1969-06-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Twenty-third report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in French and in English-Mr. Clermont (Gatineau).
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in English and French of
the agenda of the first working session of the constitutional conference which was released this morning by decision of the conference.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Fortin: 1.	Does the Canadian Government Supply Services follow a policy favouring the purchase of Canadian products and, if so, what are the particulars of such policy?
2.	What was the total amount of purchases by these services during the last fiscal year and of that amount, what proportion was (a) for Canadian products (b) for foreign products?
3.	Does the government intend to propose the enactment of legislation similar to the "Buy American Act" and, if not, for what reasons?

Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply
and Services): In so far as the Department of Supply and Services is concerned: 1. The policy of the department with regard to the purchase of Canadian products is, as reflected in the general conditions that are applicable
to departmental contracts, that to the full extent to which they are procurable, consistent with proper economy and the expeditious carrying out of the contract, Canadian labour, parts and materials shall be used. Therefore, the department buys from Canadian firms if practicable and only turns to other sources of supply when procurement from the Canadian sources is deemed to be uneconomical or impractical.
In addition, it is the government's policy that a modest premium will be paid for a product with higher Canadian content. This premium is calculated at up to 10% of the difference of foreign content.
2.	The total net value of the contractual documents issued by the Department of Supply and Services during the fiscal year 1968-1969 was $861,152,000.
In high value equipments such as aircraft, ships, special vehicles, etcetera, due to agreements for defence production sharing with the United States and other NATO countries, many components contain an element of foreign content, but on an overall procurement basis, by far the largest proportion is Canadian. Due to the difficulty of tracing the relative Canadian and foreign content through all sub-contract levels, and the high cost which would be involved in maintaining separate accounts for this purpose, such records are not kept.
3.	No. It is not considered in Canada's overall interest to introduce restrictive legislation of this type, because of the protection already afforded Canadian industry by present import duties, together with the provision for paying a premium for Canadian content.


TENDERS FOR WORK ON &quot;H.M.C.S. MARGAREE&quot;
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What were the names of the tenderers and the various tenders for work on the HMCS Margaree, which closed on August 20, 1968?
2.	Who was the successful bidder and what is the amount of the final contract price?
Hon. James Richardson (Minisier of Supply
and Services): 1.
Tenderers	Tenders
Davie Shipbuilding Ltd.	$296,717
Marine Industries Ltd.	$398,054
St. John Shipbuilding Ltd.	$483,784
Canadian Vickers Ltd.	$540,278
Dominion Steel & Coal Corp.	$582,594

June 11, 1969
Questions
2.	The contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer, Davie Shipbuilding Ltd. Due to the exceptionally high volume of unanticipated work found to be necessary as a result of opening up equipment, machinery, tanks, etc., and to the cost of additional work determined to be necessary by the Department of National Defence after the original specifications had been tendered upon, the final contract price amounted to $574,107, comprising the following: (a) Original tender price, $296,717; (b) Additional unanticipated work arising as a result of opening up of equipment, etc., $121,108; (c) Additional work not included in the original specifications, $105,580; (d) Cost of material, including subcontracts, related to items (b) and (c), $50,702; Total, $574,107.


POSTAGE STAMPS PRINTING CONTRACTS
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	What are the names of the two firms referred to in the 1988 Auditor General's Report on page 91-92, undertaking government printing contracts for postage stamps, paper currency, passports, etc.?
2.	Over the last ten years, what have been the annual expenditures under government contracts awarded to each of the above firms?
3.	Will the Department of Finance undertake a cost audit of the books of the above firms as recommended by the Auditor General?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1.	The two firms referred to in paragraph 92 of the 1968 Report of the Auditor General are The British American Bank Note Company and The Canadian Bank Note Company.
2.	Based on the Public Accounts and on information supplied by the departments concerned, expenditures have been:
British American	Canadian
Bank Note Company Bank Note Company
($000)		($000)
1959-60	1,026	1,3851960-61	809	1,1891961-62	775	1,3831962-63	1,055	1,5301963-64	1,060	1,5121964-65	1,058	1,5551965-66	1,111	1,5251966-67	1,582	1,6161967-68	1,628	1,5721968-69	2,032	1,4013.	The Department of Supply and Services is conducting a cost audit of government contracts with the two firms as requested by the Department of Finance early this year.


FERTILIZER IMPORTS
Mr. Gleave: 1.	How much fertilizer was imported into Canada from October 1968 to April 15, 1969 (a) tonnage (b) price at port of entry?
2 How much fertilizer was exported from Canada during the same period?
3.	Was the Shell Oil Company the supplier of all or part of the supplies?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the
Dominion Bureau of Statistics is concerned:
1.	The amount of fertilizer imported into Canada for the period October 1, 1968 to March 31, 1969 (latest statistics available) was (a) 124,867 tons; (b) valued at $5,684,153*.
* The value is the "Fair Market Value" at customs port of entry.
2.	The value of fertilizers exported from Canada for the period October 1, 1968 to March 31, 1969 (latest statistics available) was $91,125,076. Quantities are not available.
In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 3. Shell Canada Ltd. did not supply any fertilizer that was exported during that period.


EMPLOYMENT OF MR. JEAN-PAUL RACINE
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Is the former Member of Parliament, one Mr. Jean-Paul Racine, employed by the government, or by a Crown Corporation and if so, (a) what is his position and (b) what is his annual salary?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: No.
(a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable.


INTER-CITY MAIL THROUGH TORONTO
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What percentage of inter-city mail in Canada passes through the Toronto Post Office?
2.	What percentage of inter-city mail in Canada passes through the Montreal Post Office?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: In so far
as the Post Office Department is concerned: Detailed information with respect to the composition of mails is available with respect to first class mail in those large post offices where continuous work measurement records are maintained.
On the basis of these figures, the answer to this question, in respect of first class mail only, is as follows: 1. 12.15 per cent.
2.	10.03 per cent.
June 11, 1969


AID FROM CANADA
Mr. Paproski: 1.	What countries received aid from Canada in 1968 and in what amounts?
2.	What, in each case, are the projected amounts for 1969?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Countries which received aid from Canada during the fiscal year 196869 are listed in Annex "A". Amounts allocated are shown opposite each country.
2. Projected amounts for the fiscal year 1969-70 are expected to be approximately the same as in 1968-69. They are still under consideration.
Countries Receiving Canadian Aid
Amounts allocated	
in 1968-69	
(in	millions of
Colombo Plan India	dollars) 84.0
Pakistan	27.0
Malaysia	3.0
Ceylon	4.5
Indo China States	3.5
Thailand	2.2
Others	2.1
Francophone Africa Tunisia	3.5
Camer oun	3.0
Senegal	3.5
Algeria	4.0
Morocco	2.5
Congo	.7
Rwanda	.8
Others (including Ivory Coast, Togo, Dahomey, Niger)	2.5
Commonwealth Africa Nigeria	9.55
Ghana	6.5
Tanzania	3.0
Kenya	2.7
Uganda	2.3
East African Community	.3
Others	1.35
Commonwealth Caribbean Jamaica	5.35
Trinidad & Tobago	5.25
Guyana	4.5
Little Seven, British Honduras and Barbados	6.0
University of West Indies	1.0
Others Latin America (through 1ADB)	10.0
Turkey	1.3
Ethiopia	.3
Questions


PAYMENTS IN SUBSIDIES AND SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Agriculture provide subsidies and/or support programs for any segment of the economy, groups or individuals inside Canada and, if so, to what extent, in what amounts, and to whom are the amounts paid?
2.	What amounts have been paid for subsidies and/or support programs during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Answers to Questions 1 and 2: Subsidies and support payments have been made to or for the benefit of producers during the years 1960-1968, in the following amounts: 19601961, $103,805,000;	1961-1962, $140,055,000;
1962-1963, $55,611,000; 1963-1964, $86,119,000; 1964-1965, $79,631,000; 1965-1966, $100,967,000; 1966-1967, $135,770,000; 1967-1968, $154,766,000; 1968-1969, $165,841,000.
The above figures include payments made by the Agricultural Stabilization Board, the Canadian Dairy Commission and the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, plus payments made under other Departmental Support programs for Crop Insurance, Hog and Lamb premiums, compensation and sundry emergency assistance.


ELDORADO NUCLEAR-ACTIVITIES AND EMPLOYEES IN QUEBEC
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What are the capital assets owned by Eldorado Nuclear Limited (a) in Quebec, and (b) elsewhere in Canada?
2.	How many employees does Eldorado Nuclear Limited have (a) in Quebec, and (b) elsewhere in Canada?
3.	For each of the last five years, what were Eldorado's expenditures for prospecting (a) in Quebec, and (b) elsewhere in Canada?
4.	Does Eldorado intend to carry out prospecting in Quebec and if not, for what reason?
5.	How many of Eldorado Nuclear Limited employees earn $17,000 and more and of these employees, how many have (a) French (b) English (c) some other language as their mother tongue and how many are bilingual?


Hon. Oito E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Eldorado Nuclear Limited reports as follows:	1. (a) Nil; (b) $16,667,816 (unamortized, at December 31, 1968).
2.	(a) No employees working in Quebec, but a few employees who work in Ontario reside in Quebec, (b) Approximately 1,075 at December 31, 1968.

June 11. 1969
Questions
3.	(a) & (b) No outside prospecting was done in these years. Some limited prospecting was done on Eldorado's own properties adjacent to the Saskatchewan mine. See answer to 4.
4.	By government policy, the prospecting activities of Eldorado since 1961 were restricted to Eldorado properties immediately adjacent to its Saskatchewan mine. Although this restriction has now been removed the Company's prospecting activities continue to be limited by a shortage of funds available for this purpose. At such time as funds are again available, the Company intends to prospect more widely and in such areas as are considered to be geologically attractive. There is good reason to believe that some such areas might be in the Province of Quebec.
5.	To seek the information requested would constitute a contravention of the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Fair Employment practices Act of Saskatchewan and the Human Rights Act of Alberta-the three provinces in which the Company operates.


WESTERN CANADA WHEAT PRODUCTION
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	How many bushels of wheat were produced by the Western Provinces?
2.	How many bushels were consumed in Canada?
3.	How many were exported?
4.	How many were not sold?
5.	What was the disposition of the unsold wheat?
[Translation1


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. See
attached table.
Crop Year (August 1st to July 31st)
	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69
	thousand bushels		
1. Wheat produced in four western Provinces (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia)	810,480	576,100	633,5002. Wheat consumed in Canada	155,407	168,150	N.A.3. Wheat (including seed) exported	483,456	311,320	189,729*Wheat flour exported	31,851	24,690	16,897*Total exported	515,307	336,010	206,626*1966	1967	1968thousand bushels	4. Stocks on hand at August 1st	420,122	576,751	665,5105. Disposition of unsold wheat-stocks at August 1st	On farms	100,000	205,000	236,000Country elevators	179,519	197,682	255,325Interior private and mill elevators	6,935	7,217	5,288Interior terminal elevators	2,227	13,466	13,725Vancouver-New Westminster elevators	10,179	9,745	8,670Victoria elevator	821	438	800Prince Rupert elevator	249	293	753Churchill elevator	4,132	4,478	4,163Fort William-Port Arthur elevators	35,888	44,523	63,026In transit-Rail	29,052	22,400	26,737Eastern elevators	38,539	62,070	46,703In transit lake	9,692	6,851	1,964Eastern mills (mill bins onlv)	2,618	2,310	2,190Western mills (mill bins only)	272	276	166Totals in Canada	420,122	576,751	665,510
'Statistics for 8 months only available (August 1968 to March 1969). 
June 11, 1969


HARVEST OF IRISH MOSS
Mr. MacDonald (Eg-monl): 1.	What was the total amount of Irish moss harvested from the Province of Prince Edward Island in 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968?
2.	How much of this moss was processed on Prince Edward Island?
3.	What was the net worth of this moss?
4.	In what ways is the Irish moss research station in Miminegash, Prince Edward Island, assisting the expansion of the industry?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1.
	Year	Landings Irish moss ('000 lb. wet)
	1963	10,559
	1964	7,124
	1965	17,139
	1966	24,464
	1967	47,926
	1968	53,658
2.	. All Irish	moss harvested along the
shores of Prince		Edward Island is dried on
the	Island.	
3.		
	Year	Value of landings Irish moss ($'000)
	1963	163
	1964	109
	1965	258
	1966	402
	1967	1,216
	1968	1,167
4.	By (a) development and improvement of commercial drying and cleaning of seaweeds; (b) upgrading of quality of dried moss by demonstration to operators of commercial plants based on results of custom drying of raw product; (c) extending the harvesting season with resulting benefits to fishermen;
(d)	development of improved processing equipment and handling and processing techniques;
(e)	studies of harvesting techniques; (f) ecological studies in selected areas establishing density and rates of growth, changes in population, effects of temperature and salinity; (g) investigation of extract yields and related characteristics, and; (h) initiation of cultivation studies in association with the Nova Scotia Research Foundation.
Questions


GRANT TO LIBBY-OWENS FORD
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Did the government grant any money to I.ibby-Owens Ford Company of Collingwood, Ontario under the Area Development Administration from the inception of the ADA until the end of 1968?
2.	Has any other type of financial assistance been granted to this firm by the government over the time period mentioned and, if so, under what program was this assistance given, on what date, and what was the amount of the assistance?


Yves Forest: 1. Yes. Under the Area Development Incentives Act $1,220,578 of a capital grant of approximately $2,000,000, has been paid to this company.
2.	No.


FUEL OIL FOR R.C.N. SHIPS
Mr. Anderson: What is the per barrel cost of fuel oil purchased by the government for R.C.N. Ships (a) at Halifax (b) at Esquimalt?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: In accordance with Standing Offer Agreements for the period from June 1, 1968 to May 31, 1969, the cost per barrel of fuel oil, Naval, Boiler, CGSB Specification 3-GP-12C purchased by the Government for R.C.N. Ships: (a) at Halifax, N.S., $3.69 per barrel; (b) at Esquimalt, B.C., $3.25 per barrel.


CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION PERSONNEL
Mr. Lambert (Belle-chasse): 1.	What is the number of persons, including the Commissioners, employed full-time by the Canadian Dairy Commission?
2.	Of this number, how many are French-speaking and how many are bilingual?
3.	In 1969-70, what will be the annual salary paid to the Commissioners at the various levels?
4.	What will be the annual salary of the other employees?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1.	29.
2.	French-speaking, 14; bilingual, 16.
3.	Present salary rate: Chairman, $25,000; Vice-Chairman, $23,000; Commissioner, $23,-
000.
4.	Present salary rate: 1 Senior Officer 2, $22,000; 1 Economist, $15,762; 1 AS 6, $14,007; 1 PM 4, $10,054; 1 PM 3, $9,282; 1 PM 3, $8,169; 1 PM 1, $6,325; 1 CR 4, $5,555; 1 CR

June 11, 1969
Questions
4,	$5,383; 1 CR	3,	$5,125; 1	CR	3,	$4,663;	include	developing the schedule	of work for1 CR 2, $4,133;	2	CR	2, $4,009;	1	CR	2,	$3,885;	one of	the Cabinet committees, preparing1 CR 2, $3,761;	1	CR	1, $3,165;	1	CR	1,	$3,064;	minutes	of committee meetings	and records1 CR 1, $2,862;	1	ST	8, $7,529;	1	ST	7,	$6,182;	of decision.1 ST 6, $5,727; 1 ST 6, $5,555; 1 ST 4, $4,629;	2 $16 616
1 ST 3, $4,384; 1 ST 3, $4,120.


CONTRACT FOR EXTRA SEATS AT AUTOSTAD
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Has the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation awarded a contract for the addition of extra seats at the Autostad in Montreal and, if so, what is the amount of the contract?
2.	What work is included in the contract?
3.	By what person or corporation is the Autostad owned?
4.	Is the amount to be expended contained in the Estimates of any government department for the current year?
5.	For what purpose is the Autostad used, who derives the revenue from it and in what amount?
6.	Who pays for the maintenance of the Autostad and what was the original cost to the Canadian taxpayers?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: 1. Yes. $266,850.
2.	The installation of 5,164 seats and related support structures.
3.	The Autostad is owned by the Government of Canada.
4.	Yes (1969/70 Estimates Vote L.175)
5.	The Autostad is leased to the Montreal Alouette Football Club Inc. for professional football. The Alouettes pay 15% of all receipts including gate, stadium rental and concessionaires with a minimum of $100,000 per year as rent and $11,625, annually for office space and parking facilities.
6.	The Alouettes pay for the maintenance of the Autostad. The original cost to the Canadian Corporation for the World Exhibition was $4,014,662. However, the major automobile companies contributed $3,350,000. toward the cost, thus the net cost to CCWE was $664,662.


RESPONSIBILITIES OF MR. MICHAEL BUTLER
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What are the specific duties and responsibilities of Mr. Michael Butler in the Privy Council Office?
2 What is Mr. Butler's annual salary?


James Edgar Walker: 1. Mr. Butler acts as assistant secretary to the Cabinet and is responsible for the preparation, appropriateness and form of Cabinet materials concerning priorities and planning. His specific duties


RESPONSIBILITIES OF MR. HARRY R. JOHNSON
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What are the specific duties and responsibilities of Mr. Harry R. Johnson in the Privy Council Office?
2.	What is Mr. Johnson's annual salary?


James Edgar Walker: 1. Mr. Kirkwood acts as assistant secretary to the Cabinet and is responsible for the preparation, appropriateness and form of Cabinet materials concerning legislation and the parliamentary program. His specific duties include developing the schedule of work for one of the Cabinet committees, preparing minutes of committee meetings and records of decision.
2.	$17,308.


RESPONSIBILITIES OF MR. DAVID H. W. KIRKWOOD
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What are the specific duties and responsibilities of Mr. David H. W. Kirkwood in the Privy Council Office?
2.	What is Mr. Kirkwood's annual salary?


James Edgar Walker: 1. Mr. Kirkwood acts as assistant secretary to the Cabinet and is responsible for the preparation, appropriateness and form of Cabinet materials concerning economic policies. His specific duties include developing the schedule of work for one of the Cabinet committees, preparing minutes of committee meetings and records of decision.
2.	$23,692.


RESPONSIBILITIES OF MR. PAUL TELLIER
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What are the specific duties and responsibilities of Mr. Paul Tellier in the Privy Council Office?
2.	What is Mr. Tellier's annual salary?


James Edgar Walker: 1. Mr. Tellier acts as assistant secretary to the Cabinet and is responsible for the preparation, appropriateness and form of Cabinet materials concerning cultural policy including bilingualism.
June 11, 1969



His specific duties include developing the schedule of work for one of the Cabinet committees, preparing minutes of committee meetings and records of decision.
2. $16,616.


VANCOUVER LOW RENTAL HOUSING
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	How much money Is being contributed by each of the following toward the 130 low-rental housing units announced on May 14 by the Minister responsible for housing to be constructed in two projects in Vancouver (a) the federal government (b) the provincial government (e) the City of Vancouver?
2.	What amount was paid for the land involved?
3.	What recreational facilities will these projects include (a) inside (b) outside?
4.	On what basis will the tenants be selected?
5.	On what basis will the rents be set?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The Federal Government's contribution is estimated at $1,156,772; (b) The Provincial Government's contribution is estimated at $385,591;	(c) The City of
Vancouver does not contribute to the construction cost.
2.	The cost of the land was $313,400.
3.	(a) There is no provision for inside recreation facilities; (b) Equipped play areas will be provided outside.
Model Year	Purchased	Still in Service1960	949	3841961	1538	7701962	1100	6181963	1105	7871964	2733	25131965	994	9771966	1917	18901967	2280	22781968	346	346
Records are not maintained in a manner which would permit the quantity of each model disposed of through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation to be readily identifiable to a particular year.
Questions
4.	The tenants will be selected on a point rating system which takes into consideration present accommodation, present rent, number of dependents, eviction notices issued, income, overcrowding and 12 month residence in the city. In addition, priority is given to applicants displaced as a result of government or private urban renewal or demolitions.
5.	Rental rates will be in accordance with the rent-to-income scale.


NATIONAL DEFENCE MOTOR VEHICLE PURCHASES
Mr. Beaudoin: 1 How many motor vehicles did the government purchase for the Department of National Defence for each of the years 1960 to 1968 inclusive?
2.	How many of the vehicles are still in service?
3.	For each of these years, how many were sold through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: The term
"Motor Vehicles" has been taken to mean motorized vehicles, construction engineering equipment, material handling equipment, heavy special purpose equipment and trailers. On this basis, the replies to 1, 2 and 3 are as follows:
Disposition
To Crown	Write-off and
Assets Disposal	issue to other
Corporation	departments
499	66
652	116
423	59
242	76
185	35
17	-
16	11


FEASIBILITY STUDY OF INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS
Mr. Broadbent: Which new studies are being sponsored by the Area Development Agency in co-operation with

June 11. 1969
Questions
provincial governments to determine the feasibility of specific industrial projects as reported in the annual report of the Department of Industry, April 1, 1967-March 31, 1968 on page 34?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: New Brunswick: Wood component industrial opportunity study, Canadian market for high pressure decorative laminates. Ontario: Feasibility of a moccasin factory on Manitoulin Island. Manitoba: Feasibility of new rendering facilities.


SEAL HUNTING LICENCES
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	Are seal-hunting licenses issued exclusively to fishermen or are they issued to anyone who applies as a game license?
2.	If issued to all applicants, what percentage of the total number issued went to bona-fide fishermen in the 1969 season?


Eugene Whelan: 1. It is not required that applicants for sealing licences be fishermen.
2. This information is not available. In some kinds of commercial fishing on the Atlantic Coast no licences are required of individual fishermen; for example, in trawling and dragging only the vessel is licensed.


RETRAINING FOR RETIRING ARMED SERVICES PERSONNEL
Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-: Cowichan-The Islands):
1.	Is there a program of rehabilitation and retraining for retiring armed services personnel?
2.	What is the nature of the program?
3.	Are formal courses of instruction offered and, if so, for which professions and vocations?
4.	Who is eligible to participate in the program?
5.	What steps are taken to acquaint armed forces personnel with the existence of the program?
6.	When was the program instituted?
7.	Has the program been subject to evaluation since its introduction and, if so, what were the results?


David Walter Groos: 1. Yes.
2. The program, called "The Civilian Employment Assistance Program", is a joint effort of the Department of National Defence and the Department of Manpower and Immigration. The scope of the program includes counselling by the Canadian Forces Personnel Selection Officer in the areas of evaluation

of work interests, including the use of objective psychological measures, evaluation of military training and experience as related to civilian employment, assistance in planning academic upgrading prior to retirement and current information about the civilian labour market. He also provides assistance in the preparation of a career resume and a maximum of 20 printed and bound copies, complete with photo portrait, are provided at no cost to the individual. Under the provision of Bill C-278 "The Adult Occupation Training Act" individuals whose skills and experience do not qualify them for satisfactory entry into the civilian labour force may be provided with suitable occupational training. The need for such training is initiated and assessed by the designated Manpower counsellor responsible for retiring servicemen in co-operation with the military Personnel Selection Officer. Assistance is provided, both on a local and nation wide basis, by the local Manpower counsellor towards available job opportunities best suited to an individual's particular needs; or develop job opportunities for an individual by bringing his qualifications to the attention of potential employers.
3.	Formal courses of instructions are not offered within the service, but the program offers counselling in academic upgrading and preparation for occupational retraining, as managed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
4.	The program is designed primarily for all long service personnel who will be released upon reaching compulsory release age. It is also available to personnel upon termination of a short service commission or who are being released prematurely (honourably, and for other than voluntary reasons), except that for those released with less than ten years service, DND limits its responsibilities to that of providing a counselling service. Entry to the program for those eligible is voluntary and can commence five years before retirement.
5.	The text of the pertinent order, CFAO 5620, is published once each quarter in unit orders. Articles describing the program have been published in the Armed Forces Magazine "The Sentinel", a poster has been printed and distributed to all Bases in Canada and locations overseas, articles and regular news columns have been printed in garrison and unit newspapers, as well as newspapers such as the Financial Post. In addition, the letter sent to senior personnel, advising them of the
June 11. 1969

official date of release, makes specific reference to the program and, at the unit level, Base Personnel Selection Officers are given notice of those who will reach compulsory release age twelve months in advance.
6.	The military contribution to this program has been in existence in differing forms, on individual basis, since 1958, and on an integrated basis since March 1965. The Department of Manpower and Immigration joined in on January 1, 1968.
7.	Evaluation of the program has commenced but has not yet been completed. The evaluation will include an extensive study through questionnaires mailed to retired military personnel, a series of questionnaires to discover and evaluate all aspects of the present program in relationship to those who are retiring in the near future and, finally, a questionnaire to gain information about the attitudes of the civilian employer to retired personnel of the Canadian Forces.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL IN U.S.
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	How many Canadian Armed Forces Flying Officers and Pilots were stationed in the United States in the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968?
2.	Where were they stationed and what was their purpose for being there?
3.	How many of these Pilots were qualified as flying instructors?


David Walter Groos: 1. and 2. In 1968, there were 123 aircrew officers stationed at 40 locations in the United States. Forty were on exchange duties with U.S. Forces; 20 were on liaison duties; 60 were attached to NORAD and three were attending courses: For 1965, 1966, 1967 this information is not readily available and cannot be provided without the identification of each individual involved, and the drawing from War Service Records of the confidential personal files of those aircrew officers who have been released since 1965, and the examination of all these files to obtain the information. The necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather this information.
3.	See remarks above.


ABITIBI PART-TIME EMPLOYEES
Mr. Laprise: 1. Does the federal government have part-time employees in the constituency of Abitibi, who prepare reports for the Bureau of Statistics and, if so, what are their names and addresses?
Questions
2.	How many hours per month does this work require from each employee?
3.	Do such employees work within the boundaries of the (a) federal, or (b) provincial constituency?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. Yes, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics employs one person who works part-time as a labour force interviewer in the federal constituency of Abitibi and part-time in the federal constituency of Ville-neuve-Mr. Denis Veillette, 440 Pioneer Avenue, Malartic, Quebec.
2.	Mr. Veillette works approximately 15 hours per month on this work.
3.	This employee works in an area of Quebec not specifically related to either federal or provincial constituencies as work areas are determined on the most economical basis.


CORNWALLIS NAVAL BASE HOUSING RENTALS
Mr. Comeau: 1.	Have the housing rents for the married quarters at Cornwallis Naval Base been raised this year and, if so, by how much?
2.	Is a further increase in the rents contemplated for next year and, if so, by how much?
3.	What is the reason for such increases?
4.	Has similar action been taken on other basis in Canada?


David Walter Groos: 1. Rent for Canadian Forces' married quarters was revised effective 1 April 1968, at the direction of Treasury Board. All charges are based on the weighted national average of market rental values as appraised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Charges vary according to the type of accommodation, and there are 17 different types of accommodation at Canadian Forces Base Cornwallis. A transitional system of increases commenced 1 April 1968, with a maximum of $15 per month per year and a similar increase was instituted on 1 April 1969.
2.	Increases will continue to be imposed until the established charge for the various housing units has been reached.
3.	The revision was part of government policy whereby all federally owned housing was to be rented at rates comparable to those for similar civilian accommodation.
4.	Yes, the revised rental structure is applicable at all bases in Canada, at the same rates and with the same effective dates.

June 11, 1969
Questions


FAHM ASSISTANCE EMPLOYEES UNDER PUBLIC SERVICE ACT
Mr. Soulham: Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation in the next session to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to bring those officials involved in administering and supervising this Act under the terms and provisions of the Public Service Act so that those affected may enjoy the same security of tenure and pension benefits as presently enjoyed by those presently engaged in the Public Service of Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There has been no decision made to introduce legislation to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Full-time employees of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act Administration now have the same pension benefits as those persons engaged in the Public Service of Canada.


NORAD AIRBORNE WARNING SYSTEM
Mr. Yewchuk: Is the government considering a Canadian role in an airborne warning and control system under NORAD control?


David Walter Groos: Not at
the present time.


REVENUES FROM METERED MAIL
Mr. Robinson: What revenue does the Post Office Department receive from the use of meters for metered mail?


Eric William Kierans: In so far
as the Post Office Department is concerned: For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969: $167,006,351.03.


PROVINCIAL REPRESENTATION ON C.M.H.C. BOARD
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Does the government intend to appoint representatives from the various provincial housing corporations to serve on the Board of Directors of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, with a view to better co-ordination of housing programs in Canada?
2.	Has the government already received representations in this regard?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. and 2. The Board of Directors of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation consists of the President, a Vice-President and eight other members, three of whom are

to be selected from the public service of Canada and five of whom to be selected from outside the public service of Canada. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act provides that no person appointed outside the public service of Canada shall be eligible to hold office as a member of the Board of Directors who is employed in any capacity in the public service of any province of Canada.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Agriculture provide an information service and, if so, what was the cost for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
2.	How many publications and/or periodicals and/or information sheets and/or public releases were provided by the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive, and what was the cost for each publication for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
3.	How many copies of each publication are provided and to whom are they distributed and how is the distribution effected?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 149, 160, 161, 163, 168 and 187 are acceptable to the government.

BARBER FARM MACHINERY REPORT Motion No. 149-Mr. Schreyer:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report on farm machinery prepared by Dr. Barber referred to by the Minister of Agriculture in Hansard of April 1, 1969, page 7370.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 160-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all standards on pollution established by the Department of Public Works.
Motion agreed to.
June 11, 1969
[Stage Direction]


AGRICULTURE POLLUTION STANDARDS Motion No. 161-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all standards on pollution established by the Department of Agriculture.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 163-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all standards on pollution established by the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 168-Mr. Douglas (Nanairno-
Cowichan-The Islands):
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the correspondence, memoranda etc., between the Food and Drug Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the United States Food and Drug Administration regarding the efficacy of the drugs referred to by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on April 30, 1969, in Hansard, page 8170.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 187-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant survey on a comprehensive information system for the construction industry as reported in the Annual Report of the Department of Industry, April 1, 1967-March 31, 1968, on page 44.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 130 is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers and authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 130 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions for Papers


DISSOLUTION OF ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 130-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence from April 1, 1968, with regard to the dissolution of the Atlantic Development Board and all the correspondence from January 1, 1969, with regard to the formation of the Atlantic Development Council.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you kindly call notices of motions Nos. 90, 117, 137, 142, 144, 145, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 165, 171, 174, 184, 188, 195 and 196?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


OIL PIPE LINE TO MONTREAL
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 90-Mr. Thomson:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a report prepared by the Department of Industry regarding the economic feasibility of an oil pipe line from Western Canada to the Montreal area.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Minister of Industry that internal working papers have been prepared from time to time on various oil policy questions. These papers are privileged matter and cannot therefore be tabled. In view of this, the Minister of Industry hopes the hon. member will withdraw his motion.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson), and in his absence, may I say that he wishes this motion to be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that it be transferred for debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Transferred for Debate under Standing Order 48.


SENATE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE POLICY-SUBMISSION APRIL 30, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 117-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the International Agreements referred to by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce,
[Stage Direction]
June 11, 1969
Motions for Papers
In their submission to the Senate Special Committee on Science Policy, April 30, 1969, Appendix "D", Pages 34 to 36 inclusive, of that Department's submission.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to inform the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) that the status of the 13 documents or groups of documents referred to within this motion is as follows:
Six are classified either at the request of the foreign governments concerned or because of their content are considered to be privileged and it would not be in the public interest to release these.
One further agreement has not yet been signed and cannot be considered for tabling.
Another agreement is one in which Canada did not participate in and copies are not available.
On one further agreement, it is felt by the minister that consent should be secured from the foreign government concerned. Tabling of this particular agreement is therefore conditional upon such consent.
If the hon. member is willing to accept these limitations and withdraw his motion, the minister is prepared to table the four remaining agreements plus the fifth one which is conditional, as I have indicated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, instead of having the motion withdrawn may I ask that it be passed, with the limitations indicated by the parliamentary secretary, subject of course to the right of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) to bring forward another motion at some other time. If that is acceptable I am prepared to agree, on behalf of the hon. member, to the limitations proposed.


Yves Forest: That is acceptable, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions just expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that Notice of Motion No. 117 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
IMr. Orlikow.]

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 137
Mr. Rose:: That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all information, studies, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia, related to the proposed Shuswap River diversion project, dated since January 1, 1969.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, officers of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources are engaged in negotiations with their counterparts in the British Columbia Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources towards the completion of an agreement which would cover a broad range of joint studies of the Okanagan River Basin, including examination of the possibility of diversion of water from the Shuswap River to the Okanagan River Basin. Documents exchanged between the respective departments in relation to this matter thus should remain confidential until after execution of the agreement. I hope therefore that the hon. member will agree to withdrawing his motion.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed with the government's reaction to the question of the possibility of diversion of water from the Shuswap River-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I trust the hon. member will not become involved in a debate. We are dealing with these notices of motions and by virtue of the standing orders the hon. member has the right only to say whether he wishes the motion to be transferred for debate.


Mark Willson Rose: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to post this notice of motion for the production of papers for debate at the earliest opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate pursuant to standing order 48.


CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING THE &quot;MAVERICK&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 145-Mr. Sallsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Ford Motor Company of Canada and the Government of Canada regarding the price situation of the new car 'Maverick'.
June 11, 1969
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has not exchanged any correspondence with the Ford Motor Company of Canada regarding the price situation of the new car "Maverick". I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I speak on behalf of the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), Mr. Speaker. If there is no correspondence I suppose it is useless asking for it by way of motion.
Motion withdrawn and order discharged.


CAPABILITY IN DEVELOPMENT OF SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 151-Mr. Schreyer:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Report by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, entitled "Canadian Industrial Capability for the Development of Domestic Satellite Communications Systems", prepared for the Task Force on Satellites of the Science Secretariat and referred to in the Department's submission to the Senate Special Committee on Science Policy, Appendix V.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if this motion could now be put in my name. If so, I should like to move it.


Mr. Speaker:: It will require an order of the house to have this motion placed in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is therefore moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is not able to accept this motion. The report which the hon. member for Selkirk refers to contains confidential information on industrial firms, the disclosure of which could be detrimental to their competitive positions. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce would ask that the member withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have permission to have this matter transferred for debate.
Motions for Papers


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that it shall be transferred for debate pursuant to standing order 48?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Transferred for debate under standing order 48.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, while we are at that page of the order paper, I wonder if notice of motion 149 could also have my name substituted for that of the former member for Selkirk, who has gone to greener pastures?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: No. 154.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, it had been our hope to speak to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) who is not in the house today. I wonder if the motions in his name which are to be called could be withstood for today's sitting?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES POLLUTION STANDARDS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 165-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all standards on pollution established by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, no standards on pollution have been established by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Under the circumstances I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have permission to have this matter transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that it shall be transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 48?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Transferred for debate under standing order 48.

June 11, 1969
Motions for Papers INTERLAKE FRED AGREEMENT Motion No. 184-Mr. Schreyer:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the results of the working group reviewing the programs under the Federal-Provincial Interlake FRED agreement, referred to in the News Release of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion of May 21, 1969, page 3.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion before the house, No. 184, was originally placed in the name of the hon. member for Selkirk and by order of this house it now stands in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Russell Clayton Honey: I can dispose of this now. The notice of motion requests the results of the working group. This was an intergovernmental group which was working on this matter and their report is intended for the information of the governments, provincial and federal. In those circumstances I ask that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact this was referred to in a news release, I think we should have a vote on it now or transfer it for debate. I am willing to have a vote on it right now.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that it shall be transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 48?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Transferred for debate under standing order 48.
TEXTILES STUDY Motion No. 188-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study on textiles as reported in the Annual Report of the Department of Industry, April 1, 1967-March 31, 1968, on pages 51-52.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce cannot accept this motion as the study in question is confidential to the industries and cannot be released. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce would ask that the member withdraw his motion.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker,, I should like to have permission to have this matter transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that it shall be transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 48?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Transferred for debate under standing order 48.


REPORTS RESPECTING CAMBODIA, LAOS AND VIET NAM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 195-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all reports received from the International Commissions on which Canada has representation in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, since July 1, 1965.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, reports from the International Control Commissions, when made, are addressed to the co-chairmen of the Geneva Conferences of 1954 and 1962, that is, the Foreign Ministers of Britain and the U.S.S.R. Some of these have not been made public by the co-chairmen and cannot therefore be made available to the house. The government however can table the twelfth and thirteenth interim reports of the Cambodia Commission which are the latest submitted, as well as the two Laos Commission messages concerning violations of the Declaration on the Neutrality of Laos and its Protocol by the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam (North Viet Nam). Both the Laos and Viet Nam Commissions have addressed various other messages to the co-chairmen since July 1, 1965, but these have not yet been published. They have not submitted any interim reports since that date. Subject to these qualifications the motion is acceptable and the documents can be tabled forthwith.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, as a starter I will accept the small offerings the Parliamentary Secretary puts forward today but I assure him I have not concluded my search in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the conditions and reservations outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary is it the pleasure of the house that Notion of Motion No. 195 is deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 196-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all information, studies, correspondence and other documents exchanged by
June 11, 1969
[Stage Direction]
the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America related to proposed antl-ballistic missile systems.
Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, there have been, from time to time, discussions and exchanges of information between the United States and Canada concerning the United States decision to deploy an anti-ballistic missile system.
As the house has been informed on several occasions, these exchanges have not involved any commitment on the part of the Canadian government with respect to participation in the proposed A.B.M. system. The exchanges between Canada and the U.S.A. have been of a confidential nature and, owing to the national security considerations involved, it is necessary to preserve their confidential nature. I would therefore regretfully ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion for the production of papers.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely astounding that the people of the nation cannot know the position of the government on such a vital issue. Therefore I would ask that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 48.
Transferred for debate under standing order 48.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motion stand?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we have changed the name on a few notices of motions for the production of papers, could we also have this done with respect to question No. 1,945, which is on page 67 of today's order paper? It is there in the name of Mr. Schreyer. I would be glad if my name were substituted for his.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the chance to address a
Inquiries of the Ministry question to the Minister of Public Works as Acting Prime Minister and look forward to great progress being made under his more flexible leadership. Will the hon. gentleman discuss with the Prime Minister and his colleagues the suggestion that at least part of the proceedings of the Federal-Provincial Constitutional Conference be held in public in order that the people of Canada may have some idea of the proposals which are being put forward? I ask this question, Mr. Speaker, because there is such a large degree of interest on the part of the public, and this should not be an esoteric exercise in dialectics restricted to the elite.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I shall draw the observations of the hon. member to the attention of the Prime Minister, but I do want to tell the house that a number of ministers have to attend the conference and it might be appropriate now if I advised members of the house that the Minister of Finance will not be here this afternoon to hear all of the debate on his budget. I think it is more appropriate that I advise the house of this rather than he.


Gerald William Baldwin: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker,, I ask the hon. gentleman to seek assurance from the Prime Minister that after the conference is over there will be at least a full and unabridged statement made, and not just a few calculated leaks to the few press favourites who are still retained by the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. R. Gordon Fairweaiher (Fundy-Roy-al):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct an urgent supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Are the security arrangements for the constitutional conference considered adequate? Are the security forces, deployed at either end of the tunnel leading from the Chateau Laurier to the old station, able to ensure that provincial parliamentarians are not subjected to unseemly harassment by a crummy press?


FINANCE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the announcement by the Bank of Canada that it has raised its lending rate to 7-| per cent, and the likelihood that the chartered

June 11, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry banks may now increase their prime lending rate proportionately, I want to ask the minister if he would consider trying to persuade the banks not to raise their prime lending rate until he meets with them at the projected meeting next week, and following that meeting will the minister report back to parliament the results of his discussions?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, due to the action in the United States whereby the prime rate of banks was increased to 8i per cent, it became obvious that the prime rates of the chartered banks of Canada would require some adjustment. Four of the chartered banks, the Royal, Montreal, Nova Scotia and Banque Canadienne Nationale, have announced prime rate increases to 8 per cent effective, I understand, on June 16. There was a report this morning that the Bank of Nova Scotia is moving its C.D. rate up J per cent, but this has not been confirmed. It is also reported that the Bank of Montreal has increased, effective June 1, its rates on savings on non-chequable accounts from 5J per cent to 6 per cent and chequable savings accounts from 3 per cent to 3J per cent.


REQUEST THAT STANDING COMMITTEE STUDY ADVISABILITY OF REGULATORY BODY
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement the minister has just made and in view of the huge profits the banks have made since the ceiling was taken off interest rates, would the minister consider referring back again to an appropriate committee of the house the Bank Act with a view to considering the advisability of having some regulatory body, either the Bank of Canada or the Minister of Finance, to whom the chartered banks must apply before raising the prime rate.
Kon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance): Of
course as with all suggestions of the hon. member, I would be pleased to consider this matter. However I do not think, had we been operating presently under the old ceiling, that the banking system and the credit system in Canada would be any better than it is today. As I indicated, the moves the banks have made I felt were essential. I indicated this in the house yesterday. Certainly I welcome the move of the Bank of Montreal to increase by a similar amount the amount it is paying to its customers on funds which are deposited with the bank.


CONSULTATIONS BEFORE INCREASE IN PRIME RATE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance.
Was the latest increase in the interest rate by the Bank of Canada decided upon unilaterally by the Governor of the Bank of Canada or did the latter consult with the Minister of Finance before making such a decision?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the decisions concerning the rediscount rate, which is not a lending rate, of the Bank of Canada of course is the responsibility of the Governor of the bank. He made this decision, fulfilling the obligation he has to the Canadian people. There is of course constant consultation between the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasi-ings):: Mr. Speaker, can the acting Secretary of State for External Affairs bring the house up to date on the results of the conversations held during the past month between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Secretary of State of the United States regarding the extradition of Mr. Hal Banks.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago the State Department of the United States was asked whether it would be possible under United States law to contemplate now the extradition to Canada of Hal Banks. The reply given was that this is a very complex legal question under United States law and that some time will be required to look into it. The process of looking into the matter is continuing now.


George Harris Hees: Did the United States State Department give any indication when this inquiry might be terminated?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, but they are continuing to look into it.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Is it government policy to approve the rather unseemly spectacle of the Secretary of
June 11, 1969



State for External Affairs eagerly chasing after junior Chinese diplomats in Stockholm and offering to make himself available at any hour, sort of like Mae West-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



BROADCASTING


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that all Canadian citizens should be considered as equals, would he consider bringing in legislation restricting the use of movies, TV or advertising that portray the Indians of North America as savages or some inferior type of human beings?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should think this question might be placed on the order paper.


Paul Yewchuk: Ten o'clock.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask again the question I directed yesterday to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. At that time I was told there were no questions of this nature being answered. My question was:
At the D-Day ceremonies in Normandy on June 6 did the Canadian Ambassador read a speech which had been sent to him by the Department of External Affairs? Did the minister see this speech and approve of it?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, the speech was prepared by the Department of External Affairs in collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs and sent to the Ambassador for delivery. However this speech was not seen either by the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, did this speech contain a statement along the line that the D-Day army had consisted of five divisions comprised equally of American, British and French troops, a manifestly incorrect statement?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the speech which I will be glad to send over to the hon. member in order that he can check it for himself.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, did the French government request that no member of the Canadian cabinet be present at this ceremony and did the Canadian government agree to this without protest?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs has dealt with this question already, when he indicated that the government of France did describe its views as to the type of ceremony which should take place on French soil. Quite naturally the Canadian government was inclined to respect these views.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the department has received a letter from one Nicholas Skou-las, protesting the involvement of the Greek embassy in a pro-junta group that has been allegedly terrorizing members of the Greek community in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in order. The member may wish to consider the matter at the time of adjournment, if there is urgency-which is not apparent as far as the Chair is concerned.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry whether it is his intention during his planned visit to Newfoundland this weekend to announce a revised plan of compensation for Placentia Bay fishermen who have lost their livelihood as a result of pollution?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, no revisions will be announced, but together with the committee of fishermen we will explore the application of the present formula.

June 11, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AID



BIAFRA-SHOOTING DOWN OF SWEDISH RED CROSS AIRCRAFT

Mr. Ralph Slewarl (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to redirect a question I asked yesterday of the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, in respect of which an answer was promised today. The question was as follows:
Is it the intention of the Canadian government to lodge a protest with the Lagos government regarding the death of four aircrew resulting from the shooting down of a Swedish Red Cross plane carrying relief goods into Biafra, and is it the intention of the government to ask the Nigerians to ensure that this does not occur again, in consideration of the many Canadians, as well as other nationals, who are engaged in that humanitarian work?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the statement issued by the Nigerian government on this unfortunate occurrence indicated that they were increasing their air defence measures because of recent air attacks attributed to foreign mercenaries employed by the rebel regime. The Nigerian authorities have asserted that the rebels had taken advantage of the relaxed air defence, not only to bring in arms supplies and aircraft but to employ these aircraft for attacks on federally held areas during the periods when relief flights were going on. Unless the regime of Colonel Ojukwu agrees to allow daylight flights into Uli by relief aircraft, the possibility of confusion and interference with the humanitarian flights will continue to exist. In these circumstances it does not appear appropriate to make a protest to Lagos.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, could the acting minister say whether, in light of the incident to which the hon. member for Cochrane has referred and the apparent discontinuance of mercy flights by the International Red Cross, the government would reconsider its policy of assisting the Red Cross, and also consider giving assistance to joint church aid which is continuing mercy flights into Biafra?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think the house is aware that the government of Canada is eager to see relief assistance afforded on as great a scale or measure as practicable. If it is possible to increase the flying in of relief supplies, the government of Canada would be prepared to take every step to assist.


Francis Andrew Brewin: In light of what the minister has said, will consideration be given to the 
suggestion that we assist the joint church aid organization which is flying mercy flights into Biafra?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker, consideration will be given to this.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister or the officials of the Department of External Affairs have determined that the shooting down of the Red Cross aircraft was a violation of the Geneva convention?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as this incident took place at night, when I assume it was rather difficult to distinguish markings on aircraft, and there is no formal filing of flight plans for relief aircraft, it would be quite difficult to determine the facts of the particular situation. However, inquiries will be made.



BIAFRA-TRANSPORT OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT IN RELIEF FLIGHTS

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the acting minister would indicate that our government has any knowledge that properly designated relief flights either operated by the Red Cross, Canada relief or joint church aid, from the states, have been found or suspected of transporting military equipment?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that either negatively or affirmatively. To my personal knowledge there has been no such ascertainment. As is perhaps known, the Canadian government or its representatives do not attempt to monitor or in any way search the contents of these aircraft.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council whether it is the intention of the government now to delay the amendment to the Criminal Code in reference to off-track betting?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, not knowing the progress of the bill before the standing committee I am not in a position to answer today. I will have to consult with my colleagues to find out what the prospects are for an early return of the bill to the house.
June 11. 19S9



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs make a statement on motions advising members of the house what machinery his department intends to set up to ensure that Canadian consumers will obtain the full benefits of the tariff reductions set forth in the budget, as promised by the minister on June 5?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minisier of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I
indicated in the house the other day that I was having discussions with my officials. These discussions are continuing and I hope to have something more to say later in this regard.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronfenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I gave the Minister of Transport notice of this question. Will the economic and human rights of certain farmers in Lennox County, whose land is about to be expropriated by the Canadian National Railways for railway industrial purposes, be protected and defended by his department?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is of the type which seems to me can adequately be considered at the time of adjournment.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I ask that it be considered then, at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is he aware that the discontinuance of the E.P.A. jet service into Deer Lake, Newfoundland, has caused deterioration of the air service for western Newfoundland and Labrador, with serious effects on communications, goods and services; and will he investigate and direct the necessary action to reinstate the service?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made a submission which he has to assume the minister has noted.
Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Does the minister intend to expose senior civil servants in his department to the difficulties and frustrations of the marketplace, as suggested by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer)?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is rather mysterious, as far as the Chair is concerned. Perhaps it might be considered in the hour of mystery some time after ten o'clock.



TASK FORCE INQUIRY-INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION BASED THEREON

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister planning to introduce before the end of this session legislation based upon the report of the task force on amateur sports; and if not, when does he plan to do so?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: If there is such legislation, Mr. Speaker, it certainly will not be ready before the end of this session.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I take it that the minister has no plans for introducing such legislation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin).


George Harris Hees: No information, no report; and this is the just society!


John Carr Munro: We have already implemented half of the recommendations.



AIRPORTS


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
In view of the fact that the provincial government of Quebec has established a special committee to hear evidence from various public bodies in regard to the location of the Ste. Scholastique airport, does the minister intend to have government officials appear before that provincial parliamentary committee to enable them to give some explanations

June 11, 1969
The Budget-Mr. Fortin on the decision taken by the federal government?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, this decision was taken by the cabinet, and Montreal airport is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the government house leader. In view of the fact that the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications will be meeting this afternoon to consider its final recommendations to the house, after its study of transportation problems in the Atlantic provinces, will the government house leader, in order to be consistent, bring forward government order No. 68, which is the fifth report of that standing committee, in order that this matter may be brought to resolution?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable to see an old friend departing, but this is the last time the hon. member will have the opportunity to ask the question and I regret that in view of the timetable I have to say no.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 10, consideration of the motion of Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) that this house approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (p. 9880).
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I started last night to make a few remarks on the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). This budget is certainly not an innovation, but rather a repetition of the Canadian economic adventure we have been living for a hundred years,, that is: an increase in expenditures, the impossibility to reduce taxes and the necessity of increasing production.

In other words, it is the same old story that is being repeated, while 68 per cent of the workers earn less than $4,000 a year.
Last night, an amendment to an amendment was brought before the house with a view to drawing attention to people earning $4,000 or less a year, and that matter does not seem to have been dealt with seriously. That is why I wish to come back to it.
We are facing two problems. There are in Canada two classes of people who can keep pace neither with prosperity nor with the rise in the cost of living. They are the 470,000 unemployed and the 4 million workers earning less than $4,000 a year.
There is another category to which I particularly want to draw the attention of hon. members; it is the mass of young workers, 18 to 27 years old, who come on the labour market for some time, or who are unemployed.
About two weeks ago, a convention called "Carrefour 69" was held in Montreal. On that occasion, thousands of young people met, not revolutionaries or protesters, but young people who were asking themselves whether it is possible to have a place in society without depriving the neighbour of his. They were asking themselves whether it is possible for them to have a family and to earn a living as everybody else, and so on.
Mr. Speaker, during the whole week-end, I heard, while attending that meeting, extremely convincing comments about the present economic situation and the efficiency of the present economic system. During that convention "Carrefour 69", I was struck by many things, namely a closed circuit television program during which young people were interviewed. Each time they were asked: What are you doing at "Carrefour 69"? What is your problem? What is your name?
To the question "What is your problem" many just showed their wallet containing an identity card, an unemployment insurance card as well as a driving licence. That is all we have, said those youngsters, and our problem is that we can only have in our wallet that famous unemployment insurance card.
Those young people are 22, 23, 24 or 25 years old. They want to work. They are ready to work and to do something for their country, their province, their municipality, for themselves, but we are not organized economically, not only at the national but also at the provincial levels, to put to use those prodigious skills which are lost.
June 11. 1969

Nearly 5,000 young people attended "Car-refour 69" and more than 90 per cent of them carried an unemployment insurance card in their pockets. Those are our children, our youth, the best labour force we could find, in good health, full of good will and ready to work. However, governments are unable to give them that opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, invitations had been sent out to Ottawa and Quebec ministers who are particularly concerned with this problem, and who are supposed, on account of their activities in the parliamentary, legislative and ministerial fields, to be interested in such matters. Those ministers did not even acknowledge the invitations to "Carrefour 69" sent out by over 10,000 young people.
It is a shame. Do you know how many hon. members were present? All were invited and there was only one. I, your humble servant, was there and I do not boast about it. I felt almost ashamed to be there alone, I felt like a lost soul among those young people eager to work but who have nobody to listen to them. Tomorrow, if they send a brief to Quebec or Ottawa, this will be the reply: We thank you for your very good brief. It is very well documented, some of your ideas are excellent but, dear young people, future voters, you will realize the situation. In fact, the good old politicians want to pat them on the back because they want their votes, but they tell them: Keep quiet, we are looking for solutions, we have tremendous plans, we have instituted a study committee on the stabilization of prices. We are in the process of reviewing the policy concerning unemployment insurance and manpower centres. Just keep quiet. Do not upset anything, do not break anything. Stay at home, remain unemployed and spend your unemployment insurance cheque. When you have nothing left, go to the welfare office and you will be given a third card. This is quite a step forward for a young 23-year-old individual. He goes to the welfare office and says: I have used up all my unemployment insurance stamps. Could I have a welfare card?
Mr. Speaker, many of the young people who attended "Carrefour 69" had only two cards in their pockets to identify themselves: the unemployment insurance card and the welfare card. They have no driving license as they cannot afford it. They cannot afford a car either.
Mr. Speaker, we would like those young people, who will make up the society of
The Budget-Mr. Fortin tomorrow, who will be the leaders of tomorrow, who represent also our best manpower, as they are healthy and want to work, to stay home and say: Canada is tremendous, Quebec is tremendous, the Liberal party is tremendous! We do not change anything.
Mr. Speaker, if we do not give work to those young people today-I do not necessarily mean bread and butter on their table-we shall wake up tomorrow face to face with a society that will be out of control. However, our economic system is organized in such a way that economic blood does not circulate through it. Indeed, money does not circulate or does only for the stronger and the wealthier people, so that production cannot be disposed of on account of the people's lack of purchasing power. Thus, there is no need to renew our production stock and the unemployment rate increases.
To tolerate 470,000 unemployed people in a country as wealthy as ours is a real scandal. It is the more scandalous when we know the majority of the unemployed population is made up of young people.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the hon. members to the fact that this matter should be studied seriously. We have all it takes, in Canada, to build a great country, to enable everyone to live and develop properly; but absolutely nothing is being done.
Committees are set up to study reports of other committees and, in our offices, in our libraries, there are big books which cost millions of dollars dealing with these problems but they gather dust on the shelves. That does not change anything. In the meantime, the unemployed stroll along with their hands in their pockets, with their unemployment and welfare cards. Talk about a future for those young people!
Mr. Speaker, to my mind this situation is absolutely intolerable and unacceptable; something must be done to change it. What astonishes me most in all that, which I fail to understand, is that when we introduced the non-confidence motion which read as follows:
That, in the opinion of the house, the government has failed to take adequate measures in order to give Canadians the benefit of a policy of distribution of goods and services which would allow each citizen to obtain his share of Canadian abundance.
Instead of getting replies to our assertions, we had to put up with jokes. Hon. members found it funny that such a motion should be moved. Yesterday similar motions were moved

June 11, 1969
The Budget-Mr. Fortin and again it was funny. They think everything is funny, Mr. Speaker.
When the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) endeavoured to reply to the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) about the motion I have just mentioned, he said that Social Credit was a doctrine that could not be implemented, that it was not sound, that it was a machine to make money, that we indulged in demagoguery because we were speaking of poverty, because we were defending the workers, the small people against the rich.
But when the minister was a labour leader-I hope he still remembers,, because his attitude gives the impression that he has forgotten-he was stirring up the small guys, the workers, for his own purposes and his own interests, not those of the union members. At that time, he was using demagoguery, and he was the first one to criticize governments for their lack of action and activity.
Today, he is the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. His department is supposed to make funds available to the people to achieve the accelerated development of some regions with a slow economic growth. The minister should be particularly interested in these questions, but he is not in the house now, and all he can do when we propose solutions is make fun of us.
On the other hand, this same minister stands up and says: We wish to accuse the opposition of not co-operating, because it does not want to study the government proposals. This same minister does not have the intellectual decency to practise what he preaches. If he wants us to study his proposals, he should at least have the decency to examine ours and to stop ridiculing them without first having examined them seriously.
Mr. Speaker, Social Credit surely represents an avant-garde doctrine. It proposes some very interesting economic and monetary measures which are neither socialistic nor necessarily capitalistic. Capitalism, at the present time, is abusive. Social Credit is a doctrine which can go well with the capitalist system; according to the Creditiste system, all human beings are equal and they all have, regardless of their age, their colour, their race, their religion, the right to live and to grow healthily and humanly.
According to the Social Credit doctrine, money should serve man, instead of man serving money.

We do not indulge in demagoguery; we do not make fun of the people or of governments. We have been elected for a specific purpose: to try to make it clear to the government that Social Credit may have good things to offer, which it might be worth while to consider seriously, and which should not be mocked, because they might offer some efficient solutions which would restore the balance of the economic and monetary system.
Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not Social Credit that created the present economic crisis and inflation, nor those we experienced in the past.
As a matter of fact, this economic system is precisely the one that causes these crises, and those who suffer from them are, of course, the Canadian citizens. That is why the Social Credit party suggests that we attack the real problem that always makes Canadians victims of these economic crises willed by financiers, because they serve their interests as wars do.
We want to put some order there. We do not claim to have all the light from the Holy Spirit as the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion said the other day, while everything on the minister's side is in the dark. If we look at the attitude taken by the members opposite, I feel that even if we do not have all the light, it is certainly not to be found on the opposite side, because they do not even bother to consider our proposals.
Mr. Speaker, I think that they should have the decency to consider our proposal when we say, for instance, that we should find a balance between production and consumption.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
To me, that goes without saying. But the only thing the government has to say about this is that production should be increased.
To produce more, we must first dispose of present production. Do we have enough purchasing power for this? As a matter of fact, one cannot buy with prayers and electoral promises, as the government does, but one needs purchasing power, scriptural or other credit. If the taxpayer does not have any credit and if we keep picking his pockets, how can this production be got rid of in order that more production may be possible?
Obviously, if goods remain on the shelves, workers will not find any jobs producing more goods to replace the unsold ones.
We prefer to play into the hands of high finance. That is what happened in wartime when butter was thrown away, when a lot of
June 11. 1969

commodities were wasted while two thirds of the world were starving to death. That is what we did instead of asking ourselves if people could not consume that production through sufficient purchasing power or at least through an annual guaranteed income allowing them to dispose of it.
There would be so many things to say about this matter. As to Social credit, however, we think that we could find really interesting solutions by organizing a round table to consider such possibilities. We strongly believe in this, but we wish the Minister of Finance and his colleague would examine those solutions.
We are ready to co-operate, but not to be ridiculed. We wish our proposals were not brushed aside but studied seriously.
Mr. Speaker, we often say that we are ready to co-operate; however we would like that co-operation not to be a unilateral endeavour, but to proceed from a real sense of dialogue.
I hope that my honourable colleagues in their debates will not forget all those young workers who would be very pleased to have a job but who, at the present time, are not in a position to work or to throw themselves into a career. Then, they should not be blamed if they do not take part in our economic life. The governments do not co-operate with all those workers who would be only too pleased to help build this country, provided they were given an opportunity to do so.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like in the first place to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) who has used to the full his imagination and his intelligence to present to the Canadian people a realistic as well as a popular budget-which is surely not easy- and especially to realize a budgetary surplus, the first since 1956.
He wanted, through that budget, to control inflation by using all available resources.
To fight that inflation, the Minister of Finance has taken certain steps aimed at intensifying price competition. By grouping the three last stages of tariff reductions provided under the Kennedy round, the Minister of Finance wanted to control the increase in consumer prices.
The budget will also make it possible to allow more substantial exemptions for goods brought back by Canadians from abroad and will allow a Canadian, on a verbal statement,
The Budget-Mr. Fortin to bring back $5 worth of goods each time he goes through custom. Those changes were welcomed by the public in general and the Department of National Revenue, notably as far as the Customs Division is concerned, because they will facilitate and improve service at customs.
The other measures in the budget, which I have not yet mentioned, are parts of a whole which, while fighting inflation, can be related to the general policy of the Canadian government to eliminate regional disparities.

I should like to make a few comments about the changes in the customs tariff contained in the recent budget resolutions. Firstly, there is acceleration of the Kennedy round reductions, which has the effect of implementing, effective June 4, 1969, the rates of duty which were scheduled to take effect on January 1, 1972, except with respect to one item covering shoeboard. This created an initial flurry of requests from field offices and interested parties for confirmation and clarification. These new rates are now being applied and as they become known it is anticipated that they will not create any abnormal administrative problems.
Secondly, certain recommendations of the tariff board with respect to three references have been implemented. These are reference No. 133, dealing with machinery, apparatus, printing plates and related products for the printing and allied industries; reference No. 134, dealing with equipment for hospitals and other institutions, and reference No. 138, dealing with certain precision instruments and apparatus.
These changes will require extensive review and adjustment of our previous administrative practices. It is anticipated that many requests for explanations of these new items and for the updating of rulings will be received. Some printed directives will require revision. No unforeseen administrative difficulties are expected.
Thirdly, there are certain amendments which are in the nature of housekeeping changes. For example, certain articles are excluded from items 41525-1 and 44300-1. This will permit Canadian users of industrial sewing machines and certain cooking apparatus to benefit under the duty remission program known as the machinery program, which is administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Also included in this group is provision for extension of
June 11, 1969

The Budget-Hon. J.-P. Cote the duty free importation of aircraft and aircraft engines of types and sizes not made in Canada. Again, while these changes will require review of past practices, together with correction and adjustment of rulings, records and administrative approaches, no special difficulties are expected.
In the customs tariff new provisions have been introduced that will be of benefit to residents of Canada when they return from visits outside the country. All of these provisions have been designed in the interest of facilitating the movement of the returning resident through customs and generally to provide a more generous, more practical and more frequent exemption privilege for Canadian travellers. For instance, on goods other than tobacco products and alcoholic beverages that accompany the traveller in his baggage upon his return after an absence of 48 hours or more, there is an exemption granted on the strength of a verbal declaration alone in an amount not to exceed $5 on any number of occasions.
Effective next January 1 the regular privileges will be on the basis of one $25 exemption, including specified amounts of tobacco products and alcoholic beverages, after an absence of 48 hours, during each calendar quarter of the year. As well, there will be an additional privilege of one $100 exemption in each calendar year after an absence of 12 days in any country outside of Canada. This includes, for the first time, the United States. This exemption will include the same quantities of tobacco products and alcoholic beverages. Beyond this, goods imported in excess of these limits up to a value of $100 will be subject to a flat or common rate of 25 per cent except in the case of tobacco products and alcoholic beverages accompanying the returning resident. This latter privilege is being made immediately available. While the benefits of the increased frequency of exemptions and the broader application of the $100 privilege will be welcomed by Canadian residents, the $5 verbal declaration and flat rate features will serve to expedite the passage of travellers through customs. Officers of my department also see these changes as a practical step in further facilitating the movement of travellers entering our country.

As for the Income Tax Division of the Department of National Revenue, it might be interesting for hon. members, at this time of the year, to know where we stand in respect

of the income tax returns received so far this year.
May I first say that we have received up to June 9, 1969, 8,513,792 tax returns, which is about 400,000 more than last year. Out of this total, 6,640,113 have been assessed, and 4,779,070 refunds sent out, which means that by May 31, 1969, we had checked a million returns more than last year.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
[English}
In as much as I am the minister responsible for collecting the revenue sought to be raised by the Income Tax Act, I would like to take this opportunity of explaining to members of the house the philosophy in the compliance aspects which I requested my deputy minister to operate within so as to ensure that all taxpayers in Canada are treated in an equitable and fair manner. It became readily apparent to me that some of the past policies by which my department was governed were not now applicable to the changing circumstances existing today.
Let it not be said that we are concerned only with ourselves and our own efficiency. I have given much thought to the need for equitable treatment among taxpayers. One area that has been explored is the collection of outstanding taxes. Each year a number of our citizens and corporations owe taxes, and admit they do, but fail to pay up when the tax is due. This imposes a burden on the country and other taxpayers and the department has been quite efficient in taking strong action on these delinquents. However, I have become concerned that taxpayers who make an attempt to question their assessments or who pay even a token amount on receipt of the notice, may be treated no differently from those who ignore us completely. These people may be subject to garnishees and writs without regard to whether there was a response from them.
Although I see no remedy other than our present practices in dealing with taxpayers who ignore our routine requests for payment, I expect that reasonable judgment will be used before issuing garnishees against taxpayers owing small amounts. But for the others, I have directed that no taxpayer who responds to an assessment notice or collection letter will be proceeded against by garnishment or writ until he has been contacted by telephone and personally interviewed or advised in writing that a satisfactory solution to the non-payment is being sought. Only if
June 11. 1969	COMMONS
an agreement cannot be reached will garnishees or writs be issued.
One particular policy which existed for some years was that of selective prosecutions; that is, only certain cases from the many investigated were prosecuted. Why should we proceed against one man and not against the other? This, I felt, was a most difficult policy to administer because of the difficulty of achieving uniformity of treatment. I, therefore, directed my departmental officers to administer the act on the basis of the existing facts in any case and the law applicable to those facts. This I am certain will ensure fair and equitable treatment to all taxpayers.
I might add that despite the high level of taxes, the vast majority of taxpayers are honest when filing their income tax returns. However, there is a minority in all segments of the community who are prepared to resort to dishonesty and fraud in order to escape their proper share of the income tax burden and, hence, impose upon the honest taxpayer an ever increasing share. Some people do not have their tax deducted at source and think they can decide how much tax they will pay. They file false receipts or do not disclose income.
This minority apparently regards tax evasion as a game or a sport to be played with the tax collector. I am determined that my department bring home to this minority the fact that tax evasion is not a game, that the fraud practised in connection with a source of revenue has precisely the same effect as if the evader had robbed the cashier in the income tax office. I think you will all agree that tax evasion is a despicable crime against the whole community because it takes money out of the pocket of every honest man and often out of the pockets of those who can least afford it. The courts have stated that tax evasion or the filing of false returns is a serious criminal offence and, accordingly, I would expect that the courts will impose penalties that are appropriate to the circumstances on this minority as an effective deterrent. My department's policy is to investigate every suspected fraud and in future to prosecute in very case where the evidence will support a criminal action. This policy is designed to bring home to those who would play the evasion game the consequences of their act, namely, prosecution. In this way, it is hoped that these prosecutions will act as a deterrent to others who might be contemplating tax evasion. Under this policy
The Budget-Hon. J.-P. Cote these people should bear in mind the consequences of their acts when they are contemplating fraud because it will be too late to plead ignorance once the crime has been detected by my department.
In the interests of justice, the department's prosecution policy must and will be based on the facts and evidence of the crime and it will not take into account the prominence, the influence or the position in the community of the taxpayers under investigation. Even if I have the ministerial discretion under the act I will not, where the facts indicate it, interfere in any way whatsoever with the decision reached by my departmental officials and I can assure you that my department will not place itself in the role of judge and jury but will leave the judgment of these offenders to the criminal courts. I consider tax fraud far too serious a matter to settle cases on an out-of-court basis. None of these cases have been settled or will be settled in my office.
However, I would like to assure the members of this house that I have requested all employees in my department, in so far as is humanly possible, to treat all taxpayers in an equitable and fair manner. At the same time, employees are to be reasonable in dealing with all taxpayers, no matter what their circumstances may be. You will realize the department can only gain and keep the respect of the tax paying public, which is essential to proper tax administration, so long as it acts in a fair but firm manner.
Along with this firm approach I wish to assure all members of the house that any member of the tax paying public who has been playing this game of tax evasion, but who comes forth to the department before the department takes any action concerning his file, can settle up his affairs with the department by paying the proper liability under the act without fear of prosecution. This has been the policy practised by the department in the past but it has not been widely known. I can assure you that if taxpayers do come forth voluntarily and pay their liability, they will not be prosecuted. It is my desire that taxpayers voluntarily comply, as this procedure costs the government less than having to seek out this minority who refuse to pay their fair share of the national burden. It is my desire and aim that the policy will always be such as to make voluntary compliance as easy as possible.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have not taken part in a budget debate for several years. I wish to
June 11, 1969

The Budget-Mr. Fairweather talk about three or four matters I consider urgent. The government, through the medium of the budget or other institutions1, has not taken concerted action on these matters and therefore I ask for a few minutes in which to state the issues. Since the budget was a monumental yawn, I suppose the budget debate is in danger of being considered boring. I will take my chances on that, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Matters that come to my mind under government initiative, not only in the constituency of Fundy-Royal and in the Atlantic provinces, but in the broader perspective of all Canada, are as follows: First, available shipbuilding policy; second, measures to assist the serious condition faced by dairy farmers in this country; third, a flexible policy of availability of bank loans throughout the country and fourth, a genuine and concerted attack on the mounting problem of pollution.
With regard to the first problem, that of shipbuilding policy, it was my privilege just last Saturday to attend the christening of two supply ships for the navy at the Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry-dock Company. It was a most interesting experience of co-operation between the workmen involved and the management of the dock. I am informed that the vessels are the largest order ever placed by the government of Canada for shipbuilding in the history of this country. They were built on a fixed contract, which may be of interest to those who had anything to do with the H.M.C.S. Bonaventure. An equally important feature of this construction was that they were within two weeks of the timetable set out in the contract. This is a remarkable achievement of shipbuilding skill and ability. It is one that I am rather proud to say took place in constituencies co-represented, if there is such an expression, by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) and myself.
During the ceremonies last Saturday, the Chairman of the shipbuilding and drydock company spoke to those present, including the New Brunswick representative in the cabinet, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube). I now wish to quote from the remarks of the Chairman:
It is a day when we have an opportunity to see the results of many long months of effort by the men who possess the skills to build such ships, and to these men I would take this opportunity to pay special tribute. These skills are a tradition in Saint John, and it is in Saint John's interest, New

Brunswick's interest, and in the interest of Canada that these skills be preserved and used to advantage in the future.
It is because this is a national problem and not a local one that I feel no hesitation in bringing this issue before this parliament in the traditional way, that is by taking part in the budget debate. The Chairman went on to say:
If these skills are to be preserved and if we are to continue to build great ships then Canada must very soon establish a clearcut shipbuilding policy. This fact has been recognized-and perhaps I should say finally recognized-by the government of Canada.
The Chairman then referred to a statement made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) regarding a year-long study into the market for a privately owned merchant fleet. The minister described this as a necessary prelude to any further study of the possibility of building deepsea vessels in Canada to form a merchant marine. The Chairman said:
The minister, therefore, presumably is talking about a delay of up to two years before any shipbuilding and merchant marine program can be developed.
There is no shipyard in Canada that can stand this type of delay in enunciation of government policy. We need only witness the shipyard closures within the past months along the St. Lawrence River. The Chairman further states:
That is too long. In New Brunswick we cannot wait two years. Certainly, we welcome the step taken by the minister-and we recognize he has only just recently taken over this important portfolio-but Ottawa should take immediate steps to assure that existing shipyards will survive while these studies are taking place.
At this shipyard we will support any plan which will help in the development of a positive shipbuilding policy-and I feel confident in saying that management and labour will work together to achieve this goal-
It was remarkable that at the christening last Saturday the words of the Chairman were echoed by the representatives of the main trade union groups working in the shipyard, that is, Mr. Armstrong, Mr. McLeod and Mr. Yeomans. I am not a special pleader for any specific group. That would be unbecoming the role of a member of parliament, but I consider that after five or six years this government has had sufficient time to come to a decision about whether they feel this country, with the longest coastline of any nation on earth, should have as a complement to this geographical fact some policy toward a deep-sea fleet.
June 11, 1969	COMMONS
The second matter, Mr. Speaker, is of interest not only to many of my constituents, but to Canadians who do not live in the industrial heartland of the country. It concerns the crisis being faced by the dairy industry in Canada. I welcome the decision of the Standing Committee on Agriculture to move about the country. They are now in Ontario, having returned from the Atlantic provinces. It is a useful exercise for parliamentary committees to get outside this chamber which is so often isolated from the real issues of the day. It is an unfortunate fact, but it is true. These committees should see first-hand the problems faced by the Canadians they represent.
An interesting brief was presented to the committee when they were in Fredericton, New Brunswick, by the New Brunswick Milk Producers' Association and the New Brunswick Cream Producers' Marketing Board. Among other things the brief to the Agriculture Committee states:
On March 31, 1969, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Olson, made this statement in the House of Commons and I quote:
"I wish to inform the house that the support price for manufacturing milk for the year commencing April 1, 1969, has been set at $4.85 per hundred pounds of milk testing 3.5 per cent butter-fat. This is the same level as that established on April 1, 1968." This price was calculated on a market price of $3.54 plus a subsidy payment of $1.31 per cwt.
I should like to point out to you gentlemen that the average price of manufacturing milk in New Brunswick last year was $3.15 not $3.54. At the present time the highest price being paid is $3.15 and it ranges to a low of $2.38. The average would be below $3.00 per cwt.
The reason for the extremely low price is the end use of the product. There is no spray powder made in New Brunswick. Due to low production and wide distances between plants there is not sufficient manufacturing milk available to support such a plant.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
A considerable amount of roller powder is produced but it sells for a lower price.
We are deficient in butter production. About 57 per cent of the butter used in New Brunswick last year was imported -from other provinces.
The phasing out policy of the Canadian Dairy Commission has contributed to our rapid decline in production. We also have a number of fluid milk and sweet cream producers who were forced out of business by the introduction of bulk tank hauling of milk. These men fall into the category of new producers when they apply for a federal quota and their only hope of obtaining one lies in their ability to purchase the herd of one who is retiring, and that must meet the requirements of 3,500 pounds butterfat for milk or 1,750 pounds in the case of a cream shipper.
The Budget-Mr. Fairweather The situation in the three Maritime provinces is much the same. Last year representatives of the three provinces held several meetings and made a presentation to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture and to the Canadian Dairy Commission. We feel that these submissions contain the substance of our requests and we therefore present them to you for consideration:
Then follows these short recommendations:
(1)	That the minimum quota for a new shipper be set at 1,750 pounds butterfat rather than the present 3.500 pounds butterfat.
(2)	That the present total quota for the Maritime provinces be retained for this region for a stated period of time. This region is deficient as far as dairy production is concerned.
(3)	That consideration should be given to a subsidy to fluid milk shippers on their surplus shipments. It was estimated that sales of subsidized spray powder in one province displaced three million dollars worth of fluid sales. If a subsidy were paid to fluid shippers on their surplus in this province, it would amount to one half million dollars. It was further pointed out that a subsidy to fluid producers on their surplus would help maintain the present fluid price to consumers.
(4) That a floor price be established for roller skim milk powder. The present floor for spray powder does not provide an automatic floor for roller powder as had been anticipated.
(5)	That the present level of phasing out smaller producers be maintained at 420 pounds butterfat.
(6)	That as the Maritime provinces do not contribute to the surplus of dairy products and as producers have several disadvantages such as higher transportation costs on milk and cream, smaller operators, higher feed costs, etc., that the holdback from the subsidy to shippers in this region be eliminated.
Out of $109,700,000 in subsidy payments in 1968, New Brunswick received $1,276,000. The total Canadian milk production used in factory products in 1968 was 11,603,62 thousand pounds. New Brunswick's share of this was a mere 115,465 thousand pounds. Total production of skim milk powder in 1968 was about 356 million pounds. New Brunswick produced a little over 2 million.
(7)	That if these recommendations cannot be implemented under the present framework of the Canadian Dairy Commission, that a special regional policy be requested for the Maritime provinces.
Once more, Mr. Speaker, I make no apology for this pleading with respect to the problems faced by a specific area of Canada. These are very real problems that have been studied backwards and forwards throughout the decades. I would hope that the government will make up its mind soon on a sensible plan of action.
The third point I wish to make in the few minutes that are available to me concerns the need for a flexible policy for bank loans. In its budget proposals the government has indicated a welcome flexibility in its approach toward the problem of inflation. I have no intention of getting into the specifics as to
1000S
June 11, 1969

The Budget-Mr. Fairweather whether Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto and other cities are over-heated from the point of view of inflation. People with greater technical ability than I possess can deal with that. But there has been a final breakthrough, after all the years of pleading, particularly by the Premiers of the Atlantic provinces, for this flexibility in approach.
I would hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), would add to this flexibility something of what is done in the federal reserve system in the United States whereby in a period of high interest rates and tight money, such as we are again entering, directions can be readily given, without the need for any legislation, to the lending institutions of the country whereby regions where economic disparity is evident will have bank financing available to them. This can be done by the minister with the stroke of a pen, and I would hope he would see fit to carry out this proposal.
There is no need, and the budget has indicated this, to attack the problems of the country in totality, in a total centralized policy. We need flexibility if we are really to do something toward bringing those regions of the country that have not enjoyed the advantage of what I might call full citizenship up to the standards of other parts of the country, so that the citizens of the part of the country that I represent may take their place in a buoyant economy.
The last matter I wish to speak upon, and as in all speeches just because it is the last this does not mean I consider it less important than the others, is pollution. I think it is high time the government co-ordinated their efforts in their attack upon pollution. We have had a most interesting constitutional minuet from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), ever since he assumed office, about the problem of pollution control. We have had various ministers who have varying degrees of responsibility for this great national and international problem.
We have had first rate speeches from the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) who assures us that under the Fisheries Act he has the competence and the power to deal with this problem. We have had word from the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) that very soon he will introduce a new water act. We also used to have statements about pollution from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene).
Until this government, the provinces and the municipalities are able to agree on a formula to fight pollution and are able to agree that a corporation guilty of pollution should be liable, just as a citizen is liable for damaging another's property or person, we will really not have faced this issue at all. The Minister of Fisheries-I do not think this is a disclosure of something private, but if so I apologize, although I guess, it is readily available information-told me that in most construction of pulp mills adequate pollution controls would cost less than 2 per cent of the capital needed for the construction. I think this is another issue upon which the government is a light year behind the public of Canada in really facing up to the need for adequate measures to ensure that the people of Canada have clean water, clean land and clean air. These are the points that have been concerning me for some time, Mr. Speaker, and I thank members of the house for their attention.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, this is the second budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) since he assumed that office less than a year ago. It has become a practice for Liberal ministers of finance to introduce two budgets a year. I assume this is on the principle that the second budget is designed to offset the errors and the omissions of the first budget. This particular budget which the minister has announced with a great blare of trumpets is to begin the battle against inflation. Well, if some of us are not impressed by this call to battle it is because we remember that four years ago, with great tooting of trumpets and unfurling of flags, a Liberal government was out to wage war on poverty. It will be recalled that that war came to an end without ever a shot being fired. The best proof that the government did not even engage in the war is the last annual review of the Economic Council of Canada which found that between 20 per cent and 25 per cent of the people of this country were living below the poverty line.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The minister is to wage war against inflation. All of us, of course, would like to wish him well but I submit that all he has produced so far has been two wooden swords, neither of which are likely to slay the dragon of inflation. As a matter of fact, before he even begins the battle the minister admits his estimate for the coming year is that the cost of living will rise by some 4 per cent. That is

June 11. 1969	COMMONS
what it rose last year and is approximately what it rose the year before. So, even before he begins to tackle inflation the minister has already told us we can expect a situation no better, and many of us suspect it will be somewhat worse, than what it has been in the past year. As a matter of fact all the indicators suggest there will probably be an increase in the cost of living as high as 4.7 per cent.
The minister has suggested two things which he proposes to do to cope with inflation. They are commendable moves, but neither of them really grapples with the problem. The first suggestion is that there is to be a two-year deferment on depreciation of capital costs for Commercial Construction, in cities which have a population of over 50,000 people in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. The idea of selective investment allocation is good. We in this party have been suggesting some type of selective program and the establishment of priorities for a long time. I would point out, however, that this proposal is not likely to be very effective and will not do the thing the minister hopes it will do. Corporations intending to erect commercial buildings, in anticipation of an increase in construction costs, in all likelihood will decide that the increased cost of buildings two years from now could be greater than the cost to them of foregoing the capital depreciation for a period of two years. Even if this should have some effect on construction programs in certain areas, there is no guarantee whatsoever that these funds will automatically be transferred either to low cost housing or to the underdeveloped areas in Canada.
The minister's second proposal is to implement the recommendations of the Kennedy round immediately rather than spread them over the two and a half years they have to run. Again, no one can object to this. I would point out that the reductions are minor; that most of the reductions are 3 per cent or less; that a large number of the items affected are producer or intermediary goods, and that there is no guarantee whatsoever that the savings effected will be passed on to the consumer. Certainly, if we look at the Canada-United States auto agreement under which this parliament gave to the automobile manufacturers some $50 million a year in the form of duty which they no longer had to pay, on the assumption that this would have the effect of reducing the price of cars to the Canadian consumer, we can see that the savings have not been passed on and that the disparity
The Budget-Mr. T. C. Douglas between the price of cars in Canada and in the United States remains roughly the same.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is failing to come to grips with the basic problems in this country. Do we have inflation? The common definition of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. Is there too much money? Certainly, in certain quarters there is a great deal of money. Certain areas of the economy have done very well and have made large profits. Capital gains have been made on the stock market and on land speculation. But is there too much money in the pockets of the veterans of this country who have been waiting for years to get an increase in the war veterans' allowance and who have been promised for years that when the Woods report came down they would be looked after? Now, when the report has come down they are told they will have to wait for a white paper. No doubt when the white paper comes in they will be told they must wait for the report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. These peter-ans have less money in terms of spending power than they had five years ago.
What about the people on fixed incomes? Have they too much money? They have less money in real terms than they had five years ago. The old age pensioners find that the cost of living went up last year 4 per cent but the government provides only for a 2 per cent increase in their cost of living bonus. In addition, if they are under the age of 70 and receive the supplementary allowance they will pay income tax. This will mean that in effect they will be giving back the 2 per cent cost of living bonus they receive. They do not have too much money. They are worse off than they were before this government took office. Are the four million or five million people in Canada who live below the poverty line suffering from too much money? Are the 400,000 or 450,000 unemployed overburdened with a supply of money? Are the farmers of this country suffering from too much money, particularly the western farmers who have millions of bushels of wheat stored on their farms but who are unable to obtain sufficient cash to meet their obligations? Certainly, there is not too much money there.
I know of course that these are the vested interests the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has promised to bring to heel in order to cure inflation. This government has failed to face the fact that the problem is not too much money. The problem in this country is a maldistribution of income and misallocation of
10008	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. T. C. Douglas
the available resources of Canada. The fact is that the government, ever since it took office in 1963, has consistently increased the tax burden on the low and middle income groups but has continued special privileges for the wealthy in this country.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The personal income tax has been raised repeatedly while corporation taxes have been treated with kid gloves. There was an increase in corporation taxes by 5 per cent refundable tax imposed in March, 1966. I underline the words "refundable tax" because these corporations were to get their payments back in 18 months at 5J per cent interest. The wage and salary earners are not going to get their tax payments back, interest or no interest. Even then, the refundable tax was cancelled in 1967.
Then the government found, of course, it had to repay the tax it collected, plus the interest. It had to find $244 million. Early in 1968 the government endeavoured to put through this house a 5 per cent surcharge on the wage and salary earners in order to get enough money to repay this corporation refundable tax. Fortunately, that move was stopped by the combined opposition Parties of parliament.
Then, the government compromised and brought in a surcharge of 3 per cent on both personal and corporate income tax. That was supposed to expire at the end of this calendar year, 1969. Under this budget it is going to be extended to the end of 1970. In that year the 3 percent tax is going to bring in $150 million, $40 million of which will be corporate taxes and $110 million personal income taxes.
Not satisfied with this discrimination in fiscal inequity, the government is now introducing a social development tax of 2 per cent which is levied solely on the wage and salary earners. It is not to be paid by corporations. To make matters even worse, it applies only to the first $6,000 of taxable income, so people with $40,000 or $50,000 per year are to pay the same tax as somebody earning $8,000 or $10,000 per year.
When the Prime Minister told the national convention of chambers of commerce that the rich were overtaxed, I wonder what he had in mind about the poor and the people in the middle and lower income groups whose taxes have been going up steadily? This country is suffering from maldistribution of income; some have too much but many have too little. The government has completely ignored the

DEBATES	June 11, 1969
recommendations of the Carter commission. The government has been promising us a white paper for over a year.


An hon. Member:: It is coming.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is coming, but when is some action coming? The government could apply a tax on the banks. This morning's Globe and Mail states that in the six months ending April 30 the seven chartered banks have made an average increase of 33 per cent on their profits, and their stocks have gone sky high ever since the ceiling was taken off interest rates. The oil and mining companies could be made to pay taxes on the same basis as other corporations.
I remember when the Minister of Finance sat over here in 1962 and excoriated the government of that day for not removing some of the depletion and depreciation allowances enjoyed by the mining and oil industries. What is he doing about that now? What about recognizing the facts of the capital gains tax so that those who make profits out of the stock exchange or speculation on land development will be required to treat their profits as income and pay taxes the same as anyone else?
The government does not need a white paper. It has all the data it needs and it has the information contained in the Carter report. What the government lacks is backbone. I could make a better backbone out of a banana than the backbone possessed by this government. The government could collect taxes from those who are the freeloaders in our economy. The government could still, after that, reduce personal income tax for people with incomes of $10,000 per year or less by 15 per cent and have more revenue that it has now.
The government has not only failed to do anything about the redistribution of income, it has failed to do anything about social and economic priorities. It removed the ceiling on bank rates without any safeguards. We are paying the price of that now. It introduced legislation to increase the capitalization of trust and loan companies, granting them greater access to money markets. It has a tax system which encourages equity investment rather than bond investment. The result is an absurd imbalance in our priorities.
The private sector is able to get capital, but the public sector is hard pressed in respect of schools, hospitals, urban renewal projects, low cost housing and recreational facilities.
June 11. 1969

These are just as important as having another filling station on the corner or a third supermarket in each subdivision.
This government's fiscal policy over the years has starved the public sector. It is amazing that in a society which needs hospitals, schools and the social amenities, when times are good we cannot have these amenities because of inflation and when times are bad we cannot have them because we cannot afford them. The government asks where we would get the money. If financial resources are scarce, this is all the more reason to space out private investment in less productive areas of the economy and concentrate on those things which will increase productivity.
One of the things of which the government is guilty is that it has failed to put a major emphasis on stepping up economic growth. If, as the Minister of Finance says, there is too much money in relation to goods, surely the thing to do is put the emphasis on increasing the amount of goods.
Unemployment represents a loss of potential production. Having between 400,000 and 450,000 unemployed, we have a shortfall in our production in this country of $3 billion to $4 billion. In Europe they have been placing the emphasis on full employment, so that in countries like West Germany and Sweden they have unemployment down to 1 or 11 per cent.
In this country unemployment has been the means the government has used to cool off the economy. The former Minister of Finance very callously said it might be necessary to have some slack in the economy. We have been getting slack in the economy by deliberately fomenting unemployment. The strange thing is that in a classical economy it has always been understood that if you have a period of inflation you have a danger of rising prices but full employment, but in a period of deflation you have unemployment and falling prices. Only a government of geniuses could get the worst of both worlds in which we have both rising prices and unemployment.
This government gives no indication in this budget that its fiscal and monetary policies are designed to stimulate productivity or to provide for full employment as one of the best means to combat inflation. The Minister of Finance is very proud of the fact that he has balanced his budget. I want to suggest that he is balancing it on the hardships and the heartaches of the most defenceless segment of our society. The government's idea of combatting inflation by cutting government 29180-633
The Budget-Mr. Perrault spending is reminiscent of the economics of Herbert Hoover.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Government spending is not wasteful spending if it is properly administered. Much of government spending represents a distribution of income; it represents taxing those who have the ability to pay, and providing through pensions and other measures income for those who live below the poverty line. One of the greatest omissions in this budget, may I say in conclusion, is the fact that there is not any indication at all that the government is aware of the disastrous situation which obtains in the three prairie provinces of Canada where farmers, because of declining prices, reduced deliveries and a catastrophic drop in wheat sales, face the most serious situation that I have seen on the prairies since the 1930's. There is not a line in the budget that indicates the government is prepared to spend a dollar to meet that situation.
For three months now we have listened to ministers saying the matter is under consideration. The government's policy will be made known in due course, says each minister, like a puppet on the end of a string. But the Minister of Finance has given us no indication whatsoever that the government has any policy; that it intends to make any money available so that the farmers of western Canada will be able to get sufficient cash income to buy their supplies for summer fallowing, for their weed-spraying, and for harvesting a crop this fall, to say nothing of the money they will need to provide for their families. It would appear that this government is prepared to let western agriculture go down the drain. We in this party will have more to say about that matter unless the government indicates fairly soon that it has a program and a policy by which it will put cash into the hands of the farmers of western Canada.
Therefore, because this budget will do little or nothing to combat the present inflationary situation, and because it is replete with social injustice, we members of the New Democratic party will vote for the amendment and against the budget.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the presentation which we have just heard, I wonder whether the research grants made available to party leaders have been properly spent. We have
10010	COMMONS DEBATES	June 11. 1969
The Budget-Mr. Perrault just heard a catalogue of inaccuracies, perhaps unintentional, and a recitation of misinterpretation which I shall attempt, at least in part, to correct. Before I do, I would like to make the general observation that in recent days we have heard the usual round of budget criticism which we have come to expect from some members of the opposition. Unfailingly, these critics shroud their comments in gloom and doom. There is not one qualified word of support for any aspect of the budget. They condemn it. Indeed, during the past session some of these spokesmen-and some are leading members of the house-have been so loath to approve anything the government has done that their words of approval have been as rare as the dodo bird or the passenger pigeon. But in this particular debate, in the context of the economic problem facing Canada, there is an unreal quality about the unrestrained assault upon the budget.
Opposition spokesmen-and I suggest it is an old fashioned political technique-seem compelled to act out the charade of attacking a budget in all its aspects; pointing with alarm; suggesting that people are being ground down into poverty, and resurrecting all the old cliches which we identify with the class struggle of the 1930's. The response is a negative stereotype. It does not do the opposition very much good. People want to know what the opposition parties have to offer as alternatives. I began to write down some of the alternatives I have heard in this house during the past few days, and I do not have even half a sheet of constructive comments from opposition spokesmen. Yet they aspire to forming the government of Canada.
Let us examine some of the myths. Myth No. 1 is this: The opposition claims that this government is clinging desperately to an outmoded system of taxation; that it resists change and reform. This is one of the most nonsensical myths of all. The existing taxation system is going to be changed, and the opposition knows it. It is to be hoped that the opposition parties will participate in assisting that change with a few rare, constructive proposals. A white paper containing a draft of taxation changes will be released in the near future. It will undoubtedly contain some of the recommendations of the Carter Commission report which will dismay some of our friends in the New Democratic party opposition.


John Gilbert: Why wait till spring; do it now.


Raymond J. Perrault: These recommendations will be considered by the government and other people across the country, including labour unions, businessmen, management and banking people. The Carter Commission report, like all reports of its kind, is not binding on the government; no royal commission report ever was. Certainly, such reports were not binding when my hon. friend was premier of Saskatchewan; he developed his own policy. Revised methods of raising revenue will be adopted, subject to amendments, but only after nation-wide examination and discussion of the white paper proposals.
No one disagrees with the statement of the hon. member who just spoke, namely, that we have to bring a greater degree of equity and fairness to the taxation system in Canada. Government members would like to see exemptions increased, more money for senior citizens, and all the rest. But the suggestion that somehow government benches are occupied by hard-hearted Simon Legrees, determined to provide more and more difficulties for senior citizens and those on fixed incomes, is simply untrue.
The official opposition spokesman, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who is a very articulate member, was unremitting in his attack. I would remind the official opposition that they had six long years to bring about greater justice and equity in the taxation system of Canada. They showed all the enterprise of a sloth in effecting really meaningful reform. All they succeeded in doing was tinkering with the machinery. I am pleased that we have a government which questions whether in the Canada of 1969 we need brand new machinery.
As far as the minor opposition parties are concerned, the New Democratic party, when entrusted with the responsibility of governing Saskatchewan, did nothing to reform the basic relationship between the municipalities and the provincial government-nothing except to impose over 200 new taxes, imposts, fees and other charges against the long-suffering public. The result was that 200,000 people left Saskatchewan during those balmy years to seek opportunity elsewhere, the largest exodus since Moses led his people into the promised land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Raymond J. Perrault: I recall the monumental statement of the Creditiste leader when he was in Vancouver several days ago. He told an audience in that city that the Creditiste

June 11. 1969

party had a simple solution to all the problems; they would abolish all debt in Canada with the stroke of a pen. This should strike terror into the heart of any responsible Canadian.
Myth No. 2 is that a profligate, intemperate government is investing millions of dollars in unrewarding programs of social development, and that waste is rampant. These are the words that have been used. The federal government has increased its spending; but where has it gone? These are the facts which have not been cited by the leader of the New Democratic party and others who have participated in this debate. I tell this house that combined provincial-municipal expenditures have grown from less than half of federal spending in the early 1950's to more than the total of federal expenditures. The provincial use of major tax fields has grown correspondingly. All provinces now receive one quarter of the personal income taxes paid and Quebec receives an additional 23 per cent under the contracting-out arrangements. The ten provinces receive almost one quarter of corporation income tax, almost 40 per cent of all commodity taxes, and virtually all natural resource levies. Yet there is a suggestion that the federal government is somehow taking in all this money and that it is not being effectively spent. All the provinces have benefited from federal payments on tax abatements, so much so that in the last seven years the amount of these payments has risen from $898 million to an estimated $2,811 million.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Where has this money gone? We have heard a lot about this unsympathetic government which does not want to help the low income groups. Here are some figures which hon. members might bear in mind. Medicare, $325 million; fiscal transfers to provinces, $100.8 million; hospital insurance, $65 million; post-secondary education, $53 million; Canada assistance plan, $48.4 million, for a total of $602.2 million.
Then, there is the cost of the regional economic expansion program, $45.9 million; grants for urban renewal, sewage treatment and housing research, $10.9 million, and the Cape Breton Development Corporation, $3 million, a total of $59.8 million, representing in all a total increase in the estimates of $1,031.7 million. These funds were spent on services destined primarily to assist low income groups and the less privileged parts of our society. Yet the house has been inflicted
10011
The Budget-Mr. Perrault with statements along the lines that this government is a government which does not care. We heard the official opposition attacking the government the other day for what was alleged to be flagrant misspending. Opposition spokesmen said spending exceeded all understandable limits. Mr. Speaker, I intend to quote a former prime minister of Canada, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), speaking in a notable debate which took place on June 27, 1961:
Is it wasteful to spend more money to fight recession? Is it wasteful to bring social assistance to additional Canadians? Is it wasteful to provide more funds for the provinces and municipalities? Is it wasteful to spend money to further national development? These are some of the kinds of expenditures that were made, all of which were necessary to meet a situation.
The official opposition has absolutely no compunction about complaining that the government is wasting money. Yet, when they were themselves in power their leader stated that when money was well spent its outlay was fully justified. This is the kind of argument which has been used to condemn the budget out of hand. Those who say money is being wasted should bear in mind the fact that the total federal contribution to the provinces as a percentage of total federal budgetary expenditures less tax rental payments grew from 14.46 per cent in 1961-62 to 26.08 per cent in 1968-69.
This government has had the courage to question some of the existing programs and to initiate co-operative studies with the provinces to make certain that social development dollars are being expended as usefully as possible. This is what should be done. The government stated-and I hope no hon. member disagrees with this-on the subject of social welfare:
A general intergovernmental agreement on the three programs is also proposed under which: (a) all governments would agree to continue joint consultations to discuss operation and improvement of the programs, (b) the federal government would agree to provide technical assistance to improve program standards, and (c) the provinces would agree to maintain uniform residence rules to ensure interprovincial portability of hospital and welfare benefits to individuals.
Then there is the demand that some specific monetary and fiscal measures be applied to counter the effects of inflation. Mr. Speaker, the problem we face today is the concern of the entire world. Statistics have been cited in connection with Sweden. I should like to answer some of the questions which have been raised in this house about Sweden.
June 11, 1969

one of the most fallacious arguments of all. The party that advanced this concept of lower interest rates announced dramatically one Monday morning that that same party professed to concern itself with the plight of the less fortunate. Yet such action by Canada would result in widespread ruin, first of all among those who are forced to eke out an existence on fixed incomes.
The official opposition have offered criticisms based on today's inflationary situation. I would remind them of the speech made by their own minister of finance when they were in power in 1960. As reported at page 2672 of Hansard for March 31, 1960, he said:
We must place emphasis on greater productivity and efficiency rather than on sheer size-
He called for the co-operation of all sectors of the community. He said that the government could not solve the problem by itself and, of course, he was correct. He stated that the role of leadership falls to the federal government; that it is the responsibility of the government to try to establish conditions of financial balance. I suggest that this is not within the control of this government or any other single government. We must remember that municipal governments and provincial governments in Canada are now spending more than the federal government. Consequently, unless they act responsibly, and unless labour and management act responsibly, we cannot control inflation. The federal government could reduce its budget by 50 per cent,, but we still might not be able to attain our objective.
In conclusion-


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, you might say something.


Raymond J. Perrault: Perhaps we have arrived at an unique point in Canadian history, when the battle against inflation is such that a measure of multi-party consultation and discussion may be desirable. When we are confronted with an external enemy, we agree that certain broad policy matters go beyond political differences and we attempt to achieve agreement on the main lines of foreign policy. Perhaps today we are facing an inexorable internal enemy, and this may call for a broader degree of consultation among all
The Budget-Mr. Crouse members of the house, particularly the leaders of the house, in order to meet what is now the No. 1 enemy of all of us.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to participate in the budget debate. The budget speech proposes to deal with inflation. In fact, the news release by the minister under the title "Budget Highlights" states that the No. 1 priority in economic policy today is to deploy all available forces, public and private, more aggressively than ever in the battle against inflation.
The minister speaks about inflation as though it were a recent occurrence, as though he and his party only recently became shipmates with this phenomenon which is eroding the purchasing power of our dollar like the worms erode the planks in the bottom of a ship. Just as the worm holes in the planking eventually cause the ship to sink, inflation is taking its terrible toll on the economy of our Canadian ship of state.
If we want to know when inflation started running rampant, like a malignant cancer, through our economy, all we have to do is to read the minister's economic white paper for 1969. His very first statement is a tribute to the previous Conservative administration, for the minister states that in early 1969 the Canadian economy entered its ninth year of expansion. It is gratifying to see a Liberal admit, even at this late date, that the Canadian economy was expanding in 1960.
The minister went on to say, according to the white paper:
Since 1965, increases in prices have been larger than desirable, and public policy has been designed to replace inflationary expansion by balanced and sustained growth.
Which public policies is the minister referring to at this time? Is he referring to the 60 days of decision, or to the bankrupt policies of Mr. Walter Gordon, whose budgets were a mish-mash of proposals which were inflationary and many of which had to be withdrawn? Is the minister referring to the establishment of the ill-fated industry department, which increased all government costs by raiding departments by inflated salary offers that caused demands from all departments for increased wages. Eventually, the industry department had to be put back where it belonged with trade and commerce? Was this one of the Liberal government's anti-inflationary policies? Are these people trying to suggest to us that this juggling of departments served to save us money? Or perhaps the

June 11, 1969
The Budget-Mr. Crouse finance minister is referring to the Canada Pension Plan, which this government made compulsory even though thousands of Canadians asked that it be made voluntary? Its implementation required hundreds of additional staff, adding to the taxpayers' load and to inflation in Canada.
Or was the finance minister referring to Mr. Pearson's 30 per cent settlement formula when he spoke of policies designed to replace inflationary expansion? By granting this enormous pay raise when settling the strike on June 14,	1966,, almost three years ago,
between the International Longshoremen's Association in Montreal and the Shipping Federation of Canada, the Liberal party set the standard, the target, for all wage demands in this country.
Or perhaps the finance minister was referring to medicare when he spoke of policies designed to curb inflation. Here we have a policy that even wealthy Ontario and Quebec still question because of its cost and inflationary effect on their economies, while poor New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island must pay their share though lacking the further resources required to provide this service to their people.
The unfavourable situation that led to rising inflation is in the main due to the lack of forward planning by the Liberal government for most of its shared cost programs. Here I refer to post-secondary education and the Canada assistance plan, in addition to the other programs I have already mentioned. The inevitable result of these policies is that our financial system has now got out of control.
The minister cannot have it both ways. He claims the establishment of a sound economic and financial base on the one hand, while saying on the other hand that inflation really became a problem in 1965. I ask him and his government: Why did the Liberal party, which has been in power since 1963, do nothing to curb inflation in the past six years? Bather it brought in policies that made the inflationary fires burn brighter and higher. There is really no excuse for the mismanagement of our affairs by the Liberal government. There is no excuse for their arrogance or for their indifference. The fact that successive Liberal administrations have refused to take action on inflationary problems has destroyed the government's credibility.
We now see the minister further destroying his own credibility by piously stating that this

government's No. 1 priority in economic policy must be to deploy all public and private forces more aggressively than ever in the battle against inflation. Of course this should be the government's No. 1 priority, but indifference on the part of many Canadians to the minister's budget proposals indicates that nobody believes him any longer. That is both his and his government's real problem-that nobody believes them any longer.
What does this budget do for Atlantic Canada? To date Liberal policies have done very little for our area. The government's lack of a shipbuilding policy has brought our shipbuilders close to the brink of financial ruin. In the Atlantic provinces today there are, according to chart 9 on page 25 of the minister's white paper, some 50,000 men without jobs. This represents more than 10 per cent of the labour force. Were this level of unemployment prevalent all across the country, the cabinet would, react as if faced with a national disaster-and rightly so. Put in other terms, the unemployment rate in the Atlantic provinces is half again as high as it is in Canada as a whole.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The Atlantic provinces have other characteristics, Mr. Speaker. The employed worker in Atlantic Canada is paid, on the average, only 82 per cent of the amount the average Canadian receives. We all know that capital growth in the Atlantic region is slower than in the rest of Canada. Not only is it generally lower, but it is subject to boom and bust fluctuations. The minister tells us that the 1969 outlook in the Atlantic provinces is still mixed. This problem, of course, is well known to everyone who has studied problems of regional growth. However, what we should like to see is a steady and continuing expansion so that the best use is made of our resources, physical and human, for the benefit of the region and the country as a whole. For example, we need legislation to deal with our pollution problems; we need adequate legislation to introduce regulations to deal with our fisheries resources.
What has been offered by the Liberal party, Mr. Speaker? In the first place, the government has given us rapid inflation, and with that inflation has come all the dislocation inflation can cause. We have had few of the benefits that accrue to some groups and regions during periods of rapid price increase. Few of those benefits have come to the Atlantic region. On previous occasions I have brought the dimensions of inflation to the
June 11. 1969

attention of the treasury benches. A dollar earned in 1961 has a purchasing power today of approximately 75 cents; and the sad but true fact is that the 75 cent dollar of today will be worth only 60 cents one year from now if the April rate of deterioration continues for 12 months.
Inflation lays a heavy hand on those who are working; but it is a nightmare to some of our senior citizens and pensioners. The victims of inflation are easy to identify, if any one cares to look. They are welfare cases, the hard core unemployed, the old age pensioners, the widows and orphans living on fixed incomes and the voiceless, unorganized workers in our society. To this group will be added the wage earners who will eventually be laid off as inflation erodes what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has called the competitive position of Canadian producers in those other countries with which we must trade and in our own markets at home. The immediate removal of the three remaining stages of the Kennedy round of tariff reductions is designed to increase price competition. In my view that will only be done at the expense of increased unemployment in Canada.
When the government forms policies to fight inflation there is always the danger that the problems of regional disparity which I outlined earlier will be aggravated. In the words of the budget papers, these regional differences add to the problems of designing a policy for stabilization and growth.
On Tuesday night last we noted that the minister made some attempt to meet this problem in one field of activity by deferring for two years cost allowances on commercial buildings specifically in British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this policy contradicts directly the Prime Minister's election promise of equal treatment for all provinces. This type of policy brought forward by the Liberal party does not jibe with promises made during the federal election campaign. The Liberal party, in fighting that campaign, said that its policies were designed to unite Canada. I can think of no comparable policy which will place a greater strain on confederation. But it is not realistic to dwell on this one measure when the most important aspects of the budget dealing with traditional monetary and fiscal policies apply to areas of slow economic growth with the magnified effect that such aspects have always had on such areas.
The Budget-Mr. Crouse
Canada as a whole has been denied the sensible, interim policies advocated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). I refer here, of course, to his proposition that a flexible, short term policy of well known and nationally acceptable economic guidelines, especially with regard to prices and wages, be instituted in addition to other policies to see us through the present inflationary crisis. The deficiencies of guidelines we all recognize. Nevertheless, we prefer the lesser deficiencies of temporary guidelines to the long term harm which inflation and ill fitting economic policies can wreak in whole regions of Canada and among whole income groups.
Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has undertaken to keep government spending constant. This is in line with the recommendations of the economic council and the opinions of many economists who have been dismayed at the almost rampant growth of expenditure by government these last four or five years. There has been great dismay with regard to the wasteful extravagance of government. I submit that keeping the lid on the budget is not enough. Changing needs or the existence of old needs which have not yet been met require a constant reappraisal by government of its priorities. The government should turn its attention to the priority of building an infrastructure. Within this general priority, precedence should be given to projects which meet the real needs of the people of the country. The National Arts Centre which cost $46 million represents, I think it is fair to say, too great a portion of our nation's resources being applied to the non-urgent needs of too few people. There are thousands of smaller projects costing tens of thousands of dollars-not tens of millions-which meet today's bread and. butter needs. In most cases these projects have what could be termed a multiplier effect. These projects do not need government subsidies to make sure that full use is made of them. Instead, these projects will stimulate economic activity and enable human and physical resources, formerly lying unused or partially used, to be applied productively.
I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure many Canadians cannot understand, the government's sense of priorities. On Thursday, May 29, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) outlined the government's plans for the national capital region, indicating the government's intention to develop Hull into a major government employment centre. Now, I do not object to

June 11, 1969
The Budget-Mr. Crouse the incorporation of the City of Hull in the national capital area; neither do I object to the idea of extending and beautifying the national capital region, within reason, through the expenditure of public money. That idea I think is acceptable to most Canadians. This government, however, must soon make up its mind as to what it wants to do. It cannot continue in its hypocritical way; it cannot continue saying one thing and doing another. It cannot talk about practising economies, instituting controls and cutting back on expenditures and the number of its employees on the one hand while throwing away all common sense and restraint on the other hand, and still remain credible. The rate at which Canada Savings Bonds are being cashed indicates that this government's credibility already is at a low ebb. All the Minister of Finance can do in responding to this situation is to get out the whip and let it cut a little deeper into the backbone of Canadians by extending the existing surtax on personal and corporate income until the end of 1970. What arrogance is this, Mr. Speaker? What gall.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has told us that there will be accommodation for about 36,000 public service employees in Hull. At this very moment the National Capital Commission is filing expropriation documents, because the initial requirement for making the development possible is land for building sites. In the light of this announcement, surely the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the entire cabinet will not continue with their hypocrisy surely they will not continue with this charade and try to tell us they are practising economy in government. Quite obviously the men sitting on the treasury benches do not know the meaning of the word "economy". I am beginning to wonder whether any of them has actually worked for a dollar. They do not understand its value, and the value of our dollar is getting less and less every year.
I say that this government is false to its trust in administering public funds. While they are going to great extremes to acquire through expropriation land for public buildings in Hull, there are at present seven temporary buildings in Ottawa which could be torn down for one tenth of the cost of the land in Hull. The buildings required for government administration could be built on the land occupied by these temporary buildings. Whereas these existing buildings are only two 
stories high, their replacements could contain sufficient stories to house adequately existing and expanding government departments for some time. That, Mr. Speaker, would be the common sense approach. Unfortunately common sense is one ingredient that is sadly lacking in this administration.
We have here a government that admits, for example, that a skidway is required by the 38 fishermen of lower Jordan Bay in Shelburne county. They operate 28 boats there. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) concurred in the recommendation that this much needed facility be built. That happened away back on December 5, 1968, but because of lack of funds the work has not been started. The cost of this much needed facility would be under $10,000 and would aid these primary producers in earning a living from the sea. However, it cannot be developed because of lack of funds, yet the government talks of millions for the national capital area.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Similarly, in the town of Bridgewater, a new federal building is required. Two years ago this was approved by the then Minister of Public Works. To date this government has been unable to find a suitable site or indicate when construction will be started. In the town of Liverpool this government assisted in the development of a floating fish plant. There are thousands of dollars in federal funds tied up in that plant, but now silt has filled in Liverpool Harbour and it requires dredging. At low tide the edge of that plant is aground which is causing it to get out of shape and impedes the operation of that particular plant. We have done everything but provide funds for dredging. The government says, sorry old boy, we have nothing for you. There are funds for the wealthy areas of Canada which set the living standards for the nation, while there are not even any crumbs for those areas still suffering from regional disparity.
If the minister wants to re-establish faith in Canada and in Canadian securities, a relatively simple procedure is open to him. Let him change the income tax laws. Instead of allowing a 20 per cent deduction for dividends received from taxable Canadian companies, I suggest for a start that he raise this amount to 40 per cent. I am sure the minister will be pleasantly surprised at how quickly Canadian securities will be found more attractive than United States securities for Canadian capital, while the loss to the treasury will be minimal.
June 11, 1969

I firmly believe we must encourage thrift in this country and reward initiative and ambition if we really want to develop Canada. Unless we get greater Canadian participation in our resource development, we will not have the means to sustain our economic growth at its present level and we will not have the means to control this malignant cancer which we call inflation.


Mr. Barney Danson (York Norih):: I was
most interested in the remarks of the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). I appreciate his concerns. I think it only fair, however, that when using examples they should be put in their proper context. I refer particularly to the need for further government construction. This additional construction is required. As the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) pointed out, the federal government is paying some $17 million in rents annually. In his opinion and in the opinion of his colleagues in the cabinet, this is bad economics. Every year $17 million in rents is going out the window and we are not building any assets in the form of public buildings or things of this type. It would be much worse economics to continue this type of expenditure than build something-


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to unduly interrupt the hon. member now speaking, but I wish to point out that at no time during my remarks did I speak about rents or the rental policies of the government.


Barnett Jerome Danson: I was not suggesting that, Mr. Speaker. I was suggesting he did not mention rental expenditures and it would have put things in their proper perspective if they had been mentioned.
I follow two other distinguished members from the area which I represent, the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) and the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weatherhead), who spoke on the two previous days of this debate. I support the remarks they made. We represent an area of this country which is blessed, the area of greater Metropolitan Toronto. This area is blessed in very many ways, yet we have many concerns and many legitimate needs. Not all of our people are so blessed. We do have problems.
While we certainly represent our constituents to the best of our ability and with all the energy we have, we realize, as do our constituents and the vast majority of people in that part of the country, that our major concerns are for a united country and a stable
The Budget-Mr. Danson economy. We are determined to put forward our demands on behalf of the legitimate interests of our area, but never at the expense of national interest. So often when speaking of Toronto, people use funny names. I think that is a part of history that has been forgotten.
I do not need to apologize for the city of Toronto. I am proud to be from that area and proud of my city. As the hon. member for York West has pointed out, approximately one-third of the personal tax, corporation tax and sales tax comes from that area. That is because we are part of Canada, and that is the way we should keep it. There is a suggestion we are not getting our fair share. While there are many things for which we wish, we must keep our needs in perspective. Perhaps our needs, priorities and even our values in some respects in our area are different from those required or wanted by others.
In the area of national housing expenditures, public housing and student housing, the greater Metropolitan area of Toronto between the years 1963 and 1967 received over $1 billion. That is double what any other city of any size in Canada has received. Our Museum of Science and Technology, a provincial centennial project, received $2.5 million from the federal government. The St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts received $665,000. The Toronto District Conservation Authority has received grants totalling up to $9 million. There are some questions in relation to the repayment of some of these funds, $1,200,000. The members from our area are working diligently to get a fair appropriation for the type of public facility that is not only vital to the safety of the people in that community, in view of the tragedy of Hurricane Hazel some years ago, but which will also provide recreation areas and flood control.
There have been approximately $54 million in municipal development loans over the years, including some loans which were not repayable for the great subway which exists in our city. Manpower, occupational and language training, which are vital in a great municipality such as ours, are of particular concern because most of the immigrants that come to this country come to our city. We welcome them and hope many more will come. Between the years 1966 and 1969, $154 million has been received for those purposes. That is money well spent.
We require better airport facilities that are consistent with the size and needs of our community, for both the international and domestic flights that pour into our area.
10018	COMMONS DEBATES	June 11, 1969
The Budget-Mr. Danson [DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
When members of parliament from the Toronto area come to Ottawa, writers in our local newspapers often criticize us. One accused us of becoming statesmen. I think that was meant as an insult; however, I take it as a compliment, although it is totally inaccurate. We are concerned, and rightly so, with the totality of our nation. The Toronto area members are working diligently to represent their area, but not at the expense of the rest of the country. I am proud to serve with men of this calibre, who think in those terms and who are prepared to back up their words with energy and work on behalf of the area they represent. Above all, we from our area are grateful for our prosperity, although it is not universal throughout our area. But we realize this prosperity will be short-lived if the value of our dollar continues to diminish and other areas of the country are not also prosperous.
Living in the biggest city in the world is not the same thing as living in the best city. We want to see a city rich in its culture, exciting in its diversity, and wholesome in its quality. To force feed a city with the chamber of commerce approach, bigness for the sake of bigness, does not interest me. I do not think it interests my colleagues. We want the things that are good in life. We have a viable community now, and it will grow of its own volition, even more so than we want. We are now waking up to the problems of living in a big city. It is living in a fool's paradise-and Toronto is no fool's paradise-to think that we can be isolated from the problems of other less prosperous areas.
It was rather interesting listening to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), that is, the Leader of the Loyal Opposition, or the Official Leader-as a matter of fact I get quite confused as to who is the leader over there, but that is because it is pretty confusing over there.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Couldn't somebody write it down for you?


Barnett Jerome Danson: When you get it straightened out please drop me a note.


Donald MacInnis: Speaking about notes, don't you realize there is a rule against using them all the time you are speaking?


Barnett Jerome Danson: The Leader of the Opposition said that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) had not been satisfied with the October budget. This is a valid observation. If he had 
been satisfied with it he would not have found the need for even stronger measures. The Leader of the Opposition said that the rate of inflation and the rate of unemployment were not acceptable. Inflation and unemployment are never acceptable, but in developing budgets there is a rather delicate sort of balance to be struck. You have to try and find the proper level at which you can achieve the maximum results in restraining inflation and keeping unemployment to a minimum.
In a way it is rather sad to hear these criticisms but no alternatives. It is simple to criticize when one does not have responsibility. But I think it is a most imaginative budget. It is unique in its way, and really to see the affects it might have we have to put it in balance. The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) pointed this out very well.
As I understand it, and I do not mean to be redundant, the Canadian position is one of which we can be really proud because inflation is not completely within our control. We are subject to international influences, but we do have some controls and we are trying to implement them. After West Germany and Italy, we are the third country in the world in ability to control the rate of the growth of inflation-not that this is good enough or is something that should make us complacent. This is not the case at all. We must keep on working at it.
In a recent letter to the constituents in my riding, I identified my own priorities in the federal government as inflation and national unity, fighting inflation and strengthening national unity. I think this budget attacks inflation, and it very much affects national unity. National unity is very much dependent upon the economic well being of our entire country.
The Atlantic provinces and Quebec are experiencing unemployment of a particular severity, and we cannot be immune from that or insensitive to it. Some areas of the west have perennial problems which must be attacked vigorously. Those problems are now aggravated by wheat surpluses while world markets are glutted. If we want a cohesive nation we must put our money where our mouth is.
The official language bill will not solve the problems of national unity all by itself, although it is a very important measure. The measures in this budget attack regional disparity while attacking inflation. Should these measures work, even to a significant degree,
June 11, 1969

it could go down as one of the most brilliant budgets in the history of our country. There are no guarantees. There are no sure formulae. But there is a delicate balance, and the budget is imaginative. I think we could be criticized if we did nothing. The fact that we are doing things that are good and imaginative, trying to pinpoint the problems, is to the credit of the Minister of Finance. I have yet to hear of more workable solutions from hon. members opposite.
Really, Mr. Speaker, all is not gloom and doom. Our gross national product for the coming year is predicted to increase at a rate of 9 per cent. It is true that 4 per cent of this will be attributable to inflation, but our net gain, in gross national product will be 5 per cent. That is not bad. In the past 12 months unemployment has declined, but it is still too severe in many areas. In other areas, like my own and the 21 other communities affected by the deferment in the tax write-offs on nonproductive construction, the strength of the economic expansion continues to aggravate the serious inflationary pressures. Construction is up 8.3 per cent, but it is up 17 per cent in tire non-vital areas such as office buildings, theatres and shopping plazas, not that these are not of genuine concern in our economy but they are not the areas of greatest thrust and where the greatest need is. More of our money and effort must be directed into housing and productive industrial facilities.
There is good and there is bad, but this budget and the determination of Canadians to make it work offer genuine hope. The budget gives an indication of total direction of government policies which are beginning to emerge. In the budget we have fiscal responsibility with a budgeted surplus, and a determined attack on inflation. The acceleration of the Kennedy round tariff reductions is an indication of the willingness of the government to break its way into a period of free trade, not without reservations, not without care, but with a genuine desire to do the things that will make us a truly great international trading nation.
The delay of tax incentives on construction that is not directly productive is going to put greater emphasis on housing, and will assist expansion in the less favoured areas of the country.
Other things have taken place outside the budget, Mr. Speaker. The Prices and Incomes Commission has been established. We have the new Regional Expansion Act, the Export
2918C-634J
The Budget-Mr. Danson Development Corporation, the N.H.A. amendments and the official languages bill. All these are tied into a package of expansion and international outlook and are based on a deep concern for national unity. Soon we will have our white paper on tax reform outlining proposals for major tax reforms and increasing our dialogue with the provinces on tax matters, something which perhaps we have neglected for too great a time in the past.
As the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour mentioned, we have the input from the Carter commission report which I hope will be reflected in the white paper on tax reform. If I might digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out how my hon. friends who call themselves the effective opposition-
I should say the defective opposition-accepted the Carter Commission report as the panacea, the answer to all the problems. They like to put things into neat little packages. If they do not have an answer they say, "Take Carter, take Watkins."
Sometimes we are not inclined to examine these things fully. But in going over this process of tax reform I must say I personally am beginning to realize the wisdom of many of the Carter concepts, some of which I was inclined to reject. As one looks at the complexities of our tax system, one comes to the conclusions that the Carter Commission arrived at-not all of them, but some of them. After two and a half years of sitting, the members of that commission realized it was not possible to improve our tax system- yes, possible to improve it a little, but it would be a band-aid approach. These were not wild-eyed radical men. They were sound business people, accountants, academics, and after two and a half years of trying to find a way to patch up our tax system they said it was necessary to change it. From my limited experience since I reached here, I am arriving at the same conclusion. Now, we have a genuine pattern of government policy that is beginning to emerge and that is setting the stage for the future.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
As I mentioned in my address on the debate on foreign ownership, I believe the week before last, there is a need for greater attention to training in management skills. At that time I did not have sufficient time to express my concern for the lack of a cohesive science policy or what I would like to call a policy of technological improvement in which we would have a much more freewheeling and openhanded approach to development,
June 11, 1969

The Budget-Mr. C. Stewart particularly among the smaller firms. There are some good programs under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and elsewhere, but I think they are too narrow and restrictive in their outlook. We need small companies, primarily Canadian owned, which will through research and development produce products of originality in areas where we have special interests or special expertise. In this way we could have an imaginative type of Canadian based industry which would be able to find its way into the export market because of its originality, skill, expertise and good design, without the crutch of high tariffs or subsidies.. This is the way we can make our country strong and increase our productivity, thus lessening the inflationary pressures.
There are other things we could do, but I shall not discuss them in this debate. When we speak of inflation many of us here, in all conscience, can speak of it with a genuine concern for improvement of the situation in respect of the senior citizens on fixed incomes.


John Gilbert: Then why don't you do something about it?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I think the government has a responsibility to set the example because we have a large number of senior civil servants, not all but many of whom are suffering. I hope they will receive a great deal more attention. In closing, may I say that I think this is a responsible imaginative budget and a solid achievement. The total legislation and the legislation surrounding it which I mentioned leads in a direction with which I can identify. Really the accomplishments of this government in a period of one year have been quite remarkable, particularly when one considers some of the delays we have experienced. What we have is a pattern which I think will give some thrust to Canadian development, particularly in the areas where it is needed. It is based on Canadian needs and concerns. It is one which, gives encouragement and, I believe, hope.


Mr. Craig Siewari (Marquetie):: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate on the budget because of my deep concern for western agriculture. The farmers of western Canada have waited patiently since the election of last June 25 for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to announce a new agricultural policy. To date we have heard of none. The farmers have waited patiently for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) to 
announce new wheat sales which would get rid of the largest grain surplus in our history. To date we have heard of none. We listened last week to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) when he presented his budget, fully expecting him to announce a program of assistance to western agriculture. Again there was none. Has this government no concern for western Canada? How much longer do they expect our farmers to exist under the present conditions?
I would say the cash situation in western Canada is fast approaching the deplorable conditions we saw in the 1930's, and nobody wants those days back. The western farmer was able to survive that crisis. However, today we are in another world and the farmer has greater commitments to meet, such as property taxes, hydro, telephone, fertilizer, and farm machinery. Many of these things have tripled in price and then there is the large increase in daily living costs. Yes, the farmer survived the thirties. However, unless there is immediate cash assistance to the western farmer he will not survive the life of the present Liberal government.
Most legislation this government has passed pertaining to agriculture has placed greater hardships on the family farm operation. The dairy policy subsidizes the larger producer with no subsidy for the small operator or for the farmer who is just starting a herd. This government passed a new Farm Improvement Loans Act and a new Farm Credit Corporation Act, both of which increased the interest rate by 50 per cent. If a farmer makes a loan today he is lucky if he can pay the interest, let alone the principle.
In case a farmer survives all the hurdles this government has placed in front of him, this government came up with new estate tax policies which make it most difficult to continue a family farm operation. The farm policy of this government seems to be, "We will get you either way, dead or alive." This government has to take a more aggressive attitude to finding markets for grain. Why do we not have a special trade mission set up to deal exclusively with grain and see if we can recover some of our lost markets? We are all aware of the high quality of Canadian wheat, and surely there are markets when 80 per cent of the world population goes to bed hungry every night. The government has to show leadership to the Wheat Board and make a determined effort to move the grain.
The Wheat Board has announced a five bushel quota as the maximum most delivery
June 11, 1969

points will receive in western Canada for the crop year ending July 31. The farmers cannot exist on a five bushel quota and the government must realize this. This is why I say immediate action must be taken to move grain. The agriculture committee toured western Canada in April to get a first-hand look at the serious situation. The members of the committee returned to Ottawa and agreed conditions were not good. They tabled their report to the House of Commons over a month ago, and still there is no action from the government. I have just returned from western Canada and I can assure you the businessmen of most rural communities are feeling the effects of this situation. Because of their high accounts receivable position many are having a hard time to survive.
Because the whole economy of western Canada is in jeopardy I would ask the government to seriously consider an acreage payment of $10 per acre up to a maximum of 300 acres. A program of this type could be implemented with very little delay because all the information needed is in the farmers permit book. When the government spends large sums of money in eastern Canada, like the $100 million grant to Hull, surely they could consider an acreage payment for western farmers at this time. It is the one way to alleviate the serious cash shortage in the western agriculture economy.
I was sorry there was no increase in old age pensions announced in the budget. It is a disgrace for a nation like Canada to ask her senior citizens to live on $109 a month and retain their dignity. How many members of this house could exist on $109 a month? Old age pensions should be given top priority by the government so our senior citizens can participate in our so-called just society. Everybody talks about this problem at election time but we never see any action.
I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance on presenting a balanced budget. We in the province of Manitoba have had the satisfaction of our provincial government balancing the budget, so we realize how necessary it is during inflationary times such as we have now.
Again, I stress to this government the necessity for moving western grain. I quote from an article in the Winnipeg Tribune of June 7:
France has often been criticized by our government for undercutting our prices and the long lamented I.G.A., but they have shown much more initiative in disposing of their surplus stocks. This week they reached an agreement with the United Arab Republic to sell them 600,000 tons of wheat
The Budget-Mr. Gilbert
annually over a period of three years for a total of about 66,000,000 bushels, and they will make them a gift of 10,000,000 bushels.
We report this for what it is worth but it seems to us that a lesson could be learned from this that might benefit Canada as a whole; in other words, markets are still open for wheat around the world-at a price.
This article is by James Richardson and Sons. The government must develop policies that will sell our surplus grain. Lack of sales has created economic hardships for our farmers which threaten their survival. In closing I repeat my appeal to the government. Immediate action is necessary in the form of acreage payments and top priority must be given to selling western grain.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) would be present this afternoon, but he is probably on more important business. I had hoped that his parliamentary secretary would be here so that we could have a dialogue on the objectives that were presented in arguments presented by members on this side. The budget is more expressive in respect of what it does than in what it intended to do. The Minister of Finance has a fixation for balanced budgets, services and employment. He adopts the attitude of what a good boy am I, by patting himself on the back and suggesting he has a surplus of $250 million for the 1969-70 fiscal year. Of course, he does not mention that in solving the problem his way he is hitting hard the wrong groups within this country. He is not worried about the ordinary wage earners, the pensioners or the veterans. He actually helps the people in the upper income groups.
This really underlines the economic conservatism of the Minister of Finance, which is only surpassed by that of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). It is quite obvious that he is preaching for a call. One would think he may be preaching for a call to the other place, but really he is preaching for a call to join the corporate elite because he feels he would like to be a second Robert Winters. Robert Winters really represents the corporate elite and the Minister of Finance wants to join him. He wants to join him to protect the interests of this group.
The Minister of Finance used the phrase in the budget speech "bogeyman of inflation". The support he got from the government side makes me think that the Minister of Finance

June 11, 1969
The Budget-Mr. Gilbert is like Moses, leading the people out of the wilderness into the promised land. When I heard the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) say that this was an exciting and interesting budget speech, and when I heard the hon. member for York North (Mr. Dan-son) say how proud he was in respect of this particular budget speech and then proceed to make a motherhood speech in which he indicated his concern about pensioners and those people on low incomes, I could only think that last night the members of this party gave them an opportunity to express their concern. In fact, we gave all members of the Liberal party an opportunity to do so through our subamendment which stated that no income tax would be payable by single persons with incomes below $2,000 a year or married persons with incomes below $4,000 per year. They expressed their concern for the people last night by voting against the subamendment.
For this reason, I suggest these members have changed from great reformists, as they pretended in their speeches, to great apologists on the part of the government. I hope that when the hon. member for York West and other members from Toronto suburbs return to their constituencies they will report they voted against the sub-amendment, as supported by members of the Conservative party, which indicated our concern for the people in low income brackets.
When we talk about inflation one would think that the minister and government members would define what they mean by inflation. They might well say it really fits within the classical definition of too many dollars in relation to too few goods, or vice versa. They might mention that the inflation record of Canada is not bad in comparison with other countries, more especially the United Kingdom and some European countries. They might even mention that the government is using ordinary instruments in respect of fighting inflation by increasing interest rates and by creating a so-called slack in the economy, or by preaching for greater productivity.
In any event, these people fail to mention that at the moment we appear to be suffering from a conspiracy on the part of financial institutions in respect of the money market which exists in Canada and elsewhere within the world. The Minister of Finance set forth some solutions. He said to Canadians that he was not going to impose any more taxes on .them but was not going to lift the two per

cent social development tax he imposed last October. He also said he was going to extend by one year the 3 per cent surtax he imposed until the end of 1970. Surely, if there is any increase in tax it is with regard to that extension in respect of the surtax.
The Minister of Finance said he was going to raise $25 million in the year 1969 by holding onto that surtax, and that in 1970 he would have obtained $155 million. If I were to accept that phrase of the hon. member for York West, that this was an exciting and interesting budget, I would point out to the hon. member some of the exciting and interesting things the government might have done. The government could have implemented one of the recommendations of the Carter report which indicated that the mining and petroleum companies were getting tax advantages in respect of tax holidays and incentive taxes. When I asked the assistant deputy minister, at the time the estimates in respect of natural resources were being considered, how much money our mining and petroleum companies got out of Canada by way of tax holidays and tax incentives each year, he quoted the figure of $150 million as of 1964. This would more than take care of the decrease in revenue if the 3 per cent surtax were eliminated.
The assistant deputy minister also said that of that $150 million granted to these petroleum and mining companies, 85 per cent went to eight large companies, composed of five large mining companies and three petroleum companies. About 60 per cent of this 85 per cent relates to mining companies, and 65 per cent went to petroleum companies which are foreign owned. You can see that a substantial amount of the $150 million given by way of tax relief is going directly into the hands of foreign owners. You must realize that little or no money in this regard is going into the pockets of Canadians.
If the hon. member wants to bring forth some exciting and interesting things he might have recommended a capital gains tax. This has been advocated not only by the Carter commission but by many members within his own party. He made no mention of the control of interest rates. I understand he has said outside of the house that the interest rates in Canada are outrageous. We in this party say they are unconscionable.
We believe there is a conspiracy by financial institutions in respect of interest rates around the world. This is true when we think of N.H.A. rates which will probably increase
June 11, 1969

June 11, 1969
The Budget-Mr. Gilbert received. But if the hon. member is preaching for a call, he had better walk lightly on those two touchy subjects.
If the minister had really wanted a budget that was exciting and interesting, he would have spoken about rolling back the interest rate on housing. He would have brought forth the fact that the last report of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation indicated that as of the end of April the corporation had a decline of 57 per cent in their investment in housing across the country. He would also have indicated that as of the end of April the insurance companies had a decline of 20 per cent in their investment in housing. This is the type of thing I hoped the Minister of Finance would have dealt with and which would have been supported by the hon. member for York West. If he wanted the budget to be exciting and interesting, the hon. member for York West would have said that the Canadian Welfare Council has pointed out that we should build between 20,000 and 30,000 public housing units in Canada, and we should apply to them a low interest rate which would make them attractive. Instead of this he was strangely silent. I assume he is content with the past high interest rate and low production of public housing units.
Those are the three main areas the Minister of Finance dealt with in his budget. What is it that his budget does not do? It does little or nothing with regard to the plight of the agricultural industry. The minister made no mention of cash payments to farmers who are short of cash. He made no mention of acreage payments. I would wager my bottom dollar that when the government is prepared to make a statement on agriculture it will wait until the house recesses so that it cannot receive the criticism due to it as a result of its do-nothing policy in agriculture.
What has the minister done to solve the problem of unemployment? The unemployment figure was 4.8 per cent in 1968 and 4.8 per cent is projected for 1969. Speaking in numbers, this means between 400,000 and 450,000 people. Speaking in terms of regional unemployment, it means the unemployment rate in Ontario is 3.7 per cent; 8.4 per cent in Quebec and 10.5 per cent in the maritimes. When I hear the hon. member for York West say that anything over 6 per cent represents a serious condition, I realize he has done little or nothing to study the problem of unemployment. The Economic Council of Canada has said that anything between 2 per cent and 3 per cent represents a serious problem. If the 
hon. member for York West had known that, he would not have made the statement that he did. The hon. member should realize that the burden of inflation is being placed upon the backs of the unemployed of Canada. Between 20 per cent and 25 per cent of Canadians live below the poverty line; yet little or nothing has been done to solve this problem.
If the minister had wanted something really interesting and exciting in the budget he would have spoken in terms of instituting a guaranteed annual income. He would have said that people in certain areas of the country are entitled to an income which takes care of their basic needs. There may be differences with regard to different regions of Canada, but we would have set about settling those differences.
If we had a really avant garde Minister of Finance he would have spoken in terms of planned unemployment, because as we advance in technology we must advance in respect of our social concerns regarding people who are unemployed. We have to establish for them a base from which they are provided with the basic needs of society. I hope the government does not talk in terms of creating slack in the economy in order to tackle the problem of unemployment. I hope it talks in terms of a guaranteed annual income to take care of people who have been affected by the disparities within the country, and in terms of some of the problems which will occur as a result of technological advance.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
One final item with which the Minister of Finance did not deal concerns the erosion of Canadian independence. The only statement on this subject in the house was that he intended to make a statement in connection with the Royal Securities Company before the session adjourns. He did not attempt to tackle this question of Canadian independence. I had the opportunity of addressing the high school students at the Eastern Commerce High School in my riding on Monday. They, themselves, drew attention to some of the facets of the Watkins report. A group of high school students is studying the report-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


An hon. Member:: Let him carry on.
June 11, 1969


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous
consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Gilbert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank members of the house for their indulgence. These students pointed out that $34 billion of foreign capital is presently within the Canadian economy in the form of equity ownership. They appreciate the difference between the continentalism expressed by members of the cabinet and the economic nationalism which was expressed by Hon. Walter Gordon. I had to say to them that Walter Gordon is dead as far as the Liberal party is concerned. They are treating him in the same way as they treated Judy LaMarsh. One of the ways in which to treat a person who has new ideas is to ignore him. They ignored Judy LaMarsh and they are attempting to ignore Walter Gordon. Well, Mr. Gordon still makes speeches in different places pleading for economic nationalism, though I believe he appreciates some of the difficulties which arise in connection with his "buy back Canada" plan and is prepared to make changes. The only newspaper in Canada which is making an attempt to present this question to Canadian readers is the Toronto Star which is supporting Mr. Gordon.
I would suggest to Mr. Gordon that as far as the Liberal party is concerned he is dead. Maybe we should invite him into the New Democratic party so that he may better present his ideas on economic nationalism and foreign ownership to the Canadian people. I appreciate that Mr. Gordon represents a group in Canada which may not share the ideas of the New Democratic party. Nevertheless, in order that this subject may be directed to the attention of all Canadians, it may be that Mr. Gordon should join our party and set forth his views on foreign ownership. My suggestion to the Star is that one of the best ways in which to tackle foreign ownership is through an indirect approach by way of persuading Canadians to urge reform of the electoral laws of Canada. It is only when a government makes money available to members of the different parties that members of those parties can exercise independent judgment with regard to the issues which face Canada.
Liberal members, and sometimes Conservative members, find it very difficult when they receive campaign moneys from the corporate elite, to tackle those circles on the question of corporate and foreign ownership. Maybe the Star should embark on a crusade to reform
The Budget-Mr. Orange the electoral laws in such a way as to give all members certain moneys on account of election expenses so that they are not dependent on these corporate sources for support at election time.


Mr. Bigg:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is not corporate money as honest as trade union money for election purposes?


John Gilbert: Thank you. I am very glad the hon. member asked that question. He should realise that when the corporations give money for political purposes they do not ask the shareholders whether they should give the money to the Liberal party or to the Conservative party. There is no control whatsoever. But when it comes to trade union support of the New Democratic party-


An hon. Member:: They must contribute.


John Gilbert: -there is a voluntary checkoff in respect of money given. If we study the 1965 election returns, we find that the Liberal party received $2.6 millions toward their election campaign,, that the Tory party received $1.7 million and that the N.D.P. received $500,000. These are the facts according to the election returns, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote) would really look into the situation if they were not the correct returns, since he is very keen about collecting revenue. This is the picture, and I invite Liberal members to tell us just where they got that $2.6 million. If they did not get it from the corporate elite, from where did they get it and to whom are they responsible now they have received it? This is why I say we must change the electoral laws, and I am asking the Toronto Star and other newspapers across Canada to launch a campaign in order that members may not be dependent on money received from these corporations.
In closing I say again that the budget is a hoax when it comes to advancing a just society. I trust that all the Liberal members who have realized just what a hoax it is will take immediate steps to see that some of the solutions which members of the New Democratic party, and also of the Conservative party, have proposed are put into effect.
Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Having listened to the sermon which has just been preached by the hon. member across the way-


An hon. Member:: We will listen to yours.

June 11, 1969
The Budget-Mr. Orange


Robert John (Bud) Orange: -I might be excused for believing that everything is wrong in Canada and that nothing is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: The hon. member says "Hear, hear." I would remind him that in this country we have a high standard of living. Indeed, we have reached a point at which workers in some of our trades can go on strike demanding wage increases in excess of a dollar an hour.
The budget about which we have had an opportunity of thinking and talking recognizes one very basic point with regard to the development of Canada as a nation, a diverse nation which extends from the Atlantic to the Arctic and to the Pacific. It recognizes that there are regions of Canada which are disadvantaged; that there are people who suffer from lack of education and lack of economic opportunity. The budget recognizes, too, that many of our first inhabitants, the Indians and the Eskimos, have a long way to go before they reach a level of economic activity such as one might reasonably expect in Canada. The budget recognizes that there is regional disparity in Canada and I am hoping that in the implementation of the statements outlined by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and his colleague the Minister of Regional and Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), northern Canada can share in some of the programs and ideas which have been advanced.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I should like for a moment to outline what I believe are some of the regional disparities in that area of Canada that lies north of the 60th parallel. The basic problem in that region is the high cost of living caused by extraneous factors such as transportation costs, communications, cold and long winters and, equally important, the general lack of understanding that the rest of Canada, including some people in the financial community, have with respect to the potential of northern Canada.
We have seen in the field of housing during the past four or five years a very exciting program that has provided the Eskimo people in the north with approximately 1,000 new homes. By the end of this contruction season I would expect every Eskimo family in Canada north of the 60th parallel to have a decent standard of housing, including proper sanitation facilities and power. I might add that these houses are not gifts but are part of a

rental housing program that has brought great benefit to the Eskimo communities in the north.
If I may digress for a moment, I observe the minister responsible for this particular program in the house this afternoon. In addition to saying to him that I think this was one of the great accomplishments of his ministry in Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as recognition of his services to the North, the government of the Northwest Territories is tomorrow dedicating their new office building in Yellowknife to the minister and calling it the "Arthur Laing Building".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Gilbert: When is he going to the Senate?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: One of our housing problems is that in developed areas of the north, particularly in the Mackenzie valley, it is virtually impossible today to obtain funds, either through government agencies such as Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or from financial institutions, for mortgage purposes. For example, in Yellowknife where the territorial government contracted for the construction of about 16 homes for their employees, the successful bidder, a highly respected construction company in western Canada, had at last reports still been unable to find the necessary mortgage money.
Some areas of northern Canada are presently experiencing an unparalleled economic boom, and these areas include Yellowknife, Inuvik and Hay River. However, people, including the government in certain instances as I have illustrated, are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain the necessary money to go ahead with the construction of housing in order to make the north attractive to prospective residents. The situation is getting serious and development of the north is being held back at the present time.
Another area of disparity concerns the small businessman who is attempting to create for himself his own little financial empire, be it in the form of a gas station, motel or small aircraft charter or aircraft repair company. The Industrial Development Bank has from time to time made forays into the north and provided some form of financial assistance to northern businessmen. Its terms and conditions in the north are much more stringent than is the case in the south; and, for the information of hon. members, when I refer to the south I mean that part of the country below the 60th parallel.
June 11, 1969

The Industrial Development Bank has applied these stringent conditions to the point where any small businessman who wishes to develop an idea or proposal finds it very difficult to obtain the sort of financing he requires to establish himself in business. Each of these small businesses depends, of course, on local custom and patronage, and the cumulative effect of the activities of a small business can be one of the answers to the problem of local employment.
However, there is a glimmer of hope, Mr. Speaker, and that glimmer of hope is that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), in conjunction with his officials, announced last February the establishment of a small business development loan fund for businessmen in the north. The creation of such a fund is a start. According to the publicity, approximately $5 million will be provided over a period of time. In effect, the fund will provide $300,000 each to both the Yukon and Northwest Territories in any one year. Unfortunately, before the fund can be used regulations have to be promulgated and credit committees established. Consequently, it will have no direct effect on the economy in the north during the coming year.
Another area of disparity in the north is in the cost of supplying electric power. The average cost of power in a small community in the north with diesel plants in operation is about 12 cents per kilowatt hour. This means that a family in a community living in a house with three or four electrical outlets pays anywhere between $30 and $50 a month for power. Even more important is the effect of this high cost of power on the local business community. For example, in a number of communities merchants are required to pay approximately $1,000 a month on average for electric power. This means they must charge extra for their goods and services, and the people in the community are already paying high costs.
If I had time I should like to elaborate at length on the cost of electric power in the north. I should also like to speak about what I believe is the very silly provision contained in the Northern Canada Power Commission act that each of its establishments must pay its own way. There is no way of establishing a power grid and thus reducing costs in one community at the expense of a larger community or area of economic development. I hope that this legislation will soon come before parliament in order that this particular provision can be changed.
The Budget-Mr. Orange One of the criticisms of this budget is directed at the proposed 3 per cent tax on air fares. Hon. members will appreciate that the aeroplane is the mode of travel in northern Canada, just as it is in the northern areas of the provinces. I should like to put on record a telegram that is addressed to me, one of many that I have received from northern residents, which reads as follows:
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The Northwest Territories Tourist Association is expressing the views of all residents of the north in asking that the proposed tax on air transportation not be levied for any transportations to or from any point north of the sixtieth parallel. We feel since air transportation is a necessity in the northern communities that the tax will be discriminatory and add to the already burdensome cost of living in the north.
With the exception of the central Arctic, air fares in the north generally have been increased. Pacific Western Air Lines Limited uses the municipal airport in downtown Edmonton. Recently, Pacific Western Air Lines added a $1 per passenger landing or takeoff fee with respect to flights beginning or ending at Edmonton Municipal Airport. At Easter time Pacific Western Air Lines increased its tariff for passengers and freight by approximately 10 per cent. The north depends almost totally on air transport; by adding to the transportation costs of the people in the north the government will be creating a situation leading to disparity. That is what the tax on air travel will do. When the minister examines the effect of this additional tax, I hope at the same time he will examine the effect the tax will have on the various regions of Canada. What effect will it have, for example, on the small mining exploration company that is working in the north? What will the tax do to the family which wishes to go south on leave or for holidays during the summer. What will be its effect on Indian people who wish to take aircraft out to their camps when they go on spring hunts. I suggest that only about 5 per cent, or at most 10 per cent, of all air traffic in the north is non-government air traffic. The net effect of this particular tax therefore will be very small.
I could talk about many other subjects, but I shall limit myself to one or two that are important. I have talked before in the house about the problems our Indian and Eskimo peoples face with respect to the price they obtain for their fur skins. I know that this matter has been studied at various times by officials in the Department of Indians Affairs

June 11. 1983
The Budget-Mr. Orange and Northern Development. The product, if we may call it that, we are here considering fluctuates greatly in price. It is most difficult to obtain. The life of the trapper and hunter is hard and often unrewarding. Notwithstanding these difficulties, these people like living in the bush or on the tundra. Our trapper incurs ever increasing costs, but he is not given the tax relief available to other producers in our economy. For instance, he must pay sales tax on his skidoo, his rifle and his gasoline. Unless we do something to stabilize the fur market and fur prices we shall perpetuate for generations to come a welfare situation. Sometimes a man goes into the bush after game and he is successful in the hunt. Yet sometimes he obtains only enough fur to pay for his trip. Not enough is left over for the support of his family. The problem lies in the wildly fluctuating prices of furs. Nevertheless, there are people who wish to continue with their trapping and hunting and they have a right to do so. We should encourage those who want to live that way to carry on with what they are doing. Some may argue that furs are luxuries and that the government should not support the fur trade. Furs may be luxuries for fashion models in Toronto, Montreal or New York, but to the trappers they are a means of support. When we develop our regional economic programs, I hope the government will look at the fur trade. Many depend on it. I hope that some device will be created as a result of which the people concerned, the Indians, Eskimos and trappers, can look forward to stable lives. They have a right to that.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I wish to touch on the subject of education. Notwithstanding the many excellent programs which have been introduced into the north during the last
15 years, and one could enumerate advances in education, in economic development, in economic growth as well as many other advances, the overriding necessity the government must face is the necessity of consulting the local people of the north. I am referring to those who were born in the north. I think I have previously referred to the sparkling example of the program undertaken in Frobisher Bay. The government decided to build a regional high school in that area and young people in communities 200, 500 or 700 miles from it are to attend. By and large our Eskimo people seem happy about the high school. They want their children to be educated. Many of them do not know why a high school cannot be built in their own local communities. In my hand I have a communication from the Igloolik Community Association. That community, as hon. members well know, is in the Northwest Territories. The president of the association says in his letter that the people of Igloolik disagree with the concept of having to send their children to a high school hundreds of miles away. Actually, their chief complaint is that they were not consulted about this matter. So, once again I say that consultation is most important.
I will, therefore, conclude on this note, Mr. Speaker. Although we have introduced many excellent programs into the north and although much progress is being made, we must never forget that there must be continuing consultation with those who were born in the north. I am talking about the Indian and Eskimo peoples.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, may I call
it six o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 12, 1969