1973-03-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, for some time we have been seeking alternatives to the large public housing projects we have been building in conjunction with the provinces and at the same time seeking ways to make more units available to those on lower income who need them.
The new amendments to the National Housing Act presently before this House will offer more desirable alternatives to public housing, but I am pleased today to announce three new program proposals under the existing legislation, the National Housing Act, whereby more units of subsidized housing will be made available, and whereby a desirable social mix of low-income families and middle-income families can be obtained by using ordinary apartment and townhouse complexes.
First, in certain privately owned and financed buildings, a federal-provincial partnership will lease 25 per cent of the units for low-income people. The tenants will pay the same rate as in public housing with the two governments sharing the deficit on a 50-50 basis.
Concurrently, a second alternative program we are suggesting is to lease space in projects financed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the limited dividend and non-profit sections of the housing act. In future, loans by CMHC in certain municipalities will be conditional upon 25 per cent of the units being made available to the federal-provincial partnership for low-income tenants.
At the same time, a third alternative program is being established to improve the social mix in subsidized housing by allowing non-subsidized middle-income people to live in publicly-owned housing on an experimental basis.
I am hopeful that our efforts to encourage a better mix of families by housing low-income people in privately-owned buildings will be welcomed by the private sector. I am pleased to announce that arrangements have been concluded with the province of Ontario to experiment with these changes. The Hon. Allan Grossman, the minister responsible for the Ontario Housing Corporation, and myself are making a statement in more detail on this today. An invitation to all provinces is being issued by me to take advantage of these new techniques for providing housing for those that need it most.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to respond to the minister's statement I should like to say first of all that we are generally quite pleased that the government has taken this step. We think it is a constructive move and one that we hope will be expanded upon if it turns out to be a successful venture.
I should like to mention, however, that we hope that the minister, by making this statement or in his reference to legislation that will be coming before the House probably this week, is in no way failing to look at the true problem that exists at the present time in many of our urban areas, that is, the high cost of serviced land. We believe that is the root cause for much of the housing problems in this country and that his department should direct its attention to solving that basic problem as it has become almost critical, certainly in areas such as metropolitan Toronto.
Dealing generally with this statement, we welcome it.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party welcome the statement made by the minister a few minutes ago. Like the minister, we believe there is a need to increase the mix of housing available to low-income Canadians. The proposals outlined in the minister's sketchy statement seem to move in a basically desirable direction. Having said that, I should like to raise three problems associated with the statement.
First, when the minister announced about a year ago his new scheme for assisted home ownership it was seen initially as the alternative, in the sense of replacement, for public housing in Canada. Very appropriately, there was almost wholesale rejection of that idea by those who have any degree of expertise and concern about housing for low income citizens. Since that time the minister, as I understand him, has either changed his position or corrected the impression that we are not to have a cutback in public housing as such but are going to add to it by broadening the range of choice. The crucial test, however, will be the amount of money provided by the government for low-income housing regardless of the type. That is the area we will be looking at with considerable interest. There is every justification for increasing the total amount of money spent on low-income housing in Canada, and as a party we certainly would not accept a policy that resulted in spending merely the same amount of money but shifting it from one category of low-income housing to another. We need a substantial increase in total outlay.
The second point I should like to make involves a matter of some concern. We must look at the details of implementation of the proposal to provide in privately owned and financed residences space for low-income people which in effect would be subsidized by Central

March 12, 1973
Housing
Mortgage and Housing Corporation or by the federal government. Our concern, if we are to move in the direction of providing accommodation for low-income people in privately financed buildings, is the degree of profit that will accrue to the people who own these private buildings. We do not want to see repeated any kind of financial rip-off on the part of developers on this area. What could happen is that they would take a certain limited percentage of low-income tenants but the level of financial support by the taxpayers of Canada could go well beyond the amount required merely to subsidize, if you like, in a socially necessary way the low-income people and simply provide very lucrative profit margins for private corporations.
The third point concerns the absence in this statement of any reference to moving in a significant way toward co-operative housing. The housing legislation that, hopefully, we will be discussing soon does contain some provisions in respect of co-op housing, but essentially as we read the legislation the provisions for co-operative housing projects to be supported in a significant financial way by the government are essentially of a charitable nature. We believe we must change and make owner-occupied co-op housing of the apartment type or single family separate unit type appealing to low-income Canadians. That is really what we see as a significant alternative to public housing of the kind we have had up to this point. This will require some changes in the bill that will come before us soon, and we will be pushing for them.
The final point I would like to make concerns land. There can be no doubt that the most significant aspect in housing today is the increasing cost of land for both public and private housing. The minister has made the right kind of signs that he is interested in dealing with that question, but we all know that nothing will be done about the matter of land unless the minister puts up millions of dollars for a significant land banking system. Therefore we support any move in this direction. But in the most serious way we enter the kind of caveats I have just mentioned in commenting on the minister's statement.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the announcement that the hon. minister has just made; however, we consider it to be but a very small step forward, since the minister did not mention the prices of land and utilities.
For each family to own its own home, I think one would have to see that utilities provided by municipalities were subsidized by the CMHC or by some other body, so that the cost of utilities would not have to be assumed by the owners of new houses. Utilities for a lot with 50 feet of frontage often cost as much as $40 or $45 a month for 20 years. If one adds to that the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and the alarming rise of construction prices, which can be as high as $18,000 or $19,000 for a four-room one-family house, one can see that it is very difficult for small wage earners, getting between $4,000 and $5,000 a year, to buy a house. We do, however, note that the hon. minister intends the new legislation to benefit the category of those who earn from $4,000 to $5,000 a

year, who did not benefit under the former act, and to help them to become homeowners some day.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. The motion speaks for itself.
This House regrets the imminent retirement of Mr. Maxwell Henderson, the Auditor General of Canada, and desires to place on record its high sense of the faithful services rendered by Mr. Henderson as a servant of parliament and the people, and of the independence and objectivity he has shown in the performance of the duties of his office.
If unanimous consent is given, I would like to move that motion, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald).


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is unanimous consent, the motion will be put to the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 43, to request the unanimous consent of the House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the significant number of thalidomide children in Canada with permanent deformities who have not received compensation from the manufacturer of the drug, and in view of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) stated in the House on January 23 that officials had met with representatives of the firm responsible for the production of the drug, and in view of the fact that this problem as it applies to children in Britain has been debated in the British House of Commons, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie):
That the House request that at an early date the Minister of National Health and Welfare report to parliament on this serious problem and the extent of the government's efforts to assist the victims and families afflicted by the use of thalidomide.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43. It also requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
March 12, 1973


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Charlevoix has the floor.


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, the motion I wanted to move has just been brought forward by the representative of the Progressive Conservative party. That is another proof of lack of co-operation.


CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-King sway) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-161, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (natural born Canadian citizen).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act to provide, in the case of a married woman who is a Canadian citizen residing outside of Canada, that her child born outside of Canada shall have the same right for her child to be a natural born Canadian citizen as the father and as an unmarried woman. This bill would also be in keeping with paragraph (l)(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights which gives statutory recognition to "the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-CONTRACTS FOR PUBLICITY AND/OR INFORMATION
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Agriculture on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70,1970-71,1971-72?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms or individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
Order Paper Questions
3.	What contracts for publicity and/or information were awarded in the current fiscal year, what are the names and addresses of contractees, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. 1968-69, $1,034,133; 1969-70, $1,054,349; 1970-71, $1,115,100; 1971-72, $1,499,500.
2.	1968-69: (a) Tandy Advertising Limited, Toronto, $27,547.22. To carry out a national advertising campaign to encourage the safe and effective use of pesticides by the public in general and farmers in particular, (b) Tandy Advertising Limited, Toronto, $42,194.11. To conduct an advertising program on the subject of the Canada Department of Agriculture's responsibilities in the testing, grading and inspection of Canadian products. 1969-70: (a) Tandy Advertising Limited, Toronto, $34,634.69 (of which 3,034 is chargeable to the 1968-69 program). To continue a national advertising program to make Canadians aware of the benefits to be derived from pesticides when used safely in accordance with directions, (b) Tandy Advertising Limited, Toronto, $13,203.66. Expenditure incurred in 1968-1969 advertising program on the subject of the Canada Department of Agriculture's responsibilities in testing, grading and inspection of Canadian products, (c) Tandy Advertising Limited, Toronto, $2,300. To advertise in the Canadian High News on career opportunities in agriculture. 1970-71: Tandy Advertising Limited, Toronto, $37,960.46. To continue a national advertising program to encourage the safe and effective use of pesticides by the public in general and farmers in particular. 1971-72: (a) Tandy Advertising Limited, Toronto, $43,983.42. To continue a national advertising program to encourage the safe and effective use of pesticides. The campaign was directed especially towards urban and suburban users, (b) J. M. Eastman and Associates Limited, Toronto, $63,541.96. To conduct an advertising program, primarily in Western Canada to inform farmers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba on the new Prairie Grain Policy, its ramifications, its application to individual situations and how to avail of the policy, (c) Mr. R. F. Gadsby, Victoria, B.C., $3,000. To provide additional information and public relations services to the Department in British Columbia.
3.	1972-73: (a) Tandy Advertising Limited, Toronto, $34,998.13 (Actual expenditures as of January 26, 1973) (Total commitment $36,580). To continue a national advertising program to encourage the safe and effective use of pesticides by the urban and farm publics, (b) Agravoice Productions Limited, Edmonton, Alta. $42,500 (Actual expenditures as of January 26, 1973) (Total commitment $51,000). To provide a communication extension service in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba to increase over-all public awareness of departmental policies and programs in the said provinces, (c) Mr. R. F. Gadsby, Victoria, B.C. $2,500. Continuation of contract to provide additional information and public relations services to the Department in British Columbia.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 116-Mr. Nystrom: (Supplementary)
1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Department of Veter-
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1973
Order Paper Questions
ans Affairs on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Hon. Daniel I. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. 1968-69, $180,988.00; 1969-70, $330,222.00; 197071, $244,030.00; 1971-72, $225,837.17.
2.	Architect and engineering services: Graham Napier & Hebert, Halifax, N.S. $2,025.00; Robert P. Fleming, Montreal, P.Q. $21,209.34; Brais, Frigon, Hanley, Brett & Rin-fret, Montreal, P.Q. $19,196.81; W.G. Hames Associates, Calgary Alta. $6,250.00; J.P. Mooney & Associates, Saint John, N.B. $4,825.71; Mercer & Mercer, Vancouver B.C. $13,220.00; Siddall Dennis Warner Associates, Victoria, B.C. $76,209.00; St-Jacques Mongenais, Green Blankstein & Russell, Montreal $963,664.38; Gerard Charbonneau, Montreal, P.Q. $11,109.40; Lorrain Gerin-Lajoie, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, P.Q. $16,640.00; Consulting and training services: Management Concepts Ltd., Scarborough, Ont. $5,393.00; Public relations services: John Doherty & Co., Ltd., Ottawa, Ont. $7,400.00.
3.	The architect and engineering services related to new hospital construction, renovations and improvements to existing hospital facilities. No report submitted. The consulting and training services related to the program of Management by Objectives. No report submitted. The public relations services related to the provision of advice and counselling on public relations matters, assistance during peak periods and the provision of special services. No report submitted.
4.	Architect and engineering services: W.G. Hames Associates, Calgary, Alta. $28,727.47; Hagarty, Buist, Brevik & Milics, London, Ont. $6,771.98; Lorrain Gerin-Lajoie, Ste-Anne de Bellevue, P.Q. $8,347.65; McDougall & Friedman, Montreal, P.Q. $2,500.00; H.W. Klassen Associates, Calgary, Alta., $-; Siddall Dennis Warner Associates, Victoria, B.C. $10,006.00; Mercer & Mercer, Vancouver, B.C. $2,350.00; J.P. Moody, Saint John, N.B. $7,611.00; Brais, Frigon, Hanley, Brett & Rinfret, Montreal, P.Q. $5,991.58; Willis Cuncliffe Tait, Victoria, B.C. $1,919.00; Graham Napier & Hebert, Halifax, N.S. $12,475.57; St-
Jacques Mongenais, Montreal, P.Q., $

; Robert P.
Fleming, Montreal, P.Q. $7,978.17. The above services related to hospital renovations and improvements to existing facilities. Consulting and training services: Management Concepts Ltd., Scarborough, Ont. $20,000.00. The above services related to the Department's program of Management by Objectives. Public relations services: John Doherty & Co. Ltd., Ottawa, Ont. $5,000.00 The above services related to the provision of advice and counselling on public relations matters, assistance during peak periods and the provision of special services.


Mr. Beaudoin: Since it was established, has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion paid or loaned money to agencies whose headquarters are located in the constituency of Richmond and, if so, what was the amount paid in each case?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The following companies accepted offers of a development incentive under the Regional Development Incentives Act for a facility in the indicated locality of the constituency of Richmond:
Name
	Amount of	Disbursements
Location	Incentive	to DateFrank's Piping Co. Ltd.	Bromptonville, Que.	$ 15,900Abattoir Giroux Inc.	Bromptonville, Que.	13,000Eastern Canada Packaging	Bromptonville, Que.	16,600Fibres de Verre de l'Est Inc.	Garthby, Que.	102,125Tingwick Metal Inc.	Tingwick, Que.	51,500Confection Corriveau Inc.	Windsor, Que.	41,862


[Stage Direction]
It should be noted that the actual moneys paid to Eastern Canada Packaging exceeded the amount of the authorized incentive. The reason for this is that under the terms of the regulations to the Regional Development Incentives Act, an increase of 15 per cent over the initially approved capital cost figure may be authorized provided that the concurrence of the Minister is sought. In this case, the applicant obtained the necessary approval for the upward revision.
Mr. Schumacher: Does the government intend to proceed with legislation to designate "O Canada" as the National Anthem and, if so, does it intend at the same time to enshrine "God Save the Queen" as the Royal Anthem by legislation and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: The matter is under consideration and it will be announced in due course if such legislation is to be introduced.

March 12, 1973


Mr. Matte: Has the Compagnie des Cent Associes declared bankruptcy and, if so (a) on what date (b) was an investigation made on this bankruptcy (c) who are the creditors (d) who is the trustee (e) what is the present status of the bankruptcy?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: (a) The "Compagnie des Cent Associes" having its business office at Trois-Rivieres, voluntarily declared bankruptcy on May 9, 1969. (b) Every bankruptcy is subject to an investigation by the trustee, the official receiver and the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, to determine if offences have been committed in relation thereto, (c) The majority of creditors totalling 286 are small investors for a total amount of $662,449.86. (d) Mr. Rosaire Drolet was appointed trustee of this bankruptcy on June 16, 1969. (e) The administration of this estate continues in a normal way. In view of the nature of the assets still to be realized, namely mortgages, notes and accounts receivable, it is difficult to determine when the administration will be completed. The creditors have already received a dividend of 65 per cent of their claims and the trustee anticipates that they will recover their total claims.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	How many copies of the publication The Canadian Drug Identification Code 1972 were printed?
2.	What is the distribution range of the publication?
3.	What is the estimated cost of the research for and the printing and distribution of this publication?
4.	Is it planned to publish such a document for 1973?
5.	How many medical practitioners or institutions have requested this book?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. 55,000.
2.	The publication was distributed to: Physicians; Pharmacies; Hospitals; Dentists; Veterinarians: (Approximate numbers) 50,800. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers: 1,200. Medical & Pharmaceutical Associations; Medical & Pharmaceutical Teaching Institutions; Provincial Departments of Health: 200. The Health Protection Branch has a small balance for distribution on request.
3.	Research and development (time devoted by professionals and programmers, and the development and production on computer), $55,000; Printing, $60,000; Distribution (shipping from printer, postage and handling), $48,000. Total, $163,000.
4.	It is planned to publish a second edition of the Code book in autumn, 1973. Due to continual changes in drug products on the Canadian market and updated edition is planned annually.
5.	Because of the general distribution of the publication to members of the health professions and health institutions there has been a very small demand for copies. A few hospitals and universities have sent requests for extra copies.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Wagner: 1.	Has the SODAP plant in Notre-Dame-du-Bon-Conseil been sold to an American concern and, if so (a) what is its name (b) what was the total amount of the transaction?
2.	Has the SODAP Company received a grant from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and, if so (a) in what amount (b) who were the directors and shareholders of SODAP when the grant was obtained?
3.	Did the SODAP Company declare bankruptcy in the spring of 1972?


Marcel Prud'homme: 1. Not to the
knowledge of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, (a) N/A; (b) N/A.
2.	Yes. The SODAP Company accepted an offer of a development incentive authorized under the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Act of June 2, 1970. (a) $223,636 of which a payment of $166,361 was made on October 5, 1971. (b) According to information provided at the time the offer was authorized; (i) the following were the Directors of the company: Conrad Jutras, President and Director; Charles Thiry, Vice-President and Director; J. Lussier, Secretary-Treasurer and Director; J. C. Therri-en, Director; Jerome Lampron, Director; (ii) Sections 101 and 103 of the Quebec Companies' Act state that names of shareholders are available only to "holders of preferred or common shares and creditors of the company, and their representatives and of any judgment creditor of a shareholder".
3.	The company filed a proposal under the Bankruptcy Act on May 23, 1972, which was rejected by the Courts on October 18, 1972. The effective date of the Bankruptcy is May 23, 1972.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	When was the MV Lucy Maud Montgomery acquired by the government?
2.	How long did this ship serve on the Borden-Tormentine ferry
service?
3.	For what reason was the ship withdrawn from the service?
4.	What improvements have been made in the ship since its withdrawal from the service?
5.	How many automobiles can be carried by the Lucy Maud Montgomery?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1. The
vessel was acquired in 1969.
2.	The vessel served in the Borden-Tormentine service during the 1969 and 1970 tourist seasons.
3.	With the introduction of the MV Holiday Island and the M.V. Vacationland, capacity in this service was sufficient to permit the transfer of this vessel to the Newfoundland Gulf Service where her capacity was needed.
4.	The vessel has had a continuing program of upgrading to meet Canadian marine standards in addition to her normal annual refits. The upgrading has been done in stages and will be completed this winter.

March 12, 1973
Order Paper Questions
5.	The vessel can accommodate 47 to 69 American automobiles, depending on whether the MacGregor wing decks are used or not.


Mr. Muir: Is the Department of Supply and Services considering providing a government transport service for messengers and messages, freeing taxis under federal contract?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: No.


Mr. Fortin: How many properties were expropriated for the improvement of the Victoriaville regional airport and (a) what was the total cost of the expropriation (b) what were the names of the owners (c) what was the amount paid for each property?


Jean Marchand: By an
Agreement dated May 17, 1971 between Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Ministry of Transport and the Corporations of the towns of Arthabaska, Plessisville, Princeville, Victoriaville, Warwick and the Corporation of the Villiage of Daveluyville, province of Quebec, authorized by P.C. 1965-1/10074 and T.B. 634623, June 3, 1965 and P.C. 1968-24/176 and T.B. 682326-1, September 17, 1968, the said Corporations as represented by the town of Victoriaville, agreed to acquire, at their own cost and expense, the lands essential to the development of an airport site and such other lands or interest therein as may be necessary to provide for extension, clearing and proper zoning of the said airport, together with servitudes for rights-of-way and servitudes in perpetuity prohibiting the erection of structures in the vicinity of the airport. All such lands or interests therein were to be acquired by the Corporations free from all encumbrances, including timber rights and mineral claims. In consideration of the acquisition by the Corporations of the said land and servitudes, Her Majesty as represented by the Ministry of Transport would undertake and complete on the said land certain work of preliminary development or improvement of the said airport, such work consisting in the construction of a gravelled runway, 2,500' x 75' within a 2,900' x 155' graded landing strip, with a taxi strip 30' wide from such runway to a 100' x 200' parking apron. In accordance with the aforementioned agreement, the federal Crown was not responsible for the acquisition of the property required to create the airport site and I am therefore not in a position to provide the answers to the questions raised.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	How many United States airline companies have landing rights for scheduled flights in Canada?
2.	How many United States aircraft on scheduled flights landed in Canada in each calendar year 1969, 1970,1971 and 1972?
3.	How many Canadian airports had scheduled flights by United States carriers from the United States in 1969,1970,1971 and 1972?


Jean Marchand: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. Seventeen.
2.	U.S. aircraft on scheduled flights landed in Canada: 1969, 26,041; 1970, 25,648; 1971, 24,897; 1972, not available.
3.	Eight.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	How many Canadian airline companies have landing rights for scheduled flights in the United States?
2.	How many Canadian aircraft on scheduled flights landed in the United States in each calendar year 1969,1970,1971 and 1972?
3.	How many United States airports had scheduled flights by Canadian carriers from Canada in 1969, 1970,1971 and 1972?


Jean Marchand: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. Four.
2.	Canadian aircraft departed from airports in Canada on scheduled flights to airports in United States: 1969, 15,649; 1970, 16,496; 1971, 15,289; 1972, not available.
3.	Ten.


Mr. Stackhouse: Is it the intention of the government to indicate it will not expand the number of troops being used as observers in Viet Nam without first seeking authorization from Parliament?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: This question has been recently overtaken by events. The Canadian government, responding to an invitation from the four parties to the Paris Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet Nam, has sent a delegation composed of personnel from the Department of External Affairs and the Department of National Defence to serve on the International Commission of Control and supervision in Viet Nam. In meeting its obligations and responsibilities to participate for an initial period of 60 days, the Canadian delegation is composed of 290 men and women which is the same number of persons on each national delegation indicated under the terms of the Protocol concerning the ICCS.


Miss MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands): 1.	What was the average annual employment rate among Indians and Inuit in Canada in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?
2.	What was the average annual income of Canadian Indians and Inuit families excluding general assistance and family allowances in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?
3.	How many Indians and Inuits received welfare assistance in Canada in 1968, 1969, 1970,1971 and 1972?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: In so far as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned the answer is: 1. Canada Manpower does not keep records by ethnic groups and as many Indians and Inuits do not

March 12, 1973

live on reserves but in urban areas it is not possible to maintain this type of information.
2.	In so far as the Indian population is concerned see answer to Question 1879 tabled in the House of Commons December 1, 1971. In so far as the Inuit population, the Northwest Territories does not keep records on an ethnic basis.
3.	The reply given to part 1 applies also in the case of welfare payments.


Miss MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands): 1.	What was the drop out rate amongst Indian high school students before Grade 12 in 1968, 1969,1970,1971 and 1972?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Department does not maintain a drop out rate as this is extremely difficult to define and because students who move to off-reserve situations are lost to departmental records. The Department instead stresses the retention rate in school including those who take technical and vocational programs. We do know that from the period from 1959 to 1969 high school Indian enrolments increased by 250 per cent and university enrolment has increased by 200 per cent.


Mr. Lawrence: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Counties of Durham and Northumberland, in the Province of Ontario, who performed services for the Department of Agriculture and any of their agencies or Crown corporations, including the Farm Credit Corporation, during 1971 and 1972, and what was the total amount of money paid to each one?


Eugene Whelan: Agriculture Canada made no payments to any lawyers or law firms in the counties of Durham and Northumberland for services performed during 1971 and 1972. However, The Farm Credit Corporation paid Legal Fees to: C. D. Fitzgibbon, Port Hope (Durham E.), E. R. Lovekin, Newcastle (Durham W.), J. P. Funnel, Cobourg (Northumberland E. & W.). Fees paid to lawyers and law firms acting as legal agents for the Farm Credit Corporation in the placing of loans are paid by borrowers by deduction from their loan proceeds and the Corporation does not maintain records of amounts so paid.


Mr. Korchinski: 1.	Has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development made a survey of the house requirements on Indian reservations for the next two years?
Order Paper Questions
2.	How many houses were built on reservations in 1972 in each province?
3.	What is the total Indian population in each province?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. A survey is presently under way.
2.	Maritimes, 142; Quebec, 416; Ontario, 401; Manitoba, 527; Saskatchewan, 330; Alberta, 312; British Columbia, 460.
3.	Prince Edward Island, 451; Nova Scotia, 4,788; New Brunswick, 4,541; Quebec, 28,449; Ontario, 56,553; Manitoba, 36,851; Saskatchewan, 37,565; Alberta, 30,021; British Columbia, 49,194; Yukon Territory, 2,561; Northwest Territories, 6,645.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How does the percentage of Indian students beginning secondary schools compare with the percentage of the whole population graduating from secondary schools?
2.	How does the percentage of Indian students graduating from secondary schools compare with the percentage of the whole population graduating from secondary schools?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. 1969-70 is the most recent year for which figures are available.
Percentage of Indians entering Percentage for whole secondary schools	of Canada
5.2	7.6
2. In 1969-70, 69.1 per cent of Indian students enrolled in Grade 12 graduated. The Department has no figures on the percentage of the whole population graduating from secondary schools.


Mr. Andre: 1.	What was the cost of production, printing and distribution of the Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1971, for the Department of National Health and Welfare?
2.	How many copies of the Report were distributed?


Marc Lalonde: 1. $2,746.59.
2. 3,300.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did the Agricultural Stabilization Board receive, after January 31, 1972, any requests from potato producers wishing to benefit from the potato purchasing program intended to stabilize prices on the national market and, if so (a) how many requests were received (b) how many were accepted (c) what are the names and

March 12, 1973
Order Paper Questions
addresses of the producers whose requests were thus accepted (d) what were the amounts paid to such producers?


Eugene Whelan: (a) 337. (b) 291. (c) and (d) This type of detailed payment information is considered to be private between the Board and the producers and, because of its confidential nature, is not included with this reply. The total amount paid on applications received after January 31,	1972 was


Mr. Matte: 1.	How many corporations in the province of Quebec have a federal charter?
2.	Which of them have their corporate names (a) in English (b) in French (c) in both languages?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: 1. 9,663 corporations incorporated under the Canada Corporations Act have their head office in Quebec.
2. (a) 6,916 corporations have an English corporate name, (b) 489 corporations have a French corporate name, (c) 2,258 corporations have a bilingual corporate name.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	Since 1960, how many campground facilities were closed in each of Waterton National Park, Banff National Park and Jasper National Park and, in each case (a) what was the site of the campground (b) what was the acreage (c) what was the reason for closing?
2.	Since 1960, how many campground facilities were opened in each of Waterton National Park, Banff National Park and Jasper National Park, and, in each case (a) what is the site (b) what is the acreage?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Waterton Lakes National Park: (a) Red Rock Canyon, N.E. { section, 14 Township 2. Range 1. W. of 5; (b) Approximately 3; (c) To preserve a unique area which was not large enough for expansion. No favourable water supply for enlarged and improved camping sanitary facilities. Banff National Park: (a) Bow Lake, Shore of Bow Lake, North of Lake Louise; (b) Five; (c) Rehabilitation of the grounds which were in a very depreciated state due to heavy traffic and over use. (a) Moraine Lake, eight miles from Upper Lake Louise in the Valley of the Ten Peaks; (b) Eight; (c) Rehabilitation of the grounds which were in a very depreciated state due to heavy traffic and over use. (a) Upper Lake Louise, 1 Mile from Lake Louise; (b) Ten; (c) Rehabilitation of the grounds which were in a very depreciated state due to heavy traffic and over use. Jasper National Park: (a) Cottonwood, i Mile North of townsite; (b) 20; (c) Serious overcrowded conditions. Area developed for sewage lagoon. Some land needed for highway bypass.
2. Waterton Lakes National Park: (a) Belly River, N.W.J Section 9, Township 1, Range 28, W. of 4; (b) 35. (a) Cran-dell Mountain, N.W. i Section 4, Township 2, Range 30, W.

of 4; (b) 100. Banff National Park: (a) Protection Mountain, 36 miles west from East Gate on Highway 1A; (b) 36.
(a)	Two Jack Main Campground, eight miles west from East Gate, two miles north on Lake Minnewanka Road;
(b)	90. (a) Lake Louise Trailer Park, 45 miles west from East Gate on T.C. Highway; (b) 55. (a) Tunnel Mountain, eight miles west from East Gate, 1 mile from Banff Rown-site; (b) 110. (a) Rampart Creek, 99 miles from East Gate on Icefield Parkway; (b) 15. (a) Waterfowl Lake, 71 miles N.W. from East Gate on Icefields Parkway; (b) 25. (a) Johnston Canyon, 25 miles from East Gate on Highway 1A; (b) 33. (a) Mount Eisenhower, 29 miles west from East Gate on Highway 1A; (b) 18. Jasper National Park: (a) Wabasso, mile 10, Highway 93A South; (b) Ten. (a) Honeymoon Lake, mile 32, Icefield Parkway South; (b) Eight, (a) Celestine Lake, Mile 7, Highway 16, North to Junction then 22 miles on Celestine road; (b) Four, (a) Snaring River, Mile 7, Highway 16, North to Junction then 3.5 miles; (b) 12. (a) Wilcox Creek, Mile 69 Icefield Parkway; (b) 24. (a) Wapiti, Mile 3, Highway 93 South; (b) 93. (a) Whistlers, Mile 2, Highway 93 South; (b) 242.


Mr. Andre: 1.	During 1972, how many visitors entered the national parks of Canada?
2.	What was the distribution, by province?
3.	What is the total number of campsites and trailer sites within the national parks, by province?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. 13,838,926.
2.	Newfoundland, 268,509; Nova Scotia, 920,802; New Brunswick, 743,412; Prince Edward Island, 1,210,621; Quebec, 107,708; Ontario, 667,535; Manitoba, 731,163; Saskatchewan, 166,213; Alberta, 4,802,043; British Columbia, 4,220,920.
3.	Newfoundland, 423; Nova Scotia, 1,263; New Brunswick, 1,024; Prince Edward Island, 623; Quebec, 136; Ontario, 415; Manitoba, 732; Saskatchewan, 707; Alberta, 4,493; British Columbia, 2,000.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,063
Mr. Reynolds:: 1.	For what reason did the government overlook putting a resident western Canadian on the new Canada Labour Relations Board?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to correct this situation and, if so, on what date?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: 1. A western Canadian was approached to accept appointment, but declined for personal reasons.
2. As vacancies occur on the Board, western Canadians will be considered for appointment, along with Canadians from all other regions.
March 12, 1973


Mr. Darling: 1.	Has the Department of Veterans Affairs received applications from veterans for assistance under the Veterans' Land Act who failed to file for certificates before the deadline had passed?
2.	Approximately how many applications have been received that had to be rejected because the veterans failed to file before the deadline had passed?
3.	Does the Minister plan to initiate action to extend the deadline to accommodate veterans who would now like to acquire small holdings, but who failed to apply for certificates of eligibility before the deadline?
Hon. Daniel ]. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs): 1 and 2. When it is ascertained that the veteran does not have a valid Certificate of Qualification, no application for financial assistance under Part I of the Veterans' Land Act is submitted. Records have not been maintained as to the number of veterans who have contacted VLA offices since October 31, 1968, who did not obtain a Certificate of Qualification by that date.
3. Any such action would be a matter of government policy and would be announced in the usual way.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of Finance on (a) January 1, 1963 (b) January 1,1973?
2.	How many people in each of these years were receiving salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) over $20,000?
Hon. ]ohn N. Turner (Minister of Finance): 1. (a) 486; (b) 548.
2. (a) January 1, 1963, 423; January 1, 1973, 318; (b) January 1, 1963, 62; January 1, 1973, 150; (c) January 1, 1963, 1; January 1, 1973, 80.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of Veterans Affairs on (a) January 1, 1963 (b) January 1, 1973?
2.	How many people in each of these years were receiving salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) over $20,000?
Hon. Daniel ]. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs): 1. (a) 13,087. (b) 9,726.
	1-1-63	1-1-73
(a)	12,654	8,246(b)	431	1,215(c)	2	265
Oral Questions



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the cost to the Unemployment Insurance Commission for the establishment of computer centres throughout Canada, in what centres are they located and what is the total number of employees at each computer centre at the present time?
2.	How many major breakdowns have been experienced at each of the computer centres since they were established and in each instance, what was the length of each of the major breakdowns?
3.	How many minor breakdowns have been experienced in each of the centres since their establishment and in each instance, what was the length of the breakdown?
Return tabled.



INTEREST FREE OR INTEREST BEARING LOANS TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES

Mr. Beaudoin: Since April 30, 1970, has the government granted interest free or interest bearing loans to foreign countries and, if so (a) to which countries (b) on what dates (c) in what amounts (d) at what interest rate (e) for what terms?
Return tabled.



LIP GRANTS-CONSTITUENCY OF SAINT-HYACINTHE

Mr. Wagner: 1.	What grants were made in 1972 in the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe under the Local Initiatives Program?
2.	What were the names and addresses of the recipients of such grants in 1972 and what were the names and addresses of the sponsors?
3.	What were the names and addresses of applicants and sponsors who did not receive a grant in 1972?
4.	What evaluation was made by the department of the actual use of grants made in 1972 in the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe?
5.	Who was responsible for the evaluation of the grants?
6.	Does the department have any audited statements for these grants and are they available?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the government recently been advised again by United States government officials that the United States government still wants substantial alterations in the auto pact and defence production sharing, as well as modifications in our tourist allowances and other irritants? If so, what is the stance of

March 12, 1973
Oral Questions
the government? Is it about to begin discussions on these matters?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have had no recent communication from the government of the United States on the point raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the minister's understanding that United States officials are insisting upon duty-free entrance of used cars into Canada from the United States as part of the modification of the auto pact?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, no representations to that effect have been made to me or to the government.


CANADA-UNITED STATES-INQUIRY AS TO SECRET TALKS ON POSSIBILITY OF FREE TRADE IN CERTAIN SECTORS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether officials of his department or of the government of Canada have held secret talks with officials of the United States government regarding initiatives toward free trade between the two countries in selected sectors of trade? If so, what, if any, mandate do the Canadian officials have from the Canadian government in this respect?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions I have indicated to the House that there are continuing discussions between the government of Canada and the government of the United States, between officials of the two governments, with respect to a wide range of issues. I do not think they could properly be described as secret discussions; they are of a continuing nature and embrace a large number of matters of mutual concern.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the minister implying that in fact discussions are taking place between officials of the Canadian government and officials of the United States government with regard to free trade in selected areas of trade between the two countries?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be drawn into debate about what is going on between our two countries. As I indicated, there is continuing discussion between officials on a wide range of matters. If the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that we are about to enter into discussions with respect to free trade between our two countries, I can assure him that such is not our intention.


NATURAL GAS-STUDIES OF EXPORT PRICE TO UNITED STATES TO DETERMINE WHETHER TOO LOW-CONSIDERATION OF EXCISE TAX RATHER THAN PRICE INCREASE
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address some questions to the Minister of Energy, 
Mines and Resources. Has the minister or his department or the National Energy Board made studies of the question of whether the price of Canadian gas exported to the United States is too low relative to the price of other fuels, and if such studies have been made can the minister inform the House whether the conclusion is that the price is or has been too low?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in 1970 the government passed regulation 11a under the National Energy Board Act conferring on the National Energy Board the responsibility for keeping gas prices for export under scrutiny. As I told the hon. gentleman's colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, a detailed description of the board's efforts since regulation 11a was passed will be presented to the standing committee tomorrow morning.


David Lewis: Precisely because of the existence of 11a in the regulations, can the minister tell the House now or is he informing the House that the committee will be informed tomorrow as to what the conclusion of that analysis was? Can he also say whether any action was taken under 11a of the National Energy Board regulations with respect to the export price of gas?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the board will be making a very full expose tomorrow of its actions since 11a was established. I think it is a fair inference that since that legislative tool was there it has been of assistance to the board in its efforts with regard to gas prices.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister whether the government has considered or is considering the imposition of an excise tax on gas sales in lieu of an increase in price in order that the benefits may accrue to the people of Alberta and the people of Canada rather than 83 per cent of the benefits of an increase in price going to the gas producers, most of them large and foreign-owned?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have been considering in a very general way the returns to Canada from this and other energy sources. Specifically, I have to say we are not considering the prospect of instant implementation of an excise tax.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
In view of the continual rise in the price of food, can the minister tell the House whether he will recommend the setting up of a compensated discount on food products in order to curb the alarming rise of prices which are still out of control in spite of investigations conducted in this connection?
March 12, 1973


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I have no intention of launching new policies this afternoon. They will be introduced in due course.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister, or possibly the Acting Minister of Finance might answer. In light of the imminent retirement of the Auditor General, Mr. Maxwell Henderson, is the Acting Prime Minister able to indicate the name of his successor? If not, is it the intention of the government to appoint the Assistant Auditor General as Acting Auditor General?


Mitchell William Sharp: An intensive search is being made to find a suitable replacement for Mr. Henderson whose services to the country have been acknowledged by the House. I hope we find one at least as worthy.


Gerald William Baldwin: While this appointment lies, of course, within the prerogatives of the Governor in Council, in view of the fact that the Auditor General is a servant of parliament, will the government give some consideration to consulting with the Public Accounts Committee concerning a suitable appointment?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will take the hon. gentleman's representations under consideration. I am quite sure that the kind of person for whom the government is searching will be one fully agreeable to Members of Parliament as a whole.


Gerald William Baldwin: Since the report of the Auditor General for the year ended March 31, 1972, has been delayed due to staff problems and by the retirement of the Auditor General, will the Acting Prime Minister undertake that as soon as this report is made available, whenever that may be and even if it is months from now, it will be made public even if there has been a dissolution of parliament in the interval?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is hypothetical. I will recognize the hon. member for Wellington on a supplementary. If the minister wishes to reply, he might do so to both questions at once.


Mr.   A.D. Hales@Wellington: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to call the Public Accounts Committee together for organization at an early date and, if so, would the hon. gentleman refer to that committee the report that has been provided by a special committee assigned to the Public Accounts Committee concerning the appointment of a new Auditor General?


Mitchell William Sharp: To answer that question first, let me say I shall be consulting with my colleague, the leader of the
Oral Questions
House, who has been delayed in getting here today. In reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Peace River, let me assure him that the report of the Auditor General will be presented to parliament in accordance with the law.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is prompted by his interesting address to the Canadian Railway Labour Association, a copy of which, unfortunately, he did not send me. Can the minister tell us whether, in light of what he called the disgraceful welfare situation in some of the provinces, he is prepared to assist by an early introduction of legislation to raise family allowances, hopefully before Easter, and by increasing beyond 50 per cent the government's contribution to the Canada Assistance Plan, at least with respect to those areas and provinces where there is acute need as noted in the hon. gentleman's address?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I did not send the hon. member a copy of my statement to the Canadian Railway Labour Association but there was a good reason for that: I was improvising. In the future, he will have to come and hear me in person.
With regard to the second question concerning the ben-fits now being paid under the Canada Assistance Plan, I was expressing an opinion which is also shared by most of my provincial colleagues. In fact, they do admit that the present benefits are not high enough. We will look into the whole matter at the conference to be held at the end of April, but I do not feel that I can or should suggest changes before we have discussed it with the provinces.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I have a supplementary, prompted by an even more impressive part of those spontaneous expressions. I note that the minister indicated plans to present to the provinces in April a social security system including provision for unemployment insurance. Can he advise us whether this means that the government now regards unemployment insurance not as an insurance scheme but as welfare and if it also regards the jurisdiction as one that it will henceforth share with the provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In regard to the first part of the supplementary, I would think the hon. member is asking for an expression of opinion on the part of the minister. However, if the minister wishes to reply to the second part of the question he will be recognized for that purpose.

March 12, 1973
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have a hard time distinguishing between the first and the second part of the question.
the applicability of the Navigable Waters Protection Act in situations of this kind?


Jean Marchand: I am ready to look into that, Mr. Speaker.
* *
*


CANADA-UNITED STATES-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON NATURE OF DISCUSSIONS AND CANADIAN POSITION
Mr.   Terry@: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, arising from the first series of questions. In view of the fact he said the word "secret" was not an appropriate word to apply to the talks taking place between the United States and Canada and that the talks which are of a continuing nature, would the hon. gentleman be prepared to make a statement outlining what is being discussed and the position being taken by Canada in these talks?


Alastair William Gillespie: I do not think I have anything to add to the statements I have made in the House over a long period with respect to the ongoing and continuing nature of our discussions with the United States in connection with a number of trade matters.


Mr. O'Connor:: The minister has on occasion indicated that he is not prepared, as he says, to bargain in public, that is, to make our bargaining position known. That is, perhaps wise. But would the hon. gentleman be prepared to make a full statement to the House setting out Canada's immediate and long-term objectives without revealing the exact nature of the bargaining points in order that some of the confusion surrounding, in particular, the auto pact in the last few weeks might be cleared up?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think that some of the confusion which has surrounded the auto pact in the last few weeks has been cleared up.
* *
*


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Since the Minister of the Environment said on March 1, 1971, that British Columbia would require authority under the Navigable Waters Protection Act to build the Moran Dam, would the hon. gentleman tell the House in what way that situation is different from the situation at James Bay, and, if it is not different, whether the position of the government has changed and, if so, why?


Jean Marchand: I would like to have the text of that statement by the minister. After that, maybe I could comment.


SUGGESTED PROVISION OF INFORMATION ON NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT ADMINISTRATION TO COURT AND HOUSE
Charles Joseph Clark: I have a supplementary for the Minister of Justice. In light of the recent decision by a Superior Court Justice in Quebec to postpone ruling on whether the La Grande and other rivers in the James Bay region fall under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, will the government, in the role of a friend of the court, provide the court with all necessary information relating to the administration of this act, and will the minister also provide this information to the House at the earliest possible opportunity?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister oi Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would, of course, be very happy to provide to the hon. member or any other member of the House any information they seem to think we have that may be of help to them in reaching any conclusions with regard to this matter. I would not think that direct assistance to the court is required and, of course, I will not comment further on a matter before the courts.


JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-APPLICABILITY OF NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT TO PROVINCES-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER PRIVATE MEMBER'S BILL
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport with reference to the applicability of the Navigable Waters Protection Act to the proposed hydro development in the James Bay region. It arises in part from the reply the hon. gentleman gave on Friday last to the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands, recorded on page 2069 of Hansard, in which he said it is "less obvious when a provincial government is concerned" whether the act can be applied. In light of that answer, would the minister consider taking over as a government bill my Bill C-155 presently on the order paper, which would eliminate the ambiguity as to


PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL GRAIN BANK-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What is the reaction of the Canadian government to the establishment of an international food bank?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I recall, Mr. Speaker, an international food bank was established a few years ago to which we made very substantial contributions. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman has some other plan in mind.
March 12, 1973


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, not two years ago but about 10 years ago, during my administration, we in Canada endeavoured to establish one under NATO and made our contribution. I am now referring to the representation made by Dr. Boerma, head of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, who proposed about two weeks ago the establishment of a world grain bank whose reserves could be drawn upon in emergencies. Producing countries would set aside certain minimum quantities of grain to stock the bank. He pointed out that a grain bank would be of special benefit to developing countries. Is the minister not aware of the fact that the United Nations has canvassed the various countries in the United Nations to ascertain their reaction? Has Canada not been approached?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I personally was not aware of this. I am very happy to have the information put forward by the Director General of the FAO. As the right hon. member knows, Canada has responded very generously to similar requests in the past. We have probably done more to help the underprivileged people of the world than any other country of our size. I can assure the right hon. member that if it is a practical scheme and one in which we can play a part, we will do so.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is a long way from answering the question. I did not expect anything beyond generalities.


AMOUNT OF WHEAT OR OTHER GRAINS HELD BY FARMERS AS REVEALED BY QUESTIONNAIRE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. A few weeks ago a survey was made among western farmers to ascertain what available wheat and other grains they had on hand. Will the minister say whether as a result of that poll it was ascertained that about 90 per cent of western farmers have no wheat or other grains on hand as was expected they would have according to the estimates made earlier by the government of Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. I would like to put the record straight immediately. The Canadian Wheat Board undertook the questionnaire in a confidential way. It is not its intention to supply the exact figures to any member of the public or, indeed, even to me because of the confidential nature of the questions asked and, therefore, the trust between them and questioners. However, I know they would be prepared to confirm in a general way that the results of the questionnaire confirm very substantially the accuracy of the figures available on the amounts of grain in fact predicted to be on hand in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the right hon. member for a supplementary and then the hon. member for Charlevoix.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems diffident about telling the House of Commons. Did he speak in the province of Saskatchewan and give those exact figures? Did he say it was found that approximately 90 per
Oral Questions
cent of the farmers do not have wheat or other grains on hand that it was expected they would have? Did he make that statement?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. member's problem is that he is saying I said something was expected when it was not expected. The fact of the matter is that a great number of farmers, with the tremendous delivery opportunities that have existed, have delivered all of the deliverable grain we want. That is to say, they have left on hand only such grain as they want for their own purposes. However, it was well known, expected and predicted that the grain which is said to be on hand is in fact in the hands of a small number of farmers and they-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDEMNIFICATION OF VICTIMS OF THALIDOMIDE-MEASURES TAKEN BY DEPARTMENT
Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Justice.
Could he tell the House what action is being taken by his department to allow Canadians affected by thalidomide, or their tutors, to obtain reasonable compensation from the drug manufacturer, that is from Richardson-Merrell (Canada) Ltd., a multimillionaire and multinational corporation?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we have already had meetings with representatives of that firm to make sure that the parents of the victims of that drug will receive just and equitable treatment and, for the time being, I am reviewing the situation in the light of the facts which can be brought to our attention. I hope to be able to announce shortly new developments on that matter.


RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS BY CHURCH LEADERS FOR TARIFF REDUCTIONS ON SUGAR AND OTHER PRIMARY PRODUCTS TO AID DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is supplementary or at least related to the question of the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Did the minister receive representations last week from the representatives of five or six Canadian churches urging the reduction of duties and preferences on sugar and other primary products as a main means of aiding developing countries? What was his response, if any, to their representations?

March 12, 1973
Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and myself received a very distinguished group of churchmen. They put forward a number of representations, including the one mentioned by the hon. member for Greenwood. We pointed out to the churchmen that we were introducing a resolution here for a system of general preferences which I hope will receive the full support of all members. We expressed our support for commodity arrangements and generally took a very sympathetic view, which I hope all members share, toward the ten days of development that the churches have been promoting as support for further development in the less privileged parts of the world.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is further to my question of last week concerning whether a delegation from his department was in Cuba. His reply at that time was that he was unaware but would look into the matter. In view of the visit to Cuba last week of Mr. K. Goldschlag, Director of the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs of the Department of External Affairs, and of Mr. M. N. Bow, Director of the Latin-American Division of the Department of External Affairs, will the minister advise the House as to the reasons why these men were in Cuba. Specifically, did they discuss with the Cuban government any one of the following matters: One, possible release of Ronald Patrick Lippert who has been in a Cuban jail for ten years; two, possible commercial air services between Canada and Cuba; three, anything pertaining to the FLQ exiles from Canada presently in Cuba?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to one of the questions is yes. The delegation, which includes the people mentioned by the hon. member, made representations to the Cuban government about Mr. Lippert. They have not been negotiating an air agreement and they have not been discussing FLQ developments. They are there on a trip which is concerned with the development of mutual trade and other relations between our two countries.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a position to advise the House of the nature of the response received to the representations on behalf of Mr. Lippert?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I have not yet had a report of what our delegation learned. As the hon. gentleman knows, we have made representations every few months over a long period of years, and we are hoping they will bear fruit.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Keith Hymmen (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Has there been any progress in the matter involving the exemption of certain groups, including Old Order Amish Menno-nites, on the basis of their religious belief from participation in the Canada Pension Plan? I ask this question because of a commitment made in December, 1971, by two ministers.


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that my officials have been working with those of the Department of National Health and Welfare on the drafting, if necessary, of an amendment to the Canada Pension Plan. I have been discussing with my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the possibility of not waiting for comprehensive amendments to that act but of seeing whether we can introduce sooner the necessary amendment to accomplish this exemption of certain religious groups from coverage. If there is found to be general approval of such an amendment, perhaps there might be discussions among the House leaders with a view to passing it without debate or expediting it through the House ' for the convenience of these groups.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Because of the fact that a new RCMP building was recently opened in Red Deer without display of a crest, and as many people in my constituency and across Canada are concerned about this matter, would the Solicitor General tell the House why the crest is being changed and when an announcement will be made as to what the new crest will be?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, we approved new signs for RCMP buildings last week. I think a press release will be put out soon describing these signs and they will be put up as soon as possible. They are in production right now.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. I realize the limitations placed upon him by the constitution in regard to the elevator constructors' dispute but it is a costly one to the country as a whole. I should like to ask the minister whether he is in a position to give the House

March 12, 1973

any information regarding the elevator constructors' strike which has proven to be so costly in many of the provinces of this country?
Hon. ]ohn C. Munro (Minister of Labour): Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am advised that the parties met last Friday and I believe they met again yesterday. The Ontario Minister of Labour is quoted as having made the statement that he is hopeful there will be a breakthrough today in this dispute, whatever "breakthrough" means in this context.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, of which I have given him notice. Has the minister yet had an opportunity to examine the work to rule situation in the greater Vancouver area by Canadian National yard crews with a view to speeding up freight movement and ameliorating the legitimate grievances of these men?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice; I should also like to thank the previous member for the notice he gave me of his question. Over the weekend we had our mediators in Montreal call in the top union people to discuss the entire area of grievances to see what could be done, and we are working on this very strenuously at the present time. I believe that other causes of unhappiness, of which the hon. member is well aware, are also the subject matter of discussion. I am referring in particular to the outstanding lawsuit that is involved.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, the minister just about took the words out of my mouth. Is he aware that, in addition to deliberately cutting its work force, Canadian National is holding a two year old writ for damages over the heads of the men, as well as employing watchdogs to spy on the men and pursuing a policy of harassment by calling in selected individuals for cross-examination by management?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my previous answer to the hon. member, we are aware of the outstanding lawsuit.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the practical experience that you have had in the livestock industry, why have you not demanded that import tariffs-
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat. I think this is a good opportunity to remind hon. members that questions should be directed to the Chair. When we are running short of time I sometimes hesitate to interrupt hon. members, but by this time I think they should know that questions should be directed to the Chair, not to ministers. Would the hon. member kindly address himself to the Chair.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Why have you not demanded-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member take my suggestion into account.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Why has he not-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: -demanded that import tariffs on beef from the United States be reinstated immediately until such time as the Americans reciprocate?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think we have made it fairly clear that our officials are still working with United States officials but their studies are not yet complete. I think you are talking about DES, though the hon. member did not say so in his question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the minister kindly address himself to the Chair.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the urgent need for new tanker construction as a result of planned oil refineries in the east, can the minister say whether he has under active consideration extension of the shipbuilding subsidies which run out on March 31? I might say that during the last election campaign I promised that these subsidies-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the hon. member and other hon. members interested in this question that we have this matter under active consideration at the present time.

March 12, 1973
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


POSSIBLE MOVEMENT OF ORE FROM BAFFIN ISLAND TO WEST GERMANY-INQUIRY AS TO ASSISTANCE TO WEST GERMANY TO BUILD SHIPS
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport, of which I have given him notice. In view of the fact that negotiations are under way between Canada and West Germany to ship ore from Baffin Island to the Ruhr Valley in Germany, and in view of the large number of unemployed people in Canada and our ability to build ships in Canada, I should like to ask the minister whether Canada is supplying money and expertise to West Germany to build these ore carriers?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago there were consultations between Germany and Canada as well as common experiments in the building of icebreaker cargo ships. I think the Germany company, called Vesser if my memory is correct, paid about $3 million for this analysis and research, as did the West German department of education. At the moment we are proceeding on our own and there is no longer any joint research in this field.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary. Will Canadian shipbuilders be given an opportunity to tender on the building of these ore carriers?


Jean Marchand: There is no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the advisory committee in fact been struck? Has it been looking into the alleged investigative procedures and has it reported to the minister yet?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is referring to the advisory committee to the UIC. It will be meeting tomorrow and these matters will be placed before it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Coast Chilcotin.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin. I believe the hon. member for Hamilton West has a supplementary and he will be recognized for that purpose.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In order that we may ascertain the intention of the minister, can the parliamentary secretary

advise whether the minister intends to proceed with or halt the type of procedures that have been called "investigative blitzes" until such time as the report of the advisory committee is known?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, since the committee is meeting tomorrow I do not think there will be a great interval, but if there is I will draw the hon. member's submission to the minister's attention.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation indicated to me some months ago that a five-year master plan was being drawn up that would provide television and radio services to areas of Canada not being served currently by radio and television, is this master plan now completed and, if so, has the government approved it?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will refer that question to the corporation for an answer.


HOUSING
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Since the minister said today he intends to amend the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act to grant loans to municipalities and individuals, so the latter may purchase houses more easily, could he tell the House whether the proposed amendments will include interest-free loans to municipalities for the installation of utilities on lands for the construction of houses?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the amendments before the House do not provide for that, but we have a task force working within the government which is presently consulting with the provinces as to how the provisions of the National Housing Act relating to the provision of forgiveness loans to municipalities for sewage works should be amended. I would hope to be in a position to make an announcement on that policy before the end of June.
March 12, 1973


SUGGESTED STUDY OF POSSIBILITY OF LOANS TO MUNICIPALITIES AT LOWER INTEREST RATE
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the hon. minister.
Is it his intention to have his task force study the possibility of lending money to municipalities at lower interest rates than are available now?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, under the National Housing Act we do lend money to municipalities for sewage services work, for trunk sewers and sewage disposal plants, at a beneficial rate of interest, plus a forgiveness provision which amounts to about one-third of the loan. Because we already have a policy of special loans to municipalities for that purpose, obviously during our reconsideration of the program we are considering this.


BARLEY-PAYMENT OF COST OF TRUCKING TO INLAND TERMINALS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. It arises from the resumption of the barley trucking program under which barley is being moved to the inland terminal at Saskatoon. In as much as this is an experimental project which will have the result of increasing handling costs by about 10 cents a bushel, will the minister indicate to the House whether this extra cost will be covered by funds from the federal treasury or will it be applied to the farm pool account?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the movement of barley into inland terminals is normally part of the operation of inland terminals and, therefore, costs are borne in the normal way. The difference really is only in respect of the decision by the Canadian Wheat Board to use trucks rather than rail equipment to move the grain. This results in large part from negotiations in respect of several aspects of rates which make trucking fully acceptable to the Canadian Wheat Board in place of rail.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are reaching the end of the question period and I hope there will be as few supplementary questions as possible, particularly if we are to recognize more members before orders of the day are called.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have one supplementary question. Since the additional charges involved in the shipping of barley under this program last year, amounting to about 12 cents a bushel, were covered by federal funds rather than from the pool account, is the minister saying this is the normal way in which the extra charges will be covered?
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is the normal way, that is to say, being borne as a regular part of the operation. The Wheat Board makes the decision when to use the inland terminals which, of course, are facilities placed there by the federal government, but how often the Board makes use of them is for the Board to decide. Last year there was a deficit in that particular barley pool so the question was academic. The only exceptional movement of grain with our full support was a year ago when we made a payment to help pay for the movement of more barley and wheat into export positions, and we bore that cost as part of our export development program.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the 300-word telegram received by his office on February 15 from the Canadian National Telecommunications Union asking for guidance regarding the fingerprinting practices of Canadian National with respect to certain employees involved in police work and police services, will the minister indicate why he has not responded to this costly and very important telegram?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have now authorized a reply. In fact, I did that in the middle of last week and it should be in the hands of the people concerned. I would, of course, have been glad to talk to them on the telephone as well at any time. I indicated to them that where any such security measures are required as part of the job, it is certainly a special matter outside my jurisdiction.



FINANCE


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Ordinarily I would have waited for the Minister of Finance to come back, but in view of the Acting Prime Minister's former finesse in finance I should like to ask a question concerning government policy. Did the Minister of Finance have specific discussions with the United States Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Shultz, when he met him in Paris over the weekend, with a view to obtaining exchange guarantees for Canadian holdings of U.S. dollars and, if not, is it now the government's intention to diversify Canadian international reserves?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will be back tomorrow and I am quite sure will be happy to answer this and any other question that may be put to him.

March 12, 1973
Unemployment


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Acting Prime Minister could answer this part of the question. Does the government have a policy on exchange guarantees or diversification or our international reserves, or is this another policy lighted by hooded headlights, procrastination and prayer?



NON-MEDICAL USE-REASON FOR DELAY IN GRANT TO PROJECT

Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with a project called "Memo for Turner". It is not addressed to the Minister of Finance but to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Just for edification, this "Memo for Turner" has to do with a project in respect of the non-medical use of drugs. In view of the fact that the last claim for payment of the grant has been delayed for a very long time, can the minister advise the House whether the delay in respect of the claim is the result of a policy decision or as a result of normal administrative bungling?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first, I will have to discover which Turner this has reference to. Second, I will certainly look into the matter to see whether there is any justification for the delay.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will now call orders of the day. I might say that I have noted in writing those hon. members who have not been recognized today and they will be given preference tomorrow over members who have been recognized today.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi) moved:: That this House deplores the continuous increase in unemployment, as well as the refusal or negligence of the Government to propose effective measures for providing more jobs of a remunerative character for Canadians, and condemns the existing authorities for imposing and tolerating quasi-repressive measures affecting citizens who merely want to see respected their fundamental right to a decent standard of living and their personal dignity and to live in a climate of freedom and security.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present this motion in the name of my colleagues of the Social Credit Party of Canada. Perhaps I will be criticized for harping on the same subject following the motions previously intro-

duced, but I wanted this motion to be more precise and concrete so as to enable us to put before the government true proposals which, if accepted, will eliminate the present climate of fear which is prevalent not only among the unemployed but even among those who now have a job and who do not know whether they will not be unemployed tomorrow.
For many years our unemployment rate has been steadily increasing. This unemployment rate is much too high for a still young nation, where much is left to be developed and which has still to meet the needs of one third of its population in the field of consumer goods.
In view of our high production capability and of the high demand for goods from handicapped and disadvantaged people living below the poverty line or even at the poverty line, I wonder about our hesitation to implement true solutions to this situation.
For the last few years we have been told that poverty was being fought; we have been hearing from time to time the leaders of our successive governments say that they were fighting unemployment. They mentioned "unemployment" but finally it turned out that it was a fight against the unemployed because the remedies proposed were probably the same as those which had been unefficient in the past.
So we need not be surprised that the employment situation in Canada is going from bad to worse. In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was saying as an excuse recently in a conference that if he had not succeeded in bringing down the unemployment rate, it was because too many new workers were coming on the labour market, too many young people offering to do some work to satisfy the requirements of the population, which in my view is a very poor excuse.
I think that the Prime Minister ought to have known last year, just as two or five years ago, that this situation would persist. Each year, a number of young people are coming on the labour market, and since it is impossible to satisfy them, a climate of fear has settled in this country, especially among the young people who are afraid that they will not be able to find a job upon completion of their studies.
Such fear also plagues adults, fear of losing one's job, or of being unable to find one, for lack of education.
There is also the fear of not being able to keep one's job because of automation, or of being displaced through automation and assigned to menial, less remunerated tasks.
The worker also fears inability to support his family, fears to start a family, with such a dismal outlook. It is a disturbing fear that healthy realism, a return to more rational notions of the purpose of the economy, and of work, could alleviate.
Mr. Speaker, what then is the purpose of economic activity and industrial work. Why do men gather in factories, in working communities, if not to achieve results unobtainable in isolation?
Now what results are sought after? The factory-owner might reply: profits. The worker's reply will be: earning a
March 12, 1973

living, drawing a salary. But neither profit nor salary matter, unless they bring about the satisfaction of needs.
But how are those needs met? They are met when the industrialist and the workers find goods capable of satisfying those needs. The purpose then of economic activity is not profit, nor salaries, but the production of goods and services that will satisfy human needs.
In his Reponse a des problemes d'aujourd'hui Jean Daujat explains simply: "The purpose of every economic activity, taken from the point of view of man's real wellbeing, can only be that of providing all the resources required by family life."
And so, the purpose of economic activity is the wellbeing of the family, the home, and therefore the consumer.
In his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno Pope Pius XI had already expressed in these terms the purpose of the economy, and I quote:
The economic and social structure will be soundly constituted only when it can give each and everyone of its members all the goods the resources of nature and industry, as well as the truly social organization of economic life can procure.
Mr. Speaker, so as to provide for those in need, for all families, for Canadian consumers, restricting laws such as we have today, the Unemployment Insurance Act for instance, must necessarily be replaced by a guaranteed annual income.
A British economist, now a consulting economist with the American government, Mr. Robert Theobald, has recommended some time ago the payment of a guaranteed annual income and a salary to students, at the 51st Annual Congress of the International Association of Personnel in Employment Security. This speech is summarized in the September 1964 issue of the Labour Gazette, a publication of the federal Department of Labour.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has absolutely no excuse for being unaware of that suggestion since a publication of the federal Department of Labour has published it.
Mr. Theobald's theory is as follows, and I quote:
I believe we are entering a new era whose requirements are as different from those of the recent industrial age as those of the industrial age were different from those of the preceding agricultural age.
Today, the cybernated productive system is emerging-a new innovation in productive techniques and organization based on machine power and machine skill, i.e., on the combination of automated machinery and the computer. Two main aspects of the cybernation revolution are that it will force man's mind out of the productive system just as surely as the industrial revolution forced out man's muscle; and that the coming of cybernation means that there will be no effective limit to our productive abilities.
I believe that the effects of cybernation will in fact be so far-reaching and rapid that it will be impossible to achieve full employment: in other words, that the growing efficiency of machine systems will continue to increase so fast that employers- both government and private-will find it cheaper to own or hire machines rather than men.
Full employment can never be achieved, but even if it was, there are groups who should have a guaranteed income: those too old or too ill to hold a job; those with responsibilities that require that 25789-61J
Unemployment
they should not be under the obligation to hold a job, e.g., a woman with children but no husband, and those being educated.
May I quote further from the Labour Gazette:
To bring about his proposed guaranteed income, Mr. Theobald advocated a change in the United States Employment Act of 1946 that would make it the policy of the Government to provide job opportunities or to guarantee an income for anyone who was seeking work. He suggested that the starting level of the guaranteed income should be $1,000 for each adult and $600 for each child. In discussing the payment of students, Mr. Theobald said, "We must recognize that the student is already 'working' at least as relevantly as the man in the factory. The time has come when we must introduce the concept of a student salary, starting possibly at 14, and increasing with age, payable to all students attending school or university."
Mr. Speaker, that thesis was submitted to the American government seven or eight years ago. What was true then is all the more so today because, in Canada as elsewhere, especially in industralized countries, we have dug ourselves even deeper trying to achieve full employment, which is precisely where the government has erred.
Others have spoken along the same lines. I have here the opinion of an industrialist, and I quote:
John I. Snyder is president of United States Industries, comprising companies with a turnover of more than $114 million a year.
In an interview to Dun's Review, published by Dun and Brad-street Publications, for industrialists, businessmen and financiers, Snyder is explicit and goes straight to the point. He endorses Robert Theobald's proposals and believes that the separation of work and income concepts must be accepted, and measures taken to ensure to each person a guaranteed income, whether he is working or not.
Thirty-two economists are of the same opinion.
Thirty-two American economists, businessmen, union leaders have sent President Johnson, of the United States, a brief in which they ask the President of the U.S. to apply their suggestions, if the United States are to avoid "an economic and social chaos beyond description".
This was when Mr. Johnson was president of the United States. So, Americans are confronted with this economic chaos today, as much as Canadians are. Let me quote further:
As a first stage, it is essential to recognize that traditional relationships between employment and income are broken. An affluent economy can bring all citizens comfort and economic security, whether or not they are engaged in what is usually referred to as "work". We recommend therefore that society, through appropriate legal and government institutions, make the solemn commitment of providing every indidividual and family with an adequate income. The right to a guaranteed income for all will replace the patchwork of present social measures which range from unemployment to direct assistance.
This is a very specific proposition.
Now, here are a few opinions from labour leaders.
In "Positions syndicales face a l'automatisation", George Levard, the Secretary General of the Confederation frangaise des Travailleurs Chretiens, says, and I quote:
"If we are to avoid congestion, automated industry will have to come to "secrete" purchasing power as well as its products. But it will not be possible, for the most part, to bestow this purchasing power on people proportionally to the role they have played in production. It will have to be a SOCIAL, or SOCIALIZED, purchasing power, by which I mean one that aims at promoting mass consumption".

March 12, 1973
Unemployment
And now we hear Canadian unions saying the same thing. For example, at the biennial CLC Congress that took place in Montreal from April 20 to 24, 1964, the CLC vice-president, Mr. William Dodge, told 2,000 delegates, and I quote:
"Let us suppose that in spite of work development programs and the best of training courses and placement systems, technological changes resulted in a continuous decrease in the demand for manpower. What would happen if technological changes threatened to destroy the labour market itself? We would then have to revise our codes of ethnics and state that everyone has a right to be fed, clothed, educated and cared for even if he produces nothing".
William Dodge foresaw in 1964 that the regional economic development measures aimed at job planning in Canada, adult training courses and other measures the government suggested, would all come to nothing. Indeed, it has left very little hope to Canadian workers.
So, Mr. Speaker, that is why the Liberal government has failed in its fight against unemployment. It wanted to attain full employment which has now been found to be impossible. So much time lost. So many sufferings needlessly experienced by rejected workers who are even blamed for promises made to them.
Why go on in that direction? Why persist in resorting to a remedy which is doomed to fail? Why not try instead to establish a guaranteed minimum income plan which would enable the entire population to take advantage of already available goods which the able-bodied workers are eager to produce? Why not get off the beaten track? Is the government afraid of making innovations, of satisfying the Canadian people? What is preventing it from acting?
It would be interesting, Mr. Speaker, to hear the answer this evening when the minister answering on behalf of the government will be in the House. I regret he is not here this afternoon. He has been delayed because of bad weather. He has not been as foreseeing as I. I got up at two o'clock this morning, I took my car and left for Ottawa. At any rate, I am told that the hon. minister will be there tonight, and I shall be pleased to hear the proposals he will put forward in an attempt to meet urgent requirements of Canadians.
We hear increasingly more about the guaranteed minimum income. Some people call it "a fair distribution of resources." This is how it is defined by the Canadian Welfare Council in an article published in Le Droit on January 29, 1969:
A program designed to secure a satisfactory guaranteed annual income, which the Canadian Welfare Council considers as a social right for all Canadians, should be introduced "as soon as possible".
If the just society is to be something more than a vain and fragile abstraction, it must be founded on some basic and intangible rights, including social rights, as well as civil and political ones. Among social rights, none is more important than the right to an adequate income. We must include right now this social economic objective in our system of values. The method to administer guaranteed income can be decided upon later on. If necessary, it can be introduced by stages.

Then, Mr. Speaker, this is another voice demanding that a guaranteed minimum income be established for everybody, to replace the annoying system we have at present.
In the motion I put forward, I speak of citizens who require that their basic right be respected in order to reach an adequate standard of living. Now, it is noticed that certain public servants almost compell them to beg to have their vested rights respected. As for unemployment insurance, I have some very eloquent testimonies which show that this legislation is far from being efficient and falls short of meeting the needs of Canadians.
It is undoubtedly because this is a bureaucratic law giving rise to a dreadful amount of red tape that government employees themselves find most difficult to handle.
At LaSarre, where I live, there is an unemployment insurance sub-office to answer the needs of the population. During the week, when I am in Ottawa, my wife receives each day scores of telephone calls from people asking for my help in having their rights respected in the field of unemployment insurance benefits. I want to record in Hansard a few very special and specific cases. I could talk until six o'clock, and possibly until eight to wait for the minister, but I will only quote a few examples.
Mr. Speaker, a lady from Saint-Gerard-de-Berry had difficulty in getting the unemployment insurance benefits that she was entitled to.
So I went into action when she told me about it and I received from the unemployment insurance service in Rouyn a copy of the following reply addressed to that lady on February, 13, 1973.1 quote:
On October 19, 1972, you requested that your file be transferred to this office. You wrote to tell us that you had received no employment insurance benefit, since your transfer request. We got in touch with our main office which, on February 6,1973 .. .
Note the interval between October 19, 1972 and February 6, 1973.
... sent you four money-orders as payment for the weeks from October 1,1972 to November 18, 1972.
In the case of that claimant, there was a 14-week delay before she could get the benefits she was entitled to, on account of a file transfer from one unemployment insurance office to another. For that reason and of that reason alone, the Unemployment Insurance Commission officials were almost unable to do anything. They are at a loss. It is the same thing every time a file is transferred. A letter was addressed to me by the former minister responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), and I quote:
Dear Mr. Laprise:
This is with reference to the June 5, 1972 letter from my special assistant concerning the unemployment insurance problem of Mr. Georges Audet, Val St-Gilles, Abitibi-Ouest, Quebec.
Revision of payments made to that recipient shows that it is the new procedure for issuing cheques which delayed payments for the period from March 19 to May 27,1972.
While the cheque issuing procedure was being changed, the unemployed had to tighten their belt, run into debt with the stores in order to survive, pending the change within the Unemployment Insurance Commission.


An hon. Member:: Ridiculous!
March 12, 1973


Gérard Laprise: I shall now cite a case involving another beneficiary. I myself contacted the Unemployment Insurance Office in Rouyn, and they informed me that his claim was valid from March 22, 1972, and that he received payments for 25 consecutive weeks. The problem of the beneficiary Mr. Alfred St-Pierre, of La Sarre, is that, after 25 weeks of unemployment, he found a job for himself. It was a temporary job.
Unfortunately, that job lasted too long: he worked for five weeks. When there was no more work, he wanted to receive unemployment insurance payments again, but because he had worked longer than four weeks-he had worked five-he had lost his right to claim. If he had not worked, he could have claimed for another 26 weeks, but because he had worked for five weeks, he lost everything; as the regulation eight weeks were not up, giving him the right to apply again, he lost all claim to unemployment insurance.
Mr. Speaker, when we find laws like this still in existence, we wonder where the government's advisers were and what they had in mind when the bill covering unemployment insurance was "patented". Unemployment Insurance Commission investigators travel the regions of Hamilton, Toronto, Montreal, Hull, etc., in search of beneficiaries who do not want to work. When they come across cases like the one I have just described, I should think they have their work cut out to get him back on their lists.
I have before me another case where the benefits were delayed for 20 weeks before the unemployed's rights were met.
In another case, an individual was entitled to 15 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits on account of illness, but due to an error of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, he got his benefits only five months later.
I shall mention another case involving not the local unemployment office of my area, but that of the Terrebonne area, and more precisely that of Saint-Jerome; again, a citizen had his unemployment insurance benefits delayed by five months. There are dozens of such cases.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, there is an urgent need to clean up the Unemployment Insurance Commission, in order to bring about-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. Of course, he can resume his remarks with unanimous consent from the House. Is there unanimous consent?
Some Hon. Hembers: Agreed.


Gérard Laprise: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. T. Lefebvre (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Pontiac on a point of order.
Unemployment


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I do not object to the hon. member resuming his remarks, but I should ask him to get back to the subject matter of the motion before us.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, if I may interject for a moment I understood the Chair to indicate that the hon. member's time had expired. I do not know what occurred when you sought unanimous consent of the House, except that I heard the government whip indicate that the member should get back to his motion. I do not understand what is going on. Has his time expired?


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I said I had no objection as long as he started talking about the motion that he has introduced.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: How about putting the motion? ,


Thomas Lefebvre: Put the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think there is unanimous consent of the House for the hon. member to continue his remarks.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Agreed, but he should put his motion.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, this is what I have done. This is what I was talking about all along in my speech. It is not a matter of criticizing what is wrong with unemployment insurance, but of finding solutions.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: When are you going to put your motion?


Gérard Laprise: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether I am abiding by the rules. However, I thought you had read the motion yourself at the beginning of the debate and I was under the impression that was sufficient to let hon. members know what subject was to be discussed today. If such is not the case, I am going to read the motion again for the benefit of the two hon. members who spoke.
The motion reads as follows:
That this House deplores the continuous increase in unemployment, as well as the refusal or negligence of the Government to propose effective measures for providing more jobs of a remunerative character for Canadians, and condemns the existing authorities of imposing or tolerating quasi-repressive measures affecting citizens who merely want to see respected their fundamental right to a decent standard of living and their personal dignity and to live in a climate of freedom and security.
Mr. Speaker, I think I have just shown quite clearly that there are measures which are not only quasi-repressive but repressive for many unemployment insurance claimants, whether they be claiming standard unemployment insurance benefits or claiming unemployment benefits for reasons of illness.
I have just submitted several cases of hardship wheree claimants were denied benefits for many weeks. If this is not enough, I can go back to my office and come back with many more. If those hon. members who raised the

March 12, 1973
Unemployment
issue are interested, I think that my colleagues will be able to quote several cases in the course of the day.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it is not only a matter of criticizing the present situation, there must be solutions proposed. In order to avoid all the problems caused by social legislation taken here and there, we are calling for a guaranteed minimum income system which would affect everybody, regardless of their social situation and their age.
Instead of telling the Canadian consumer to be satisfied with the little he gets, to tighten his belt and to make do with $28 a week, this government should see to it that all Canadians have the necessary purchasing power to meet Canadian production, which would have the effect of stimulating demand, encouraging agricultural production and ensuring at the same time supplementary income for Canadian farmers.
During the last election campaign, Mr. Speaker, we offered the Canadian electorate a guaranteed minimum income plan which would have precisely given satisfaction to everybody and which would not have cost more than all the systems we have now.
When we make propositions, Mr. Speaker, we get the answer: Where are we going to take the money? Those same people never ask themselves: Where are we going to take the money to pay the interest on the public debt to big financiers. This year it stands at $2.5 billion.
When it is a matter of relieving misery, of reassuring those who are afraid of what is in store for them, those who fear unemployment and loss of income, they shout: Where shall we get the money? When it is a matter of meeting the requirements of high finance, the government is all eyes and ears and ready to give everything to satisfy them.
Mr. Speaker, even if the minister has not heard what I have just said, I hope his colleagues will inform him of the motion I have introduced so that he be able to give to the two thirds of Canadians who live in anxiety and misery at least a glimpse of hope by telling them that in a few weeks legislation will solve their problems and help them live well and draw from the abundant riches Canada possesses.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


Mr. Fortin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, during the surely interesting speech given by my colleague from Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), whom I want to congratulate, I have had to put up with the uncalled for remarks of my colleagues on the other side who were talking in rather loud voices during the whole speech, and when the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre) rose on a point of order to tell you that my

colleage was out of order and the member for Pontiac was doing the same thing, he was talking with the others and not listening. Mr. Speaker, I find this uncalled for and knowing your skill and in view of the respect that we owe you, I am sure that you could make them understand on the other side that they should listen to the extremely interesting remarks made in this House, with a minimum of courtesy.


Thomas Lefebvre: Concerning the point of order made by the member for Lotbiniere I called his colleague to order because he had asked for more time. I did not object but I asked him to speak on his motion.


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


André-Gilles Fortin: The member for Pontiac may be the whip for his party, but he is not the Speaker of the House.
[Eng lish]


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I did not
object in order to attribute any particular fault to the hon. member, or to take exception to what he had been saying in his interesting speech. But when the government whip interjected I became confused because I was under the impression Mr. Speaker had indicated that the hon. member's time had expired. At the same time, I saw him attempting to pursue his deliberations. I am sorry the deputy leader of the Social Credit party was so sensitive in those circumstances.
The motion as presented contains, it appears to me, three main propositions. First, it deplores the continuous increase in unemployment. This, of course, is what we on this side have been doing for the past four and a half years. It seems to me we have suffered an inexcusable level of unemployment, one which ought not to be tolerated in a country such as Canada. For years we have been protesting against the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in adopting fiscal and monetary policies which largely brought about the present unemployment situation. I cannot find words adequate to express the suffering which has resulted from this philosophy. I will admit that the government appears at this time to have learned its lesson. On the other hand, it has brought down a budget which many of us on this side feel is inadequate in the circumstances, and that to this extent the government has not learned its lesson.
The second point on which the motion places emphasis is the government's refusal to propose effective measures to provide more jobs of a remunerative character for Canadians. This is another aspect which we on this side have continuously stressed and it is one which must be brought home. Obviously, with the annual growth in the size of the labour force, we must take steps to stay ahead. The government has not yet come to grips with this situation. In the United States, at the last count, unemployment had declined to some 5 per cent. In Canada, on the other hand, the rate is something over 6 per cent, leaving us with some 600,000 people unemployed. Germany is all right. Japan is all right. I cannot understand why this question of unemployment was not given priority, and
March 12, 1973

why more effort was not made to create jobs to take up the slack. We know the labour force has increased in numbers. In consequence, our goal should be to develop national economic growth to ensure unemployment will steadily decline. I shall deal with this aspect later in connection with what spokesmen for this party had to say about the budget.
The motion makes a third point-the problem which has arisen in connection with unemployment insurance. There has been talk about gestapo tachcs and police state methods. Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of people ih Canada do not want cheaters to take advantage of unemployment insurance. They want them to be ferreted out and removed from the safe haven they occupy at the expense of the taxpayers' pocket. After all, it is the taxpayers, including the man who is working day in and day out, whether for a low income or a high income, who are bearing the cost of this haven, and they are becoming very concerned about it as well as the situation in which the Unemployment Insurance Commission finds itself. We on this side believe there ought to be some method by which the cheats and abusers are ferreted out. Until such time as this is accepted as part of the Commission's function, a great deal of disillusionment is bound to arise among those who are paying the shot. At the same time, care should be taken to avoid ill-considered actions.
I have here a couple of press cuttings, one of them from the Evening Patriot which circulates in the Kitchener-Waterloo area. The headline over a leading article reads: "Let's be really sure the innocent don't suffer". I think we are all concerned about this aspect. That is why I am pleased the minister has indicated that the advisory committee on the UIC is looking into the investigatory procedures of the benefit control officers to determine whether they are approaching this work with a measure of compassionate understanding. The article reads:
Undoubtedly many persons have cheated on the Unemployment Insurance Act. The average citizen who prefers to do things in an honest manner has surely become annoyed over these thefts and applauds those who have been trying to remedy this situation.
I certainly agree with that. The article goes on:
However, in the attempt to rectify the affair there is always the danger that some innocent persons who deserve the benefits will suffer.
Here is another article, this one from the Toronto Star of March 6. I think the Star put its finger right on the problem, here. The headline over the editorial section reads: "Cheaters endanger unemployment pay". The article reads:
The whole system will be in jeopardy unless the public can be assured that deliberate idlers and cheats are going to be cut off. For the great majority of Canadians in the labour force still must work regularly for their living, whether they like it or not, and they cannot be expected to go on supporting freeloaders with their taxes.


Mr. Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Certainly.
Unemployment


Irénée Pelletier: The hon. member has just said that the unemployment rate is only 5 per cent in the United States, Mr. Speaker.
Does the hon. member take into account the fact that the United States were exporting a great part of their unemployment to Canada because of the draft dodgers who came to settle here because the United States were at war until recently?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Well, I do not intend to be distracted in that direction. Notwithstanding the situation there, the United States seems to have realized that high unemployment cannot be tolerated in a society such as theirs. They have used all their expertise and all their wisdom to see that opportunities for work are available, and thus they have been able to reduce the unemployment level to 5 per cent. All I want to say is that we in Canada should show the same foresight and understanding so as to create a climate in the economy generally which will ensure that those who want to work will have the opportunity. Certain members opposite have cast doubt upon the validity of the work ethic. This is not a philosophy which this young country needs. The work ethic built this country. The work ethic is building it now. The appreciation of the work ethic will continue to build this country and lead us to our ultimate destiny, one of the leading industrial nations of the world. With regard to unemployment insurance, the article in the Star then reads:
To save the system, then, the government must sternly detect and disqualify people who abuse unemployment insurance-even if this crackdown displeases the Liberals' temporary allies, the New Democrats.
I do not mention that to be partisan. I just want to let members know that the vast majority of Canadians are sick and tired of having the unemployment insurance fund abused. It is our function to try to devise with compassion a scheme whereby the innocent will not suffer. If members opposite want to get involved in this debate, all they have to do is go to their whip, put their names on the list and, if they have been good boys, they will have that opportunity.
I wish to return to my first point about unemployment. Bill C-124, the bill that removed the ceiling on the Unemployment Insurance Fund, was introduced and, because of the fact we were not able to get any forecasts with respect to what would be considered an unacceptable level of unemployment in the future, I respectfully suggest that we are in trouble again, no matter what the minister says about his budget.
As we pointed out, the budget is not expansionary enough. When Bill C-124 repealed the $800 million limit on the contribution that could be made to the fund, the Canadian people were left in the dark. Even if we talk about unemployment insurance, we have to be concerned because this government still does not realize that the way to cut the cost of unemployment is to increase the number of employed Canadians. That is the answer to this problem, not to create a bureaucratic nightmare. We must admit that a whole employment policy is desperately required and to this end all our attention should be direct-

March 12, 1973
Unemp loyment
ed. The cold, hard figures show that this government has plagued Canada with high unemployment for the past four and one half years. There were 688,000 Canadians out of work in January, the largest number recorded for the month in a decade. We cannot pooh-pooh that.


An hon. Member:: You said that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I said it and I will continue repeating it. The hon. member must learn that we cannot accept 688,000 Canadians out of work. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said that we cannot continually talk about numbers and statistics. He was right.


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: No, you cannot. After all, we only have 20 minutes. You can make your speech and then we will understand what you are trying to say.
We must not forget the cost of unemployment. We are talking about billions of dollars. What figure can be put on the frustration of those who generally work and support their families but cannot, so have had their family life soured by unemployment? Real people are behind these figures, heads of families, some 180,000 men, women who must supplement their husband's incomes and our young people. Those between the ages of 15 and 25 make up a huge percentage of the unemployed. What are we doing for them? Are we giving them any hope for the future? The hon. member laughs. This is a very ticklish situation. I have watched the climate that has been created amongst our youth. They are not too happy with what is happening. The hon. member ought to know that. They are looking for opportunities and there are no opportunities. They want to work, but there is no work. We can sit back and play hide-and-seek with them. We can take a complacent attitude. We can appear as though we do not have any concern. This is what they think. This is all I am saying.
We must attempt to talk about economic growth and industrial strategy. You can use all those phrases. Once you acquire full employment, whether we are down to 4.5 per cent unemployment or not-whatever we may call that-we are then able to acquire the tax dollars which will allow us to give our senior citizens more money, reduce the eligible age for old age security to 60 and allow us the wherewithal for all the social programs that are required in this very frustrating life today. This is what we are talking about. Conditions should be created so that those who want to work can work. Lord knows, everybody wants to work. If the opportunity is not there, we are the losers. The Canadian taxpayer is the loser because he is paying twice. He is not only paying his income taxes but he is paying for an unemployment insurance scheme of which the vast majority of Canadians will never take advantage. That is why he is concerned.
Members opposite know what our party has indicated. If members opposite want me to read the list, I will do so. If we had been in office, we would have brought before parliament a budget which would have provided substantial stimulation to the economy and would have provided for a 90 day freeze on prices and incomes. Fresh food would be exempt from the freeze. Our program for cutting unemployment, in addition to the tax cuts and pension increases proposed by the Minister of Finance, would

consist of eliminating the sales tax on building materials. How long have we been calling for that? I bet the Liberals will eventually steal that one, too. Eliminating the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials would enhance construction, give some impetus to construction, provide houses and employment. We would have removed the sales tax on all clothing rather than merely for children up to 14 years of age which will create a bureaucratic nightmare determining who is up to what age and what size.
We would have introduced an incentive program to encourage investment in small Canadian business. We have said on several occasions that $2,500 invested by a Canadian should give him a tax credit. It is in this area of manufacturers that we have to look for leadership with respect to employment. These are the people who need that incentive. As I understand it, the vast majority of employment comes from the little fellow who employs three, four or five people. We are the ones who say "buy Canadian" and encourage nationalistic instincts. Let us do something to encourage Canadians to invest. This is a point we would have introduced.
The 90 day freeze on prices and incomes would be used to consult with the provinces, businessmen, union leaders and consumer groups about the range of guidelines we would use after the freeze. The freeze would be part of a long-term plan to both cut unemployment and contain inflation. We in this party believe the Canadian people would accept the freeze because it would be part of a double- pronged assault on unemployment and inflation. The public has lost faith in a succession of Liberal finance ministers. They have no faith in their attempts to solve this problem. We came out with a bold and imaginative step, freezing wages and price controls. The government has discussed this. I hear they had a whale of a debate in their caucus. They did not even think we would submit that idea.
I notice there has been general acceptance of this twopronged attack, a completely expansionary budget with a freeze in order that we could meet with labour and management to determine where we are going. Hon. members opposite do not think that we would do this, but they realize now it is not a bad idea. Yesterday we were told that inflation has gone up 5.8 per cent and it is now the highest it has been for 22 years. When we ask the government what their contingency plans are, the reply is that they have something around the corner. It takes courage and guts to do what we suggest, but with an expansionary budget one must be concerned about inflation. This is why we propose a two-pronged attack.
I am a little concerned about what is happening with the UIC. For some reason or other the government brought in Bill C-125 which, let us say, places a more than usual onus on the employee. The House reconvened on January 4, yet the government has not introduced a modified bill that would define such things as "being fired for misconduct", "availability for employment", "just cause" and "without good cause". These are burning questions that must be answered.
March 12, 1973

This bill was supposed to save the Canadian taxpayers $100 million. We are now into the middle of March and no bill has been introduced that would-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Paddy Neale (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, it saddens me somewhat to follow the previous speaker because, although he sounds so compassionate and sincere in his delivery, he reminds me of those right wingers in 1937, 1938 and 1939 when I was unemployed, a time when the premier of the province of British Columbia told us to root, hog or die. At that time the mayor of the city of Vancouver read the riot act and set the police on us because we were "lazy, no good bums". While the hon. member does not use those words, he is using a similar line of argument.
What bothers me about what the previous speaker said is that he professes to be speaking on behalf of the workers of Canada who object to having their money used to pay for those lazy, no good bums who are drawing unemployment insurance. Personally, I would rather see 2 per cent of the people who are unemployed cheating the Unemployment Insurance Act than adopt some of the recommendations made by members to my right to cut people off unemployment insurance. Less than 2 per cent of the workers who are drawing unemployment insurance cheat. I suggest to the hon. member that he take a look at other professions in the country and sees who cheats on income tax and just about everything else, such as lawyers, doctors and some of the most respected people in this country. The figure is higher than 2 per cent once you start to check into it.
The type of expression that has emanated from the party to my right must be looked at very seriously. The hon. member talks about a freeze, and I now notice a change in wording. No longer is it a wage and prices freeze; it is a prices and incomes freeze, if you please. But regardless of the expression hon. members use, it is still a freeze, and there is no possible way that a freeze can be fair to the working people. This has been proven in England and in the United States where they implemented a wage freeze. The only thing that works is the freeze itself, since the employers control the wages. But you cannot control prices. In the United States inflation is skyrocketing, even with wage and price controls.
Instead of sitting down with labour leaders and having discussions, let us sit down with the money lenders of this country, or the owners of apartment complexes and houses who are ripping-off the working people by charging high rents. Let us talk about true incomes, not the incomes of working people. Their incomes are already controlled. Members of unions-one-third of the workers of Canada-already have their wages controlled. They have to negotiate, under laws that are written by provincial and federal governments, for periods of three months, four months, six months and up to a year before they get a wage increase. The wages of the other two-thirds of the workers not members of unions are really controlled. They are subject to the whims of their employers, who pay them what they want to pay. So, I suggest to hon. members that when they start talking about a freeze, they
Unemployment
should put a freeze on the money made by the rip-off artists in this country, not on the wages of the working people.
I have read the motion a number of times, but the only conclusion I can come to is that it is a motherhood motion. I do not see how anyone in their right mind could oppose it. Although the motion before us does not explicitly say so, I presume the latter part of it which deals with repressive measures, and so on, is some implied criticism of the present unemployment insurance administration, the act, and the tactics of the UIC benefit control officers. This is a matter to which I should like to refer.
I have represented the working people of Canada for 22 years and I know some of their problems. I have sat on boards of referees in the city of Vancouver for 12 years and I am aware of some of the problems created by the present act which confront the workers. It is very difficult to get on unemployment insurance rolls, and at times it is damned difficult to stay on them as a result of the attitude of those who administer the Unemployment Insurance Act. I speak for the working people, Mr. Speaker, and I truly believe that.
These people are the working men and women of Canada. In the main they comprise 85 per cent of the purchasing power of this country and account for nearly the same percentage of votes. They consider the present act to be a humane one and, quite frankly, one of the best unemployment insurance acts in the world. But they feel it needs some amendment, as do the regulations and some of the interpretations that have been placed on the act and the regulations by insurance officers, especially, I repeat, benefit control officers. It is my considered opinion that the basic criteria originally established for the Canadian unemployment insurance system in 1943 to provide a decent standard of living for the legitimately unemployed of this nation are being continuously eroded and undermined. Claimants today are finding the new Unemployment Insurance Act and regulations much more restrictive in their attempt to qualify for benefits and the retention of eligibility.
In light of this noticeable trend, I should like to make a few suggestions and recommendations. I want to deal first with benefit control officers. Many workers have already expressed their dissatisfaction with the interrogation that is conducted by officers under the provisions of section 107 of the act, and have made specific recommendations based on day to day experience as agents, officers, and members of boards of referees. They are familiar with the enunciated administrative policy of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in this matter, but I reiterate that the following amendments to this section would vastly improve the multitude of situations arising from the present interviewing process conducted by benefit control officers.
First one, by statute, a claimant should have the right at all times to a representative of his or her choice to be in attendance when interviews by benefit control officers are being conducted. Second, a claimant should be notified that he is not required to sign prepared statements, that such signatures to statements are purely voluntary,
2120

March 12, 1973
Unemployment
and should be signed only after complete agreement has been reached between the claimant and the interviewing officer as to the statements contained therein. Third, the claimant should be permitted to return signed statements, rather than having to sign them in the presence of the interviewing officer. Fourth, the claimant should be entitled to amend or reword the prepared statements to ensure that any signed statement clearly and specifically reflects his or her circumstances.
I should like to touch now on appeals to boards of referees and umpires. I have noted that the present Unemployment Insurance Commission forms notify the claimant of the right to appeal within 30 days of being disqualified or disentitled. I believe that such notice should be either in larger type or in a different colour to ensure the claimant's notice of the same. It is my opinion that many additional claimants would more readily utilize the board of referees if a statement on the notice of rejection by the Unemployment Insurance Commission to the claimant briefly explained the right of the claimant, the structure and jurisdiction of the board and, further, the general procedure the claimant is required to follow if he desires to initiate an appeal action to the umpire, if this becomes necessary. The insurance officers responsible for adjudication of claimants' cases should be thoroughly conversant with the appeal procedure. In my opinion, the claimant should be given this kind of additional information at this stage of processing to ensure that fairness and justice shall prevail for all.
In respect of notices of rejection, disqualification and disentitlement, I have noted that in many cases the Unemployment Insurance Commission did not include the specific and applicable section of the act or the regulations, and where this information was included to the claimant it did not clearly specify the specific reason or explanation of the provision in layman's language. I recommend that in cases of this nature, the unemployment insurance officers should be instructed to be more specific in the phraseology and terminology used to ensure that the specific reason in the individual claimant's case is not only clarified but readily understandable to the average claimant.
I should like to refer briefly to problems arising in respect of sections covering vacation and holiday payments. A multitude of problems have emanated directly from the present provisions contained under the regulatory parts of Sections 172 and 173. Let me enunciate them as follows: The adverse effects on claimants who are in receipt of earned vacation pay several months prior to the actual date mutually agreed upon as the vacation period by the claimant or his representative, through his union agreement; the detrimental effect to the claimant when such moneys are received within the period stipulated under Section 173(15), that is the six weeks' provision; in logging and construction industries, where employees work for numerous employers during the year and 6 per cent of gross earnings are automatically included by contractual provision, the sections have an unfair effect; the subsidizing effect to the Unemployment Insurance Commission fund of claimants who accept earned vacation pay at the time of layoff or separation and who, by mutual agreement, have already fixed a time period some six

weeks to two months in the future when they shall be returning to the same employer.
In my opinion, all moneys earned during a period preceding the date of separation from employment rightfully belong to the employee, regardless of when they are received. Such moneys should in no way be manipulated by any legislation which would result in the claimant being compelled to lose or be forced to reduce his or her purchasing power and right to earned vacation. This, in effect, results in direct subsidization by the claimant of the unemployment insurance fund and in many cases disqualifies and disentitles claimants from maximum coverage. I would therefore recommend that all moneys obtained in the form of vacation or holiday pay, etc., should in no way be used to prevent claimants from entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits in contrast to a claimant receiving no such remuneration.
Let me now refer to separation certificates. Many claimants undergo a great deal of personal frustration and delay in claim processing because of the lack of the employer's fulfillment of obligatory requirements as contained in Section 111 of the act, which reads:
Upon separation of an insured person from employment, the contributions payable for the current pay period and all other contributions then unpaid shall be paid by the employer immediately.
The terminology is clear and specific. Direction by the unemployment insurance office and others to claimants that it is the claimant's responsibility to provide an up-to-date separation certificate on separation, and to personally follow up any delay by his employer, is improper in my opinion. Employers should fulfil their obligations to the claimant, and where they do not I would urge that the Unemployment Insurance Commission or one of its officers take immediate remedial action on behalf of the affected claimant to prevent undue delays, time, effort and costs to all parties concerned.
I should like now to refer to the employer appeal section which has recently been put into the Unemployment Insurance Act. The employer's right to appeal has had disastrous results. A fine example is the action taken by employers in the forest products industry in British Columbia in the spring and summer of last year. In the fallers' dispute, one claimant appeal at the board of referees' level resulted in the rejection of approximately 4,000 claims already accepted and processed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission, Pacific region. This could have resulted in a possible 16,000 separate appeals before the board. Complications in that industry continued when approximately 5,000 additional claimants' rights to unemployment insurance were eventually challenged by the Unemployment Insurance Commission, Pacific region, and the specific large employers. This could have initiated an additional 25,000 separate appeals by those members. Fortunately for all concerned, sanity prevailed and an acceptable agreement for entitlements was eventually reached.
This and similar experiences have convinced me that this section has been and will continue to be abused by the employer, particularly during periods leading to major negotiation. I can readily understand the concern of some employers relative to the merit rating system. In fact, in
March 12, 1973

the aforementioned cases, the unions' representatives assisted the employers, satisfactorily resolving this major problem. I would recommend that the provisions in this matter be similar in principle to those contained in previous legislation, and that the present act be amended to provide for the deletion of the words "or an employer" in the first line of Section 94(1).
Referring now to the general resumption of work provision as interpreted under this present act, the criteria of 85 per cent is antiquated and, in most cases, serves no useful purpose. Discontinuation of production immediately after a labour dispute has been shown to be directly attributable to other causes, such as mutually agreed upon vacation periods, maintenance and overhaul requirements, climatic conditions, employees on sickness and compensation and other legitimate leaves of absence. For this reason, serious consideration must be given to a logical and sensible basis of determining what constitutes general resumption of work. This present 85 per cent provision should be abolished and criteria substituted which would be based on individual plant or industry circumstances obtaining immediately after a labour dispute.
With regard to Regulation 148(1) covering interruption of earnings and waiting periods, it is my belief that the waiting period presently required constitutes an unwarranted penalty against the claimant who, through no fault of his own, has become unemployed. The seven consecutive day provision discourages those claimants who could work a day or two a week after termination, but are hesitant to do so because such action would nullify establishment of the waiting period. I would recommend that the waiting period as such be revised to provide for any seven days in a consecutive 52-week period.
There is another section which really disturbs me having to do with the 25-day period. It is my understanding that in certain exempted industries, for example lumbering, landscaping, agriculture, etc., there is provision that employers and employees do not have to make UIC or CPP contributions if the employee works less that a 25-day period for any such employer. This situation has resulted in abuse by employers, resulting in no credits applicable or available from the aforementioned funds when required. I believe this section to be discriminatory in its intent and application and therefore request that credits be recognized for those employees in exempted industries for each and every day of employment.
I should like to deal now, if I may, with sick benefits and maternity coverage. Major attachment claimants who have established eligibility in the initial benefit period and who have received any payments of one dollar or more in the form of benefits are disqualified from payment of unemployment insurance benefits if they become ill or incapacitated in a subsequent extended benefit period. This new legislation is a contradiction of the principle applicable in Canada from'the inception of the unemployment insurance scheme and in force up to June 27, 1972, whereby eligible claimants on established claim received unemployment insurance payments for subsequent illnesses, injuries or incapacities as normally entitled claimants. I would urge, Mr. Speaker, that the restrictive provi-
Unemployment
sions presently contained be deleted and the previous principle and criteria be reintroduced for coverage purposes under similar circumstances.
I want to deal briefly with disentitlement by age or pension. Many employees are ready, available and capable of performing satisfactorily in various types of employment where they are compelled to retire due to employer policy or other reasons. Many such employees have, in most cases, contributed to the UIC for decades without any previous need for claim. The provisions of present section Section 31(1) (a) (b) and the special severance benefit provision I believe are restrictive and discriminatory. I believe an injustice is done to those claimants who are required under the present provisions of the act and regulations to be compelled by law to reimburse the Unemployment Insurance Commission more monies than they have actually been in direct receipt of, in cases where overpayments become applicable.
The requirement for the Unemployment Insurance Commission to deduct income tax on behalf of the taxation department for the claimant causes additional financial burden and hardship when claimants need to find additional moneys during unemployed periods. They have to reimburse the amount received by cheque from the Unemployment Insurance Commission and a further additional amount equal to the total income tax deductions forwarded by the Unemployment Insurance Commission on behalf of the claimant. In my opinion the claimant under those circumstances should be compelled to pay only the actual amount received on Unemployment Insurance Commission cheque forms.
I want to deal now with advisory committees, section 108. The establishment and retention of a regional advisory committee for unemployment insurance purposes is a subject which I believe warrants attention at this time. In my opinion, there has been a lack of communication by employers and employee representatives in an area or regional basis for the last ten years or so. An effective vehicle is required to keep the National Advisory Committee informed on an up-to-date basis as to problems and recommendations for solution and improvement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted him has expired.


Mr. lack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the government party I welcome this particular motion because I think this is a subject, of which the government must be aware, although I do not for a moment accept the suggestion that it needs reminding of it. I believe that, from time to time, the opposition parties are not aware of many of the things the government is doing to assist the unemployed to obtain employment or to be taken care of when they are among the ranks of the unemployed. We have appreciated this obligation. As I have said, I believe it is the responsibility of the opposition parties to impress on the government that it has a responsibility in this area. However, by the same token I believe opposition parties have an obligation to tell us what they would do were they, heaven forbid, the government. When I listened to the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) present his views I thought we were here to talk
25789-62}

March 12, 1973
Unemployment
about the Unemployment Insurance Commission because he did not seem to get down to the crux of his motion.
I think an opposition day motion should properly be wide in scope, but I would have thought the hon. member would have dealt more with the unemployment issue and less with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I could read a series of letters from constituents of mine, as the hon. member did, who from time to time have been displeased, upset or angry with the administration of this particular plan. As a former member of the committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, I might say that during the so-called recess in the month of September when other members were back in their constituencies doing a little politicking some of us came back to attend the Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration to put together this particular bill and give it clause by clause study. I believe this was a very good committee which operated in a co-operative manner. From time to time a little partisanship crept in, which is only natural, but I believe by and large the members of the committee were convinced this was, in fact, a good bill.
It disturbs me somewhat now to hear members of the official opposition knocking this particular measure, decrying the fact that they did not have more time or wishing that they had more information. But this is after the fact. This was not the position they took when the bill was being considered by the committee. I think when this bill came out of the committee we were all satisfied that we, in fact, had a good bill. When concern was expressed about the amount of money being put into the unemployment insurance fund by all the new people who had been brought into the plan and the increased benefits, there seemed to be a backing off from this bill by the official opposition. To their credit, the members of the New Democratic Party supported the bill which they had supported in the committee and would not have anything to do with discrediting that splendid piece of legislation.
Today, I heard the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Neale) say that the workers of Canada look upon this as the best unemployment insurance legislation in the world. It may be that he hashed an opportunity to talk to Harold Winch, the former member for Vancouver East who was a hard-working member of that committee and one who always looked after his responsibilities, particularly in respect of the working man. It seems to me that the new member for Vancouver East, although he may not be quite as eloquent as Mr. Winch because he has not had the same years of experience, certainly is putting forward the views of the working man. The working man in Canada today says that this is the best unemployment insurance scheme in the world. That is not to say that it is perfect. However, the government has recognized that it has a responsibility to the unemployed people to do what they can for them when they are in this particular predicament.
I listened to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) when he indicated that the government did not seem to care about unemployment. It always seems that the members of the opposition ignore the fact we have the fastest growing labour force in the world. Also they seem to forget conveniently the number of jobs which have been created while this party has been in
power. It is not a record of which we need be ashamed. I shall not quote all the statistics. Members of the opposition are very good at playing with figures in this field. I would just like to say that when they look at a glass of water they always seem to see it as 6 per cent empty rather than 94 per cent full. If you consider full employment to be at the level of 3 per cent unemployment, then 97 per cent of the people of Canada who want to work would be working.
So, the record is not as good as it should be, but it certainly is not as bad as members of the opposition would have us believe. That is why I support programs such as the LIP program which some people seem to knock as being against the work ethic. People, in effect, are doing their own thing. They are working at things they wish to work on or are working on something that is to the benefit of their community. This reminds me of the members of the Chippewa Indian reservation in my riding. They sought and obtained a LIP grant to do work on their own reservation. This gave them an opportunity to do things for their own benefit. It gave them a measure of dignity and enabled them to get away from employment which they did not particularly like in some areas. They were able in this way to work at home with their own people on the reservation. This gave dignity to the hard working Chippewa people on the reservation in my area of Sarnia. There is an obligation to protect the unemployed. That is why I think members of all parties today have spoken on behalf of the unemployment insurance plan.
Certainly there are improvements to be made and I think the hon. member for Vancouver East suggested some with which I could agree. I can think of other areas that should be looked at, quite frankly, in more depth. In the heat of the election battle a suggestion was being made by the Conservatives that the qualifying period should be increased from eight weeks to twelve weeks because the plan was being terribly abused. Before climbing on that bandwagon I thought I should check the facts. This was the irresponsible position taken by members of the Official Opposition until they came back here and found that there was little abuse in this area and that if we increased the qualifying period from eight to 12 weeks it would work to the detriment of the people in the Maritime region. I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) made that particular speech about increasing the qualifying period when he was speaking in his home base.
The other people to whom we have a responsibility are the students who are unemployed. Admittedly, they are unemployed only during a short period of time, but they do need money in order to finance their education. So, the government participates in student loan plans; it has put forward Opportunities for Youth programs, and the Department of National Defence offers a whole series of opportunities for young people to work. These programs do not put all young people to work, but they certainly create the right atmosphere and provide many jobs. It should be noted also that 50 per cent of the cost of post secondary education is taken care of by the federal government.

March 12, 1973

Then, there is the excellent on-the-job training plan. I was grieved to hear that all of the money in that particular program had not been utilized. I would like to suggest one amendment to the minister. I understand that students coming from school cannot qualify for this program unless they have been out of school at least a year. It seems to me that this is self-defeating. If a student can get on-the-job training, as many of them can, immediately upon leaving school, we should make this possible for him by spending some of the money available to make this a better plan.
Contrary to what the hon. member for Hamilton West said, nobody is playing with the work ethic. The situation is that this is a social question. A man works a good portion of his life to train for a particular job and then he is laid off from it. Should we then say to him: "you have to go back to being a labourer or to driving a truck" when he is training in a particular field? It is difficult for him to take that action. If there were no unemployment scheme or plan available to him, that is what he would do, he would take whatever job is available, but in this day and age, given the splendid buoyancy of our economy, I wonder if that is what we want to do to the working people who have achieved a certain measure of excellence in a particular field. Should they not have an opportunity to get back to their job and not have to take whatever is handed out at that time?
There is another complaint that comes from time to time, and that is that people in industries, such as the tobacco industry, cannot get people to work for them because of the temporary aspect of the job and the difficulty of the work. Also, this has an impact on the benefits people engaged in this type of employment received under the unemployment insurance scheme. It seems to me that we should take a look at this area because if an individual takes a job when he is drawing unemployment insurance, he takes it knowing at the outset that it will be temporary. Perhaps when he finishes that temporary job, the unemployment insurance benefits should be continued and he should be paid at the same rate he was paid before he took the job. Perhaps there is an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act that could be made so that people will be encouraged to take temporary jobs, and so that such employment will not work to their detriment so far as benefits under unemployment insurance are concerned.
Almost daily now you can pick up newspapers and find that municipalities are indicating that their welfare costs have gone down. This is precisely what was predicted by the former minister of labour when he was in this portfolio and afterwards; in effect, through the unemployment insurance scheme, we are giving people dignity. It is an insurance plan for which they paid a premium and they have a right to collect insurance benefits. We are, thereby taking them off welfare rolls. Locally, the municipality of Ottawa-Carleton has indicated that it did not use up its full budget on welfare last year and in fact is reducing it this year even more. I suspect this is a direct result of the splendid unemployment insurance scheme which is giving dignity to people and taking them off the welfare rolls.
Unemployment
Industry and, probably more correctly, unions recognized long before government that when people are, in permanent employment-and I am thinking primarily of the auto industry-and it becomes necessary to change over to new models which entails some tooling up or some machinery to be put in place, that TAB and supplementary insurance benefits should be provided. As a result, individuals will come back to work when the industry is prepared to put them back into full time labour. Thus, they are not laid off by that industry and they are taken care of during the change over period.
One thing which is of concern to me in the unemployment insurance scheme is the cheaters who abuse the plan. I think that we are unanimous throughout the House in our view of them. We can get all party agreement on that, I think. Perhaps we cannot get all party agreement on how ws should deal with this problem, but I think one of the messages that we have to put across to the Canadian public, and particularly to those who are paying into the unemployment insurance fund, is that they are the ones who are being cheated by those who abuse the plan. The people they should blame are the cheaters who abuse the plan, not the government which brought in the plan in the first place. Of course, we want to deal with people in a compassionate way, and we do not want to offend those who have paid into the plan and who are legitimately entitled to the unemployment insurance benefits. If some of these people suffer, it is unfortunate, but the blame should be placed more appropriately on the cheaters who abuse the plan and not on the government or on the officials who have the responsibility of administering the plan.
With regard to the unemployed, we have introduced legislation which makes provision, where significant layoffs take place as a result of technological change, for the collective bargaining agreement to be opened. There are all kinds of safeguards built in so that industry does not have to worry that technological change will have the effect of laying off a significant number of people. I do not think industry is bargaining in good faith with employees' representatives when it knows it will be bringing in technological change which will have the effect of laying off a significant number of people, yet it says, "yes, we will increase your wages by a certain percentage" knowing full well that not only will 400 or 500 people not collect that increase, they will not be collecting any salary or wages at all. I do not think that this is bargaining in good faith. If we have avoided that situation, then I think we have done a good job.
The hon. member for Hamilton West indicated that he deplored the unemployment situation, as his party has been doing for four and a half years. I would say amen to that; we all do. But what we have been waiting for in vain is for some measures that would be advocated by the official opposition to attack our number one problem. What we hear from the opposition is that the budget is not expansionary enough. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacin-the (Mr. Wagner) in on the record as indicating that the deficit should be in the neighbourhood of $4 billion. This moved the London Free Press to comment that probably he was put into external affairs to get him as far away as possible from the finance portfolio.

March 12, 1973
Unemployment


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am quoting what the London Free Press says; I am not saying I agree or disagree with it. But I think that to make a recommendation of that nature is irresponsible, particularly when the hon. member is held in such high regard by his party that they have seen fit, and properly so, to put him on the front bench. But when he speaks, he speaks on behalf of the whole party, not just as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.
We have heard the hon. member for Hamilton West say: "we have the guts and the courage to say we would impose 90 day temporary wage and price controls". That is what they are saying this week. When I watched the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) on television I heard him say that the time was not ripe, that we were not in a position where we needed to do that. When they saw the possibility of forming the government they backed off a little. They said: "maybe we had better not advocate that because if we form the government our bluff will be called and we will have to put on these wage and price controls". Now, they feel power slipping from their grasp, the thought of forming the government is more remote, so they are becoming brave again and are proposing an arrogant way of dealing with the Canadian economy.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Are you feeling a little safer now, Bud?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way asks if I feel a little safer. The answer is no. Why should I? We recognize that we are the party that should govern the country because we govern it in a responsible fashion. One week members opposite are talking about wage and price controls, and the next week they are silent on controls. Another week they talk about temporary controls without covering food prices or touching unmanufactured products because controls then would affect primary producers, and they know that controls could not work in that area.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I listen with interest to the catcalls from across the floor. I felt I had an obligation to give the message of the government on the measures it has taken. We do not need an election campaign in order to stand up and defend the unemployment insurance scheme, which today has been described as one of the best in the world. It should be recalled that the House passed that bill in order to provide the workers with the full benefits to which they were entitled. Our Canadian workers deserved those benefits.


An hon. Member:: What about the Canadian taxpayer?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am asked, "What about the Canadian taxpayer"? I suppose we could have waited for a year to fill in all the loopholes and make sure that the act would be well administered, but that would not have been fair to the Canadian worker. Then then minister of labour saw fit to give the Canadian worker the money to which he was entitled, and to let the chips fall where they might. Perhaps we brought that bill in sooner than we should

have, but we brought it in so that Canadian workers could have the benefit of it. An hon. member opposite asks about the Canadian taxpayer. Perhaps the Canadian taxpayer is paying $1 million more than he should, but I think the hon. member should rise, when he speaks because, although he makes a lot of noise while remaining seated, he does not make much sense.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I recognize the hon. member for Champlain, perhaps I should inform the House of the questions to be raised tonight.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)- Post Office-Possible restoration of six day a week delivery; the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett)- Fisheries-Request for federal action to protect salmon spawning streams; the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges)-External Affairs-Request for withdrawal of invitation to President Amin of Uganda to visit Canada.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Laprise:
That this House deplores the continuous increase in unemployment, as well as the refusal or negligence of the Government to propose effective measures for providing more jobs of a remunerative character for Canadians, and condemns the existing authorities for imposing or tolerating quasi-repressive measures affecting citizens who merely want to see respected their fundamental right to a decent standard of living and their personal dignity and to live in a climate of freedom and security.
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) introduced this motion, some other hon. members felt he was getting away from the subject of this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize that, not only did the hon. member for Abitibi not stray from the subject of his motion, but, on the contrary, he dealt with an essential aspect of that motion. In fact, not only is it important to blame the government for not taking adequate measures to stop increasing unemployment but we must also find out in what way this goal could be achieved.
March 12, 1973

In order to find the most appropriate means to this end, we must have a thorough knowledge of the real causes of this major problem, unemployment. All governments have had to face this problem for years and we will recall the time when the Progressive Conservative party was in office-this is not so long ago-when unemployment reached an unprecedented rate. It is therefore obvious that this is a permanent problem, and that despite all efforts that are made, it will never be solved. One does not need to be extremely clever to realize that if we fail to find any solution, it is only because we do not study thoroughly enough the major causes of unemployment.
This is why my hon. colleague from Abitibi has insisted on these major causes. In a society such as ours, where progress has been so far reaching, we must admit that all inventions which facilitate production increase unemployment. This matter has been raised for many years, and the Social Credit party has been most concerned to take the lead in this field, in order to forecast what is happening today.
As a matter of fact, whether we want it or not, we will one day be compelled to apply the basic principles that were put forward by Major C. H. Douglas, in the third issue of "Warning Democracy", and I quote:
Now, if you will consider the fact that the general output of goods of all descriptions per unit of mechanical labour employed, and that this energy has increased in the last 100 years by at least 3,000 to 4,000 per cent, you will see that one of three things must happen. Either everyone must consume thirty or forty times as much as he did before, and increase the amount as the amount of energy put into production increases, or (2) we must get rid, by exportation or otherwise, of an increasing amount of production, or (3) we must recognise that the so-called unemployment problem is something which arises out of the advancement of science applied to industry, and we must modify profoundly our system of distribution.
This is a denunciation of the main reason for unemployment. Once we have recognized the fact that income is one thing and salary another, since the development of society so requires, and when we have finally recognized that this distinction should be translated into adequate laws which would admit for instance that income does not exclusively mean salary, we shall have recognized at the same time that concessions should be made in a developed country such as ours where raw materials are plentyful and whose population is willing to produce.
In such a country each citizen who contributes to the material, spiritual and moral progress of our community should benefit from our wealth and enormous production.
To this end, the only means to obtain social justice is to guarantee to each Canadian a minimum income independently from his salary. At the same time we shall have made a reform which will encourage each individual to further improve his services to society and mainly his direct participation to production.
This is a basic principle and until it is understood no adequate solution will ever be found to unemployment. Under the current system in which we have to flounder to find remedies to the immediate consequences of unemployment, it is of course a problem involving all categories of our societies and which might cause still more troubles.
Unemployment
I should like to quote two paragraphs from an article published in the December 1972 edition of the publication Le Quebec industriel, and entitled The Scandal of Fake Unemployment-The Underlying Causes". I think that article gives a fairly clear idea of the problem being dealt with today, and I quote:
The campaign launched last November by LE QUEBEC INDUSTRIEL against fake unemployment practices has caused many a reaction-extremely favourable for the most part-from all political and economic circles.
It seems that the problem is a matter of concern to all classes of society, from the worker who has to pay with his deductions for the inadequacies of the system, to the businessmen who have to do without the required manpower and to the politicians who view with alarm the disastrous results of this government's generous, confusing and uncontrolled policy.
Mr. Speaker, such are in brief the conditions that evidently do prevail now and not merely because the Creditistes say so. Why? Because, as I have just said, this has not been provided for, and although it does favour a certain number of people who are consistenly trying to cheat the government in one way or another, I am convinced that there are only a few of them. Besides, as stated elsewhere in the article quoted agove, the number of people who manage to chisel certainly do not exceed 3 to 5 per cent.
Unfortunately a great number of honest workers are being frustrated because of the implementation of a legislation that had been heralded as being a lot more liberal than the former one-I say "liberal" not in the political sense of the word but in the true sense of the word itself- a legislation that would make unemployment insurance benefits more accessible to unemployed people.
Everybody seemed to be pleased, but looking at the effects of that legislation, we are compelled to say that it is almost a disaster, because our offices are swamped with unemployment insurance problems. Dozens of people come daily to ask us to intervene and help them obtain their benefits. Most of them, as I say, are honest workers who for one reason or another, are unemployed at a certain time. Since the legislation seems to be helpful to the workers under the circumstances, why are officials trying by all possible means to discourage if not to get rid of those benefit claimants? This is due to several reasons, especially because no distinction can be made between the swindler, the deceiver and the one who is caught in an unpleasant situation.
None the less, such a distinction can readily be made, Mr. Speaker. For instance, the man who has never collected unemployment insurance benefits is quite honest of course when he applies for benefits. Of course, being used to working every week, to getting his salary each weekend, when he has to wait for one, two or three months, and sometimes much longer, he suffers flagrant injustice. The trouble is, among other things, out and out centralization carried out inside the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and for the province of Quebec as a whole the operations are being performed in Montreal, which results not only in delays and errors, but also in injustice.
Therefore, it is most important that the government should consider this change; in other words, decentralization of the Unemployment Insurance Commission should

March 12, 1973
Unemployment
be considered with a view to having the local offices of the Commission receive, study, and process the claims.
Mr. Speaker, the officials of the Trois-Rivieres office being closer to the workers in that area, they no doubt are in a better position to study with more speed the problems involved in an unemployment insurance claim, and consequently, to have it processed in a sounder, more logical and more equitable fashion.
This matter is becoming sensitive on account of the unlimited problems involved. If a worker has to wait for weeks and months, he nevertheless has to keep alive. And for this, he must accept either to get into debt or to go begging for social welfare allowances.
As we know, Mr. Speaker, it is not pleasant to go and beg for benefits from the welfare people. Anyhow, the request must still be considered for one month, and then difficulties are made concerning the payment to be granted. In other words, we are considerably complicating the life of the worker and particularly when he is the head of a family.
Mr. Speaker, if unemployment is accepted, since nobody yet seems prepared to make a thorough review of this foolish system in which we are struggling, the law should be administered as it stands, and nothing should be done to needlessly frustrate workers with all sorts of more or less coercive procedures. This is what we are condemning in our motion, Mr. Speaker. We are condemning the authorities who impose or tolerate some almost repressive measures.
When an individual suddenly falls ill while working and must, lacking any other resources, fall back on unemployment insurance, it is a denial of his rights to require repeated submission of medical reports describing his illness and stipulating a date for his recovery.
Mr. Speaker, it seems quite normal to intensify control of possible fraud. Fraud might well exist in some cases. In the vast majority of cases, when a worker has to stop work and therefore consults a doctor who clearly indicates that the state of his health precludes working in the immediate or near future, why create all kinds of problems for him? Actually, in cases of illness, and I have in mind more specifically a nervous breakdown, it is very difficult to determine when the individual will be able to return to work. It is quite difficult to determine, even by a doctor. A date is then set arbitrarily. In my opinion, we should at least give the doctor the benefit of the doubt and accept the fact that his diagnosis constitutes sufficient proof of entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Speaker, to be precise I must say that there are various ways of fighting unemployment. For a few years now the government, through local initiative projects or through the Opportunities for Youth Program has succeeded in creating new jobs. Of course, such projects may not have given the desired results and for this reason we should, as a matter of fact, think of improving them, of carrying out other kinds of projects.
Having noticed some deficiency in this regard, I wonder, for instance, if priority should not be given to local initiatives projects for which the names of unemployed willing to work have already been submitted. If 10 or 15 unemployed, thanks to their initiative or that of others in their community, give their names to work on a project, they should be given priority so that we might no longer see, as we have in the past, projects approved but not completed for lack of workers. That is just one incidental suggestion.
There are many other ways of fighting unemployment. The millions of dollars paid out in unemployment insurance benefits could instead be used to create jobs. Unemployment could be reduced, for instance, if municipalities were allowed new credits, interest free as much as possible, in order to get work done, not only to give people work, but also to meet essential needs.
In this way, one would not have to make it a condition that it be done in the winter months, for the problem for the potentially unemployed is knowing whether to continue out of work or to go and work just for a month or two for an income that is about the same as the unemployment benefit. Faced with this kind of a dilemma, despite their finer feelings, the unemployed prefer to keep warm near the stove than to go and freeze in sub-zero temperatures. There can be no doubt about that! Let us not confront the work with such an impossible choice.
For these reasons, we ought to provide municipalities, for example, with sufficient funds for them to have essential work done. What municipality does not have work that needs to be done? In this way they could wipe out unemployment and help us to make some progress until there is a complete reform of this system that incorporates permanent unemployment.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate the portion of the resolution to which I intend to address my remarks. It is that part which-
-condemns the existing authorities for imposing or tolerating quasi-repressive measures affecting citizens who merely want to see respected their fundamental right to a decent standard of living and their personal dignity and to live in a climate of freedom and security.
I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate. The subject is most timely, bearing in mind the situation in which many of the unemployed in the rural areas which I represent find themselves at the present time. I am glad to participate for two reasons. First, it gives me an opportunity to speak out on behalf of seasonal agricultural workers in the Norfolk-Haldimand area. This is an intensive cash crop area. It is a highly labour-intensive area. Labour is used only at the peak season of the year- the harvest season. Perhaps in Norfolk-Haldimand there is a greater concentration of seasonal workers than exists anywhere else in Canada. Certainly, the concentration is as great.
These workers are being deliberately and systematically disentitled from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. This action is being taken on a wholesale basis. When I asked whether it was the policy of the Commission to disentitle these people, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) said, in response to my question the other day as reported in Hansard at page 1636:

March 12, 1973

"Absolutely no. Not as such." Then he went on to say that they could be disentitled in certain circumstances. I propose to deal with this answer later. I am speaking, now, about the large class of workers in my area who are being disentitled for entirely the wrong reason.
My second reason for rising to speak today on the motion before us is this: I want to explain more fully the terms "Gestapo tactics" which I used when I was speaking about the activities of benefit control officers in my area. What I said in the House on that occasion will be found reported in Hansard on the same page I mentioned earlier.
Several hundred additional control officers were hired by the Unemployment Insurance Commission recently to cut out the cheats and chisellers who wrongfully obtained benefits under the act. Such people have increased the cost of unemployment insurance-a cost which has already been brought home dramatically to the government by resolutions in this chamber and by debates in the House. All hon. members are aware that the Commission has overspent, that it has gone beyond the ceiling set in the original act. Bill C-124 was brought down not long ago to remove the ceiling. Thus, the government was doubly anxious to cut the cost of unemployment insurance. It appears to me, though, that in its effort to cut costs the Commission has approached the subject in the wrong way. It is right and proper that control officers should be appointed and that they should carry out proper investigative procedures to cut out cheats and chisellers. There is no quarrel with that proposition. However, in a rural area such as I represent, the timing was most unfortunate.
In spite of what the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) said a few minutes ago, I feel, too, that the time required for the securing of benefits by these agricultural workers is far too short. I am referring to the eight week period. There are those in my area who worked during the tobacco harvest. They worked for eight weeks, enough to qualify them for unemployment insurance benefits, and then they refused to work longer. It is at this point benefit control officers should have intervened. As a result of the refusal of these people to continue employment, apples in the orchards of Norfolk County were left on trees as winter approached. These men and women could not be induced to leave their unemployment insurance benefits and go out into the fields and orchards to work. This is the time the control officers should have been on the job.
In my area at the present time there is obviously no farm help required. There are very few small industries in the towns and villages in the area. As far as help is concerned, these plants are all filled to capacity. They do not want any more help. As a matter of fact, some are laying off employees. The benefit control officers are coming in and cutting these people off unemployment insurance, saying they are not looking for a job.
I wish to go into some detail with regard to the procedures used to disentitle persons properly entitled to benefits. First, the individual who is receiving the claim is interviewed. He then receives a letter of disentitlement setting out the reasons he is being disentitled. I can recite
Unemployment
these reasons because I have heard them hundreds of times from people who have complained to me about the actions of these men. First, they are told that they really do not want to work; second, there are no child care arrangements and, third, they do not have any visible means of transportation. This occurs over and over again. When a person telephones me, I know exactly what will be in the letter he is going to read to me. Included with the letter of disentitlement is a slip that states that person has 30 days in which to appeal the case. In order to appeal, the claimant must write a letter setting out the reason he is appealing, the reason he is refuting the grounds for disentitlement which are stated in the letter.
The case is heard by a board of referees. This board is to include a representative of labour, representative of management and a representative of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In all the cases that have ever come to my attention, and this runs into many hundreds, not once has this board of referees reversed the original decision of the benefit control officer. It is a folly, a cruel joke on the people to say they have a right to appeal. To add insult to injury, these people are advised that they have a right to appeal to an umpire. The only way to do that is to obtain permission to appeal to the umpire. If the decision is unanimous, which it always is, there is no right to appeal to an umpire, a judge, one who truly would not have a vested interest in the decision. This is a cruel joke, deliberately being played on these people.
That is not the basic complaint of the people in my area. It is the tactics used by the interviewing officer when claimants are being interrogated. These officers first ask if the claimant is looking for work. The person replies that he has registered with Manpower. Manpower, if it is to mean anything at all, should be the agency which puts people in touch with jobs. If jobs are available, Manpower should advise the person. Surely, that is sufficient evidence that an individual is looking for work.
If a person decides to appeal, he telephones the farmers in the area, knowing full well that they have no employment at this time of the year. He calls them because this is where he worked. If he worked for an industry, he calls the plant, knowing full well that this plant does not need extra employees. As I said, some industries are even laying off employees. These people are sick and tired of being continually asked, for work when everyone in the community knows there is none.
There is another trick which these officers play on these people being interviewed. When they enter a person's home and see small children, they ask whether that individual has a babysitter. Obviously, there is no babysitter because that person is home looking after the children. The honest answer is no. When the signed statement comes back, it states that the claimant has no child care arrangements and, therefore, is unable to accept work if suitable work were offered. How dishonest can you get?
Another trick is with regard to transportation. The individual is asked whether he has a car. Perhaps the husband has a car but the wife has not. There is one car for the family. The officer does not say to the wife, if a job were offered in Simcoe, Delhi or on a nearby farm, could you get to work? The answer would be entirely different. These people are scared out of their wits when a govern-

March 12, 1973
Unemployment
ment investigator comes to the door. They will sign almost anything to get rid of him. The signed statement is then used before the board of referees. It is about this that I complain most bitterly. I did not have time to elaborate on this in the House a few weeks back. These are the types of things that I refer to as gestapo tactics.
Many of the seasonal workers who are unemployed are new Canadians. They are of different ethnic origins. Many came to this country from central European countries. They are older people. They did not have the opportunity nor the ability to become conversant in English. They can speak it passably, but they cannot understand it very well. They certainly cannot read or write English. The officers take advantage of them by getting them to sign a document about which they know nothing.
I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Neale) that this type of tactic is wrong. Surely there are honest and correct ways of weeding out those who should be taken off the unemployment insurance payroll. This way is unworthy of a civilized government. The interrogator is a professional. He has been trained. He is pitting his wits and skill against people who are unskilled in English and have a marginal education. These people are scared to death when a government investigator comes to their door. These are some things that are wrong with the system being applied to seasonal agricultural workers. I wish to make a few general comments about the way this plan is being applied in my area. Many of the people who are being cut off from unemployment insurance benefits have no other means of subsistence. They must go to the local municipal welfare officer and ask to be placed on welfare. A few moments ago a member opposite said that unemployment insurance was a boon to the welfare system, that it would take people off welfare and lessen the bills of the municipality. In my area our welfare officers are hopping mad about the number of people being disqualified from legitimate unemployment insurance payments and being placed on welfare. This is wrong.
These people who are doing the investigating might well consult with the welfare officers in the area in which they are working. The welfare officers could tell them who the chiselers are and who is entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. These investigators are lacking in experience and do not have a knowledge of the community in which they are working. Why do they not contact someone who knows the situation and can guide them in a reasonable sort of way?
Another point I wish to emphasize is the unfortunate timing in the drive to cut people off benefits. Surely, the time to do this is when farmers and other employers are desperately seeking assistance for harvesting or whatever. This is the time we could determine who is unwilling to work. This is the time unemployment insurance control officers should be in the field doing their job.
Better still, these people should not have been placed on the rolls in the first place. Perhaps this is the most ironic part of it all. These people are casual workers who leave their homes and go to work harvesting farm crops, whether it be tobacco, orchard crops, asparagus or whatever it may be. They did not ask to be put on unemployment insurance in the first place. As a matter of fact, they

objected strenuously and so did the farmers who employed them. They did not want any part of it. They were willing to take their chances and get employment in the summertime during the harvest, which would have provided them with some money. But having been put on unemployment insurance and having made their contributions, they cannot for the life of them see why they are not justly entitled to the benefits for which they have paid.
Another matter that surprised me and caused a great deal of pain to some who have received unemployment insurance benefits, having had their claims allowed by the commission, is that suddenly, having received their cheques, they found they were disentitled to benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Commission then had the nerve to ask them to pay back the money they had received. Surely this tells us something about the system and the way it is being administered. Why in the world were these people paid benefits in the first place? These are some of the reasons I feel very upset, as do the people I represent-I am putting it mildly; they would use much stronger language-over the way unemployment insurance is being administered in my area.
In response to a question I asked the other day, the minister said that he would investigate cases in my area if I would give him specific instances. I have since flooded his office with these cases and I can send him many more. As a matter of fact, the people in my constituency are writing directly to the minister, so he need not worry about not having enough cases to investigate. Literally hundreds of workers have written, phoned or spoken to me about this matter. They cannot understand this system under which they have contributed and thus feel justly entitled to benefits. They have been honest and straightforward in answering questions put to them, but when they are tricked into disqualifying themselves they surely have the right to get mad.
Farmers are also deeply disturbed because this type of worker is being disentitled. They fear, and have good reason to fear, that next year no one will bother finding work at harvest time because they fear deductions will be made from their wages and they will get nothing in return. The farmers think that the farm labour situation next harvest season will be aggravated by this situation.
One positive note. I have been critical all the way through my remarks, but I feel that much of this would never have happened had the government not divorced Manpower from unemployment insurance. Surely if Manpower and unemployment were lumped together under the one administration, Manpower would know right on the spot who was available for work and entitled to receive an unemployment insurance cheque.
I suggest a return to the system where cheques are distributed at the Manpower centre, where the recipient will pick them up. If it is more efficient to have the cheque prepared by a cheque-writing machine in Belleville, or wherever it may be, then let that be done. But do not distribute the cheques through the mails; let the local Manpower centre distribute them. They are on the spot and they know the situation. If a person is entitled to a cheque, he will receive it. If there is a job available for
March 12, 1973

him, he takes the job and does not get the cheque. That would soon clear up this whole mess.
Secondly, as I have already mentioned in my remarks, the investigating officers-the benefit control officers, as they are called-would be well advised to be a little more humane and understanding in the way they conduct their interrogations. Why not let claimants go to the welfare officer in the community, or a person such as a municipal councillor or clerk? They know the situation. They know the people who are in need of and are entitled to benefits. They also know the chisellers who would rather sit back and receive a hand-out from the government.
Those are the remarks I have to present for the consideration of the government. Hopefully, we will get some action to clear up this very serious and aggravating unemployment insurance situation in the area I represent.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) introduced his budget almost one month ago he began his address by saying, as reported at page 1428 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this budget is-first and foremost- to bring about a substantial reduction in unemployment. Unemployment is much more than an economic problem.
Then he said:
This budget is aimed at the faster growth of our economy and the strengthening of its basic structure in order to achieve the greatest possible increase in the number of permanent, satisfying jobs for our rapidly growing labour force.
Those phrases had a familiar ring, Mr. Speaker. I turned to the first speech of the Minister of Finance following his appointment to that office almost one year ago. On February 24, 1972, he said:
Our most urgent and pressing task is to bring about a substantial reduction in the level of unemployment. Our goal, our objective, must be the provision of a job to every Canadian who is seeking work.
They are very fine words, Mr. Speaker. However, if one looks not at the words but at the actions, one sees that the minister has been a complete failure; because when the minister took on the job of Minister of Finance in February, 1972, the rate of unemployment at that time, as it had been for more than two years prior to that date, was over 6 per cent on a seasonally adjusted basis. In January, 1973, the last month for which we have figures, the rate df unemployment on a seasonally adjusted basis was still 6.2 per cent.
According to the Toronto Globe and Mail for February 7, 1973, the unemployment rate dropped to 6.2 per cent in January, from 6.7 per cent in December of 1972. The Globe and Mail goes on to say:
The actual proportion of the labour force without work last month was 7.7 per cent ... It compares with 7.7 per cent a year earlier, 8 per cent in January, 1971, and 6.1 per cent in January, 1970 . ..
The unadjusted number of unemployed was 688,000 in January, 1973, compared with 584,000 in December and 665,000 in January, 1972.
In other words, there were 23,000 more people unemployed in January of 1973 than there were in January, 1972. If you look at the regional breakdown, Mr. Speaker, you will find there were more people unemployed in the Atlantic provinces in January of 1973 than there were in
Unemployment
January of 1972. That was also the case in Quebec, on the Prairies and in British Columbia. The only province in which there was a slight reduction in unemployment was Ontario.
Under those circumstances it is no wonder that the election of October, 1972, led to such a sharp reduction in the number of Liberal Members of Parliament. We had been telling the government, particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance, that unemployment was an important matter to the people of Canada. We had been saying that for over two years. For almost three years we have been told that the real problem is not unemployment but the rapid increase in the cost of living.
No country in the western world, with the exception of the United States, has a higher percentage of unemployment than Canada. This Minister of Finance, like the previous minister, says all the right things. He says that his objective is to reduce the number of unemployed and to provide jobs for every person in Canada who wants to work. But to put it mildly, I have been dismayed by the talk in Ottawa among senior civil servants in both the Department of Finance and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. They believe that in fact we have virtually full employment. There may be full employment for all the economists working for the government, but there is certainly not full employment for people who want to work in factories; and there certainly is not full employment or the prospect of anything near full employment for the young people who will be graduating from universities across Canada this year or coming out of community colleges in the next couple of months.
The figures we were given for the month of January show that 11.2 per cent of all workers between the age of 14 and 24 were unemployed. That is the situation, and the people of Canada are again being sold a bill of goods. Let me say to the government that the people of Canada did not believe them in October, 1972, they believed them less in February, 1973, and they will believe them even less in months to come.
All the projections of independent economists indicate that the reduction in the percentage of unemployment will be very small in the next four or five months and indicate that in the fall of 1973 unemployment in total numbers and in terms of percentage will begin to rise again. These are the projections of independent economists, not of those who work in the Department of Finance who have been preconditioned by the deputy minister not to tell the minister what they really think or to give him their real estimates.
That is the record of this Liberal government which has been in power since 1968. The percentage of unemployment this country has suffered since the present Prime Minister has been in office is almost twice as large as the unemployment we had under the previous prime minister. It is almost as large, although not quite, as the percentage we had under a Conservative government from 1957 to 1962.
We said we would support the budget debate, and we did, because it moved forward in certain directions. It

March 12, 1973
Unemployment
contained improvements to old age pensions which were fairly substantial although far short of what we wanted. We believed basic pensions should have been increased to $150 per month and we thought a beginning should have been made to lower the age at which individuals were eligible to receive the pension. We felt that if we gave people of age 60 and up an opportunity to retire on a voluntary basis, many of them would do so, leaving openings for young, unemployed people. In any event, we thought the increase to $100 a month was an improvement.
We felt that the income tax cut was not only an improvement but an expansionary measure. The $100 minimum reduction in income tax meant that many workers and farmers in low income brackets would in fact have a reduction of income tax up to 40 per cent, and we welcomed that. Let me say to the Minister of Finance and members of the government that in the opinion of economists of provincial and federal governments, as well as academic economists, this budget and the proposals of the government will fall far short of providing the kind of stimulus required to put the unemployed to work. It has been suggested by some of the best economists in the country that this budget is not nearly as expansionary as the budget presented by the minister in May, 1972, yet that budget did nothing at all to reduce unemployment.
The increase in the basic old age pension and the income tax cut, particularly for those in the lower income brackets, was a welcome step in the right direction. Both socially and in terms of justice, these changes go part way at least in meeting the criticisms of the budgets of the Liberals and Conservatives over the years. The latest budget will not do those expansionary things the Minister of Finance has suggested it will do. It will not reduce unemployment.
What should be done? We have said over the years that a number of things must be done. First of all, the secrecy about what this government thinks is likely to happen in terms of unemployment should come to an end. We cannot deal with the problems of unemployment when the people of Canada do not know what is likely to take place in the next year. The federal government cannot work out plans in co-operation with the provinces and the municipalities if it keeps secret the estimates of its own advisers economists and statisticians. The first thing this government ought to do is make public the projections made for it by its various departments and agencies as to the percentage of unemployment which is likely to exist in the coming year. This information should be made public on a quarterly basis. Once this has been done the federal government could work out, in co-operation with the provinces and municipalities, tri-level plans and projects to put people back to work. There are numerous projects that have not yet been attempted in this country.
One solution to unemployment was referred to earlier this afternoon by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford). He introduced proposed amendments to the National Housing Act. We need a massive acceleration in the provision of housing accommodation for people in low income and middle income brackets. People can no longer afford to buy homes in cities like Toronto, because of what has happened to housing costs. Not only low

income people, but families in the middle income bracket can no longer afford to purchase homes. We need a massive attack in the field of housing to provide the required accommodation.
I note that the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mrs. Sauve) is in the House. We must do something about pollution. I wish I could say that the city of Montreal had begun to do something about this problem, but one fact is that the vast majority, if not all of its raw sewage is still being dumped, untreated, into the St. Lawrence River. We can help the city of Montreal put on the Olympic games in 1976, but we cannot help it do something about the pollution situation in the St. Lawrence River which has existed for years. This is an indication of the stupidity of the Liberal government. I wish we could do something about meeting the educational and recreational needs of the people of this country. These facilities are deficient in many ways. These are some of the things in which governments could become involved.
Having said some good things about the budget, let me say that I believe that if we really want to put the people of Canada to work and reduce the number of unemployed, if we want by January 1, 1974, instead of 678,000 unemployed to have only 400,000 unemployed, the best way to do this would be to put money into the pockets of the people in the low income bracket. They would spend every penny of it. I suggest to the Minister of Finance and to the government that the $100 basic pension simply is not enough.
If we increased the basic pension to $125 a month, 99 per cent of the old age pensioners would spend every extra dollar given to them. In this way we could provide employment for thousands of unemployed people. Instead of the $100 minimum reduction in income tax, the reduction should have been a minimum of $135. Had all this been done we would really have an expansionary budget and a deficit of $1 billion more than the projected deficit the Minister of Finance has put forward which is not nearly expansionary enough.
Let me close by saying to the government that in recent years we have had something new in Canadian parliamentary life. We have had in recent years two budgets rather than one. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that the budget he has proposed is not expansionary enough and in the next three months the number of unemployed will not drop sharply as he suggested. In this event, we insist, on the basis of past experience and the estimates we have made, that the minister should do one of the things the former minister of finance did. There was at least one example of pioneering by the former minister. If the present Minister of Finance would follow that precedent, three or four months from now he would bring forward another budget which would be really expansionary and would bring the unemployed people of Canada back to work, which is where they really want to be.


Mr. Reid:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Our next speaker would be the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) who is on his way here having had some difficulty in travelling because of the weather. I
March 12, 1973

wonder whether the House would agree to call it six o'clock so that he could be our next speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I begin by apologizing for my absence this afternoon and therefore my inability to have noted all the comments of previous speakers. The inclement weather today forced me to drive this afternoon. I ask hon. members to please forgive my comments if they do not deal with all the particular points previous speakers have raised. Certainly, in reading Hansard I digest any comment that has been made, take the advice offered and do what I can with it.
The subject matter of the resolution indicates the continuing concern for Canada's serious unemployment situation which is no less grave, of course, because it remains puzzling and frustrating in the context of our generally buoyant economic conditions. As has been stated and in fact should be restated, part of our problem is demographic. We are still trying to cope with the Canadian phenomenon which is the fastest growing labour force among the industrialized nations, for which there are two main reasons.
The first reason is the post-war birth rate, and the second the fact that women among our society are increasingly taking part in work opportunities and in fact their participation still remains lower, as a percentage of the total population, than in some other countries. So I think we can anticipate both these problems being with us for some years to come, which indeed makes it even more necessary that we cope with them.
Our job creation rate for these new workers has been good: it has been improving. But I know all members of the House on all sides would like to see this general problem solved. I note the resolution states that "this House deplores the continuous increase in unemployment." I think, in all fairness and to place the facts before hon. members, we must note that the unemployment rate has been declining since last September; employment has been climbing every month with the exception of December.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: This is in no small way due to the measures that have been taken for some time, beginning with our expansionary budgets back in 1970. Referring again to the budget of May 1972, I draw attention also to the early fall
Unemployment
announcement of some $80 million for the Local Initiatives Program which was bolstered by a major announcement by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), and myself on December 6 regarding $500 million for a direct employment program. This included an additional $80 million for the Local Initiatives Program to bring that to $165 million, and $10 million more for the on-the-job training program to increase that to $50 million. There was also a $350 million special municipal loan fund to be spread over the next three years, and other measures described in the announcement to which I have referred. These measures were topped on February 19 last by another expansionary budget of the Minister of Finance which contained massive tax cuts which will provide more income for spending, particularly oriented toward families in the lower income brackets.
Unemployment rates have been going down steadily since September. Very shortly we will have the February figures and I think we can expect to see further improvements in them. During the last several days the budget measures have been debated at length and I do not think I would be contributing to this debate were I to rehash the statements of the Minister of Finance and other colleagues. I would, therefore, like to take this opportunity to concentrate more on my responsibilities, namely, manpower and manpower programs.
This evening I would like to outline in particular our four-part program related to providing jobs and some of the special efforts we shall be making on behalf of the youth of this country, women, our native peoples and others who are disadvantaged. My comments may take me a little past the time allotted for my speech, in which case I would be most grateful if the House would permit me to complete my remarks so they would have continuity and totality.
Our jobs program will contain four elements: job finding, job creation, the elimination of artificial job barriers, and improved job satisfaction or job enrichment. First, we want much more comprehensive and efficient jobfinding techniques and services which will aggressively search out jobs and match them with the people available for work. Where we cannot make such a match, it is our intention to focus more clearly and bring into play our training, our mobility and our immigration policies and programs. At the very heart of this job-finding service will be an open, self-service job information centre where people who are ready to take a job will be put in touch with job data with an absolute minimum of red tape and bureaucracy.
Two such pilot projects have been announced and started recently, one in the national capital, Ottawa, and the other in Hamilton. This type of open, self-service job information centre will be the key, also, to a new relationship between Manpower and Unemployment Insurance Commission offices which we hope will ensure maximum utilization of available jobs and minimum delay in filling them. A co-operative working relationship now exists between these two agencies, Manpower and Immigration and the UIC, and it is being further developed. I think this will greatly facilitate the work of both and improve services to the public.

March 12, 1973
Unemp loyment
When workers apply lor unemployment insurance benefits they are now required to register for work with the Canada Manpower Centre if they are in need of CMC services. The only people excluded from this are those on short-term lay-offs, with definite knowledge that they will be recalled shortly, unless of course even for them there are vacancies known in the CMC offices that they could fill.
As it stands now, all Canada Manpower Centres supply the Unemployment Insurance Commission with lists of current vacancies for which they require workers, and persons applying for benefits who have the skills are required to report to the CMC within 24 hours. As an example of the effect of this, during the past three months in Quebec the UIC referred to the CMCs 3,228 workers, of whom 571 were immediately referred to employers. From the benefit control point of view, another 1,000 failed to report to the CMCs and the UIC was notified for investigation of possible disqualification, and the CMCs notified the UIC of another 472 cases requiring similar investigation.
Canada Manpower Centres thus have access to all claimants of unemployment insurance who are capable of working, and if a UIC claimant refuses offers of suitable employment the CMC notifies the commission. In fact, with that arrangement during the past nine months the CMCs have notified the commission of over 100,000 such cases. Further, CMCs provide a recall service to employers who are having difficulty locating former workers. This does happen from time to time. If these employees are not working and do not report for work, again the CMCs will notify the commission.
The co-operation between the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Unemployment Insurance Commission is emphasized by these arrangements that have recently been made. In localities where there is no UIC office, the Canada Manpower Centres provide UIC services. They are staffed to assist claimants, either by providing space for UIC personnel or by having specially trained CMC personnel provide the UIC services.
Right now the UIC is represented in 144 Canada Manpower Centres. There is day to day contact between officials of the CMCs and the UIC concerning individuals, working out procedures and the exchange of information. At the regional level, both organizations have liaison officers and here in Ottawa there is an inter-agency committee of officials, co-chaired by assistant deputy ministers, to develop further operational relationships and co-ordination of activities that will ensure greater assistance to the unemployed.
But, Mr. Speaker, even after we have improved our utilization of existing job opportunities I am quite sure there will still, unfortunately, be gaps to fill and they probably can only be filled by direct job creation. The level of unemployment, due to the factor I outlined at the beginning of my comments, namely, the growth in the labour force, will continue to be a challenge to all of us. The economic measures announced by the Minister of Finance on several occasions no doubt will reduce unemployment. But even when unemployment rates return to more normal levels, our Canadian climate ensures that we will continue to have strong seasonal fluctuations in

employment levels. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, regardless of the season of the year, in good years and in bad some parts of Canada and some groups of Canadians will face particular unemployment problems throughout the 1970s and beyond. These employment problems, in all likelihood, will be complicated by rapidly changing job expectations and other social factors.
I am convinced that in addition to the indirect measures of fiscal and monetary policy open to us, and the stimulation of the private sector where the bulk of jobs must be created, we shall need well planned programs of direct job creation for some time to come. We have learned a lot in the last two or three years about direct job creation under OFY and the Local Initiatives Program and, as I announced recently, we are experimenting with this year's LIP in a number of ways. I would like to give the House some examples of this experimentation.
Wells, in British Columbia, is situated near the historic Cariboo Trail, four miles from Barkerville, a lively centre in the 1858 gold rush. Using Local Initiatives Program funds to employ local jobless, the Wells Improvement District is completing projects that will ensure more employment opportunities for local residents throughout the year. Another experiment is a project being run by the Indians of Lac LaHache, northern Saskatchewan, who rely almost totally on an annual ice harvest for their livelihood. This board recently applied to the Local Initiatives Program for support to ensure the completion of the harvest, and that experiment is under way. There are literally thousands of such projects under way in Canada. On the whole, the 1972-73 Local Initiatives Program will have created approximately 350,000 man-months of employment and about 85,000 jobs. As I have mentioned in the House previously, more than 5,860 projects have been approved.
The training-on-the-job program is another tool that has been used by my department to find work and to provide valuable training experience for the unemployed. Approximately 200,000 man-months of employment are being created this year, representing 60,000 jobs. This compares favourably with last year's effort when about 42,000 unemployed were hired by employers under a similar program.
I am also satisfied that many local initiative projects can become continuing, self-sufficient enterprises, selling their products or services without unfair competition to existing enterprises. We shall be working with many project sponsors to examine such possibilities in the next several months. In addition, as part of our new services for the disadvantaged we are developing, with several provinces, a number of experimental LIP type projects aimed at specific groups of the hard core unemployed. Such projects will last two or three years, not just a few months, and are intended not only to create jobs but to enable the workers to become conditioned to the world of work and to gain the self-confidence and self-reliance which come from accomplishment. Like LIP, the projects will be dependent on the initiative of citizens' groups, but the projects, known as local employment assistance projects-which no doubt will be called LEAP-will involve provinces and municipalities in their planning and implementation.
March 12, 1973

But more important than these specific initiatives and experiments, we feel that we must begin to put machinery in place that will, in concert with other government departments, with the provinces and business continually test and plan job creation schemes which we should have on the shelf to use when unemployment rises.
I think it will be clear from what I have said that I, too, am far from satisfied with Canada's historic band-aid approach to direct job creation. What is needed now is a longer term and better planned approach. In the immediate future, as far as my department is concerned, I think we have to face the following tasks: What are we to do with the Local Initiatives Program and the Opportunities for Youth program? How do we build on the good features and eliminate the bad ones?
Second, we must move now to establish the planning machinery. Third, we have to set in place, after putting before the House our suggestions, the new programs which are necessary. I shall be making recommendations to my colleagues soon on these very important matters.
For some people, no increase in new jobs will really help in the ordinary course of events because of the structural barriers between them and the jobs that exist. Some of these barriers have been identified and dealt with by the introduction of our training and mobility programs; others remain because employers in this country still tend to discriminate against candidates for work, though often unthinkingly, on grounds of age, sex, experience, race, pattern of previous employment and education.
It is in that context that we plan a series of positive measures to try to break through these structural barriers. First of all, in the area of education and persuasion, employers, including public employers, will be encouraged to base their hiring standards on the real performance objectives of the jobs, rather than on some of the artificial standards designed primarily to limit the workload of the recruiting officers. This will be greatly aided by the new Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupation which became available for my department on January 1, 1973.
In the area of placement incentives, under the Canada Manpower training-on-the-job program two new elements have been announced which will greatly facilitate job matching. The first is training on the job for skill shortages. Where an employer's job order cannot be filled by CMC from the existing work force for a period of 30 days or more, we shall offer to enter into a contract with that employer to train unqualified or underqualified workers to fill the need. As far as training on the job for the disadvantaged is concerned, in the case of the hard core disadvantaged employers will be offered reimbursement of up to 100 per cent of wages for an initial period to hire and retain disadvantaged workers.
The fourth element of our four-part jobs program relates to the growing phenomenon in this country, and I think in the whole western world, of worker dissatisfaction with the jobs facing them. There is little evidence to suggest that this is opposition to work itself but, rather, it appears to be a rebellion against certain types of work which are distasteful, undignified or lacking in personal
Unemployment
satisfaction. We know now that workers will sometimes accept relatively lower wages for satisfying work but will react against boring, repetitive work even at very high wages.
There is a need for extensive research and private and public sector co-operation in dealing with this problem. My department will offer co-operation to companies or industries encountering such labour problems identified in the main by high labour turnover. My department's capacity to provide this co-operation must surely be extended.
These are the main elements of our jobs program. However, I should also like to say a few words about several distinct groups of our Manpower clientele for whom special affirmative action is required and being developed- youth, women, native workers and disadvantaged workers generally. I should like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to announce a number of adjustments to manpower programs to provide better service to Canadian workers who are encountering particular difficulty in getting and holding jobs and who would continue to face that difficulty even if unemployment decreases as we hope it will.
In this next fiscal year, Mr. Speaker, we shall be making a modest start at least, and with experience we hope to build a real response to the employment needs of many Canadians who heretofore have existed on the fringes of the labour force, chronically or intermittently unemployed. The nature of our new services are described in a letter which my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), and I recently sent to the provincial welfare ministers and which I shall be tabling in the House later this week.
The highlights of this approach include, first, hiring and placing 110 specially trained counsellors in CMCs across Canada to specialize in the problems of workers with severe employment problems and to advise our regular Manpower counsellors on how to deal with such cases, as well as to provide a point of contact with community agencies offering other specialized services. Second, our CMCs will be given new authority and funds to refer clients to professional practitioners and diagnostic services when they have problems which extend beyond our internal resources. Third, major changes are being made to our Manpower training programs. We shall purchase work adjustment training from sheltered workshops or private employers to teach people how to work. We shall introduce basic literacy training. We shall adjust the so-called 52-week rule to permit greater flexibility in training durations for those with particular problems. We shall be adding what we call "life skills" components to the regular training program.
I saw a marvellous pilot project on this very matter in Windsor last week when I was visiting that city-the St. Clair Community College and Holy Rosary Recreation Centre. I would advise hon. members who have the opportunity to visit that experimental project; I am sure it will thrill them as it did me.
We shall be tailoring training programs more carefully to the needs of individuals, and planning longer term packages of training and work experience to bring disadvantaged workers to full employability. Fourth, we are

March 12, 1973
Unemployment
introducing a new training-on-the-job scheme in which disadvantaged workers will be placed in jobs, backed by counselling and supportive services. We expect this coming year to spend $10 million to $15 million on this element.
Fifth, we are expanding our outreach services to extend to workers with particular needs not easily met by normal CMC services. I will give an example of this. We have entered into a contract with the Metis Association of Alberta to hire Metis employment counsellors to work with our CMCs, to explain our services to the Metis, counsel them, place them in jobs and follow up this service. We intend to spend $2.6 million on similar projects next year in an experimental way.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, our local employment assistance program-LEAP-is at this stage a modest demonstration-type program designed to test longer term projects similar to LIP but aimed at specific groups of hard core unemployed. In addition to job creation and community betterment, these projects must involve the workers in a developmental process designed to lead them to full-time work and continuing self-sufficiency. It is our intention later, with the permission of the House, to spend about $9.5 million on these projects in 1973-74.
We have often referred to the ongoing problem in our society of employment for younger persons among us. Canada has one of the highest proportions of youth in its population and labour force of any industrial nation. The rate of growth of this age group will moderate in the last half of this decade, but over the next five years we must meet the challenge and integrate these young Canadians into our economy and society.
At present, all groups of youth experience rates of unemployment above the adult rate. Previous experience indicates that even as unemployment decreases, the unemployment rate among youth will remain unacceptably high, as it was throughout the 1960s. To meet this need we have taken or will be taking a number of steps. A youth employment division has been set up in the department, with youth consultants in each of our field regions. Manpower programs are being tilted to ensure access for these groups.
As an example of the situation we face, I would remind hon. members that young people under the age of 25 form 26 per cent of the labour force. They make up 40 per cent of our CMTP institutional trainees, 40 per cent of LIP workers and 63 per cent of training-on-the-job trainees. We shall be setting up various pilot projects to develop innovative solutions to the problems presented by youth unemployment. We are establishing special student CMCs for the summer months. Consideration is being given to the establishment of special youth units in our regular CMCs, staffed by younger workers. Mobile units will take our services to youth if they will not come to us. We are planning a co-operative approach with the provinces to improve career couselling data for youth and build better bridges between the worlds of school and work.
We have recently devised an experimental program in Toronto, called CRUNCH, to assist youth operated co-

operatives and businesses. We shall be evaluating this experiment very carefully to see where it might take us.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Now we have LIP and CRUNCH and WOW.


Robert Knight Andras: Having been accused by an hon. member opposite of being a male chauvinist, it gives me pleasure to announce that we are taking positive steps to ensure that women have equal opportunities for training and employment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. This might be an appropriate time for the Chair to ask whether the minister is given unanimous consent to extend his speech, the time allotted to him having expired.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: No.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Knight Andras: I thank hon. members for their indulgence. I shall conclude my speech as soon as I can. As far as women are concerned, and to the extent that they have problems in obtaining meaningful employment, we are making steady progress in our training programs to open up to women a wider range of training leading to more diversified fields of employment. Elimination of the three-year rule is resulting in a substantial increase in female trainees. Again, we have established a specialized capability in our departmental headquarters to plan and develop the application of our services to female clients. I will be pleased to elaborate on these activities at the first opportunity.
I am sure many hon. members know that I have a particular interest in the problems of our native people. I am anxious to ensure that they have equal access to Manpower programs and services and that their special needs are understood and met. LIP has been particularly beneficial to native groups. We have been impressed by the quality of the projects and the responsible manner in which they were carried out. I expect our new special programs for workers with particular employment problems will also be of particular benefit to natives. We also intend to increase the number of native Manpower counsellors either on our staff or under contract to our CMCs to better administer and interpret our services to natives.
In the short time available to me I have been able to touch upon only a few aspects of our new approach. I look forward to a comprehensive examination and discussion of these matters when my department's estimates are before the committee. I appreciate the indulgence of the House in allowing me to continue past the time allotted to me. I have tried to condense my observations, in these circumstances. I look forward to the opportunity of dealing with these matters in more detail when my estimates are before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, at which time I hope to have the advice of members of the committee as to ways in which we can continue to improve our approach to job finding and job training, as well as other aspects of the work of my department.
March 12, 1973

I realize reference has been made in this debate to the UIC benefit control operation now under way in the country. As I promised hon. members the other day, I intend to make a statement on this subject tomorrow. I therefore seek the indulgence of hon. members to conclude my remarks without further reference to this matter tonight. As I say, I shall likely be bringing this motion before the House within the next 24 or 48 hours.


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If my fellow-members in the House should agree unanimously, I suggest that from now until the end of this debate speeches be limited to 15 minutes each, in order to allow more members to speak on this most interesting motion by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has six names before it-the hon. members for Parry Sound-Muskoka, Niagara Falls, Saint-Hyacinthe, Scarborough West, Roberval and Bellechasse. The time remaining is 81 minutes. If each hon. member agrees to speak for 13] minutes, everyone can be accommodated before ten o'clock. Is this agreeable?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Agreed.


Thomas Lefebvre: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, we have one other speaker on this side, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance who has a speech of about ten minutes to make.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I should like to speak to the point of order. I think we all wanted to hear what the Minister of Manpower and Immigration had to say; he exceeded his time with our consent. I think it is necessary that hon. members on this side and in the Social Credit Party should have an opportunity of stating their views. I would hope that the parliamentary secretary might speak on another occasion. I shall sit down now, and agree to the 13] minutes so that the six members can have an opportunity to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has taken into account the fact that some members have been entitled to speak at greater length than others. If the parliamentary secretary were to speak for 11 minutes, we could accommodate everybody.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: No. The minister took extra time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair does not intend to negotiate. Perhaps someone could suggest a better way.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If what Your Honour suggests does in fact happen, we will agree.
Unemployment


André-Gilles Fortin: Do I take it, Mr. Speaker, that henceforth speeches are to be limited to 11 minutes?


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Yes, 11 minutes. Agreed. [English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed? Eleven minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, despite the many plans to reduce unemployment outlined by the government in the various programs it has put forward, as well as in the budget, unemployment is still with us and rearing its ugly head as high as ever.
Many of us are aware that a small percentage have unlawfully milked the unemployment insurance fund. It is only right and just that they should be ferreted out and brought to task. However, in doing so many legitimate claims have either been delayed or stopped, causing severe hardship to families in dire need, especially at this time of year. The skyrocketing price of food has added to the misery of those in need.
I read recently the report of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) who stated that one-third of the families in rural Canada live in poverty. He quoted Statistics Canada as stating that 32 per cent of families in rural areas in 1971, the last year for which statistics are available, had incomes below the so-called low income line. The figure for 1969 was 36 per cent. While the situation has improved slightly for families, for unattached individuals it is even worse. Of such individuals, 56.1 per cent were below the low income line of $2,013 in 1971, while 50.4 per cent were below the 1969 line of $1,894. It is up to us to try to find jobs for these people so they may regain their self-respect.
We hear about pockets of poverty and disparity throughout this great country. Some planners have suggested that the people to whom I have referred be uprooted and moved to urban areas to find work. These people do not want to leave their homes and friends to live in concrete jungles. Furthermore, this is no solution as it would aggravate the urban housing problem, where land is at a premium, and any new housing would be beyond their means. Surely a more sensible and cheaper plan would be to provide jobs in rural Canada.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) could come to the fore in this regard by giving us the suggestions which I understand will be forthcoming to provide new guidelines which I hope will bring in new areas of rural Canada which are no longer eligible. I can certainly speak with some authority on this matter because in my own region of Parry Sound-Muskoka the economic situation is very poor and we are no longer designated. Instead of hearing about the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, it is about time something was done to change this title or create a new minister of rural affairs. We always hear about the great cities. It is about time somebody spoke up for rural Canada.

March 12, 1973
Unemployment


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: It is in this area that the economy needs to be bolstered. There is no problem of land banks being needed in these areas to try to assemble land: there is all sorts of land. What they need are regular banks which will provide funds for jobs, housing, small industry, and so on. This is a must. This would keep our people in familiar surroundings where they are much happier. More jobs would be provided by our many businessmen as increases in sales and services warranted.
This morning I heard His Worship Mayor Drapeau on television giving a patriotic pitch for the great city of Montreal. He stated at the top of his voice, "We are number one". However, it was pointed out to him that number two was breathing hotly down his back and that the great city of Toronto would probably be passing Montreal before very long. The mayor said everything indicates that the people are leaving rural Canada and are heading to the big cities. The federal and provincial governments must take steps to stop the steady migration to our larger cities.
The many land controls are hurting small municipalities the most, much more than the larger cities. Little or no building is allowed, because it does not conform to the master plan. As a result, many small contractors and carpenters are sitting around doing nothing. Their employees are drawing unemployment insurance. All this is because they cannot get their lots approved. The situation would be much easier if these lots were approved. They are satisfactory in all respects; however, they are held up by government red tape, planners and civil servants some of whom are neither civil nor servants.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: This particular time of year, with what seems to be the spring breakup at hand, is the most serious for high unemployment in my constituency. I am quite sure the same situation prevails in a great many other rural constituencies. Lumbering in the bush is finished; tourist operators who cater to snowmobilers will not have any more visitors until the fishing season opens.
I checked with the Parry Sound office today. I was told that there are over 900 on the unemployment rolls. The total population of the area is quite small. There is a real problem there with girls-and I do not mean in the way some people might think. There is a problem of providing jobs for the female population. I am told that some did accept work outdoors, cutting and piling brush. They are to be commended for this; it shows the type of energetic people there are in my constituency. If the local Manpower authorities were given discretionary power to work out some plan with tourist operators and service industries whereby these girls could be paid part unemployment insurance benefits, and the employer part, they would be hired ahead of time to fix up tourist establishments, painting and for other things. Everyone would benefit. It could be said that we would be subsidizing an employer and he would be paying less than the minimum wage, but surely something could be done about this. The local Manpower office could have authority to investigate these cases and to ensure there were not any abuses.

I am aware that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) has a tough job. I listened to his remarks. He is to be commended for doing a pretty good job, but he has to sell more than himself. I remember seeing a movie many years ago; I think it was entitled "The Unholy Three". I suggest that the three who are holding up a great deal of the growth in rural Canada are the following: the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. If these three could be sold the idea of disgorging some of their untold millions to provide jobs and industry in rural Canada, it would greatly help the unemployment problem. It would also help the large cities, because they do not want more people looking for jobs.
I understand I have another two minutes, Mr. Speaker. I will let someone else use them. We all know the problem: we all see the headlines which state that the number one target is jobs. The real issue is jobs. The lists of jobless soar; that is the problem in a nutshell. We require more jobs, particularly in rural Canada.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues not to applaud too long, because I am only allowed ten minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that there was earlier some kind of misunderstanding, I believe. I had been asked, as a special favour, not to take the floor before six o'clock, in order to enable the minister to make his speech, and I was supposed to speak after him. I suggest that you were not aware of this agreement, Mr. Speaker; at any rate, I am the second member to take the floor after the minister and I am satisfied with my lot.
I listened with great interest to the minister's statement about unemployment. I suggest that had he had more time, he might have talked about the other part of this motion which bears on the mismanagement of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Nevertheless, the minister did say that unemployment is a disease that we must try to cure and, as a remedy, he suggested what the present government has always proposed, namely grants to industry, to local initiatives projects, to the Opportunities for Youth program, etc.
But this is not what will solve the problem of unemployment. Unemployment is not a disease by itself; it is only the result of over-production, of automation. Let us not forget it: unemployment is not a disease but a normal consequence. This problem must be solved through amendments to the act in order to enable the people to contribute to our country's wealth.
This is not a matter of full employment, Mr. Speaker. Full employment will never exist in the future. Today, just like before, we are told again and again: we must earn our living through our work. The minister, I suggest, still believes in it. Let us concern ourselves with the garanteed income, which will solve the unemployment problem, rather than with full employment. From what the minister said, you would think we are still in the 50's when work equalled production. Today, work is roughly 30 per cent manpower. It is that 70 per cent that needs to be redis-
March 12, 1973

tributed and it will not be redistributed by taxing those who have the chance to work in order to try and give a little money to the others and doing everything for the big interests which are presently running the country. We are giving all possible protection to big capital which is stockpiling the incomes of the country by the billions and we let the people drift by shouting at them: We are going to create employment. Let us stop this nonsense and start thinking not in terms of stop gap measures but in terms of long term remedies.
I suggested recently as a long term remedy to bring about massive relocations to allow society and individuals to reach consumption. I suggested for example to grant the old age security pension at 60. This way we could put 400,000 workers on retirement, and 400,000 unemployed could draw their living from industry.
That is what we call long-term reforms which would really remove the unemployment plague. In fact, I think that by taking such logical steps in order to ensure a minimum guaranteed income for everybody, we would apply an efficient measure.
I shall not dwell on this because I would like to deal with another subject. But when the hon. minister says that the number of jobs is increasing, he should add that it is because automation has been discarded. We have now stopped progressing because the more a country progresses, the more unemployment increases if we keep the same system. That is why it is absolutely ncessary to find other horizons and not be afraid to replace old methods by new ones. It has been done at the level of production. Why should we not do it at the level of redistribution? The state is such at a loss when it comes to redistributing, that one would think we were back in the starvation years. No, we are in a period of overproduction. Surpluses everywhere. Let us find means of redistributing this overproduction.
Mr. Speaker if I go on talking on unemployment and all the unemployment insurance offices, I shall not have time to say a word on unemployment insurance itself which should be my main subject this evening. I have been wanting to talk on this subject in the House for a long time, since the beginning of the session. Concerning the unemployment insurance about which everybody complains we wonder who is responsible. I say the main responsibility first lies with super-centralization both in Quebec and in all the other provinces. I think we have caught the virus of technology. We want to mechanize everything, we want to "electronize" everything in the shortest time period possible without thinking of the consequences. They have also succeeded in dehumanizing everything. It is the greatest social disaster of our age.
The first result of all that is the astronomical cost of administration, in which personnel is increasing constantly. I heard the minister saying just now that the largest increase in employment has been in administration, although the government tried to have us believe that automation would probably reduce it. This can also be attributed to ignorance on the part of promoters and of the machine operators or so-called technicians in these administrative centres. I believe that it is in computer centres such as the one in Montreal that the biggest mistakes are made. When I heard that they were going to
Unemployment
employ 133 new inspectors to seek out offences by the general population, I felt that they would have done better to send those 133 employees to work their infernal machines in Montreal, and look for the mistakes there.
That is where the real mistakes are, Mr. Speaker. Last winter, for instance, I have seen series of $500 and $600 cheques made in duplicate and sent in duplicate to the same unemployed worker. This was not done purposely by the recipient but by the Montreal centre which sent the cheques. When the worker was complaining too much the order was given to issue cheques and I have seen series of $500, $800, and $900 cheques issued in duplicate. And now we hear of overpayments. So as to cover up this affair, inspectors are dispatched to inquire from the unemployment workers and try to find out something.
We have reached the point where we no longer have time to do our job as members of Parliament. We have turned into employees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. At home on weekends as early as ten o'clock on Saturday mornings I start working in unemployment insurance until midnight; on Sundays I start again as soon as I get up until six o'clock and then I board the 6:30 train to Ottawa.
In my opinion the current situation can be corrected. I think that the government has been had by the computer manufacturers and here is proof. I had question No. 1172 put on the order paper to know more about it. It is impossible to have further information elsewhere in connection with those computers. I have asked the following question:
1.	Were the computers installed in five Unemployment Insurance Commission head offices (Moncton, Belleville, Montreal, Vancouver, Winnipeg) purchased or rented?
This is what I would like to know. What deals were made in connection with those machines? And I further quote:
2.	(a) On what date were they purchased or rented (b) were they new or second-hand (c) at what price (d) if paid by instalments, under what terms and at what interest rate (e) how much was paid for maintenance from the date of purchase to December 31, 1972 (f) how many persons did these computers replace (g) how much was paid to American experts for the installation of these computers (h) how many people are assigned to maintenance?
Because we had not one single expert in Quebec able to operate those computers.


Mr. Joe Hueglin (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you upon your election to office and the manner in which you and your deputies act as guides to those who are new to the customs and traditions of this House. It is indeed well to be led by men such as yourself in these ways.
I support strongly the statement made in this want of confidence motion. The government has not taken effective measures to provide more long-term jobs. This government has consistently refused to cut taxes sufficiently to stimulate the economy. It persists in taking millions of dollars, indeed hundreds of millions of dollars, from the private sector for its own use at a rate much higher than any industry would dare.

March 12, 1973
Unemployment
The short-term programs, at least in my riding of Niagara Falls, have been at best a mixed blessing and at worst failures. We had one Opportunities for Youth program that was carried over this past winter into a local initiatives program. What this program did-I spoke with the young people last Friday-was create a dependency among the senior citizens, a dependency which they did not feel before as deeply as they will when the program is phased out. The young people are discouraged and cynical, and the old people will be left with nothing.
For two years a patrol has existed on the Chippawa Creek. This program, too, is being phased out. It was an active life-saving venture. Tourists come from all over the world to visit Niagara Falls, but I am informed that this program will not be repeated. A local church commenced a local initiatives program last winter. The work was done and the church was completed but unfortunately, due to some administrative bungling, this group is involved in a big dispute with the LIP people. Certainly this is not very conducive to confidence in the government or the system.
During the election I had the opportunity to visit a factory in Fort Erie which at one time employed 3,000 men, yet for two years it has not been able to do very much because this administration cannot make up its mind about STOL aircraft. The men involved sought out an on the job training program but were informed that they could not carry it out in the proven way. This whole matter goes back to World War II, but this program must be worked into the inflexible patterns of the government and training is required before on-the-job training can be obtained. They cannot include such training through this program and bring employment to Fort Erie.
That is the pattern in the Niagara riding. It is a pattern of short-term job creation that does some good but also leaves tragedy in its wake for the old and the young. It seems that the patterns that have proved of use can no longer be followed. I am certain this pattern is duplicated in cities, towns and villages across the country.
There are 17,000 unemployed in the Niagara region, yet men speak to me on each side of the coin. They speak to me as unemployed and as employer. The unemployed and the employer alike never seem to indicate that they received a man through Manpower, or a job through Manpower, and many people have phoned and told me they had to phene Office Overload in order to get a job. Perhaps the free enterprise system could do somewhat better than this system appears to be doing.
It was rather interesting last week to note that one of the ministers made a foray into the last Liberal area of this peninsula, the whole of which was a Liberal stronghold before the last election. He said we were obstructionists and put forth no policies. We have put forth two practical policies. We have recommended massive tax cuts to stimulate production, not just to give a warm bath but to give great stimulus followed by the realization that you have to put this stimulation into productivity, not into inflation.
The Liberals ignored our other platforms, at least until the cold shock of October 30, and are now calling our policies billion dollar giveaways, or so their lord and master said last week. One of these days they will accept

these policies just as they have accepted the constant dollar theory and others we have presented in the past.
What is needed is a workable job-employee matching service and the return of local decision-making to the Unemployment Insurance Commission so the officials can sign cheques for the people, rather than having to send them away to the computers be they at Belleville, Montreal or wherever. There has to be some discretion in the hands of our experienced and very excellent civil servants such as those we have in the Niagara Falls area. Short-term solutions are no solutions at all. They just draw the people out of the work force and phase down the statistics. And even then, unemployment has not dropped to the level of 6 per cent for any length of time.
The people of the Niagara Falls riding need a bold frontal attack on unemployment through job creation in the private sector. Successive Liberal budgets have promised, but have failed to do this. Successive Liberal ministers have stated that all will be well, but the land is still not strong. I would suggest that until we have a more dynamic program, the people of the Niagara Peninsula, of Ontario and of Canada will suffer what this motion refers to-lack of initiative and lack of any programs on the part of this government.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I spent a considerable amount of time today trying to condense into 20 minutes what would really take several hours to discuss. A few minutes ago I heard I would be limited to 15 minutes, then to 11 minutes, and I have since been scratching up my notes into iambic pentameters. This probably would produce some self-discipline, but I must report to you and hon. members that I have not succeeded and what you will have to face for a while is a very severe and rather rapid condensation of a great number of points.


An hon. Member:: The normal NDP pattern.


John Paul Harney: I should like to tell my Creditiste friends that I hope they appreciate the fact that I put forward socialist points to their credit. Even though this is their motion, I hope they will allow me.

I was intrigued by the minister's statement, and that is another element which has thrown my notes into a jumble. I think his statement was indeed well meaning and, if anything, liberal with a capital "L" as well as a small "1". We were told by the minister that unemployment is a problem compounded of many factors-seasonal factors, regional factors, structural factors and factors which could be called generally social factors such as the matter of discrimination against certain types of people who are looking for employment. This is very very good, but not very new because we have been entertaining measures in this House for many years in this kind of categorization.
In the early 1960s we were able to look at the whole problem of unemployment and break it down into certain factors. Not only were we presented with these factors but
March 12, 1973

were presented also with traditional solutions. There was a certain amount of talk about the effects of fiscal and monetary policies needed to stimulate the economy, some reference back to the budget and some mention of policies which the minister himself admitted were in effect band-aid policies. There was even an admission that we had in our society what could be called and what was indeed called hard-core unemployment. It is very good that we recognize the existence of hard-core unemployment just as in our society we have come to recognize the existence of hard-core pornography. If we can face up to a fact perhaps we will do something about it. I presume we do not want to carry that analogy too far, but at any rate I believe hon. members get my point.
For a moment I should like to dwell on the matter of expansionary policies, not only because it is mentioned on the other side of the House but also because it is a frequent topic used by my colleagues in this corner. It is getting to be a fact that many modern economists, if very few modern politicians, now realize that the effect of expansionist policies is on the price level or the exchange rate rather than on the real things such as output, employment or unemployment.
What I am suggesting is that we may be all kidding ourselves that we are making the world better by tinkering with the model we have in our minds about the economy. Surely after the all these years of tinkering in this fashion and involving ourselves in expansionist and eoun-tractionist policies, consumptionist policies and overcon-sumptionist policies, we should know that we still have not attacked the basic problem. For the past dozen years or more we have had a fairly steady and rather obscene level of unemployment in this country. All the good intentions of the government which we have witnessed, and indeed the criticisms of government policy, have not done very much to reduce this level of unemployment.
Almost all public and private effort is designed to increase production and productivity. Let us admit that, whether the government side of the House says we shall take these measures to increase productivity and production, or whether this side of the House says, "All right, fellows; move over and we will do it even better than you can", we must face up to the very simple conclusion that if we increase production and productivity we will also increase unemployment. It is as sure as night follows the day that if we put better and more capitalization into industry, industry of course will use this capital to buy machinery, which has the purpose of increasing productivity which means, in other terms, the purpose of decreasing the number of jobs. So perhaps we should now, at this time in our history, start asking ourselves whether the very language we use in speaking about this problem is fitting and proper language.
For example, here is some heresy. Unemployment as such is not bad: what is bad is not having any money or not being paid. There are many people in our society who are unemployed or underemployed, but who are paid. I need not go through a list, but you can imagine the categories I have in mind as well as I can. They manage to live in effective human dignity while being unemployed or underemployed but relatively well paid. What we have to look at, really, is not simply the matter of job creation but
Unemployment
what we do with the leisure we are creating with all our new measures to increase capitalization and productivity. In other words if we can believe that our present unemployment is good for the rich, then it should also be very good for the poor.
One thing our advance is producing is the release of people from the necessity of working in the production of goods and services that we absolutely need in society. As people are being released from the need and the necessity to provide our standard of living and means of subsistence of course they are being displaced into another sector. Thank God that the system now provides for most of them and if their work is not needed in one sector they are taken up by another sector, the private sector in the main, and given jobs so that they can earn remuneration to buy the products of our society.
The problem with this kind of release and redirection of personnel is, first of all, that it is not very rational and, secondly, that it does not work toward increasing the quality of our lives. For example, if we reduce the number of people needed in basic production, they can go to the service industries and rather than working in essential and valuable areas we find them employed more and more in areas that, at best, do not enhance the quality of existence but increase the banality of existence. I can foresee many people being released from the drudgery of boring, productive activity working to build a society which is surfeited by an endless plethora of Kentucky-fried chicken stands.
Let us see if we can look at a few basic notions which might help us tackle this problem. First of all, let us try to spread the employment around. Why not have voluntary retirement at age 60? Why not have a sabbatical year for working people? As an academic, I always had the possibility in the future of having a sabbatical year. If it is good for me and for my colleagues, then it should be good for working people. Why should we not look at this way of spreading employment around? Why not begin to redefine what we mean by a regular job. Does a man have to work in the same factory 40 hours a week for 50 weeks of the year, or is there another way to approach what is meant by a regular job so that a young person, for example, could work less than that but work as part of a family unit, so that the young man and young woman could at least say they hold down regular jobs which give them the benefit of pensions, security, unemployment insurance, health premium payments, and so on? I would strongly suggest that such an approach would do much more to liberate women than the rather brief suggestions the minister made on that topic in his address.
If we spread employment around, we should think of spreading the pay around. It is strange that when talking about unemployment, employment and remuneration we hear nothing more these days about a good minimum wage. In my view, a good minimum wage is one which is so high that certain sectors of our economy scream. If it is not that high, it is not an effective minimum wage. I would like to talk about one point made by the author Paul Goodman. He said that the more a person's work is hard, the more a person's work is useful and necessary, the more a person's work is in the public realm, the less that person gets paid. Surely if this House really cares about

March 12, 1973
Unemployment
helping out the people who are the working poor, and the poor, they would do something significant about spreading the pay around and increasing the minimum wage standard.
We hear of all kinds of band-aid philosophies and floss programs, the sort of unemployment, worklessness and paylessness we have should make us realize that people want a job they can do, at pay which will allow them to live decently. It is no more complicated than that. That should be our basic objective.
When it comes to jobs that people can do, you will ask: How do we create the jobs? The need for jobs is there. There is all kinds of work that can be done in our society and all kinds of new services that can be effectively provided, but the fact is that the effective demand is not there. Since we are in the habit of borrowing ideas from the south, we can borrow one idea that has been emerging there in the past few years, that is, the notion of the state as employer of last resort.
Mr. Speaker, if you will not rise from your chair for thirty seconds, I will complete what I am saying. The state, at the federal, municipal and provincial levels could direct, through itself, people who want to be involved in work into all kinds of projects organized, not necessarily by the state itself but by the various voluntary associations in our society, such as the churches, and so on, and effectively hire people at this minimum wage. I will end by giving you one figure, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I wish I could allow the hon. member to pursue his statement and give him one extra minute, but I want to be fair to other hon. members and we have accepted the rule of 11 minutes for each member.


Mr. I.-Roland Comtois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, on last Tuesday, March 6, the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) introduced the following motion. I quote:
That this House expresses its lack of confidence that the combination of the corporate tax reductions and accelerated depreciation write-offs contained in the Budget of May, 1972 and proposals contained in the Budget of February, 1973 constitutes an adequate and equitable response to the needs of the country.
Today, we have the following motion proposed by the hon. member for Abitibi:
That this House deplores the continuous increase in unemployment, as well as the refusal or negligence of the Government to propose effective measures for providing more jobs of a remunerative character for Canadians, and condemns the existing authorities for imposing or tolerating quasirepressive measures affecting citizens who merely want to see respected their fundamental right to a decent standard of living and their personal dignity and to live in a climate of freedom and security.
Both motions are strangely similar and they are using up two debating days which are not producing much that is new or constructive on the part of the opposition parties.
I would like to refer to the budget speech of May 8, 1972 which said that the government's responsibility to Canadians was to protect already existing jobs, to look for means

to increase them and consider the situation in other countries of the world.
Then it was easy to see that a new protectionist instinct prevailed in the United States which was and is still trying to protect its trade and dollar; that the European Common Market-of which Great Britain has now become a member-was in full expansion and that some of our most traditional trade relations were in danger; that Japan had come back to life and that we, whose survival depends on international trade, were right in the middle of it all.
In fact, on each dollar that we put in our pockets or purses, 25 cents come from our exports. So our economy is vulnerable and Canadian prosperity depends on our capacity to compete against Europe, the United States and Japan, not only on foreign but also on domestic markets because of our imports. And to compete with other countries our businesses must be in a strong position vis-a-vis those other countries.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, the budget introduced in May last provided incentives to industry and manufacturing fighting against world competition in the form of a 40 per cent reduction in their tax rate. It was not intended as a gift or social aid but to allow Canadians to survive, compete and expand so they can have competitive prices, create jobs, sell on foreign markets and earn this quarter of each dollar which allows us to live and prosper.
As far as the various industrial incentives go, whether they are found in our tax system or in the form of regional incentives intended to give equal job opportunities across Canada, some have called them "corporate welfare" and their recipients "corporate welfare bums". In any case I do not like those expressions, whether they are applied to corporations or people.
Moreover, the basic goal pursued by the federal system through taxation of business concerns and a wide range of government policies and programs to stimulate Canadian industry is not social assistance to companies, but the welfare of the people. The main objective of all such measures is to help Canadian industry achieve some specific goals.
As I said earlier, the first objective is to meet increasingly keen competition from foreign companies in both domestic and foreign markets.
In the second place, we want to assist Canadian firms in modernising their facilities, increasing their productivity and bringing down their costs in order that they may compete more successfully with other countries. We want to enable them to manufacture new and improved products and to develop peak techniques, living as we do in an era of technology.
Finally we want to help Canadian firms to offer better job opportunities throughout Canada.
For instance, Mr. Speaker, those steps are basically meant to enable Canadian industries to increase their production and their investments with a view to creating, immediately, productive, permanent and remunerative jobs for our ever increasing labour force. In Canada, it is the private sector and not the governments which constitutes the real element of growth in production, jobs and true income.
March 12, 1973

Some claim that government measures and programs have been a complete disaster in terms of creating new jobs. I say to them that Canada is doubtless facing one of the toughest economic challenges in the world: the number of men and women, and more specifically of young men and young women, entering the labour market is growing much more rapidly than in any other country in the world.
Let me quote a few figures that clearly illustrate the challenge we face. From 1965 to 1970, that is a period of six years, our labour force grew by 1,440,000 new workers, in other words by 20 per cent. That increase of 1,440,000 workers over a six-year period exceeded by 100,000 workers the total increase, not on a percentage basis but in absolute terms, of the 15 most important industrialized countries in Europe. I am speaking of countries like England, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden.
In other words, our labour force comprised 100,000 more job seekers than the total number of newcomers on the labour market in 15 European countries, whose total population is 13 times and a half larger than ours. Such is the economical problem caused by the arrival of newcomers on the labour market.
And how many jobs have we created during that same period? From 1965 to 1970, we created 1,300,000 new jobs in Canada. We have offered 400,000 more jobs than the 15 European countries taken together whose population is 13 times and half larger than ours.
What a tremendous challenge it was and still is; and the present government and the whole country have succeeded in taking up the most important economical challenge ever faced by the world. In relative figures, employment has increased 57 times faster in Canada than in the United States, twice as fast than in Japan, seven times faster than in Germany and 27 times faster than in the 15 European countries I have mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, in order to guarantee their jobs to hundreds of thousands of Canadians throughout the country, the federal government must at all cost implement the measures advocated in the budget of last May. Many of them are essential if industry is to compete with foreign companies enjoying the generous support of their own government. This is specially true in the areas of the country where economic growth and affluence depend essentially on the development of natural resources or in the areas where the federal government must grant special aid to ensure the development of secondary industries.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this new plan has been designed to create a better balance between the need to preserve an atmosphere conducive to economic growth and the need to establish a more equitable tax system for all Canadian taxpayers. In last May's budget, there were also other social measures that have been increased in the budget of February 19. I would like to go quickly through the important points of this budget which has been called a budget for the Canadian family. For all taxpayers, there has been a 5 per cent tax reduction with a minimum of at least $100 and a maximum of $500. The basic exemption has gone up from $1,500 to $1,600 for single people and
Unemployment
from $2,850 to $3,000 for married couples. So, Mr. Speaker, 750,000 Canadians will not have to pay federal income tax.
The basic old age security pension has been increased. From April 1, it will go from $82.88 to $100 a month and the guaranteed income supplement added to the basic pension will make a total of $170. The guaranteed income for old age couples will be $325. Our system of guaranteed income for old people is the best in the world.
Moreover, in last February's budget, it was proposed to increase veterans' allowances to at least $151 for single people and to $257 for married couples.
Also, Mr. Speaker, for the Canadian consumer in general, we have abolished the federal tax on children's clothing and shoes. We have also abolished the federal tax on consumer goods such as clocks, toilet articles, cosmetics; we also have abolished the federal tax on confectioneries, soft drinks and fruit drinks; we have reduced customs duties on meats, out-of-season fruits and vegetables; we have also reduced customs duties on consumer goods that are not made in Canada such as drug, china, furniture, etc. All this, Mr. Speaker, in order to give-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I must interrupt the parliamentary secretary to remind him that his time is now expired.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that in moving such a motion our Social Credit friends are giving us the opportunity to make known to the government our position and reactions with regard to the high unemployment rate in this country. I am also glad to see that the Quebeckers are rising to condemn the nonchalance and carelessness of the present government.
Naturally, it is not from the ranks of the opposite side that has come the censure of the government policy. This is obvious. Mr. Speaker, it seems evident that for our friends on the other side Quebec will never be anything but a producer of Parliament members.
As soon as the Speech from the Throne was presented and even recently when the budget was debated, we expressed the most severe criticisms against the government because of its inability, which is almost built-in, to put back on its feet the economy of Canada as a whole and of Quebec in particular.
The "just society" they talked to us about, the "just society" they take care not to mention today, has produced an unemployment rate which can rightly be described as having only increased regional disparities in Canada during the last five years.
In Quebec, unemployment rate was 6.5 per cent in 1968, 6.9 per cent in 1969, 7.9 per cent in 1970, 8.2 per cent in 1971, 8.6 per cent in 1972 and, as our colleagues opposite would say-"To keep is strong"-the rate reached the shocking level of 10.2 per cent in January 1973.,,
Mr. Speaker, it is not because the Quebec ministers of State, among others, will get shortly a salary increase that will place them above their federal colleagues that one must believe that Quebec has solved its economic problems. Far from it! That example only shows the Liberal congenital helplessness when it comes to identifying genuine priorities.

March 12, 1973
Unemployment
What picture can we now draw of the province of Quebec? Its industrial production grows at a much slower rate than elsewhere; there is a 10.2 per cent rate of unemployment in Quebec; areas like the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspe peninsula are being deserted by their inhabitants because cost-shared development programs produced more red tape troubles than realistic solutions. Its agriculture is deteriorating-whether in the Eastern Townships, in the lake Saint-Jean area or elsewhere- because of the lack of a three-or five-year milk policy plan and because of the government's delay in solving the vital problem of feed grains in the East. Therefore, young farmers are deserting the farms and will sooner or later increase the number of unemployed people in cities.
In another field, industries such as the shoe industry, are running to seed in Quebec for the benefit of an ill-disciplined impor policy; youg people by the thousands are coming out every year of the CEGEPs and specialized schools only to find themselves face to face with the spectre of unemployment for the white collar workers; a small private business staggering with great difficulty in St. Hyacinthe or elsewhere and which sees large multinational corporations receive substantial grants without creating, in many cases, any new jobs.
That is the economic picture in Quebec. And brother governments-brothers in the election fund as well as in the arrogance that power gives them-are content with slogans like 100,000 jobs in April 1970 and 300,000 jobs in February 1973 without giving any concrete specific plan on which to base their forecasts.
The past speaks for the future and the people of Canada, in Quebec as elsewhere, have no more reason to believe in the favorable results of the recent budget then they had in those of previous budgets. We know it now, the new budget is even less expansionary than that of May 1972 considering the present political and economic context.
On the short run in 1973-because it is in 1973 that thousands of families in Quebec as well as elsewhere in this country are affected in their cost of living as well as their human dignity by unemployment-this government is satisfied, as we have seen, with a shy winter works program, some capital injected in programs which are really more of a plaster than a valuable plan of action.
It was indeed rather later before this government launched its winter works program, so late that provincial government and municipalities, particularly in Quebec, could no longer plan seriously any efficient program for 1972-73. No planning with this government. And instead of laughing at the winter works programs advocated by the Official Opposition this government should have used its energies to plan them a year ahead as we advocated during the last election campaign
Mr. Speaker, we have already committed ourselves to providing small Canadian businesses with direct incentives to promote their expansion, to increase progress opportunities and create more jobs. We have proposed to allow Canadian citizens to deduct from their income taxes half of any amount up to $5,000 which would be invested in small Canadian businesses. And in this manner, personal income tax could be brought down to $2,500 for the full life of the investment. This investment credit program would aim to encourage investments in small businesses and stimulate their expansion.
Small business, in Canada, is a vital sector of our economy, consuming more goods and services, paying more taxes and creating more jobs than any other sector. This pattern would be both an incentive and an inspiration for the youth of our country which is asking only for new opportunities, new careers. And we should take into consideration, Mr. Speaker, that half of those who are seeking work in Canada are young people under 25.
That was an example of concrete remedial action in the framework of our program, and a demonstration of the urgent necessity for replacement of the present government team.
Mr. Speaker, unless we are prepared to see an increase in the number of those who are discontented, disillusioned and anarchists, and to risk recurrences o&Jhe events of October 1970-I say so earnestly and vigorously-the time has come for decisions of the kind I have just outlined.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada, and those of Quebec particularly, are weary of being bandied from one level of government to another, from one election to the next, from one slogan to another.
With regard to current unemployment, especially in Quebec, it is true that, to borrow the words of the fabulist, all do not die, but-for the time being-all are stricken.
The whole country, Mr. Speaker, is looking forward to the advent of a humane government, that is aware of the ills of the day and that is capable of daring.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to congratulate my colleague from Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), mover of the motion, on his excellent speech. To my mind, his was most constructive criticism and he suggested sound solutions. Whatever one may think, on rereading his speech, one realizes that it is really chockfull of ideas, including new suggestions to solve the problem now under discussion.
I must say also that I endorse his suggestions. I urge the government to consider and implement them as soon as possible: time is running short. At this point, in conscience we all have the imperative duty to help resolutely to solve the economic problem which distresses us. The suffering experienced by a vast number of families makes it rank first amongst our priorities and endows it with a sacred character. One only has to live in an area where unemployment is high and incomes are very low to be convinced of it.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with one specific issue in the little time available to me, that is the Local Initiatives Program as a means to curb unemployment by creating new jobs.
The former Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) stated rightly, during the last Parliament, that the program was directly intended to create jobs and thus provide direct income to those who did not have enough.
As it happened, the government widely advertised the program, raising many hopes in every area by suggesting

March 12, 1973

that the new policy would create many jobs by implementing various community works which can only be launched with grants offered under the program. The people believed in the sincerity of the government. Then serious projects were submitted from all areas, but too many were rejected without a valid reason being given to warrant this refusal. We Social Credit party members very well know that this refusal is basically due to a lack of money, the fact that credits have run out. And when the minister sees his funds have run out, he suffers from anaemia and he must turn down projects. This is what happens in many cases under the Local Initiatives Program.
Thus, discontent, division, jealousy sprang up among people when noticing that such or such project was approved rather than another. Mr. Speaker, as an example I would like to quote a letter I received today from the good reverend of a parish struggling with misery and poverty. I am speaking of Sainte-Apolline in my riding, a parish of 1,000 to 1,200 souls, a great number of whom are on welfare. So, faithful to my mandate, I make it a point of duty to be his spokesman because he says in his letter to me, and I quote:
I have just received from the Department of Manpower and Immigration a reply concerning the project which the Fabrique de Ste-Apolline has proposed under the Local Initiatives Program.
This year as last year, the department's reply was no.
Last year, the reply was negative, as it is this year.
The municipality of Sainte-Apolline has obtained the same reply as the Church Council, and this also for the second consecutive year.
I am extremely sorry about that.
Recently, on a recent TV program Politique Atout, Mr. Mar-chand spoke of distributive justice. These are fancy words, but the facts are altogether different. Last year, in our area, the parishes of Saint-Marcel, Saint-Just and Berthier obtained funds allowing them to achieve their respective projects. This year, the same parishes again get their funds for their projects. This is probably the new distributive justice, that is always giving to the same people, to the friends ... ? Who knows?
The points of suspension are quite meaningful.
Still more surprising is the fact that the parish of Berthier obtained last year a second budget to complete its project whereas, previously, for us the reply had been that the program budget was exhausted. Do they think that we are crazy? They know that that we cannot voice our opinion and they take advantage of it.
When I received the department's reply, I received at the same time a poster from the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (an organization devoted to the underprivileged countries). I am sending it to you. All that is written on it concerns our condition, except that we must get out of it by ourselves. We can rely on nobody else. We should like to develop our area also, but our government refuses to help us because we represent nor a political gain nor a future market. In fact, our position is worse than that of the underdeveloped countries. Unfortunately, we are Canadians.
As I said above, we have nobody to speak on our behalf. Unlike the underdeveloped countries we do not have organizations as Development and Peace to carry our message. We still have the hon. member for our riding. Will you care to give us a voice, to transmit our message to those hon. members of Parliament? You 25789-63
Unemployment
may even invite them to come and visit us. But who will? This is what is so sad about it: we are not recognized.
Thank you for reading this letter to the end.
Denis Lepage, cure of Ste. Apolline,
Montmagny.
Your message has been conveyed, Father. And I shall go on fighting to get something for your area, as for all areas in my constituency, in my province and in my country.
What were these people asking for? The renovation of a hall for community meetings, for young people's recreation, for older people to meet in order to know and understand one another better and spend as much time as possible working for their salvation and achieving material things with the resources of the community.
What was needed for the municipality's project? Help in developing these surroundings, which are most suitable for the tourist industry. So there were two very sound projects.
Mr. Speaker, this Protestant minister is right in what he says about the third world. I have spoken about it several times, not only in the House but whereever I have had the opportunity of meeting the population, so as to arouse the sense of responsibility of those who have power over this third world that we rub shoulders with every day without really noticing. It is a third world within our national boundaries.
I saw the Local Initiative Programme as an invitation to youth, to those still capable of achieving something with financial assistance from the State, and as an encouragement to return to work, that work ethic which is alas disappearing, but which is a formidable God-given tool for making into "retail" what He put "wholesale" on earth. Whatever the nature of our activities, whatever the field in which we work, work has always been and will always be a tool to enable us to achieve something, and that is what these people want.
I therefore call on the government to make considerable extra funds available to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), so that he and his officials may in turn approve more projects, and so that the selection of these projects will not be subject to political pressures. But some advice should be sought at the source of the projects, from the persons responsible within the organizations, the intermediate bodies and the municipal councils. They are the ones who are in a position to advise the selection committees and to tell the officials about the degree of priority to be given to the most urgent projects in the community and in short.. .


An hon. Member:: This is exactly what is being done.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I am told that it is exactly what is being done. Then, I would like to know who are the ones who do so. I have often asked with whom we were to deal, but it is always a matter of secrecy.
It happened once that a project was approved; I was quite pleased, because it was the continuation of a longterm program meant to clean up a certain area and to enable the population to carry on summer-time recrea-

March 12, 1973
Adjournment Debate
tional activities, because there was no lake in the area. Then, this project was approved by the officials, the contract was forwarded and later, by telephone, there was a request to return the contract quickly because there had been a mistake. One can therefore imagine how carefully the projects are selected!
I was pleased to see that this project had been approved. Why? Because it was logical, sensible and it enabled 87 people to work and earn a living, instead of wondering every morning about what they were going to do, with the continuing rise in the cost of living and their income remaining the same.
And, for sure, if there is anyone who knows how to encourage young people to work very hard and try to get over the difficult period which we are going through, I think I am the one, because I have always assumed my responsibilities in this field, and I shall continue to do so. But, please, let us make sure that small distant communities get from the government the same amount of attention as do the larger centres, for we find in those small communities human beings who want to live. They want not only to exist, but also to live truly in their country. That is why it is imperative that the necessary means be taken to reach them.
I would like, in closing my remarks to ask once again that substantial credits be granted immediately, before the unrest grows, in order that a greater number of people be employed doing something constructive.
Mr. Speaker, I am not the one who will tell those working on LIP projects to take all their time because those are government programs. I am always aware of my responsibilities and we should all together try to make the people understand that even if those are government-financed programs, each and every worker must try to give the best performance possible for that is the way we will generate a responsible spirit in the workers, develop our country and make possible the distribution of that enormous wealth to the whole population. Thus the ugly image of misery within wealth which we are experiencing, when there are fewer and fewer rich and more and more poor will at last disappear. Some people do not like hearing those words but it is our duty to say them. We have been elected by our constituents to represent them, attack the problems, find solutions and as far as I am concerned, that is what I will do as long as I live.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It being 10 o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that under Standing Order 58(11) proceedings on the motion are now completed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing order 40 deemed to have been moved.
	.

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, six years have elapsed since the former postmaster general, Eric Kierans, began the destruction of the Post Office Department in the name of efficiency. In sheer selfdefence during the intervening period, more and more businessmen began using Her Majesty's mails less and less, and the Post Office has become the best friend of Canada's burgeoning private delivery businesses. As an example, in Toronto, where five years ago there were scarcely any private agencies engaged in this business, the metro Toronto phone book lists today no fewer than 85 firms which are prepared to guarantee same-day delivery within the city of both parcels and individual mailed pieces. I state this to demonstrate that the Post Office Department is in deep trouble. Now that we have a new Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet), I hope he will take action to resolve some of the current difficulties. I have been asking a series of questions over the last few weeks since this parliament began. I have gained the impression that the Postmaster General feels that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. I look at the official communications bulletin of tne Post Office Department for January and read:
Ouellet's tour is a big success.
In French it is even more emphatic in that respect: it reads:

The minister's tour was a complete success.

I suppose that means "an absolute success."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is nice work, patting yourselves on the back, because it comes from the minister's own publication. This dedication to efficiency has committed the Post Office Department to the process of mechanization. The intricate part of this is the postal code, which is so complex that the people of Canada are having difficulty understanding it. This is demonstrated by the propaganda efforts which the Post Office Department has established to help Canadians to interpret the postal code.
The Post Office Department spent $289,000 on a calendar, a commercial gimmick that is usually restricted to private enterprise. It is distributing a credit card holder. I suppose that is to help the bankrupt Canadians who are paying excess taxation. It will hold all the credit cards that are necessary to keep afloat because of the irresponsible fiscal policies of this government. It is spending $500,000 on general advertising which features slogans such as "Keep two pairs of plus fours". The idea is to have some kind of simple formula which makes it possible to understand the postal code.
I have some suggestions in this regard. For the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) we might have a code such as 02B 4T8. For Senator Forsey, I2C 4C4, and for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), as he negotiates the auto pact, it might be B4U 2R1. I think the
March 12, 1973

Post Office advertising suggests that after having come to these formulas, they should award the booby prize to the most successful formula. I would say that the Post Office Department should award itself the booby prize.
Not only are there problems of mechanization but at the moment rural and small town postmasters are having difficulty in getting a new contract settled. I am sure all members agree the rural post offices are the backbone of the nation's postal system. Mr. Kierans started a system of phasing out rural post offices. His successor, Mr. Cote, cancelled this, realizing that it was destroying our postal system. Unless an immediate settlement is obtained for the 8,000 rural and small town postmasters who are looking for a better contract than the one they now have, we shall be in serious difficulty. At the moment they receive as low as $1,000 a year. On an hourly rate, it is as low as 46 cents an hour, which is well below the federal minimum of $1.90 an hour.
Early decisions are necessary in coming to the solution of these negotiations. We do not want long, protracted negotiations like those which caused such an impact on the morale of the postal employees in connection with the agreement which has just been reached. The Post Office Department is being sued for unfair treatment when it took over the mail transportation in larger centres from the private contractors. At the time we said this was a mistake. I think there are official reports in the Post Office Department that stated it was a mistake to substitute public enterprise for private enterprise in this field. Obviously, this is being demonstrated in the action of the former mail carriers who are now sueing the Post Office.
Morale is low. Public good will has been dissipated. I trust the Postmaster General will do something to rescue our badly demoralized postal service. I have one final word on this score. The deputy postmaster general, speaking to the Canadian Circulation Audit Bureau Incorporated last Friday, indicated that he now knows where the problem is. They have introduced a bugging device that traces mail through the system. This is what Mr. Mackay had to say:
We knew our service wasn't what it should be, but we were perhaps inclined to blame it on weather conditions and inability of airlines to fly from point to point, thereby delaying our mail.
What we found instead was that the weather was a very minimal factor .. . Failure within our own processing system made up by far the majority of our breakdowns.
I say to the Postmaster General, "Physician, heal thyself."


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member I would like to say first that I am quite disappointed that he did not use his time to make meaningful proposals. It is quite easy for him to enumerate series of problems but I wish he had put forward a few suggestions which I would have accepted with much sympathy and which I would have tried to implement.
I would tell the hon. member that for many years our mail problems have certainly increased. If they have increased it is because unfortunately over the last 15 or 20 years no attention was paid to the deep transformation of
Adjournment Debate
the country, namely the exodus of people from rural to urban areas. The fact that each day in Toronto and Montreal some 5 million pieces of mail have to be sorted out demonstrates how urgent it is to mechanize our operations. That is what we undertook to do, that is what we are doing and that is what we will do. The mechanization of our operations will enable us to provide a better postal service.
The postal code to which the hon. member made a brief reference is an essential step that a great number of other countries have taken, and instead of making fun of it, the hon. member should use it because it has been applied in his own province, Manitoba, for two years. I should be interested to know if the hon. member knows by heart his own postal code and if he uses it.
I should ask him to make a campaign in favour of the postal code because it is to the extent that people understand they must use it that we will be able to provide a better postal service.
The hon. member referred briefly to legal proceedings. I think he will understand that since this matter is now sub judice I cannot deal with it.
But finally, since he dealt with several points, I should like to remind him that we are negotiating with rural postmasters. We are fully aware of existing deficiencies but negotiations are proceeding well and I hope that we will arrive at a settlement in the near future.
What we have been able to achieve with 28,000 postal workers, who signed a collective agreement-this, as the hon. member knows, is the first time we have arrived at an agreement with postal workers without facing a nationwide strike-proves that it is possible to reach agreements not only with all our employees, but also with our postmasters.
Far from sharing the hon. member's views, I believe that things are going much better in the Post Office department than formerly and that the Canadian public is entitled to hope that very shortly our automation, our postal code and our new labour contract will bring about better service in Canada.


FISHERIES-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ACTION TO PROTECT SALMON SPAWNING STREAMS
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, on January 25 last, as will be found at page 638 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) a question which appears under the heading "Request for Federal Action to Protect Salmon Spawning Streams". I felt this topic was worthy of further exploration with the minister so I put it down for discussion during this adjournment debate. My question was:
In view of the indicated interest in the preservation of salmon spawning streams on the part of the government of British Columbia as evidenced by the suspension of logging in at least one salmon stream, is he prepared to request the approval of parliament for a beefed-up appropriation in order to catch up with the longstanding backlog of neglected salmon spawning streams in the province of British Columbia?

March 12, 1973
Adjournment Debate
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, we certainly welcome the newfound interest of the government of British Columbia in salmon streams on the west coast. We have included more money in the budget to clear these streams.
Naturally, it is the question of the amount of money in the budget about which I am curious, and it is the one which we may have to explore further. In fact, the minister did provide a somewhat expanded answer in the remarks he made to the annual convention of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union in Vancouver on February 5, as indicated in the notes of his speech which were circulated by his department. He said in part:
But there are thousands of streams, some small and some not so small, which flow directly into the sea. They can also be highly productive in so far as species like salmon and trout are concerned. Their rehabilitation could add as much as 50 per cent to our catch of these fish in recent years.
He went on to describe how in his second year as Minister of Fisheries he launched an attack on the problem of debris in small streams and suggested that his approach was twofold. He said:
One, we spent several hundred thousand dollars a year tidying up the streams themselves; two, we stepped up our efforts to persuade the B.C. forest service that a total, environmental approach to river basins would pay off.
Later in his remarks he added to his view about the recent action of the government of British Columbia when he said:
__I was glad to see the action which B.C.'s lands and forests
minister, Bob Williams, took the other day. He backed our Fisheries people up on the Indian River.
That river is in my constituency, I may say. The minister went on to say:
This is a welcome change from the back-of-the-hand treatment we got from Ray Williston and some of his senior staff.
Should any member of this House think the minister's remarks were a little strong in that connection, I think any hon. member who recalls the situation that developed over the driving of logs on the Stellako River a few years ago, when the government of British Columbia insisted, in spite of a report signed jointly by officers of the federal fisheries department and the recreation and conservation branch of the provincial government that some 10 per cent of spawning in that stream was being destroyed by each year's drive, will know that I join the minister in welcoming some change in attitude. That fact is self-evident.
What about the question of providing more money? I have taken a quick look at the estimates for the forthcoming year. At this point I shall refer only to the description of the estimates of manpower and the increase in requirements. It is suggested there is an 8 per cent increase in the Manpower estimates for the fisheries and marine program, but the footnote says:
The increase is due primarily to the provision of increased protection services on rivers closed to salmon fishing, hiring of summer students and studies related to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.
I take it the reference to increased protection refers to Atlantic salmon rivers. I suggest to the minister that he has a long way to go and that some of us will want to

explore this question very seriously with him when we get to the estimates. As I read them, there is certainly nothing which indicates any real beefed-up program, at least as far as the coming fiscal year is concerned. I say frankly to the minister and the government, in almost 20 years since I first came to this House, I have not known the morale of the field officers in his department to be so low and despairing as it is at the present time.
They say that walls have ears. Members of Parliament have ears, and certainly to my knowledge this is my assessment of the case. I have some pictures here which I shall be pleased to show to the minister in the committee. One is a picture of the Indian River taken one half mile from the beach. It shows a log jam which has been there for the last four years, and the results after four years of attempts by his department to do something about clearing that jam.
I suggest that unless there is a realistic approach to clearing these streams with proper equipment and a proper approach to the necessary manpower, our hope of increasing by 50 per cent the catch from the streams, to which the minister referred in his speech in Vancouver, is a long way into the future. So far as I am concerned, I intend to do everything in my power to see that the fullest co-operation is provided to the federal Department of Fisheries and the field service officers by the appropriate people within the government of British Columbia.
I hope the fact that the present minister of lands and forests is also minister of recreation and conservation is a real indication that the government of British Columbia is taking a serious look at this question in the hope that there is a genuine and complete ecological approach to our land use in respect of the rivers and streams of the province of British Columbia.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), who is normally knowledgeable in fishery matters, knows that one thing he said tonight is wrong. He said that the morale of our fisheries officers on the west coast had never been so low. It's wrong for the following reasons. Never before have the fisheries officers on the west coast had as much leverage, so much influence over the practices of the logging companies and the foresters as they have today.
One of the reasons is the increasing co-operation they are receiving from the provincial authorities. The new government in British Columbia has put together two former departments. One dealt with forestry, in other words the handling out of forest management licences; the other dealt with fish and game and recreation. The two are now one in one department of the environment, although it is not yet called that.
It is now possible for the fisheries service on the west coast to deal with a single department so that they are able to reconcile the often conflicting claims of the wildlife and recreational people, on the one side, including fisheries, and forest management practices on the other.
There has been an increasing understanding of the problem on the part of the forest industry and the companies themselves. The foresters today are much more conscious of the fisheries resource, wildlife and the need to preserve the watershed for all purposes than they were
March 12, 1973

before. We have had very good co-operation from the industry. There have been many cases, of course, of logging practices which have continued to destroy salmon streams. For this reason we have to continue to prosecute companies. There have been several dozen prosecutions in recent years. The increase in this kind of discipline has helped the morale of our forestry officers as well.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni asked about our budget on the west coast. The notes I have received from the department say that the budget and the Manpower commitment have been increased so as to improve our initiative in protecting salmon streams from bad logging practices. The professional staff located on the west coast, and incidentally assigned to deal exclusively with fisheries problems on logging streams, has been increased. An additional fishery officer has now been hired and he will concentrate solely on logging problems on the west coast of Vancouver Island which was an area about which the hon. member expressed concern.
The hon. member referred to an incident earlier this year involving the Staghorn and Indian Creek area of Vancouver Island. The departmental people arranged a meeting on January 3 bringing together the B.C. Forest Products Company officials, the B.C. forest service and a group of concerned private citizens. They discussed the problem of debris in the streams and the company agreed to cease certain logging practices and to set certain sections aside to remain in the natural state along tributaries of the streams where salmon spawn. After the B.C. forest service reported back, the minister of lands, forest and waters for British Columbia announced that it would require the company to do what it had agreed to do voluntarily at the meetings convened earlier by the fisheries service.
To sum up, the reasons why morale is high on the west coast have been enumerated. There is more co-operation from the provincial forest service, there is a great deal more co-operation with the logging companies, and with more prosecutions they are making considerably more headway than ever was the case in the past.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF INVITATION TO PRESIDENT AMIN OF UGANDA TO VISIT CANADA
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, on February 13 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if he would consider this government's formal invitation to President Amin of Uganda to visit Canada in August of this year. To support my objections I cited the inhuman and inhumane policies of dictator Amin toward non-black persons in his country.
Needless to say, I was rather surprised when the right hon. gentleman answered that it was this government's view that it should not intervene in the affairs of other Commonwealth nations. Further, the Prime Minister said that there is no provision for expelling a member of the Commonwealth. I must reject the statement that this government has not intervened in the affairs of other Commonwealth nations. The record of this government's con-
Adjoumment Debate
demnation of Rhodesia, to name only one example, is all too clear.
As to the question of expelling Uganda from the Commonwealth, I did not say nor did I imply that we should seek the expulsion of Uganda from the Commonwealth. But since the Prime Minister has raised the question I will address myself to it in a moment.
I will deal first with my reasons for objecting to the Canadian government extending a formal invitation or any other type of invitation to such a person as General Amin. General Amin's psychopathic reign of terror since he became dictator of Uganda is well known to all of us here but I would like to refresh the memory of hon. members on a few specifics. All hon. members are aware of the expulsion from Uganda of some 40,000 Asians. Their only crime was their racial origin; and they were not only expelled, they were stripped of all their personal possessions. They were given 90 days to leave the country, and some of them were second and third generation Ugandan citizens.
Canada accepted a large number of the Asians, and it is to our credit that we did so. But I waited in vain for Canada to register its indignation and condemnation of the Uganda president's actions in the United Nations, or at least to the Commonwealth. Our silence throughout this degrading and inhuman experience indicates a certain degree of approval.
Reports from Uganda a few months ago described a most disturbing and revolting situation involving the Uganda dictator. It was reported that he ordered 20 or more prisoners who had been convicted of minor offences removed from a village jail and tied to tables in the village square. General Amin then moved among the tables and assisted a group of soldiers to beat the prisoners to death with clubs. The general said that this would teach the villagers respect for the law. In the same vein, highly respected reporters for Reuters, AP and other agencies say that Uganda's soldiers are empowered to go about the country selecting people at random to be tried by military courts for minor offences, or even on trumped up charges, and then shot to death in the village squares.
General Amin announced early this month that he would expel Kenyans living in Uganda and confiscate their property if Kenyan newspapers did not stop reporting on his policies and practices. He has served notice on other non-black people in Uganda that they are more or less living on borrowed time. Everything that President Amin does, everything he believes in runs counter to everything that we in Canada hold in reverence. We have laws to ensure that people are not discriminated against in any way because of their race, colour, religion or for any reason whatever. General Amin's personal conduct, his political policies and his official practices generate deep revulsion in the hearts of most Canadians, and I have never heard anyone suggest that this man is a civilized human being.
This brings me to the second part of the Prime Minister's answer, the fact that he would not direct the Commonwealth in any way that would involve the censure of one government by another. I cannot accept this. As I mentioned before, I cannot help but feel that many people today interpret our silence in this matter to indicate at

March 12, 1973
Adjournment Debate
least some measure of acceptance. In my view it is irresponsible of us not to register our condemnation of this revolting conduct on the part of a Commonwealth nation.
The Prime Minister said that there was no provision for the removal of a member from the Commonwealth, and while I did not suggest that it should be done I must say in retrospect that it is too bad that there is no provision to expel a nation from the Commonwealth. A nation such as Uganda and a dictator such as General Amin are out of step with the Commonwealth's aims and objectives. There is no way that he can contribute to the well-being of other citizens of Commonwealth countries. There is no way that he can contribute anything worthwhile to the Commonwealth as an organization. General Amin is detracting from the ideals and the objectives of the Commonwealth in everything he says and does, but as a member of our organization he is getting a free ride at the expense of the other members.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Prime Minister to advise the President of Uganda that our government's invitation was in no way a formal or official invitation to our country. I would go so far as to suggest that the general would not be welcome at the Commonwealth conference in Canada in August. Failing that positive approach, I would at least ensure that the general was not accorded an official welcome when he arrives here. For our government to extend an invitation to General Amin to visit Canada implies a double standard in the conduct of our external affairs that I find objectionable and unacceptable and I urge the Prime Minister to reconsider his position in this matter.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affaire):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is no great secret that, as I am taking my first steps in the seraglio of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, my answer to the hon. member has been excellently prepared by the minister. I should have preferred the answer to be drawn up in French, as I am more at home in that language, but since it has alas been written in English, I will have to give it to the hon. member in English, but I suppose that will be just as acceptable to him.

When Canada offered to host the next Commonwealth heads of government meeting in August, 1973-


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Irénée Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, unless it is a point of order.
I would like to know why the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs has not received the answer, which he must give in his mother tongue, in French. In the committee on External Affairs and National Defence, this happened twice, and I would like to know the reasons for it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I wish to call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that we have now reached the time of adjournment, which involves a procedure quite different from that we usually follow and, automatically, questions of privilege cannot be accepted. If the hon. member wishes to raise a particular point regarding the administration of the government or the operation of the House, I believe he will have to wait until tomorrow. Anyway, hon. members have had the opportunity of listening to his remarks, and I suggest that we should let the parliamentary secretary give his answer.


Pierre De Bané: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to say that I understand quite well the reaction of the hon. member for Sherbrooke.
At all events, I shall continue the reading, in English, of the answer that was prepared for me.

This invitation represented our government's firm commitment to the Commonwealth and to the ideals which it espouses. As an association of nations which are at every stage of economic development, of diverse wages, cultures and institutions, the Commonwealth has the unique capacity to foster informal and intimate consultations concerning matters of common interest to the leaders of its 31 members.
As such, it is capable of exerting a beneficial influence in the promotion of international understanding and world peace. Nevertheless, one must remember that it is a voluntary association of independent sovereign states which derives its strength to promote international peace and progress from fruitful consultation and co-operation among its members.
The Commonwealth declaration issued by the heads of government at Singapore in January, 1971, affirms the association's belief in the benefits of fostering understanding among nations and firmly rejects coercion as an instrument of policy. Accordingly, the Commonwealth does not seek to impose policy upon its member states, particularly in the realm of domestic affairs.
Among the principles set out in the Commonwealth declaration is the statement that members-
-recognize racial prejudice as a dangerous sickness threatening the healthy development of the human race and racial discrimination as an unmitigated evil of society. Each of us will vigorously combat this evil within our own nation.
Membership in the Commonwealth, though stemming from a common heritage and tradition, is no less determined by a subscription to principles contained in the declaration. Yet there are no provisions for expelling a Commonwealth member for actions one or more nations believe to be contrary to the ideals of the association. The Commonwealth nations, however, can collectively express their displeasure if they so desire.
Canada's reaction to the expulsion of non-citizen Asian residents of Uganda is well known. Based upon the belief of all Canadians in equality and justice and the national inability to ignore the plight of human beings in need, we welcomed several thousand Ugandan refugees to Canada. This action was warmly welcomed by many within the

March 12, 1973

international community but especially so within the Commonwealth.
With regard to the forthcoming Ottawa meeting, it must nevertheless be borne in mind that each head of government of all the member countries is entitled to attend such meetings wherever they are held. The decision to hold a meeting is taken jointly by all heads of government, and it is always the hope and expectation that they will personally attend whatever potentially divisive problems there may be. The conference should not be expected to resolve such problems, but it would be a retrogressive step if they were allowed to prevent the meeting together of all heads of government for their traditional intimate exchange of views and their examination of the progress of a number of practical initiatives since the last meeting. Canada is now taking its turn as host to one of these meetings. Although this government strongly disagrees with the policy of expulsion undertaken by President Amin-
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Chair does not want to prevent the parliamentary secretary from giving his answer. Complaints were made earlier about the prepared text. Perhaps the Chair itself has a complaint to make to those who write such texts. Perhaps they should make them shorter, so that we can stick to the three minutes allocated for reply. We try to limit this period to 30 minutes, so that hon. members have seven minutes to express their views on the question they raised in the previous days and I think we must also ask the government spokesmen, whether parliamentary secretaries or ministers, to try and reply as much as possible within the prescribed time.
I think at this stage, it would be difficult to allow the parliamentary secretary, who has already exceeded by two minutes the time that was allocated to him, to complete his answer. Perhaps he could take advantage of the rest of the night to give it directly to the hon. member who raised the matter.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.38 p.m.

Tuesday, March 13, 1973