertainty regarding the government's economic programs, he is echoing the misgivings voiced within the business community over some of the measures introduced or being considered by the government to respond to the changing economic circumstances which confront us as a nation. In this connection I was much interested in a statement placed as an advertisement in the New York Times a few days ago by a very large United States corporation, Mobil Oil Company, under the heading, "Business is bound to change". I would like to read some excerpts from that statement because I think it is highly relevant. It provides more than sufficient answers to the Leader of the Opposition, and indeed to those in the business community itself who have criticized us for causing uncertainty. The statement begins:
Change upsets people. Always has. Disrupts routine and habit patterns. Demands constant adaptation.
But change is inevitable. And essential. Inability to change can be fatal.
Unfortunately, most of man's institutions are highly resistant to change.
This, as much as anything else, underlies the explosive reaction of many people in our country in the past few years. They took a fresh and uncluttered look at the world around them, and found many institutions archaic. Higher education. Government. Religion, business.
These institutions have begun to respond to the need for change, even if not always with breathtaking speed.
Among these institutions, business is by the nature of things compelled to change more rapidly-and perhaps more realistically-if it is to survive. Companies that cannot foresee change and adapt to it quickly enough die. There is seldom anybody to subsidize business inefficiency for any length of time.
One reason business-especially big business-can respond to change quickly is that basically it is in the business of change. Business depends heavily on forward planning, and planning is the orderly management of change.
Another reason-
If I could, I would heavily underline this passage, Mr. Speaker.
-is that business itself produces more change, probably, than any other institution. Through its research and development programs. Through new technology it develops and applies. Through new plants it builds. Through its need to be a good employer. Because its own long-term self-interest dictates a better life for people everywhere. Because it must face facts and think rationally about what may appear to be unthinkable.
If there is a measure of uncertainty, it is precisely because this government has moved to respond to change for the very purpose of meeting the needs and challenges of the 1970s. The leader of the Conservative party may rejoice in the belief that neither he nor his party has to face facts or to think rationally about what may be unthinkable, but I am convinced the Canadian people have enough plain, ordinary common sense to know that they cannot indulge in the same luxury if they hope to

April 24, 1972
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment deal in a sensible way with the problems of today and tomorrow.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of following the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney), who referred to his comments as his maiden speech in his new ministry. After listening to him very carefully I would suggest that his speech sounded a bit to me like the demented ravings of an old lady rather than a maiden. As the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said today, this gives us an opportunity to make a few kindly remarks about the government and its activities and also its lack of activity.
The non-confidence motion reads in part:
That because the government has failed to produce measures to create employment, has failed to encourage investment in Canadian industry, and has caused widespread uncertainty as to its programs-
And so on. I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Perrault), a very jovial gentleman, throw some figures around this afternoon like a drunken sailor.


Raymond J. Perrault: They were all accurate.


Robert Muir: I do not know whether the hon. member would know that they were accurate; he was reading them and they were probably prepared for him. Then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howard) likewise threw all kinds of figures around. We then had the great member from Calgary South, the minister of something-I do not know what it is, but whatever it is he is not doing a very good job-throw around a lot of figures.
Let me tell the House that no matter how many figures these members throw around, it does not change the fact that according to the latest figures on unemployment published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics there are 642,000 people out of work in Canada today, an increase of 15,000 over the previous month at a time when normally the figure should be going down.
I can be corrected if I am in error, but surely there must be close to 100,000 people in training across the country. I do not suppose they would be classified as unemployed. Then, again, I would think there are another 100,000 in Canada, if not more, who have become weary and disgusted at the futility of going to Canada Manpower offices in search of work, who cannot find it not because of the ineffectiveness of the public servants in the Manpower offices but because these people have no employment to offer.
The previous speaker referred to the fact that the leader of the opposition did not suggest measures to remedy many of these situations. I do not know where the hon. member has been. Time and time again the Leader of the Opposition has proposed in this House, as well as outside it and on radio and television, many measures that could be taken to improve the economy. But the hon. member opposite just does not want to listen.


An hon. Member:: None today!


Robert Muir: I do not think the hon. member was listening today. But does it have to be right now, or five minutes ago? Does his memory not go back one, two, three months or even a year? The Leader of the Opposition was telling hon. members opposite how wrong they were when the then minister of finance, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Benson), was playing around with the budget and the income tax bill. It has all come to pass. The leader of the opposition was correct in many of his assumptions; he has been proven correct.
In any event, let me talk about unemployment in the Atlantic provinces. The unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted, is 6 per cent across Canada but 12.1 per cent in the Atlantic provinces.


Raymond J. Perrault: Lower than it was last spring.


Robert Muir: That is completely incorrect. With regard to the island of Cape Breton-these are not my estimates but those of action groups and welfare officials in Sydney and other areas-there is an unemployment rate of anywhere from 20 to 25 per cent, despite LIP and the Opportunities for Youth program. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that these are temporary measures, providing employment for a short period of time. This is all well and good and we are very glad that those taking part thought of something. The government was bankrupt of ideas and could not think of anything to provide employment so it said, "Okay, you fellows; provide something and we will give you the money." I am glad the government has done this, but what permanency is there in these programs so far as employment is concerned? I suggest these jobs last only a few weeks or a few months.
Then we had the holus-bolus idea of throwing grants out in various areas to people who are wasting the money. I have discussed this matter with members of the government. There must be some way of checking more carefully on the use of this money. Other people have had extremely good ideas which have been rejected because they are not unique. I will not go into that question now because we will have more time later on to do so.
Let me say this to those hon. gentlemen who say we have made no suggestions. They have allowed freight rates in the Atlantic provinces to increase time and time again under this administration. They have done nothing about this. As a result, businessmen as well as labour in the area are concerned. One businessman told me the other day that he sent to Guelpn for a small piece of equipment which cost $3.90, and it cost $4.20 to ship it to him.
No matter how often members of the government side stand in this chamber and say there are many thousands more working now than a month ago, six months ago or ten years ago, this does nothing for the 800,000 who are not working. I am looking at some Ontario members who perhaps do not face this situation, but in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia and throughout the Atlantic provinces we come in contact with people who are well trained and willing to take any type of job but cannot find employment.
April 24, 1972

There was a man in my office when I was at home over the weekend who is a well trained cement finisher. I worked with him in the coal mines some years ago. He has a wife in the hospital, and a very sick child. He has tried everywhere to obtain employment. I have contacted Manpower on his behalf, but he cannot get employment. I finally said that we would have to get welfare for him, and he blew his top. He said he was not going on welfare; he wanted to work. He then said he was sorry for blowing up at me and realized that I was trying to do something for him. He said he had not been on welfare ever during his lifetime and did not want to go on welfare now. This is the heartbreaking type of case involving people who cannot find employment that we become aware of every day. There are thousands of cases like this. We can mention all the figures we want in this House, but that will not help the situation.
The government and this man who is part-time Prime Minister have created a climate of uncertainty in the public service, uncertainty in the ranks of organized and unorganized labour, uncertainty in the business world and uncertainty in the armed forces. These people do not know where they will be tomorrow, and even senior officers in the service are speaking out about the situation. The government has created a climate of uncertainty in the fishing industry and in almost every area one could mention.
This government and our part-time Prime Minister have created a climate of uncertainty all across the land. What do they intend to do about unemployment? When are they going to put people back to work? Let me quote from a memorandum presented to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government of Canada on March 6, 1972. These are the remarks of a Cape Bretoner. I am not referring to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) but to Donald MacDonald, president of the Canadian Labour Congress. He states in this brief:
When we appeared before you a year ago, we said that never before had we felt such a profound sense of concern about the affairs of our nation.
He went on to say:
High unemployment, which has long afflicted Canada, continues to be the number one national problem. Not only was there no let-up, no relief from this scourge in 1971, but, on the contrary, the unemployment rate rose to its highest level in ten years.
He went on to say that when he appeared before the Prime Minister a year earlier he expressed considerable pessimism, which was called unjustified, about the prospect of any significant dent being made in unemployment for the year ahead. He said:
But we are not in a mood to say that "we told you so". We are not in a mood to score debating points over an issue involving the plight of hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers and their families. Furthermore, as pessimistic as we were on that occasion, we could be properly chastised today for not having foreseen more clearly the degree to which unemployment would accelerate in 1971. The sorry fact is that the official unemployment data indicate only too clearly that 1971 was a year of disaster.
This was a year of disaster under a part-time Prime Minister who in the last few months has shown his great interest in the House and in the monarchy! Even today he sat in the House while the Leader of the Opposition made a speech. We have seen this under the Pearson govern-
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment ment, the St. Laurent government, the Diefenbaker government and the Mackenzie King government, but we have not seen it often under this Prime Minister: he will not even take the time to listen to the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the NDP. He might get some good ideas, but he will not listen. The Prime Minister can say many things in the comfort of his Cadillac, but not here.
We heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce say that the Leader of the Opposition was spreading doom and gloom. He is a great comedian but he did not get any laughs. He did receive a little bit of applause from two nuts on the government side who had nothing else to do, but he received no applause from his other colleagues. He accused the Leader of the Opposition of spreading doom and gloom. No one has to spread doom and gloom today; it is an actual fact. The people of Canada are fed up with the arrogance and complacency of someone who does not realize, does not know and has never experienced unemployment. He has never had the feeling of having to meet the rent or the grocery bill with his pockets empty.
Liberal members say this government did not create unemployment. This government certainly did create unemployment, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). The Prime Minister said in December, 1969, that we should watch the government because it was going to defeat inflation no matter what happened. He said that unemployment could go up to 6 per cent or even higher and he would not worry about it. Those were his words. I can understand his lack of concern. This is a man who does not worry about unemployment.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) are willing to give consideration to many things but they are always overruled. They are not among the top echelon of this government. They are not part of the troika or the three or four who run this country. They do not have the opportunity to do something about unemployment.
He did not suggest to the Lapalme workers that they should eat cake. Whether the Lapalme workers were right or wrong, do you in reality and good sense, Mr. Speaker, think the Prime Minister should push a button in his air conditioned, bullet-proof car and yell out the window at people who are demonstrating? This is the man who talked about participatory democracy. He did not tell them to eat cake, but something far worse. This is the attitude of our so-called Prime Minister. What was said to one hon. member when he asked the Prime Minister a question about unemployment? What the Prime Minister said, later turned out to be "fuddle-duddle". Those of us who were here know what he said.
On another occasion an hon. member from Newfoundland was speaking on behalf of his constituents who needed employment. But this great man sits over there, looks across at the Conservatives, the NDP and Social Credit members and says, "These peasants, what are they questioning me about? I know what is good for the people". We know how much time he spends in this House. For three years he roamed all around the world, and finally this year he sticks a lot closer to home. Is he looking after the unemployed, or is he planning an elec-
25104- 41

April 24, 1972
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment tion? He even spends more time in this House which he treats with arrogance.
This is the kind of man we have for Prime Minister. What is he doing for the unemployed except putting up just two or three speakers who say there are so many thousands of people doing this and that. One can use statistics and computers, but this will not put bread on the tables of the unemployed. How long must we put up with this climate of uncertainty?
Now I will get closer to questions concerning my constituency. The Cape Breton Development Corporation took over, from the Department of Transport, the Point Edward industrial park two years ago. The union there cannot negotiate. The operation was taken over but was not legally transferred from the Department of Transport. Time and time again we attempted to have something done about this. On june 10 the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) wrote a letter to me saying:
I am sorry to have been slow to reply to your letter of March 18. I have been waiting for what I hoped would be Devco's finalization of arrangements about the Point Edward industrial park.
While these have not yet been completed, there is no question of the men concerned losing benefits that they had when they were employees of the Department of Transport. That was a commitment.
These men are losing benefits, so apparently it was not a firm commitment. There is a climate of uncertainty in the public service. I supported and voted for the official languages bill and I believe it is a wonderful thing but, like the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), I have concerns and worries about it for the simple reason that an eligibility list that was set up in Cape Breton some months ago, and which should have been good to June 15, 1972, is to be changed. It was established on December 20, 1971, and dealt with the positions of five customs officers in North Sydney and Sydney. As of June they are going to do away with the eligibility list and thereby deprive the people who have written the exam of the opportunity of employment. They are to use a list under which bilingualism is a prerequisite. Like the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton I do not think we should move so fast on these matters. However, I voted for the languages bill and I still believe it is a good bill. I believe in B and B, but are we to destroy the bread and butter features of this whole situation?
We talk about unemployment. The Minister of Labour is on record as saying that it takes a lot of courage to create unemployment. This government created unemployment. It slowed down the economy. It cooled it off so badly that it is frozen and the government cannot get it moving. Then the Prime Minister said, "Like it or lump it. If you don't like what I do, throw me out". The arrogance is there. This man is destroying our country not only economically but morally and in every other way. The sooner he is out of office, the better-and the better it will be for the unemployed.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted to put into ordinary language the thrust of the motion we are discussing today, I would

suggest that the thought which comes out of it is: Where are we headed? I believe this is the question which today is uppermost in the minds of the Canadian population. What is the direction, what is the hope in the future for the individual? What is the hope in the future for business? Really this is what we are talking about in this House today.
As I have said, the question which today seems uppermost in the minds of many people is that we in Canada seem to have lost a sense of direction. No one seems to know where we are headed. Business does not know. We have the example of the tremendous decrease in capital outlay in the first quarter of this year, and we have the statement made a few moments ago by the Minister of State (Mr. Mahoney) that all is well and that we should hang on a little longer because we will see a tremendous upsurge in the economy. This reminds me of some of the famous last words of the former minister of finance who had unemployment licked. He said we should just wait until the next report came out and then it would be seen that we had turned the corner. He was completely off the track because we had more unemployment and more inflation.
Agriculture does not know where it is headed. We have had all types of proposals for the agricultural industry. We have had announcements about farm enlargement. We have had task forces recommending that inefficient small farmers be moved off the farms, retrained and placed in other occupations. Then we have had the latest one, the family farm enlargement program which the minister announced several months ago. This created a lot of interest and enthusiasm among the younger farmers in this country who were preparing to enlarge their holdings. This is the program under which the older farmer could remain in the house on the farm and would not be uprooted while the young fellow took over. The minister knows all about it but the head office of the Farm Credit Corporation does not know anything about it. They do not know when it is to come into effect. The minister, however, grabbed all the publicity he possibly could from a very nebulous type of program which has not yet been implemented. There is always hope that it may come about.
Labour leaders, business leaders, teachers, brokers, firemen, bootmakers and even the proverbial candlestick-maker-no one knows what way to turn. But what does emerge from all of this is that we have one absolutely concrete thrust: this government, aided by its computers, academics and associated eggheads and its power-hungry adherents, seems to feel it has a God-given right that it is better qualified to spend the citizen's money and to order his life than he himself. That is the only genuine thrust.
Let us take an example. We have heard talk in this chamber, over lo these many years, about the CDC, the Canada Development Corporation. Now, at long last, this worthy organization through its chairman has offered to take Polymer Corporation and the Northern Navigation Company off the hands of the Canadian public. It has offered to take over these well-run, efficient Crown corporations. I say to the CDC that if it wants a challenge, it should be interested in taking over the CBC or the CNR. I
April 24, 1972

question the value of this organization except to build up more government bureaucracy.
It is my humble opinion that some reasonable income tax incentives directed toward investment in Canadian industry and development would be far more practical and effective. Further, there would be no necessity for more empire building. Surely somebody, some organization could come up with a list of projects including resource development, manufacturing and services- investment in which one could enjoy tax incentives. If individuals were helped in this way, I believe it would do more in one year to get ownership of our resources into Canadian hands than the CDC will accomplish in its lifetime. But instead of giving reasonable incentives we establish another bureaucracy. The thrust is still there, Mr. Speaker. Under government supervision we are to invest in the Canada Development Corporation. And if you do invest, be prepared to pay capital gains tax. Again we have Big Brother looking over our shoulder and telling us what it is best to do.
I do not think there is need for me to dwell on the so-called tax reform measures that we had before us in the House last year except to ask, where are the 100 or so amendments promised by the former minister of finance as he slowly pulled away and sank into the sunset, buried forever in the Department of National Defence, the place where we have three, or is it five non-commissioned officers for every private? Is this the stuff of which confidence is built?
What about the great improvements to the Post Office promised by that fearless administrator from Duvernay? He accomplished one thing, and that was higher taxes. Here I refer to postage as a tax. The tax is away up and services are away down. Now once more we have the possibility of six-day service. There is an interesting little piece in today's Ottawa Journal about that matter:
Around the world with Liberal efficiency! To save money, the five-day mail week. To save more money, back to the six-day system.
What does the government take us for? Perhaps Mr. Cote thought that confession would make him seem a refreshingly different kind of politician, or would at least be good for his soul.
Well, maybe. But it is an open admission that the Post Office has not known what it was doing, that the vaunted business efficiency and reforms which Eric Kierans was supposed to have introduced were pure myth-
What Canadians do feel strongly about is being gulled by cabinet ministers who have been trying to sell higher mail rates and poorer service at the same time.
That is the whole thrust of this debate. Where are we going? What are we getting for our money? A few years ago the government presided over the death of an industry in southwestern Ontario. It paid $1 million to farmers in southwestern Ontario not to grow sugar beet. Of course, that was during an election period. All that was needed to save the industry at that time was a little government direction, a statement to the effect that we should have a national sugar policy, that we as Canadians must produce a percentage of our own needs. Instead, the industry was allowed to die. The result has been depression among the farmers in that area.
That decision took 20,000 or 30,000 acres of land out of production. Yet this afternoon the Minister of Agriculture
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment
(Mr. Olson) had the temerity to say-I think I quote him fairly accurately-that the situation is better now than when the industry was closed. He was replying to a question by my colleague from Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) who was referring to an article in the Globe and Mail of April 22 which stated that Austin Sugar Refineries Ltd. of Montreal plans to build a refinery in Cornwall. I think it is great that Cornwall should have a refinery. That company will receive a $665,000 incentive grant which will produce 100 to 110 jobs. But all this will be, in effect, is a bagging operation. Cane sugar is to be imported, refined a little and bagged at Cornwall.
A little money invested in re-establishing a whole industry in southwestern Ontario could provide 200 or 300 jobs, plus added income from diversification by hundreds of farmers in the area. We are not a designated area and that may have some bearing on the situation. But we are not receiving direction from government on how to establish a genuine, made-in-Canada sugar policy. That is what is wrong and that is what we are missing.
When the sugar industry in southern Ontario was phased out, the farmers had to diversify. But they did not receive any direction from this government. In Essex, Kent, Middlesex, Lambton-all over the southern part of Ontario farmers tell me that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get a contract today to grow tomatoes. They are anxious to get into the business. The Department of Agriculture must know that, and if the minister were on his toes he would pass the information along to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). It does not seem to me that he has bothered to do this. If he had, why would this government give a grant of over half a million dollars to Catelli Foods, which I understand is a subsidiary of General Foods in the United States, to establish a plant in the St. Lawrence area? The sole purpose of this plant is to process tomato paste imported from Portugal, Spain, Italy, Yugoslavia or wherever it can be bought cheaply. This goes on whilst Canadian farmers cannot obtain contracts to grow tomatoes because there are not enough contracts to go round.
No wonder people are asking where we are going. Mr. Speaker, I say it is time that we in Canada established our priorities and a common sense of purpose, which we have not been doing in the past. Leacock's description of the horseman who mounted and then rode off in all directions is a classic example of this government. On January 1, 1972, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), with great fanfare announced that there would be no more cigarette advertising on radio and television- down with tar and nicotine! Virtually on the same day that $200,000 was spent on an anti-smoking campaign, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion made the following announcement:
Dominion Cigarette Tube Company Limited of Montreal will receive an incentive of approximately $48,000 for a new plant to produce cigarette paper tubes which will employ an estimated 67 persons. The development incentive is based on a rate of 5 per cent of the approved capital costs, estimated at $300,000, plus $500 for each new job created.
1586

April 24, 1972
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment


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


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the no-confidence motion tabled by the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) reads and I quote:
That because the Government has failed to produce measures to create employment, has failed to encourage investment in Canadian industry, and has caused widespread uncertainty as to its economic programmes-
My colleagues, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Perrault) recalled this afternoon certain measures which the government had taken to promote employment. The Minister of State (Mr. Mahoney) also mentioned tonight the incentives and other measures to which the government had resorted.
I would like to speak at this point about our exports which are of great importance for the maintenance and creation of jobs in Canada.
This is why the government, through the federal Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, offers our national industry a very large choice of tools in order either to help Canadian exporters break into new foreign markets, or consolidate and develop their position on already existing ones.
The department has also initiated commercial negotiations, particularly to improve the conditions of access of Canadian products to foreign markets. Our trade commissioners have granted 80 stations in 57 countries a financial assistance similar to that recently accorded to facilitate the establishment of submissions concerned with investment projects abroad, to prospect new markets and adjust marketing.
For some years past, commercial and departmental delegations have increasingly served as instruments for commercial promotion. They play a very important role in the endeavours of Canada to diversify her trade and increase her exports to markets other than the United States.
This does not mean, Mr. Speaker, to transfer our exports from the American market to other markets, but rather to keep and strengthen our position in relation to the United States, and do better elsewhere.
Here are a few economic and ministerial missions which have done their task in 1971 and early 1972. From April 14 to 22, 1971, a Canadian trade and industrial mission visited the Federal Republic of Germany in order to establish stronger commercial bounds between that country and Canada. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) headed this mission which included 28 Canadian businessmen and industrialists, as well as representatives of the federal and provincial governments. The delegates visited major trade and industrial centres in Germany, including Bonn, Dusseldorf, Cologne, Frankfurt, Hanover and Wolfsburg.

Canada established diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China on October 13, 1970. In order to promote Sino-Canadian relations in all areas, an economic and trade mission led by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) visited China from June 28 to July 4, 1971. This mission was composed of representatives of various federal departments, namely Industry, Trade and Commerce, Agriculture, National Revenue, Energy, Mines and Ressources, and External Affairs. There were also representatives of various trade and industrial organizations in Canada, of groups connected with agriculture, forestry, pulp and paper, mining, manufacture, chemicals, industry, trade, banking, engineering, exports and imports. Those people had friendly and constructive talks with Prime Minister Chou En-Lai, with the ministers of external trade, of agriculture, of forestry, and of light industry, as well as with the deputy ministers responsible for the metallurgic industry, the fuel industry, and the chemical industry.
From November 17 to 24, 1972, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was in Rome, and when he left the Italian capital, he went to Algeria, where he led a trade mission composed of 17 Canadian businessmen and a group of public servants and Crown corporation officers.
From December 6 to 18, 1971, a group of 12 Canadian agriculture experts led by Mr. R. P. Poirier, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Department of Agriculture, took part in an agriculture and trade mission to the U.S.S.R. The purpose of this mission was to explore opportunities for information and technology exchanges, with a view to reaching licensing agreements, and eventually to increasing trade between our two countries in the agricultural and commercial fields.
In December 1971, a trade and economic mission headed by the Minister of Industry and Commerce went to Morocco in search of ways and means of developing closer trade and economic ties with that North African country.
With a view to increasing our efforts to sell manufactured good on the Japanese market, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce headed a trade mission which visited Japan from January 21 to 29, 1972; 31 business and industrial representatives accompanied him. This was the largest Canadian delegation of its type ever to go to that country. During the same period, economic and ministerial missions came to Canada from various countries including the USSR and Japan.
Mr. Speaker, other means, including participation in industrial exhibitions and fairs and others, both national and international, were used to stimulate our sales promotion. This promotion is being pursued in close co-operation with the private sector of industry, the federal government and, in some cases, with provincial authorities.
There has been Canadian participation to a certain number of fairs and exhibitions. During the first week of March 1971, 15 Canadian corporations took part in the New England Boat Show in Boston. At the 52th National Conference and Educational Exhibition of Restaurants, Hotels and Motels held in Chicago from May 22 to May 26 1971, 26 Canadian corporations exhibited goods such as
April 24, 1972

equipment, kitchen furniture and food products for the restaurant, hotel and motel industry. For the second year, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce was sponsoring Canadian participation to that event. Canadian editors, English-speaking as well as French-speaking, for the first time shared a stand at the 61st International Book Exhibition held in Dallas (Texas) from June 20 to June 24 1971.
At the beginning of December 1971, ten Canadian textile manufacturers who had exhibited at the Interstoff Show held in Frankfurt (Germany) obtained orders for some $6 million. Canadian sales of $6 million almost doubled compared with those of the previous show.
For the first time, Canadian products will be shown at an exclusively Canadian commercial exhibition in Peking from August 21 to September 2, 1972. The exhibition, which will occupy an area of 140,000 square feet, will comprise a wide range of equipment and industrial products. It will be the largest Canadian exhibition ever organized-over 200 Canadian companies will show their products; the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be responsible for this project and its organization. The participation of Canadian companies in such fairs and exhibitions has undoubtedly resulted in millions of dollars of orders placed at the exhibitions and for considerably larger amounts as a result of re-orders.
On August 15, 1971, the United States imposed a 10 per cent surcharge on imports, which has been discontinued as from December 20, 1971. As early as September 7, 1971, the Canadian government introduced an Employment Support Bill to offset the United States surcharge. On February 18, 1972, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce announced that on December 31, 1971, a total of $3,311,703 had been awarded as grants to 178 firms by the Employment Support Board to protect 7,727 jobs.
Mr. Speaker, we must continue to look for new incentives, new ways and new methods of increasing our exports which, in 1971, represented $17,847 billion compared with $16,910 billion in 1970.
In closing, I would like to point out that the Leader of the Opposition stated this afternoon that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) should present a budget. But I must tell him that he is a member of the party that was in power from 1958 to 1962 under the direction of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Now, during that period, the Canadian government did not present any budget for a period of 16 months, that is from December 20, 1960 to April 10, 1962.


Gerald William Baldwin: The country is a lot worse off now, with the mess the government has created. Conditions are terrible.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the leader of my party moved the motion which is a searing indictment of the performance of this government in relation to the needs of the country at this time and in the years to come. We have been presenting motions during budget debates, Throne Speech debates and on various other occasions throughout the past three years, all to do with the same theme, namely, this administration's total inability to deal with the problems of infla-
Alleged. Failure to Alleviate Unemployment
tion and employment and some of the problems of taxation.
Oh, yes, they have brought in tax changes. The same author who put on paper what the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) said tonight must have written what went into the white paper on taxation back in 1970. In both cases there was the same prose by the flacks. There was hardly any change. Strangely enough, the hon. member's words seemed to be inspired by the sort of attitude that is often demonstrated by hon. members opposite, that is, that theirs is the inspiration of more than mortal men, that it is almost divinely inspired.
In their opinion, since they have been elected to this House, even though sometimes the people were deceived in electing them, they may assume the mantle of omniscience. Well, I listened to the former parliamentary secretary-I am sorry; he was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance but now he is the Minister of State attached to the Minister of Finance: perhaps we should call him the minister from Calgary South and leave it at that.


Gerald William Baldwin: He will not keep that position for long.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He insistently called for alternative programs to be brought forward. Mr. Speaker, that hon. member has been here for four years. He delivered somebody else's speech tonight. He charged that the opposition, in presenting this motion, was critical of the government and suggested that although the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) disclosed a number of alternatives in certain fields, the alternatives did not constitute a totally alternative program. When his party was in opposition, did he think they presented a program of alternatives?


Mr. Bechard:: Sure.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member was not even here in those years. He was not here from 1958 to 1962, so he cannot tell. In any event, it is not part of the program. Many members opposite, including the Minister of State, have had their nominations. They are expecting an election. However, we will not get the government's program. We have not heard of it. We have not heard of the program from members to my left. The program of this party will be disclosed. An election campaign is the time for disclosure of programs and the choice to be made is for the people. But what does he think when the Leader of the Opposition talks about tax cuts on building materials? What about tax measures with regard to corporations? What about credits for capital gains paid on death as against succession duties? They are specific fiscal measures.
What does the Minister of State want? If he wants more, there are the recommendations of the joint committee of the Canadian Bar and Canadian Chartered Accountants with regard to the tax measures planned which the Minister of State spent so much time lauding this afternoon. All he did was sit stolidly for three or four months last fall while members of the opposition and some members on the government side tried to get improvements made to

April 24, 1972
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment the bill. The minister received his recompense for sitting there stonewalling.
The then Minister of Finance did not dare face this House to put through his bill; he had to get someone else to do it. We know he went to the Senate. It would be hard to say he bribed the Senate, but I will say that he certainly conned the majority of the members of the Senate with promises of early tax changes before they became completely and utterly bound up in the web of the economy and our taxation system. What happened? We have not heard one iota about those tax changes.
We asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to give us a budget. He must give a financial accounting of what has happened since last June. He could tell us that he intends to present a budget in the early part of May and what measures the government is going to take. Is there going to be a budget, or is this House going to be dismissed for an election and the Canadian electorate told to lump it, so that the government will not have to disclose the financial state of the nation until perhaps September? Is that what is going to happen?
Is the Minister of Finance afraid to disclose that the budgetary deficit may be between $1 billion and $1,200 million? Is the government afraid to disclose its foreign ownership policy? Is this going to be leaked, or will it come out in a way in which it cannot be debated? The hon. member says it will be debated during an election campaign. That is not a debate that is subject to the searching scrutiny of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: How many meetings does the hon. member think he is going to address in his constituency in order to explain foreign ownership? How many people does he think he can get together in the spring of the year? There is no way the government can explain that policy to the people. It is only as a result of continuous debate in this House that the weaknesses in any program can be exposed to the public.
We will see how bankrupt of ideas this government is with regard to foreign ownership. What is the government prepared to do? Are they going to be a party of repression? Is this to be a program of repressive regulations, thou shalt nots, or are we to go out and ask people to have faith in Canada and encourage them to invest in their industry? That is something that can be done. That is part of our program in so far as incentives may be offered.
The government talks about uncertainty. The greatest uncertainty has been in the field of business ownership in this country. In 1968 this government brought forward the most savage Estate Tax Act one could contemplate. It is absolutely punitive in its levies. It was disguised under public legislation but it is a system of legalized plunder and piracy by people motivated by desire for the have-nots to take from the haves. This is an antiquated tool that has no place in the Canadian economy. The estate tax was eliminated in 1971 by Bill C-259. However, some of the provinces rushed in to increase or impose succession duties. Also, the Canadian public is still faced with a capital gains tax. All this creates uncertainty. The regulations for capital gains were not published until the other day. The same thing applies to corporations. There was a

great rush to have the act effective January 1. For months Canadians did not know the bulk of the tax regulations. They are not even out yet in respect of partnerships.
This is supposed to be an administration that talks of certainty. Certainty? What a mockery they have made of the word. It is uncertainty with regard to foreign ownership and it is uncertainty with regard to the activities of the Canada Development Corporation, another supposed jewel in the crown of this administration. All they have done is name a president and a few directors. Nothing has happened with regard to the Canada Development Corporation. They have decided to do something only for a few milk cows in the form of Crown corporations, those that are paying returns. If a Crown corporation is not paying any dividends and is not in a profit position, it will not be taken over by the Canada Development Corporation. The transparency of that move should be apparent to the blindest member of this House.
I am pleased to see that in many ways the province of Quebec, in the budget delivered the other night, saw that going after succession duties, as has been done by so many provincial administrations, was self-defeating and that they are moving ultimately to eliminate them. I am glad the province of Ontario is trying to get out of that field. I hope some of the other provinces follow the example which was set by my own province in this respect. Alberta did not even get into succession duties, because succession duties and the heavy level of death duties has been one of the greatest contributors to foreign ownership of Canadian industry. This has been the cause of great uncertainty over the years.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) has been charing about the country disposing of grants here, there and everywhere, unworried whether the operation in connection with which the largesse is being dispensed would be closed in a couple of years or that maybe a plant 50 miles away would be closed as a result. It is all a matter of the amount of money involved. The big question is: where has the bulk of money been spent, and what has been the result? This is what we want to know. After all, it is money from British Columbia too. I can see that the hon. member for Vancouver South, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing), knows how much money-


Mr. Laing:: I resent paying $13 million to Alberta.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Alberta contributed a great deal more. This illustrates some of the difficulties. I know that one plan in Alberta is entitled to get up to $15 million, but the net result is that the pulp mill in Ocean Falls will be closed as a result of the operation of a new plant such as the one in Alberta.


Arthur Laing: There is no connection.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is all part of an industrial pattern. The province of British Columbia has not benefited from it; the province of Alberta has not benefited. We have seen more industries close. The minister from Calgary South frowns. Let him ask the minister of economic development of the province of Alberta, or he
April 24, 1972

could ask the deputy minister or the ex-deputy minister. They could tell him how many industries have closed in Alberta because they could not compete or get enough capital for necessary development because it was being given to other regions of the country. This is part of the price one has to pay.
Last year when we were examining the estimates of the Economic Council of Canada I moved a motion that the Economic Council, which has plenty of authority to do this work, should conduct an objective assessment of the policies and programs of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Authority to do this is specifically mentioned in the act setting up the council. But no: government members were too frightened of it and the motion was thrown out. But the motion was right. This is the sort of thing the Economic Council was designed to do.
The present administration is creating more uncertainty by putting pressure on people in the Economic Council to change its attitude so that it might be more amenable to government wishes. We remember the criticism the deputy minister of finance directed toward the Economic Council. He does not feel he has an amenable tool under his control. It is all very well to discourage the chairman from continuing, and to have the vice-chairman transferred to another position. If this administration were to continue, we would see what would happen to the Economic Council. The council was not telling the government the things it wanted to hear; this is why changes were proposed and why changes are being made in the council.
The limit of my time is now approaching, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to make two further comments. With regard to the relationship between the government of Canada and the provincial administrations I would say this: the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) allegedly made his national reputation on television because of the way he dealt with the late premier of the province of Quebec. He was to be the man who would save national unity.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) said this was to be the great issue. Ask the Secretary of State what he thinks now about the relationship between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of British Columbia, after the statement made by the Prime Minister. What does he think about the relationship between the Premier of Alberta and the Prime Minister? Has he read the speeches of the Premier of Alberta in recent days? What about Ontario? What about Quebec? We see there is a change in pattern. Is there a relationship on all hands which tends to unify Canada? Oh, no; the Prime Minister is setting about the ears of the premiers of the provinces. Does he get more co-operation from them now than he did in 1968 when he took office? If he believes so, he is the only one who is under that illusion. He is under an illusion and to that extent there is greater uncertainty.
The amendment to our motion moved by the New Democratic Party calls for a tax system which would ensure a fairer distribution of wealth. Well, income tax as it now exists is a means of redistributing wealth. There is nothing specific in the amendment. We would certainly like to see greater changes in the Income Tax Act, including much greater incentives. There would be a more equal
Alleged Failure to Alleviate Unemployment
distribution of income to all Canadians as a result of such changes. To this extent we are prepared to accept their amendment. Anyway, it is another indictment of this administration and it is very difficult to restrain oneself from making such indictments. This government have worn out their time and they should go.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have worn out their time and they should go, but the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has done very much the same thing to me.
I listened with great interest, as I always do, to the speech of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney). While I was listening, I was trying to make up my mind which of two things was happening. Had they elevated the hon. member for Calgary South to such an exalted position that he could speak on behalf of the government in this important debate, or was the government so contemptuous of the arguments which the opposition was putting forward, and so unfeeling about unemployment, that they did not feel called upon to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to speak in this instance?
When we examine the argument which the Minister of State put up, it becomes obvious why the government sent a boy to do the job. The arguments fall apart. What the government is saying, in effect, is this: We have created more jobs than have been created in other countries; our labour force is larger. It is therefore not our fault there is so much unemployment; it is the fault of the people who decided to snuggle up to each other in this country about 20 years ago.
In fact, the government has known for 20 years that this situation would arise. That is not their fault; they simply ignored the problem, hoping that it would go away. But it did not go away and so we are faced with this shameful situation. The Liberal government stands indicted for its lack of foresight and its inability to solve the problems that face this nation.
I was particularly upset when the hon. member for Calgary South spoke with such feeling about tax reform in Canada. There has been no tax reform in this country and he, better than most, should know that. The government has backtracked on every single measure it has brought in; it has not stuck with anything. One of the reasons we have so much unemployment in this country is the failure of the taxation system to move us away from resource development to manufacturing industry.
The Liberal party, as it relates its activities to the businessmen of this country, might draw some inspiration from Shakespeare. It seems as though they are deserting the Liberal party and have found a new favourite in the Conservatives. I understand the Conservative party are loaded with money and are as proud as punch of it. They have all kinds of money because the traditional friends of the Liberals have deserted them. This reminds me of the speech of Cardinal Wolsey, who turns and with great sadness says:
O Cromwell, Cromwell!
Had I but served my God with half the zeal

April 24, 1972
Division
I served my king, he would not in mine age
Have left me naked to mine enemies.
Had the Liberal party paid as much attention to the ordinary things in this country as it has to backtracking and meeting the objections of the businessmen, then I do not think they would face the rather desperate situation they will face in the coming election. Having given everything away, they have the nerve to say that they brought in tax reform in Canada. Admittedly, there were some changes made to exemption levels. Indeed, no measure can be totally bad. But tax reform it was not.
Despite the fact that there has been no capital gains tax for years, when the Liberal party finally decided to institute such a tax it was only half a tax. The oil industry still retains its privileges. The government of Alberta, the province from which the hon. member for Calgary South comes, is having difficulty with the oil industry at the moment. They are shafting Alberta as they have been shafting others. I read in the newspapers that industry is moving into Alberta but that the oil industry financed all its exploration work by tax concessions received from the United States government.
This oil industry has now found a new love. It is in the north, with the Eskimos and the bears, polluting the environment. It is in an area that is nice and clean and has hitherto been untouched. It is now getting money from the people of Canada to move into the north.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being. 9.45 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 58 (9), to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the motion lost. The question is now on the main motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 10.15 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday. April 25, 1972