The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):

Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, presently dealing with unemployment insurance, has missed the purport of the motion before the House. The first part of the preamble to that motion reads:

Whereas there has been a relentless upward climb in the level of unemployment in all regions of Canada-

I do not think the hon. member will disagree with that. The motion continues:

Whereas a number of responsible economic authorities have predicted record levels of unemployment this coming winter-

Employment Programs

I believe the hon. member will agree with that, too. Then there is a third paragraph, one which is of some concern to me, I should like to discuss it as it applies to the province of Quebec, the city of Hamilton and, indeed, to all regions. One thing which puzzles me is that a country which is so rich in resources, so rich in technical know-how, so industrially advanced and served by so many employable people who wish to work, should find itself in a position calling for a motion such as we have before us today.

I am not saying the government has intentionally and heartlessly followed a program designed to bring about the present state of affairs, but I do say the government is proving itself complacent and apathetic in the face of it. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) told us that he had been concerned ever since the sixties by the trend which showed there was an acceleration of inflation to an extent which threatened not only Canadian economic development but Canadian unity itself. It seems to me that rising unemployment also threatens not only the stability of our economy but the stability of the whole nation. A balance must be maintained. At present the scale seems to tipping away from the government in this regard.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) takes an attitude which can only be called complacent and apathetic. The Premier of Ontario says rising unemployment has been deliberately brought about by policies adopted in Ottawa. The answer given by the Prime Minister some time ago spoke of unemployment as being a regrettable side effect of government fiscal and monetary policy. Surely we must take note of the disastrous side effects of this policy on those unable to combat it successfully. I think it is time the government reassessed the regrettable side effects of its fiscal and monetary policies.

An editorial which appeared on Wednesday in the Toronto Telegram of October 11 stated:

In Quebec we are seeing how social unrest caused in part by chronically high unemployment has been a root cause of political extremism. If regional unemployment goes unsolved elsewhere no one can be sure violence will not be tried again in other parts of Canada.

It appears to me that the government is ignoring the frustration of the old, the anger of the young, the hopelessness of the poverty-stricken and the frustrated incentive of employables. It seems to me that the prospects of revolution will be determined to some extent by the social and economic status achieved by the groups I have just mentioned. It seems to me that we have been dealing with the effects. We must not let the War Measures Act and the temporary emergency powers bill cloud our vision and turn us away from a study of the causes. One has only to look back over the past couple of weeks to a policy adopted by politicians in the country to the south of us who tried to emphasize the need for law and order, a policy that was not accepted by the vast majority of Americans. They were more concerned, as I have often said, with the nuts and bolts, nitty-gritty issues, one of which of prime importance is unemployment.

November 12, 1970

Employment Programs

[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)

We have found that those politicians who concentrated on attempting to alleviate the horrendous suffering from unemployment were, generally speaking, successful. It has been projected that this winter, out of a labour force of about 8,400,000 there will be a vast army of 750,000 to

800,000 men and women making a frustrating and disillusioning struggle for economic survival. In the Atlantic provinces the projected figure of unemployment is 18 per cent, in Quebec 12 per cent and Ontario is sneaking up to 6 per cent.

Donald MacDonald, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, has said that as far as he is concerned unemployment this winter will be around 9 per cent, or 750,000 people. It does not matter to the man who is unemployed whether we talk about the seasonally adjusted rate, the unadjusted rate or any other rate; all he is concerned with is that he will be one of the 750,000 people out of work in and around the month of February. This is the situation to which we should direct our attention. What disturbs me is that the Prime Minister has indicated that such a rate has not been predicted by any responsible source.

Mr. Olson:

Stick to the facts.

Mr. Alexander:

I repeat what was said by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). He put on record some responsible views on this matter. For example, he mentioned Mr. Forrest Rogers, who is an economic adviser to the Bank of Nova Scotia. Mr. Rogers said that unemployment would be around 81 per cent but he would not argue that we could not reach 9 per cent or even go beyond. Reference was also made to Professor Sidney Ingerman, a labour economist at McGill University, who said that the actual rate of unemployment nationally will be in the area of 9 per cent. The hon. member did not remember the prediction of Premier Ed Schreyer, but according to my information he predicted an annual unemployment rate of 9 per cent.

The Lord above did not give all the brains to members on the other side of the House. Many members of the House as well as people without the confines of this grand chamber have sufficient expertise and economic background to challenge the government and its bureaucrats. My leader referred to the unemployment figures, actual and adjusted, between the years 1960 and 1970. I should like to refer to another responsible paper, the Financial Times, which last month suggested that if this pattern of increasing unemployment, be it seasonally adjusted or actual, is not reversed, by February and March of 1971 there will be a rate of unemployment of 9 per cent to 10 per cent, or more than 750,000 Canadians out of work.

Reference was made to the rate of unemployment, adjusted and actual, in 1961. These figures led in 1962 to an actual rate of unemployment of 8.5 per cent in January, 9.1 per cent in February and 8.7 per cent in March. Therefore, unless the present pattern is reversed one can easily accept the statement that we might have 750,000

people out of work this winter or even as many as one million.

I see my time is running out. This has been a constructive debate. The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour said that the NDP had nothing to say. Perhaps I am wrong and it was another member who said that the NDP had nothing constructive to say. I ask hon. members to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for York South, wherein he placed before the government many constructive ideas. In addition, I emphasize the points that were made by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).

When one listens to members who come from slow-growth regions of Canada, one must remember that Canada is divided into five economic sectors. These divisions are the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies and British Columbia. These regions differ in terms of employment, rates of growth and composition of output. I do not think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), who is looking at me, would disagree with that. I should like to know why the government implements policies meant for the over-all good of the country but which nevertheless have disastrous effects on certain regions.

In closing, may I say that this motion is an important one. We must continually press the government to take responsibility for this situation, because the projected level of unemployment for February and March of next year is unacceptable. I return to my original premise, that we must concern ourselves not so much with the effects as with the causes of revolutionary movement. Revolutionaries prey upon the discontented. They prey upon those who are without proper housing, those who feel there is no room for them in our established, democratic way of life. It does not matter to me how many of these people there are; as long as our programs are not geared to assist those who are frustrated, in my view we are in for trouble.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):

Order. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair. The House will meet again at 8 p.m.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):

Mr. Speaker, the debate so far has ranged rather loosely over various forms of criticism directed at the government's monetary and fiscal policies. I think it can probably be reduced to simply a judgment of our timing or fine tuning, to use the words of Milton Friedman. Basically, it is reduced to a matter of judgment as to the wisdom of the timing or fine tuning of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) versus the allegedly more accurate and more refined tuning of those opposite.

November 12, 1970

There has been little offered in support of the contention that their handling of the situation would have been any better. I shall not get into that area because it does not seem to be one that is very effectively dealt with by the opposition.

I should like to come to grips with what is, surely, part of the problem in respect of unemployment and specifically an industry which is of central importance to our economy, an industry that has over the past few years been living in a state of siege beleaguered by imports from low-wage countries, an industry which in my view should be a key sector of our economy, with policy developed accordingly. I am referring to the electrical industry. I propose to deal with it in two sections. I should like to relate the position of the electrical industry to two policy statements which have come from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, both of which I concur with and both of which I consider to be directly relevant to the situation in which the electrical industry finds itself. These statements offered some hope of reprieve from what otherwise might have been a very damaging and potentially dangerous situation.

I do not have to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the importance of this industry because you know it as well as I. You know the range of engineers, draftsmen, workers and scientists employed by the industry and you are aware of the level of research and development carried out by it. You know its record in the field of nuclear research and atomic power development. Right now it faces some very serious threats.

I want first of all to deal with the potential problem of offshore concessional financing, specifically as this relates to mining contracts and projects. I am speaking specifically of the Iron Ore Company of Canada in the Sept lies area and other mining projects which might also be affected by the situation in respect of offshore concessional financing. I begin by referring to a statement made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) in the House on May 26, 1970, which appears in Hansard at page 7319. It was a statement on Motions under the heading "Announcement of program to alleviate adverse impact of concessional financing by foreign governments".

The minister in his statement recognized clearly that the manufacturing industry had been making representations to the government concerning what it considered to be highly attractive financing terms available to their competitors abroad. In his statement at page 7319, the minister on behalf of the government said:

The government is satisfied that in several instances the availability to foreign manufacturers of export credit at lower rates of interest has resulted in substantial loss of business to individual Canadian companies which otherwise would have been competitive in price, performance and delivery.

The minister went on to recognize the difficulties or dangers involved in a full-scale credit race and concluded, prior to stating his policy recommendations, with this statement:

____the government has decided to take a number of steps designed to mitigate the adverse impact of foreign government financing of exports to Canada which causes injury to Canadian industry.

Employment Programs

He went on to mention four proposals, one of which relates to the invocation of the provision of the antidumping act. He said:

First, Canada will use all available means consistent with its international obligations to curtail foreign government financing of exports to Canada in cases where it causes material injury to Canadian industry. In this context, consideration will be given to invoking the provisions of the anti-dumping act in specific cases.

One of the steps he suggests the government should take involves closer co-operation with the OECD to work out arrangements in respect of concessional financing in trade between developing countries. He raises other points and emphasizes certain proposals to deal with this problem.

I think all of us in this House strongly support the position outlined by the minister on May 26. All of us, particularly those who represent ridings which have industrial manufacturers within their boundaries, realize the importance of this statement. It so happens that right now one of the important industries, namely, the electrical industry, is faced with the prospect of offshore concessional financing which, if not matched by a Canadian equivalent, could lead to the loss of a large number of jobs related to mining projects in Quebec. I have in mind jobs that could be handled by Canadian manufacturers who are totally competitive. These jobs could be lost simply because the accounting is wrong, because offshore concessional financing is not matched by an equivalent in this country.

I refer specifically to the Iron Ore Company of Canada and a project there which could involve some $200 million. The part of the project which could be handled by Canadian manufacturers in the electrical sector amounts to at least $15 million, and the part in the mechanical sector-such as pelletizing equipment, grinding mills, etc.-probably runs in the area of $60 million. Canadian manufacturers are competitive in every sense of the word, in these particular areas and probably in others. At least in these areas there is no question at all about competitiveness. But there are competitive United States suppliers who would have available to them, through concessional financing, terms which could make the Iron Ore Company of Canada lean toward United States suppliers rather than toward Canadian suppliers.

[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)

What this mean in terms of jobs, and in this debate we are concerned about unemployment, I can only guess. My guess would be that in the electrical sector it would probably mean 750 man-years, but in terms of related industries such as steel and aluminum, plus the service industries, that figure could probably be tripled. This is a specific contract in respect of the Iron Ore Company of Canada where concessional financing is being offered, but there are other companies in respect of which it is not yet offered. However, if concessional financing is not matched in this case,-all subsequent contracts may well be affected.

November 12, 1970

Employment Programs

My point is that until the principles laid down in the statement of May 26 are enforced by general agreement, or until through co-operation and consultation with the OECD ground rules are laid down governing concessional financing between developed countries, we in this country must match the sort of concessional financing that threatens the manufacturing sector. This clearly is not in our interest in the long term because it would become a full-scale credit war, which benefits no one. But until comparable terms can be made available or until agreement can be reached, we must offer comparable terms.

I am aware that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance know about this situation. The guideline in the May 26 statement is there and it becomes critical that through a consortium of our chartered banks comparable terms be offered so that Canadian manufacturers can compete with their United States equivalent. Otherwise the jobs involved, the technology, the drafting, the engineering and the whole range of skills in general will be lost to our competitors in the United States.

I see that I am running short of time. The second point I should like to raise concerns the Canadian electrical industry generally. It seems to me that what is needed now, and what has been argued for for some time, is a general review by the federal government and by the provincial governments-because some of their agencies are utilizers of electrical equipment, particularly the power utilities-plus the Canadian Electrical Manufacturers Association and the trade unions involved, such as the United Electrical Workers and others.

There should be a review of government policy as it affects the Canadian electrical industry. There are two fundamental facts available to anyone who reviews the situation. The first is that the industry has not realized its full growth potential. Second, areas of the industry are under a state of siege. In today's Globe and Mail there is an announcement to the effect that Philips Electronics Industries Limited of Toronto will close down its division. We have known that the Marconi Company has laid off 800 and intends to lay off another 700. The Canadian General Electric plant at Rexdale, and other companies, are involved in lay-offs.

This is an important sector of the industry which has employed a large number of Canadians and Canadian skills. As I said earlier, areas of the industry are in a state of siege. I think the only possible approach at this stage is not to try to balance out a particular sector in an ad hoc way, but to review the total electrical industry and make a decision concerning its importance to our economy. My argument is that this is a key sector of the economy whose importance should be assessed from the point of view of the technology it contributes, the engineering it contributes, the employment it provides and the growth potential it offers and its relevance to a science-based economy. On that basis I believe it can be declared an industry of national importance and one in respect of which a policy should be developed to ensure that its growth potential is developed.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to the textiles policy. The textiles policy is one which everyone cannot help but support. It is one of the most intelligent pieces of government initiative in the field of industrial policy which I have observed. What were the reasons for the review? I quote from the statement on textiles policy as follows:

Firstly, major and fundamental changes in world technology, production and market demand are creating a new competitive situation... Secondly, present policy designed to cope with the problem of "low-cost" imports have become increasingly difficult to administer. This has led to delays and uncertainties which have resulted in severe disruption and hardship to producers and workers.

Thirdly, the textile companies, the unions and the provinces have expressed concern about the adequacy of the present policy in terms of future investments and employment in the industry ...

The position of the textile companies applies equally to the electrical companies. I suggest that the reasons for the review of textiles policy are on all fours with the situation about which we complain today in the electrical industry. The reason this very intelligent, progressive and in many ways imaginative textiles policy was evolved applies equally to the electrical industry.

In conclusion, I wish to repeat the electrical industry is basic and central to our economy. I consider others to be important, but the electrical industry has been in a state of siege from Japan, Hong Kong and a whole range of low-wage countries. The purpose of my intervention tonight is to stress the importance of this industry and the importance of a government policy vis-a-vis the industry. For these reasons I have raised the question and I hope the government will reappraise its policies regarding this particular industry.

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):

Mr. Speaker, I find the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault), and the speech of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) interesting because both hon. members scold our party for moving this resolution. The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour said we have offered nothing constructive and that there are more people working now than ever before. He ignores the fact that unemployment in Canada is higher than it has been for a dozen or more years, and that unemployment in British Columbia in October of 1970 was 69,000, compared with 40,000 in October of last year.

The hon. member for Peterborough says our criticism of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is one of fine tuning. He disagrees as to when certain measures should be taken and then proceeds to lecture the minister about circumstances in the electrical industry. I agree with him, but why does he say this situation applies particularly to the electrical industry? It is a very large employer in his constituency and therefore he makes representations on behalf of the industry. I do not blame him.

We are not concerned only with the electrical industry. We are concerned about the high rate of unemployment throughout this country. It is now agreed by experts in

November 12, 1970

federal and provincial governments, in the business community, in labour circles, among economists and in the academic community that the prospects for higher unemployment are now very great and that heavy unemployment will continue, not just through the winter but into and possibly through the whole of 1971.

[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)

I say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, who said that we had nothing concrete to offer, that we have said for the last two years that in choosing to make the increasing cost of living a more important issue than rising unemployment the government was making the wrong choice and we would wind up with both a higher cost of living and higher unemployment. In fact, we have been proven correct, as have the academic economists who have argued to that effect even longer than we have.

A very conservative estimate of the situation, made by a leading academic economist who I saw about a week ago, is that we will have this winter a seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment of more than 7 per cent and that the picture for the whole of 1971 will run at not less than 6 per cent, seasonally adjusted. Unemployment in Canada rose from 314,000 last year to 419,000 in October of 1970. That is an increase of 33-1/3 per cent. It is little comfort to the 419,000 unemployed to tell them that more people are working than ever before; it does not help them to meet the bills they have to pay in order to live.

In Quebec, unemployment rose from 135,000 in October of last year to 159,000 in October of this year. The economist whom I have consulted estimates that unemployment in January of 1971 will be 789,000 and in February of 1971 it will be 811,000-9.8 per cent of the labour force, or a seasonally adjusted rate of 7.2 per cent. That is not very far from the calculations which Mr. MacDonald, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, made recently and which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) derided so stridently the other day.

What do these national unemployment figures mean? We have been spending most of the time since the House reconvened this fall discussing the problems of Quebec. Every Member of Parliament is concerned about the violence, the bombings and the kidnappings with which Quebec has been afflicted. We in this party who have been critical of the government's reaction to the events in Quebec, and who have been told that we do not understand Quebec because we do not have a Member of Parliament from that province-and of course we do not-do know that a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 7 per cent nationally means 9 per cent unemployment in Quebec.

Quebec has consistently had 20 per cent to 50 per cent higher unemployment than the Canadian average and an unemployment rate about twice as high as that of the province of Ontario. Quebec, which contains 25 per cent of the Canadian population, has consistently had about 40 per cent of the unemployment. When you realize that four out of ten unemployed people in Quebec are under

Employment Programs

25 years of age, you appreciate the dimensions of the problem.

The Prime Minister recently said in a television interview that one of his main objectives was to get the people of Quebec to choose between federalism and separatism. I say-and I say it with a good deal of regret-that given the unemployment among young people which I have mentioned, it is not surprising that the young people of Quebec in the last election seemed to opt so heavily for the Parti Quebecois. If we want to do romething to maintain federalism, it is not good enough to say, as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said so often, that heavier unemployment is just one of the side effects we have to face in dealing with the problem of rising costs.

What about the future of Quebec? Mr. Bourassa in his election campaign promised that he would produce 100,000 new jobs by the end of 1971. But this year only 3,000 new jobs were produced in the province of Quebec, compared with the fact which was pointed out by Dion Cohen, who writes a column in the Toronto Star every week, that in each of the next ten years the Quebec labour market will grow by 75,000 workers a year.

To cut unemployment in Quebec to 6 per cent, which is still intolerably high, Quebec would need to attract about $7 billion in investment every year for the next ten years. That is a goal hopelessly out of the reach of that province, on the basis of past performance, without very great assistance from the federal government. Yet we have a federal government which is concerned about federalism and simply says, "We cannot do anything about Quebec or about unemployment because we have to deal with higher prices."

The large increase in unemployment has meant sharp increases in welfare costs in cities in every province of Canada. It is true that half the costs are paid by the federal government, but this is of little consolation to hard-pressed taxpayers at the municipal level. Every city and every province in Canada which budgeted for sharply increased welfare costs this year has found that despite those increases in the estimates, they put much too little into their budgets to meet the increased costs of welfare. The skyrocketing costs of welfare are to a large extent the result of rising unemployment.

We have been told we have offered nothing concrete in the way of programs to deal with the problem of unemployment. As I indicated earlier, that of course is not true. We have said for the last two years at least that it is impossible for Canada to do much about the rising cost of living when inflation has gripped every country in the western world. Canada buys more from the United States and sells more to that country than any other country with which we deal, and when the U.S. is gripped by inflation it is simply nonsense to think that we can check inflation in Canada.

We warned the government that its policy of restraint and deflation would mean higher unemployment and difficult living conditions for the working poor and those on fixed incomes such as pensions and welfare. This, of course, is what has happened. We have been saying all

November 12, 1970

Employment Programs

along, and will continue to say, that if the government has to choose between full employment and a gradually rising cost of living, or no increase in the cost of living and heavy unemployment, it should opt for full employment. That is what we would have done and that is precisely the policy the government of Canada rejected, basing its policy on the advice it received from the head of the Bank of Canada, the Deputy Minister of Finance and the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission. They opted for restraint and we are suffering as a result.

[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)

Provincial governments are becoming concerned. A few days ago the Conservative Premier of Ontario, Mr. Robarts, made it clear he was going to consider what programs his government could initiate in order to put people to work in that province. On October 30 the government of Manitoba announced a program to alleviate as much as possible the heavy unemployment expected in that province. It will draw on the $74 million capital fund placed in its estimates as a reserve against unemployment. It will go ahead as quickly as possible with a program to build schools, improve its university, provide public housing and a host of other projects. It expects to be able to gainfully employ in the neighbourhood of 10 per cent of those expected to be unemployed this winter.

We urge the government of Canada to join with the provinces and not wait for the provinces to come forward with proposals. The government should call a conference. That does not sound very revolutionary and in fact it is not; it is too late to be revolutionary about employment for this winter. The government should call a conference with the provinces at which the larger cities would be represented, to see what programs they have ready and to see what the federal government can do to finance those programs.

It is not good enough to say that we have more people working than ever before. It is not good enough to say that the percentage of unemployment is less than it was. The fact remains that this winter we will have 800,000 people unemployed; we will have a higher unemployment rate than any other industrialized country. That is something of which all Members of Parliament, regardless of party affiliation, ought to be ashamed. I close by urging the government to change its priorities, to make full employment a more urgent objective that the illusory goal for which it has been striving, that of holding the line on rising costs-a goal that can only be achieved and has only been achieved at the expense of the poor people of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I spent the whole day listening with the greatest possible attention to the remarks of my hon. colleagues, and I come to the conclusion that though many of their arguments were brilliant, they have said countless useless things. Were businessmen from the various parts of the country-company directors, for instance-to attend our debates, they would be shocked to hear us jabbering

away for days on end, to solve such matters as that before the House. They would tell us; "Solve the problem, legislate, instead of repeating the same things over and over again."

Naturally, that is part of the procedure and one must submit to it. That is why, in part, I am following the bad example and making a few remarks. I shall try not to repeat what has been said up to this point, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize for the looseness of my remarks but I do not want to repeat what has been said before. For instance, the government has been accused of implementing an unsound economic policy. 1 question the competence of those who say such things when in all countries, namely the United States, world renowned economists such as President Nixon's advisers, disagree about inflation and hold views diametrically opposed to those of experts as competent as they are. I wonder where my hon. colleagues who blame the government for having followed such or such economic principle in its fight against inflation, have collected their information.

After having read the notice of motion, I was satisfied and convinced that nobody would object to it. Since it justifies the action taken by the government months ago, why spend a whole day on it?

A whole series of measures are already in force. We could have devoted this day to pass some of them in order to speed up our business, but obviously this is part of the political tactics of the opposition. I noticed that some of my collagues opposite whose sincerity is apparent at times were reluctant to make certain bold statements.

As for me, I will simply point out what has been done in my area. Incidentally, I thank my friends opposite for showing a special concern for the province of Quebec in their notice of motion. It was time Parliament saw to it. In the last 100 years, there has been no excess of sympathy in this house for Quebec. On behalf of my province, I therefore wish to thank the mover for his thought which will certainly do no harm.

From 1968 to 1969 in my riding, the federal government paid $845,732 to retrain the unemployed. It is obvious that this is a worthwhile effort. Then during the same period, it granted the unemployed $995,800 in living allowances. Furthermore, from 1969 to 1970 allowances were granted to 1,260 people to help them retrain, improve their education, teach them new trades so as to enable them to earn a living. And the federal government spent the amount of $1,080,000 in my riding with a population of 150,000 distributed over three municipalities. I refer to my riding, but I imagine that the same thing applies in most other constituencies of the province.

In 1969-70, the federal government spent $12,058,000 for the building of technical schools or CEGEPs. In my view, that is an effort to reduce unemployment.

My colleague spoke a moment ago about the policy concerning the textile industry. That new policy has been of help to us because we have in our province an important industry, called Wabasso Cotton, which is nationally known. The new policy has not yet produced all the results we expected of it.

[Mr. Orlikow.l

November 12, 1970

[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)

On behalf of the company, I thank the government for such a policy which has prevented unemployment on a large scale in our community since Wabasso Cotton employs thousands of workers.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) tell us that next year millions of dollars will be invested in new industries across the country and I lost no time in inquiring to what extent my constituency will benefit from that. Charity begins at home.

I therefore found out that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has received 22 requests from industries wishing to settle in my constituency, and which will benefit all, if their applications are approved, from government incentives, contributing thus to reduce the rate of unemployment, a realization much more efficient than any speech.

I am not talking about the substantial grants made, for instance, to composite schools, about the $4.5 million granted recently to the municipality of Trois-Rivieres, under the designated areas program, for housing projects. Because of certain representations, this assistance has been considerably increased, with the result that today, we have in our region a fairly decent employment rate.

For instance, certain amounts were allocated to the construction of decent housing for some 3,000 or 4,000 students of our University of Quebec, and there were many more. Therefore, the government has done something, and if the opposition wanted to be efficient, rather than waste a day in yacking, it would say: We will study the next measure and try to adopt it as soon as possible in order to reduce the unemployment rate. I believe that this would solve many more problems than all the palaver we now have all day. I apologize for behaving as badly as some others, but it is very easy to be led astray, even with the best intentions.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a correction. It was said that the situation which exists in Quebec, this uprising of a few FLQ members, could be a movement of revolt from young people who are held in unemployment and who are dissatisfied with the government. Well, I have another explanation. I know a good deal about this matter, because I have been studying it for the last 25 or 30 years.

Young Quebecers have 200 years of frustration rankling in their mind. They are trying to eliminate them. It was only recently that our English friends from other parts of the country realized that Quebec has the right to live on equal terms with everyone. I am not a separatist, but a federalist. I had to fight for being a federalist, and I still believe in federalism. I remember when I first came to Ottawa, people would tell me to "speak white" whenever I used the French language. I could relate scores of such incidents where French Canadians, barely accepted, were insulted. We are now attempting to redeem two centuries of history and this cannot be done in a year or two. The government under the Right Hon. Mr. Pearson initiated this movement and our present government

Employment Programs

under the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is carrying on. I call upon all my friends of the opposition who, I am sure, are true Canadian patriots, to co-operate with us in order that we may achieve the understanding which is required to have all Quebecers accepted on an equal footing everywhere in Canada, in all fields of endeavour. Thus there will be fewer FLQ members and fewer unemployed people.

Hear, hear.

Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinlhe):

Mr. Speaker, upon reading the motion of the hon. member for York South, it is impossible not to note three very important points.

First of all, there is an unrelenting escalation of the unemployment level in all regions of Canada.

Then, those responsible in the field of economy foresee a still higher level of unemployment during the winter months.

Finally, substantial measures should be taken immediately to eliminate that unfavourable situation in the province of Quebec and particularly in the city of Montreal.

Mr. Speaker, what is the present situation in the province of Quebec and throughout Canada? The government members, particularly the one who has just sat down, may attempt by their speeches to convince the people that everything is for the best, but it remains, nevertheless, that there were, throughout the country, 419,000 unemployed workers in October 1970. These 419,000 people have the right to work but they cannot find employment because of the lack of foresight of those sitting on the government side.

In October 1970, the number of unemployed persons in Canada exceeded by 105,000 the number recorded in October last year and by 21,000 the number recorded in September of this year. In fact 6.6 per cent of the labour force is unemployed.

There was a time when we were sitting on the opposite side of the House and when those now sitting there were on this side. We heard quite a lot about unemployment in those days.

There could not be a lay-off without the three most influential Liberals, namely Messrs. Pickersgill, Chevrier and Martin, rising to sympathize with the unemployed workers' fate. And the story we now hear from the former mayor of Trois-Rivieres and from others is quite different from what we heard in those days.

Mr. Mongrain;

Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):

Order. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres on a question of privilege.

Mr. Mongrain:

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend for whom I have a great deal of esteem and whom I know to be very

November 12, 1970

Employment Programs

honest, has just said that all those who sit on this side used to sit on his side. I have never sat on that side.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):

Order. I shall point out to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres that there is no foundation to his question of privilege and that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe has the floor.

Mr. Ricard:

What is the situation in the province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker? In October 1970, there were 159,000 unemployed. This is a record which does not cheer me up. In Quebec, 8.8 per cent of the working population is unemployed.

It is the responsibility of the members of the opposition to call the attention of the government members to their responsibilities and to make sure that they assume them.

By looking at their previous speeches, it is clear that they are responsible for providing employment to those who want to work, but however 159,000 people are unemployed in the province of Quebec.

What is still worse, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the forecast for the winter months is even darker. It is estimated, in some quarters, that there will be from

750,000 to 800,000 unemployed in Canada. Are we justified in protesting loudly and asking the ministers and the hon. members opposite to do something to alleviate unemployment, this cancer of our society.

[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)

It is also disturbing to realize that unemployment periods last longer. In October 1970, 74,000 people had been unemployed for a period of four to six months. This represents 18 per cent of the unemployed, in that category. For the corresponding period last year, there were 12,000, or only 13 per cent of the unemployed.

As to those who have been unemployed more than six months, there were 72,000 in October, that is 17 per cent of the unemployed, while in October 1969, 46,000 were in that category, that is 15 per cent, and fiery speeches, appeasement speeches from the other side of this House will not succeed in disproving those facts based on D.B.S. figures.

In the building sector, 34,000 jobs were lost in October 1970; among the bush workers, there are 10,000 fewer jobs than last September.

And who is responsible for that situation? It will be recalled that in order to fight inflation, this government found that solution, namely create unemployment and thus fight inflation at the expense of workers, farmers and low income groups. That is an inhuman way, I repeat it, following my leader who said so on several occasions in this House, and the government has no reason to be pleased. Instead of coming up with an expansion policy, the government has found nothing better than to implement restrictive measures in order to create unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, I would be angry with myself if I did not take advantage of the few minutes I still have to once

more point out the situation prevailing in my constituency.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps for the twentieth time, I will say that 20 per cent of the labour force is unemployed in the Saint-Hyacinthe area. What are the reasons for such unemployment? I shall mention the closing of some plants a reduction of personnel on account of foreign competition and the adverse effect of the refusal of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) to recognize as a designated zone the Saint-Hyacinthe area, though all the required criteria for designation apply to it. The city council, the common front of Saint-Hyacinthe and I myself made representations to the minister, but we all met with a refusal.

A while ago I said that some plants had closed down in the Saint-Hyacinthe area. According to a study made last summer by the Richelieu-Yamaska Social Development Council, from 1964 to March 1970, we lost ten industries that were providing work to at least 494 employees.

In the field of shoe manufacturing, we have also lost at least one industry that employed several hundred workers. According to this study, we have lost the share that the Saint-Hyacinthe region had a right to expect, had it been fairly treated by the federal government.

I would like to quote a few excerpts from this study in order to put on record what our people think of the refusal by this government to make the Saint-Hyacinthe region a designated area. After considering the reasons why the federal government disregarded the Saint-Hya-cinthe-Drummondville region for the development of an international airport, the report states, and I quote:

The federal government, for technical as well as economical reasons, did not comply with a request submitted by the province of Quebec on behalf of the Yamaska region.

We venture to think that no political consideration intervened in the rejection of the Saint-Hyacinthe region as the airport site and as a designated area.

And further, we can read:

In support of this hope, let us mention that the "Snow Jet" plant, which would have created 700 immediate jobs, chose to locate in Drummondville, not in Saint-Hyacinthe, for the only reason that the economic advantages were better there.

This is, in my opinion, and in the opinion of my people, an injustice to our region. I would again draw the attention of hon. members and, in particular, of the powers responsible, one of which is the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, to this fact, so that this injustice can be corrected as soon as possible.

It has often been repeated today that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) had announced a series of measures which had already been put into effect to remedy this situation. It must be recognized that if these measures were actually taken, then they were inadequate, since the unemployment rate only keep rising month after month. It is the responsibility of those who sit on treasury benches to see that this situation, which is degrading for the workers, is eliminated as soon as possible.

November 12, 1970

Winter work subsidies must be reinstated to meet the requirements of municipalities, and the 12 per cent tax on building materials must be removed in order to give new impetus to the building industry.

Besides, arrangements must be entered into with the province of Quebec to give the premier of this province, who promised 100,000 jobs, an opportunity to keep his promise.

Mr. Speaker, the people will not be content with promises any longer, and disorders will keep increasing, unless the people are given what they have a right to.

Mr. Hu Harries (Edmonion-Strathcona):

Mr. Speaker, the motion addresses itself to the short-term future. It would be difficult to deny that in that time we will be facing some immediate and important economic difficulties, although we may well differ on our description of the magnitude and causes of the difficulties. Without belabouring the obvious, it may be useful to define three segments of the economy that should be considered.

The first segment is that which is continuing to undergo technological readjustment. I am referring to the farmers on the Prairies and other regions of Canada, fishermen, lumber operators and others involved in small-scale resource industries. These people are not restricted to any particular geographical region, but they do constitute a separate and important force in the economy.

Second, we must consider the special geographic areas where, due to a combination of labour force and capital circumstances, there is a failure to get the needed economic expansion. These areas, the most significant of which is Quebec, have been described as slow-growth areas. The third general group may be included in the description of those affected by a slowdown that extends all across Canada and is in response to policies, both business and government, and fiscal and monetary restraints. What is happening now is that these three segments, each of substantial significance, have gone on a strong downward trend all at the same time. Whether this could have been foreseen is not of much help in meeting the problem as it exists, although I belong to the group with the 20-20 hindsight that says we had ample warning.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Harries:

What is the government doing? What suggestions can be made with respect to the problems of technological adjustment? I suggest that this government is pursuing good policies enthusiastically and with vigour. In my view, the technologically unemployed bear an unfair and unreasonable share of the cost of our affluent society. I hope the government will continue to do as it recently did, announce that more funds will be poured into retraining and into those programs which are directed specifically to meeting the needs of those who bear, as I have suggested, a completely unreasonable share of the burden of change in our society. In Edmon-

Employment Programs

ton alone, last year the government spent $2,880,000 on retraining and $3,305,000 on allowances incidental to this retraining.

[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)

With respect to the slow-growth areas, the government has recognized that federal investment alone cannot do the job. It is clearly folly to spend capital funds on projects which do not provoke revenue and can only result in the imposition of large annual service charges. Employment arising from expenditure of this type is economically cannibalistic. At the same time, capital contributions to private industry are not the answer, per se, to rising employment opportunities. Let us face the facts. The industrial projects undertaken by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion amount to a pretty mixed bag. Payments to build a cattle-feed lot in Alberta can by no stretch of the imagination be justified economically. On the other hand, assistance to develop new technology in the building industry could have a profound effect throughout the country and is the kind of investment which should be undertaken.

I would not want to be unfair to a new department which has an important and difficult job to do, but I suggest that capital funds, even when made available in co-operation with industry, are not likely to be the answer in the long term. Quite clearly, they are not the answer in the immediate future. More attention should be given, now, to encouraging competitive production through payment, if necessary, on a cash basis for specific production inputs. For example, there is presently a strong world market for ships. We have steel, we have men, we have yards. Surely we do not need to wait upon the Japanese, the Germans or the British to show us how to put these things together into tankers and cargo ships. There is no need for us to design the wheel, but what we need is some enthusiasm and some push. We as Canadians have an odd outlook which seems to demand that government be the only customer for major capital goods if government is providing some of the money. This is self-defeating paternalism which I hope we can cast off.

Lastly, on the matter of the general economic slowdown, it is clear that government policy has been workmanlike if, at the same time, unimaginative. Indeed, if the government can be criticized for its monetary fiscal policy it can be argued it has been too often persuaded by the plodding arguments of the opposition. The conventional wisdom respecting the position of the central bank, the budget and specific tax items is hard to ignore, but I for one hope we shall not have to wait too long before specific taxes are recognized not only as productive revenue sources but also as a key factor in economic policy. I see no reason, for example, to continue to impose the federal sales tax on building products.

Hear, hear!